Probably the only place they could find a road that was flat and straight for > 4 miles, and had little enough traffic that the HPV's wouldn't be endangered.
Perhaps there will be no more "I'm a big bad lonely boss" fights. They could have the big boss periodically spawn little monsters to die and supply you with your precious health orbs. You would then have to use some strategy - do I keep wailing on this guy, or go refill my health?
At what point would it be reasonable to start proceedings against those lawyers? You make some fairly strong statements of their misdeeds here. With firm proof would those offenses not be more than enough to get them disbarred, if not jailed and/or fined for perjury?
Who is responsible for calling those lawyers to task? And who is capable of officially raising the matter for consideration?
Well, we have been in Iraq for quite some time now with our mountains of superior technology. A pile of guns is way more a thorn in the side of an oppressor than a pointed stick. And, as I mention above, there is a huge difference between pestering a small invading force and completely overwhelming a standing army. Yes, the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have stopped the US army from safely occupying the whole country. How much success do you think they would have if they were to attempt to drive out the occupying troops by force of arms alone?
I disagree, for some definitions of "success". Small arms and homemade bombs are playing a significant role in shaping the future Iraq. The definition of "success" I am using in this case is overthrowing a powerful government with full control of the largest and best-funded standing army in the world, through force of arms alone. Do you really think that's possible with handguns, hunting rifles, and homemade bombs?
Is a handgun any more effective at this than a knife? Sure, you've got a bit more range, but if the soldier is paying little enough attention that you can approach them and train your handgun on them, then I suspect you'd have almost as much success with a knife.
And once you do have one of their weapons, how many other soldiers do you think you could defeat before you were gunned down?
I posit that the US has moved beyond the point where any form of armed uprising, in and of itself, would be able to overthrow the government.
As I mention above, guerrilla tactics are fine for pestering an invading force, but completely insufficient for driving out a well-supplied army. And that's what would be required to overthrow the government in the US. You would have to defeat the army and storm whatever stronghold they were holed up in.
I think you'll have to agree that a handgun or a hunting rifle is not sufficient for that job. Much more effective in this day and age are social weapons - public opinion, international aid, etc.
And there's a big difference between pestering an invading force, and overthrowing an oppressive regime. How, exactly, would you use a handgun to overthrow the government? Would you march into DC and start shooting senators until they complied with your demands? How long do you think you would survive?
Note that while the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have managed to prevent the invading US army from safely occupying much territory, they are completely incapable of expelling them through force of arms.
And there's a big difference between pestering an invading force, and overthrowing an oppressive regime. How, exactly, would you use a handgun to overthrow the government? Would you march into DC and start shooting senators until they complied with your demands? How long do you think you would survive?
Note that while the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have managed to prevent the invading US army from safely occupying much territory, they are completely incapable of expelling them through force of arms.
There's a difference between guerrilla fighters pestering an occupying force, and mounting an open assault on a well-fortified and well-armed enemy. Do you really think it would be possible to overthrow the government with improvised explosive devices sitting next to the road?
The government would simply move into an underground bunker, rule from there, and with your simple handguns and rifles, you would have no luck whatsoever at deposing them, as long as they had the regular military to control.
Do you really think a handgun would be any use whatsoever against the armour-plated, tank driving army, should the US populace ever get riled up enough for open revolt?
The fact is, back in the day, a simple musket was all anyone needed to be an effective soldier, and even then, it was probably bayonet work that killed more people than bullets. Today, you need access to military hardware, rocket-propelled grenades, depleted uranium bullets, etc, if you ever want to mount an open revolt against the government, and the military forces it controls.
If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for armed revolt against an oppressive government, it is currently outdated and ineffective. Given the weapons available to the general public right now, no such armed revolt could ever succeed.
Be careful. Downloading music is legal in Canada. Making files available for uploading is not illegal. It's still technically copyright violation to download movies, television shows, and books on tape.
Downloading music is legal because we pay a levy on blank media, but that only covers music. Uploading is not illegal because of the Finklestein decision, likening leaving files in a shared folder to leaving a book next to a photocopier.
Yes, you're right. In the common view, (at least, amongst the technologically literate), the internet is the press. However, there have been no challenges of that sort yet. Until there have been, access to the internet is not a right in Canada. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that it currently isn't.
Offends, no. Incites hatred against, yes. Of course, just because you write a letter to the editor that is critical of Muslims does not mean that they are obliged to print it. They will make a business decision that it's in their best interest not to.
However, if you want, you can go stand in front of the Houses of Parliament and peacefully say just about anything you want without being hassled by the government. You can parade around with a big picture of Muhammed on a placard if you want to.
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, it does not mean we have the right to force others to print what we have to say.
Ostensibly, Citizens of the US of A have the right to free speech as well, as enshrined within the first amendment to the Constitution. Would your government stop you from going to downtown Detroit and talking about how every black man you've ever met was lazy and irresponsible? Would any sane newspaper print a letter to the editor that said as much?
It is possible that, for example, a blogger who was barred from the internet could argue that he was being denied exactly this charter right, yes. It would be a long and expensive court case with the Supreme Court of Canada. And I, for one, would welcome our new^W^W^W love to see any "three strikes and you're off the internet" challenged on such grounds.
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.
It's also much more distracting to hear only one side of a conversation. It's like looking at a picture of one half of a face. Your brain can't help but devote effort to try to fill in the other half.
If you can hear both sides of the conversation, it's much easier to let it fall to the background.
Acceleration like that is required for safe merging onto a highway that's traveling at 60MPH. Assuming linear acceleration from zero to sixty (which is probably an optimistic assumption), say you get on the highway on-ramp at 30, and have to accelerate up to 60 to merge. You'd need 6 seconds to do that. How far would you travel in those 6 seconds?
0.2 miles
And if you used 10 seconds to do that (0-60 in 20 seconds)?
0.5 miles
How long are the on-ramps where you live?
As for the top speed, that's what you'd get to after holding down the accelerator on a flat, straight stretch of the road for 2-3 minutes. Reasonable traveling speed for a vehicle is always some amount below the maximum speed of that vehicle.
The supply and demand curve is definitely something that these media companies should be looking at very closely. Every once in a while, I wander past the discount bin in my local Zellers (or, even better, Giant Tiger). If there is any movie in there that catches my attention for long enough to read the back of the case, I'll buy it for $4. Yes, four dollars. That's my give-a-shit threshold for purchasing a movie. If the movie sucks, I don't give a shit. It cost me four dollars.
If it costs me $14 to go to a theatre, that's above my give-a-shit threshold. Someone's going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to part with that $14 for a one-time performance. There must be some factor that makes it worth going to see this movie in a theatre. Lord of the Rings was worth it. Daredevil was not (though I was tricked into seeing it by the television commercials).
Similarly, I dropped $70 on the LotR Extended Edition boxed set. I spent $20 for Platoon. I would not pay that much for Miss Congeniality.
Well, how much power does electrolysis require? More then it produces?
Yep. That's what that 96% they're talking about is. And then, the fuel cell to convert this hydrogen back into water is less than 100% efficient. It's a basic tenet of thermodynamics. If you have two chemical reactions:
2H2O + Energy -> 2H2 + O2
and
2H2 + O2 -> 2H20 + Energy
The amount of energy you get out of reaction #2 will be equal to the amount of energy you put into reaction #1. However, there are always going to be inefficiencies in putting energy into a reaction, and in capturing energy from a reaction.
Yep, I agree. This is just a different energy storage mechanism. However, there are many difficulties associated with storing hydrogen gas (making metals brittle, low energy density, hydrogen leaking out between the atoms of whatever it's contained in) that are not addressed by the article. Until those are solved, this will not be a feasible energy storage medium.
Also, I'd be surprised if this technology is more efficient than using a NiMH or LIon battery. I'd be happy to be shown that, but I'd be surprised nonetheless.
With solar panels, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run the car's electric motors directly, rather than to run an electrolyzer, then put the generated hydrogen through a fuel cell, and use that electricity to power the motors. With the exception of any sunlight collected while the car is not moving, of course.
Basically, the best use for this technology would be as an alternative to the current batteries used in hybrids. It is not a fuel source.
Okay, I will admit that what you have described is a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, if we're trying to teach people about the theory of evolution, can we please use scientific theories for abiogenesis as well? The only part of your statement that I disagree with is the "must" in your first sentence. You are stating a fact that must be taken on faith, and thus, cannot be a scientific theory.
Please construct a hypothesis about the origin of life that: 1. can be disproven 2. can be used to make predictions 3. can have those predictions tested
If you do so, and then test that hypothesis, and the results agree with the predictions, then I will allow you to call this item a scientific theory. However, even then, I would strongly caution you against the use of the word "must." When Newton developed his laws of motion, did he state that the acceleration of an object must equal the force on that object divided by its mass? If he did make such a statement, it was proven wrong when we revised it with relativity. Leave yourself open to the possibility that, even though your theory is the most likely explanation for something, it may be proven wrong in the future. Trying to prove theories wrong, or revising and improving them, that's a lot of what scientific advancement is today.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinner air = less wind resistance?
Probably the only place they could find a road that was flat and straight for > 4 miles, and had little enough traffic that the HPV's wouldn't be endangered.
Perhaps there will be no more "I'm a big bad lonely boss" fights. They could have the big boss periodically spawn little monsters to die and supply you with your precious health orbs. You would then have to use some strategy - do I keep wailing on this guy, or go refill my health?
Or, at least, units beyond the venerable Library of Congress, VW Beetle, and football field.
At what point would it be reasonable to start proceedings against those lawyers? You make some fairly strong statements of their misdeeds here. With firm proof would those offenses not be more than enough to get them disbarred, if not jailed and/or fined for perjury?
Who is responsible for calling those lawyers to task? And who is capable of officially raising the matter for consideration?
Sadly, until we manage to curtail our fossil fuel use, the clouds of smog prevent the sun from reaching the sea.
Not bad, but it differs slightly from my memory:
through caverns measureless to man
down to a sunless sea
Is a handgun any more effective at this than a knife? Sure, you've got a bit more range, but if the soldier is paying little enough attention that you can approach them and train your handgun on them, then I suspect you'd have almost as much success with a knife.
And once you do have one of their weapons, how many other soldiers do you think you could defeat before you were gunned down?
I posit that the US has moved beyond the point where any form of armed uprising, in and of itself, would be able to overthrow the government.
As I mention above, guerrilla tactics are fine for pestering an invading force, but completely insufficient for driving out a well-supplied army. And that's what would be required to overthrow the government in the US. You would have to defeat the army and storm whatever stronghold they were holed up in.
I think you'll have to agree that a handgun or a hunting rifle is not sufficient for that job. Much more effective in this day and age are social weapons - public opinion, international aid, etc.
And there's a big difference between pestering an invading force, and overthrowing an oppressive regime. How, exactly, would you use a handgun to overthrow the government? Would you march into DC and start shooting senators until they complied with your demands? How long do you think you would survive?
Note that while the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have managed to prevent the invading US army from safely occupying much territory, they are completely incapable of expelling them through force of arms.
(oops, replied to my own post, rather than yours)
And there's a big difference between pestering an invading force, and overthrowing an oppressive regime. How, exactly, would you use a handgun to overthrow the government? Would you march into DC and start shooting senators until they complied with your demands? How long do you think you would survive?
Note that while the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have managed to prevent the invading US army from safely occupying much territory, they are completely incapable of expelling them through force of arms.
There's a difference between guerrilla fighters pestering an occupying force, and mounting an open assault on a well-fortified and well-armed enemy. Do you really think it would be possible to overthrow the government with improvised explosive devices sitting next to the road?
The government would simply move into an underground bunker, rule from there, and with your simple handguns and rifles, you would have no luck whatsoever at deposing them, as long as they had the regular military to control.
Do you really think a handgun would be any use whatsoever against the armour-plated, tank driving army, should the US populace ever get riled up enough for open revolt?
The fact is, back in the day, a simple musket was all anyone needed to be an effective soldier, and even then, it was probably bayonet work that killed more people than bullets. Today, you need access to military hardware, rocket-propelled grenades, depleted uranium bullets, etc, if you ever want to mount an open revolt against the government, and the military forces it controls.
If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for armed revolt against an oppressive government, it is currently outdated and ineffective. Given the weapons available to the general public right now, no such armed revolt could ever succeed.
Be careful. Downloading music is legal in Canada. Making files available for uploading is not illegal. It's still technically copyright violation to download movies, television shows, and books on tape.
Downloading music is legal because we pay a levy on blank media, but that only covers music. Uploading is not illegal because of the Finklestein decision, likening leaving files in a shared folder to leaving a book next to a photocopier.
Yes, you're right. In the common view, (at least, amongst the technologically literate), the internet is the press. However, there have been no challenges of that sort yet. Until there have been, access to the internet is not a right in Canada. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that it currently isn't.
Offends, no. Incites hatred against, yes. Of course, just because you write a letter to the editor that is critical of Muslims does not mean that they are obliged to print it. They will make a business decision that it's in their best interest not to.
However, if you want, you can go stand in front of the Houses of Parliament and peacefully say just about anything you want without being hassled by the government. You can parade around with a big picture of Muhammed on a placard if you want to.
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, it does not mean we have the right to force others to print what we have to say.
Ostensibly, Citizens of the US of A have the right to free speech as well, as enshrined within the first amendment to the Constitution. Would your government stop you from going to downtown Detroit and talking about how every black man you've ever met was lazy and irresponsible? Would any sane newspaper print a letter to the editor that said as much?
It is possible that, for example, a blogger who was barred from the internet could argue that he was being denied exactly this charter right, yes. It would be a long and expensive court case with the Supreme Court of Canada. And I, for one, would welcome our new^W^W^W love to see any "three strikes and you're off the internet" challenged on such grounds.
If I may quote from the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.
It's also much more distracting to hear only one side of a conversation. It's like looking at a picture of one half of a face. Your brain can't help but devote effort to try to fill in the other half.
If you can hear both sides of the conversation, it's much easier to let it fall to the background.
Acceleration like that is required for safe merging onto a highway that's traveling at 60MPH. Assuming linear acceleration from zero to sixty (which is probably an optimistic assumption), say you get on the highway on-ramp at 30, and have to accelerate up to 60 to merge. You'd need 6 seconds to do that. How far would you travel in those 6 seconds?
0.2 miles
And if you used 10 seconds to do that (0-60 in 20 seconds)?
0.5 miles
How long are the on-ramps where you live?
As for the top speed, that's what you'd get to after holding down the accelerator on a flat, straight stretch of the road for 2-3 minutes. Reasonable traveling speed for a vehicle is always some amount below the maximum speed of that vehicle.
The supply and demand curve is definitely something that these media companies should be looking at very closely. Every once in a while, I wander past the discount bin in my local Zellers (or, even better, Giant Tiger). If there is any movie in there that catches my attention for long enough to read the back of the case, I'll buy it for $4. Yes, four dollars. That's my give-a-shit threshold for purchasing a movie. If the movie sucks, I don't give a shit. It cost me four dollars.
If it costs me $14 to go to a theatre, that's above my give-a-shit threshold. Someone's going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to part with that $14 for a one-time performance. There must be some factor that makes it worth going to see this movie in a theatre. Lord of the Rings was worth it. Daredevil was not (though I was tricked into seeing it by the television commercials).
Similarly, I dropped $70 on the LotR Extended Edition boxed set. I spent $20 for Platoon. I would not pay that much for Miss Congeniality.
Well, how much power does electrolysis require? More then it produces?
Yep. That's what that 96% they're talking about is. And then, the fuel cell to convert this hydrogen back into water is less than 100% efficient. It's a basic tenet of thermodynamics. If you have two chemical reactions:
2H2O + Energy -> 2H2 + O2
and
2H2 + O2 -> 2H20 + Energy
The amount of energy you get out of reaction #2 will be equal to the amount of energy you put into reaction #1. However, there are always going to be inefficiencies in putting energy into a reaction, and in capturing energy from a reaction.
Yep, I agree. This is just a different energy storage mechanism. However, there are many difficulties associated with storing hydrogen gas (making metals brittle, low energy density, hydrogen leaking out between the atoms of whatever it's contained in) that are not addressed by the article. Until those are solved, this will not be a feasible energy storage medium.
Also, I'd be surprised if this technology is more efficient than using a NiMH or LIon battery. I'd be happy to be shown that, but I'd be surprised nonetheless.
With solar panels, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run the car's electric motors directly, rather than to run an electrolyzer, then put the generated hydrogen through a fuel cell, and use that electricity to power the motors. With the exception of any sunlight collected while the car is not moving, of course.
Basically, the best use for this technology would be as an alternative to the current batteries used in hybrids. It is not a fuel source.
Okay, I will admit that what you have described is a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, if we're trying to teach people about the theory of evolution, can we please use scientific theories for abiogenesis as well? The only part of your statement that I disagree with is the "must" in your first sentence. You are stating a fact that must be taken on faith, and thus, cannot be a scientific theory.
Please construct a hypothesis about the origin of life that:
1. can be disproven
2. can be used to make predictions
3. can have those predictions tested
If you do so, and then test that hypothesis, and the results agree with the predictions, then I will allow you to call this item a scientific theory. However, even then, I would strongly caution you against the use of the word "must." When Newton developed his laws of motion, did he state that the acceleration of an object must equal the force on that object divided by its mass? If he did make such a statement, it was proven wrong when we revised it with relativity. Leave yourself open to the possibility that, even though your theory is the most likely explanation for something, it may be proven wrong in the future. Trying to prove theories wrong, or revising and improving them, that's a lot of what scientific advancement is today.