You can rename the IRS, you can create a new agency to collect your flat tax or VAT. In the end, it will still, and always be the equivalent of the IRS.
We can rename the Army the Super Fun Happy Team, reorganize their structure, and send them to invade other countries—but in the end, they would sill be the Army.
Since the Civil War, income tax has always been collected by the IRS, or similar (and similarly named) bureaus. Before income taxes, the federal government was mostly funded via tariffs. So you propose replacing the IRS with an empowered Customs and Border Protection Agency? Do you really trust Homeland Security to collect your taxes? Imagine if the IRS has their own navy (with domestic law enforcement powers), law enforcement, immigration, and emergency government operations, and maintains that the Constitution doesn't matter within 100 miles of the nation's borders and coastlines.
Apollo 13 should count, but not for what most people know about.
The second stage center engine shut down early due to a thrust chamber sensor reading low pressure. While this did not impact the orbital insertion (the remaining 4 engines fired for an additional 4 minutes to make up for it), the sensor reading that shutdown the engine may have been in error, and is still not understood. However, if this shutdown had not occurred, the vehicle would likely have been lost in just moments after when the shutdown occurred. The center engine was experiencing severe pogo osculations, resulting in the engine flexing the thrust frame up and down by 3 inches, 16 times each second—this motion would have resulted in disintegration of the rocket in short order. The thrust chamber sensor should have been unaffected by the pogo, so that is unlikely to be the cause of the reading that led to the shutdown. So it is possible that while one failure during launch almost destroyed Apollo 13, a second failure actually (temporarily at least) saved the mission.
Roundabouts (or rotaries, or traffic circles, as they're known in parts of the U.S.)
This is part of the problem with the perception of roundabouts in the US: people don't know what is and what is not a roundabout. The modern roundabout came about in the UK in the late 70's and early 80's, and is a small (typically <200' diameter, depending on the number of lanes) circular intersection where the entering traffic yields the right of way to circulating vehicles. In multi-lane roundabouts, lane changes within the roundabout are not permitted.
Rotaries and traffic circles have been present in the US for the past 100 years (and are much more common on the east cost than elsewhere). These can be up to 1000' in diameter, and have varying traffic control (from circulating vehicles yielding to entering vehicles, to traffic signals at the approaches or crosswalks). Speeds at rotaries and traffic circles can also be quite high, and lane changes and merging are often permitted.
The main difference is that the modern roundabout is designed to keep traffic speeds low (ideally around 15mph, but usually less than 25 mph), and are often empirically designed (this varies from state to state, many use empirical models, but some use gap acceptance theory) based upon driver behavior.
But I loathe rotaries when there's a lot of traffic. You can sit there for a lot longer than you would at a red light.
Roundabouts are not indented for extremely high traffic volumes, or in close proximity to signalized intersections, as the platooning vehicles from the adjacent signals will disrupt the flow of traffic through the roundabout. If you are stopped and waiting at modern roundabout, unless the traffic condition is extremely uncommon for the location, the roundabout was either designed improperly, or was ill-considered for the location. If you are not in fact at a modern roundabout, but at an old-style rotary or traffic circle, then the FSM only knows what is happening.
And, BTW, I am a highway engineer, so take this as you may.
ST:TMP:TDE, fixed most of the pacing problems which the theatrical release suffered from. It also fixed some seens that seemed unfinished. The recut of the movie actually earned a PG rating, as opposed to the G rating of the theatrical release.
For example, when V'Ger's attack upon the Enterprise with one of the devices which it used to destroy the Klingons, is aborted, in the theatrical realease the music and sound effects build, then the device simply dissapears from the viewscreen, and the music and sound effects ackwardly fade out. In the Directors Edition, the music and sound effects build, and then cut to an exterior shot of the device disapating as it approaches the Enterprise. This leaves the scene feeling much more tense, and finished.
The scenes of the Enterprise flying around V'Ger's spaceship actually seem to have a point to them, as we actually can see the ship, and get a true sense of scale opposed to the Enterprise. However, this may just be part of the difference of having watched a dirty VHS pan and scan transfer of the film (with 12 extra minutes!) in the past.
There are also some seemingly unnecessary changes, such as the path between the Enterprise and V'Ger itself forming as Kirk & Co. are walking on it. However these do not distract from the movie.
IMHO, the most impressive effects change is the final effect shot of V'Ger's ship sitting over Earth before it explodes into a new level of consiousness. This effect incorporated the original shot of V'Ger's explosion with the Enterprise flying out of the light, with new elements preceeding them.
Overall, the new effect are subtle, and if you hadn't ever watched the movie before, you would never pick them out. But it is the changes in pacing which ultimately make this a much better movie.
I was raised as a Lutheran, and to the theology which I was taught, the best reference on the relationship between Law and Gospel can probably be expressed by C.F.W. Walther's book of the same name: The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (this book has fallen into the public domain).
The S800 is the best printer I've ever had. Prints beautiful pictures. My only complaint with it was that text seemed to print fuzzy with plain paper. But that was under Windows, with a properly set up CUPS driver under Linux, even text is sharp on plain paper.
A Ford Expedition has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 7000 lbs. This is how much it weighs fully-loaded with cargo. With a trailer, it can go up as high as 13,500 lbs.
When considering roadway damage due to vehicle weight, the distribution of weight per axle must always be taken into consideration, along with type of axle (single, tandem, tridem), where tandem and tridem will cause an order of magnitude less damage.
In the above example, a fully loaded Expedition would apply only 3,500 lbs per axle, and would cause an insignificant amound of damage when compaired to the average semi-tractor/trailer.
As for the trailer, most 4,500 lbs trailers are going to carry their loads using a tandom axle (the typical heavy trailer that I come into contact with which could potentally be pulled by an SUV are boat trailers). Which, at 4,500 lbs creates so little damage as to be literally off the chart for asphalt design (Asphalt Institute), and nearly insignificant for Concrete design (AASHTO, 1986).
What does more damage, 167 Volvos or 1 Expedition? Hmm, going to have to say the Volvos...
And according to experts around the world, you'd be wrong.
Actually, when designing a roadway, both of these vehicles would be neglected, as their axle weights will cause an insignificant amout of roadway damage when compared to heavy trucks.
But, if we really wanted to take these vehicles into account...
For simplicity, let's round these numbers to make the Expedition heavier (r 3000lbs), and the Volvo lighter (r 1000lbs).
Using the Asphalt Institute's (AASHTO uses AI EALFs) Equivalent Axle Load Factors (EALF, damage caused to an asphalt roadway, compared to that caused by a single 18,000lb axle), we can determine the Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs).
1000 lbs - 0.00002 EALF 3000 lbs - 0.00018 EALF
Thus, 167 Volvos would cause 0.00668 ESALs worth of damage (167 Volvos * 2 Axles each * 0.00002 EALF), while the one Expedition would cause 0.00036 ESALs worth (1 Expedition * 2 Axles * 0.00018 EALF).
Thus the age old question is answered, even while skewing the problem against the Expedition, 167 Volvos are more damaging to roadways then a single Expedition. (Concrete roadways will reflect similar, but not the same, damge trends.)
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the 2nd Amendment. Since he believed it held for more than just muzzle-loaders.
You can rename the IRS, you can create a new agency to collect your flat tax or VAT. In the end, it will still, and always be the equivalent of the IRS.
We can rename the Army the Super Fun Happy Team, reorganize their structure, and send them to invade other countries—but in the end, they would sill be the Army.
Since the Civil War, income tax has always been collected by the IRS, or similar (and similarly named) bureaus. Before income taxes, the federal government was mostly funded via tariffs. So you propose replacing the IRS with an empowered Customs and Border Protection Agency? Do you really trust Homeland Security to collect your taxes? Imagine if the IRS has their own navy (with domestic law enforcement powers), law enforcement, immigration, and emergency government operations, and maintains that the Constitution doesn't matter within 100 miles of the nation's borders and coastlines.
Apollo 13 should count, but not for what most people know about.
The second stage center engine shut down early due to a thrust chamber sensor reading low pressure. While this did not impact the orbital insertion (the remaining 4 engines fired for an additional 4 minutes to make up for it), the sensor reading that shutdown the engine may have been in error, and is still not understood. However, if this shutdown had not occurred, the vehicle would likely have been lost in just moments after when the shutdown occurred. The center engine was experiencing severe pogo osculations, resulting in the engine flexing the thrust frame up and down by 3 inches, 16 times each second—this motion would have resulted in disintegration of the rocket in short order. The thrust chamber sensor should have been unaffected by the pogo, so that is unlikely to be the cause of the reading that led to the shutdown. So it is possible that while one failure during launch almost destroyed Apollo 13, a second failure actually (temporarily at least) saved the mission.
See this article for more information.
It's a banking center. Remember the golden rule: those with the gold write the rules.
Which is the same reason that Venus has no atmosphere...
Roundabouts (or rotaries, or traffic circles, as they're known in parts of the U.S.)
This is part of the problem with the perception of roundabouts in the US: people don't know what is and what is not a roundabout. The modern roundabout came about in the UK in the late 70's and early 80's, and is a small (typically <200' diameter, depending on the number of lanes) circular intersection where the entering traffic yields the right of way to circulating vehicles. In multi-lane roundabouts, lane changes within the roundabout are not permitted.
Rotaries and traffic circles have been present in the US for the past 100 years (and are much more common on the east cost than elsewhere). These can be up to 1000' in diameter, and have varying traffic control (from circulating vehicles yielding to entering vehicles, to traffic signals at the approaches or crosswalks). Speeds at rotaries and traffic circles can also be quite high, and lane changes and merging are often permitted.
The main difference is that the modern roundabout is designed to keep traffic speeds low (ideally around 15mph, but usually less than 25 mph), and are often empirically designed (this varies from state to state, many use empirical models, but some use gap acceptance theory) based upon driver behavior.
But I loathe rotaries when there's a lot of traffic. You can sit there for a lot longer than you would at a red light.
Roundabouts are not indented for extremely high traffic volumes, or in close proximity to signalized intersections, as the platooning vehicles from the adjacent signals will disrupt the flow of traffic through the roundabout. If you are stopped and waiting at modern roundabout, unless the traffic condition is extremely uncommon for the location, the roundabout was either designed improperly, or was ill-considered for the location. If you are not in fact at a modern roundabout, but at an old-style rotary or traffic circle, then the FSM only knows what is happening.
And, BTW, I am a highway engineer, so take this as you may.
ST:TMP:TDE, fixed most of the pacing problems which the theatrical release suffered from. It also fixed some seens that seemed unfinished. The recut of the movie actually earned a PG rating, as opposed to the G rating of the theatrical release.
For example, when V'Ger's attack upon the Enterprise with one of the devices which it used to destroy the Klingons, is aborted, in the theatrical realease the music and sound effects build, then the device simply dissapears from the viewscreen, and the music and sound effects ackwardly fade out. In the Directors Edition, the music and sound effects build, and then cut to an exterior shot of the device disapating as it approaches the Enterprise. This leaves the scene feeling much more tense, and finished.
The scenes of the Enterprise flying around V'Ger's spaceship actually seem to have a point to them, as we actually can see the ship, and get a true sense of scale opposed to the Enterprise. However, this may just be part of the difference of having watched a dirty VHS pan and scan transfer of the film (with 12 extra minutes!) in the past.
There are also some seemingly unnecessary changes, such as the path between the Enterprise and V'Ger itself forming as Kirk & Co. are walking on it. However these do not distract from the movie.
IMHO, the most impressive effects change is the final effect shot of V'Ger's ship sitting over Earth before it explodes into a new level of consiousness. This effect incorporated the original shot of V'Ger's explosion with the Enterprise flying out of the light, with new elements preceeding them.
Overall, the new effect are subtle, and if you hadn't ever watched the movie before, you would never pick them out. But it is the changes in pacing which ultimately make this a much better movie.
Even in the Star Wars newsgroups we used to call them "Praxis Rings".
They've since been used almost everywhere. Interestingly enough, the effect in Star Trek VI still looks more impressive then in any other usage.
I was raised as a Lutheran, and to the theology which I was taught, the best reference on the relationship between Law and Gospel can probably be expressed by C.F.W. Walther's book of the same name: The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (this book has fallen into the public domain).
A few more:
- Garbage (the band)
- The Zucker Brothers (and Jim Abrahams)
- Cray Compter
- The Dells
- The Marquette Golden Eagles... Uh... Gold... Uh... Warriors? Hilltopers? Uh... Dwyane Wade went to school here!
- Fighting Bob La Follette
- Sewer Socialists
- Harley-Davidson
- They brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to America
- Douglas MacArthur
- Bratwurst
- Numbered Highways
- Birthplace of The Republican Party
- Svetlana Alliluyeva (Stalin's Daughter)
- Frank Lloyd Wright
- Heather Graham
The S800 is the best printer I've ever had. Prints beautiful pictures. My only complaint with it was that text seemed to print fuzzy with plain paper. But that was under Windows, with a properly set up CUPS driver under Linux, even text is sharp on plain paper.
When considering roadway damage due to vehicle weight, the distribution of weight per axle must always be taken into consideration, along with type of axle (single, tandem, tridem), where tandem and tridem will cause an order of magnitude less damage.
In the above example, a fully loaded Expedition would apply only 3,500 lbs per axle, and would cause an insignificant amound of damage when compaired to the average semi-tractor/trailer.
As for the trailer, most 4,500 lbs trailers are going to carry their loads using a tandom axle (the typical heavy trailer that I come into contact with which could potentally be pulled by an SUV are boat trailers). Which, at 4,500 lbs creates so little damage as to be literally off the chart for asphalt design (Asphalt Institute), and nearly insignificant for Concrete design (AASHTO, 1986).
And according to experts around the world, you'd be wrong.
Actually, when designing a roadway, both of these vehicles would be neglected, as their axle weights will cause an insignificant amout of roadway damage when compared to heavy trucks.
But, if we really wanted to take these vehicles into account...
Ford Expedition - Axle weight: 2634 lbs
Volvo S40/V40 - Axle weight: 1615 lbs
For simplicity, let's round these numbers to make the Expedition heavier (r 3000lbs), and the Volvo lighter (r 1000lbs).
Using the Asphalt Institute's (AASHTO uses AI EALFs) Equivalent Axle Load Factors (EALF, damage caused to an asphalt roadway, compared to that caused by a single 18,000lb axle), we can determine the Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs).
1000 lbs - 0.00002 EALF
3000 lbs - 0.00018 EALF
Thus, 167 Volvos would cause 0.00668 ESALs worth of damage (167 Volvos * 2 Axles each * 0.00002 EALF), while the one Expedition would cause 0.00036 ESALs worth (1 Expedition * 2 Axles * 0.00018 EALF).
Thus the age old question is answered, even while skewing the problem against the Expedition, 167 Volvos are more damaging to roadways then a single Expedition. (Concrete roadways will reflect similar, but not the same, damge trends.)
BTW, IAATE (Transportation Engineer).