If there are specific groups that need to vary their times for doing things depending on season, it should be up to them to simply change the time *they* do them, not force the rest of the country to screw with wasteful time changes twice a year.
Pick a time zone and just stick with standard time.
Microsoft has followed this path from the beginning with standards: Adopt, adapt, expand and control.
Always adding something "extra" so that other software that actually follows the standard doesn't work quite right with stuff built to Microsoft's "standard" so that the stuff built to actually follow the world standard looks inferior.:( --Tomas
I can potentially see (via thought experiment) a difference between gravity and inertial mass...
Picture two identical hypothetical objects, each a mile long with identical large masses at the end of a thin support rod.
Place one on the Earth with the mass resting on the thin support rod, one mile from the surface.
Place the other similarly on the nose of a 'space ship' accelerating at exactly one gravity.
The mass leading the spaceship by a mile will experience exactly one gravity while the one spaced a mile above the Earth (a one gravity reference) will experience LESS than one gravity due to it's distance from the gravity source.
Don't like the small difference? Make the rods 10 miles or 100 miles long. At each increase the gravity effects on the Earth reference device will be reduced more due to distance from the source, while the apparent gravity experienced by the space ship based device will still be the exact same 1G.
Now step back from this and realize that it means that the effect of gravity, such as from the Earth's mass, is different for each part of ANY other mass, depending on its distance from the source, while the effect is IDENTICAL for each part of any mass experiencing "pseudo" gravity due to constant acceleration, no matter where located.
It would make more sense in pictures, and even more in mathematical terms, but I am not even going to try. I quit doing that sort of stuff 30 or 40 years ago.
Maybe someone can bother to rough it out and see what shows up?
...I just received a postcard from Earthlink in the mail today that also details the new 250GB limit on my 8 year old Earthlink Broadband service with the "last mile" by Comcast (originally AT&T for the last mile).
For right now, the 250GB limit really doesn't affect me, as I use considerbley less than that, but that does NOT mean that will ALWAYS be the case.
For me, though, I'll just wait and see how this plays out.
... and I use AdBlock against my OWN site because I can't stand the sometimes interminable delays caused by some of the lousy crap that sponsors have buried in their ads.
I can understand sites needing to make enough money to keep the servers running, so I allow ads on many sites I visit, but if the delays and hang-ups get too bad, they are BLOCKED.
(On my site I try to keep the delays minimal, but when administering a sometimes very fast moving set of forums, I just cannot put up with even fairly short delays.)
An additional problem with a good number of the earlier "Anonymous" posts is that they were originally owned by and identified to their copyright owners with the use of the Groklaw User IDs. In 2004, PJ went through a purge of a number of folks she disagreed with, deleted their users accounts, and all of their comments were instantly anonymized with no chance of recovery.
PJ's essentially removing the copyright identification from those thousands of posts caused a bit of upset from those who felt that by removing the only copyright information from the posts by replacing the name in the headers with "Anonymous" overstepped ethical bounds.
My standing with those who felt she had overstepped by doing that is the reason my original "Tomas" ID ( http://www.groklaw.net/users.php?mode=profile&uid=2502 )was banned from Groklaw. I've done very little posting under my replacement ID.
No, pilots DO need to be screened, because the chance of ONE cockpit crew member going bad and wanting to take the plane out is much better tha the chance of ALL the cockpit crew members wanting that.
That means that with zero screening the "bad pilot" could bring on board a weapon (gun, grenade, knife, flammable liquid, acid, whatever) to either take out the rest of the cockpit crew or the controls.
If the "bad pilot" is unable to get something more dangerous than normal on board, he has less chance to destroy the plane - and the others have a better chance to get him "under control."
There is no reason to allow anyone past the security chokepoint without being screened, but ESPECIALLY those who will be out of view in the cockpit and able to kill of the rest of the crew or damage the aircraft beyond being flyable.
I agree in the informing and being informed by our society and culture. To your Heinlein, Niven, and Clarke, I would add John Varley and Spider Robinson as some excellent source material.
I'm now retired, but all the way back to my first tech job interview in the '60s, the interviews have included tests of my ability to perform as needed.
If one cannot test an applicant one is seriously handicapped in making valid hiring decisions.
The thrust of the idea is to use a readily available flammable liquid and flares as a deterrent, and gasoline would be a quite reasonable substitute and a small handpump with a hose would also be reasonable as a delivery method.
The idea is to get flammable liquid onto the pirates, their craft, and the surrounding water, then ignite it.
Hopefully it would be enough to ruin the pirates day while easily passing muster in port as not being offensive weapons...
How 'bout if a small boat comes along side a ship in international waters without permission, just pour a couple buckets of diesel on 'em and drop a flare (or spray it and use a flare gun).
That might be a fairly quick deterrent...
Merchant ships either cannot carry "weapons" because of laws at the ports they enter, or prefer not to because of massive liability insurance demands if they do.
A diesel powered ship has many, many gallons of diesel on board, has many buckets and other containers, and always has flares. None of those are "weapons" in the usual sense.
In any case, SOMETHING has to be done, and hosing the pirates down with diesel and lighting it just might deter others...
I HAVE "signed" documents in a stack of documents in that way and had them accepted, I have not yet had to fight anyone in court over whether or not something obviously not my signature is my signature. You're on your own trying it, of course...
I generally will put something in the signature space, but it will not be my signature.
Nine times out of ten they do not inspect the signatures, and if it comes down to trying to enforce something I obviously did not sign, they can go ahead and try.
(Especially if the signature block contains a scribbled "Not Signed"...)
One of the biggest differences arguing against a foreign built Air Force One but allowing a little more slack with Marine One is that Air Force One represents the US around the world, and it would be a bit embarrassing not to have it be a US designed and manufactured aircraft...
Marine One is pretty much a "domestic flights only" craft, and does not represent the US to other countries. (Keep in mind that Marine One comes from a US/European consortium, and built in the US.) Even if it were to get in trouble, it's here, not half way across some foreign country...
(Remember, too that with Air Force One flying to foreign countries, one does not want any of it's critical components designed/constructed by any potential enemies, and that anything other than the US is a potential enemy... There is always the potential for built-in "gotchas" if some foreign country is looking ahead to a day when they might want/need to, uh, "disable" Air Force One.)
As a US Citizen and an ex-USAF NCO I firmly believe that an aircraft "Representing the United States of America to the World" as Air Force One does, should be designed and built in the US, not some foreign aircraft with "United States of America" slapped on the sides...
My personal preference would be something from Boeing, but my requirement would at least be something from the US.
(This is above and beyond the security aspects of any aircraft systems designed or manufactured by a potential enemy - and ANY country other than us is a potential enemy...)
I have taken lately to showing my US Passport Card when asked for picture ID...
Not only does it not have my address or signature on it, I suspect that getting information about me from the US Department of State is a damn site more difficult than getting it from most other sources.
So far no one who has requested ID has objected to the passport card, which is almost a disappointment - I sometimes relish a good fight.:o)
(The US Passport card is better screened and more difficult to get than a common driver's license or state ID card, and is issued by the federal government. If someone doesn't want to accept that as official government issued picture ID, I WILL be right there in their face.)
Slashdot Mirror
...a Radio Shack 16B+ with a 15MB HD, 8 inch, 1.26MB floppy drive, 768K of RAM, and two Hayes modems on two landlines.
It was on-line 1983-1991 as an email and USENET server (tijil) and connected with other machines worldwide via UUCP.
It was still working just fine in 2005 when it and several boxes of floppies were shipped of to a small computer museum outside of Chicago.
Here's Boris on his way to the shipping company:
http://tijil.org/boris_in_box....
One huge advantage to wired headphones is that none of mine require batteries.
I do not need yet another accessory that requires batteries or charging.
If there are specific groups that need to vary their times for doing things depending on season, it should be up to them to simply change the time *they* do them, not force the rest of the country to screw with wasteful time changes twice a year.
Pick a time zone and just stick with standard time.
Microsoft has followed this path from the beginning with standards: Adopt, adapt, expand and control.
Always adding something "extra" so that other software that actually follows the standard doesn't work quite right with stuff built to Microsoft's "standard" so that the stuff built to actually follow the world standard looks inferior. :(
--Tomas
I was told that they were huge things that sometimes even took up entire air conditioned buildings, and they had thousands of tubes and relays.
(I graduated in 1964...)
Also quicker now that some of the "kludge" of V2 appears to have been binned.
Some nice new features added, and basic operation seems more intuitive.
Good job, guys and gals!
__
Tomas
Well said, Ben!
--
Tomas
My first choice would be maniacal laughter, second would be the sound of a steam locomotive...
--
Tomas
I can potentially see (via thought experiment) a difference between gravity and inertial mass...
Picture two identical hypothetical objects, each a mile long with identical large masses at the end of a thin support rod.
Place one on the Earth with the mass resting on the thin support rod, one mile from the surface.
Place the other similarly on the nose of a 'space ship' accelerating at exactly one gravity.
The mass leading the spaceship by a mile will experience exactly one gravity while the one spaced a mile above the Earth (a one gravity reference) will experience LESS than one gravity due to it's distance from the gravity source.
Don't like the small difference? Make the rods 10 miles or 100 miles long. At each increase the gravity effects on the Earth reference device will be reduced more due to distance from the source, while the apparent gravity experienced by the space ship based device will still be the exact same 1G.
Now step back from this and realize that it means that the effect of gravity, such as from the Earth's mass, is different for each part of ANY other mass, depending on its distance from the source, while the effect is IDENTICAL for each part of any mass experiencing "pseudo" gravity due to constant acceleration, no matter where located.
It would make more sense in pictures, and even more in mathematical terms, but I am not even going to try. I quit doing that sort of stuff 30 or 40 years ago.
Maybe someone can bother to rough it out and see what shows up?
--
Tomas
...I just received a postcard from Earthlink in the mail today that also details the new 250GB limit on my 8 year old Earthlink Broadband service with the "last mile" by Comcast (originally AT&T for the last mile).
For right now, the 250GB limit really doesn't affect me, as I use considerbley less than that, but that does NOT mean that will ALWAYS be the case.
For me, though, I'll just wait and see how this plays out.
--
Tomas
... and I use AdBlock against my OWN site because I can't stand the sometimes interminable delays caused by some of the lousy crap that sponsors have buried in their ads.
I can understand sites needing to make enough money to keep the servers running, so I allow ads on many sites I visit, but if the delays and hang-ups get too bad, they are BLOCKED.
(On my site I try to keep the delays minimal, but when administering a sometimes very fast moving set of forums, I just cannot put up with even fairly short delays.)
An additional problem with a good number of the earlier "Anonymous" posts is that they were originally owned by and identified to their copyright owners with the use of the Groklaw User IDs. In 2004, PJ went through a purge of a number of folks she disagreed with, deleted their users accounts, and all of their comments were instantly anonymized with no chance of recovery.
PJ's essentially removing the copyright identification from those thousands of posts caused a bit of upset from those who felt that by removing the only copyright information from the posts by replacing the name in the headers with "Anonymous" overstepped ethical bounds.
My standing with those who felt she had overstepped by doing that is the reason my original "Tomas" ID ( http://www.groklaw.net/users.php?mode=profile&uid=2502 )was banned from Groklaw. I've done very little posting under my replacement ID.
--Tomas
No, pilots DO need to be screened, because the chance of ONE cockpit crew member going bad and wanting to take the plane out is much better tha the chance of ALL the cockpit crew members wanting that.
That means that with zero screening the "bad pilot" could bring on board a weapon (gun, grenade, knife, flammable liquid, acid, whatever) to either take out the rest of the cockpit crew or the controls.
If the "bad pilot" is unable to get something more dangerous than normal on board, he has less chance to destroy the plane - and the others have a better chance to get him "under control."
There is no reason to allow anyone past the security chokepoint without being screened, but ESPECIALLY those who will be out of view in the cockpit and able to kill of the rest of the crew or damage the aircraft beyond being flyable.
Gotta think these things through, people.
--Tomas (Ex-USAF)
I agree in the informing and being informed by our society and culture. To your Heinlein, Niven, and Clarke, I would add John Varley and Spider Robinson as some excellent source material.
I'm now retired, but all the way back to my first tech job interview in the '60s, the interviews have included tests of my ability to perform as needed.
If one cannot test an applicant one is seriously handicapped in making valid hiring decisions.
--
Tomas
University Place, WA
...that it also means I get a free little electronic goody of my very own if they attach it to my vehicle and I find it. ;^P
Good points!
The thrust of the idea is to use a readily available flammable liquid and flares as a deterrent, and gasoline would be a quite reasonable substitute and a small handpump with a hose would also be reasonable as a delivery method.
The idea is to get flammable liquid onto the pirates, their craft, and the surrounding water, then ignite it.
Hopefully it would be enough to ruin the pirates day while easily passing muster in port as not being offensive weapons...
I'm sure the crews could work out the details.
Naw, shouldn't be a pollution problem from the diesel - they'll just burn whatever misses the pirate boat off the surface of the water...
The pirate boat is the pirate's problem.
How 'bout if a small boat comes along side a ship in international waters without permission, just pour a couple buckets of diesel on 'em and drop a flare (or spray it and use a flare gun).
That might be a fairly quick deterrent...
Merchant ships either cannot carry "weapons" because of laws at the ports they enter, or prefer not to because of massive liability insurance demands if they do.
A diesel powered ship has many, many gallons of diesel on board, has many buckets and other containers, and always has flares. None of those are "weapons" in the usual sense.
In any case, SOMETHING has to be done, and hosing the pirates down with diesel and lighting it just might deter others...
I HAVE "signed" documents in a stack of documents in that way and had them accepted, I have not yet had to fight anyone in court over whether or not something obviously not my signature is my signature. You're on your own trying it, of course...
--Tomas
...at least not with MY signature.
I generally will put something in the signature space, but it will not be my signature.
Nine times out of ten they do not inspect the signatures, and if it comes down to trying to enforce something I obviously did not sign, they can go ahead and try.
(Especially if the signature block contains a scribbled "Not Signed"...)
--Tomas
---University Place, WA
One of the biggest differences arguing against a foreign built Air Force One but allowing a little more slack with Marine One is that Air Force One represents the US around the world, and it would be a bit embarrassing not to have it be a US designed and manufactured aircraft...
Marine One is pretty much a "domestic flights only" craft, and does not represent the US to other countries. (Keep in mind that Marine One comes from a US/European consortium, and built in the US.) Even if it were to get in trouble, it's here, not half way across some foreign country...
(Remember, too that with Air Force One flying to foreign countries, one does not want any of it's critical components designed/constructed by any potential enemies, and that anything other than the US is a potential enemy... There is always the potential for built-in "gotchas" if some foreign country is looking ahead to a day when they might want/need to, uh, "disable" Air Force One.)
--
Tomas (ex USAF)
As a US Citizen and an ex-USAF NCO I firmly believe that an aircraft "Representing the United States of America to the World" as Air Force One does, should be designed and built in the US, not some foreign aircraft with "United States of America" slapped on the sides...
My personal preference would be something from Boeing, but my requirement would at least be something from the US.
(This is above and beyond the security aspects of any aircraft systems designed or manufactured by a potential enemy - and ANY country other than us is a potential enemy...)
--
Tomas
I have taken lately to showing my US Passport Card when asked for picture ID...
Not only does it not have my address or signature on it, I suspect that getting information about me from the US Department of State is a damn site more difficult than getting it from most other sources.
So far no one who has requested ID has objected to the passport card, which is almost a disappointment - I sometimes relish a good fight. :o)
(The US Passport card is better screened and more difficult to get than a common driver's license or state ID card, and is issued by the federal government. If someone doesn't want to accept that as official government issued picture ID, I WILL be right there in their face.)
--
Tomas
But $34 to take a look is a bit much. :o(
I would be curious especially to see the images used, hoping to see a vehicle similar to mine, just to see what personality is ascribed to it.
Oh, well, no way I'm paying that much for just casual curiosity.
--
Tomas