It appears you've never landed an aircraft. You did mention ome of three major challenges, though.
> The reason that a carrier landing is harder
There are at least three reasons that a carrier landing is harder .
1. The runway has been relocated, so you have no approach landmarks. The first thing is that you actually start lining up for landing many miles from where you intend to touch down. To land in Baltimore, you might learn that you need take a right at Atlantic City, NJ. With a carrier, your turns and altitude changes are never in the same place. This one doesn't apply so much to the rocket.
2. Wave motion (AGL keeps moving). The magic to a smooth landing is to make it so that you reach EXACTLY zero altitude at precisely the same moment when your forward motion puts you at the beginning of the runway, at the same instant that your lateral adjustment, with wind, puts you in the middle of the runway, while at the same instant you have ceased lateral motion against the wind and brought the yaw exactly parallel to the runway, at the same time roll goes to zero, while maintaining proper flare (pitch). In other words, the craft is moving in six dimensions* and you try to hit just the right mark in all six dimensions at precisely the same time. It's awfully tough to hit zero AGL at exactly the right time when the ground is moving up towards you, then down away from you. Too difficult for me to try in real life. SpaceX has had much trouble with this. They had the rocket perfectly vertical, and they were able to reach 0 AGL, but they couldn't do both at the same time - touch down while the vehicle was vertical. It's much easier to do that of zero AGL remains constant, rather than having the ocean move the barge up and down.
3. The landing area is much smaller. Factors 1 and 2 can easily cause the landing to occur 40 feet to far to the right, or 400 feet to far down the runway. An ocean-going landing area isn't big enough to allow any margin of error.
> The reason that a carrier landing is harder is because the runway is shorter. With a vertical landing vehicle, it's a non-issue.
The best way to really understand this is to try landing a model helicopter smoothly. Not a drone that flies itself when you let go of the stick, but an old-fashioned model heli. If you can't try that, imagine a perfect, frictionless air-hockey table - the puck glides absolutely perfectly across the table. The lightest feather touch will send it to the other side of the table because there is no friction. That's hover - there is no friction keeping you in the same spot over the ground. Your job is to position the puck at an exact spot on the table and keep in there by tossing pebbles at it.
With airplanes, a carrier landing is quite a bit more difficult than landing on land. You can land with a stuck rudder OR with a stuck elevator OR you can land on an aircraft carrier. I wouldn't want to try to land on an aircraft carrier with a stuck rudder.
I don't know the details of the SpaceX controls, but I suppose it's possible that a glitch like a stuck valve would be easier to work around with a larger landing zone, and one that's not moving. In theory, with the stuck valve they might have had the option of manipulating the controls differently to land 300 yards away and upright.
> also, subs/ships are not weightless, as they aren't floating in the air, they are floating in the water which means their weight
Ships can be in air, salt water, fresh water, oil, mercury, or ky jelly. They'll float in most of those materials. That simply does not change their height, volume, density, or weight.
I understand you are if the opinion that weight -should- be relative to an equal volume of air at some unknown pressure, temperature, and humidity. However, the international scientific community didn't ask your opinion before they defined the gram. Maybe they SHOULD have asked your opinion, but they didn't. 1 gram weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity. Neither your opinion nor mine matters, a gram is what it is, whether you like it or not.
That's an interesting definition. Here's the definition in the law, of what the FAA may not regulate:
A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition
The official definition of weight is that it excludes buoyancy- the weight of an object does not change when the tide comes in. So while weight and mass are slightly different concepts, they are defined such that on earth at msl, an object of 1 gram mass is also 1 gram weight. Obviously on the moon the weight would be lower.
Done making up your own "facts" yet? This may surprise you, but there other people than you. Weight was actually defined before you were even born. We don't need you to define it. You're not running the FAA either, so it's not necessary for you to make the rules. If you have an interest, you can READ what the rules actually are.
Ships and subs float in water, airships float in air, what is your point? Specifically, the float if the air / water they displace WEIGHS less than they do.
You can have your own personal definition of weight if you want, but the rest of us refer to the international standards.
> because 403 is relaying constraints affected upon the target site path from the -browsers configuration-
Are you thinking of 406, which indicates the client (browser) configuration wouldn't accept the response?
403 is access denied for -any- reason other than authentication failure. It could be the resource is only available 9:00 - 5:00 (business hours), it could be restricted by IP address, it could be available only to the 93rd caller. The server explicitly is not required to indicate why access has denied; meaning you don't know if changing the browser configuration would have any effect or not.
> you're making a bet on how the shares will perform in the market
Again, that's true only for newer companies, called "growth stocks". With these new companies, you are expecting that they'll grow larger and therefore be worth more. That's not most companies. Most publicly held companies are mature companies which are no longer growing quickly. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Texaco, General Motors, Boeing, etc aren't growing quickly, so owners (shareholders) aren't expecting that. Rather, shareholders get paid cash dividends every quarter, sharing in company's profit. These mature companies are steady sources of income. That's boring compared to "the hottest new company", so you don't hear about them as much, but most public companies aren't new. Most are boring old dividend producers. Investors are interested in the cash dividends, not growth of the company and therefore the stock price. Again, dividends are simply cash paid to stockholders, the profits are DIVIDED among the owners (stockholders). That's how money is made with most stocks (companies).
> you are not investing into the business the company is doing. > You are making a bet on how the shares will perform on the stock market.
Guess what causes the value of a growth stock to increase? When the company's business increases, of course! Obviously you don't think that people are willing to pay more for a piece when a company is doing WORSE. Of course it's when the company's business is doing WELL that people want to own that company and therefore the stock price increases. Expecting that the company will grow, and the value of the stock will go up, IS expecting that the business will do well. It's two ways of saying the same thing, my friend.
But again, that's only growth stocks where investors are mainly focused on stock price, which is the minority of companies. Most companies are producing profits (dividends) , not growth. In this more common case, you're simply investing in companies which you believe will continue to make money. When the company makes money, the send some of that money to each shareholder.
I'm being a bit dogged in explaining this because it's -important- to understand. This kind of knowledge how you end up owning your house rather than paying rent to someone who does know. The difference between -complaining- about "the man" doing well vs doing well yourself, watching your own Scottrade account grow from $250 to $5,000, then $10,000, then $20,000, buying a house with that, and eventually retiring with a million plus. A lot of people almost don't want to understand finances for a couple of reasons. There are a lot of scary terms they don't understand, like "rolling equity", and they end up choosing to be angry that "the man" is doing well rather than doing wel themselves. Your landlord is a dude just like you, possibly a bit of a nerd. He or she just did two things - spent a few hours learning some basics about finances, and put some money into savings each month BEFORE buying anything with his paycheck. MOST millionaires made less than $100,000/year and they aren't Wall Street finance majors. They did very simple things, which are low risk, like starting with $250 invested in an index mutual fund via Scottrade or eTrade. It doesn't have to be complicated. For low risk, you want an index fund with fees below 0.5%, like IVE. When you buy IVE, you're buying perhaps a hundred companies which are fairly steady, not exciting growth companies, but mature companies which will pay you dividends.
The official standard defines weight as exclusive of buoyancy. Weight is the mass of the object multiplied by the local gravity divided by standard gravity. In other words, on earth at mean see level, the weight is equal to the mass.
If buoyancy were included, ships and submarines would be weightless. As it is defined, ships weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Here are some basic points so you can start to get some idea of how stocks actually work. Feel free to ignore reality of you'd rather play make-believe with that Occupy guy you heard, who has never owned a stock or any other investment and has no idea what he's talking about.
Stock is ownership of a company. If you buy some shares of IBM or Texaco, you become an owner of those companies. It allows anyone, you or me, to own a big company through cooperative ownership. When IBM makes money, the owners (shareholders) make money. They are typically paod four times per year. The payments to owners (stock holders) are called dividends because it's the available excess cash DIVIDED between the stock holders.
If you want to share in company profits, you can buy a stock, but there's a better way. If you bought IBM stock, you only make money if IBM makes money. To be fairly sure you'll make money, you can cooperate with other savers to pool your money and get stocks in lots and lots of different companies. That's called a mutual fund. The simplest, safest kind which owns money-making stocks like IBM and General Mills is called a "value index fund".
Besides value stocks, the other kind is called a growth stock. These are less mature companies which are still growing quickly. They don't have excess cash to pay owners with because they're using their cash to build fiber networks, new factories, or whatever they need to grow. Whenever they need more money in order to grow more, they can issue more stock. Savers buy the new stock and the company then has money to build the new facility. Because immature (growth) companies don't have extra cash, but are getting more valuable, indeed you -could- later sell your stock and it should be more valuable. Or by the time you retire, the company may have matured, stopped growing quickly and started paying dividends. I say "by the time you retire" because that's the #1 use of stocks- investing in becoming an owner now (stocks) is how you avoid having to work for those companies when you're 80. Three groups of people get paid - employees, owners, and politicians. Becoming an owner, $250 at a time, is how you eventually stop being an employee.
Referring back to what you said and applying some new knowledge, we see there are basically two kinds of stocks. With mature companies, the company pays the stockholder. With growth companies, the company gets money from selling stocks as needed, while stockholders become owners of a growing company.
PS: Yes you -can- trade pork bellies, bushels of wheat, barrels of oil, or stocks. That can make sense for companies who need to know how much wheat will cost them, but trading isn't the main point of these things. Pork and wheat are to eat, oil provides power (including gas), and stocks let anyone with $250 become a business owner if they choose to.
The way a wing works is that the (flat) underside of the wing has higher air pressure than the curved top side. The total lift is the pressure difference (in psi) times the area of wing underside, in square inches. Pressure multiplied by wing AREA, not wing VOLUME.
The full-size wing will be 10x as long, with 10x the chord, and the same curve, so it could be 100x the weight.
Yes, it's also 10x as tall, but what matters for wings is the shape, the ratio of height to chord. A 1/10th model has 1/100th surface area so at the same shape it can support roughly 1/100th the weight.
That's actually a valid and important point. Flash files are executable code. How many dozens of significant vulnerabilities have been caused Outlook running macros, Flash, Javascript, and other types of executables embedded in emails? Outlook has at least three or four programming languages it can run from emails.
That's entirely unnecessary. Many people, including myself, have always used email clients that just read email - they don't, and can't, execute anything. If security is important to you, it makes sense to consider whether your email reader really needs to be able run code found within emails, whether your web browser needs to also be your desktop shell, as "a fundamental part of the Windows operating system", etc. There many are huge classes of vulnerabilities that can't happen if you choose software that simply does it's job, without hundreds of tangential features bolted on unnecessarily.
Indeed, I wouldn't have voted for CISA, threat information is -already- shared without the immunity of CISA, so it's not needed. But it's also not that bad, if implemented as written. There are a few major companies that provide security services to other companies. Each has thousands of clients, and they already pool the relevant data to see trends.
Although the new law probably is not required, it also doesn't actually much more than what already happens, and should be happening. It's not that bad, assuming the feds don't stretch the meaning of the words beyond what it's trying to say. The wording could certainly be improved to a) limit the information shared with the government specifically (the security companies aren't interested in your personal identity, political beliefs, etc. The IRS clearly is.) Also b) be very clear it doesn't cover any use of the information for marketing or other purposes. The security people are interested in one thing, keeping users safe. We're not looking to see who bought sex toys, we're wanting to ensure that whatever is purchased with your credit card is actually purchased by the cardholder, not by a Russian carding ring.
Try using a NiCad again and you'll see what's happened with these great new battery technologies. I still have some NiCad laying around because not long ago that was the option for an affordable battery. Then nickel metal hydride came out, which was much better. Lithium ion was even better. Then lithium polymer, which was much and continues to improve.
See also lead acid, nickel acid, and half a dozen other chemistries that have been used commercially in the last 20 years. Batteries have come a long way since the Gameboy.
Rightscorp does a 50/50 split with their clients. They've often been accused of being overzealous in their attempts to collect. On the other hand, they ask for a settlement of $10-$20, which is quite reasonable if the person was in fact unlawfully copying the work.
First, F you for making me defend BOA in order to state the truth. They are assholes. Credit unions are much better.
I really don't like pointing out that:
No regulation required that they not process transactions in whatever order they chose. BOA changed to a more fair process without being forced to.
IF they hadn't changed chosen to change that themselves, it is likely that there WOULD have been regulation requiring a change. But in fact they changed it without any regulation requiring them to do so. I think later on in some states at least a regulation was passed.
PS: BOA does suck. Credit unions, which are owned by their customers, are much better.
There is an important point that requires interpretation. The question is, "are complaints which Rightscorp buried in a ton pf BS emails proper complaints under the DMCA?"
The most relevant law is the DMCA, which sets out procedures that should be followed in these instances. Unfortunately, most private individuals and many small businesses don't know how the procedure works. That's unfortunate because when everyone involved knows what they are supposed to do under DMCA, it generally works better than what happened before the DMCA. Here's the procedure :
The copyright owner files a complaint which includes certain specific facts. The ISP forwards the complaint to the accused. If the accused doesn't respond immediately the ISP takes temporary action based on the complaint (the accused hasn't denied the complaint) . The accused may file a counter-claim with the ISP and have the action reversed. The complainant (copyright holder) may then file suit in federal court.
The process is far from perfect, but one good thing is that the ISP isn't put into the role of judge. The ISP never decides who is right or wrong, if you say you're not infringing, they basically take you at your word. (And if the accused doesn't deny it, they have to aft as if the complaint is true.) The ISP only has to follow the process laid out in the law, and they can't be held liable. If they choose NOT to follow the DMCA process, they can be liable to either the copyright owner or the accused.
So that's the law. Rightscorp did file complaints. Therefore, by a strict reading of the law, the ISP must take appropriate action unless the other party denies the claim.
HOWEVER, Rightscorp sent a shit-ton of very questionable emails to the ISP, many of which did not meet the requirements to be a proper complaint under DMCA. The ISP's argument is as follows: Rightscorp flooded us with bullshit emails. Because Rightscorp did so, the ISP couldn't reasonably read them all and determine which ones were actual DMCA complaints containing the required details. Because Rightscorp made it so difficult to dig through and find the properly formed complaints, the court should not require the ISP to respond to them. Instead, the court should act as if Rightscorp never sent those complaints.
The ISP's reasoning is to some extent logical and fair. Rightscorp made it nearly impossible to respond to them all, then complained to the court about the results of their own actions.
On the other hand, Rightscorp did send some proper complaints, and Cox ignored those complaints. That makes Cox liable* if you just read the law while ignoring the BS that Rightscorp pulled.
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this: Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
* Apart from the issue above, Cox also asserts that Rightscorp is misreading the law. The law seems to have somewhat different requirements for ISPs which only -carry- the data temporarily through their network vs those which provide web hosting or similar services involving storage of the material. The language of the law isn't entirely crystal clear on which requirements apply to which type of service. Cox asserts that Rightscorp is trying to apply the requirements of ISPs who -host- web sites to them, while they only -carry- the traffic. It's not crystal clear - Cox may very well be right. Because the wording and structure of the law isn't crystal clear, a court must interpret the ambiguous structure to determine what it's supposed to mean.
> there's not enough regulation on banks to protect ordinary people (example: bank of america re-arranging activity in order to charge you the maximum penalty for overdraft
I guess you're glad BOA hasn't done that in years, they process them in timestamp order - because competition.
Bennet misses the point. The provider wishes spend the minimum needed on (bandwidth) infrastructure while keeping customers happy. 70% of customer data is Netflix, so if users agree to use SD Netflix rather than HD it reduces the cost to the provider significantly.
The strategy to entice users to use SD Netflix rather than HD is to offer an exception to monthly bandwidth allotment. Bennet then supposes that the economics are exactly the same for all services, but they aren't. Excluding Netflix from the allotment (in exchange for SD) REDUCES the amount of bandwidth customers use for Netflix; giving users an exception for blah.com would mean customers would use blah.com MORE often - exactly the opposite of the goal.
I should clarify transactions between big banks is ONE example. The same toolset can be used for other blockchains, to keep track of whatever you want.
Another example might be medical residencies. All of the hospitals want the top graduates. The top graduates won't accept a residency at a crappy hospital, and a top hospital like Mayo clinic won't accept a graduate with a low GPA. It gets complicated. Kind of like the NFL draft except with a lot more people, and graduates (theoretically) have more choice than NFL draftees. The medical schools and hospitals could use a blockchain to keep track of which hospitals get which graduates.
This isn't a cryptocurrency. It's a securely signed ledger for the transactions the banks are already doing. Many times each day, Wells Fargo sends money to Bank of America, BOA borrows from Chase, Chase pays back a loan from Barclays, Barclays pays Wells Fargo (completing the circle) , etc. There's a lot of paper work, computer processing, and transaction costs and delays in moving that money around the circle. A block chain might, in some cases, might be a more efficient or effective way to record some of those transactions rather than the current computer system.
> people don't want banks in control of money
The line at the bank, the people standing there waiting to hand their money to the bank, suggests otherwise. Regardless, this article is about the banks using a blockchain to record transactions among themselves . Surely the banks want the banks to be in control of their own monetary transactions.
In 1996 the Republicans gave Clinton line-item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says the president either signs or vetoes the bill, not -part- of the bill. It needs to be done as a constitutional amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears you've never landed an aircraft. You did mention ome of three major challenges, though.
> The reason that a carrier landing is harder
There are at least three reasons that a carrier landing is harder .
1. The runway has been relocated, so you have no approach landmarks. The first thing is that you actually start lining up for landing many miles from where you intend to touch down. To land in Baltimore, you might learn that you need take a right at Atlantic City, NJ. With a carrier, your turns and altitude changes are never in the same place. This one doesn't apply so much to the rocket.
2. Wave motion (AGL keeps moving). The magic to a smooth landing is to make it so that you reach EXACTLY zero altitude at precisely the same moment when your forward motion puts you at the beginning of the runway, at the same instant that your lateral adjustment, with wind, puts you in the middle of the runway, while at the same instant you have ceased lateral motion against the wind and brought the yaw exactly parallel to the runway, at the same time roll goes to zero, while maintaining proper flare (pitch). In other words, the craft is moving in six dimensions* and you try to hit just the right mark in all six dimensions at precisely the same time. It's awfully tough to hit zero AGL at exactly the right time when the ground is moving up towards you, then down away from you. Too difficult for me to try in real life. SpaceX has had much trouble with this. They had the rocket perfectly vertical, and they were able to reach 0 AGL, but they couldn't do both at the same time - touch down while the vehicle was vertical. It's much easier to do that of zero AGL remains constant, rather than having the ocean move the barge up and down.
3. The landing area is much smaller. Factors 1 and 2 can easily cause the landing to occur 40 feet to far to the right, or 400 feet to far down the runway. An ocean-going landing area isn't big enough to allow any margin of error.
> The reason that a carrier landing is harder is because the runway is shorter. With a vertical landing vehicle, it's a non-issue.
The best way to really understand this is to try landing a model helicopter smoothly. Not a drone that flies itself when you let go of the stick, but an old-fashioned model heli. If you can't try that, imagine a perfect, frictionless air-hockey table - the puck glides absolutely perfectly across the table. The lightest feather touch will send it to the other side of the table because there is no friction. That's hover - there is no friction keeping you in the same spot over the ground. Your job is to position the puck at an exact spot on the table and keep in there by tossing pebbles at it.
With airplanes, a carrier landing is quite a bit more difficult than landing on land. You can land with a stuck rudder OR with a stuck elevator OR you can land on an aircraft carrier. I wouldn't want to try to land on an aircraft carrier with a stuck rudder.
I don't know the details of the SpaceX controls, but I suppose it's possible that a glitch like a stuck valve would be easier to work around with a larger landing zone, and one that's not moving. In theory, with the stuck valve they might have had the option of manipulating the controls differently to land 300 yards away and upright.
> also, subs/ships are not weightless, as they aren't floating in the air, they are floating in the water which means their weight
Ships can be in air, salt water, fresh water, oil, mercury, or ky jelly. They'll float in most of those materials. That simply does not change their height, volume, density, or weight.
I understand you are if the opinion that weight -should- be relative to an equal volume of air at some unknown pressure, temperature, and humidity. However, the international scientific community didn't ask your opinion before they defined the gram. Maybe they SHOULD have asked your opinion, but they didn't. 1 gram weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity. Neither your opinion nor mine matters, a gram is what it is, whether you like it or not.
That's an interesting definition. Here's the definition in the law, of what the FAA may not regulate:
A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition
The official definition of weight is that it excludes buoyancy- the weight of an object does not change when the tide comes in. So while weight and mass are slightly different concepts, they are defined such that on earth at msl, an object of 1 gram mass is also 1 gram weight. Obviously on the moon the weight would be lower.
> FAA only cares about >500ft above the ground/water
https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Done making up your own "facts" yet? This may surprise you, but there other people than you. Weight was actually defined before you were even born. We don't need you to define it. You're not running the FAA either, so it's not necessary for you to make the rules. If you have an interest, you can READ what the rules actually are.
The word "less" in the above post should obviously be replaced with "more".
Ships and subs float in water, airships float in air, what is your point? Specifically, the float if the air / water they displace WEIGHS less than they do.
You can have your own personal definition of weight if you want, but the rest of us refer to the international standards.
> because 403 is relaying constraints affected upon the target site path from the -browsers configuration-
Are you thinking of 406, which indicates the client (browser) configuration wouldn't accept the response?
403 is access denied for -any- reason other than authentication failure. It could be the resource is only available 9:00 - 5:00 (business hours), it could be restricted by IP address, it could be available only to the 93rd caller. The server explicitly is not required to indicate why access has denied; meaning you don't know if changing the browser configuration would have any effect or not.
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rf...
> you're making a bet on how the shares will perform in the market
Again, that's true only for newer companies, called "growth stocks". With these new companies, you are expecting that they'll grow larger and therefore be worth more. That's not most companies. Most publicly held companies are mature companies which are no longer growing quickly. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Texaco, General Motors, Boeing, etc aren't growing quickly, so owners (shareholders) aren't expecting that. Rather, shareholders get paid cash dividends every quarter, sharing in company's profit. These mature companies are steady sources of income. That's boring compared to "the hottest new company", so you don't hear about them as much, but most public companies aren't new. Most are boring old dividend producers. Investors are interested in the cash dividends, not growth of the company and therefore the stock price. Again, dividends are simply cash paid to stockholders, the profits are DIVIDED among the owners (stockholders). That's how money is made with most stocks (companies).
> you are not investing into the business the company is doing.
> You are making a bet on how the shares will perform on the stock market.
Guess what causes the value of a growth stock to increase? When the company's business increases, of course! Obviously you don't think that people are willing to pay more for a piece when a company is doing WORSE. Of course it's when the company's business is doing WELL that people want to own that company and therefore the stock price increases. Expecting that the company will grow, and the value of the stock will go up, IS expecting that the business will do well. It's two ways of saying the same thing, my friend.
But again, that's only growth stocks where investors are mainly focused on stock price, which is the minority of companies. Most companies are producing profits (dividends) , not growth. In this more common case, you're simply investing in companies which you believe will continue to make money. When the company makes money, the send some of that money to each shareholder.
I'm being a bit dogged in explaining this because it's -important- to understand. This kind of knowledge how you end up owning your house rather than paying rent to someone who does know. The difference between -complaining- about "the man" doing well vs doing well yourself, watching your own Scottrade account grow from $250 to $5,000, then $10,000, then $20,000, buying a house with that, and eventually retiring with a million plus.
A lot of people almost don't want to understand finances for a couple of reasons. There are a lot of scary terms they don't understand, like "rolling equity", and they end up choosing to be angry that "the man" is doing well rather than doing wel themselves. Your landlord is a dude just like you, possibly a bit of a nerd. He or she just did two things - spent a few hours learning some basics about finances, and put some money into savings each month BEFORE buying anything with his paycheck. MOST millionaires made less than $100,000/year and they aren't Wall Street finance majors. They did very simple things, which are low risk, like starting with $250 invested in an index mutual fund via Scottrade or eTrade. It doesn't have to be complicated. For low risk, you want an index fund with fees below 0.5%, like IVE. When you buy IVE, you're buying perhaps a hundred companies which are fairly steady, not exciting growth companies, but mature companies which will pay you dividends.
The official standard defines weight as exclusive of buoyancy. Weight is the mass of the object multiplied by the local gravity divided by standard gravity. In other words, on earth at mean see level, the weight is equal to the mass.
If buoyancy were included, ships and submarines would be weightless. As it is defined, ships weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Here are some basic points so you can start to get some idea of how stocks actually work. Feel free to ignore reality of you'd rather play make-believe with that Occupy guy you heard, who has never owned a stock or any other investment and has no idea what he's talking about.
Stock is ownership of a company. If you buy some shares of IBM or Texaco, you become an owner of those companies. It allows anyone, you or me, to own a big company through cooperative ownership. When IBM makes money, the owners (shareholders) make money. They are typically paod four times per year. The payments to owners (stock holders) are called dividends because it's the available excess cash DIVIDED between the stock holders.
If you want to share in company profits, you can buy a stock, but there's a better way. If you bought IBM stock, you only make money if IBM makes money. To be fairly sure you'll make money, you can cooperate with other savers to pool your money and get stocks in lots and lots of different companies. That's called a mutual fund. The simplest, safest kind which owns money-making stocks like IBM and General Mills is called a "value index fund".
Besides value stocks, the other kind is called a growth stock. These are less mature companies which are still growing quickly. They don't have excess cash to pay owners with because they're using their cash to build fiber networks, new factories, or whatever they need to grow. Whenever they need more money in order to grow more, they can issue more stock. Savers buy the new stock and the company then has money to build the new facility. Because immature (growth) companies don't have extra cash, but are getting more valuable, indeed you -could- later sell your stock and it should be more valuable. Or by the time you retire, the company may have matured, stopped growing quickly and started paying dividends. I say "by the time you retire" because that's the #1 use of stocks- investing in becoming an owner now (stocks) is how you avoid having to work for those companies when you're 80. Three groups of people get paid - employees, owners, and politicians. Becoming an owner, $250 at a time, is how you eventually stop being an employee.
Referring back to what you said and applying some new knowledge, we see there are basically two kinds of stocks. With mature companies, the company pays the stockholder. With growth companies, the company gets money from selling stocks as needed, while stockholders become owners of a growing company.
PS: Yes you -can- trade pork bellies, bushels of wheat, barrels of oil, or stocks. That can make sense for companies who need to know how much wheat will cost them, but trading isn't the main point of these things. Pork and wheat are to eat, oil provides power (including gas), and stocks let anyone with $250 become a business owner if they choose to.
The way a wing works is that the (flat) underside of the wing has higher air pressure than the curved top side. The total lift is the pressure difference (in psi) times the area of wing underside, in square inches. Pressure multiplied by wing AREA, not wing VOLUME.
The full-size wing will be 10x as long, with 10x the chord, and the same curve, so it could be 100x the weight.
Yes, it's also 10x as tall, but what matters for wings is the shape, the ratio of height to chord. A 1/10th model has 1/100th surface area so at the same shape it can support roughly 1/100th the weight.
That's actually a valid and important point. Flash files are executable code. How many dozens of significant vulnerabilities have been caused Outlook running macros, Flash, Javascript, and other types of executables embedded in emails? Outlook has at least three or four programming languages it can run from emails.
That's entirely unnecessary. Many people, including myself, have always used email clients that just read email - they don't, and can't, execute anything. If security is important to you, it makes sense to consider whether your email reader really needs to be able run code found within emails, whether your web browser needs to also be your desktop shell, as "a fundamental part of the Windows operating system", etc. There many are huge classes of vulnerabilities that can't happen if you choose software that simply does it's job, without hundreds of tangential features bolted on unnecessarily.
Indeed, I wouldn't have voted for CISA, threat information is -already- shared without the immunity of CISA, so it's not needed. But it's also not that bad, if implemented as written. There are a few major companies that provide security services to other companies. Each has thousands of clients, and they already pool the relevant data to see trends.
Although the new law probably is not required, it also doesn't actually much more than what already happens, and should be happening. It's not that bad, assuming the feds don't stretch the meaning of the words beyond what it's trying to say. The wording could certainly be improved to a) limit the information shared with the government specifically (the security companies aren't interested in your personal identity, political beliefs, etc. The IRS clearly is.) Also b) be very clear it doesn't cover any use of the information for marketing or other purposes. The security people are interested in one thing, keeping users safe. We're not looking to see who bought sex toys, we're wanting to ensure that whatever is purchased with your credit card is actually purchased by the cardholder, not by a Russian carding ring.
Try using a NiCad again and you'll see what's happened with these great new battery technologies. I still have some NiCad laying around because not long ago that was the option for an affordable battery. Then nickel metal hydride came out, which was much better. Lithium ion was even better. Then lithium polymer, which was much and continues to improve.
See also lead acid, nickel acid, and half a dozen other chemistries that have been used commercially in the last 20 years. Batteries have come a long way since the Gameboy.
Rightscorp does a 50/50 split with their clients. They've often been accused of being overzealous in their attempts to collect. On the other hand, they ask for a settlement of $10-$20, which is quite reasonable if the person was in fact unlawfully copying the work.
First, F you for making me defend BOA in order to state the truth. They are assholes. Credit unions are much better.
I really don't like pointing out that:
No regulation required that they not process transactions in whatever order they chose. BOA changed to a more fair process without being forced to.
IF they hadn't changed chosen to change that themselves, it is likely that there WOULD have been regulation requiring a change. But in fact they changed it without any regulation requiring them to do so. I think later on in some states at least a regulation was passed.
PS: BOA does suck. Credit unions, which are owned by their customers, are much better.
There is an important point that requires interpretation. The question is, "are complaints which Rightscorp buried in a ton pf BS emails proper complaints under the DMCA?"
The most relevant law is the DMCA, which sets out procedures that should be followed in these instances. Unfortunately, most private individuals and many small businesses don't know how the procedure works. That's unfortunate because when everyone involved knows what they are supposed to do under DMCA, it generally works better than what happened before the DMCA. Here's the procedure :
The copyright owner files a complaint which includes certain specific facts.
The ISP forwards the complaint to the accused.
If the accused doesn't respond immediately the ISP takes temporary action based on the complaint (the accused hasn't denied the complaint) .
The accused may file a counter-claim with the ISP and have the action reversed.
The complainant (copyright holder) may then file suit in federal court.
The process is far from perfect, but one good thing is that the ISP isn't put into the role of judge. The ISP never decides who is right or wrong, if you say you're not infringing, they basically take you at your word. (And if the accused doesn't deny it, they have to aft as if the complaint is true.) The ISP only has to follow the process laid out in the law, and they can't be held liable. If they choose NOT to follow the DMCA process, they can be liable to either the copyright owner or the accused.
So that's the law. Rightscorp did file complaints. Therefore, by a strict reading of the law, the ISP must take appropriate action unless the other party denies the claim.
HOWEVER, Rightscorp sent a shit-ton of very questionable emails to the ISP, many of which did not meet the requirements to be a proper complaint under DMCA. The ISP's argument is as follows:
Rightscorp flooded us with bullshit emails.
Because Rightscorp did so, the ISP couldn't reasonably read them all and determine which ones were actual DMCA complaints containing the required details.
Because Rightscorp made it so difficult to dig through and find the properly formed complaints, the court should not require the ISP to respond to them.
Instead, the court should act as if Rightscorp never sent those complaints.
The ISP's reasoning is to some extent logical and fair. Rightscorp made it nearly impossible to respond to them all, then complained to the court about the results of their own actions.
On the other hand, Rightscorp did send some proper complaints, and Cox ignored those complaints. That makes Cox liable* if you just read the law while ignoring the BS that Rightscorp pulled.
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this:
Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
* Apart from the issue above, Cox also asserts that Rightscorp is misreading the law. The law seems to have somewhat different requirements for ISPs which only -carry- the data temporarily through their network vs those which provide web hosting or similar services involving storage of the material. The language of the law isn't entirely crystal clear on which requirements apply to which type of service. Cox asserts that Rightscorp is trying to apply the requirements of ISPs who -host- web sites to them, while they only -carry- the traffic. It's not crystal clear - Cox may very well be right. Because the wording and structure of the law isn't crystal clear, a court must interpret the ambiguous structure to determine what it's supposed to mean.
> there's not enough regulation on banks to protect ordinary people (example: bank of america re-arranging activity in order to charge you the maximum penalty for overdraft
I guess you're glad BOA hasn't done that in years, they process them in timestamp order - because competition.
Bennet misses the point. The provider wishes spend the minimum needed on (bandwidth) infrastructure while keeping customers happy. 70% of customer data is Netflix, so if users agree to use SD Netflix rather than HD it reduces the cost to the provider significantly.
The strategy to entice users to use SD Netflix rather than HD is to offer an exception to monthly bandwidth allotment. Bennet then supposes that the economics are exactly the same for all services, but they aren't. Excluding Netflix from the allotment (in exchange for SD) REDUCES the amount of bandwidth customers use for Netflix; giving users an exception for blah.com would mean customers would use blah.com MORE often - exactly the opposite of the goal.
I should clarify transactions between big banks is ONE example. The same toolset can be used for other blockchains, to keep track of whatever you want.
Another example might be medical residencies. All of the hospitals want the top graduates. The top graduates won't accept a residency at a crappy hospital, and a top hospital like Mayo clinic won't accept a graduate with a low GPA. It gets complicated. Kind of like the NFL draft except with a lot more people, and graduates (theoretically) have more choice than NFL draftees. The medical schools and hospitals could use a blockchain to keep track of which hospitals get which graduates.
This isn't a cryptocurrency. It's a securely signed ledger for the transactions the banks are already doing. Many times each day, Wells Fargo sends money to Bank of America, BOA borrows from Chase, Chase pays back a loan from Barclays, Barclays pays Wells Fargo (completing the circle) , etc. There's a lot of paper work, computer processing, and transaction costs and delays in moving that money around the circle. A block chain might, in some cases, might be a more efficient or effective way to record some of those transactions rather than the current computer system.
> people don't want banks in control of money
The line at the bank, the people standing there waiting to hand their money to the bank, suggests otherwise. Regardless, this article is about the banks using a blockchain to record transactions among themselves . Surely the banks want the banks to be in control of their own monetary transactions.
41 states have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
43 states allow their governors to veto specific items in bills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 1996 the Republicans gave Clinton line-item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says the president either signs or vetoes the bill, not -part- of the bill. It needs to be done as a constitutional amendment.