1,000 feet is the max operating depth of an LA class submarine
The Los Angeles class is no longer the latest 'n' greatest. The Seawolf class has been tested to 610 meters, e.g. about 2000 feet. Also, one of the Seawolf class, the Jimmy Carter, was specifically modified for "special underwater operations", putatively for SEAL team deployments and such, but who's to say...?
The only place there's that much land ice is Greenland. There isn't much infrastructure there. There is some already at the South Pole. I suspect that's the reason. But if IceCube proves successful, maybe they'll think about a Greenland version.
Every so many years the Oak Trees cut off production of acorns. It has been documented and studied somewhat.
It happens whenever the Oaks go to war against the Maples to protect their sunlight monopoly. Or, at least it did, until the Maples formed that pesky union and demanded equal rights...
Stern made this argument on his show a million times and it still doesn't hold water. Sirius/XM is not a monopoly in the mobile entertainment space, to be sure. You have Ipods, terrestrial radio, etc. However, SiriusXM is a monopoly in the satellite radio space. As competitors, they kept each other on their toes for price and content. Now, they can fiddle with either one at will, knowing that subscribers can't jump ship to a comparable service anymore.
Sure, they can - you just said so yourself! They can get an iPod, or listen to FM, or HD Radio, etc. They have other mobile entertainment choices; so what if those choices are not specifically "satellite-based"? That's like saying HBO is a monopoly 'cause it's the only channel that carries HBO programs!
Bullshit, XM is full of ads. Not only that, but it was ads for sex toys & shit.
I had XM for free for 6 months, & it still wasnt worth it.
Well, who told you to get XM? Sirius *is* ad-free except for talk channels, and even there the ads are significantly less than FM. Back when he was on Infinity, Howard Stern used to have to run ads every 20 minutes or so. Now, sometimes he'll go an hour or more before he remembers to take a break.
In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.
Actually, the first Bush only got elected once. Normally, since you don't live here, I wouldn't bother to point out your error, but since you're up on your, um...
So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims.
Oh, gee, thanks for the permission. I'm an atheist, and I'd support Israel over the rest of the Middle East any day of the week including the Sabbath. Forget religion; they're the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and they're surrounded by countries that want to wipe them off the map. I'd say that makes them worth defending, just a little.
The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment.
I'd imagine you're talking about the Superconducting Supercollider... but the US did eventually build the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Labs, which until the LHC was the most powerful collider in the world.
Science has yet to even define the soul, or at least what ever it is we think of as our "soul".
You're assuming that it indeed exists. Upon what do you base that assumption? That humans are capable of conceiving of a "soul"? Humans are capable of conceiving of lots of things; doesn't mean they exist.
Guys, guys, guys. It's all a matter of frames of reference.
In the FOR of a guy standing (floating) in the ISS, there is no net force, no net motion, and no experience of weight.
In the FOR of a guy standing on the Earth, there is obviously a net force on the ISS - due to the gravitation of the Earth - which when coupled with the tangential velocity of the ISS, keeps it in orbit. The guy on the Earth can also see (if, say, the ISS were made of invisaluminum or quartz or something) that the guy in the ISS is also being pulled toward Earth in balance with his tangential velocity, and therefore moves relative to the Earth, but not the ISS.
Science generates incremental, provable (observable, repeatable) hypotheses. If these are generally believed (faith!), they are called a theory.
Theories aren't theories because of faith. They're theories because they've been successfully tested and vetted - so far - and no one's come up with anything better - yet. That's not faith; that's conditional acceptance combined with healthy skepticism.
I refer you to Albert Einstein's quote, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," and so religion at least can co-exist with science.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Just 'cause it comes from Einstein doesn't automatically make it so. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves; does that mean we should? On the other hand, does it mean we should reject everything they said and did? No. Einstein could be completely wrong about religion, regardless of his massive contributions to science.
Which is why the most valuable piece of land in 2050 will be the NYC municipal dump.
Actually, over 90% of NYC's garbage is shipped to landfills in other parts of the country, or stored on barges. However, NYC is quite green when it comes to air pollution, housing over 2.5% of the US's population while producing only 1% of its greenhouse gas emissions.
False. Free speech and debate is, and has always been, encouraged in Islam. As a matter of fact, the lack of it was what gave Islam such a hard time in its beginning. (Don't confuse free speech with random insults though, they're different.)
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Quite the opposite. Islam was rejected in Mecca because it respected women. Before it came, families would bury their babies alive if they discovered they were girls. Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women a share of inheritance. Books can be written about respect for women in Islam, but this isn't the place.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
How so if the atonement of pretty much most of the major sins in Islam is freeing a slave? That's 1172 years before the the Slave Trade Act. Many of the very first muslims were slaves and their masters tortured them just for that.
Peace is un-Islamic.
That doesn't even make sense... Muslims had to have a military, just like EVERY OTHER JOE-KINGDOM AND ITS SISTER JANE-EMPIRE HAD ONE. Without one they would all die. It's as simple as that.
You look like you're confusing Islam-the-religion with government-regimes-that-happen-to-have-a-muslim-majority-and-therefore-claim-to-muslim.
You keep pointing back to the early days of Islam. Yes, maybe back then, compared to the environment around it, Islam was progressive. But what about today? Shari'a law? The church running the state? Stoning of rape victims in stadiums? Threats of murder and bombings over a cartoon of Mohammed? Women having to cover their faces in public, being expected to walk N steps behind their men? Doesn't sound all that progressive to me.
No laws against bad loans and no laws about disclosure of ARMS. Most of the time they are in page 21 of the contract in lawyer speak in very small print and the bank does not mention its an arm. Only WOW 500k for only $1600 a month!!
What's the difference what page of the contract it's on? Are you stupid enough to engage in what may be the most significant economic transaction of your life without reading the whole contract, without doing your own homework about the kinds of mortgages out there, and making an informed decision? Why are the banks to blame here, rather than the ignorant fools who got in over their heads?
And now they're all going to get bailed out, while I'll have to pay for it, because I committed the sin of taking out a mortgage I could afford. What kind of society have we become, that rewards and encourages economically foolish decisions, and demands that the rest of us pay for it?
What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse? That answer does not address the question. The question asked for a specific "serious economist or capitalist", not a generic "school." Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get your facts? Since the Islamic revolution Iran has fought exactly one war, which was started by Iraq.
Also, what is your personal interest in seeing the Iranian government collapse?
Theocracy == bad? Governments not (at least nominally) derived from the consent of the governed == bad?
It's hardly a big secret. There have been the USS Parche and the USS Jimmy Carter to name just two.
Why the data-snooping sub wasn't named the Nixon, I'll never know!
Wouldn't that be name of a sub designed to erase 18 minutes of data?
1,000 feet is the max operating depth of an LA class submarine
The Los Angeles class is no longer the latest 'n' greatest. The Seawolf class has been tested to 610 meters, e.g. about 2000 feet. Also, one of the Seawolf class, the Jimmy Carter, was specifically modified for "special underwater operations", putatively for SEAL team deployments and such, but who's to say...?
Yes, I beleive the new term is "Nuked the Fridge"
...from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
...has anyone tested 'em for lead paint yet? Melamine in the gas tanks, maybe? Now we're going to trust them to sell cars to us? Not me, dude.
You should apply as a Mentat. "It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion..." and all that.
The only place there's that much land ice is Greenland. There isn't much infrastructure there. There is some already at the South Pole. I suspect that's the reason. But if IceCube proves successful, maybe they'll think about a Greenland version.
They'd better hurry...
Do you have one? ;)
I bet if I search my computers at home I could find a couple old PowerPoint presentations.
I probably do, too - but if I did, I wouldn't go around telling anybody...
Every so many years the Oak Trees cut off production of acorns. It has been documented and studied somewhat.
It happens whenever the Oaks go to war against the Maples to protect their sunlight monopoly. Or, at least it did, until the Maples formed that pesky union and demanded equal rights...
Stern made this argument on his show a million times and it still doesn't hold water. Sirius/XM is not a monopoly in the mobile entertainment space, to be sure. You have Ipods, terrestrial radio, etc. However, SiriusXM is a monopoly in the satellite radio space. As competitors, they kept each other on their toes for price and content. Now, they can fiddle with either one at will, knowing that subscribers can't jump ship to a comparable service anymore.
Sure, they can - you just said so yourself! They can get an iPod, or listen to FM, or HD Radio, etc. They have other mobile entertainment choices; so what if those choices are not specifically "satellite-based"? That's like saying HBO is a monopoly 'cause it's the only channel that carries HBO programs!
"That "lots of ads" thing? Nope, no ads."
Bullshit, XM is full of ads. Not only that, but it was ads for sex toys & shit.
I had XM for free for 6 months, & it still wasnt worth it.
Well, who told you to get XM? Sirius *is* ad-free except for talk channels, and even there the ads are significantly less than FM. Back when he was on Infinity, Howard Stern used to have to run ads every 20 minutes or so. Now, sometimes he'll go an hour or more before he remembers to take a break.
This was a decision reached several days ago, and it has since been brought to the attention of the students that they were misinformed
So? What if it were true that CF were primarily a "white man's" disease? Why the fuck would that make it any less worthy of fundraising?
In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.
Actually, the first Bush only got elected once. Normally, since you don't live here, I wouldn't bother to point out your error, but since you're up on your, um...
So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims.
Oh, gee, thanks for the permission. I'm an atheist, and I'd support Israel over the rest of the Middle East any day of the week including the Sabbath. Forget religion; they're the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and they're surrounded by countries that want to wipe them off the map. I'd say that makes them worth defending, just a little.
The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment.
I'd imagine you're talking about the Superconducting Supercollider... but the US did eventually build the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Labs, which until the LHC was the most powerful collider in the world.
Science has yet to even define the soul, or at least what ever it is we think of as our "soul".
You're assuming that it indeed exists. Upon what do you base that assumption? That humans are capable of conceiving of a "soul"? Humans are capable of conceiving of lots of things; doesn't mean they exist.
It is probably cheapper to correct the defects caused by uncharged radiation that it is to shield it.
Even if those defects are being caused in, say, human DNA?
Guys, guys, guys. It's all a matter of frames of reference.
In the FOR of a guy standing (floating) in the ISS, there is no net force, no net motion, and no experience of weight.
In the FOR of a guy standing on the Earth, there is obviously a net force on the ISS - due to the gravitation of the Earth - which when coupled with the tangential velocity of the ISS, keeps it in orbit. The guy on the Earth can also see (if, say, the ISS were made of invisaluminum or quartz or something) that the guy in the ISS is also being pulled toward Earth in balance with his tangential velocity, and therefore moves relative to the Earth, but not the ISS.
There is no contradiction. What the problem is?
Science generates incremental, provable (observable, repeatable) hypotheses. If these are generally believed (faith!), they are called a theory.
Theories aren't theories because of faith. They're theories because they've been successfully tested and vetted - so far - and no one's come up with anything better - yet. That's not faith; that's conditional acceptance combined with healthy skepticism.
I refer you to Albert Einstein's quote, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," and so religion at least can co-exist with science.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Just 'cause it comes from Einstein doesn't automatically make it so. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves; does that mean we should? On the other hand, does it mean we should reject everything they said and did? No. Einstein could be completely wrong about religion, regardless of his massive contributions to science.
There is some question however, as to whether the Iranians should be allowed to procure weapons grade Grass.
If somebody out there is making weapons-grade grass, I wanna know about it! (And how much they want for an ounce!)
Which is why the most valuable piece of land in 2050 will be the NYC municipal dump.
Actually, over 90% of NYC's garbage is shipped to landfills in other parts of the country, or stored on barges. However, NYC is quite green when it comes to air pollution, housing over 2.5% of the US's population while producing only 1% of its greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Issues in New York City
The above comments are the opinions of a non-qualified amateur rocketry fan. Please take with ~ 2.7 ounces of salt.
Did you mean 0.0023 ounces?
Where are you? The usual in-city speed limit here is 31 mph (50kph).
I've seen two major types of urban design pattern here in Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA, population ca. 200,000
Uh huh, and as we all know, every place in the world is just like Fort Wayne, IN.
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
False. Free speech and debate is, and has always been, encouraged in Islam. As a matter of fact, the lack of it was what gave Islam such a hard time in its beginning. (Don't confuse free speech with random insults though, they're different.)
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Quite the opposite. Islam was rejected in Mecca because it respected women. Before it came, families would bury their babies alive if they discovered they were girls. Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women a share of inheritance. Books can be written about respect for women in Islam, but this isn't the place.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
How so if the atonement of pretty much most of the major sins in Islam is freeing a slave? That's 1172 years before the the Slave Trade Act. Many of the very first muslims were slaves and their masters tortured them just for that.
Peace is un-Islamic.
That doesn't even make sense... Muslims had to have a military, just like EVERY OTHER JOE-KINGDOM AND ITS SISTER JANE-EMPIRE HAD ONE. Without one they would all die. It's as simple as that.
You look like you're confusing Islam-the-religion with government-regimes-that-happen-to-have-a-muslim-majority-and-therefore-claim-to-muslim.
You keep pointing back to the early days of Islam. Yes, maybe back then, compared to the environment around it, Islam was progressive. But what about today? Shari'a law? The church running the state? Stoning of rape victims in stadiums? Threats of murder and bombings over a cartoon of Mohammed? Women having to cover their faces in public, being expected to walk N steps behind their men? Doesn't sound all that progressive to me.
No laws against bad loans and no laws about disclosure of ARMS. Most of the time they are in page 21 of the contract in lawyer speak in very small print and the bank does not mention its an arm. Only WOW 500k for only $1600 a month!!
What's the difference what page of the contract it's on? Are you stupid enough to engage in what may be the most significant economic transaction of your life without reading the whole contract, without doing your own homework about the kinds of mortgages out there, and making an informed decision? Why are the banks to blame here, rather than the ignorant fools who got in over their heads?
And now they're all going to get bailed out, while I'll have to pay for it, because I committed the sin of taking out a mortgage I could afford. What kind of society have we become, that rewards and encourages economically foolish decisions, and demands that the rest of us pay for it?
What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse? That answer does not address the question. The question asked for a specific "serious economist or capitalist", not a generic "school." Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?
How about Greenspan himself? Once upon a time, he was no big fan of the Federal Reserve, and even blamed it in part for the Great Depression.