yeah, that Interstate Highway system was totally a wasted boondoggle of a project.
It wasn't built to make a profit either, just to allow better troop movements and some *minor* transportation abilities.
Except that it's by far one of the best investments we've ever made. (yes I'm ignoring the rail vs road debate) But it wasn't *worth* the money we spent on it at the time.
The gov't did it because no company was going to do it on their own.
The *AA's making it easy only works for a while. Eventually the 'free' sites will be as easy to use as any paid download site.
Then they're back to square one with 'free' being as easy to do as 'pay', well most people are going to choose free.
The bigger issue here is that for the last 100 years or so the *AA industries have literally been a license to print money. When I can sell something that I made for $0.15 for $30.00 - hell, we *all* want that deal! Imagine how anyone would feel when that gravy train is leaving the station. I suspect most people would lie, cheat and steal to try and stop it from leaving, no?
As we all know, musicians and writers and painters and almost every other 'artist' profession will survive, but they will survive making money through actual work...live performances, commissioned works, etc. The way it used to be done 100s of years ago. The days of reaping mountains of money for making copies of works is ending.
But it will take many more artists figuring out they no longer need the *AA middlemen before this happens.
I think his point was that you could make a pretty straight 1 km bar along the ground. I thought the main thing being tested here is the ability to hit the target as it goes along the cable/bar to a distance of a km. Mimicing the resistance of gravity while moving in the horizontal plane is quite simple.
At some point though you do want a full system integration test, so perhaps that's what they are actually doing here.
I would wonder how 'stationary' the helicopter can actually be. I'd figure it would move around quite a bit given wind gusts at altitude; how much would an actual elevator ribbon move in the wind in practice?
It will not have to support it's own weight. No more than the wire running to the rooftop antenna of a skyscraper supports it's own weight. The power cables would be attached to the elevator ribbon along the way.
Now, whether that adds too much weight to make the space elevator unworkable is an entirely different concept. But the power cables wouldn't have to support themselves. As other posters have said, other issues exist with it, such as electrical interaction with lightning (1.21 gigiwatts anyone?) or repeaters being necessary are also valid concerns to a power cable or 'rail' solution.
cuz, like windows *never* break....sure maybe not all of them, but someone who gets a freak vandalism accident is gonna wonder why the phone won't work and have a hard time finding their way home after having all of the windows replaced;-)
"every part of a VASIMR engine is magnetically shielded and does not come into direct contact with ionized plasma, the potential durability of this engine design is greater than other ion engine designs"
I believe the 'safer' idea is that instead of a 2 year round trip, we might be talking a few months. Lots easier to get help when it's only 45 days away rather than 6-12 months.
And yes, 'easy' in this case is still ridiculously hard...but still it's a good bit better than 2 years.
"'Texting'... means... texting... or... any other form of electronic data [usage]"
A = A + whatever we want to claim
Which as AC correctly states is damn near everything these days.
If I have a digital speedometer, I'm not allowed to read how fast I'm going? Are digital cell phones transmitting a 'digital' signal? In which case they just ruled out cellphone usage entirely.
Basically the President is saying, if you work for the Federal Gov't you now have to abide by this rule. It's not a law, but then my employer telling me I can't wear jeans to work isn't a law either.
It does indeed, thank you for the more thorough research:)
I likely still wouldn't have fought the ticket, since I was flashing my brights in a fairly obnoxious manner;-) and it was 3 hours from home so fighting it would have cost me more than the ticket itself.
Actually I literally have sent maybe 5 texts in total ever. It's not in my plan and I don't find the need to communicate that way, at least not yet.
I'm not arguing against the *initial* response accidents. It doesn't matter what your impairment is initially. But after that, people texting are still in full possession of their mental abilities...a drunk is not.
I fully support police doing more enforcement of the *existing* distracted driving laws. I am also fully against writing a law for each and every type of distracting behavior. It makes for legal soup that isn't good for anybody.
From studies that show texters having as bad (initial) responses as drunks combined with your assessment that there are *lots* more texters on the road than drunks (which I agree with) it seems the texters are causing fewer accidents per person than the drunks - Lots more people doing something with the same number of outcomes. That says that there's something different. I believe it supports my position that because they *can* come back to full control, it is less dangerous than drunks who simply can't. The number of texters makes up for a lower percent of accidents.
Just supposition, but you can't claim there are vastly more texters without also admitting that they have few per person incidents.
Drivers educated about the laws is definitely a good thing. Proclaiming, and then following through on, enforcement of those laws is vital to people obeying them.
But by calling out individual things in separate laws only yields to the already massively bloated 'think of the children' legal roadmap we have. Tell people texting is distracting and distracted driving is illegal. Don't make *only* texting illegal because then the argument is, well it isn't covered by a law so it must not be distracting, for every other behavior.
But by segmenting the laws into specific types of actions, it becomes easier to say "no I wasn't texting, I was surfing the web" which isn't covered by the specific case.
How you were distracted shouldn't matter. That you were distracted is the issue and should be the focus of the law.
I agree with you. But my case clearly showed he either didn't know the law or chose not to agree with me.
I asked if the law was 'yield on visual or audible signal' and he said he wasn't aware of any such type of law.
Well VA law is just about that exact statement except no visual, just audible. So he either didn't know what he was doing or, more likely, wouldn't give me the benefit of the doubt of being close enough. (which is fine, technically it was wrong according to the law).
Technically, if you are the only car on the road and drive in the left lane, you are committing a misdemeanor, because you are not passing anyone.
According to the officer I dealt with, that's not the case in VA. It's perfectly legal to drive in the left lane.
Driving alone in the left lane you aren't affecting anyone, passing on the right obviously is affecting someone since there is someone to pass. From that comparison alone I'd wager passing on the right should be the illegal action and keep right be the 'guideline'.
All the points you make about Officers boils down to training and taking their current task seriously.
They are told in no uncertain terms if they violate the rules they will likely lose their jobs/privileges. If people had such motivation (or fear of consequences), we'd see it in much better driving.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, that Interstate Highway system was totally a wasted boondoggle of a project.
It wasn't built to make a profit either, just to allow better troop movements and some *minor* transportation abilities.
Except that it's by far one of the best investments we've ever made. (yes I'm ignoring the rail vs road debate) But it wasn't *worth* the money we spent on it at the time.
The gov't did it because no company was going to do it on their own.
You make good points with one exception.
The *AA's making it easy only works for a while. Eventually the 'free' sites will be as easy to use as any paid download site.
Then they're back to square one with 'free' being as easy to do as 'pay', well most people are going to choose free.
The bigger issue here is that for the last 100 years or so the *AA industries have literally been a license to print money. When I can sell something that I made for $0.15 for $30.00 - hell, we *all* want that deal! Imagine how anyone would feel when that gravy train is leaving the station. I suspect most people would lie, cheat and steal to try and stop it from leaving, no?
As we all know, musicians and writers and painters and almost every other 'artist' profession will survive, but they will survive making money through actual work...live performances, commissioned works, etc. The way it used to be done 100s of years ago. The days of reaping mountains of money for making copies of works is ending.
But it will take many more artists figuring out they no longer need the *AA middlemen before this happens.
I think his point was that you could make a pretty straight 1 km bar along the ground. I thought the main thing being tested here is the ability to hit the target as it goes along the cable/bar to a distance of a km. Mimicing the resistance of gravity while moving in the horizontal plane is quite simple.
At some point though you do want a full system integration test, so perhaps that's what they are actually doing here.
I would wonder how 'stationary' the helicopter can actually be. I'd figure it would move around quite a bit given wind gusts at altitude; how much would an actual elevator ribbon move in the wind in practice?
It will not have to support it's own weight. No more than the wire running to the rooftop antenna of a skyscraper supports it's own weight. The power cables would be attached to the elevator ribbon along the way.
Now, whether that adds too much weight to make the space elevator unworkable is an entirely different concept. But the power cables wouldn't have to support themselves. As other posters have said, other issues exist with it, such as electrical interaction with lightning (1.21 gigiwatts anyone?) or repeaters being necessary are also valid concerns to a power cable or 'rail' solution.
cuz, like windows *never* break....sure maybe not all of them, but someone who gets a freak vandalism accident is gonna wonder why the phone won't work and have a hard time finding their way home after having all of the windows replaced ;-)
according to Wikipedia:
"every part of a VASIMR engine is magnetically shielded and does not come into direct contact with ionized plasma, the potential durability of this engine design is greater than other ion engine designs"
Score: 0
-1: Wooosh
+1: Insightful
simply amazing, I salute you sir!
I believe the 'safer' idea is that instead of a 2 year round trip, we might be talking a few months. Lots easier to get help when it's only 45 days away rather than 6-12 months.
And yes, 'easy' in this case is still ridiculously hard...but still it's a good bit better than 2 years.
Likely true, but if California is able to do this, any state can.
Indeed quite a broad swath there.
... texting ... or ... any other form of electronic data [usage]"
I love the legalese that basically comes down to
"'Texting'... means
A = A + whatever we want to claim
Which as AC correctly states is damn near everything these days.
If I have a digital speedometer, I'm not allowed to read how fast I'm going? Are digital cell phones transmitting a 'digital' signal? In which case they just ruled out cellphone usage entirely.
Lots of precedent for EO's but not a really explicit definition of their force and justification.
linky
Basically the President is saying, if you work for the Federal Gov't you now have to abide by this rule. It's not a law, but then my employer telling me I can't wear jeans to work isn't a law either.
There is a court order to your service provider to tell them what you were doing with your phone at the time of the accident though.
Are you saying those who drink and drive have *better* judgement?
Judgement aside, reaction times and physical dexterity generally will give you a fighting chance.
Being so blitzed you can't see beyond your nose doesn't help you much when you need to make corrective actions.
It does indeed, thank you for the more thorough research :)
;-) and it was 3 hours from home so fighting it would have cost me more than the ticket itself.
I likely still wouldn't have fought the ticket, since I was flashing my brights in a fairly obnoxious manner
well obviously you aren't drinking enough ;-)
Actually I literally have sent maybe 5 texts in total ever. It's not in my plan and I don't find the need to communicate that way, at least not yet.
I'm not arguing against the *initial* response accidents. It doesn't matter what your impairment is initially. But after that, people texting are still in full possession of their mental abilities...a drunk is not.
I fully support police doing more enforcement of the *existing* distracted driving laws. I am also fully against writing a law for each and every type of distracting behavior. It makes for legal soup that isn't good for anybody.
From studies that show texters having as bad (initial) responses as drunks combined with your assessment that there are *lots* more texters on the road than drunks (which I agree with) it seems the texters are causing fewer accidents per person than the drunks - Lots more people doing something with the same number of outcomes. That says that there's something different. I believe it supports my position that because they *can* come back to full control, it is less dangerous than drunks who simply can't. The number of texters makes up for a lower percent of accidents.
Just supposition, but you can't claim there are vastly more texters without also admitting that they have few per person incidents.
Guilty as charged ;-)
Drivers educated about the laws is definitely a good thing. Proclaiming, and then following through on, enforcement of those laws is vital to people obeying them.
But by calling out individual things in separate laws only yields to the already massively bloated 'think of the children' legal roadmap we have. Tell people texting is distracting and distracted driving is illegal. Don't make *only* texting illegal because then the argument is, well it isn't covered by a law so it must not be distracting, for every other behavior.
Enforcement is a key factor, no argument at all.
But by segmenting the laws into specific types of actions, it becomes easier to say "no I wasn't texting, I was surfing the web" which isn't covered by the specific case.
How you were distracted shouldn't matter. That you were distracted is the issue and should be the focus of the law.
I agree with you. But my case clearly showed he either didn't know the law or chose not to agree with me.
I asked if the law was 'yield on visual or audible signal' and he said he wasn't aware of any such type of law.
Well VA law is just about that exact statement except no visual, just audible. So he either didn't know what he was doing or, more likely, wouldn't give me the benefit of the doubt of being close enough. (which is fine, technically it was wrong according to the law).
They aren't required to inform you because you chose to go to them; they didn't tell you to visit.
Since we can now reasonably look up the laws of the places we're going to be traveling (US at least) that old adage 'ignorance is no excuse' applies.
You choose to enter their territory, you abide by their rules. Is there any other option? you get to choose what rules you follow when traveling?
I agree initial response rates by texters may be on par or even worse than drunks.
But see how the drunks do 2 or 3 decisions after that initial incident and they don't get better, the texters do.
Technically, if you are the only car on the road and drive in the left lane, you are committing a misdemeanor, because you are not passing anyone.
According to the officer I dealt with, that's not the case in VA. It's perfectly legal to drive in the left lane.
Driving alone in the left lane you aren't affecting anyone, passing on the right obviously is affecting someone since there is someone to pass. From that comparison alone I'd wager passing on the right should be the illegal action and keep right be the 'guideline'.
Personally, I think both should be laws.
All the points you make about Officers boils down to training and taking their current task seriously.
They are told in no uncertain terms if they violate the rules they will likely lose their jobs/privileges. If people had such motivation (or fear of consequences), we'd see it in much better driving.
while I would tend to agree with you, it does sort of seem like '2 wrongs make a right' logic to which I don't subscribe ;-)