Perhaps it should have been worded 'trying to prevent bombs'. Didn't mean to imply they *have* prevented bombs but I think there is some evidence that plots have been disrupted, (shoe bomber, liquids, etc).
Preventing bombs on a plane is a good idea, but there are bombs that are not detectable.
In a nutshell this is the problem exactly. Should we spend our finite resources against a threat that is quite limited in its effect (though extreme within those limits) and also undetectable?
I believe the goal isn't specifically to stop another 9/11
I'm pretty sure if you asked people the majority would say we want to prevent another 9/11 attack. Ask them why we're doing more now to prevent things we didn't try to prevent prior to 9/11 and they'll be quite confused and fall back to the 'political' mantra that has been drilled into everyone - 'Stop terrorism'. You can't stop a 'tactic'.
As for 'free market', agreed, I wasn't trying to imply that the 'market' should fix these things:)
you can't really claim that THAT is what's responsible
You do have a point, proving a negative is not something to be taken lightly.
My point here is that the 'actual' methods used by 9/11 hijackers, i.e. on the plane, are no longer available because of actual steps and changes in mindset. These closed the actual attack vector used in the event used to justify all the rest of the security theater.
Prior to 9/11 people blew up planes and we didn't invent the TSA to stop them. Why? Because the 'risk' was limited to a single plane load of people and perhaps some on the ground.
9/11 showed that a new paradigm was in play that could threaten thousands of people - and the cockpit door/passenger response closed that attack vector.
The rest is not needed to stop 9/11. Stopping *everything* is not prudent nor practical. However it is perfect 'political policy'.
Incorrect. True security *has* stopped another 9/11.
That 'security' includes exactly 2 things:
Reinforced and 'locked' cockpit doors.
Flight #93 passenger response.
Those 2 things will prevent another 9/11 from happening. The TSA is preventing bombs 'on' planes which is *not* what 9/11 was. It was using planes as flying missles. Very. Different. Threats.
Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research by tax-payers.
Perhaps because if it *does* happen, *trillions* of dollars will be needed to fix it, unless we figure out how to do so *before* it happens.
That is an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending on the sceptical viewpoint.
When you're the entrenched monopoly (oil/coal/gas) you really don't have to do much to maintain the status quo....
None of that money would be available to these institutions and researchers if the conclusion was, "climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1C"
Really? You know the sensitivity of climate to CO2? Provably? Factually? Didn't think so. That's why you do *research*.
Al Gore has made millions from this fraud.
And Exxon Mobil made BILLIONS. Last quarter alone. What's your point? If you want to talk about catering to a constituency simply to get their money, you might want to take a look at the current GOP candidates....
Try this for reading. Conservative paper lamenting the loss of 'real' GOP conservatives.
Imagine Facebook: TNG where everything you're doing right now is broadcast immediately to everyone else.
As opposed to the masses who are doing this already?
Reminds me of that ST:TNG episode where Wesley saves the day (of course!) by not falling victim to the 'game' everybody is playing. "It's almost easier if you just let it play itself".
And another thought. By going to these metered plans, they are quite clearly violating the 'rates' they are selling you. You can't say "4G speeds!" without diving the 'cap' by one month. That's your 'actual' rate and far far below what they are claiming they provide you.
And to totally abuse the car analogy - Kinda like saying "This car can go 200 mph and 600 miles per tank! But you only get 6 gallons a month included. Any more and you pay per teaspoon."
What I forgot to explicitly add is that if my 'rate' is limited to a network reasonable amount, then it won't matter at all what I use to consume that 'rate'.
If I'm tethering my 'rate' is still the same as when I'm not and I don't see any difference in usability. That would seem to be a 'positive' experience for the consumer, not this "hey your bill is $600 because you watched 6 movies we pushed relentlessly via advertising".
I pay for a usage rate, not 'what' to use it on. I agree that usage likely increases with tethering - that means they need to better control what 'rates' they are offering.
This issue here is network over saturation, the only way you solve that is reducing the 'rate' at which people are using data.
Data 'caps' only guarantee that for the first 2 weeks of a billing cycle, the network still sucks and the last 2 weeks it's a ghost town. That's terrible usage management.
Why doesn't everyone just pay for what they use? My electricity company is totally cool with charging me at the end of the month for a very specific usage figure
And you know what, they are telling what your 'rate' is, you are allowed to consume an unlimited amount of electricity. Verizon (and most cell companies) is responding to a bandwidth problem with a fixed amount of usage, not a 'rate' of usage.
I don't think anyone would have a problem if Verizon limited your daily bandwidth speed to what their network could actually support. But that wouldn't look good in the marketing proposal.
so no one can arbitrarily increase or decrease the supply of Bitcoins
I thought it was possible to create your own BitCoins? 'Possible' but hard on the order of it taking multiple years of computing time given the number of entities in the system.
2nd post from the bottom. The gun is offset slightly so that the actual firing barrel is on the center line; because it's a gatlin gun, the firing point isn't the center of the 'gun' like a single barreled gun would be. That makes sense. This wasn't a slowing issue but one of attitude control. With the gun centered and thus the firing barrel offset it would exert a force off to the side of the barrel offset (yaw maybe?)
It does talk about initial stalling due to the engine ingesting gun gas which was fixed by closing the intakes during gun firing.
Hmm, still not seeing it. Unless by offset they meant not pointed in the same direction as the engines? So if the engine thrust was pushing straight ahead the barrel was pointing straight ahead *and* up or down a degree or two?
Seems like that would make aiming rather difficult;-)
Please explain. I've heard the stall possibility but though the reason was a simple physics thing; the explosion pushing the round forward is also pushing the aircraft backwards and so you get a stall if you slow enough.
From photo's the gun seems right on center line of the aircraft?
Which political party here has been actively trying to stop 'green' technologies?
The old mantra of the GOP being the 'pro business' party would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. They only the pro 'current big biz who pays us' party.
Slashdot Mirror
Preventing bombs on a plane is a good idea, but there are bombs that are not detectable.
In a nutshell this is the problem exactly. Should we spend our finite resources against a threat that is quite limited in its effect (though extreme within those limits) and also undetectable?
I believe the goal isn't specifically to stop another 9/11
I'm pretty sure if you asked people the majority would say we want to prevent another 9/11 attack. Ask them why we're doing more now to prevent things we didn't try to prevent prior to 9/11 and they'll be quite confused and fall back to the 'political' mantra that has been drilled into everyone - 'Stop terrorism'. You can't stop a 'tactic'.
:)
As for 'free market', agreed, I wasn't trying to imply that the 'market' should fix these things
you can't really claim that THAT is what's responsible
You do have a point, proving a negative is not something to be taken lightly.
My point here is that the 'actual' methods used by 9/11 hijackers, i.e. on the plane, are no longer available because of actual steps and changes in mindset. These closed the actual attack vector used in the event used to justify all the rest of the security theater.
Prior to 9/11 people blew up planes and we didn't invent the TSA to stop them. Why? Because the 'risk' was limited to a single plane load of people and perhaps some on the ground.
9/11 showed that a new paradigm was in play that could threaten thousands of people - and the cockpit door/passenger response closed that attack vector.
The rest is not needed to stop 9/11. Stopping *everything* is not prudent nor practical. However it is perfect 'political policy'.
Reinforced and 'locked' cockpit doors are things that should have naturally been implemented into design by common sense.
No argument on this. I'm just saying that implementing these 'common sense' ideas was the only security that is really stopping another 9/11.
Incorrect. True security *has* stopped another 9/11.
That 'security' includes exactly 2 things:
Reinforced and 'locked' cockpit doors.
Flight #93 passenger response.
Those 2 things will prevent another 9/11 from happening. The TSA is preventing bombs 'on' planes which is *not* what 9/11 was. It was using planes as flying missles. Very. Different. Threats.
Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research by tax-payers.
Perhaps because if it *does* happen, *trillions* of dollars will be needed to fix it, unless we figure out how to do so *before* it happens.
That is an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending on the sceptical viewpoint.
When you're the entrenched monopoly (oil/coal/gas) you really don't have to do much to maintain the status quo....
None of that money would be available to these institutions and researchers if the conclusion was, "climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1C"
Really? You know the sensitivity of climate to CO2? Provably? Factually? Didn't think so. That's why you do *research*.
Al Gore has made millions from this fraud.
And Exxon Mobil made BILLIONS. Last quarter alone. What's your point? If you want to talk about catering to a constituency simply to get their money, you might want to take a look at the current GOP candidates....
Try this for reading. Conservative paper lamenting the loss of 'real' GOP conservatives.
Actual spammers never make any significant money, just like gold diggers in the gold rush never made money.
The money is in selling the shovels - or in this case, the tools, email lists, etc. by which the suckers attempt to 'hit it big'.
Without Wesley Data doesn't get turned on....so how is this not Wesley saving the day again?
but but it's from teh Google!!!!
Imagine Facebook: TNG where everything you're doing right now is broadcast immediately to everyone else.
As opposed to the masses who are doing this already?
Reminds me of that ST:TNG episode where Wesley saves the day (of course!) by not falling victim to the 'game' everybody is playing. "It's almost easier if you just let it play itself".
And another thought. By going to these metered plans, they are quite clearly violating the 'rates' they are selling you. You can't say "4G speeds!" without diving the 'cap' by one month. That's your 'actual' rate and far far below what they are claiming they provide you.
And to totally abuse the car analogy - Kinda like saying "This car can go 200 mph and 600 miles per tank! But you only get 6 gallons a month included. Any more and you pay per teaspoon."
That probably does mitigate the issue somewhat. It doesn't change that they are trying to solve a rate issue with a total amount solution :)
What I forgot to explicitly add is that if my 'rate' is limited to a network reasonable amount, then it won't matter at all what I use to consume that 'rate'.
If I'm tethering my 'rate' is still the same as when I'm not and I don't see any difference in usability. That would seem to be a 'positive' experience for the consumer, not this "hey your bill is $600 because you watched 6 movies we pushed relentlessly via advertising".
I pay for a usage rate, not 'what' to use it on. I agree that usage likely increases with tethering - that means they need to better control what 'rates' they are offering.
This issue here is network over saturation, the only way you solve that is reducing the 'rate' at which people are using data.
Data 'caps' only guarantee that for the first 2 weeks of a billing cycle, the network still sucks and the last 2 weeks it's a ghost town. That's terrible usage management.
Why doesn't everyone just pay for what they use? My electricity company is totally cool with charging me at the end of the month for a very specific usage figure
And you know what, they are telling what your 'rate' is, you are allowed to consume an unlimited amount of electricity. Verizon (and most cell companies) is responding to a bandwidth problem with a fixed amount of usage, not a 'rate' of usage.
I don't think anyone would have a problem if Verizon limited your daily bandwidth speed to what their network could actually support. But that wouldn't look good in the marketing proposal.
rotten.apple?
Do you know what proven actually means? Nothing has been proven or dis-proven
Funny, according to Rush, a *single* snow storm clearly disproved Climate Change.... linky
You'd have to have a ridiculous amount more power than the entire other network for a given two weeks
Unless of course you botnet all the machines in, say, China to do this for you...
As I said 'possible' but 'hard'.
How is the difficulty increased arbitrarily for a distributed system?
So with enough processing power someone *could* grab all the nodes for a 4 year period.
As I said 'possible' but 'hard'.
so no one can arbitrarily increase or decrease the supply of Bitcoins
I thought it was possible to create your own BitCoins? 'Possible' but hard on the order of it taking multiple years of computing time given the number of entities in the system.
Found it :)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-153774.html
2nd post from the bottom. The gun is offset slightly so that the actual firing barrel is on the center line; because it's a gatlin gun, the firing point isn't the center of the 'gun' like a single barreled gun would be. That makes sense. This wasn't a slowing issue but one of attitude control. With the gun centered and thus the firing barrel offset it would exert a force off to the side of the barrel offset (yaw maybe?)
It does talk about initial stalling due to the engine ingesting gun gas which was fixed by closing the intakes during gun firing.
Hmm, still not seeing it. Unless by offset they meant not pointed in the same direction as the engines? So if the engine thrust was pushing straight ahead the barrel was pointing straight ahead *and* up or down a degree or two?
;-)
Seems like that would make aiming rather difficult
Please explain. I've heard the stall possibility but though the reason was a simple physics thing; the explosion pushing the round forward is also pushing the aircraft backwards and so you get a stall if you slow enough.
From photo's the gun seems right on center line of the aircraft?
Trade deficits, blah, blah. At the end of the day they have falling bonds and weak dollars. We have a physical plant.
Better to have the world buying your tech, then you having to buy theirs, no?
Which political party here has been actively trying to stop 'green' technologies?
The old mantra of the GOP being the 'pro business' party would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. They only the pro 'current big biz who pays us' party.