Why embed the solar / electrolysis system in the vehicle? It adds weight which would require more energy for movement. It might be useful for military vehicles ( a long range recon vehicle for instance ), but seems less useful for civillian use.
Also: The four solar panels and hydrogen-generating system create only enough fuel per day to travel a few miles.
Which indicates for this to be practical either more efficient solar panels or a lower energy electrolysis system would be required. Heck, if it gets effiecient enough the weight of the solar / electrolysis system might not be a factor.
Still, great progress. I'd love to see power production become more distributed although I'm sure some *cough*oil companies*cough* would hate the idea.
These people, AFAIK, came up through the ranks. They earned their positions on merit, not race or gender. I've never encountered news media reports hailing them as "champions of diversity" or some such.
This seems like a good thing to me. The best person gets the job, regardless of race or gender ( or any other criteria which don't impact job performance ).
You get a degree in it because that's what everyone else is doing, then you hope to get a job in it. If that's not the case, then what are all the people doing getting philosophy and history degrees?
I know two people with English degrees and one with a degree in Womens Studies. All expected to make much more than they are ( retail ) just because they had a degree.
I, like you, got into computers because I liked it. I feel lucky that I like my work, since if my interests lay in, say, writting poetry my job prospects would be nil.
Doing what you like is great. It's even better when you can live on that. If not, then perhaps one might have to do something else.
people who major in CS are actually doing it because they like computers and want to learn about them, instead of viewing a degree as an easy ticket to big $$$$.
The crowd that says a univercity education is only for the love of knowledge just strikes me as insane. If you've got $60k+ to drop for fun, perhaps that makes sense. OTOH, many people look at education as an investment; one that pays dividends in the form of a higher earning potential.
I don't suppose either is wrong. Do what you like, of course, but to belittle some because they'd actually like to make money seems wrong.
my first thought was why they were so worried about letting cell phones through... after all, if you're worried about security, don't let any radio waves through. Like these guys.
Then it hit me. Suits use cell phones, not wi-fi. Wi-fi = evil hacker tool. Cell phone = required hardware, since if I cant talk constantly I might have to think.
I dont agree. Coding is a skill that requires some effort. Pulling a trigger at a crowd doesnt take skill, just misdirected anger.
Perhaps you've never been shooting? When I had to qualify with a sidearm, there was one individual who pumped the trigger as fast as he could. Missed the target completely. Shooting takes skill.
I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore.
An intelligent, reseasoned response. You do know you're on Slashdot, right?;) Keep in mind those crime statistics when you read the anti-gun literature. Most, IMHO, are emotional appeals with statisically questionable studies. YMMV, and I encourage you to look for yourself. You might also be interested in this.
it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them.
Rehabilitation of convicted criminals seems to be a dead issue in US society as a whole. Our society was described as "ensuring everyone can go as high as they want to" as opposed to Europe, which was described as "ensuring no one falls to far". That seems accuracte, although that's just my impression.
I dont want to ban the right to bear arms.. I just want to prevent making ordinary people in to extraordinary killers by giving them a better instrument to kill.
Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.
If you ban a particular class of firearms because they're Evil [lightning flashes, horses whinny], criminals will just use something else. The Boston Strangler used various articles of clothing. Good luck banning that.
Check out this. You might not agree with their conclusions, but perhaps you might understand their point of view.
If you take firearms away from criminals, criminals will find another way to perform crime. The root problem isn't the tool, it's the criminal. Our society should focus on making less criminals, rather than changing thier methods.
banning firearms to reduce crime is like banning napster becuase people trade ripped.mp3's. Perhaps you can see how well that worked, or, perhaps, you're not comming at this issue rationally but emotionally.
how do you voice dissent against your President and the views of his administration in any other manner in today's america?
Become involved in either major party ( Dem / Rep ) or a thrid party ( I'd suggest libertarian ). Find a candidate who's policies you support and volunteer your time.
As for the assault weapons ban, this is a bad law in action. It doesn't do what it's designers intended it to do. If you want to really ban private ownership of firearms, give it a shot considering how well drug control laws work.
I'd rather try to eliminate the root causes of crime ( poverty, drug / alchohol abuse, etc. ) rather than just banning tools which can be used for crime.
You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!
That didnt seem to be his point. He seemed to be saying that Kerry would be just as bad as Bush, but in a different way... taking out the "scary stuff" to replace it with equally bad things that havent scared us yet. As it were.
The parent poster also makes a good point. This election seems less and less about voting for a candidate and more about voting against a candidate. This is dangerous.
I knew many in the Anyone-but-Clinton/Gore camp, since it was this dream team which gave us NAFTA, the Clipper Chip, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (HAH !), et. al. The not-Clinton/Gore (Bush 2) perhaps hasn't worked as well as they'd hope.
Someone voting only against an incumbant might want to be sure the contender has qualifications other than "not incumbant".
Shouldn't there be something in Google that identifies certain sites and more reliable than others rather than basing rank solely on links?
I don't see the NYT as anything more than a news paper. It's a source, but with no greater reliability than any other. After the Jason Blair scandal, in fact, I'd suggest the NYT is much less reliable.
Google's system seem much better than a few guys in a back room deciding which news outlets should be ranked higher because they're more "reliable".
2) The ongoing disappearance of poetry is mostly a consequence of poets' writing for each other rather for an audience. The readers haven't gotten dumber; the poems have become inaccessible and ugly.
I went to a few poetry readings with a friend ( at the time, friend was getting her MA in english lit ) and from what I observed your comment seems accurate.
Some poets wrote so the words would display on a page in a specific image ( love poems were hearts, etc. ). Others made apparent in-jokes with iambic pentameter. All monotonously droned on.
The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government. For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.
I want others to know what I read and think when I choose to tell them. Anonymity has value.
Example: Take the DEA looking into purchases made at grocery stores with loyalty cards ( see story here ). Buy too many plastic bags, or too much cold medicine or too much engine starter fluid? Must be a dope dealer. What's too much? Who knows.
Now extend the example to any subject. Buy a book on urban gardening? Must be growing weed. Book on Islam? Terrorist. Book on Secular Humanism? Abortionist. Book by Pat Robertson? Christian anti-abortion sniper.
You point out that right acting people know that just because a person has read Mein Kampf that doesn't mean that person is a supporter of the books ideals. True as far as it goes, but we don't place limits on Governmental power to inconvenience right acting civil servants. We place limits on the Government to prevent abuses.
Give any group unlimited, unchecked authority and someone in that group will abuse that authority.
Sure can learn a lot. Wikipedia seems to present facts, leaving the interpretation of those facts as an excersise for the reader. Exactly as it should, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Why embed the solar / electrolysis system in the vehicle? It adds weight which would require more energy for movement. It might be useful for military vehicles ( a long range recon vehicle for instance ), but seems less useful for civillian use.
Also:
The four solar panels and hydrogen-generating system create only enough fuel per day to travel a few miles.
Which indicates for this to be practical either more efficient solar panels or a lower energy electrolysis system would be required. Heck, if it gets effiecient enough the weight of the solar / electrolysis system might not be a factor.
Still, great progress. I'd love to see power production become more distributed although I'm sure some *cough*oil companies*cough* would hate the idea.
I called it a substitute wood stainer.
I think you might have misspelled wax stripper or perhaps degreaser, as I've used such coffee for both.
Even talking about violating the DMCA violates the DMCA.
When did the DCMA become Fight Club?
[Badum-ching]
It's not gun crimes I worry about.
It's crimes.
[snip comments on fake Satanic Rituals]
Funny, I thought that was how you got rid of Mormons in the neighborhood, not criminals.
[badum-ching]
There aren't really that many Bush supporters.
I also don't know any Kerry supporters, just people voting against Bush.
[humor]
Kerry could eat a live baby on stage with Edwards handing him tabasco; Michael Moore et. al. would comment "At least they're not Republican".
[/ humor]
Agreed, but it does happen some times.
Check out our Mayor, some of the people on our city council and our chief of police.
These people, AFAIK, came up through the ranks. They earned their positions on merit, not race or gender. I've never encountered news media reports hailing them as "champions of diversity" or some such.
This seems like a good thing to me. The best person gets the job, regardless of race or gender ( or any other criteria which don't impact job performance ).
Why aren't women going into computer science? It's not like coal mining where the job sucks afterwards.
Obviously you dont work in my office.
[badum-ching]
I know two people with English degrees and one with a degree in Womens Studies. All expected to make much more than they are ( retail ) just because they had a degree.
I, like you, got into computers because I liked it. I feel lucky that I like my work, since if my interests lay in, say, writting poetry my job prospects would be nil.
Doing what you like is great. It's even better when you can live on that. If not, then perhaps one might have to do something else.
The crowd that says a univercity education is only for the love of knowledge just strikes me as insane. If you've got $60k+ to drop for fun, perhaps that makes sense. OTOH, many people look at education as an investment; one that pays dividends in the form of a higher earning potential.
I don't suppose either is wrong. Do what you like, of course, but to belittle some because they'd actually like to make money seems wrong.
Wow. Looks like he's using either a SKS replacement stock to mount the yagi antenna
Picture here
my first thought was why they were so worried about letting cell phones through... after all, if you're worried about security, don't let any radio waves through. Like these guys.
Then it hit me. Suits use cell phones, not wi-fi. Wi-fi = evil hacker tool. Cell phone = required hardware, since if I cant talk constantly I might have to think.
And the jellybabies... still remember the funny looks I got when I asked for those in a candy story.
Thanks. I'm wiping coffee off my monitor now.
Perhaps you've never been shooting? When I had to qualify with a sidearm, there was one individual who pumped the trigger as fast as he could. Missed the target completely. Shooting takes skill.
I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore.
An intelligent, reseasoned response. You do know you're on Slashdot, right? ;) Keep in mind those crime statistics when you read the anti-gun literature. Most, IMHO, are emotional appeals with statisically questionable studies. YMMV, and I encourage you to look for yourself. You might also be interested in this.
it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them.
Rehabilitation of convicted criminals seems to be a dead issue in US society as a whole. Our society was described as "ensuring everyone can go as high as they want to" as opposed to Europe, which was described as "ensuring no one falls to far". That seems accuracte, although that's just my impression.
Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.
If you ban a particular class of firearms because they're Evil [lightning flashes, horses whinny], criminals will just use something else. The Boston Strangler used various articles of clothing. Good luck banning that.
Check out this. You might not agree with their conclusions, but perhaps you might understand their point of view.
If you take firearms away from criminals, criminals will find another way to perform crime. The root problem isn't the tool, it's the criminal. Our society should focus on making less criminals, rather than changing thier methods.
banning firearms to reduce crime is like banning napster becuase people trade ripped .mp3's. Perhaps you can see how well that worked, or, perhaps, you're not comming at this issue rationally but emotionally.
Become involved in either major party ( Dem / Rep ) or a thrid party ( I'd suggest libertarian ). Find a candidate who's policies you support and volunteer your time.
As for the assault weapons ban, this is a bad law in action. It doesn't do what it's designers intended it to do. If you want to really ban private ownership of firearms, give it a shot considering how well drug control laws work.
I'd rather try to eliminate the root causes of crime ( poverty, drug / alchohol abuse, etc. ) rather than just banning tools which can be used for crime.
That didnt seem to be his point. He seemed to be saying that Kerry would be just as bad as Bush, but in a different way... taking out the "scary stuff" to replace it with equally bad things that havent scared us yet. As it were.
The parent poster also makes a good point. This election seems less and less about voting for a candidate and more about voting against a candidate. This is dangerous.
I knew many in the Anyone-but-Clinton/Gore camp, since it was this dream team which gave us NAFTA, the Clipper Chip, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (HAH !), et. al. The not-Clinton/Gore (Bush 2) perhaps hasn't worked as well as they'd hope.
Someone voting only against an incumbant might want to be sure the contender has qualifications other than "not incumbant".
I beleive you've misspelled Natalie Portman.
I don't see the NYT as anything more than a news paper. It's a source, but with no greater reliability than any other. After the Jason Blair scandal, in fact, I'd suggest the NYT is much less reliable.
Google's system seem much better than a few guys in a back room deciding which news outlets should be ranked higher because they're more "reliable".
Exactly. With all the information available in a multitude of places, why should the NYT be relevant?
I went to a few poetry readings with a friend ( at the time, friend was getting her MA in english lit ) and from what I observed your comment seems accurate.
Some poets wrote so the words would display on a page in a specific image ( love poems were hearts, etc. ). Others made apparent in-jokes with iambic pentameter. All monotonously droned on.
As a definate non-poet, I'm glad they had coffee.
I want others to know what I read and think when I choose to tell them. Anonymity has value.
Example: Take the DEA looking into purchases made at grocery stores with loyalty cards ( see story here ). Buy too many plastic bags, or too much cold medicine or too much engine starter fluid? Must be a dope dealer. What's too much? Who knows.
Now extend the example to any subject. Buy a book on urban gardening? Must be growing weed. Book on Islam? Terrorist. Book on Secular Humanism? Abortionist. Book by Pat Robertson? Christian anti-abortion sniper.
You point out that right acting people know that just because a person has read Mein Kampf that doesn't mean that person is a supporter of the books ideals. True as far as it goes, but we don't place limits on Governmental power to inconvenience right acting civil servants. We place limits on the Government to prevent abuses.
Give any group unlimited, unchecked authority and someone in that group will abuse that authority.
Sure can learn a lot. Wikipedia seems to present facts, leaving the interpretation of those facts as an excersise for the reader. Exactly as it should, IMHO.
Moderated Funny because "obvious" wasn't an option? [chortle]