I think they should get rid of the names on ballots. Every name should be a write in. There would be the word "President" with a line next to it.
The task set before the voter is to fill the name in and spell it correctly. The poll worker would read off each name and record a vote accordingly. Incorrect spellings do not count for any candidate. If you don't know who is running well enough to be able to spell their name...damn, I don't want you to have any input into who rules over us.
World travel is a highly prized goal here in the US. I've yet to meet a single person that doesn't get excited about the prospect of seeing far away places first-hand. Just look at some of the prizes given away in game shows. The catch is that most can't afford it. It's the same every place I've ever been. Paying a few euro to ride the chunnel from England to France is a couple hundred mile trip, at best. It's equivalent to me traveling from my home in Raleigh, NC up to Virginia to see extended family. I've done such trips on a weekend to show my sons various historical sites, or even to visit family.
Given the GDP of European and Americans are somewhat equivalent, I would say the same level of real international travel prevails. You claim, as a stated fact and with derogatory implications, that "not very man Americans travel outside the US." I state as a fact, and without the derogation, that not very many people anywhere travel far from home, because it is expensive.
Yes, I know you can get on a train just about anywhere in Europe, and be in another place where they speak a different language within an hour or two. My response to that is, "It must suck for you." While they were standardizing on weights and measures, they should have stopped their infighting and standardized on a common language. However, just because your ancestors split their continent into such small pieces doesn't make you a "world traveller" when you stray a few hundred miles from your home using land transport any more than I'm a world traveler when I drive to Florida.
And that east/west pressure would be converted to upward momentum by reacting against the Earth.
Why would it need to be travelling much faster than 300mph? It can continue to accelerate up the mountain, and the rockets would take over once it reached the end of the track.
What does it have to reach escape velocity by the end of the track? A vast amount of fuel is burned just to get the rest of the fuel moving. The 'spacetrain' (for lack of a better word) would carry half of a first stage, and all that weight would be converted to cargo.
The real benefit would be eliminating the first few moments of lift-off, when the rocket is burning, but the spacecraft isn't fast enough to be maneuverable. When the shuttle reached the end of the track, it would be moving fast enough to be maneuverable already. The rocket would ignite just before the end of the track. (Or maybe even after it has left the track.)
That's fair enough. Although not very many Americans travel outside the US.
That's fair enough. Although not very many Europeans travel outside Europe. Not very many Asians travel outside of Asia. Not very many Africans...oh, HELL, you get the point.
On the whole, most people lack the funds to be world travelers.
Ask him if he has ever been to a pot luck dinner. Ask him if he has ever attended a car show at the local mall. Those guys spend thousands of dollars and countless laborious hours restoring old cars just so you can look at them.
If your are maneuvering in a know magnetic field, you can react against it.
There is the solar wind that you can capture or react against.
Another idea. Instead of using solar cells to collect electricity to drive an ion engine, wouldn't it be more efficient to use a solar concentrator to heat a propellant directly to drive a reaction?
Why do the G-forces need to be excessive. Build a 3 or 4 mile long maglev system, the last mile climbs a mountain. Spread the load over multiple rails. An airbag system launches the space vehicle and brakes the rail car at the same time.
Your vehicle is now several thousand feet higher (in thinner atmosphere), and traveling at several hundred knots (Japanese have reach over 300mph with maglev technology). Scaling up means you add another track beside the ones you have. No law says a launch vehicle has to be round. Make it flat. A failed launch will have the space vehicle gliding to a landing strip on the other side of the mountain.
That's a safe system, using proven technology, that can increase payload, reduce fuel usage, and can start small and be scaled without throwing away your investment.
It was reported by a few outlets that Obama's website changed a lot during the political campaign. It would be an interesting application of this technology, to keep a watch on political websites.
A computer only concerns itself with moving signals back and forth. Cars, airplanes, and space vehicles concern themselves with moving actual matter around. The former is bound by Shannon's Law, but the actual signals can be made smaller with more sensitive electronics. Accelerating a body of mass a given amount will require a specific force, and there is no way to reduce that force.
To improve a rocket, you have to extract more energy from the fuel it carries. This is limited by the energy contained in the fuel's chemical makeup and your ability to handle said chemicals and the energy it contains.
To make a signal transmitter and reciever smaller/more energy efficient/faster, you have to improve manufacturing preciseness.
We hit the theoretical physical limits of known materials early in the space race. Barring some unknown element or catalyst being discovered, there isn't much new to be discovered, so there won't be any radical improvements.
We knew the limits of making integrated circuits smaller in the early 70's, but we couldn't image transistors that small. We've been slowly engineering manufacturing technologies to make the process more precise, and thus transistors smaller. Notice that processors haven't been doubling in speed every two years lately. We've about reached the limits of that road two, which means you'll stop seeing 'drastic' improvements in processor technology. Improvements will start to be small, incremental, and spaced much further apart.
Except if that configuration is stable at takeoff, it won't be at landing. With all the fuel centered after of the wing, the CG will move forward as the rocket is used. Post orbit, that thing will have the configuration of a lawn dart.
Not if you complain to the company. They don't even provide enough telephone drones to answer the calls. They don't care!!
Now if you complain to your areas franchise board (if you can find them). Now that's a different story. The companies will snap to attention if they think their penned sheep might be sold off to another company.
The 'politicians' here have decided that it is unsitely and wasteful to have multiple cables running to the same neighborhood, so they set up "franchise fees". A company will come in and pay for the 'rights' to service an area, and only one company is allowed the right at any one time.
Government run monopoly. The thing is, people complain to the companies. Waste of time. You need to complain to the franchise board. They are the only people that give a rat's ass about what you have to say. The telecoms only care about the whims of the franchise boards.
Pepsi and Coke pay the grocery stores for special shelf placement. The reason you don't see Best Buy and Circuit City selling open source CD's is that now one is willing to pay for the shelf rental.
I agree that it is extortion, but it isn't as rare as you'd first suppose.
And what would have happened if she got the three diseases for real, not the weakened or dead forms of the bacteria.
The point of the vaccines is to introduce the child's immune system to the bacteria in such a way that the child's immune system can fight them off and win. From that point on, the immune system is on the look-out for those bacteria. If the immune system doesn't get a fight, it won't get stronger and it won't be prepared for the bacteria when they come in for real.
The week of 106F fever will most likely be responsible for saving your daughters life.
It's not just a disdain for the FDA. It is a disdain for all paternalistic government that would deem to know what is best for me.
A test such as this may not tell you that you need pieces cut out of your body, but if it does reliably detect the proper proteins it can let me know that I don't need a camera shoved up my hind end.
Yes, it needs to be studied, but 14 years to approve a non-invasive, screening test is ridiculous. The efficacy of the technique for identifying the proteins can be shown in a matter of weeks. Just run a battery of tests with blood samples from known test subjects. Either it works, or it doesn't. If it shows everyone positive for cancer, then it would be a market failure to begin with. The FDA is redundant in this case. If it cuts the number of irradiated breasts and sore rectums then it will lower the cost of healthcare, and again the FDA adds nothing.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Windows has had roaming user profiles since 1996 when Linux distributions were still grappling with figuring out how to get a GUI.
You and the other Windows fanboys should go first. Roaming profiles are a poor hack of a properly configure NFS/NIS system.
All you need on the client side for a netbooted linux system is a floppy with a kernel, or a network card with a bootable PROM. It will download the entire operating system, GUI, home directory and all the applications. Roaming profiles still leave the administrator roaming from box to box to do updates of the OS. Windows is not, nor will it ever be, a properly networked OS.
Are you arguing that if we have an indication that there might be cancer present, we may decide it is best not to attempt treatment, therefore it is best not to look for it in the first place?
Are you claiming that it would be better to get that colonoscopy instead of giving a blood sample?
It is your contention that women are better being fired up with X-rays to look for breast cancer instead of giving a blood sample?
And what if the device gives a false positive? Does that mean the doc should break out the chainsaw and go looking for the culprit, or does it mean that they might use a more traditional detection technique? (We got a positive. NOW we'll shove a probe up your anus!)
The tests for a device like this are simple. Take blood samples from healthy and cancerous patients. Run a few thousand through the detector. Keep count. If the numbers look useful, the FDA needs to get the hell out of the way.
Just because you have a rifle doesn't mean you can't carry a pistol. And having either doesn't mean you need to kill anything.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't sell them fast enough because everyone is out of a job 8*)
I think they should get rid of the names on ballots. Every name should be a write in. There would be the word "President" with a line next to it.
The task set before the voter is to fill the name in and spell it correctly. The poll worker would read off each name and record a vote accordingly. Incorrect spellings do not count for any candidate. If you don't know who is running well enough to be able to spell their name...damn, I don't want you to have any input into who rules over us.
I call this rule by the cognitive.
World travel is a highly prized goal here in the US. I've yet to meet a single person that doesn't get excited about the prospect of seeing far away places first-hand. Just look at some of the prizes given away in game shows. The catch is that most can't afford it. It's the same every place I've ever been. Paying a few euro to ride the chunnel from England to France is a couple hundred mile trip, at best. It's equivalent to me traveling from my home in Raleigh, NC up to Virginia to see extended family. I've done such trips on a weekend to show my sons various historical sites, or even to visit family.
Given the GDP of European and Americans are somewhat equivalent, I would say the same level of real international travel prevails. You claim, as a stated fact and with derogatory implications, that "not very man Americans travel outside the US." I state as a fact, and without the derogation, that not very many people anywhere travel far from home, because it is expensive.
Yes, I know you can get on a train just about anywhere in Europe, and be in another place where they speak a different language within an hour or two. My response to that is, "It must suck for you." While they were standardizing on weights and measures, they should have stopped their infighting and standardized on a common language. However, just because your ancestors split their continent into such small pieces doesn't make you a "world traveller" when you stray a few hundred miles from your home using land transport any more than I'm a world traveler when I drive to Florida.
And that east/west pressure would be converted to upward momentum by reacting against the Earth.
Why would it need to be travelling much faster than 300mph? It can continue to accelerate up the mountain, and the rockets would take over once it reached the end of the track.
What does it have to reach escape velocity by the end of the track? A vast amount of fuel is burned just to get the rest of the fuel moving. The 'spacetrain' (for lack of a better word) would carry half of a first stage, and all that weight would be converted to cargo.
The real benefit would be eliminating the first few moments of lift-off, when the rocket is burning, but the spacecraft isn't fast enough to be maneuverable. When the shuttle reached the end of the track, it would be moving fast enough to be maneuverable already. The rocket would ignite just before the end of the track. (Or maybe even after it has left the track.)
That's fair enough. Although not very many Americans travel outside the US.
That's fair enough. Although not very many Europeans travel outside Europe. Not very many Asians travel outside of Asia. Not very many Africans...oh, HELL, you get the point.
On the whole, most people lack the funds to be world travelers.
Ask him if he has ever been to a pot luck dinner.
Ask him if he has ever attended a car show at the local mall. Those guys spend thousands of dollars and countless laborious hours restoring old cars just so you can look at them.
There's a lot in this life that is free.
If your are maneuvering in a know magnetic field, you can react against it.
There is the solar wind that you can capture or react against.
Another idea. Instead of using solar cells to collect electricity to drive an ion engine, wouldn't it be more efficient to use a solar concentrator to heat a propellant directly to drive a reaction?
Why do the G-forces need to be excessive. Build a 3 or 4 mile long maglev system, the last mile climbs a mountain. Spread the load over multiple rails. An airbag system launches the space vehicle and brakes the rail car at the same time.
Your vehicle is now several thousand feet higher (in thinner atmosphere), and traveling at several hundred knots (Japanese have reach over 300mph with maglev technology). Scaling up means you add another track beside the ones you have. No law says a launch vehicle has to be round. Make it flat. A failed launch will have the space vehicle gliding to a landing strip on the other side of the mountain.
That's a safe system, using proven technology, that can increase payload, reduce fuel usage, and can start small and be scaled without throwing away your investment.
In the Google browser virtual machine, Linux runs YOU!
It was reported by a few outlets that Obama's website changed a lot during the political campaign. It would be an interesting application of this technology, to keep a watch on political websites.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
A computer only concerns itself with moving signals back and forth. Cars, airplanes, and space vehicles concern themselves with moving actual matter around. The former is bound by Shannon's Law, but the actual signals can be made smaller with more sensitive electronics. Accelerating a body of mass a given amount will require a specific force, and there is no way to reduce that force.
To improve a rocket, you have to extract more energy from the fuel it carries. This is limited by the energy contained in the fuel's chemical makeup and your ability to handle said chemicals and the energy it contains.
To make a signal transmitter and reciever smaller/more energy efficient/faster, you have to improve manufacturing preciseness.
We hit the theoretical physical limits of known materials early in the space race. Barring some unknown element or catalyst being discovered, there isn't much new to be discovered, so there won't be any radical improvements.
We knew the limits of making integrated circuits smaller in the early 70's, but we couldn't image transistors that small. We've been slowly engineering manufacturing technologies to make the process more precise, and thus transistors smaller. Notice that processors haven't been doubling in speed every two years lately. We've about reached the limits of that road two, which means you'll stop seeing 'drastic' improvements in processor technology. Improvements will start to be small, incremental, and spaced much further apart.
Thank you for pointing out our omission. We'll send someone over to fix that.
Except if that configuration is stable at takeoff, it won't be at landing. With all the fuel centered after of the wing, the CG will move forward as the rocket is used. Post orbit, that thing will have the configuration of a lawn dart.
I recommend screaming loudly.
To the franchise boards. Kick the company in the balls from the outset. Don't wait until you're in a real fight.
Not if you complain to the company. They don't even provide enough telephone drones to answer the calls. They don't care!!
Now if you complain to your areas franchise board (if you can find them). Now that's a different story. The companies will snap to attention if they think their penned sheep might be sold off to another company.
The 'politicians' here have decided that it is unsitely and wasteful to have multiple cables running to the same neighborhood, so they set up "franchise fees". A company will come in and pay for the 'rights' to service an area, and only one company is allowed the right at any one time.
Government run monopoly. The thing is, people complain to the companies. Waste of time. You need to complain to the franchise board. They are the only people that give a rat's ass about what you have to say. The telecoms only care about the whims of the franchise boards.
Pepsi and Coke pay the grocery stores for special shelf placement. The reason you don't see Best Buy and Circuit City selling open source CD's is that now one is willing to pay for the shelf rental.
I agree that it is extortion, but it isn't as rare as you'd first suppose.
And what would have happened if she got the three diseases for real, not the weakened or dead forms of the bacteria.
The point of the vaccines is to introduce the child's immune system to the bacteria in such a way that the child's immune system can fight them off and win. From that point on, the immune system is on the look-out for those bacteria. If the immune system doesn't get a fight, it won't get stronger and it won't be prepared for the bacteria when they come in for real.
The week of 106F fever will most likely be responsible for saving your daughters life.
Now we know how the world will really end.
Native American.
It's not just a disdain for the FDA. It is a disdain for all paternalistic government that would deem to know what is best for me.
A test such as this may not tell you that you need pieces cut out of your body, but if it does reliably detect the proper proteins it can let me know that I don't need a camera shoved up my hind end.
Yes, it needs to be studied, but 14 years to approve a non-invasive, screening test is ridiculous. The efficacy of the technique for identifying the proteins can be shown in a matter of weeks. Just run a battery of tests with blood samples from known test subjects. Either it works, or it doesn't. If it shows everyone positive for cancer, then it would be a market failure to begin with. The FDA is redundant in this case. If it cuts the number of irradiated breasts and sore rectums then it will lower the cost of healthcare, and again the FDA adds nothing.
Well, I know one slashdotter that hasn't been reading the marketing materials. Jeesh!
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Windows has had roaming user profiles since 1996 when Linux distributions were still grappling with figuring out how to get a GUI.
GO LEARN SOMETHING
You and the other Windows fanboys should go first. Roaming profiles are a poor hack of a properly configure NFS/NIS system.
All you need on the client side for a netbooted linux system is a floppy with a kernel, or a network card with a bootable PROM. It will download the entire operating system, GUI, home directory and all the applications. Roaming profiles still leave the administrator roaming from box to box to do updates of the OS. Windows is not, nor will it ever be, a properly networked OS.
Your argument befuddles me.
Are you arguing that if we have an indication that there might be cancer present, we may decide it is best not to attempt treatment, therefore it is best not to look for it in the first place?
Are you claiming that it would be better to get that colonoscopy instead of giving a blood sample?
It is your contention that women are better being fired up with X-rays to look for breast cancer instead of giving a blood sample?
And what if the device gives a false positive? Does that mean the doc should break out the chainsaw and go looking for the culprit, or does it mean that they might use a more traditional detection technique? (We got a positive. NOW we'll shove a probe up your anus!)
The tests for a device like this are simple. Take blood samples from healthy and cancerous patients. Run a few thousand through the detector. Keep count. If the numbers look useful, the FDA needs to get the hell out of the way.
Just because you have a rifle doesn't mean you can't carry a pistol. And having either doesn't mean you need to kill anything.