So, if you do something that a corporation has purchased a law to deem illegal, you (the "offender") lose all rights to, say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?
How is a $1bn dollar punitive fine anything other than cruel and unusual?
Oh, wait. The RIAA is doing this to several people, making it cruel and usual, which is much better.
Why would I pay 1/10 the overinflated cost for a CD for one track, when a) I get less stuff (no shiny jewel case/liner notes/etc and b) it costs the recording company less to get it to me? Bandwidth isn't free, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than putting chunks o' plastic in trucks and moving them across the country.
So they're STILL charging usurious prices.
They'll get my business when and if they hit my price point (which is pretty darn low, particularly for a band I might never have heard of)
Who cares? It's a multinational conglomerate, just like all the other multinational conglomerates. They're "American" (or "British" or "European") only in name. Their only allegiance is to their bottom line, which historically has been enhanced by sucking up to whatever government happens to be close to them.
You just used the words "cut costs" and "Space Shuttle" in the same sentence. I think that's cute.
And ridiculous.
Energia is way cheaper than Shuttle. Yes, it's less reliable, but that says more about Soviet QA than their designs, which are pretty uniformly awesome.
Of course, American QA isn't looking so spiffy lately, is it?
Only if you have to use afterburner to do it. If you can supercruise, the fuel consumption is much more manageable. Yes, you get a lot of drag in the transonic region, but once you accelerate through that (to about Mach 1.2 or so) fuel consumption increase with velocity becomes not terribly awful.
Several programmes exist that use air-breathing airplanes as first stages of rockets. The thing is, you don't get tremendous cost savings by doing so. However, all such systems use large subsonic jets. (B-52's and 767's, if I remember correctly, for Orbital Sciences.) Some X-Prize competitors are using a similar strategy (including Burt Rutan, who is a God among engineers)
Rockets are relatively simple machines. Supersonic jets are not. It would be difficult to justify using a very costly high speed jet to help launch rockets.
My personal opinion is that all sorts of air-breathing rocketry are not practical, and that we should concentrate on improving processes for manufacturing multi-stage disposable rockets, rather than high-zoot reusable and/or single-stage systems.
The drooping nose, ogival wing, four engines in dual pods...there are lots of ways to solve each of these problems. It's not a coincidence that the Russians used/precisely/ the same solutions as the British/French engineers.
Too bad they couldn't come up with engines that didn't need to be overhauled after each flight.
If they were seriously practical, people would be seriously considering them. Before we start seriously considering them, I suggest we figure out how to get a scramjet to work for timescales longer than a couple seconds.
When we figure that stuff out, get back to me. Until then, and if we get an order of magnitude improvement in the specific thrust of currently available fuels, atmospheric hypersonic flight is a silly idea. Ballistic trajectories are the way to go.
The J-58 was a turbo-ramjet. The "bypass duct" had no fan, but operated as a ramjet at high speed. The engine core was a pure turbojet...with God's own afterburner.
If you look at the Harrier's range as a function of its takeoff length for a given load, you'll understand why vertical landing (after you've dropped your bombs and a bunch o' fuel) is coupled with short takeoffs on all combat missions.
As far as the safety commercials, it's hard for pilots, but relatively manageable for digital flight control systems. The Harrier did not have one (although I think the later mods did get some pilot assistance), but both JSF contenders could basically land themselves. The pilot is in a "command" mode (I want to translate left and yaw right) rather than in a "control" mode (I want the left wing puffer jet to fire aft, and roll left slightly to translate then roll right to arrest my motion). This will make modern STOVL (short takeoff vertical landing) aircraft much safer.
The reason the TU-144 looks almost the same as the Concorde is because it came from the same blueprints.
Soviet espionage got a hold of the plans for Concorde, and tried to wow the world by getting it in the air before the West did. I believe it crashed on one of its test flights. A few were built, none entered commercial service.
Wow, that's an appalling attitude. "They might have gotten hurt had they not gotten interred, so it was less awful."
Uh, no.
Any actor has responsibility for their actions. If the government wanted to believe that it was "protecting" the Japanese citizens, that's nothing but a hollow justification.
Was Japanese people getting beat up also appalling? Yes. Only thing that would be worse is if the State didn't pursue and prosecute the assaulters.
Slashdot Mirror
5) Nope. The IR LED for the turret is next to, and coaxial with, the gun tube.
Copyright infringement is illegal, but it has no business being a federal rap. That's just nonsense.
So, if you do something that a corporation has purchased a law to deem illegal, you (the "offender") lose all rights to, say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?
How is a $1bn dollar punitive fine anything other than cruel and unusual?
Oh, wait. The RIAA is doing this to several people, making it cruel and usual, which is much better.
That's just silly.
Why would I pay 1/10 the overinflated cost for a CD for one track, when a) I get less stuff (no shiny jewel case/liner notes/etc and b) it costs the recording company less to get it to me? Bandwidth isn't free, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than putting chunks o' plastic in trucks and moving them across the country.
So they're STILL charging usurious prices.
They'll get my business when and if they hit my price point (which is pretty darn low, particularly for a band I might never have heard of)
Ummm, I do? Is this a trick question?
Who cares? It's a multinational conglomerate, just like all the other multinational conglomerates. They're "American" (or "British" or "European") only in name. Their only allegiance is to their bottom line, which historically has been enhanced by sucking up to whatever government happens to be close to them.
You just used the words "cut costs" and "Space Shuttle" in the same sentence. I think that's cute.
And ridiculous.
Energia is way cheaper than Shuttle. Yes, it's less reliable, but that says more about Soviet QA than their designs, which are pretty uniformly awesome.
Of course, American QA isn't looking so spiffy lately, is it?
: )
Military aviation is my bag, baby.
Only if you have to use afterburner to do it. If you can supercruise, the fuel consumption is much more manageable. Yes, you get a lot of drag in the transonic region, but once you accelerate through that (to about Mach 1.2 or so) fuel consumption increase with velocity becomes not terribly awful.
Several programmes exist that use air-breathing airplanes as first stages of rockets. The thing is, you don't get tremendous cost savings by doing so. However, all such systems use large subsonic jets. (B-52's and 767's, if I remember correctly, for Orbital Sciences.) Some X-Prize competitors are using a similar strategy (including Burt Rutan, who is a God among engineers)
Rockets are relatively simple machines. Supersonic jets are not. It would be difficult to justify using a very costly high speed jet to help launch rockets.
My personal opinion is that all sorts of air-breathing rocketry are not practical, and that we should concentrate on improving processes for manufacturing multi-stage disposable rockets, rather than high-zoot reusable and/or single-stage systems.
Yup, that'd do it.
Not Badger. Blackjack.
Yeah. That's why it looks IDENTICAL.
/precisely/ the same solutions as the British/French engineers.
History lesson.
The drooping nose, ogival wing, four engines in dual pods...there are lots of ways to solve each of these problems. It's not a coincidence that the Russians used
Too bad they couldn't come up with engines that didn't need to be overhauled after each flight.
If they were seriously practical, people would be seriously considering them. Before we start seriously considering them, I suggest we figure out how to get a scramjet to work for timescales longer than a couple seconds.
When we figure that stuff out, get back to me. Until then, and if we get an order of magnitude improvement in the specific thrust of currently available fuels, atmospheric hypersonic flight is a silly idea. Ballistic trajectories are the way to go.
Yeah. There's no way BAE systems would ever invest $40 million in production facilities for the Joint Strike fighter.
Oh.
Back to your bridge, troll.
Nope.
The J-58 was a turbo-ramjet. The "bypass duct" had no fan, but operated as a ramjet at high speed. The engine core was a pure turbojet...with God's own afterburner.
If you look at the Harrier's range as a function of its takeoff length for a given load, you'll understand why vertical landing (after you've dropped your bombs and a bunch o' fuel) is coupled with short takeoffs on all combat missions.
As far as the safety commercials, it's hard for pilots, but relatively manageable for digital flight control systems. The Harrier did not have one (although I think the later mods did get some pilot assistance), but both JSF contenders could basically land themselves. The pilot is in a "command" mode (I want to translate left and yaw right) rather than in a "control" mode (I want the left wing puffer jet to fire aft, and roll left slightly to translate then roll right to arrest my motion). This will make modern STOVL (short takeoff vertical landing) aircraft much safer.
The reason the TU-144 looks almost the same as the Concorde is because it came from the same blueprints.
Soviet espionage got a hold of the plans for Concorde, and tried to wow the world by getting it in the air before the West did. I believe it crashed on one of its test flights. A few were built, none entered commercial service.
My point is, you can't predict how a pol is going to vote. Hell, how many "liberals" voted for USA Patriot? For DMCA?
More to the point, how do you find candidates who will not be bought by corps the moment they set foot in office?
In other words, I don't believe anybody who wants power is fit to wield it.
By your logic, anybody who donated money to a charity that was then labeled a "terrorist organization" is responsible for Sep. 11.
I am not responsible for the actions of somebody I vote for.
Wow, that's an appalling attitude. "They might have gotten hurt had they not gotten interred, so it was less awful."
Uh, no.
Any actor has responsibility for their actions. If the government wanted to believe that it was "protecting" the Japanese citizens, that's nothing but a hollow justification.
Was Japanese people getting beat up also appalling? Yes. Only thing that would be worse is if the State didn't pursue and prosecute the assaulters.
Where is a consumer group going to come up with the necessary funding to buy, say, Fritz Hollings?
If you think that it's just a matter of getting enough votes together, you're awfully naive.
Thank you for spelling "Hear, Hear." correctly. Here's a cookie.
> Cookie. <
Yeah, that "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing never did amount to much, did it?
Too bad. Might have made a nice country.
Ah. I'm sure the student in question feels MUCH better.
"We're not going to kill you. We're just going to break your fingers."
"Oh, right then, carry on."
Don't want to interrupt your little rant there, but Hippocrates was a greek guy. Doctor. You know, "Hippocratic Oath"?
Hypocrites are people who say one thing and do another, such as criticizing people in Texas for having poor grammar and word-selection skills.
I'm in Texas (against my better judgement), and I'll put my grammar skills in my native tongue up against anybody on the planet.
You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, friend.