So how would them seeing the picture of "their mother attacking them with a machete" prior to the test, effect it at all?
If they are going to lie or try to hide what they see, they'd do it either way.
If they have seen it before and see it again it still looks the same to them.
That ink blot will look like whatever they see. Forever.
Also, if anybody can interpret most inkblots to look like harmless things and this person sees "their mother attacking them with a machete" then any ink blot will work in your example. Just so long as it doesn't actually have the outline of a knife weilding serial killer. But then again how do you know that it doesn't? For that person, having a horrific dream/experience/fantasy that your butterfly actually matches more closely to their memory, your test/tool gives a false positive. In which case general talking and discussion about events rather than inkblots is much more effective at actually getting to the issues that may be effecting their emotional or cognitive state.
So your comparison is between a test bed that uses:
"equipment to stress the turbine at various loads, to manufacture wind speed conditions that mimic many different places around the country, and different loadings, look at various types of network interconnects... "
And
"fully instrument an experimental Turbine in the field"
What exactly would be the difference in creating a test structure that could mount the turbine, and an in place dyno, other than the fact that one has all the instrumentation built into it to see the real world off axis loading that natural wind creates that cannot be duplicated in a test dyno without risking the dyno itself?
How fast can the dyno shift axis and reverse direction? As fast as the wind? What happens if the wind does this, can the dyno certified drivetrain survive? Can the blades?
Why not test the system as it will be tested in real life. Why do we always have to half ass this stuff?
Design flaws that wouldn't be caught on the first dyno test on the ground with no blades attached? What would be missed there that then would cause a problem when you mount the blades to it and then actually power it with wind? Anything that could be tested without putting the blades on and testing it with wind? If they do the first test and it passes, they should put it in the real world to actually see what an uncrontrolled environment does to it. That's usually when things break. Not in the controlled artificial environment most people use for testing.
b) To test the device over the entire range of possible operation,
Like I said. The entire range includes the random natural environmental changes that happen outside the test facility most people use for these things. You can test the extremes by artifically calling them up but the constant varying environment is a better test bed for things that will land up in that environment anyway.
c) To provide a benchmark that remains static from one test to the next,
You mean to test multiple designs against eachother? That's not what this is for. It's for testing the drivetrains inside to see if they can handle the torque resistance of generating power. That's easily tested by a dynamo on the ground, no argument there, but the actual test of hard gusting winds from off angles that will actually happen can't be tested by a simulation, at least not without just as much risk to the dyno as the test subject.
d) To control all external variables so as to create a consistent frame of reference,
To see what exactly? That they can perform when all of the environmental variables are matched exactly? When is that going to happen in the real world? How often? By saying that you need an artificial test bed that is different than the real world to test these things, you're saying that the real world isn't the same. Kinda interesting that they will end up operating in the real world, not the test environment. I'd rather they got more time in the field under close watch than in the test bed with unrealistic environmental conditions.
e) To save a few bucks because it's really f----ing expensive to test every design as a full-scale prototype.... Or to pull a page from our own industry, what's wrong with the following statement: "It compiles, ship it!"
You don't need to test every design as a full scale prototype, unless you plan to manufacture them sometime. Then it's really good to test them first.
So we have a problem. Do we hook them all up to a dyno and see what they can do and then call it good. Or do we test them with a basic artificial dyno run and then put them in a carriage with stock props to see what happens for a month of random wind loads and directions on the drivetrain and if there's a difference in performance. Can it handle the real world?
Side note: This is, by the way, what I would like to see the EPA do with cars. Drive them on the track to get the base mileage and then give them to employees with gps boxes bolted on and have them actually drive them. Give one to a rough driver, one to a calm commuter, and one to an average joe. They have employees driving to work every day in cars they have to pay for, give them a deal and get the data in return.
Idealistic I know, but it'd match the real world more than the averages they've been releasing for the hybrids vs the actual real world experiences we've had.
And really... In a bid description we need to say this? "It is envisioned that the facility will include sufficient office space for permanent staff and visiting users as well as conference rooms, lunch room, restrooms, computer stations, etc."
We are looking for an artificial environment to test devices that specifically will be used in the natural unpredictable outdoor environment as their sole purpose?
Why not put them in a large windy area and map out their performance with actual gusty conditions and directional changes like they will be subject to in practice.
You'd get better data by skipping the artificial step.
If you really need the extremes to be on demand for destruction testing then put a big fan in front and a shroud around the device to be stress tested. Ramp it up and see how she performs. Cost wise you could be selling all the energy that the time tests generate to pay for the spot testing and cleanup of the stress tests that fail.
Why do we need a giant test facility to create what's out there already and is the final place these things will be operating in anyway?
Not fully on topic but I just heard about this from your post so you beat the other news outlets, at least for me. Just beat it... beat it...
"They told him don't you ever come around here Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear So beat it, just beat it... "
What has this newspaper done in the last ten years where they have cited anonymous sources? Would they like another newspaper or perhaps a blogger to helpfully find out their sources and out them to their employers?
I'm pretty confident that they would have something to say on behalf of anonymity when it comes to their "service".
Now actually take it in a positive direction for once.
Many companies have these testing facilities for green sources of energy. How about you do something novel for once.
Make the battery discharging a lot more real world and practicle. Have them discharge to the power grid.
Have it help the plant at least by powering some lights or machines when you discharge the energy instead of creating waste heat in simple electrically resistive or mechanical resistance dummy loads.
Rant/ Show us that you can actually think on your own in front of the others and you'll get some respect. Or keep following the pack in the back and get left behind for dead. It's the little decisions that got you here, the ones that unnervingly followed the most greedy and predictable paths that lead to the american people finally being forced to give your company money. Not for a product that was better or a service that they chose over others. You got the money because we hate seeing our symbols fail. The ones that are supposed to prove that America can produce the best because of our market and our freedoms. So instead of seeing it fail, we nail the coffin closed ourselves by proving that if a business can't earn the market share, the government will buy 60% and keep it alive rather than admit that it has failed./Rant
Raise your hand if you are surprised that this is going on.
Seriously, with all the incentive to attract and hold onto students and the funds they bring. Who would have thought that this is all above board and regulated?
There's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.
The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion. At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity. One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold. The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it, they should be able to do anything with it that they want.
The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the "illegal" copying of their product. The second group gets mad since they aren't able to use the product as they want now and think it's ok to break the "protection" in order to get at the goods they paid for.
This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish. The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging, shipping, and floorspace in stores. Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services, they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but didn't.
So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum. Yes, we get to laugh at them. Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that doesn't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately. Fair is fair.
The quote that even you posted was: "If you are willing to give up your privacy in an airport simply because someone used that as a point of terrorism in the past, you're pretty narrow minded."
Maybe I should have emphasized the "in an airport" part a bit more. Just because the focus is on an airport right now, it doesn't mean that it is any more likely to be a target again, in fact it is probably the opposite since all the attention and awareness goes against the likelihood of anything clandestine. Instead, the other targets of similar situation are more likely since all the money and attention is being diverted.
I think that the better phrase would be tunnel vision.
As to the comment about: "If anything, *you* are being narrow minded in considering his viewpoint invalid."
A simple question, why?
Why is considering his viewpoint narrow minded, and where did I say it was invalid.
Here's the approved definition: Main Entry: narrow-minded Pronunciation: \-mn-dd\ Function: adjective Date: 1625 : lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision
I'd say that "lacking in breadth of vision" pretty much fits in my observation that focusing on an airport as a place to increase security as opposed to other just as likely places is narrow minded. (tunnel vision is still more accurate)
So: "As far as I can tell, there's really no reason to assume that someone willing to give up privacy at an airport in the name of security is narrow-minded."
I disagree, since the original post said, and I quoted exactly: "...the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security."...the one place...
That would be the issue at hand here. That the poster would be willing to give up the security at that one place as opposed to others. It shows that they do not have the breadth of view to understand that they are more likely to be attacked in some other place and should be more worried about that than the airport in particular.
I fail to see where your understanding of the phrase "narrow minded" is coming from and how the actual definition applies to my post commenting on the narrow perspective of the previous poster.
"...the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security."
Why?
Do you think it's easier to hurt you in an airport? Or did you mean on the plane? Where there should be a solid impenetrable door to the cockpit and an absolute no negotiate policy. That would actually protect you on the plane.
But you said the airport. Are you more afraid that they would hurt you there rather than on a bus? Or perhaps the train or subway? Why not the mall? Why not a school? That'd make a point from a terrorist point of view.
If you are willing to give up your privacy in an airport simply because someone used that as a point of terrorism in the past, you're pretty narrow minded. Just because something has happened in the past does not make it right to fear it more than other things that are just as likely and obviously much less guarded in the future. If you thik the terrorists are a one note band then you'll be just as surprised on the next news flash as you were on the last one. Learn that the only way to make things secure is to actually make them secure, not play security theatre.
Do you think that they will be able to monitor every camera, in every bathroom, all the time and that no one will figure out to go into a stall since the camera is visible?
Really?
Then you shouldn't worry about those terrorists, you should worry about what they are "trying to destroy"... Your freedoms, your feelings of safety and security, since there will be more stupid stunts to gain attention in the future and it's inevitable. Since they can buy a gun and walk into a mall or onto a bus or into a church and do whatever they want without time for a response, you're doomed if you let go of youor freedoms. They're the only thing that can sway those kinds of people away from those acts. To get them to stop doing what they "think they must do to get attention to their plights" and instead help fix the world of the consistant removal of those things that make us different. That make us not want to commit those acts because we have the freedoms to live and prosper as we see fit. To be in america. The things you are willing to give up to feel a little safer are the things that have been keeping you safe in your own country from domestic terrorists. Look to the middle east and count the bodies of those who did not have the freedom to think otherwise and then tell me you would give it up to feel safer and be a little more like them.
In a statement, Mr. McMaster called Craigslist's legal action "good news" because "it shows that Craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time."
He added: "Unfortunately, we had to inform them of possible state criminal violations concerning their past practices to produce a serious response. We trust they will now adhere to the higher standards they have promised," he said. He added that his office would continue to monitor the site.
So a serious reaction is to sue someone? Very adult. Rather than reason with others or come to understand that there is a bit more politics and social baggage in the discussion because of the issue, just sue someone.
Come on. In Nevada it's legal to operate a brothel and at least half of the billboards in the state solicit gentlemans clubs with erotic pictures. The cabs in Reno are as likely to have an add for the Bunny ranch as any of the casinos. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions since it would have been invented as part of procreation and the furthering of the species.
Just because some people don't immediately stop doing something that you say is illegal (but is legal in some states) does not mean they are not taking you seriously. It means that they disagree. If they try and explain to you that there is a demand, likely abuse of the intended system to offer these services, you should at least look at their argument rather than wait till your threats cause them to have to sue you to stop and unplug your ears.
First off, many rocketry groups are consistently passing the 20km mark with some parts that are rapidly dropping in price. In fact the target for advanced rocketry is the 100km mark at which the definition of "Space" becomes a possibility. That crossover point is a goal for private rocketry groups so I don't think that the moving target of a blimp would last too long out of the sights of this crowd.
And who said anything about piercing the shell? Just to get a closeup picture or tag it would be one of the most thrilling things a rocketry buff would get in life.
That's why a lot of banks like wells fargo and bank of america and US bank have asjusted their hours to extend past the 5pm standard. It serves them since they get more happy customers and your example is now moot. Wells Fargo closes at 7pm in the three locations I know of in Reno NV. Just have the banking world acknowledge that there is no longer a set time they need to be open physically since their online presence and a reasonable call center can handle most anything already. Have a couple tellers available 24hrs through the tube driven drive through. No risk and all gain once people get used to it.
The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."
He goes on to say, "However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'," he goes on to say, "this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that without the servers being up and available, most other professions do not continue to run.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/07/19/possible-new-impact-on-jupiter/
So how would them seeing the picture of "their mother attacking them with a machete" prior to the test, effect it at all?
If they are going to lie or try to hide what they see, they'd do it either way.
If they have seen it before and see it again it still looks the same to them.
That ink blot will look like whatever they see. Forever.
Also, if anybody can interpret most inkblots to look like harmless things and this person sees "their mother attacking them with a machete" then any ink blot will work in your example. Just so long as it doesn't actually have the outline of a knife weilding serial killer. But then again how do you know that it doesn't? For that person, having a horrific dream/experience/fantasy that your butterfly actually matches more closely to their memory, your test/tool gives a false positive. In which case general talking and discussion about events rather than inkblots is much more effective at actually getting to the issues that may be effecting their emotional or cognitive state.
So your comparison is between a test bed that uses:
"equipment to stress the turbine at various loads, to manufacture wind speed conditions that mimic many different places around the country, and different loadings, look at various types of network interconnects... "
And
"fully instrument an experimental Turbine in the field"
What exactly would be the difference in creating a test structure that could mount the turbine, and an in place dyno, other than the fact that one has all the instrumentation built into it to see the real world off axis loading that natural wind creates that cannot be duplicated in a test dyno without risking the dyno itself?
How fast can the dyno shift axis and reverse direction? As fast as the wind? What happens if the wind does this, can the dyno certified drivetrain survive? Can the blades?
Why not test the system as it will be tested in real life. Why do we always have to half ass this stuff?
a) To catch obvious design flaws early,
Design flaws that wouldn't be caught on the first dyno test on the ground with no blades attached? What would be missed there that then would cause a problem when you mount the blades to it and then actually power it with wind? Anything that could be tested without putting the blades on and testing it with wind? If they do the first test and it passes, they should put it in the real world to actually see what an uncrontrolled environment does to it. That's usually when things break. Not in the controlled artificial environment most people use for testing.
b) To test the device over the entire range of possible operation,
Like I said. The entire range includes the random natural environmental changes that happen outside the test facility most people use for these things. You can test the extremes by artifically calling them up but the constant varying environment is a better test bed for things that will land up in that environment anyway.
c) To provide a benchmark that remains static from one test to the next,
You mean to test multiple designs against eachother? That's not what this is for. It's for testing the drivetrains inside to see if they can handle the torque resistance of generating power. That's easily tested by a dynamo on the ground, no argument there, but the actual test of hard gusting winds from off angles that will actually happen can't be tested by a simulation, at least not without just as much risk to the dyno as the test subject.
d) To control all external variables so as to create a consistent frame of reference,
To see what exactly? That they can perform when all of the environmental variables are matched exactly? When is that going to happen in the real world? How often? By saying that you need an artificial test bed that is different than the real world to test these things, you're saying that the real world isn't the same. Kinda interesting that they will end up operating in the real world, not the test environment. I'd rather they got more time in the field under close watch than in the test bed with unrealistic environmental conditions.
e) To save a few bucks because it's really f----ing expensive to test every design as a full-scale prototype. ... Or to pull a page from our own industry, what's wrong with the following statement: "It compiles, ship it!"
You don't need to test every design as a full scale prototype, unless you plan to manufacture them sometime. Then it's really good to test them first.
So we have a problem. Do we hook them all up to a dyno and see what they can do and then call it good. Or do we test them with a basic artificial dyno run and then put them in a carriage with stock props to see what happens for a month of random wind loads and directions on the drivetrain and if there's a difference in performance. Can it handle the real world?
Side note:
This is, by the way, what I would like to see the EPA do with cars.
Drive them on the track to get the base mileage and then give them to employees with gps boxes bolted on and have them actually drive them. Give one to a rough driver, one to a calm commuter, and one to an average joe. They have employees driving to work every day in cars they have to pay for, give them a deal and get the data in return.
Idealistic I know, but it'd match the real world more than the averages they've been releasing for the hybrids vs the actual real world experiences we've had.
Two small issues as well:
The creation date for this bid is after the posting date:
http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=48091
And really... In a bid description we need to say this?
"It is envisioned that the facility will include sufficient office space for permanent staff and visiting users as well as conference rooms, lunch room, restrooms, computer stations, etc."
So if I understand this correctly...
We are looking for an artificial environment to test devices that specifically will be used in the natural unpredictable outdoor environment as their sole purpose?
Why not put them in a large windy area and map out their performance with actual gusty conditions and directional changes like they will be subject to in practice.
You'd get better data by skipping the artificial step.
If you really need the extremes to be on demand for destruction testing then put a big fan in front and a shroud around the device to be stress tested. Ramp it up and see how she performs.
Cost wise you could be selling all the energy that the time tests generate to pay for the spot testing and cleanup of the stress tests that fail.
Why do we need a giant test facility to create what's out there already and is the final place these things will be operating in anyway?
Not fully on topic but I just heard about this from your post so you beat the other news outlets, at least for me. Just beat it... beat it...
"They told him don't you ever come around here
Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear
The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear
So beat it, just beat it... "
eerie...
More to the point of double standards...
What has this newspaper done in the last ten years where they have cited anonymous sources? Would they like another newspaper or perhaps a blogger to helpfully find out their sources and out them to their employers?
I'm pretty confident that they would have something to say on behalf of anonymity when it comes to their "service".
Now actually take it in a positive direction for once.
Many companies have these testing facilities for green sources of energy. How about you do something novel for once.
Make the battery discharging a lot more real world and practicle. Have them discharge to the power grid.
Have it help the plant at least by powering some lights or machines when you discharge the energy instead of creating waste heat in simple electrically resistive or mechanical resistance dummy loads.
Rant/ /Rant
Show us that you can actually think on your own in front of the others and you'll get some respect. Or keep following the pack in the back and get left behind for dead. It's the little decisions that got you here, the ones that unnervingly followed the most greedy and predictable paths that lead to the american people finally being forced to give your company money. Not for a product that was better or a service that they chose over others. You got the money because we hate seeing our symbols fail. The ones that are supposed to prove that America can produce the best because of our market and our freedoms. So instead of seeing it fail, we nail the coffin closed ourselves by proving that if a business can't earn the market share, the government will buy 60% and keep it alive rather than admit that it has failed.
Raise your hand if you are surprised that this is going on.
Seriously, with all the incentive to attract and hold onto students and the funds they bring. Who would have thought that this is all above board and regulated?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=college+rankings+corruption+&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
It's not like this is new.
There's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.
The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion.
At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity.
One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold.
The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it, they should be able to do anything with it that they want.
The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the "illegal" copying of their product.
The second group gets mad since they aren't able to use the product as they want now and think it's ok to break the "protection" in order to get at the goods they paid for.
This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish. The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging, shipping, and floorspace in stores. Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services, they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but didn't.
So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum. Yes, we get to laugh at them. Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that doesn't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately. Fair is fair.
Beezlebub33 is correct.
The quote that even you posted was:
"If you are willing to give up your privacy in an airport simply because someone used that as a point of terrorism in the past, you're pretty narrow minded."
Maybe I should have emphasized the "in an airport" part a bit more. Just because the focus is on an airport right now, it doesn't mean that it is any more likely to be a target again, in fact it is probably the opposite since all the attention and awareness goes against the likelihood of anything clandestine. Instead, the other targets of similar situation are more likely since all the money and attention is being diverted.
I think that the better phrase would be tunnel vision.
As to the comment about:
"If anything, *you* are being narrow minded in considering his viewpoint invalid."
A simple question, why?
Why is considering his viewpoint narrow minded, and where did I say it was invalid.
Here's the approved definition:
Main Entry: narrow-minded
Pronunciation: \-mn-dd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1625
: lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision
I'd say that "lacking in breadth of vision" pretty much fits in my observation that focusing on an airport as a place to increase security as opposed to other just as likely places is narrow minded. (tunnel vision is still more accurate)
So:
"As far as I can tell, there's really no reason to assume that someone willing to give up privacy at an airport in the name of security is narrow-minded."
I disagree, since the original post said, and I quoted exactly: ...the one place...
"...the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security."
That would be the issue at hand here. That the poster would be willing to give up the security at that one place as opposed to others. It shows that they do not have the breadth of view to understand that they are more likely to be attacked in some other place and should be more worried about that than the airport in particular.
I fail to see where your understanding of the phrase "narrow minded" is coming from and how the actual definition applies to my post commenting on the narrow perspective of the previous poster.
"...the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security."
Why?
Do you think it's easier to hurt you in an airport?
Or did you mean on the plane? Where there should be a solid impenetrable door to the cockpit and an absolute no negotiate policy.
That would actually protect you on the plane.
But you said the airport. Are you more afraid that they would hurt you there rather than on a bus? Or perhaps the train or subway?
Why not the mall? Why not a school? That'd make a point from a terrorist point of view.
If you are willing to give up your privacy in an airport simply because someone used that as a point of terrorism in the past, you're pretty narrow minded.
Just because something has happened in the past does not make it right to fear it more than other things that are just as likely and obviously much less guarded in the future. If you thik the terrorists are a one note band then you'll be just as surprised on the next news flash as you were on the last one. Learn that the only way to make things secure is to actually make them secure, not play security theatre.
Do you think that they will be able to monitor every camera, in every bathroom, all the time and that no one will figure out to go into a stall since the camera is visible?
Really?
Then you shouldn't worry about those terrorists, you should worry about what they are "trying to destroy"... Your freedoms, your feelings of safety and security, since there will be more stupid stunts to gain attention in the future and it's inevitable. Since they can buy a gun and walk into a mall or onto a bus or into a church and do whatever they want without time for a response, you're doomed if you let go of youor freedoms. They're the only thing that can sway those kinds of people away from those acts. To get them to stop doing what they "think they must do to get attention to their plights" and instead help fix the world of the consistant removal of those things that make us different. That make us not want to commit those acts because we have the freedoms to live and prosper as we see fit. To be in america. The things you are willing to give up to feel a little safer are the things that have been keeping you safe in your own country from domestic terrorists. Look to the middle east and count the bodies of those who did not have the freedom to think otherwise and then tell me you would give it up to feel safer and be a little more like them.
In a statement, Mr. McMaster called Craigslist's legal action "good news" because "it shows that Craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time."
He added: "Unfortunately, we had to inform them of possible state criminal violations concerning their past practices to produce a serious response. We trust they will now adhere to the higher standards they have promised," he said. He added that his office would continue to monitor the site.
So a serious reaction is to sue someone? Very adult. Rather than reason with others or come to understand that there is a bit more politics and social baggage in the discussion because of the issue, just sue someone.
Come on. In Nevada it's legal to operate a brothel and at least half of the billboards in the state solicit gentlemans clubs with erotic pictures. The cabs in Reno are as likely to have an add for the Bunny ranch as any of the casinos. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions since it would have been invented as part of procreation and the furthering of the species.
Just because some people don't immediately stop doing something that you say is illegal (but is legal in some states) does not mean they are not taking you seriously. It means that they disagree. If they try and explain to you that there is a demand, likely abuse of the intended system to offer these services, you should at least look at their argument rather than wait till your threats cause them to have to sue you to stop and unplug your ears.
(((Perfect Metaphor)))
Quotes from this guys profile on skillwho.com:
"i am here to help with all computer related needs, anything that needs done can be done."
I guess anything really means anything.
http://www.skillwho.com/users/computers/pa/bethlehem/kevin-lutes/43e1a4e7-eea7-4516-bbbf-61ee2bd5e9e6//
Depends on who it needed to appeal to.
If it's management, it only needs to work in the demo and be new and shiny.
If it's the IT dept it only needs to be stable and easily managed. Oh, and do the job.
Who the hell modded this "off topic"?
Seriously, can you read?
Stand up for ALL peoples rights or they will not be there when YOU need them.
Actually, this is the first actually legitimate reference I've seen it used on.
Think about what's being discussed here.
It's all a scam and we're all laughing at you. While spending your money. Thanks for the good times.
First off, many rocketry groups are consistently passing the 20km mark with some parts that are rapidly dropping in price. In fact the target for advanced rocketry is the 100km mark at which the definition of "Space" becomes a possibility. That crossover point is a goal for private rocketry groups so I don't think that the moving target of a blimp would last too long out of the sights of this crowd.
And who said anything about piercing the shell? Just to get a closeup picture or tag it would be one of the most thrilling things a rocketry buff would get in life.
It's like putting a goal out there in the sky.
and I thought that model rocketry was dead.
That's why a lot of banks like wells fargo and bank of america and US bank have asjusted their hours to extend past the 5pm standard. It serves them since they get more happy customers and your example is now moot. Wells Fargo closes at 7pm in the three locations I know of in Reno NV. Just have the banking world acknowledge that there is no longer a set time they need to be open physically since their online presence and a reasonable call center can handle most anything already. Have a couple tellers available 24hrs through the tube driven drive through. No risk and all gain once people get used to it.
The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."
He goes on to say, "However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'," he goes on to say, "this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."