I was under the impression that the (original) reason for the extreme security on planes was to keep out bombs, not guns. In a confined space several thousand feet above ground, a relatively small bomb can kill 200+ people, easily. Well timed, you can probably get more by bringing it down in the wrong place. Since the type of people who go off & blow up planes are not concerned about their own bodily well-being, deterrents like this are ineffective.
...is still around 99.97% targeted towards the male.
I disagree. Most visual porn (an overwhelming majority) is targeted towards straight men, this is true. But to most women, good porn is a trashy romance novel, not a playboy. And if you've ever looked at the "romantic fiction" online, you'll see a pretty good number written by women.
And if you get a state tax ID number, you can give it to the people at Sam's Club, etc, and avoid having to pay sales tax on goods there. What's your point?
Because the police department got some federal funds, so every thing the police owns is partially federal, inluding the fucking car that got a flashlight broken. That is a very very scary path to follow.
That's it exactly - I don't understand that. Does that mean that the kids putting grafitti on the I-64 overpass near my house are committing a federal crime? I'm going to doubt that anyone is going to claim that, so why is this any different?
Note:People (here & the media) keep bringing up the cop that got assaulted. That was never a part of this case, because it was a state crime... and California has the shield law the federal government is lacking.
Actually, it's exactly backward. He was willing to release the tape, but not to testify.
But, yeah, there were other witnessess to the crime, so I don't entirely get why they were going after him so hard. Nor why it become a federal matter in the first place.
My understanding of the EU/Turkey customs agreement was that it didn't cover rather more than just agriculture... as your link says, "essential economic areas". That's pretty vague, but my understanding was agriculture, defense, and health care products all went under that category. (But having said that, I can't seem to find it written down anywhere...)
I'm not sure how you'd ever have potential energy by itself say it was "physically impossible". Maybe more energy than was in the Sun?
Sort of my point. Saying anything will never be possible is kinda silly.
Anyway, the space elevator (or space hook or space loop or whatever your variant is) is probably the best "real" technology that could make space accessible.
Agreed.
Impossible means you don't know how, impractical means you do and it's not worth it.:)
Sometimes impratical means "know how, but it's not worth it in today's dollars" (oil from Canada's big sand bank, for instance). But Sid Meier's 'Alpha Centauri' aside, even given a doomsday scenario, I don't think we could today (or even in the next fifty years) get a colonize-another-planet project off the ground in time.
It seems from a lot of Turkey's actions that they're not particularly committed to being a part of the EU. I'm sure they would like the trade benefits... Hell, China & the US would probably like the trade benefits, too. But that doesn't mean they really want the whole package.
Actually, I take that back. China & the US would like to have free trade going into Europe, but not coming out. That would be silly.
Even if you hypothesize some technology whereby the energy spent getting out of earth's gravity well can be recovered dropping into mar's gravity well, you still need to spend the energy to get off earth first, and that's a lot of energy.
Even if you don't figure landing on Mars, but just reaching mars orbit, it still doesn't add much energy to the problem. (Okay, redid the calculations, it sort of does. It's 1.4E10 J instead of 1.1E10. So about a quarter.)
Net change in potential energy isn't a useful metric.
When one person says "that's impossible, and always will be", it's difficult to argue against. Potential energy is pretty much the baseline - if that says it's impossible, then it always will be. (Unless you figure out how to violate the conservation of energy,mass, or momentum. But that's cheating.) Otherwise, it's very hard to say.
For instance, a hypothetical space elevator. I know, this is not immediately related to a spaceport, beyond needing the facilities to launch the anchor satelitte from. In this case, you're using a standard electric motor to add the potential energy for the first leg of the trip. In the correct running conditions, electric motors are better than 50% efficient. Three steps, a 50% effecient process means you're looking about about 1E11 J for a 100kg object to mars. That's still better than a 1kg object to orbit with our current technology.
I still say Orion would have been a success. You know, except for that irradiating a bunch of fish when any of them crash thing. But, really, who eats non-farmed fish anymore, anyway?
A tremendous amount of delta-V to get one to the other.
The question wasn't about current technology. The GP stated physical impossibility - I'm merely pointing out that it's really only a few kilowatt-hours of work to move a kg from Earth surface to Mars. No, I don't know (nor can I readily concieve) of a technology to accomplish that. But in five hundred, a thousand, whatever years, it may be possible. Ruling it out as a physical impossibility today is silly.
Shipping large amounts of people to Mars or even into orbit faces physical limitations that cannot be overcome with mere words.
I thought you were being serious until I read "If you take the total energy potential of 100 kg object on Earth, and then compare it to a 100 kg object on Mars, do you know what you get for a difference?" What precesiely are you asking?
What, precisely, am I asking? Well, what is that minimum amount of work required to move an object from the surface of the Earth to the surface of Mars. Not with the technology we have today - what's the total amount of work done? (It's something on the order of 1.5E10 Joules. A few thousand kilowatt hours.)
Do we have the technology to do it that easily today? Obviously not.
Will we ever? I don't know, because I can't see the future. If you have, and you know "Those things will not happen, ever.", please, enlighten us as to what will happen?
The argument that "in the old days who would have believed blah blah blah" is empty of explanatory power, is a tired and tiresome cliche, and is little more than a rhetorical black box.
When the preceding arguement on the other side is "That will never be feasible", and they can't even supply numbers to back that up, what other response is possible?
You know, I'm pretty sure in the 10th century, the idea of colonizing across a few thousand miles of oceans would have been laughed at. The technology of the day wouldn't make it possible. But if the shipbuilders of the year 1000 had decided they've reached the pinnacle of transportation technology, and no further advancements would ever be possible, would you ever have been born?
Physical limitations, energy and mass balances and the like don't give a crap about your sappy dreams.
Funny thing. If you take the total energy potential of 100 kg object on Earth, and then compare it to a 100 kg object on Mars, do you know what you get for a difference?
Are you aware of how huge the tourism industry (which often makes its best profit margins off the small groups of "international super-rich assholes") is in many, many places throughout the world?
Perhaps they (these New Mexicans) have enough vision to realize that if a major corporation opens a one-of-a-kind (as in, go to space for less than a million dollars) buisness in their backyard, the chance of them getting good-paying (by their current standards, although you'd probably still call it "menial, servile") jobs increases dramatically?
Well, I can understand an attempt to decapitate your biggest competition... but, to try to cross a non-trivial ocean & invade a well-entreched country, when you still have resources literally next door you could grab just seems silly.
Then again, Yuri was pretty much completely insane, yah?
The problem would be inducing currents in a particular conductor without inducing currents in the conductors around it. Inside of pratically any device with an IC on it, and attempt to remotely induce current via RF interference is probably going to just crash it, or fry it. It's one thing to try and read off of one particular line (Van Eck phreaking), but it's another to try and replace the signal on that line without frying (or at least rebooting) the entire machine.
Unless you're talking about trying to 'edit' what's going into a particular IC when you already have access to the board. That I could see... but why not just plug into it, then?
Frankly, there have been plenty of cases of people going bat shit crazy on airplanes to leave me wondering if there's something inherently unstable in our little primate brains when subjected to altitude.
Replace "altitude" with "confinement in a tube with a bunch of other primates", and it ends up a lot more plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that the (original) reason for the extreme security on planes was to keep out bombs, not guns. In a confined space several thousand feet above ground, a relatively small bomb can kill 200+ people, easily. Well timed, you can probably get more by bringing it down in the wrong place. Since the type of people who go off & blow up planes are not concerned about their own bodily well-being, deterrents like this are ineffective.
I disagree. Most visual porn (an overwhelming majority) is targeted towards straight men, this is true. But to most women, good porn is a trashy romance novel, not a playboy. And if you've ever looked at the "romantic fiction" online, you'll see a pretty good number written by women.
And if you get a state tax ID number, you can give it to the people at Sam's Club, etc, and avoid having to pay sales tax on goods there. What's your point?
Fixed.
Ok, yes, you can argue the current war has gone farther than prohibition, but I think that's mostly because it's gone on longer.
I imagine that would make for an excellent animated GIF.
Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want?
It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.
Seriously, it's not that hard - Lincoln was a Republican.
Gun?
Check.
I think you can figure out the rest.
Seriously... This is a good move on Microsoft's part only if they enjoy annoying their customers.
Wait, why did I bother putting that 'only if' in there?
1.)Pay Microsoft Fee.
2.)Driver gets made.
3.)Profit!
However, it appears somebody removed step 2.
That's it exactly - I don't understand that. Does that mean that the kids putting grafitti on the I-64 overpass near my house are committing a federal crime? I'm going to doubt that anyone is going to claim that, so why is this any different?
Note:People (here & the media) keep bringing up the cop that got assaulted. That was never a part of this case, because it was a state crime... and California has the shield law the federal government is lacking.
But, yeah, there were other witnessess to the crime, so I don't entirely get why they were going after him so hard. Nor why it become a federal matter in the first place.
My understanding of the EU/Turkey customs agreement was that it didn't cover rather more than just agriculture... as your link says, "essential economic areas". That's pretty vague, but my understanding was agriculture, defense, and health care products all went under that category. (But having said that, I can't seem to find it written down anywhere...)
Actually, I take that back. China & the US would like to have free trade going into Europe, but not coming out. That would be silly.
Wait, did I accidentally go on digg again?
Even if you don't figure landing on Mars, but just reaching mars orbit, it still doesn't add much energy to the problem. (Okay, redid the calculations, it sort of does. It's 1.4E10 J instead of 1.1E10. So about a quarter.)
When one person says "that's impossible, and always will be", it's difficult to argue against. Potential energy is pretty much the baseline - if that says it's impossible, then it always will be. (Unless you figure out how to violate the conservation of energy,mass, or momentum. But that's cheating.) Otherwise, it's very hard to say.
For instance, a hypothetical space elevator. I know, this is not immediately related to a spaceport, beyond needing the facilities to launch the anchor satelitte from. In this case, you're using a standard electric motor to add the potential energy for the first leg of the trip. In the correct running conditions, electric motors are better than 50% efficient. Three steps, a 50% effecient process means you're looking about about 1E11 J for a 100kg object to mars. That's still better than a 1kg object to orbit with our current technology.
I still say Orion would have been a success. You know, except for that irradiating a bunch of fish when any of them crash thing. But, really, who eats non-farmed fish anymore, anyway?
The question wasn't about current technology. The GP stated physical impossibility - I'm merely pointing out that it's really only a few kilowatt-hours of work to move a kg from Earth surface to Mars. No, I don't know (nor can I readily concieve) of a technology to accomplish that. But in five hundred, a thousand, whatever years, it may be possible. Ruling it out as a physical impossibility today is silly.
Do we have the technology to do it that easily today? Obviously not.
Will we ever? I don't know, because I can't see the future. If you have, and you know "Those things will not happen, ever.", please, enlighten us as to what will happen?
When the preceding arguement on the other side is "That will never be feasible", and they can't even supply numbers to back that up, what other response is possible?
Funny thing. If you take the total energy potential of 100 kg object on Earth, and then compare it to a 100 kg object on Mars, do you know what you get for a difference?
Are you aware of how huge the tourism industry (which often makes its best profit margins off the small groups of "international super-rich assholes") is in many, many places throughout the world?
Perhaps they (these New Mexicans) have enough vision to realize that if a major corporation opens a one-of-a-kind (as in, go to space for less than a million dollars) buisness in their backyard, the chance of them getting good-paying (by their current standards, although you'd probably still call it "menial, servile") jobs increases dramatically?
Then again, Yuri was pretty much completely insane, yah?
Unless you're talking about trying to 'edit' what's going into a particular IC when you already have access to the board. That I could see... but why not just plug into it, then?
With a small group, yes. But to be packed in like sardines? Not so much.
Replace "altitude" with "confinement in a tube with a bunch of other primates", and it ends up a lot more plausible.