However I think the parent meant was if it was in orbit, and it had a few trillion $ worth of diamonds and helium 3, suddenly the cost of putting rockets up is just part of a business expense for our shiny new asteroid mining colony.
And if pigs had wings - suddenly there would be a demand for umbrellas to protect us from the pigshit.
Sure, it would be MUCH harder to slow down the asteroid and get it to play nicely in orbit around us. [...] I know it might as well be impossible with current tech (maybe slap a nice solar sail parachute on its butt and a rocket on the front end??? way to simple to work me thinks)
That's the thing - we'd have to slow it down (a bunch) in one direction while accelerating it (a bunch) in a different one, the energy levels involved are going to be on the order of 'the entire Earth's current energy output for a decade'.
Because it will take an incredible amount of energy to shift any such asteroid from a solar orbit to an Earth orbit - think tens of orders of magnitude more. (And applied far more precisely than 'get it the [censored] away kick.) We simply don't have the propulsion systems with the energy and precision needed.
It's incredibly expensive to get into space not because resources aren't available, but because we keep doing things the Same Old Way. Having an asteroid in orbit won't fix that.
Don't be too dismissive of geothermal not being 'usable for anything else than house heating'. In a goodly chunk of the US, just replacing househeating means a significant drop in energy consumption. Here in the Puget Sound region I run my heater for all or part of eight of the twelve months of the year in an average year.
On the other hand, the sleep detection system would be a godsend. If the price was right, I would happily get one of those things installed. I don't want it turning off my car in the middle of the highway, but tightening my seatbelt, beeping, or in some way warning me that I look like I am nodding off would be wonderful.
How precisely will that help? I mean really, you don't already know you are driving impaired (too tired)?
If the impairment is bad enough to trip the alarm, then the first stage (driver awareness of the condition) is likely already well past. In that event, an alarm to the driver only serves merely as a signal for him to start covering up that he is impaired.
I've been married 17 years... And our setup is pretty much the same.
But we did buy an 'L' shaped couch for out new house *specifically* so we could stretch out with our heads next to each other.
Re:Tech is really a big marital issue for some?
on
'Til Tech Do Us Part
·
· Score: 1
Sherry and John Cheung created a joint "johnandsherry" email address. Ms. Cheung, 28, says the shared address makes her feel more like she's part of an official couple.
We've set up a mail server with lots of virtual aliases. For a while we had a combined alias, but it started getting spam so we dropped it. We haven't really missed it since. For online accounts (utilities, credit cards, etc.) that we both want to receive the notifications for, it's a trivial matter to have the mail sent to both real email addresses.
My wife and I have seperate email accounts, and always have. Official Notifications come to my account, since I handle the finances. Our friends know that I am the Keeper Of the Social Calendar, so unless it's just for her, most social email comes to me.
Personally, I find too many young couples (like "johnandsherry" above) spend too much time and effort trying fit into the societal norm of 'now you are one' and internal norms like 'now that we are married we must share everything'. The result is that too many marriages end up like the core of an atomic bomb... all it takes is a little of pressure and *BOOM*.
There are many things we share. [....] if you can't trust, or play nice with your spouse then you have more important issues.
On that one, I'm going to toss the bullshit flag. While my wife and I share a checking account, our computers are completely separate. (Along with seperate email, Amazon, eBay etc... accounts. Though each of our passwords are stored along with our wills.)
It's not just about trust - it's about space. Each and every marriage is a unique blend of those (among many other) attributes. Pretending that there is a single 'one size fits all' solution for all couples for all time is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
Let me start by saying that I've been happily married for 7 years now, so I know what I'm talking about:)
When you've been married for 17 years, and have been accused of being newlyweds as recently as June, come talk to me. Until then, get of off my lawn!:)
Maybe we should go back to stone and mortar bridges. Today's bridges in America don't last very long
Maybe you should learn a little bit about bridges - over 80% of the major ones are at least forty years old, and a good number are getting pretty close to the century mark. A handful are well past the century mark.
Equally, there are more than a few stone bridges in Europe that have collapsed (some within decades of construction - at least one in mid construction).
One must ask why with all the advances in science and engineering during the past 5 centuries why we can't build a decent bridge today? Why can't we have a street and bridge meet so the pavement is the same level?
We can, and do - once you stop making the mistake of generalizing from a tiny sample.
However, for a minute lets say someone had enough foresight to add "resistance to impact from commercial aircraft" into the structural requirements.
That's thing - they did, which both you and the 'old engineer' seem to be unaware of. (However the commercial aircraft of the era were much lighter - and the analysis only took into acount impact damage, not the subsequent fire.)
Why stop there? What about earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, or meteorites?
Almost certainly the WTC design took hurricanes into account - as the New York area does see one now and again (as a 'century storm'). Buildings along the West coast certainly take earthquakes into account, and many buildings in the Midwest take tornadoes into account (in providing shelters of nothing else).
It is not engineering that is overly concerned with cost to benefit ratios, that responsibility falls on management and/or accounting. If engineering comes up with two designs for a bridge, where one is under budget and lacks redundancy and the other is over budget and but incorporates redundancy, it is management or the customer that must decide what is most important.
Actually - that's almost completely false. Engineering (almost always) has standards that it must meet, regardless of cost. Thus, the engineer has to know the budget and account for it in his design in order that it meets the standards within the budget, even if it does not quite meet the specifications.
Now some people may say that engineering has an ethical responsibility to build the best product, which may be true. But how does one do that, by quitting their job every time that don't get their way?
Actually, here in the US civil engineers (and many other types) are licensed and regulated - if one knowingly signs off on a deficient design, at a minimum he is likely to lose that certification. As well, he or the company he works for, is very likely to liable for damages.
I'm more than a bit irked at the media for taking the "structurally deficient" term, and plastering it all over the news without a very clear understanding of what it means.
Here in WA, the WA DOT has essentially admitted that "structurally deficient" is a scare word used to boost priority in asking for federal funding.
While you are completely correct - I was speaking towards the smaller retailer of the type described by the grandparent. It's not impossible, or even unusual, for them to not have a POS system at all. Postings on forums and whatnot are done manually.
Nearly all the firearms-specific versions of EBay, like gunbroker.com, are filled with offerings of used guns that basically say "Subject to prior sale. I'm putting up this web page but if someone comes in my shop and gives me money, you're out of luck. If I decide I don't like you, you're out of luck." This strikes me as quite unfair and unprofessional.
For decades (centuries?) it has been accepted practice that unique or low quantity goods, when offered for sale remotely (I.E. by post, or the newspaper for example), comes the implied condition that such an offering was conditional on availability and prior sales. Look at the ads in the classified section of your local fishwrap for example - do you honestly believe that all the goods listed are currently unsold and available for your purchase? Or (like 99% of people) when you call the seller, is your first question "is ______ still available"? Why on earth would you expect offerings on the internet to be any different?
I should also point out the bit about "deciding whether or not to do business with you" is an assumption on your part...
But this whole business of offering things for sale and then jerking them back at the last second, seemingly at random, just strikes me as symbolic of a "I don't have to follow any nominal rules of social interaction; I make my own" mindset that seems more and more common these days.
How such things are done (by the sellers) hasn't changed one bit by the shift to internet sales. What has changed is an increasing number of people who demand instant and complete gratification in every transaction. Internet sellers have had to explicitly add disclaimers because so many customers on the internet are asshats who don't realize they aren't the only person in the universe and that nobody keeps their internet offerings up-to-date 24/7. (Or that such a thing is impossible.)
Are people just getting ruder, stupider, and prouder of it?
Yes, people are getting ruder, stupider, and proud of it - but it's the face in the mirror getting so, not the phantom on the other side of the computer screen.
That I believe is the key - the completion of an auction (I.E. the hammer, virtual or physical, falls) constitutes acceptance by the seller of the buyers offer. This is relevant here because the hammer had indeed fallen, ending the auction and thus explicitly terminating negitiations and creating a binding contract.
eBay even warns you that you are making such a commitment to sell (or buy) when you place an auction (or a bid).
Many sellers of high-value items on eBay throw in a line like "the seller reserves the right to cancel this auction for any reason," which I imagine would leave the seller the option to go with some sort of last-minute offer like the one in this case.
The key is that under the law you cannot simply cancel a completed auction - when the hammer falls, a binding contract between the bidder and seller is created. Barring unusual extenuating circumstances, like the item not being the sellers to sell in the first place, or substantial misrepresentation by one of the parties involved, no party to the auction can unilaterally back out of the contract.
And that's the crux of this case - the seller changed his mind after the auction was completed and refused to comply with the terms of the contract regarding the sale of the aircraft already in existence. The law in this case if crystal clear - you simply cannot do that.
Really funny stuff, including lots of television and movie genre parodies. If you like Weird Al's music and haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend you check it out. It's gained a cult following (obviously, with obscure references on Slashdot and all...) after having a disappointing theatrical release.
(But to be fair, that summer was particularly strong, with the release of Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, Ghostbusters II, The Little Mermaid... Any other year, and it probably would have been a moderate success. As you can tell, I wish Al would make another.)
No, it flopped in the theatres because it sucked. The writing was uneven, the direction poor, the cinematography a horrid mess, the sets cheap... In short, it looked like what it was: A quick and dirty low budget attempt to exploit a hot property/franchise.
Slashdot Mirror
And if pigs had wings - suddenly there would be a demand for umbrellas to protect us from the pigshit.
That's the thing - we'd have to slow it down (a bunch) in one direction while accelerating it (a bunch) in a different one, the energy levels involved are going to be on the order of 'the entire Earth's current energy output for a decade'.
Because it will take an incredible amount of energy to shift any such asteroid from a solar orbit to an Earth orbit - think tens of orders of magnitude more. (And applied far more precisely than 'get it the [censored] away kick.) We simply don't have the propulsion systems with the energy and precision needed.
It's incredibly expensive to get into space not because resources aren't available, but because we keep doing things the Same Old Way. Having an asteroid in orbit won't fix that.
That's an assumption - not a fact. (And your 'demonstrations' of that are nothing short of ludicrous.)
The article would be interesting it if weren't an extended whine about how programmers should be paid more and treated like prima donnas.
That's probably because 95% of all computer documentation is utter crap.
Don't be too dismissive of geothermal not being 'usable for anything else than house heating'. In a goodly chunk of the US, just replacing househeating means a significant drop in energy consumption. Here in the Puget Sound region I run my heater for all or part of eight of the twelve months of the year in an average year.
How precisely will that help? I mean really, you don't already know you are driving impaired (too tired)?
If the impairment is bad enough to trip the alarm, then the first stage (driver awareness of the condition) is likely already well past. In that event, an alarm to the driver only serves merely as a signal for him to start covering up that he is impaired.
I've been married 17 years... And our setup is pretty much the same.
But we did buy an 'L' shaped couch for out new house *specifically* so we could stretch out with our heads next to each other.
My wife and I have seperate email accounts, and always have. Official Notifications come to my account, since I handle the finances. Our friends know that I am the Keeper Of the Social Calendar, so unless it's just for her, most social email comes to me.
Personally, I find too many young couples (like "johnandsherry" above) spend too much time and effort trying fit into the societal norm of 'now you are one' and internal norms like 'now that we are married we must share everything'. The result is that too many marriages end up like the core of an atomic bomb... all it takes is a little of pressure and *BOOM*.
On that one, I'm going to toss the bullshit flag. While my wife and I share a checking account, our computers are completely separate. (Along with seperate email, Amazon, eBay etc... accounts. Though each of our passwords are stored along with our wills.)
It's not just about trust - it's about space. Each and every marriage is a unique blend of those (among many other) attributes. Pretending that there is a single 'one size fits all' solution for all couples for all time is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
When you've been married for 17 years, and have been accused of being newlyweds as recently as June, come talk to me. Until then, get of off my lawn!
AIUI, the moon is seriously deficient in the heavier elements - one of the side effects of being formed from the Earth's crust.
Which implies we've found one of the key problems with bridge funding - too many pigs at the trough.
Maybe you should learn a little bit about bridges - over 80% of the major ones are at least forty years old, and a good number are getting pretty close to the century mark. A handful are well past the century mark.
Equally, there are more than a few stone bridges in Europe that have collapsed (some within decades of construction - at least one in mid construction).
We can, and do - once you stop making the mistake of generalizing from a tiny sample.
That's thing - they did, which both you and the 'old engineer' seem to be unaware of. (However the commercial aircraft of the era were much lighter - and the analysis only took into acount impact damage, not the subsequent fire.)
Almost certainly the WTC design took hurricanes into account - as the New York area does see one now and again (as a 'century storm'). Buildings along the West coast certainly take earthquakes into account, and many buildings in the Midwest take tornadoes into account (in providing shelters of nothing else).
Actually - that's almost completely false. Engineering (almost always) has standards that it must meet, regardless of cost. Thus, the engineer has to know the budget and account for it in his design in order that it meets the standards within the budget, even if it does not quite meet the specifications.
Actually, here in the US civil engineers (and many other types) are licensed and regulated - if one knowingly signs off on a deficient design, at a minimum he is likely to lose that certification. As well, he or the company he works for, is very likely to liable for damages.
Here in WA, the WA DOT has essentially admitted that "structurally deficient" is a scare word used to boost priority in asking for federal funding.
While you are completely correct - I was speaking towards the smaller retailer of the type described by the grandparent. It's not impossible, or even unusual, for them to not have a POS system at all. Postings on forums and whatnot are done manually.
For decades (centuries?) it has been accepted practice that unique or low quantity goods, when offered for sale remotely (I.E. by post, or the newspaper for example), comes the implied condition that such an offering was conditional on availability and prior sales. Look at the ads in the classified section of your local fishwrap for example - do you honestly believe that all the goods listed are currently unsold and available for your purchase? Or (like 99% of people) when you call the seller, is your first question "is ______ still available"? Why on earth would you expect offerings on the internet to be any different?
I should also point out the bit about "deciding whether or not to do business with you" is an assumption on your part...
How such things are done (by the sellers) hasn't changed one bit by the shift to internet sales. What has changed is an increasing number of people who demand instant and complete gratification in every transaction. Internet sellers have had to explicitly add disclaimers because so many customers on the internet are asshats who don't realize they aren't the only person in the universe and that nobody keeps their internet offerings up-to-date 24/7. (Or that such a thing is impossible.)
Yes, people are getting ruder, stupider, and proud of it - but it's the face in the mirror getting so, not the phantom on the other side of the computer screen.
That I believe is the key - the completion of an auction (I.E. the hammer, virtual or physical, falls) constitutes acceptance by the seller of the buyers offer. This is relevant here because the hammer had indeed fallen, ending the auction and thus explicitly terminating negitiations and creating a binding contract.
eBay even warns you that you are making such a commitment to sell (or buy) when you place an auction (or a bid).
The key is that under the law you cannot simply cancel a completed auction - when the hammer falls, a binding contract between the bidder and seller is created. Barring unusual extenuating circumstances, like the item not being the sellers to sell in the first place, or substantial misrepresentation by one of the parties involved, no party to the auction can unilaterally back out of the contract.
And that's the crux of this case - the seller changed his mind after the auction was completed and refused to comply with the terms of the contract regarding the sale of the aircraft already in existence. The law in this case if crystal clear - you simply cannot do that.
Have you checked your tinfoil hat recently? It seems to have come loose.
Isaac Asimov's I, Robot is a collection of short stories. Maybe you are thinking of some other Asimov?
I suppose you've never heard of the lead actor in the film? Or maybe you are just an idiot.
No, it flopped in the theatres because it sucked. The writing was uneven, the direction poor, the cinematography a horrid mess, the sets cheap... In short, it looked like what it was: A quick and dirty low budget attempt to exploit a hot property/franchise.
The franchise in question is Will himself.