Consider it a plea for Taco et al to give us the tools to better filter subjects on slashdot. If I could configure/. to not show these dumb political stories you'd never see another like post from me ever again.
I'm sure that if you eanestly expessed the desire to emigrate to cuba & that you had anything to offer them that they would allow you to immigrate there. Let us all know how it turns out in 10 years or so after they let you out of prison for criticizing your new state as you have the liberty to do in the USA. I've met people here (note: Paris France, not the USA) who were imprisoned for years then emigrated for criticizing the cuban government, so you're not as funny as you think you are. Given that you posted as an AC, you're certainly not as brave as you think you are either.
If I could, yes, I'd filter out all the US political stories that pop up on slashdot. What, your trite question wasn't earnest & you really had no interest in my reply!?!?
Remind me how many US citizens are incarcerated in Guantanamo? Oh, thats right. There aren't any. As political prisoners are invariably citizens of the detaining state, that rules them out. Got any other terms you use that you don't know the meaning to that you would like clarified?
Felt good criticizing your government, didn't it? In Cuba, a comment like that would have lost you your job & had a good chance of getting you locked up for 3-5 years as an enemy of the state. I've met people from cuba to whom this happened who then spent 10+ years finding a way to leave the country so that they could again appreciate the freedoms you have but do not understand.
You, pipatron are the joke. Try living under a system where criticizing your governnment has the same penalties as in cuba. We'll see how much your tune changes when they release you from prison...
Free the political prisoners. Free the press. Allow criticism of the state. Allow the existance of other political parties. Hold free elections. Until these acts happen, Cuba is just another repressive government we don't want to read about on slashdot.
No explosion. The SM3 is a hit to kill warhead. The differing velocities will be more than enough to blow the satellite to smithereens, assuming that it works.
Why do pie in the sky idealists with no real contact with real life & it's problems mislabel realists as cynics? I note that you completely skipped nuclear, the only carbon positive fuel source we have today. When you're still driving a petrochemical fueled vehicle in 15 years, try to remember how off based you were when you were younger. Lest you think I work for the oil companies, the only technology I can really see replacing most of our energy needs (long term) is space based solar but the greenies/modern luddites want to ban that too as it uses "horror" microwaves to transmit power to base stations.
a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage
The flight you're referring to occurred in Hawaii, not Florida. In addition, as the flight was between Hawaii & Hilo the accident occurred at a relatively low altitude.
No, the point is that people who go all bubbly on Hydrogen as fuel in non-negligable quantities "because it's greeennn" are mistaken. 99.9% of those who think that hydrogen is green also think that because burning it produces water that wataer is also where it is produced, because "I did it/watched the nerd do it in high school". Hydrogen in commercial quantities is and will be fossil fuel produced for a looong time.
Electrolysis cannot get any cheaper unless electricity does. Take the amount of kerosene used in airplanes in the states for one month. Electrolyse enough H2 to equal the weight of that kerosene. The electricity needed to electrolyse the H2 would take the total nuclear generating capacity of the USA for over 2 years.
As for "cheap biological" sources, c'mon pull the other one. Researchers in want of credits keep using that as their spiel, but not a single plant is in production. An entire industry is supposed to spring up like magic? Take a look at how many problems the ethanol industry is having ramping up to see how false that precept is.
They'd be using Hydrogen as a fuel, which when burning is about as "green" as they come.
Hydrogen fueled vehicles are nowhere near as green as many people think once you understand where the H2 is coming from. Hydrogen in commercial quantities is currently produced by cracking petroleum or natural gas & then releasing the resulting waste CO2 into the atmosphere. I can't find the rocket propulsion link where I learned this but but electrolysis of water is much more expensive & will stay so until petroleum/natural gas gets five times more expensive & electricity stays at todays prices. As rising oil/gas makes electricity more expensive (very likely) the break-even point for producing H2 "cleanly" gets pushed even further down the curve.
Cooling has become one of the major problems facing many datacenters. They seem to be planning on dumping much of that heat into the water dockside. With the number of BTUs a datacenter puts out I wonder how long local governments will allow them to do so for very long.
The biodiesel is not for the ship's engines it's for the back-up power generators in case mains power fails.
While I can see the benefit of using seawater to reduce cooling costs, I wonder whether ports will allow these ships to heat up local seawater the way a big datacenter would do.
You've accepted The Dems public justification for recounting only those districts they chose to...
The problems with your theory is that the Dems cited "difficulties" with the punch through ballots & confusing ballots as the justification of doing the recounts. First off, punch through ballots were used statewide but for the Dems the only recounts needed were those that leaned heavily Dem. The USSC squashed this. Secondly, the Dems signed off on the ballots before the elections so claiming that the vote was unfair due to the ballots is Cochranesque.
why didn't republicans react by saying "OK, we're gonna do a recount, but we're gonna recount everything
Because without the recount & according to the electoral college rules that both the D's & the R's accepted going into the election, Bush had already won.
No, as noted elsewhere, The Dems only pushed for biased recounts, then quickly floated a global recount & then conceded when their internal numbers showed Bush winning whatever the method employed.
I saw just as many flaws in Gore as in Bush so whether one or the other won was of less import to me than not letting sour grapes loosers pervert fundamental constitutional principals. As someone who has voted D as often as R, I find partisan arguments arguments such as you are spouting distasteful, especially coming from someone without the courage to post other than as an AC. Consider that your little rant tends to push many people like myself to recuse Democrats as puerile little trolls when they see them and think hard before you post them.
Grow up & sign in or crawl back into your cave little AC troll.
Then why didn't Gore push for a global recount when the USSC refused the partial recounts based on voter equality?
I trust Gore's judgment more than that of a possibly partial college professor. When Gore conceded it was because his internal studies showed that a global recount would have failed.
There was no uncertainty. Under the rules that were accepted before the election, Bush won. He lost the popular vote by a slim margin but by a similarly slim margin he won in the electoral college. The only way to have overturned the electoral college would have been to provoke a constitutional crisis by delaying the investiture until every vote could have been counted, recounted & re recounted to everyones satisfaction or to sacrifice the maxim of voter equality by favoring some district's over others.
The only people pretexting "uncertainty" are those that were sufficiently unhappy losing that they were willing to reinterpret the law so that "their" candidate won. I refuse to sacrifice the constitution for a single election, be it for the presidency.
Further, while I respect that you may want to give convicted felons the deciding vote in highly contested elections, Most Americans do not. Being convicted of a felony is not what most of us would call good judgment. The media ignores this disenfranchisement because it realizes that it is the position of the great majority & even if they disagree with it sees no point in needlessly squandering their credibility on an unpopular campaign that will not sell papers.
There were complaints thet the ballots were hard to use statewide but the Dems chose to request recounts only in areas where they expected to gain proportionately more. Gore's request would have carried more weight if he had requested recounts statewide & not just in Dem dominated areas. In the end, the supreme court shut down the recounts because this method of selectively recounting meant that miscounted Dem votes would have counted more than miscounted Rep votes. However, statewide recounts would have taken even longer & would have been very unlikely to have reversed Florida's pro Bush vote.
Saying that the Register has no objectivity when Wiki is concerned is no troll.
On most subjects, yeah, the Reg is a good resource, but every single article mentioning Wikipedia becomes a hatchet job. In some cases like this one, The Reg may actually have a point, but 95% of the time the best thing to do is ignore any article from the Register that contains the word wikipedia as it will be filled with negative opinions & mockery but no facts. I find their systematic opposition of anything wiki to be one of the Reg's worst faults.
The MB-1C pod was also the B-58's primary fuel tank.
The mission scenario would have been for the B-58 to use the fuel in the pylon on it's way to the target, drop the pod & it's integrated nuclear weapon onsite, then use internal tanks to return to base.
As the B-58's range was severely impacted without the MB-1C's fuel tank & stocks of these expensive pods were limited, they were not expended unnecessarily.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider it a plea for Taco et al to give us the tools to better filter subjects on slashdot. If I could configure /. to not show these dumb political stories you'd never see another like post from me ever again.
Does the word "free" before the word "elections" have any meaning for you?!?!
I'm sure that if you eanestly expessed the desire to emigrate to cuba & that you had anything to offer them that they would allow you to immigrate there. Let us all know how it turns out in 10 years or so after they let you out of prison for criticizing your new state as you have the liberty to do in the USA. I've met people here (note: Paris France, not the USA) who were imprisoned for years then emigrated for criticizing the cuban government, so you're not as funny as you think you are. Given that you posted as an AC, you're certainly not as brave as you think you are either.
If I could, yes, I'd filter out all the US political stories that pop up on slashdot. What, your trite question wasn't earnest & you really had no interest in my reply!?!?
Of course... You've grown up enjoying the freedoms that cubans under castro don't have, so it's hard for you to recognize them.
Remind me how many US citizens are incarcerated in Guantanamo? Oh, thats right. There aren't any. As political prisoners are invariably citizens of the detaining state, that rules them out. Got any other terms you use that you don't know the meaning to that you would like clarified?
You, pipatron are the joke. Try living under a system where criticizing your governnment has the same penalties as in cuba. We'll see how much your tune changes when they release you from prison...
Free the political prisoners. Free the press. Allow criticism of the state. Allow the existance of other political parties. Hold free elections. Until these acts happen, Cuba is just another repressive government we don't want to read about on slashdot.
No explosion. The SM3 is a hit to kill warhead. The differing velocities will be more than enough to blow the satellite to smithereens, assuming that it works.
Why do pie in the sky idealists with no real contact with real life & it's problems mislabel realists as cynics? I note that you completely skipped nuclear, the only carbon positive fuel source we have today. When you're still driving a petrochemical fueled vehicle in 15 years, try to remember how off based you were when you were younger. Lest you think I work for the oil companies, the only technology I can really see replacing most of our energy needs (long term) is space based solar but the greenies/modern luddites want to ban that too as it uses "horror" microwaves to transmit power to base stations.
Electrolysis cannot get any cheaper unless electricity does. Take the amount of kerosene used in airplanes in the states for one month. Electrolyse enough H2 to equal the weight of that kerosene. The electricity needed to electrolyse the H2 would take the total nuclear generating capacity of the USA for over 2 years.
As for "cheap biological" sources, c'mon pull the other one. Researchers in want of credits keep using that as their spiel, but not a single plant is in production. An entire industry is supposed to spring up like magic? Take a look at how many problems the ethanol industry is having ramping up to see how false that precept is.
That would be a very interesting slashdot poll!
Cooling has become one of the major problems facing many datacenters. They seem to be planning on dumping much of that heat into the water dockside. With the number of BTUs a datacenter puts out I wonder how long local governments will allow them to do so for very long.
The biodiesel is not for the ship's engines it's for the back-up power generators in case mains power fails. While I can see the benefit of using seawater to reduce cooling costs, I wonder whether ports will allow these ships to heat up local seawater the way a big datacenter would do.
You've accepted The Dems public justification for recounting only those districts they chose to... The problems with your theory is that the Dems cited "difficulties" with the punch through ballots & confusing ballots as the justification of doing the recounts. First off, punch through ballots were used statewide but for the Dems the only recounts needed were those that leaned heavily Dem. The USSC squashed this. Secondly, the Dems signed off on the ballots before the elections so claiming that the vote was unfair due to the ballots is Cochranesque.
Because without the recount & according to the electoral college rules that both the D's & the R's accepted going into the election, Bush had already won.
No, as noted elsewhere, The Dems only pushed for biased recounts, then quickly floated a global recount & then conceded when their internal numbers showed Bush winning whatever the method employed.
I saw just as many flaws in Gore as in Bush so whether one or the other won was of less import to me than not letting sour grapes loosers pervert fundamental constitutional principals. As someone who has voted D as often as R, I find partisan arguments arguments such as you are spouting distasteful, especially coming from someone without the courage to post other than as an AC. Consider that your little rant tends to push many people like myself to recuse Democrats as puerile little trolls when they see them and think hard before you post them.
Grow up & sign in or crawl back into your cave little AC troll.
Then why didn't Gore push for a global recount when the USSC refused the partial recounts based on voter equality? I trust Gore's judgment more than that of a possibly partial college professor. When Gore conceded it was because his internal studies showed that a global recount would have failed.
There was no uncertainty. Under the rules that were accepted before the election, Bush won. He lost the popular vote by a slim margin but by a similarly slim margin he won in the electoral college. The only way to have overturned the electoral college would have been to provoke a constitutional crisis by delaying the investiture until every vote could have been counted, recounted & re recounted to everyones satisfaction or to sacrifice the maxim of voter equality by favoring some district's over others.
The only people pretexting "uncertainty" are those that were sufficiently unhappy losing that they were willing to reinterpret the law so that "their" candidate won. I refuse to sacrifice the constitution for a single election, be it for the presidency.
Further, while I respect that you may want to give convicted felons the deciding vote in highly contested elections, Most Americans do not. Being convicted of a felony is not what most of us would call good judgment. The media ignores this disenfranchisement because it realizes that it is the position of the great majority & even if they disagree with it sees no point in needlessly squandering their credibility on an unpopular campaign that will not sell papers.
There were complaints thet the ballots were hard to use statewide but the Dems chose to request recounts only in areas where they expected to gain proportionately more. Gore's request would have carried more weight if he had requested recounts statewide & not just in Dem dominated areas. In the end, the supreme court shut down the recounts because this method of selectively recounting meant that miscounted Dem votes would have counted more than miscounted Rep votes. However, statewide recounts would have taken even longer & would have been very unlikely to have reversed Florida's pro Bush vote.
Saying that the Register has no objectivity when Wiki is concerned is no troll.
On most subjects, yeah, the Reg is a good resource, but every single article mentioning Wikipedia becomes a hatchet job. In some cases like this one, The Reg may actually have a point, but 95% of the time the best thing to do is ignore any article from the Register that contains the word wikipedia as it will be filled with negative opinions & mockery but no facts. I find their systematic opposition of anything wiki to be one of the Reg's worst faults.
The MB-1C pod was also the B-58's primary fuel tank.
The mission scenario would have been for the B-58 to use the fuel in the pylon on it's way to the target, drop the pod & it's integrated nuclear weapon onsite, then use internal tanks to return to base.
As the B-58's range was severely impacted without the MB-1C's fuel tank & stocks of these expensive pods were limited, they were not expended unnecessarily.
This is the oldest dupe I've seen on slashdot!