But nuclear power is no cheaper than coal or oil when all of its costs are factored in, and it has a lot of other problems that sources like solar and wind don't.
Uranium provides magnitudes more energy per kilogram than gasoline. At $1800 or so per Kilo, Uranium provides the same amount of energy as a couple million dollars worth of Gasoline. Coal isn't as bad, but still, a plant will pay for itself within a year of normal operations by virtue of the money you DIDN'T spend on coal.
And it's funny to see people say things like "oh, Chernobyl wasn't that bad... it's only been 20 years and it's almost inhabitable again!"
Coal is even more harmful to the environment than any nuclear incident has ever been, the waste by-products of coal are more radioactive than the by-products of nuclear fission. And a little hint, Indian Point doesn't have a gasket to blow, and if it did, nuclear material wouldn't be going anywhere. And as for radiation leaks, you don't even know enough about radiation to know if that's a major problem. You suffer more radiation exposure by being in the sun for a week than the total of the "radiation leak" reported at Indian Point.
One, it is particularly noted that the UK (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html)has switched its methods on crime reporting since the 2000 data, and that there is alot of conflict with that (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aBKQE71WDa4U&refer=uk). The new method of reporting DRASTICALLY increases the numbers, on top of excluding groups considered to be the highest rate of offenders. I use these numbers, the British Parliament has fought hard to keep this method of reporting in place, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Second, I can take umbrage in the FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html) on the fact that the numbers that would show a problem with gun violence haven't had any suspicious shift. I do this because the Director of the FBI (the guy who gives the final sign-off on the report) is an avid Anti-Gun supporter. No suspicious shift means the guy has some dignity, so I trust the FBI report a little more than most other sources culled by mostly liberal organizations. You know, the kind of liberal organizations that say things like "Women are %100 more likely to get killed when there is a gun in the household," without any numbers to back that up. I have yet to see a single solitary case study or statistical survey by any of the anti-gun organizations that has stood up to peer review. For the most part, they don't even bother putting their studies up for peer review, they just publish them and cite them as fact.
I don't use case studies that haven't stood up to peer review (for that matter, I haven't found a single one that points to guns being a problem), and I use reports that are giving numbers and statistics without offering comparisons or opinions. In my mind, that's about as much as you can ask for, show me one popular Anti-Gun liberal that has had the respect for what he/she believes in to actually look at the NUMBERS in depth, and not just take the "studies" for granted. I won't hold my breath.
Biggest example: The UK. They are the most domestically violent country in the developed world. Their rape rate, assault rate, and domestic violence rates are EXPONENTIALLY higher than that of the US on a per capita basis.
Move to Sweden, and then NEVER BITCH AGAIN about personal property rights being non-existant.
In Sweden, there is no right to personal property. You're ALLOWED to "own" certain things, like furniture, electronics, and tv's. That's it.
Here in the states, we're allowed to assert our OWNERSHIP of things. Hence the reason a hold-up man is a criminal, and rustlers can be shot. This Right-To-Roam thing is bullshit.
Myself, being an EXTREMELY rabid supporter of habeas corpus, do believe that torture is acceptable.Provided that there is no other option.I find myself on a college campus/mall/high school/major urban area just subject to an attack, and I have one of the perpetrators disarmed. I'm worried about bombs, which is a very legitimate threat. I need to know if there are actually bombs, and if so I need to know where they are.Fingers go first, then toes. After cauterizing the wounds, I go to work on major nerve centers, the soloplexis, rheoplexis, etc.. When he passes out from the pain keeping to the same story, I revive him and do it again, working on other major nerve centers. After the second lapse into unconciousness, go less painful to keep him concsious longer. Third time being the charm, he rolls his eyes back into his head again and I can rest assured I either have all the information I need, or there was no informatin to begin with.The perp initiated the attack, and he initiated an attack geared specifically towards non-combatants. His extremely painful death is not consequential in any way, especially if it's extremely painful due to a pursuit of knowledge to keep more innocents from dying. Terrorists are more than deserving of whatever fate they recieve, as long as it's to save lives.The prisoners at Gitmo are there for a reason. While I totally support habeas corpus on their behalf, I hold no qualms whatsoever with taking off the kid gloves if they are found to have any direct correlation to a terrorist group. Direct meaning support of, not relation to.Transperancy is important in situations like these, but don't bitch when that transperancy reveals a known terrorist supporter getting a hot needle shoved up his urethra because he might have more life saving information.
Healthcare argument doesn't hold any water. Socialist healthcare in many European countries includes the euthanizing of children. Chances of getting treatment for any but the simplest cancers? You're most likely gonna be told that euthanasia is your only option. Dental work? You don't need good teeth, look at the UK.
Education in the SOCIALIST European countries is free, and you get to study whatever you want, if you test into the right category.
And as for the whole argument for big business being the only free entity, that's bullshit. This is the only country in the world where the concept exists of MAKING money. Money here is directly tied into a marketable product. HP started out as two guys in a fucking garage. Craigslist? MySpace? Bullet-proof vests? Starbucks? I can go on and on. Mapquest. eBay. PayPal. Magpul. BlackHawk Tactical. Blackwater. DYE (Paintball), Carl Zeiss, Ed Brown, Burt Rutan, hell even NYCL can be thrown in there. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from making it big through an original idea and good, old-fashioned hard work.
In this country, you can become whatever you want, you just have to be willing to work for it. The only complaints you get about how "free" you truly are in this country is from the people who aren't the rich bastards they want to be, and think blaming it on the government will make their wilted dreams seem more respectable. Everyone wants to be the world's favorite skydiving billionaire, it's the people who are dejected because it wasn't handed to them on a silver platter that complain about the freedom their government is "taking" from them in favor of the people who are skydiving billionaires.
I think this bill is bullshit, but it won't restrict any of my freedoms. I have what freedoms I fight for, and noone is taking my property unless I agree to it. Sure, I might have to kill a few people, but so be it. When you realize that you're only free because you're willing to die to be so, stupid shit like this is just that, stupid shit. It'll get blasted by SCOTUS within 2 years IF it passes. Praise Europe all you want, if you're an American, go fucking live there. If not, enjoy whatever abuse the police hand down to you, and smile warmly to yourself for the knowledge that you can't fight back and it was your doing that you can't. American citizens have guns, the same that their police do. If our government wants to restrict our freedoms in a serious manner, they get to eat the same lead our enemies do. THAT'S freedom, the ability to override and overthrow those that make the rules that you're expected to abide by. There's not but 1 or 2 countries in Europe that allow their citizens to arm themselves, and for the most part it's becuase they're so poorly developed that trying to enforce that citizens DON'T arm themselves might end up in a coupe;)
Now, perhaps, having both a mill and a lathe, you could recreate all the parts you need. Wait, scratch that, you can't make the parts with finish requirements lower than 32 or so(like the ways), or that are longer than the X travel of the mill or lathe (the ways). I don't care how much of a genius you are, you're not making an electric motor capable of providing enough torque. Can't forget the mill's table, either. Or the lathe's pinion gears (CNC practically REQUIRED for those, at least for the machine tools we use today).
An argument could be made for a lathe and mill tandem to be self-sufficient, but only for maintenance. Can't make your own tools save for a couple cheezy HS cutters on the lathe, but nothing you're going to get quality cuts from.
Manufacturing is a completely different world today than it was even 10 years ago. High tolerance used to be.002", now high tolerance is.0005". CNC equipment is the standard, and good machinists are going the way of the dinosaur. Now all it takes to run a shop is one setup guy for every 3 operators, one programmer for every 3 setup guys. Being 22, I'm probably going to be one of the last living true machinists within the next 30 years. It's a shame, really.
Machine tools are a different capital now. As a guy who's going to have a couple of them in his garage by the end of the summer, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: they're both going to be CNC, and while not being able to create most of their own parts, I'm still not worried about how I'm going to maintain them.
NO ONE* is designing in 2D anymore. Creating isometric and orthogonal views? What a complete waste of time.
You must be one of the idiot engineers that I have to deal with on a daily basis that thinks I can pull GD/T out of my ass from a 3D model.......on a 2D piece of paper. As a machinist and engineering student, I see all this idiocy all the fucking time. EVERYTHING you design has to be manufactured, and the most important part of the manufacturing process is the measurement, the tools for such making up 3/4 of a machinist's toolbox. What you should be saying is that nobody is NEEDLESSLY designing in 3D. The majority of parts you will see as an ME will be rather simple, and much easier to design in a 2D environment, and MOST importantly, easy to read by the manufacturing staff that is going to fabricate them. Yes, there are contours and surfs that need to be designed in a 3D environment, but that is a tiny minority. The most prevalent CAD/CAM package on the market is primarily 2D with a robust 3D package that can be used (albeit painstakingly) to render the odd surf here and there.
Isometric and orthogonal are there for a reason, they're going to be the basis from which the part is manufactured. So unless that fuzzy-bunny-lala-land in your head comes to fruition any time soon, you're going to need them. At least, if you've even learned basic blue-print reading. The most common recurring problem I've seen with prototype and small run manufacturing is that the engineer isn't even drawing up the blueprint. Nine times out of ten he doesn't even know how. He designs the part and some poor CAD-Tech transfers it to a block blank, inevitably making mistakes along the way, and %90 of the time making the part more expensive by virtue of setting tight tolerances where they don't need to be. The %10 of the time the ME does know basic blueprint reading, he still makes the part needlessly expensive because he never spent any time doing assembly, and thinks that he needs bolt hole locations within.001".
This "New-School" elitism of yours is the reason a kid like me--who is working the old-school to get into the new-school--is going to be your boss, making twice your salary, at half your age. Old technology is not bad as long as it's proven.
Governments create criminals as a side effect of their operation, not as main purpose.
The criminalization of victimless crimes is purposefully creating criminals. The drug war, anyone?
The reason that Ayn Rand is full of shit (and certainly not interesting, insightful or poignant) is that her Objectivism - and therefore her stories illustrating objectivism - completely neglects human nature.
You've never read The Voice of Reason, probably never finished any of her works, and if you did you were certainly skipping through This Is John Galt Speaking. Rand's work is very akin to one of the few (if not the only truely) respected American writers on a global scale, Ralph Waldo Emerson. I never hear anyone object to his work or ideal, yet so many of them foam at the mouth because Rand put it into story. Rand's point is that selfishness IS human nature (argue that one, please, I beg you), and it should be embraced.
GP's quote is appropriate in this instance. It is government making pariah of a niche of people with no voice or defense to assuage the rest of the population. They're not cashing in on the guilt of those that they are criminalizing, they're cashing in on the guilt of those they are assuaging. What better way to gain more power to insinuate the guilt of those that would oppose than to legislate the taboo? It is a power grab plain and simple, they're grabbing the power to enforce morality. Now all they need is to wrest the power to dictate what is moral and what is not. What's sad is the complete helplessness of those they are trying to rape into being willing servants. They allowed, even cried for their own disarmament. UK is a true police state now, and they're going to be reaping the benefits soon enough. Mark my words, the US will see a large influx of political refugees from the UK as soon as a religious fundamentalist becomes Prime Minister.
Who gets to pay for all this counseling, rehab and medication?
I've got better things to do with money. If they want to pay for it themselves, then do it. But don't ask me to pay for it. Don't ask for my tax dollars to be put towards such things when there are shitty roads I drive on every day to go to work.
And yet there is not even ONE example of this actually depriving society of anything. Gates? Rockefeller? Name any one of today's actual billionaires and I'll show you a life-changing philanthropist.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to iterate this time and time again, but to a new audience every time.
The only way anybody gets truly wealthy in this country is by bringing other people there with him. Most of the wealthiest people in this country were/are philanthropists.
You get there by bringing other people with you.
You name me any man worth at least one hundredth of a cent per dollar of our nation's money in the national reserves (not many, at all), and I'll show you a philanthropist, I guarantee you.
It's really amazing how few people are actually able to treat topics like paedophilia as adults. Most revert to a primal state of instincitvely trying to kill that which looks threatening, even if the threat could be largely mitigated.
If I were to catch a grown man having sex with a child, I would kill him on the spot.
As per why? One, yes, I'm disgusted, mortified, and downright pissed off. Two? Because as much as these people can theoretically be helped, their standards of living are going to suck once they're prosecuted, and because I'm gonna have to pay for the bastard to live a life sucking at the tit of a socialist left. All the programs, welfare, and treatment have to be paid for by someone, and with the blue-collars paying the extreme majority of this country's taxes, I'm gonna be one of the people paying for it. Not on my dime, at least not the guy I can justify killing. Aside from that, the fact that his prison sentence is going to reveal him to the real horrors of human nature, putting a.45 slug in his temple is almost as much out of mercy as it is disdain.
I do have to offer counter-point, however. I do not consider a 14 year old girl a child, I consider her a hormonal little twit. Grown man? Yeah I'd tune him up pretty good, but I wouldn't kill him. She'd get a stern talking too, and he'd be walking with a limp for the rest of his life, but he didn't actually do anything wrong. It is in our nature to go after attractive women at the soonest sexual viability, sorry but teenage girls are the groundwork for what turn men on. Bad decision, fuck yes; but not something he should be killed or really even do time for assuming it was consentual. I would stipulate that girls of age (14 being the average time a girl is actually sexually viable) can consent, but only within a certain range like 5 years max until she's 18. Quite frankly, this society has tought girls alot about looking alot older than they are and turning guys on. I'm damn near on the savant side of telling how old a woman or girl is (grew up with 4 of 'em) and even I've been fooled by a 15 year old or two. More than five years older and you can pretty much infer that he was specifically looking for young teenagers. There are currently laws that already handle this in alot of states, I don't see it being a problem to giving a hefty fine and a judge spending 30 minutes putting the fear of god into the guy on his first offense if he's 22 and he accidentally sleeps with a 16 year old (She was driving a car and looked like Maggie Q! Give me a break!), but other than that try and stick to the line.
I guess my solution to fix all this would be to do everything you can to distinguish between a seriously perverted man and one who went for the night of his life with a girl who did everything she could be look like a girl that could do that for him. The ones who sleep with real children? As soon as there's undeniable proof, kill the guy, do it humanely, but kill him quick. He doesn't feel a properly large slug to the temple, don't worry, he's dead before the nerves can send him the signal that means "OW!", just my suggestion. Lethal injections are expensive, you know. Like I said, I caught a grown man having sex with a child, he gets a neat little half-inch hole in one side of the head, and hopefully the other side is missing when the ME shows up. Sure there's a chance he might possibly someday maybe somewhat probably be an almost contributive member to society, but unless you're willing to pay for it yourself, I'd rather spend that money you'd be taxing me on something important, like, you know, a piece of gum or something.
And you are one of the many people who consider themselves experts on the American way when you have never, NEVER, not even ONCE, read the Declaration of Independence.
the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
You think Bush would be such a prick if he knew one of his generals might off and shoot him for pulling some of the bullshit he does?
Learn the manufacture of products in this country, my friend. Taxes on gasoline are only a fraction of the problem, a small fraction. Take for instance the fact that all of our plastics are made from petrol. Well, now take into the consideration the import taxes, the "green" taxes on the substances and chemicals used to refine the crude into the different products we garner from it (gas, kero, and practicaly every plastic known to man), don't forget the carbon taxes on the processes used to generate these different products, and then look into the local, state, and municipality taxes on this and that, yeah.
It's not just "Gas" that's being taxed, it's EVERY SINGLE STEP towards making it.
Sure, officially, our gov is only making 28-66 cents per gallon, at the pump. Now consider all the shit they tax during its manufacture. The sulphur, the methane, and of course the property tax for high-risk industry land, don't forget the licensing and leasing of public park land for research, this and that.
When I said earlier that the gov is making a dollar per gallon, I didn't mean straight from the gas manufacturing, I meant from ALL oil related taxation. $108 per barrel? The gov is going to take its nice $45 share on top of that before anything valuable is made from it.
The big oil companies haven't been making their profit by virtue of artificially controlling the supply, they've been doing it by selling more than they've ever sold before. The profits reaped last year and the year previous wasn't because of raising their profit margins (I.E. raising prices to increase their profit margin), they've been doing it by selling more petrol than in any years previous.
Big Oil has has the same business infrastructure, organizational structure, and sales methods as they've had for 50 fucking years. They held a razor thin profit margin on gasoline for going on 25 years now. For every dollar on gas, you spend maybe 3 pennies giving them profit. So quit bitching about oil companies gouging the public, because they aren't. You want to know the real culprit for gas prices these days? Our own fucking government, they make about a dollar per gallon on taxes.
Where does that money go? Who knows any more. Just quit bitching about a company actually doing good business, because for the most part the petrol companies are. They have to deal with literally thousands of different mixtures of gasoline being shipped among this country, the different ways to refine them, and finally the shipping, and they're only pulling 3% profit. Fuck you for thinking that's out of line. Learn your economics, and then learn how the real world works. The price of gas being as high as it is is MORE the gov's fault for spending so much money on pork that it has to rape us on gas to compensate. Bitch at your governments for taxing gas so much, then bitch at them for making good companies spend twice as much as they have to for making a good product, THEN bitch at the gas companies for not making things cheap enough when they're only pulling a 3% margin.
This is a capitalist economy, damnit, it's what is responsible for this country's well-being. Think about the business first, then bitch.
Grayish green on black is the best. Black is a necessary background if you want to prevent eyestrain. Grayish green is great because it has enough contrast with black as to be quite visible, but not so bright as to hurt after extended periods of time.
The bright neon green of Commodore days isn't quite the shade you want to look for, go for something that looks like a light-green gray so to speak.
I have a couple of friends that have tried my configuration and now swear by it. The added benefit of the text still being visible if you have transparency on for the background (Anybody remember E?), no matter what you have going on behind it. Well, I mean, you COULD have a background on the desktop that is comprised of the exact same shade of green, or a window open in GIMP with the same shade in backfill for that layer, but probably not. Black or white can't do that, and all the others that can are quite annoying, such as yellow or neon red. A nice, mellow, grayish shade of green is an excellent compromise between contrast and readability.
I welcome any to try it for a week and then personally message me to tell me they don't swear by it themselves. Color blind or visually challenged need not apply;)
That's not a non-compete contract. That's a "For Hire" contract.
Non-competes are orders of magnitude more sinister than For Hire contracts. As are Associative IP contracts which dictate that all ideas relevant to your field developed during your employ (whether on the clock or off) belong to the employer as well.
I sign For Hire contracts, stipulating that all the provisions given apply only to clocked hours. I abso-fucking-lutely refuse to sign non-competes and and AIP's.
As for this guy, I assume he's in the right both morally and legally. From what I've seen his work was not "For Hire". He was hired to turn a couple of sketches into a reality, and was paid for the most part only for the resultant physical armor. He's an artist, not an industrial designer. He has a right to his work that the customer hasn't paid for. Me, an engineer, I generally make it known that certain aspects of my work are not wholly owned by my employer, and generally they are fine with it. I don't accept anything but my designs and directly applicable derivatives belonging to the employer, and the respected manufactured product of such. Rights to my pseudonym, style, signature or name, as well as non-applicable designs in the same field are extra. If I did it off the clock and it isn't quite literally an improved clone of the product/s my company sells, you have no rights to it. I'm an industrial designer, however, and it is pretty generally understood that the design work I've done on the clock is "Paid For," because the design is the key element to the product or manufacture of such. Where as the blueprints (Design) for what I design are THE PRODUCT, Storm Trooper Armor is art. Lucas bought plastic, essentially, nothing more. As long as this guy isn't using the Star Wars trademark wholesale to sell the suits, he deserves every penny he gets. He delivered on his end, he happened to have molds left over (which he paid for, I guarantee), nothing more needs to be said unless there's a contract specifically saying otherwise. If there isn't, fuck Lucas.
To give all of you a good start on understanding the body language of women, I'll give some pointers. I'm by no means a casanova, player, or predator, but I've had alot of feminine influence in life. I'm a guy, and I was raised in a house with 4 women. My father wasn't the epitome of macho, so I ended up learning alot about the female psyche. It can be a blessing or a curse, if I act on my knowledge, I'm forever in the friend zone (until they hear about how much money I make, go figure). If I'm particularly struck by a certain woman that hasn't had a chance to put me in her friend zone, I'll strike.
Women act on their attractions in different ways. I'll sum them up in two categories. Investigative attraction, and hormonal attraction. Investigative meaning she likes what she sees but she needs to know a little more. Hormonal meaning she's looking to trick her body into thinking she's fulfilled her genetic prerogative, or actually fulfilling it.
Signs of investigative attraction can be just as likely a part of finding a sexual partner for the night, when they're horny they're still going to pick the best they can get. But know that until you see the hormonal signs of attraction, it would be best to be verbal and clarify if you're getting mixed signals. Don't be blunt, be at least a little circuitous when asking, the verbal game is half of the fun for her.
Sex for a woman is very mental, and somewhat physical. Yeah, the physical part is important, but in order for it to be fun she has to be mentally turned on. She wants to feel sexy, she wants to know that she's blowing your mind, she wants very much to be a goddess that's blessing a man with her body. The verbal cues and hints can be very subtle, she wants answers that let her know more and more how much she turns you on. I'd get into the reasons, but then I'd start bestowing the curse of knowing. Knowing the body language, however, can be a great help. It doesn't take much to pick up on them, and it can help alot to muster up the courage to start talking to her if you know she's already at least curious about you. With that little prelude, on to the signs. I won't give them all because, quite frankly, there's too many. I'll also be leaving out many of the very obvious (touching, smiling, etc.) because there's too much coincidence involved with them.
Sure signs of investigative attraction:
Preening. Sweeping her hair, readjusting her jewelry, clothing, etc.. She's adjusting her appearance to bring attention to what she thinks are her best features.In open or private discussion, frequent preening is a good sign of attraction. She needs to be making alot of eye contact with or talking directly to you while doing this, however.
The looking game. If you keeping thinking that a girl was looking at you, and she looks away right as you look at her, she is. Trust your instincts, men have a sixth sense, we can tell when people are looking at us directly. We look at the person instinctively. Women have it to an extent, but men are downright uncanny at it. When a girl does this, she's testing your assertiveness. She's laying down the bait, she wants to see if you have the balls to bite. Women want MEN, afterall. This doesn't mean hoo-haw macho mean mugging, but having the balls to approach a woman often proves that you are at least willing to go after something you want. Being able to muster the initiative to go and strike a conversation is a universally good trait.
Removal of clothing (shut up, perverts). Women often wear extra layers of clothing to keep warm or accesorize. Sweaters, hoodies, jackets, scarves, etc.. This is a subtle one (yeah yeah, even for women), you have to know her a little while first. If she normally keeps them on when carrying on for a normal day, even while indoors, then pay attention to them. If she starts taking them off (leaving her "regular" outfit, jeans and a t-shirt or whatnot) when talking with you, she's more comfortable with you. Subconsciously she's removing barriers between you two. This is an extr
As a machinist with experience with ultra light materials, I'm telling you that's not the only problem.
The other problem is the resilience of the material in question. Sure, CN (Carbon Nanotubes) may be tough and strong, but how can it hold up to the extreme heat of re-entry? Not Well.
Materials engineering isn't a catch-all. It is literally about custom made metals and plastics for very specific uses. Sometimes, the material is pretty useful in other areas too. Carbon, technically a crystalline (metal), in the form of CN makes for a very good "burn" when oxygen and a proper catalyst is involved. Re-entry and other situations that provide for enough friction (after about mach 2 when dealing with air-resistance alone, and that's at the strat) make for bad days when you're in a CN spacecraft;) Bottom line, when high speeds inside an atmosphere are involved, you don't want CN seeing open access to oxygen, or seeing direct contact with any good conductor or dissipater of heat in the same situations (aluminum, steel, titanium, practically all metals; thus eliminating the possibility of coatings until ceramics come leaps and bounds away from where it is now).
Rockets are all about weight? Most of the weight is in the materials that are seeing open exposure to oxygen during take off or re-entry, not to mention the heat of the fuel burning off at the nozzles. One lone pocket of ozone, an observed phenomenon in our atmosphere, and your satellite-carrying rocket is now a several million dollar firework.
Cheaply mfg'ed CN would make rocketry a LITTLE cheaper, but not much. A space elevator would make space-freight much cheaper if it used CN than rocketry would become cheaper through use of CN.
Just because it's light and strong, doesn't make it useful for everything. Take titanium, even though it is just as plentiful and easily manufactured as aluminum (now), it still isn't as commonly used. We can get titanium from Russia cheaper than we can get copper anywhere, but we still only really see specialty and novelty items made out of it. Why? Because it doesn't hold profile well, and it's a bitch to machine. Everything comes with a catch, and there's a big catch with CN that makes its potential uses very specialized. If your line of thinking held true, newly built commercial airplanes would be %20 lighter because of the advent of titanium. Guess what? Not happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of curiosity, has anybody done the math to figure out how much petroleum we use to get the coal to the plants?
But nuclear power is no cheaper than coal or oil when all of its costs are factored in, and it has a lot of other problems that sources like solar and wind don't.
Uranium provides magnitudes more energy per kilogram than gasoline. At $1800 or so per Kilo, Uranium provides the same amount of energy as a couple million dollars worth of Gasoline. Coal isn't as bad, but still, a plant will pay for itself within a year of normal operations by virtue of the money you DIDN'T spend on coal.
And it's funny to see people say things like "oh, Chernobyl wasn't that bad... it's only been 20 years and it's almost inhabitable again!"
Coal is even more harmful to the environment than any nuclear incident has ever been, the waste by-products of coal are more radioactive than the by-products of nuclear fission. And a little hint, Indian Point doesn't have a gasket to blow, and if it did, nuclear material wouldn't be going anywhere. And as for radiation leaks, you don't even know enough about radiation to know if that's a major problem. You suffer more radiation exposure by being in the sun for a week than the total of the "radiation leak" reported at Indian Point.
One, it is particularly noted that the UK (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html)has switched its methods on crime reporting since the 2000 data, and that there is alot of conflict with that (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aBKQE71WDa4U&refer=uk). The new method of reporting DRASTICALLY increases the numbers, on top of excluding groups considered to be the highest rate of offenders. I use these numbers, the British Parliament has fought hard to keep this method of reporting in place, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Second, I can take umbrage in the FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html) on the fact that the numbers that would show a problem with gun violence haven't had any suspicious shift. I do this because the Director of the FBI (the guy who gives the final sign-off on the report) is an avid Anti-Gun supporter. No suspicious shift means the guy has some dignity, so I trust the FBI report a little more than most other sources culled by mostly liberal organizations. You know, the kind of liberal organizations that say things like "Women are %100 more likely to get killed when there is a gun in the household," without any numbers to back that up. I have yet to see a single solitary case study or statistical survey by any of the anti-gun organizations that has stood up to peer review. For the most part, they don't even bother putting their studies up for peer review, they just publish them and cite them as fact.
I don't use case studies that haven't stood up to peer review (for that matter, I haven't found a single one that points to guns being a problem), and I use reports that are giving numbers and statistics without offering comparisons or opinions. In my mind, that's about as much as you can ask for, show me one popular Anti-Gun liberal that has had the respect for what he/she believes in to actually look at the NUMBERS in depth, and not just take the "studies" for granted. I won't hold my breath.
Source is irrelevant, the data is pulled from 1998-2000 and put together by a biased source, the UN.
;)
My data comes from the FBI Crime report for 2006, and anything and everything I could find for the UK for the same year.
Next time, use a relevant source
The same.
I think after this year, however, the UK will have a HIGHER rate of that.
You've proven my point.
;)
Biggest example: The UK. They are the most domestically violent country in the developed world. Their rape rate, assault rate, and domestic violence rates are EXPONENTIALLY higher than that of the US on a per capita basis.
Thanks for backing me up
I'm all for gun control, and the statistics support gun control, but a gun is to livestock what safety glasses and hard hats are to heavy machinery.
Outright lie. Plain and simply false.
Crime rate is the lowest it has EVER been, and the murder rate is the lowest it has been in decades.
Gun ownership is currently at its HIGHEST rate ever.
No correlation at any point between guns being a problem in this country, and gun control being a solution.
Quit being an ignorant liberal and get a fucking education.
Move to Sweden, and then NEVER BITCH AGAIN about personal property rights being non-existant.
In Sweden, there is no right to personal property. You're ALLOWED to "own" certain things, like furniture, electronics, and tv's. That's it.
Here in the states, we're allowed to assert our OWNERSHIP of things. Hence the reason a hold-up man is a criminal, and rustlers can be shot. This Right-To-Roam thing is bullshit.
Myself, being an EXTREMELY rabid supporter of habeas corpus, do believe that torture is acceptable.Provided that there is no other option.I find myself on a college campus/mall/high school/major urban area just subject to an attack, and I have one of the perpetrators disarmed. I'm worried about bombs, which is a very legitimate threat. I need to know if there are actually bombs, and if so I need to know where they are.Fingers go first, then toes. After cauterizing the wounds, I go to work on major nerve centers, the soloplexis, rheoplexis, etc.. When he passes out from the pain keeping to the same story, I revive him and do it again, working on other major nerve centers. After the second lapse into unconciousness, go less painful to keep him concsious longer. Third time being the charm, he rolls his eyes back into his head again and I can rest assured I either have all the information I need, or there was no informatin to begin with.The perp initiated the attack, and he initiated an attack geared specifically towards non-combatants. His extremely painful death is not consequential in any way, especially if it's extremely painful due to a pursuit of knowledge to keep more innocents from dying. Terrorists are more than deserving of whatever fate they recieve, as long as it's to save lives.The prisoners at Gitmo are there for a reason. While I totally support habeas corpus on their behalf, I hold no qualms whatsoever with taking off the kid gloves if they are found to have any direct correlation to a terrorist group. Direct meaning support of, not relation to.Transperancy is important in situations like these, but don't bitch when that transperancy reveals a known terrorist supporter getting a hot needle shoved up his urethra because he might have more life saving information.
Freud, not Nietsche.
Healthcare argument doesn't hold any water. Socialist healthcare in many European countries includes the euthanizing of children. Chances of getting treatment for any but the simplest cancers? You're most likely gonna be told that euthanasia is your only option. Dental work? You don't need good teeth, look at the UK.
;)
Education in the SOCIALIST European countries is free, and you get to study whatever you want, if you test into the right category.
And as for the whole argument for big business being the only free entity, that's bullshit. This is the only country in the world where the concept exists of MAKING money. Money here is directly tied into a marketable product. HP started out as two guys in a fucking garage. Craigslist? MySpace? Bullet-proof vests? Starbucks? I can go on and on. Mapquest. eBay. PayPal. Magpul. BlackHawk Tactical. Blackwater. DYE (Paintball), Carl Zeiss, Ed Brown, Burt Rutan, hell even NYCL can be thrown in there. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from making it big through an original idea and good, old-fashioned hard work.
In this country, you can become whatever you want, you just have to be willing to work for it. The only complaints you get about how "free" you truly are in this country is from the people who aren't the rich bastards they want to be, and think blaming it on the government will make their wilted dreams seem more respectable. Everyone wants to be the world's favorite skydiving billionaire, it's the people who are dejected because it wasn't handed to them on a silver platter that complain about the freedom their government is "taking" from them in favor of the people who are skydiving billionaires.
I think this bill is bullshit, but it won't restrict any of my freedoms. I have what freedoms I fight for, and noone is taking my property unless I agree to it. Sure, I might have to kill a few people, but so be it. When you realize that you're only free because you're willing to die to be so, stupid shit like this is just that, stupid shit. It'll get blasted by SCOTUS within 2 years IF it passes. Praise Europe all you want, if you're an American, go fucking live there. If not, enjoy whatever abuse the police hand down to you, and smile warmly to yourself for the knowledge that you can't fight back and it was your doing that you can't. American citizens have guns, the same that their police do. If our government wants to restrict our freedoms in a serious manner, they get to eat the same lead our enemies do. THAT'S freedom, the ability to override and overthrow those that make the rules that you're expected to abide by. There's not but 1 or 2 countries in Europe that allow their citizens to arm themselves, and for the most part it's becuase they're so poorly developed that trying to enforce that citizens DON'T arm themselves might end up in a coupe
Machinist here.
.002", now high tolerance is .0005". CNC equipment is the standard, and good machinists are going the way of the dinosaur. Now all it takes to run a shop is one setup guy for every 3 operators, one programmer for every 3 setup guys. Being 22, I'm probably going to be one of the last living true machinists within the next 30 years. It's a shame, really.
No they can't.
Now, perhaps, having both a mill and a lathe, you could recreate all the parts you need. Wait, scratch that, you can't make the parts with finish requirements lower than 32 or so(like the ways), or that are longer than the X travel of the mill or lathe (the ways). I don't care how much of a genius you are, you're not making an electric motor capable of providing enough torque. Can't forget the mill's table, either. Or the lathe's pinion gears (CNC practically REQUIRED for those, at least for the machine tools we use today).
An argument could be made for a lathe and mill tandem to be self-sufficient, but only for maintenance. Can't make your own tools save for a couple cheezy HS cutters on the lathe, but nothing you're going to get quality cuts from.
Manufacturing is a completely different world today than it was even 10 years ago. High tolerance used to be
Machine tools are a different capital now. As a guy who's going to have a couple of them in his garage by the end of the summer, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: they're both going to be CNC, and while not being able to create most of their own parts, I'm still not worried about how I'm going to maintain them.
*Ahem*
.001".
NO ONE* is designing in 2D anymore. Creating isometric and orthogonal views? What a complete waste of time.
You must be one of the idiot engineers that I have to deal with on a daily basis that thinks I can pull GD/T out of my ass from a 3D model.......on a 2D piece of paper. As a machinist and engineering student, I see all this idiocy all the fucking time. EVERYTHING you design has to be manufactured, and the most important part of the manufacturing process is the measurement, the tools for such making up 3/4 of a machinist's toolbox. What you should be saying is that nobody is NEEDLESSLY designing in 3D. The majority of parts you will see as an ME will be rather simple, and much easier to design in a 2D environment, and MOST importantly, easy to read by the manufacturing staff that is going to fabricate them. Yes, there are contours and surfs that need to be designed in a 3D environment, but that is a tiny minority. The most prevalent CAD/CAM package on the market is primarily 2D with a robust 3D package that can be used (albeit painstakingly) to render the odd surf here and there.
Isometric and orthogonal are there for a reason, they're going to be the basis from which the part is manufactured. So unless that fuzzy-bunny-lala-land in your head comes to fruition any time soon, you're going to need them. At least, if you've even learned basic blue-print reading. The most common recurring problem I've seen with prototype and small run manufacturing is that the engineer isn't even drawing up the blueprint. Nine times out of ten he doesn't even know how. He designs the part and some poor CAD-Tech transfers it to a block blank, inevitably making mistakes along the way, and %90 of the time making the part more expensive by virtue of setting tight tolerances where they don't need to be. The %10 of the time the ME does know basic blueprint reading, he still makes the part needlessly expensive because he never spent any time doing assembly, and thinks that he needs bolt hole locations within
This "New-School" elitism of yours is the reason a kid like me--who is working the old-school to get into the new-school--is going to be your boss, making twice your salary, at half your age. Old technology is not bad as long as it's proven.
Governments create criminals as a side effect of their operation, not as main purpose.
The criminalization of victimless crimes is purposefully creating criminals. The drug war, anyone?
The reason that Ayn Rand is full of shit (and certainly not interesting, insightful or poignant) is that her Objectivism - and therefore her stories illustrating objectivism - completely neglects human nature.
You've never read The Voice of Reason, probably never finished any of her works, and if you did you were certainly skipping through This Is John Galt Speaking. Rand's work is very akin to one of the few (if not the only truely) respected American writers on a global scale, Ralph Waldo Emerson. I never hear anyone object to his work or ideal, yet so many of them foam at the mouth because Rand put it into story. Rand's point is that selfishness IS human nature (argue that one, please, I beg you), and it should be embraced.
GP's quote is appropriate in this instance. It is government making pariah of a niche of people with no voice or defense to assuage the rest of the population. They're not cashing in on the guilt of those that they are criminalizing, they're cashing in on the guilt of those they are assuaging. What better way to gain more power to insinuate the guilt of those that would oppose than to legislate the taboo? It is a power grab plain and simple, they're grabbing the power to enforce morality. Now all they need is to wrest the power to dictate what is moral and what is not. What's sad is the complete helplessness of those they are trying to rape into being willing servants. They allowed, even cried for their own disarmament. UK is a true police state now, and they're going to be reaping the benefits soon enough. Mark my words, the US will see a large influx of political refugees from the UK as soon as a religious fundamentalist becomes Prime Minister.
So who gets to pay for it?
Who gets to pay for all this counseling, rehab and medication?
I've got better things to do with money. If they want to pay for it themselves, then do it. But don't ask me to pay for it. Don't ask for my tax dollars to be put towards such things when there are shitty roads I drive on every day to go to work.
Yes.
And yet there is not even ONE example of this actually depriving society of anything. Gates? Rockefeller? Name any one of today's actual billionaires and I'll show you a life-changing philanthropist.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to iterate this time and time again, but to a new audience every time.
The only way anybody gets truly wealthy in this country is by bringing other people there with him. Most of the wealthiest people in this country were/are philanthropists.
You get there by bringing other people with you.
You name me any man worth at least one hundredth of a cent per dollar of our nation's money in the national reserves (not many, at all), and I'll show you a philanthropist, I guarantee you.
It's really amazing how few people are actually able to treat topics like paedophilia as adults. Most revert to a primal state of instincitvely trying to kill that which looks threatening, even if the threat could be largely mitigated.
.45 slug in his temple is almost as much out of mercy as it is disdain.
If I were to catch a grown man having sex with a child, I would kill him on the spot.
As per why? One, yes, I'm disgusted, mortified, and downright pissed off. Two? Because as much as these people can theoretically be helped, their standards of living are going to suck once they're prosecuted, and because I'm gonna have to pay for the bastard to live a life sucking at the tit of a socialist left. All the programs, welfare, and treatment have to be paid for by someone, and with the blue-collars paying the extreme majority of this country's taxes, I'm gonna be one of the people paying for it. Not on my dime, at least not the guy I can justify killing. Aside from that, the fact that his prison sentence is going to reveal him to the real horrors of human nature, putting a
I do have to offer counter-point, however. I do not consider a 14 year old girl a child, I consider her a hormonal little twit. Grown man? Yeah I'd tune him up pretty good, but I wouldn't kill him. She'd get a stern talking too, and he'd be walking with a limp for the rest of his life, but he didn't actually do anything wrong. It is in our nature to go after attractive women at the soonest sexual viability, sorry but teenage girls are the groundwork for what turn men on. Bad decision, fuck yes; but not something he should be killed or really even do time for assuming it was consentual. I would stipulate that girls of age (14 being the average time a girl is actually sexually viable) can consent, but only within a certain range like 5 years max until she's 18. Quite frankly, this society has tought girls alot about looking alot older than they are and turning guys on. I'm damn near on the savant side of telling how old a woman or girl is (grew up with 4 of 'em) and even I've been fooled by a 15 year old or two. More than five years older and you can pretty much infer that he was specifically looking for young teenagers. There are currently laws that already handle this in alot of states, I don't see it being a problem to giving a hefty fine and a judge spending 30 minutes putting the fear of god into the guy on his first offense if he's 22 and he accidentally sleeps with a 16 year old (She was driving a car and looked like Maggie Q! Give me a break!), but other than that try and stick to the line.
I guess my solution to fix all this would be to do everything you can to distinguish between a seriously perverted man and one who went for the night of his life with a girl who did everything she could be look like a girl that could do that for him. The ones who sleep with real children? As soon as there's undeniable proof, kill the guy, do it humanely, but kill him quick. He doesn't feel a properly large slug to the temple, don't worry, he's dead before the nerves can send him the signal that means "OW!", just my suggestion. Lethal injections are expensive, you know. Like I said, I caught a grown man having sex with a child, he gets a neat little half-inch hole in one side of the head, and hopefully the other side is missing when the ME shows up. Sure there's a chance he might possibly someday maybe somewhat probably be an almost contributive member to society, but unless you're willing to pay for it yourself, I'd rather spend that money you'd be taxing me on something important, like, you know, a piece of gum or something.
And you are one of the many people who consider themselves experts on the American way when you have never, NEVER, not even ONCE, read the Declaration of Independence.
Get an education, then rebuff me.
the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
You think Bush would be such a prick if he knew one of his generals might off and shoot him for pulling some of the bullshit he does?
Right, on gasoline itself.
Learn the manufacture of products in this country, my friend. Taxes on gasoline are only a fraction of the problem, a small fraction. Take for instance the fact that all of our plastics are made from petrol. Well, now take into the consideration the import taxes, the "green" taxes on the substances and chemicals used to refine the crude into the different products we garner from it (gas, kero, and practicaly every plastic known to man), don't forget the carbon taxes on the processes used to generate these different products, and then look into the local, state, and municipality taxes on this and that, yeah.
It's not just "Gas" that's being taxed, it's EVERY SINGLE STEP towards making it.
Sure, officially, our gov is only making 28-66 cents per gallon, at the pump. Now consider all the shit they tax during its manufacture. The sulphur, the methane, and of course the property tax for high-risk industry land, don't forget the licensing and leasing of public park land for research, this and that.
When I said earlier that the gov is making a dollar per gallon, I didn't mean straight from the gas manufacturing, I meant from ALL oil related taxation. $108 per barrel? The gov is going to take its nice $45 share on top of that before anything valuable is made from it.
You, sir, are a complete fucking moron.
The big oil companies haven't been making their profit by virtue of artificially controlling the supply, they've been doing it by selling more than they've ever sold before. The profits reaped last year and the year previous wasn't because of raising their profit margins (I.E. raising prices to increase their profit margin), they've been doing it by selling more petrol than in any years previous.
Big Oil has has the same business infrastructure, organizational structure, and sales methods as they've had for 50 fucking years. They held a razor thin profit margin on gasoline for going on 25 years now. For every dollar on gas, you spend maybe 3 pennies giving them profit. So quit bitching about oil companies gouging the public, because they aren't. You want to know the real culprit for gas prices these days? Our own fucking government, they make about a dollar per gallon on taxes.
Where does that money go? Who knows any more. Just quit bitching about a company actually doing good business, because for the most part the petrol companies are. They have to deal with literally thousands of different mixtures of gasoline being shipped among this country, the different ways to refine them, and finally the shipping, and they're only pulling 3% profit. Fuck you for thinking that's out of line. Learn your economics, and then learn how the real world works. The price of gas being as high as it is is MORE the gov's fault for spending so much money on pork that it has to rape us on gas to compensate. Bitch at your governments for taxing gas so much, then bitch at them for making good companies spend twice as much as they have to for making a good product, THEN bitch at the gas companies for not making things cheap enough when they're only pulling a 3% margin.
This is a capitalist economy, damnit, it's what is responsible for this country's well-being. Think about the business first, then bitch.
Grayish green on black is the best. Black is a necessary background if you want to prevent eyestrain. Grayish green is great because it has enough contrast with black as to be quite visible, but not so bright as to hurt after extended periods of time.
;)
The bright neon green of Commodore days isn't quite the shade you want to look for, go for something that looks like a light-green gray so to speak.
I have a couple of friends that have tried my configuration and now swear by it. The added benefit of the text still being visible if you have transparency on for the background (Anybody remember E?), no matter what you have going on behind it. Well, I mean, you COULD have a background on the desktop that is comprised of the exact same shade of green, or a window open in GIMP with the same shade in backfill for that layer, but probably not. Black or white can't do that, and all the others that can are quite annoying, such as yellow or neon red. A nice, mellow, grayish shade of green is an excellent compromise between contrast and readability.
I welcome any to try it for a week and then personally message me to tell me they don't swear by it themselves. Color blind or visually challenged need not apply
That's not a non-compete contract. That's a "For Hire" contract.
Non-competes are orders of magnitude more sinister than For Hire contracts. As are Associative IP contracts which dictate that all ideas relevant to your field developed during your employ (whether on the clock or off) belong to the employer as well.
I sign For Hire contracts, stipulating that all the provisions given apply only to clocked hours. I abso-fucking-lutely refuse to sign non-competes and and AIP's.
As for this guy, I assume he's in the right both morally and legally. From what I've seen his work was not "For Hire". He was hired to turn a couple of sketches into a reality, and was paid for the most part only for the resultant physical armor. He's an artist, not an industrial designer. He has a right to his work that the customer hasn't paid for. Me, an engineer, I generally make it known that certain aspects of my work are not wholly owned by my employer, and generally they are fine with it. I don't accept anything but my designs and directly applicable derivatives belonging to the employer, and the respected manufactured product of such. Rights to my pseudonym, style, signature or name, as well as non-applicable designs in the same field are extra. If I did it off the clock and it isn't quite literally an improved clone of the product/s my company sells, you have no rights to it. I'm an industrial designer, however, and it is pretty generally understood that the design work I've done on the clock is "Paid For," because the design is the key element to the product or manufacture of such. Where as the blueprints (Design) for what I design are THE PRODUCT, Storm Trooper Armor is art. Lucas bought plastic, essentially, nothing more. As long as this guy isn't using the Star Wars trademark wholesale to sell the suits, he deserves every penny he gets. He delivered on his end, he happened to have molds left over (which he paid for, I guarantee), nothing more needs to be said unless there's a contract specifically saying otherwise. If there isn't, fuck Lucas.
To give all of you a good start on understanding the body language of women, I'll give some pointers. I'm by no means a casanova, player, or predator, but I've had alot of feminine influence in life. I'm a guy, and I was raised in a house with 4 women. My father wasn't the epitome of macho, so I ended up learning alot about the female psyche. It can be a blessing or a curse, if I act on my knowledge, I'm forever in the friend zone (until they hear about how much money I make, go figure). If I'm particularly struck by a certain woman that hasn't had a chance to put me in her friend zone, I'll strike.
Women act on their attractions in different ways. I'll sum them up in two categories. Investigative attraction, and hormonal attraction. Investigative meaning she likes what she sees but she needs to know a little more. Hormonal meaning she's looking to trick her body into thinking she's fulfilled her genetic prerogative, or actually fulfilling it.
Signs of investigative attraction can be just as likely a part of finding a sexual partner for the night, when they're horny they're still going to pick the best they can get. But know that until you see the hormonal signs of attraction, it would be best to be verbal and clarify if you're getting mixed signals. Don't be blunt, be at least a little circuitous when asking, the verbal game is half of the fun for her.
Sex for a woman is very mental, and somewhat physical. Yeah, the physical part is important, but in order for it to be fun she has to be mentally turned on. She wants to feel sexy, she wants to know that she's blowing your mind, she wants very much to be a goddess that's blessing a man with her body. The verbal cues and hints can be very subtle, she wants answers that let her know more and more how much she turns you on. I'd get into the reasons, but then I'd start bestowing the curse of knowing. Knowing the body language, however, can be a great help. It doesn't take much to pick up on them, and it can help alot to muster up the courage to start talking to her if you know she's already at least curious about you. With that little prelude, on to the signs. I won't give them all because, quite frankly, there's too many. I'll also be leaving out many of the very obvious (touching, smiling, etc.) because there's too much coincidence involved with them.
Sure signs of investigative attraction:
Preening. Sweeping her hair, readjusting her jewelry, clothing, etc.. She's adjusting her appearance to bring attention to what she thinks are her best features.In open or private discussion, frequent preening is a good sign of attraction. She needs to be making alot of eye contact with or talking directly to you while doing this, however.
The looking game. If you keeping thinking that a girl was looking at you, and she looks away right as you look at her, she is. Trust your instincts, men have a sixth sense, we can tell when people are looking at us directly. We look at the person instinctively. Women have it to an extent, but men are downright uncanny at it. When a girl does this, she's testing your assertiveness. She's laying down the bait, she wants to see if you have the balls to bite. Women want MEN, afterall. This doesn't mean hoo-haw macho mean mugging, but having the balls to approach a woman often proves that you are at least willing to go after something you want. Being able to muster the initiative to go and strike a conversation is a universally good trait.
Removal of clothing (shut up, perverts). Women often wear extra layers of clothing to keep warm or accesorize. Sweaters, hoodies, jackets, scarves, etc.. This is a subtle one (yeah yeah, even for women), you have to know her a little while first. If she normally keeps them on when carrying on for a normal day, even while indoors, then pay attention to them. If she starts taking them off (leaving her "regular" outfit, jeans and a t-shirt or whatnot) when talking with you, she's more comfortable with you. Subconsciously she's removing barriers between you two. This is an extr
As a machinist with experience with ultra light materials, I'm telling you that's not the only problem.
;) Bottom line, when high speeds inside an atmosphere are involved, you don't want CN seeing open access to oxygen, or seeing direct contact with any good conductor or dissipater of heat in the same situations (aluminum, steel, titanium, practically all metals; thus eliminating the possibility of coatings until ceramics come leaps and bounds away from where it is now).
The other problem is the resilience of the material in question. Sure, CN (Carbon Nanotubes) may be tough and strong, but how can it hold up to the extreme heat of re-entry? Not Well.
Materials engineering isn't a catch-all. It is literally about custom made metals and plastics for very specific uses. Sometimes, the material is pretty useful in other areas too. Carbon, technically a crystalline (metal), in the form of CN makes for a very good "burn" when oxygen and a proper catalyst is involved. Re-entry and other situations that provide for enough friction (after about mach 2 when dealing with air-resistance alone, and that's at the strat) make for bad days when you're in a CN spacecraft
Rockets are all about weight? Most of the weight is in the materials that are seeing open exposure to oxygen during take off or re-entry, not to mention the heat of the fuel burning off at the nozzles. One lone pocket of ozone, an observed phenomenon in our atmosphere, and your satellite-carrying rocket is now a several million dollar firework.
Cheaply mfg'ed CN would make rocketry a LITTLE cheaper, but not much. A space elevator would make space-freight much cheaper if it used CN than rocketry would become cheaper through use of CN.
Just because it's light and strong, doesn't make it useful for everything. Take titanium, even though it is just as plentiful and easily manufactured as aluminum (now), it still isn't as commonly used. We can get titanium from Russia cheaper than we can get copper anywhere, but we still only really see specialty and novelty items made out of it. Why? Because it doesn't hold profile well, and it's a bitch to machine. Everything comes with a catch, and there's a big catch with CN that makes its potential uses very specialized. If your line of thinking held true, newly built commercial airplanes would be %20 lighter because of the advent of titanium. Guess what? Not happening.