So you are saying that I am correct. "It is probably not possible because of laws and regulations which is too bad since it would be more like real venture capital."
Maybe that means that their is room for a new kickstart. You invest and get x amount of the company per dollar. So you put in say $100 into a "Kickstarter" and you get.01% of the company. The venture fails and you get write it off on your taxes. It becomes Facebook and you get to retire.
It is probably not possible because of laws and regulations which is too bad since it would be more like real venture capital.
Both. The for the AEW it was too small for the task using the tech the UK selected. The MRA4 the airframes where not built to a common standard and frankly the engine location made mounting high bypass turbofans impossible. Even the VC-10 would have been a better choice for the AEW but the UK had to keep the Comet line alive for some odd reason. They really blew it by not buying older P-3 Orions and upgrading them. They where a newer design and used by nations around the world. The UK could have made a good bit of money upgrading P3s for other nations. Now they will go with the P-8 just as they went with the E3 for the AEW program.
Ahh the cool kids speaks. Delete it and go your merry way.
BTW popular == relevant. Does not mean great but it does mean that it is relevant to a large number of people. I am not sure that Justin Beber is popular to as large of a segment that buys IOS devices as U2 but if so then yes the majority of people would be happy with it. In other words... You don't like it then delete it.
Only if the change is enough to "throttle down" base load plants. BTW base load plants are not very efficient at partial load. This will probably shift more load to peaking plants. Over all you should see a reduction of fossil fuel use but not one to one relation. Not to mention the environmental impact of this.
Really a free album from a band that everyone has heard of and has had decades of hits? How dare you. It was only the "cool" kids that complained. Most people didn't care or thought it was a good thing.
What killed the ME-109 in the Battle of Britain was lack of range. The need for a defensive fighter for the allies was pretty much done by 1943. Even without the Mustang the US had the P-47 and the P-38 both of which could do escort duty. The problem with 38 where solved with the j model. The UK had a much better aircraft in the Tempest and could have had an even better one if they had developed the Fury. The UK really seems to have an odd obsession with some aircraft and keep them around way longer than the should have. The Spitfire, Meteor, and the Nimrod are three that come to mind while letting other really good aircraft rot away like the Victor and Vulcan.
The BBC says you are wrong. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_... "And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn. "We just sort of gave up around 1932 when the interwar economy was in turmoil, currencies were collapsing," says Prof Harrison."
The military weapons not being effective was part of the political "agenda" of slant of the writer. I really hated the book because it showed just such a lack of effort. For example using C-130s instead of C-17s or C5s because they burned less fuel. Ahhh No. Per ton of cargo a C-17 or C-5 blows a C-130 away. You only use a C-130 if the runway is too short or the load is too small for a larger aircraft. BTW they talked about multiple flights oc C-130s to bring in supplies to cities. They even talked about inflight refueling C-130s which is a huge waste of fuel.
And did I mention that it was dumb that hitting zombie in the head with a crowbar killed them but they could cross the bottom of ocean.
It also shot down more German aircraft than the Spitfire. Frankly the Spitfire is one of those aircraft that was built way too long. After about 1943 it was just not all that useful since it lacked range.
Actually France and the UK both had a better Army and Air Force than Germany in 1938. They were in even better position than in 1936 when the allowed Germany to re occupy the Rhineland. Of course WWII might have been avoided if the UK and France had listened to the US and tried to create a just peace. Instead they threatened to not pay back the loans they took out... BTW France and the UK never did repay the loans for WWI. They thought that the US was being greedy. I guess 116,000 American lives plus the billions the US spent on a war that had nothing to do with the US was not enough.
I never had an issue with Windows 7 on a core 2. But then a core 2 is three generations back I am talking about Sandy-Bridge or higher but even a Core2 is probably going to be just fine. If you are talking about one of the first gen Atoms yea they where terrible but modern ones are pretty good.
You mean you are not disappointed with Prince Charles? What about Prince Andrew? The idea that someone is "better" than I am just because of who their mother and or father goes counter to the idea of a free society IMHO. I of course would show the correct respect if I ever meet with any of them in real life out respect for the citizens of the UK because it would be wrong to do otherwise to just be a jerk.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what is the cost of all the engineering fails after the Tsunami? I suggest starting with the sea wall.
Yeah another win for Coal, Fracked gas, and Climate change.
Shills?
Get a grip Google Sigint, Comint, and reconnaissance aircraft. Yes everyone that is literate knows this.
Really? I felt that Starship Troopers was very close to the book. Which was also terrible.
So you are saying that I am correct.
"It is probably not possible because of laws and regulations which is too bad since it would be more like real venture capital."
Will gather intelligence to the best of it's ability.
Why is this so shocking?
Here you go
http://theaviationist.com/2014...
I would not say it is trivial. Only someone that has never worked on software that must be very reliable would call it trivial.
workable yes.
A fool thinks everything they do not know how to do is trivial.
So would the savings be as great if they just ran the line?
Maybe that means that their is room for a new kickstart. .01% of the company.
You invest and get x amount of the company per dollar.
So you put in say $100 into a "Kickstarter" and you get
The venture fails and you get write it off on your taxes.
It becomes Facebook and you get to retire.
It is probably not possible because of laws and regulations which is too bad since it would be more like real venture capital.
Actually the Tidal area are one of the most productive ecosystems and this looks to have a very large impact on them.
Yeah.... The mythical battery made out of fairy farts and unicorn poop.
Battery tech is limited by chemistry. Until they are in use they are a myth.
Both.
The for the AEW it was too small for the task using the tech the UK selected.
The MRA4 the airframes where not built to a common standard and frankly the engine location made mounting high bypass turbofans impossible.
Even the VC-10 would have been a better choice for the AEW but the UK had to keep the Comet line alive for some odd reason.
They really blew it by not buying older P-3 Orions and upgrading them. They where a newer design and used by nations around the world. The UK could have made a good bit of money upgrading P3s for other nations. Now they will go with the P-8 just as they went with the E3 for the AEW program.
Ahh the cool kids speaks.
Delete it and go your merry way.
BTW popular == relevant. Does not mean great but it does mean that it is relevant to a large number of people.
I am not sure that Justin Beber is popular to as large of a segment that buys IOS devices as U2 but if so then yes the majority of people would be happy with it.
In other words... You don't like it then delete it.
The Nimrod started out to be a fine aircraft for ASW but it is the only Aircraft that I know of that was a program disaster not once but twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Only if the change is enough to "throttle down" base load plants.
BTW base load plants are not very efficient at partial load.
This will probably shift more load to peaking plants. Over all you should see a reduction of fossil fuel use but not one to one relation. Not to mention the environmental impact of this.
Really a free album from a band that everyone has heard of and has had decades of hits?
How dare you.
It was only the "cool" kids that complained. Most people didn't care or thought it was a good thing.
What killed the ME-109 in the Battle of Britain was lack of range. The need for a defensive fighter for the allies was pretty much done by 1943. Even without the Mustang the US had the P-47 and the P-38 both of which could do escort duty. The problem with 38 where solved with the j model. The UK had a much better aircraft in the Tempest and could have had an even better one if they had developed the Fury.
The UK really seems to have an odd obsession with some aircraft and keep them around way longer than the should have. The Spitfire, Meteor, and the Nimrod are three that come to mind while letting other really good aircraft rot away like the Victor and Vulcan.
The BBC says you are wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...
"And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn.
"We just sort of gave up around 1932 when the interwar economy was in turmoil, currencies were collapsing," says Prof Harrison."
Naw we have ISIS or ISIL, Russia, and the French.
We always have the French.
The military weapons not being effective was part of the political "agenda" of slant of the writer. I really hated the book because it showed just such a lack of effort. For example using C-130s instead of C-17s or C5s because they burned less fuel. Ahhh No. Per ton of cargo a C-17 or C-5 blows a C-130 away. You only use a C-130 if the runway is too short or the load is too small for a larger aircraft. BTW they talked about multiple flights oc C-130s to bring in supplies to cities. They even talked about inflight refueling C-130s which is a huge waste of fuel.
And did I mention that it was dumb that hitting zombie in the head with a crowbar killed them but they could cross the bottom of ocean.
It also shot down more German aircraft than the Spitfire.
Frankly the Spitfire is one of those aircraft that was built way too long. After about 1943 it was just not all that useful since it lacked range.
Actually France and the UK both had a better Army and Air Force than Germany in 1938. They were in even better position than in 1936 when the allowed Germany to re occupy the Rhineland. Of course WWII might have been avoided if the UK and France had listened to the US and tried to create a just peace. Instead they threatened to not pay back the loans they took out...
BTW France and the UK never did repay the loans for WWI. They thought that the US was being greedy. I guess 116,000 American lives plus the billions the US spent on a war that had nothing to do with the US was not enough.
USB serial port plus Zmodem and your good to go.
I don't see the big issue.
I never had an issue with Windows 7 on a core 2.
But then a core 2 is three generations back I am talking about Sandy-Bridge or higher but even a Core2 is probably going to be just fine.
If you are talking about one of the first gen Atoms yea they where terrible but modern ones are pretty good.
You mean you are not disappointed with Prince Charles? What about Prince Andrew?
The idea that someone is "better" than I am just because of who their mother and or father goes counter to the idea of a free society IMHO.
I of course would show the correct respect if I ever meet with any of them in real life out respect for the citizens of the UK because it would be wrong to do otherwise to just be a jerk.