I've always noticed that the people calling for tax increases on the top 1%ers talk about income taxes, but their meaning is clearly personal asset taxes and inheritance taxes; of course that would cross the line into blatant socialist redistributionism.
Most people think they are talking about money, but most are really talking about bills. Some former-friends of mine won a considerable amount of money in the lottery, just shy of $90 million after taxes and the transition from worrying about paying bills to worrying about money was very painful to watch.
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business led to business expansion instead of high scores racked up in Swiss bank accounts.
So your saying forcing Uber-rich to expand their business interests into bloated lethargic monopolies is better than allowing bankers to invest the money in multiple smaller more agile businesses and home loans?
Sorry but I guess you didn't get the memo, people at the 47th percentile and below don't pay any taxes, so there simply isn't enough income to be taxed. The natioanl defict is estimated to be $468 billion and the national debt is $18 trillion or $56,000.00 per person.
Well just hack off his right hand, and if it wasn't theft, Allah will put it back on.
Re:Why do you like KDE?
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 1
Personally I don't really like XFCE; almost no desktop integration and no apps, inferior file-management and a UI metaphor that reminds me too much of Win 3.11. IMHO Plasma beats in every aspect when it comes to virtual desktops, shifting between programs, program services and app integration.
LOL, I installed Win95 on a Win3.11 and was happy as a clam, then I got a machine with a clean install of Win95 and I was all WTF happened to my beloved file-manager Windows! I could set everything up the way I wanted in file-manager! At the time dual-booting between Win3.11 and Linux with TWM was pretty painless.
Re:1996 was the year of Linux on the desktop
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 1
Most desktop computers now will blow-away what were considered super-computers when KDE first came out, a Cray-1 had 160 MFLOPS and 2MB ram, Cray X-MP peaked at 942 MFLOPS now a reasonably modern computer, 8 Floating point ops per cycle per core * 3.4 Giga cycles per second * 4 cores = 108.8 GFLOPs, a Radeon 6990 can do over 5 TFLOPS!
Now since most modern supercomputers run Linux, most desktops will run Linux, you can develop and test your software on low cost commodity machine, then run it on your big-iron, usually with only a minor tweek or two. The difference between desktop and supercomputer is mostly quantitative, not qualitative now, how fast can you afford?
Re:1996 was the year of Linux on the desktop
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 1
I had a Linux running dual-boot with DOS 6.1/Window 3.1 on my 80486SLC home-brew machine; I later got a store bought machine with a Pentium and a free upgrade voucher for Windows95.
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period. then 15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period. then 15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period. which is 45 miles in 45 seconds then 15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period. then 15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period. The Earth's circumference is 24,901 mi so it would take about 1 hour, 45 minutes. that's not to shabby.
Therefore, without loss of generality, take a satellite in equatorial orbit at 5 miles/second and fire a burn to the south, delta-V 1 mile/second. This changes its velocity by adding a northward component to the eastward velocity. It is now in a stable orbit, same as if it had been launched. The orbit is not going to move without further acceleration, and it's nowhere near a polar orbit.
What you are not getting is deltaV = acceleration; under Newtonian Physics things don't accelerate unless acted upon by a force. When something faster it is accelerating, when something goes slower it is still an acceleration. When you start your burn your velocity vector is 5mi/S.( 0 degrees),
finish your burn your velocity is 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
You could have just as easily pointed you engine at 45 degrees starboard and gone to 6.0828mi/s.9.4623 degrees and burned for the square root of 2 and increased your altitude at the same time.
Most of the energy is spent getting to orbital speed, not getting the necessary altitude.
Changing the inclination of the orbit is expensive in energy.
Orbital speed and altitude are functional, if you want to increase altitude, you just accelerate to a higher speed, changing speed takes work in orbit. On the moon you can orbit just inches above the highest obstacle in your path.
The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time. Velocity
In orbit you frame of reference is the center of gravity of the Earth to change inclination, Newton's First law applies
When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force Newton's laws of motion
you just give the satellite a quick burn at a vector giving it a lateral motion and it begins to move and doesn't stop until you do a breaking burn, I.E Newton's first Law, how much energy it takes depends on how quick you want to get there; the geographical location of abstract surface details like the equator or the rotational pole are meaningless to the satellite.
Think about it, what is easier walking 130 feet across a parking lot or walking up 13 floors worth of stairs? If you roll a bowling ball across the parking lot it keeps going until friction consumes it's kinetic energy, try rolling it up a handicap-ramp and see how quick gravity eats up the kinetic energy!
I don't think so, most of your energy budget is spent just getting to any orbit. Changing inclination is trivial because it's a zero-work manoeuvre as momentum is conserved, one burn starts you changing inclination and it continues until you do a breaking burn. Changing altitude is expensive because you have to accelerate out of the gravity well.
ISS is orbiting at 409 km - 416 km with an orbital inclination of 51.65 degrees and orbital period of 92.69 minutes, a Molniya orbit is inclined 63.4 degrees and orbital period of 720 minutes, tungra orbits are inclined 63.4 degrees and orbital period of 1,436 minutes and Clarke orbits have 0 inclination and an orbital period of 1,436 minutes
When I read the article linked, it was clear that VW used hardware as part of the "cheat device", just that hardware would have to be changed to meet emissions testing on the first and second generation TDLs. Perhaps I'm being generous but if VW emission engineers didn't know about the "cheat device" then it's likely that the hardware was never tested without the cheat. My point was the VW demonstrated the ability to change emissions profile to increase performance and fuel mileage (basically trading less CO2 for more NOx) based external conditions, then they can do it on purpose base on external conditions like location via GPS, whether an ozone action day has been called.
All manufacturers designed their engine/transmission management systems to pass the test, what happened outside the test conditions were in the "your actual mileage may vary" zone; It's just like "common core" where they teach the kids to specifically pass the test. If you want cars to perform under realistic driving conditions the same as they do under emissions test, you have to make the test conditions as close to realistic as possible. The big three used to test their suspensions by driving down a particular bumpy section of Woodward avenue in Detroit, when they announced that that section of road was going to be repaired and repaved, the manufacturer surveyed the road and duplicated it at their test tracks to maintain continuity, and keep the test as close to realistic as possible.
Volkswagon's mistake was they actually change the operating parameters based whether the vehicle was being tested for emissions or for mileage or under normal conditions, the next step is for the bureaucrats to realise that they can have vehicle emit differing levels of emissions based on location and weather; your car may suck donkey balls in San Francisco, but run like a champ in Montana.
Triggering crystallisation of a planet's core is left as an exercise for the reader, and would be incredibly difficult, but it's a lot more plausible than trying to supply enough heat to start convection by any other means.
interesting questions might be
How much nuclear waste would have to be dumped down a borehole on Mars to remelt the planetary core; ( I know it's an insane amount, but how insane)?
How long would it take to melt?
How deep would the borehole have to be, at some point the waste would melt and go into "China Syndrome mode" and melt it's way down?
Should we crash some icy asteroids into the planet to get some potential oxygen from water before or after we restart the core?
How many rocky/metallic asteroids should we crash into Mars to get the gravity up?
Would it just be easier to build a ring-world?
Could we harvest gasses for atmosphere from Jupiter?
The way I understand it the lost of the magnetosphere allows the solar wind to push the ozone back to the nightside and some off into space, this thins ozone lets the UV disassociate more water vapor (that's lighter than air) into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light and the oxygen that doesn't get blown off into space oxidises any methane or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere on the way back down to the surface. This causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease, which cause the water to boil at a lower temperature, putting more water vapor into the air to be dissociated and lost, in an accelerating death spiral.
Firstly there is a vaccine for Y. pestis, I know I've had it, and secondly a good stiff dose of Y. pseudotuberculosis is going to give you the shits, but most likely leave as immune to Y. pestis as you can get.
That's good for a few hundred watts, but something for a more normal household that needs KW's and a tower higher than the tree tops for clean wind. These towers look more like a commercial radio tower and the average bloke isn't going to climb one to grease the bearings or change the diodes in the alternator, the pads on the speed-break or the brushes in the the commutator. The guy that's seriously living off the grid is likely to be able to handle it, the guy that's doing it to be "green" or to "stick it to the man" isn't likely to be able to handle it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always noticed that the people calling for tax increases on the top 1%ers talk about income taxes, but their meaning is clearly personal asset taxes and inheritance taxes; of course that would cross the line into blatant socialist redistributionism.
Sir, can be a first name, an insult or anything in between.
Most people think they are talking about money, but most are really talking about bills. Some former-friends of mine won a considerable amount of money in the lottery, just shy of $90 million after taxes and the transition from worrying about paying bills to worrying about money was very painful to watch.
While that's true, Government isn't going to be as efficient as private investment, especially if the private investors aren't "too big to fail".
LOl, what are they going to move to Galt's Gulch?
Monaco, Grand Cayman, Ireland, Belize, there are options.
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business led to business expansion instead of high scores racked up in Swiss bank accounts.
So your saying forcing Uber-rich to expand their business interests into bloated lethargic monopolies is better than allowing bankers to invest the money in multiple smaller more agile businesses and home loans?
Sorry but I guess you didn't get the memo, people at the 47th percentile and below don't pay any taxes, so there simply isn't enough income to be taxed. The natioanl defict is estimated to be $468 billion and the national debt is $18 trillion or $56,000.00 per person.
So when was the last time you called on them with a couple sacks of white castles and a 12 pack; and hungout in front of the Xbox?
Well just hack off his right hand, and if it wasn't theft, Allah will put it back on.
Personally I don't really like XFCE; almost no desktop integration and no apps, inferior file-management and a UI metaphor that reminds me too much of Win 3.11. IMHO Plasma beats in every aspect when it comes to virtual desktops, shifting between programs, program services and app integration.
LOL, I installed Win95 on a Win3.11 and was happy as a clam, then I got a machine with a clean install of Win95 and I was all WTF happened to my beloved file-manager Windows! I could set everything up the way I wanted in file-manager! At the time dual-booting between Win3.11 and Linux with TWM was pretty painless.
Most desktop computers now will blow-away what were considered super-computers when KDE first came out, a Cray-1 had 160 MFLOPS and 2MB ram, Cray X-MP peaked at 942 MFLOPS now a reasonably modern computer, 8 Floating point ops per cycle per core * 3.4 Giga cycles per second * 4 cores = 108.8 GFLOPs, a Radeon 6990 can do over 5 TFLOPS!
Now since most modern supercomputers run Linux, most desktops will run Linux, you can develop and test your software on low cost commodity machine, then run it on your big-iron, usually with only a minor tweek or two. The difference between desktop and supercomputer is mostly quantitative, not qualitative now, how fast can you afford?
I had a Linux running dual-boot with DOS 6.1/Window 3.1 on my 80486SLC home-brew machine; I later got a store bought machine with a Pentium and a free upgrade voucher for Windows95.
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
then
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
then
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
which is 45 miles in 45 seconds
then
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
then
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
The Earth's circumference is 24,901 mi so it would take about 1 hour, 45 minutes. that's not to shabby.
Therefore, without loss of generality, take a satellite in equatorial orbit at 5 miles/second and fire a burn to the south, delta-V 1 mile/second. This changes its velocity by adding a northward component to the eastward velocity. It is now in a stable orbit, same as if it had been launched. The orbit is not going to move without further acceleration, and it's nowhere near a polar orbit.
What you are not getting is deltaV = acceleration; under Newtonian Physics things don't accelerate unless acted upon by a force. When something faster it is accelerating, when something goes slower it is still an acceleration.
When you start your burn your velocity vector is 5mi/S.( 0 degrees),
finish your burn your velocity is 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees
15 seconds later your velocity is still 5mi/S.0degrees + 1mi/S.90 degrees which = 5.099mi/S.11.31degrees, therefore you have 0 deltaV (delta = change), i.e. your velocity has not changed, but your moving to port at a steady 1 mi/s or 15 miles during that time period.
You could have just as easily pointed you engine at 45 degrees starboard and gone to 6.0828mi/s.9.4623 degrees and burned for the square root of 2 and increased your altitude at the same time.
Most of the energy is spent getting to orbital speed, not getting the necessary altitude.
Changing the inclination of the orbit is expensive in energy.
Orbital speed and altitude are functional, if you want to increase altitude, you just accelerate to a higher speed, changing speed takes work in orbit. On the moon you can orbit just inches above the highest obstacle in your path.
In orbit you frame of reference is the center of gravity of the Earth
to change inclination, Newton's First law applies
you just give the satellite a quick burn at a vector giving it a lateral motion and it begins to move and doesn't stop until you do a breaking burn, I.E Newton's first Law, how much energy it takes depends on how quick you want to get there; the geographical location of abstract surface details like the equator or the rotational pole are meaningless to the satellite.
Think about it, what is easier walking 130 feet across a parking lot or walking up 13 floors worth of stairs? If you roll a bowling ball across the parking lot it keeps going until friction consumes it's kinetic energy, try rolling it up a handicap-ramp and see how quick gravity eats up the kinetic energy!
I don't think so, most of your energy budget is spent just getting to any orbit. Changing inclination is trivial because it's a zero-work manoeuvre as momentum is conserved, one burn starts you changing inclination and it continues until you do a breaking burn. Changing altitude is expensive because you have to accelerate out of the gravity well.
ISS is orbiting at 409 km - 416 km with an orbital inclination of 51.65 degrees and orbital period of 92.69 minutes, a Molniya orbit is inclined 63.4 degrees and orbital period of 720 minutes, tungra orbits are inclined 63.4 degrees and orbital period of 1,436 minutes and Clarke orbits have 0 inclination and an orbital period of 1,436 minutes
Nope, the ass of those old Cadillac Eldorados house-boats breaks lose pretty easy.
When I read the article linked, it was clear that VW used hardware as part of the "cheat device", just that hardware would have to be changed to meet emissions testing on the first and second generation TDLs. Perhaps I'm being generous but if VW emission engineers didn't know about the "cheat device" then it's likely that the hardware was never tested without the cheat.
My point was the VW demonstrated the ability to change emissions profile to increase performance and fuel mileage (basically trading less CO2 for more NOx) based external conditions, then they can do it on purpose base on external conditions like location via GPS, whether an ozone action day has been called.
All manufacturers designed their engine/transmission management systems to pass the test, what happened outside the test conditions were in the "your actual mileage may vary" zone; It's just like "common core" where they teach the kids to specifically pass the test. If you want cars to perform under realistic driving conditions the same as they do under emissions test, you have to make the test conditions as close to realistic as possible. The big three used to test their suspensions by driving down a particular bumpy section of Woodward avenue in Detroit, when they announced that that section of road was going to be repaired and repaved, the manufacturer surveyed the road and duplicated it at their test tracks to maintain continuity, and keep the test as close to realistic as possible.
Volkswagon's mistake was they actually change the operating parameters based whether the vehicle was being tested for emissions or for mileage or under normal conditions, the next step is for the bureaucrats to realise that they can have vehicle emit differing levels of emissions based on location and weather; your car may suck donkey balls in San Francisco, but run like a champ in Montana.
Triggering crystallisation of a planet's core is left as an exercise for the reader, and would be incredibly difficult, but it's a lot more plausible than trying to supply enough heat to start convection by any other means.
interesting questions might be
How much nuclear waste would have to be dumped down a borehole on Mars to remelt the planetary core; ( I know it's an insane amount, but how insane)?
The way I understand it the lost of the magnetosphere allows the solar wind to push the ozone back to the nightside and some off into space, this thins ozone lets the UV disassociate more water vapor (that's lighter than air) into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light and the oxygen that doesn't get blown off into space oxidises any methane or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere on the way back down to the surface. This causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease, which cause the water to boil at a lower temperature, putting more water vapor into the air to be dissociated and lost, in an accelerating death spiral.
Aren't we due to stick our heads out from the protective Galactic Disk and magnetosphere to get fried by intergalactic cosmic rays long before then?
Firstly there is a vaccine for Y. pestis, I know I've had it, and secondly a good stiff dose of Y. pseudotuberculosis is going to give you the shits, but most likely leave as immune to Y. pestis as you can get.
"decimated nearly half the population in the Mediterranean"
So unless it really killed 1/10 of half the population of the Med basin, you don't know what 'decimated' means?
It's ok, it's not like this stuff is edited.
So it didn't decimate but semimated the Europeans, not to be confused with inseminated.
That's good for a few hundred watts, but something for a more normal household that needs KW's and a tower higher than the tree tops for clean wind. These towers look more like a commercial radio tower and the average bloke isn't going to climb one to grease the bearings or change the diodes in the alternator, the pads on the speed-break or the brushes in the the commutator. The guy that's seriously living off the grid is likely to be able to handle it, the guy that's doing it to be "green" or to "stick it to the man" isn't likely to be able to handle it.