Enough with the revisionism already. Jeesh! The GOP was completely disheartened until Palin spoke. They had watched for 8 years as the party of smaller government took over and, instead of reducing government, gave us hearings on steroids among professional athletes. At some point, you throw your hands up and say, "What the hell. We're dead.", and many in the GOP were feeling that way. The only difference between McCain and Obama was which government programs they wanted to increase spending on.
Palin came in and mouthed the right words to invigorate conservatives. After listening for a while, most understood that she was just mouthing words without understanding, but at least she was mouthing the right words. Mc "Let's suspend the campaign" Cain is still an idiot, and Palin kept him from loosing by an even larger landslide.
It's a cheap proposition. as far as these things go, but the thermocouple is out of the question. You want that heat in the air to make it rise. The thermocouple would rob the heat pump of its engergy.
So I turn around in my desk chair to look at the aviation sectional map I have on my wall to serve as cube decoration. Using my flight instructor's canard, about the numbers next to tower symbols on the map ("The top number is what your altimeter reads when you hit it. The bottom number is how far you have to fall as you go screaming to your death"), I determine that there are a couple of 1989 ft towers right outside of the Raleigh Class C airspace. There's a 1747ft tower right behind my house.
2600? Pfft! This isn't a sky-scraper that has to support humans and facilities. It is basically a tube, and probably less complicated than a tower. Most of the weight can stay down low, as there is no real need to put the generators up top, and then the tower itself can be used as an antennae.
If it can actually work, this would be an extremely cheap energy source that has a lot of possibilities for enhancements. For instance, I was in Sunnyvale, CA a few months back. Took a day trip to walk around the foothill. Lots of strong winds, and it all came off the ocean. I could see building a tower on the side of one of those hills, capturing the force of the wind, directing it up the tower and then letting the sun do its work. You get a windmill combined with a solar generator.
They've always been risk averse. The comic-book movies have proven to be good bets lately, though. If you've got to bet, would you put your money on a 90% chance of a 150% return, or a 10% chance on a 1500% return? It's a hard gamble, but it's always easy to sit back and go long on other people's money.
There are just as many great movies as there always were. Do you think there was a "Gone With the Wind" every year up until 1990? Just look at how many movies there are in Netflix that you wouldn't want to spend a dime on. I remember watching a "blockbuster" called "Krull" when I was in highschool. Thought it was really cool then. Watched part of it a few years ago, and had to give up when the my cringing got to bad (damn! That was an awful movie.)
What do you have against flashy bimbos? You shouldn't expect a conversation after you get what you paid for, so you won't realize there is a lack of ideas, humor or imagination.
Movies are not the Internet. There is no interaction. You go to be spoon-fed syrup.
If by "scratch" you mean using existing launch sites, applying NASA discoveries, tech and employees, and taking expertise from ("investing in") existing academic spin-offs and other established aerospace operations, then yes, SpaceX started from "scratch".
And NASA has access to all the same research, launch sites and expertise...and yet they're still behind.
I'm sure you had a counterpoint there somewhere, I'm just not seeing it.
Evolution is falsifiable. The creation of man is not.
The evolutionary process has been proven in hundreds, if not thousands, of way. Everything from dog breeding to super bacteria are clear proof that species evolve.
Creation is a matter of piecing together events that happened millions of years ago (or 6,000, if you want to bury your head someplace dark and smelly). That is the point that science must start melting into believing.
Have you noticed how everyone gets a knee in the neck? How everyone gets searched? How all the suspects go along with it?
Worst of all, how they have to give everyone condescending personal advice? Your a flunky gum-shoe, not a psycho-therapist. Shut the hell up until you get a degree.
I love this part: protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience
Last Friday, there was an auto accident on the 4-lane that I commute on. The cause, once again, was a policeman pulling someone over for a traffic ticket..on a busy road..during rush hour..."to protect the public". I have seen this SO many times. Why don't we have statistics on how many hours and how much CO2 was added to the air from stupid policemen stopping people in dangerous situations that leave hours long traffic jams in their wake, IF they are lucky enough not to get anyone killed?
"Protecting the public" is local government speak for "revenue collection program".
Being a libertarian leaning conservative, I whole-heartedly agree with this sentiment. It makes no sense for the state to turn its police powers into guns-for-hire.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
Depends on how quickly you need to know the answer to the problem. You ever seen someone searching desperately for a calculator because they need to add up a list of 5 or 6 numbers? Or someone that can't write a paragraph without a dictionary? It's such a sad spectacle.
The Fair Tax is a plan that determines what an average person would need to survive, and pre-emtively refunds that money. EVERYONE gets a government check every month. It's simple, clear, treats everyone equally, and eliminates the huge mountain of litigious decision making involved in "means testing". So the billionaire gets a check for $250 every month. Will she even bother to cash it?
But you contention that the billionaire won't buy anything is ludicrous. What's the point of having a billion dollars if all you can do is stick it in the bank? They may not splurge it all in a weekend on blow and hoes like some over stimulated rap star, but they are likely to buy a tailored suit instead of whatever fits at the Men's Warehouse. And at that point, they will pay more taxes than I.
What does need to change in the Constitution is that we need term limits for all elected officials (Congress), and the Supreme Court, just like the President got thanks to FDR attempting to be an elected dictator (22nd Amendment for those still reading). That should help to weed out corruption by preventing it from sticking around too long, enabling do-gooders (probably the majority of politicians initially, on both sides) to get in and do good until the lobbyists have had time to both corrupt and own them. There will obviously be corrupt individuals still seeping through the cracks, but this should help to get them out sooner rather than when they die or retire.
Term limits are fraught with its own host of problems, including limiting peoples right to vote for whom they wish and creating lame-duck officials all over the place.
A much cleaner solution is to forbid campaigning by sitting elected officials. Most will get elected and then have to go back home and live under the laws they wrote while in office for their one term. They'll be much more considerate of how the laws they're writing will affect people. Lobbyist will be undercut, because "their man" won't be there in a couple of years. Politicians will have to be mighty good to get entrenched the way they do now. Politicians stay in office by bringing home pork, and they're able to get more pork the longer they stay in office. This feedback loop will be cut.
If they are good enough to get elected without campaigning, let 'em stay; otherwise, make room for the next brain full of ideas.
Your sarcasm argues for the logic that a conquering force does have a legitimate claim, simply due to the conquest. So, does Israel have just as much a claim to their land as the US does to the central American lands it occupies?
When is a conquest legitimate, and when is it not?
Now, do you think US/NATO can play progressors better than Soviets did? Because, so far, between the "liberated" Afghanistan officially being an Islamic republic where Sharia supercedes all other laws (per its constitution), and the "new old" misogynist marriage laws, the West isn't even trying.
Yes. They can. We have TVs to rot their minds with. If we can get enough in there and keep their power grid going, we'll have every Afghany dribbling in their cereal bowl as they watch MTV's "Real Burkas", "Llama Wars", and "Musaf Springer".
Slashdot Mirror
Enough with the revisionism already. Jeesh! The GOP was completely disheartened until Palin spoke. They had watched for 8 years as the party of smaller government took over and, instead of reducing government, gave us hearings on steroids among professional athletes. At some point, you throw your hands up and say, "What the hell. We're dead.", and many in the GOP were feeling that way. The only difference between McCain and Obama was which government programs they wanted to increase spending on.
Palin came in and mouthed the right words to invigorate conservatives. After listening for a while, most understood that she was just mouthing words without understanding, but at least she was mouthing the right words. Mc "Let's suspend the campaign" Cain is still an idiot, and Palin kept him from loosing by an even larger landslide.
It's a cheap proposition. as far as these things go, but the thermocouple is out of the question. You want that heat in the air to make it rise. The thermocouple would rob the heat pump of its engergy.
So I turn around in my desk chair to look at the aviation sectional map I have on my wall to serve as cube decoration. Using my flight instructor's canard, about the numbers next to tower symbols on the map ("The top number is what your altimeter reads when you hit it. The bottom number is how far you have to fall as you go screaming to your death"), I determine that there are a couple of 1989 ft towers right outside of the Raleigh Class C airspace. There's a 1747ft tower right behind my house.
2600? Pfft! This isn't a sky-scraper that has to support humans and facilities. It is basically a tube, and probably less complicated than a tower. Most of the weight can stay down low, as there is no real need to put the generators up top, and then the tower itself can be used as an antennae.
If it can actually work, this would be an extremely cheap energy source that has a lot of possibilities for enhancements. For instance, I was in Sunnyvale, CA a few months back. Took a day trip to walk around the foothill. Lots of strong winds, and it all came off the ocean. I could see building a tower on the side of one of those hills, capturing the force of the wind, directing it up the tower and then letting the sun do its work. You get a windmill combined with a solar generator.
They've always been risk averse. The comic-book movies have proven to be good bets lately, though. If you've got to bet, would you put your money on a 90% chance of a 150% return, or a 10% chance on a 1500% return? It's a hard gamble, but it's always easy to sit back and go long on other people's money.
There are just as many great movies as there always were. Do you think there was a "Gone With the Wind" every year up until 1990? Just look at how many movies there are in Netflix that you wouldn't want to spend a dime on. I remember watching a "blockbuster" called "Krull" when I was in highschool. Thought it was really cool then. Watched part of it a few years ago, and had to give up when the my cringing got to bad (damn! That was an awful movie.)
What do you have against flashy bimbos? You shouldn't expect a conversation after you get what you paid for, so you won't realize there is a lack of ideas, humor or imagination.
Movies are not the Internet. There is no interaction. You go to be spoon-fed syrup.
Of course, that is why I don't go, but ... meh?...
Bingo! Schoolboards are just barely one step above home-owner associations.
If by "scratch" you mean using existing launch sites, applying NASA discoveries, tech and employees, and taking expertise from ("investing in") existing academic spin-offs and other established aerospace operations, then yes, SpaceX started from "scratch".
And NASA has access to all the same research, launch sites and expertise...and yet they're still behind.
I'm sure you had a counterpoint there somewhere, I'm just not seeing it.
Not all are complaining.
And it has nothing to do with OBAMA.
Evolution is falsifiable. The creation of man is not.
The evolutionary process has been proven in hundreds, if not thousands, of way. Everything from dog breeding to super bacteria are clear proof that species evolve.
Creation is a matter of piecing together events that happened millions of years ago (or 6,000, if you want to bury your head someplace dark and smelly). That is the point that science must start melting into believing.
But you've got a lot of people out there trying to raise "children", and they do. I equate it to the idea of raising "seed".
I've tried my darndest to raise a couple of "adults".
Have you noticed how everyone gets a knee in the neck? How everyone gets searched? How all the suspects go along with it?
Worst of all, how they have to give everyone condescending personal advice? Your a flunky gum-shoe, not a psycho-therapist. Shut the hell up until you get a degree.
Or it will have politicians writing laws to make it illegal to record public officials without permission.
I love this part:
protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience
Last Friday, there was an auto accident on the 4-lane that I commute on. The cause, once again, was a policeman pulling someone over for a traffic ticket..on a busy road..during rush hour..."to protect the public". I have seen this SO many times. Why don't we have statistics on how many hours and how much CO2 was added to the air from stupid policemen stopping people in dangerous situations that leave hours long traffic jams in their wake, IF they are lucky enough not to get anyone killed?
"Protecting the public" is local government speak for "revenue collection program".
Being a libertarian leaning conservative, I whole-heartedly agree with this sentiment. It makes no sense for the state to turn its police powers into guns-for-hire.
Wasn't the telegraph a digital messaging system?
I don't think you understand how government programs work...
And the man that brings a knife to a gun fight dies. - a still breathing incompetent.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
Great! We have a deal then?
Depends on how quickly you need to know the answer to the problem. You ever seen someone searching desperately for a calculator because they need to add up a list of 5 or 6 numbers? Or someone that can't write a paragraph without a dictionary? It's such a sad spectacle.
No one is forcing you to receive the benefits of government, you can leave its jurisdiction any time you want.
Obama, et al, are working hard to fix that.
The Fair Tax is a plan that determines what an average person would need to survive, and pre-emtively refunds that money. EVERYONE gets a government check every month. It's simple, clear, treats everyone equally, and eliminates the huge mountain of litigious decision making involved in "means testing". So the billionaire gets a check for $250 every month. Will she even bother to cash it?
But you contention that the billionaire won't buy anything is ludicrous. What's the point of having a billion dollars if all you can do is stick it in the bank? They may not splurge it all in a weekend on blow and hoes like some over stimulated rap star, but they are likely to buy a tailored suit instead of whatever fits at the Men's Warehouse. And at that point, they will pay more taxes than I.
How would it be different? So far, there have been less than 30 patches, so I don't see the holes your claiming.
What does need to change in the Constitution is that we need term limits for all elected officials (Congress), and the Supreme Court, just like the President got thanks to FDR attempting to be an elected dictator (22nd Amendment for those still reading). That should help to weed out corruption by preventing it from sticking around too long, enabling do-gooders (probably the majority of politicians initially, on both sides) to get in and do good until the lobbyists have had time to both corrupt and own them. There will obviously be corrupt individuals still seeping through the cracks, but this should help to get them out sooner rather than when they die or retire.
Term limits are fraught with its own host of problems, including limiting peoples right to vote for whom they wish and creating lame-duck officials all over the place.
A much cleaner solution is to forbid campaigning by sitting elected officials. Most will get elected and then have to go back home and live under the laws they wrote while in office for their one term. They'll be much more considerate of how the laws they're writing will affect people. Lobbyist will be undercut, because "their man" won't be there in a couple of years. Politicians will have to be mighty good to get entrenched the way they do now. Politicians stay in office by bringing home pork, and they're able to get more pork the longer they stay in office. This feedback loop will be cut.
If they are good enough to get elected without campaigning, let 'em stay; otherwise, make room for the next brain full of ideas.
Your sarcasm argues for the logic that a conquering force does have a legitimate claim, simply due to the conquest. So, does Israel have just as much a claim to their land as the US does to the central American lands it occupies?
When is a conquest legitimate, and when is it not?
Now, do you think US/NATO can play progressors better than Soviets did? Because, so far, between the "liberated" Afghanistan officially being an Islamic republic where Sharia supercedes all other laws (per its constitution), and the "new old" misogynist marriage laws, the West isn't even trying.
Yes. They can. We have TVs to rot their minds with. If we can get enough in there and keep their power grid going, we'll have every Afghany dribbling in their cereal bowl as they watch MTV's "Real Burkas", "Llama Wars", and "Musaf Springer".