Substitute marijuana for alchohol, and you even have the prohibition! Look at the similarities: 1) essentially harmless when used by reasonably responsible people, 2) still almost universally available despite the billions of dollars spent to control it, 3) prohibition rules almost universally ignored (leading to a loss of respect for law), 4) incredible potential tax income ignored in favor of expensive and doomed prohibition attempt.
Get out and vote for what? The latest homogenized, pre-packaged liberal media poster child, that's what. By the time we get to vote, the candidates have been winnowed down to a win-win situation for the corporate backers. Example: what's the difference between Al Gore and George Bush? Nothing! Any candidate that offered any real promise of change was knocked out of the election early on by our liberal media magnates digging through their trash to find even the hint of impropriety, with no statute of limitations. "This man is not suitable for leadership - thirty-eight years ago he didn't claim the $15 he won at a church raffle to the IRS."
By the time we get to make our choice, there is no real choice left to make.
The top tiers of racing (CART, Formula 1) are VERY concerned with fuel mileage. It is not uncommon for a 500 mile race to come down to who can stretch their fuel the farthest - pit stops a very time expensive when each extra second in the pits translates to over 200 ft. on the race track. Also, in CART, the teams are limited to n gallons per race, so unlimited horsepower without regard to fuel efficieny is not a winning formula.
The research done in racing does in fact make it to the road. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, and 'crush zones' all come from high-tech racing. Aerodynamics as well, which directly impact fuel effciency.
The article concerns manned aircraft powered by rocket engines, not ballistic missiles. They appear to be fully controllable, and no more dangerous to bystanders than any other plane at an airshow.
"Tuesday night after homework" is not really a great time for a picnic, but I get your point. Tonight is "Build a Rocket Night" during which my daughter and I will attempt to assemble a model rocket (http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/qst_big _rage.html), which hopefully will fly next Sunday. Cost will be about the same as a crappy fast food pizza and movie, but should be a much more rewarding pass time.
"This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
Such as 'Driven,' 'Spy Kids,' or any of the other facile, intellectually insulting drivel these people put out on a predictable basis? Seeing this constant stream of unadulterated crap described as "valuable creative work" makes me almost as nauseous as watching the stuff in the first place!
Flamer Disclaimer: Yes, yes, yes. I know I don't have to watch it. Easy, cheap date for the wife/kids, though.
Actaully, I liked it. I watch very, very little television, and I doubt if I will watch this regularly, but I thought it was pretty good considering it was on UPN, the network that makes Fox look like Church TV.
At this point, I'm just waiting for someone to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that we have already declared 'war' against another amorphous, invisible, undefeatable enemy: drugs. Anyone remember that? How long will it be until some militant 'Drug Czar' figures out that they can also use the current frenzy of 'security at all costs' to eradicate any/all civil liberties in the name of fighting the evil drug empires. It's a very slippery slope we're heading down right now.
Just try to buy a machine without it pre-installed. Good luck! You ARE forced to buy it if you want/need newer hardware and don't want to build your own.
Hell, the challenge is to NOT buy it. If you want a brand name computer, you're going to pay for the XP OEM license whether you weant it or not. That's what it means to be a monopoly - they can pressure (coerce) manufacturers into putting Windows on EVERY box.
"Joe Six-pack" is NOT going to buy Linux or any other alternative until he can go to K-Mart and get a version of Deer Hunter (or whatever) that will work under Linux. We're stuck with Windows for now.
The point is that you DON'T get to decide whether to upgrade or not.
Eventually you will need a new computer. Because of the influence MSoft has over Dell (et al) you cannot buy a machine without Windows installed. Therefore, you are coerced into buying an OEM license for XP. You can't (legally) down grade that license to the Win 98 (or whatever) license that you had on your older machine. Even if you could, you probably wouldn't be able to get Win9x drivers for the hardware in your new machine. You're left with a Hobson's choice of either sucking it up and using XP, or trying to find someone that can/will still sell you a Win9x license.
All he needs to do is shoot at any of the windows and you're in a virtually uncontrollable 28,000 foot free-fall.
This is a common misconception. Airplanes do not stop being airplanes due to a cabin depressurization. Yes, the first thing you will notice after such a depressurization is a rapid loss of altitude. This is caused by the pilots' training - they will attempt to get the plane down to 12,000 ft. asap to provide sufficient oxygen for the passengers. Other than that, the plane would very happily fly along unpressurized (ex: Payne Stewarts plane went hundreds of miles after a decompression. They died because they were over 40,000 ft. high and there is no time to react when that high. It's a different story at airliner altitudes in the low 30's where there is a good number of seconds to react).
i>18 individuals who hate the US as a direct result of Bush administration policies in the middle east!
Huh? He's been in office 8 months. All accounts point to the WTC attack having been in the planning stages for at least 3 years. The math doesn't work.
Air Traffic Control (flight control) knows only what the pilots tell them, either via voice radio, setting an emergency code in their transponder, or sending an email-type message via ACARS. The hijackers apparently had 757-767 type ratings, and would have known all of these methods via their training, and therefore been prepared to not allow them to happen.
IMHO, most if not all anti-hijacking measures presume that the hijackers a) can't fly planes, and b) want to live. If you have hijackers that CAN fly and/or DON'T care about living, the first step they would take would be to kill or incapacitate the pilots. Not many hijackers would then take over the controls and make it their first order of business to notify ATC of their intentions. This is particularly true if their plans include a kamikaze attack on a densely populated public facility unless for some reason they wanted to hit an empty building.
That being said, ATC would certainly have noticed the deviation from the flight plan when the planes were re-directed towards their eventual targets. I'm not sure what they could have done, though, because their first thoughts would not have been that someone is going to fly the thing into a building, and even if they were they wouldn't know what building. Their first thoughts were probably that there was a repeat of the Payne Stewart incident (i.e. there had been a mechanical failure resulting in the pilots becoming incapicitated).
This is a half way plausable issue technically, although proving it in court to a bunch of non-technical jurors or a non-technical judge would be another issue.
Not as difficult as you would think since fact hardly ever enters the equation. As a private pilot, I follow the inevitable lawsuits that occur whenever someone gets hurt/killed in a plane crash. Juries routinely reward an incompetent pilot with millions from whatever deep pockets the lawyers can find despite the obvious (to anyone with an IQ of over 15) neglect on the part of the pilot. Real-life example: some idiot goes out and flies his twin engine plane into the side of a mountain. The plane itself was older than 17 years, so the manufacturer was off the hook. The magnetos in the engine had been replaced recently, though, so Bendix got sued instead, and ended up losing millions. How do the magnetos cause you to fly into a mountain? They don't, but juries don't care when they're presented with the weeping widow and teary eyed orphans. Someone has to pay, and any deep-pocketed corp. will do.
Slashdot Mirror
while (!TiredOfHearingIt)
System.out.println("This decision Rocks!");
System.out.println("Score one for the good guys!");
... to convert all measurements (and I do mean ALL) to metric!! They missed a few of those...
Like Linux Bob? Nah, I guess it would be called Linus. Still, seems like we'vre been there, done that, and now know it won't work.
About the only thing missing is prohibition.
Substitute marijuana for alchohol, and you even have the prohibition! Look at the similarities: 1) essentially harmless when used by reasonably responsible people, 2) still almost universally available despite the billions of dollars spent to control it, 3) prohibition rules almost universally ignored (leading to a loss of respect for law), 4) incredible potential tax income ignored in favor of expensive and doomed prohibition attempt.
... it has a 6 foot long middle finger that extends out of the roof. Only then will it truly be able to express my emotions while driving.
Get out and vote for what? The latest homogenized, pre-packaged liberal media poster child, that's what. By the time we get to vote, the candidates have been winnowed down to a win-win situation for the corporate backers. Example: what's the difference between Al Gore and George Bush? Nothing! Any candidate that offered any real promise of change was knocked out of the election early on by our liberal media magnates digging through their trash to find even the hint of impropriety, with no statute of limitations. "This man is not suitable for leadership - thirty-eight years ago he didn't claim the $15 he won at a church raffle to the IRS."
By the time we get to make our choice, there is no real choice left to make.
The top tiers of racing (CART, Formula 1) are VERY concerned with fuel mileage. It is not uncommon for a 500 mile race to come down to who can stretch their fuel the farthest - pit stops a very time expensive when each extra second in the pits translates to over 200 ft. on the race track. Also, in CART, the teams are limited to n gallons per race, so unlimited horsepower without regard to fuel efficieny is not a winning formula.
The research done in racing does in fact make it to the road. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, and 'crush zones' all come from high-tech racing. Aerodynamics as well, which directly impact fuel effciency.
The article concerns manned aircraft powered by rocket engines, not ballistic missiles. They appear to be fully controllable, and no more dangerous to bystanders than any other plane at an airshow.
"Tuesday night after homework" is not really a great time for a picnic, but I get your point. Tonight is "Build a Rocket Night" during which my daughter and I will attempt to assemble a model rocket (http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/qst_big _rage.html), which hopefully will fly next Sunday. Cost will be about the same as a crappy fast food pizza and movie, but should be a much more rewarding pass time.
"This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
Such as 'Driven,' 'Spy Kids,' or any of the other facile, intellectually insulting drivel these people put out on a predictable basis? Seeing this constant stream of unadulterated crap described as "valuable creative work" makes me almost as nauseous as watching the stuff in the first place!
Flamer Disclaimer: Yes, yes, yes. I know I don't have to watch it. Easy, cheap date for the wife/kids, though.
Worst Episode Ever!
Actaully, I liked it. I watch very, very little television, and I doubt if I will watch this regularly, but I thought it was pretty good considering it was on UPN, the network that makes Fox look like Church TV.
At this point, I'm just waiting for someone to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that we have already declared 'war' against another amorphous, invisible, undefeatable enemy: drugs. Anyone remember that? How long will it be until some militant 'Drug Czar' figures out that they can also use the current frenzy of 'security at all costs' to eradicate any/all civil liberties in the name of fighting the evil drug empires. It's a very slippery slope we're heading down right now.
Then don't use their software.
Just try to buy a machine without it pre-installed. Good luck! You ARE forced to buy it if you want/need newer hardware and don't want to build your own.
Hell, the challenge is to NOT buy it. If you want a brand name computer, you're going to pay for the XP OEM license whether you weant it or not. That's what it means to be a monopoly - they can pressure (coerce) manufacturers into putting Windows on EVERY box.
"Joe Six-pack" is NOT going to buy Linux or any other alternative until he can go to K-Mart and get a version of Deer Hunter (or whatever) that will work under Linux. We're stuck with Windows for now.
The point is that you DON'T get to decide whether to upgrade or not.
Eventually you will need a new computer. Because of the influence MSoft has over Dell (et al) you cannot buy a machine without Windows installed. Therefore, you are coerced into buying an OEM license for XP. You can't (legally) down grade that license to the Win 98 (or whatever) license that you had on your older machine. Even if you could, you probably wouldn't be able to get Win9x drivers for the hardware in your new machine. You're left with a Hobson's choice of either sucking it up and using XP, or trying to find someone that can/will still sell you a Win9x license.
This is the insiduous power of a monopoly.
Interesting engineering challenge, but how would it be applied in the real world? Too much mechanical complexity to be economically feasible.
All he needs to do is shoot at any of the windows and you're in a virtually uncontrollable 28,000 foot free-fall.
This is a common misconception. Airplanes do not stop being airplanes due to a cabin depressurization. Yes, the first thing you will notice after such a depressurization is a rapid loss of altitude. This is caused by the pilots' training - they will attempt to get the plane down to 12,000 ft. asap to provide sufficient oxygen for the passengers. Other than that, the plane would very happily fly along unpressurized (ex: Payne Stewarts plane went hundreds of miles after a decompression. They died because they were over 40,000 ft. high and there is no time to react when that high. It's a different story at airliner altitudes in the low 30's where there is a good number of seconds to react).
i>18 individuals who hate the US as a direct result of Bush administration policies in the middle east!
Huh? He's been in office 8 months. All accounts point to the WTC attack having been in the planning stages for at least 3 years. The math doesn't work.
Air Traffic Control (flight control) knows only what the pilots tell them, either via voice radio, setting an emergency code in their transponder, or sending an email-type message via ACARS. The hijackers apparently had 757-767 type ratings, and would have known all of these methods via their training, and therefore been prepared to not allow them to happen.
IMHO, most if not all anti-hijacking measures presume that the hijackers a) can't fly planes, and b) want to live. If you have hijackers that CAN fly and/or DON'T care about living, the first step they would take would be to kill or incapacitate the pilots. Not many hijackers would then take over the controls and make it their first order of business to notify ATC of their intentions. This is particularly true if their plans include a kamikaze attack on a densely populated public facility unless for some reason they wanted to hit an empty building. That being said, ATC would certainly have noticed the deviation from the flight plan when the planes were re-directed towards their eventual targets. I'm not sure what they could have done, though, because their first thoughts would not have been that someone is going to fly the thing into a building, and even if they were they wouldn't know what building. Their first thoughts were probably that there was a repeat of the Payne Stewart incident (i.e. there had been a mechanical failure resulting in the pilots becoming incapicitated).
Iceland also has little to no valuable natural resources worth taking. I would also submit that their industrial base doesn't hold a candle to ours.
This is a half way plausable issue technically, although proving it in court to a bunch of non-technical jurors or a non-technical judge would be another issue.
Not as difficult as you would think since fact hardly ever enters the equation. As a private pilot, I follow the inevitable lawsuits that occur whenever someone gets hurt/killed in a plane crash. Juries routinely reward an incompetent pilot with millions from whatever deep pockets the lawyers can find despite the obvious (to anyone with an IQ of over 15) neglect on the part of the pilot. Real-life example: some idiot goes out and flies his twin engine plane into the side of a mountain. The plane itself was older than 17 years, so the manufacturer was off the hook. The magnetos in the engine had been replaced recently, though, so Bendix got sued instead, and ended up losing millions. How do the magnetos cause you to fly into a mountain? They don't, but juries don't care when they're presented with the weeping widow and teary eyed orphans. Someone has to pay, and any deep-pocketed corp. will do.