There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
It's very rare that any country, nowadays, is able to exert enough might to push another country around, simply because the internet and on-demand information delivery makes it too costly for a free society to exert its will at ease. In the days of slow news delivery, and frankly, a much more conservative news industry, the US would have been able to exert pressure covertly, but today, any leak of information regarding drone usage, incursions to a foreign country, or other punitive measures, will be met with protests, gnashing of teeth by the media and blogosphere, and half of Congress calling for immediate resignation of the military commander in charge of the operation. Of course, that's the exact same thing that happens when an attack does occur, that could have been prevented via use of the military, but that's more indicative of the 'Chicken Little' mindset of people, these days.
Considering that Little Boy and Fat Man were rated at 16 kt and 21 kt, respectively, 10 kt is not something to just ignore. Those two bombs did a pretty good number on Japanese citizens and buildings, given a rough Wikipedia estimate of 150,000 - 250,000 dead. Given a few more years of development time, it's conceivable, however unlikely, that they could work to increase the yield of the weapon, while simultaneously reducing the size and weight.
Regardless of that, what rhetoric did I spout, and why is your response so full of ridicule over my 'sensationalism'? Simply stating facts and opining on possible future outcomes isn't panic, it's commenting on a Slashdot article.
The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb. Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile. If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests, are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment.
I know South Korea is actively pursuing upgrading their AEGIS Destroyers with the US Navy's Ballistic Missile Defense technology, and Japan already has it, but this is a really scary scenario.
But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula. Further, the entire world will continue to provide support to NK via humanitarian aid and appeasement, as long as the North signs a piece of paper that says they won't do anything. We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
Correlation is not causality. An increase in CO2 levels may mean a rise in temperature can be expected, but this isn't proven. It might be in the mind of Manbearpig, but for me, I'm skeptical, simply because of the overall complexity of weather patterns and other natural phenomena. Also, I never said I'm not certain, I said I'm unconvinced.
There are actually several places around here that sell E0, though they typically only sell one grade at the station. Some are regular (87 octane), some sell plus (89), and some sell premium (93). For whatever reason, though, they're all about the same price. The Exxon down the street has 89-octane for $3.99, and it's the same price two miles away for 93 octane. Weird.
I meant 3/4 ton, which is the F-150, Chevy/GMC 1500, and Ram 1500. That was my bad. As for a diesel with a manual, I don't believe Ram offers a manual any longer. I know that they had a 5-speed in their 1500 Tradesman, or whatever, up until a couple years ago, but I think they dropped it as an option in 2010. I don't know their commercial line, but I'd expect you can't get a manual until you get up into a 3500.
Same here. I have an Exxon station around the corner from my place that doesn't sell ethanol-free gas, so I drive an extra five miles (ten total) to fill up with ethanol-free at another Exxon station. The performance difference in my Mustang is noticeable, and the mileage differential is HUGE! On E10, I'm used to getting 17.8 MPG in mixed highway and city driving (according to my dash computer), whereas on E0, I get 20.5. That's a big difference, plus I don't have to worry about the other effects of ethanol, like it eating seals up and gumming up injectors.
The problem, right now, with biodiesel, is that the government has placed ridiculously stringent requirements on diesel engines, including urea solutions to reduce emissions, so they're still too expensive to get wide acceptance with consumers. In addition, the engines are significantly more expensive to build, thus, more expensive for consumers to purchase. It's tough for someone to justify a $5k increase in the price of a vehicle for a diesel engine, even if they'll get double the mileage or better, let alone the fact that a gallon of diesel is typically more expensive than premium gasoline, so people are turned off, just by seeing the price at the pump.
Personally, I wish I could get a truck with a small diesel, because it would have great mileage, plus great torque (which is what really matters, not horsepower), and would last damn near forever, but the government has created significant barriers to entry, such that Ford, GM, and Dodge, all companies that offer large diesels for their heavy duty trucks, still don't offer one for their light (one ton) pickups. They all had them slated for introduction a few years ago, then the government changed the regs for emissions, and the manufacturers realized that the take rate would be so low that they couldn't justify the price.
Or a marina, but they're usually much more expensive than a traditional gas station. One of the best parts of moving to South Carolina from New Jersey was that I could finally put ethanol-free premium in my Mustang, from the regular old gas station! Sweet!
Actually, there is greater power in ethanol-based fuels, because it has a higher octane rating, which reduces knock/detonation at high levels of compression or advanced timing. That's partially a reason why many race series have moved to E85, as they're able to make more power with smaller engines and better fuel economy (due to the smaller engine sizes). Of course, the other reason is so that they appear 'green' and like they care about the environment. That said, ethanol has lower energy content than straight gasoline, so you get lower mileage on E10 or E85, but if your engine is able to compensate for the higher octane, by advancing timing, you can potentially get quite a bit more power out of it.
That might be the case, but most people do not differentiate, they lump all of us into the same bucket, and scream in an apoplectic fit that we're in the pocket of the oil companies, and we don't care, and we want babies to die because of increasing heat, drought, famine, rising sea levels, etc. I'm not the OP, but as someone who is far from convinced, I deal with people all the time that think I'm somehow less educated than them (I have a ME in engineering) or somehow more ignorant than them (I'm a very open minded person that will change my mind based on empirical evidence and a strong argument) simply because I don't believe that man is capable of increasing temperature, thus influencing something as complex as the weather, worldwide.
When ammonia is burned, the products are nitrogen and water vapor, so that negates the smell, and it's just as clean as burning hydrogen. As for fueling, if you created a sealed filler nozzle, similar to what's used for liquid propane vehicles, you wouldn't smell anything!
It's actually cheaper, where I am, to get E10, rather than E0, which sucks, but I'll pay the premium. I have a tuned Mustang GT, and it just runs completely differently (and amazingly) on ethanol-free 93 octane dino juice, rather than the E10 that they sell at the majority of the stations around here. Even though it's currently $3.79/gallon for 93-octane E10, and $3.99/gallon for 93-octane E0, I also get about 2-3 MPG better mileage on the ethanol-free gas, so I make out in the end.
Besides, the ethanol is hell on engine seals and carburetors, so if you've got a boat or a small engine, using the E0 is much better, long run.
It's a double-edged sword...we need the Boomers to retire to open up the senior level positions that we all want, but at the same time, as they retire, a huge number of people will leave the group that currently pays Social Security and Medicare. This basically means that there will be less of us supporting more of them. I recall that when Social Security and all these other safety nets were proposed, it was designed to have three workers supporting one retiree. Now, with medical expenses ballooning, it's more like one to one. At a certain point in time (soon) the situation is going to collapse, and it won't be pretty.
The NATO Classification Guide is used to define data classification. Secret might mean one thing to the common man, but in regards to basically everything government and military related, it has a completely different meaning, and is a method for isolating certain data/information from other data, as well as preventing the unauthorized release of said data.
I'm not sure if I'm reading things right, or not, but when they refer to 35 infected systems in Russia, is that 35 networks? 35 companies? 35 government offices? 35 computers?
The way I read it, it's 35 computers, and if so, this is NOT a large, or even a medium sized attack, this is a couple of pissants who figured out an exploit, and it just happened to show up in a few random computers. But I could be wrong. It's happened before.
Yes, but satellites with polar orbits are still typically launched from lower latitudes and then use a transfer orbit to reach their intended final orbit. I could do the math and find out the required Delta-V for the various types of launches, but my son has a doctor's appointment soon...
Colorado is too far north to take advantage of the low latitude that gives rockets a greater velocity. You wouldn't want to launch from that far north, unless you had no other option.
I echo this sentiment. I've been to WSMR (White Sands Missile Range) for work, and it's deserted (no pun intended). There's nothing of consequence for like 50 miles!
Not likely. While the bubbles do have an internal structure to them, it's not rigid, and only designed to provide a small amount of additional strength. They're really held up by internal air pressure, and it's likely that the bubble was punctured by debris, thus letting the pressure escape and collapsing the bubble. The only way that guy wires would have helped is if the enclosure was a tent, rather than a bubble. If it was a tent, the fabric would be secured to structural elements, most likely aluminum or steel poles. Of course, given the severity of the winds, it's likely that the poles would have bent or broken, which would have been much more catastrophic for Enterprise, as it would probably have punctured the skin of the craft and damaged it in multiple locations.
Slashdot Mirror
There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
It's very rare that any country, nowadays, is able to exert enough might to push another country around, simply because the internet and on-demand information delivery makes it too costly for a free society to exert its will at ease. In the days of slow news delivery, and frankly, a much more conservative news industry, the US would have been able to exert pressure covertly, but today, any leak of information regarding drone usage, incursions to a foreign country, or other punitive measures, will be met with protests, gnashing of teeth by the media and blogosphere, and half of Congress calling for immediate resignation of the military commander in charge of the operation. Of course, that's the exact same thing that happens when an attack does occur, that could have been prevented via use of the military, but that's more indicative of the 'Chicken Little' mindset of people, these days.
Considering that Little Boy and Fat Man were rated at 16 kt and 21 kt, respectively, 10 kt is not something to just ignore. Those two bombs did a pretty good number on Japanese citizens and buildings, given a rough Wikipedia estimate of 150,000 - 250,000 dead. Given a few more years of development time, it's conceivable, however unlikely, that they could work to increase the yield of the weapon, while simultaneously reducing the size and weight.
Regardless of that, what rhetoric did I spout, and why is your response so full of ridicule over my 'sensationalism'? Simply stating facts and opining on possible future outcomes isn't panic, it's commenting on a Slashdot article.
The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb. Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile. If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests, are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment.
I know South Korea is actively pursuing upgrading their AEGIS Destroyers with the US Navy's Ballistic Missile Defense technology, and Japan already has it, but this is a really scary scenario.
But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula. Further, the entire world will continue to provide support to NK via humanitarian aid and appeasement, as long as the North signs a piece of paper that says they won't do anything. We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
And by 'not certain,' I meant certain. The sentence should have read "Also, I never said I'm certain, I said I'm unconvinced."
Correlation is not causality. An increase in CO2 levels may mean a rise in temperature can be expected, but this isn't proven. It might be in the mind of Manbearpig, but for me, I'm skeptical, simply because of the overall complexity of weather patterns and other natural phenomena. Also, I never said I'm not certain, I said I'm unconvinced.
Even so, their prices are typically marked up by 25% or more, due to the location.
There are actually several places around here that sell E0, though they typically only sell one grade at the station. Some are regular (87 octane), some sell plus (89), and some sell premium (93). For whatever reason, though, they're all about the same price. The Exxon down the street has 89-octane for $3.99, and it's the same price two miles away for 93 octane. Weird.
I meant 3/4 ton, which is the F-150, Chevy/GMC 1500, and Ram 1500. That was my bad. As for a diesel with a manual, I don't believe Ram offers a manual any longer. I know that they had a 5-speed in their 1500 Tradesman, or whatever, up until a couple years ago, but I think they dropped it as an option in 2010. I don't know their commercial line, but I'd expect you can't get a manual until you get up into a 3500.
Same here. I have an Exxon station around the corner from my place that doesn't sell ethanol-free gas, so I drive an extra five miles (ten total) to fill up with ethanol-free at another Exxon station. The performance difference in my Mustang is noticeable, and the mileage differential is HUGE! On E10, I'm used to getting 17.8 MPG in mixed highway and city driving (according to my dash computer), whereas on E0, I get 20.5. That's a big difference, plus I don't have to worry about the other effects of ethanol, like it eating seals up and gumming up injectors.
The problem, right now, with biodiesel, is that the government has placed ridiculously stringent requirements on diesel engines, including urea solutions to reduce emissions, so they're still too expensive to get wide acceptance with consumers. In addition, the engines are significantly more expensive to build, thus, more expensive for consumers to purchase. It's tough for someone to justify a $5k increase in the price of a vehicle for a diesel engine, even if they'll get double the mileage or better, let alone the fact that a gallon of diesel is typically more expensive than premium gasoline, so people are turned off, just by seeing the price at the pump.
Personally, I wish I could get a truck with a small diesel, because it would have great mileage, plus great torque (which is what really matters, not horsepower), and would last damn near forever, but the government has created significant barriers to entry, such that Ford, GM, and Dodge, all companies that offer large diesels for their heavy duty trucks, still don't offer one for their light (one ton) pickups. They all had them slated for introduction a few years ago, then the government changed the regs for emissions, and the manufacturers realized that the take rate would be so low that they couldn't justify the price.
Or a marina, but they're usually much more expensive than a traditional gas station. One of the best parts of moving to South Carolina from New Jersey was that I could finally put ethanol-free premium in my Mustang, from the regular old gas station! Sweet!
Actually, there is greater power in ethanol-based fuels, because it has a higher octane rating, which reduces knock/detonation at high levels of compression or advanced timing. That's partially a reason why many race series have moved to E85, as they're able to make more power with smaller engines and better fuel economy (due to the smaller engine sizes). Of course, the other reason is so that they appear 'green' and like they care about the environment. That said, ethanol has lower energy content than straight gasoline, so you get lower mileage on E10 or E85, but if your engine is able to compensate for the higher octane, by advancing timing, you can potentially get quite a bit more power out of it.
That might be the case, but most people do not differentiate, they lump all of us into the same bucket, and scream in an apoplectic fit that we're in the pocket of the oil companies, and we don't care, and we want babies to die because of increasing heat, drought, famine, rising sea levels, etc. I'm not the OP, but as someone who is far from convinced, I deal with people all the time that think I'm somehow less educated than them (I have a ME in engineering) or somehow more ignorant than them (I'm a very open minded person that will change my mind based on empirical evidence and a strong argument) simply because I don't believe that man is capable of increasing temperature, thus influencing something as complex as the weather, worldwide.
When ammonia is burned, the products are nitrogen and water vapor, so that negates the smell, and it's just as clean as burning hydrogen. As for fueling, if you created a sealed filler nozzle, similar to what's used for liquid propane vehicles, you wouldn't smell anything!
It's actually cheaper, where I am, to get E10, rather than E0, which sucks, but I'll pay the premium. I have a tuned Mustang GT, and it just runs completely differently (and amazingly) on ethanol-free 93 octane dino juice, rather than the E10 that they sell at the majority of the stations around here. Even though it's currently $3.79/gallon for 93-octane E10, and $3.99/gallon for 93-octane E0, I also get about 2-3 MPG better mileage on the ethanol-free gas, so I make out in the end.
Besides, the ethanol is hell on engine seals and carburetors, so if you've got a boat or a small engine, using the E0 is much better, long run.
It's a double-edged sword...we need the Boomers to retire to open up the senior level positions that we all want, but at the same time, as they retire, a huge number of people will leave the group that currently pays Social Security and Medicare. This basically means that there will be less of us supporting more of them. I recall that when Social Security and all these other safety nets were proposed, it was designed to have three workers supporting one retiree. Now, with medical expenses ballooning, it's more like one to one. At a certain point in time (soon) the situation is going to collapse, and it won't be pretty.
The NATO Classification Guide is used to define data classification. Secret might mean one thing to the common man, but in regards to basically everything government and military related, it has a completely different meaning, and is a method for isolating certain data/information from other data, as well as preventing the unauthorized release of said data.
I'm not sure if I'm reading things right, or not, but when they refer to 35 infected systems in Russia, is that 35 networks? 35 companies? 35 government offices? 35 computers?
The way I read it, it's 35 computers, and if so, this is NOT a large, or even a medium sized attack, this is a couple of pissants who figured out an exploit, and it just happened to show up in a few random computers. But I could be wrong. It's happened before.
Yes, but satellites with polar orbits are still typically launched from lower latitudes and then use a transfer orbit to reach their intended final orbit. I could do the math and find out the required Delta-V for the various types of launches, but my son has a doctor's appointment soon...
And for that launch, the NRO considered the results to be a success, as they were able to work with the final orbits of the two satellites.
Colorado is too far north to take advantage of the low latitude that gives rockets a greater velocity. You wouldn't want to launch from that far north, unless you had no other option.
I echo this sentiment. I've been to WSMR (White Sands Missile Range) for work, and it's deserted (no pun intended). There's nothing of consequence for like 50 miles!
Not likely. While the bubbles do have an internal structure to them, it's not rigid, and only designed to provide a small amount of additional strength. They're really held up by internal air pressure, and it's likely that the bubble was punctured by debris, thus letting the pressure escape and collapsing the bubble. The only way that guy wires would have helped is if the enclosure was a tent, rather than a bubble. If it was a tent, the fabric would be secured to structural elements, most likely aluminum or steel poles. Of course, given the severity of the winds, it's likely that the poles would have bent or broken, which would have been much more catastrophic for Enterprise, as it would probably have punctured the skin of the craft and damaged it in multiple locations.