Look at you being all space nutter-y and refering to satellites as 'birds', silly slashdotter you're not a spaceman.
Those of us that work in the satellite communications buisness commonly refer to satellites as 'birds'. It's called workplace jargon. Perhaps you posted as AC to keep us from pulling your geek card.
This study is at best incomplete. Reading through this, I am not sure they understand the true limitations to wind power. Air density and strenght of textiles are the limiting factors. As we increase altitude, we lower air density. Using our current technology at a lower air density will result in less efficiency. In order to maintain output would requrie either a much larger aparatis or far more of current technologies. We can't go much larger as very quickly we run into the similar problem that the folks working on the space elevator have... It would rip itself apart. Increasing the number of turbines to account for the loss in air density would not be economicly smart. I can see that they really would like to push air power, but there are physical limitations to what we can do currently.
While your scenario certainly does happen with stocks, it is by no means the norm. Most companies are in the business to make money, not loose it. If one invests in a company and then the market tanks, you only loose if you decide to sell at the bottom. If you let it ride until the market rebounds, then you loose nothing, and more than likely will be better off. Since the overall direction of the market it up, your zero sum game is a fallacy.
There are two kinds of people who have read Ayn Rand... Those who understand her ideas and see them as value to society... and those who are too stupid to understand.
Nature has a way of equalizing the population to it's confined space. We may not like it, but it will happen one way or the other. I like how the video tries to tell you that the problem is solvable by government action. It isn't by any realistic measure. The more you provide resources to people, the more they will consume, and the worse the problem becomes. Wars, while not ideal, do a fairly good job of removing large numbers of the population quickly, as does desease. However, we like to think that to be civilized we should do all we can to stop both. So instead we allow people to starve to death... Yea, humanity.
I know that this is normally a forum to bash **AA, but the fact still remains that Kim Dotcom made his fortune by providing a service that was used to circumvent paying for content. Never did he even attempt to stop this illegal activity, and at times, promoted it. People like to talk about how the rich make there fortune off the backs of the working class... this guy is your poster child.
You joke, but I wonder if anybody ever thought to account for the apathy factor. When I was in the 8th grade, the last thing I wanted to do was take a stupid test. Knowing that the standardised test wouldn't affect my future, I would draw patterns in the bubbles.
Fiscal conservatives want us to quit wasting money. Space has nothing to do with it other than it is one place that can be cut easily. If you ask most conservatives, we would rather spend money on space exploration than social wellfare programs. Unfortunately, those programs can't be cut without much pain to the folks who need/want to depend on them.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at you being all space nutter-y and refering to satellites as 'birds', silly slashdotter you're not a spaceman.
Those of us that work in the satellite communications buisness commonly refer to satellites as 'birds'. It's called workplace jargon. Perhaps you posted as AC to keep us from pulling your geek card.
This study is at best incomplete. Reading through this, I am not sure they understand the true limitations to wind power. Air density and strenght of textiles are the limiting factors. As we increase altitude, we lower air density. Using our current technology at a lower air density will result in less efficiency. In order to maintain output would requrie either a much larger aparatis or far more of current technologies. We can't go much larger as very quickly we run into the similar problem that the folks working on the space elevator have... It would rip itself apart. Increasing the number of turbines to account for the loss in air density would not be economicly smart. I can see that they really would like to push air power, but there are physical limitations to what we can do currently.
Double plus good on your unsername.
The best thing about democracy is it should protect the minority from the will of the majority.
Democracy does no such thing. However, a representative demacracy does. Plain old democracy is nothing more than the will of the majority.
Remind me to change the combo on my luggage.
A nuke at 300 miles above isn't likely to produce many smoking corpses.
While your scenario certainly does happen with stocks, it is by no means the norm. Most companies are in the business to make money, not loose it. If one invests in a company and then the market tanks, you only loose if you decide to sell at the bottom. If you let it ride until the market rebounds, then you loose nothing, and more than likely will be better off. Since the overall direction of the market it up, your zero sum game is a fallacy.
I actually owned a Stretch Armstrong as a kid.
9dbi antenna and external wifi adapter FTW (the last I tested worked well upto a mile in the boonies)
You are assuming that my neighbors are in any way tech savvy? The guy closest to me was taken by surprise when the TV system went digital.
This does seem useless for anybody not it a big city. My closest neighbor is a good 1/4 mile away.
There are two kinds of people who have read Ayn Rand... Those who understand her ideas and see them as value to society... and those who are too stupid to understand.
Nature has a way of equalizing the population to it's confined space. We may not like it, but it will happen one way or the other. I like how the video tries to tell you that the problem is solvable by government action. It isn't by any realistic measure. The more you provide resources to people, the more they will consume, and the worse the problem becomes. Wars, while not ideal, do a fairly good job of removing large numbers of the population quickly, as does desease. However, we like to think that to be civilized we should do all we can to stop both. So instead we allow people to starve to death... Yea, humanity.
I know that this is normally a forum to bash **AA, but the fact still remains that Kim Dotcom made his fortune by providing a service that was used to circumvent paying for content. Never did he even attempt to stop this illegal activity, and at times, promoted it. People like to talk about how the rich make there fortune off the backs of the working class... this guy is your poster child.
You mean lik SOPA?
So no, we are not the universe, sorry.
Speak for yourself, I am my own universe, just ask me.
Well, for starters, it takes hundreds of years for soil to become fertile "from scratch."
Not true, it took me about 3 weeks with a tractor and several truckloads of peet to turn 50 acres of desert (silica sand) into good farming soil.
You joke, but I wonder if anybody ever thought to account for the apathy factor. When I was in the 8th grade, the last thing I wanted to do was take a stupid test. Knowing that the standardised test wouldn't affect my future, I would draw patterns in the bubbles.
you mean like this:
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
You mean like this?
Fiscal conservatives want us to quit wasting money. Space has nothing to do with it other than it is one place that can be cut easily. If you ask most conservatives, we would rather spend money on space exploration than social wellfare programs. Unfortunately, those programs can't be cut without much pain to the folks who need/want to depend on them.
To bring back an old meme...
You must be new here.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests."
Exactly how it should be. The entire point of requiring a warrant, is to provide checks and ballances to the system.
It's that "Conservatives" use it far more than the rest balance it by using it against them.
Citation needed.
Both sides have used the filibuster on equal terms. The Republicans are just the most current users, and therefore get the limelight.
At least Obama hasn't invaded Iran, for which the rest of the world is extremely grateful.
Yet...
You speak blasphemy!