Conservation of energy and momentum would require the orbital "head-end" to slow down as a elevator ascends. This is easy to see with a self-propelled payload.
What is less clear is how eneregy and momentum would be recovered on a payload descent. Perhaps balanced by an ascending load on pulleys.
Actually, my daughter gave up her iPod in favor of a Sansa. I don't think Apple's device is so great, but like Nike, superbly marketed.
Every company has dud products. Nature of the game. My bigger issue with Apple is it follows the MS-formula of restricting users for its own profitability. Red-in-tooth-and-claw.
Certainly there are Apple fanatics, just as their are supporters of the White House (Bush, Clinton, whoever).
The essence of fanatacism is to be enamoured with the venerated things' advantages and willfully blind [deny] the things' disadvantages. To fail at introspection and self-awareness. The same goes for haters who are merely anti-fanatics.
In the case of Apple, they have relatively superior User Interface design, and very robust hardware design and manufacture. They are also secretive, autocratic, non-open and high priced.
Your "reductio-ad-absurdam" fails -- luck is random chance that evens out over the long run. BMW & 3M are long-term successes. Apple could have failed (and been bought by MS) had Diamond and other MP3 player competitors been more UI oriented. One off event.
From your username, you ought to have no trouble with ambiguity. Success is seldom one single factor. In this case it was luck that MP3 play innovators like Diamond Rio didn't have many UI smarts -- their early players didn't even have a status display.
But Apple was also skillful in using their undisputed UI skills to compete in this area.
Yes, Apple has had other successes since the iPod. But would not have without it. It turned them around. I doubt they will get their premium pricing for Apple TV from many customers. They've always been premium, and need to find markets.
Luck plays a role. If Apple hadn't come up with the iPod and used its' UI skills to make it very attractive, the company would be dead.
I don't think you can call the iPod a reliable result of make'em bleed management style. Yes, it can and did happen. But I doubt as likely as under a more open system.
Something peripheral like a [un]scientific be should determine a relationship? There are _far_ more important things: love, which is easily defined as caring for someone else's happiness and well-being. It is a reflex with unelucidated triggers. Love isn't crazy, but expecting it to be returned is.
The important thing is to determine if someone is attracted to you/loves you as much as you are to them. Lots of faking here.
BTW, astrology probably once had some rationale: pre-industrial life and diet was highly seasonal -- gestation and infancy would be affected and could generate certain tendencies.
The American system of candidates doing their own fund-raising does give plenty of opportunity for corruption in strong or weaker forms. But it also gives the legislators considerable independence from their parties and better able to represent their constituents (and contributors).
AFAIK, The US and Japan (India?) are the only major countries with independant legislators. Each vote on each issue must be won, one-by-one. All others are entirely behelden to their parties and eminently whippable. Especially the UK, where the sight of Tony Blair putting down three separate revolts over Iraq from Labour (traditionally anti-war and anti-US) back-benchers was truly awe-inspiring.
"Campaign finance reform", as lofty as it sounds likely would have the effect of making the party apparatus more powerful relative to the candidates. That would weaken an important check-and-balance and move further towards an elected dictatorship.
I'm not USA bashing beyond the insufferable arrogance of telling people to live American-style. Suggesting is one thing, telling is another and that line is more often crossed than not.
I recognize Japan is a pressure-cooker society, diffcult even for natives to bear. An unusually large series of contraints and tight paths to follow. However, it is not for outsiders to attempt to impose our values even if they are superior. Rhetorically counter-productive.
Is any such acceptance necessarily irrational? Perhaps there are customs or restrictions that limit the abuse of authority. Utterly unamerican notions like honor and public-service, perhaps?
From whence comes this strongly-felt yet poorly enumerated (writing) right to privacy? The foundations bear some examination. My belief is the privacy is first and foremost a right to self-protection against prejudice by concealing information that would inflame some prejudice or other.
Yet privacy is clearly a conditional right. You have to behave in order to enjoy it. Do bad things and you will lose it. Privacy cannot be a shield defending wrongdoing. That's the basis for police search warrants. The same or worse holds in the civil law sphere -- discovery and depositions are
frightening things as some will find out.
With respect to governmental authorities, they operate with many legal privileges and immunities which shield punishment and so permit prejudice on their parts. Privacy becomes even more important in those relatively few (but serious) cases where offices are abused for personal gratification.
Are the RIAA/UMG and/or their lawyers incontinent submorons?
Civil discovery is a truly awful experience (bare all), and _they_ started this suit. They ought to have known they would have to produce anything connected to anything possibly introduced into evidence, and anything their opponents might want that could potentially lead to evidence. H3ll yes: logs, and then answer interrogatories about why they choose to prosecute some and not others.
Of course lawyers will argue and object. They're paid to do this even for the stall when they know they won't succeed. I expect the judge to deny the objection and refuse to allow redaction. There are very simple and very set rules of procedure to follow.
Yes, I understand your point and I'm trying to support what might otherwise be seen as an extraordinary claim. One might wonder why "The General" would interfere. I was providing motive.
Even if it made it past design, those O-rings should have been red-flagged and fixed after the first test-firing of the SRBs showed leakage. They were not proper O-rings. The fact that it was not (perhaps for reasons of schedule or whatever) is somewhat culpable if not revealing a military (vs civilian) risk tolerence level.
Sorta. The things that failed were called "O-rings" but have nothing in common with proper O-rings (viscoelastic differential pressure seals). Those things leaked every time, while real O-rings never leak when clean and in good condition. The things that failed are more like packing, which must leak to work.
The real problem was the closure design was ripped off from a Hahn & Clay patent which the NASA and contractors did not understand and implemented horribly. The large-diameter closure was supposed to be a three-piece floating (self-centering) design. Apparently to save fabrication cost, it was done as a two-piece closure (non-centering) and worse, with the gap was facing in a hazardous direction.
Sure, initial temperature could easily play a role by causing shrinkage and larger-than-usual packing gaps. But it wasn't some sort of brittle fracture since I very much doubt the brittle transition temperature of the packing material was anywhere as high as 30'F. More usual is 0'F and below.
Close enough. The things that failed were called "O-rings" but have nothing in common
with proper O-rings (viscoelastic differential pressure seals). Those things leaked
every time, while real O-rings never leak when clean and in good condition. The
things that failed are more like packing, which must leak to work.
Initial temperature could easily play a role by causing shrinkage and
larger-than-usual packing gaps. But it wasn't some sort of brittle fracture since I
very much doubt the brittle transition temperature of the packing material was
anywhere as high as 30'F. More usual is 0'F and below.
Yes, "stealing from other users". Their internet will slow to a crawl. You have used the bandwidth the ISP had provided for their use. To stop this, they throttle you.
As for "promised and paid-for", what _exactly_ were you promised? Continuous internet access at speeds up to X. And that is exactly what you get. Speeds up to X (wehere technically feasible) for a second or two to burst pages in. The "faster internet experience" advertised. They never promised you continuous speeds of X.
Maybe you don't like it, but how can you expect to argue successfully if you cannot see the other side clearly? Perhaps you think it's all about profit, and will get blindsided and shutdown by the fairness argument.
This UK group seems to accept at face value that EULAs are somehow valid when they fail the most simple tests of contract -- a meeting of the minds at consummation.
Yes, I'm aware some courts have upheld EULAs valid. Bad facts make bad law.
But the simple fact is a sale has taken place with certain terms. Imposing other terms afterwards is simply called "reaching". If the companies wanted EULAs enforced, they'd have tear-off signing cards on their products. Then it would be very simple. But the companies choose not to do so for marketing reasons or other convenience. Yet still wish to have the advantages of contract bestowed upon them. Have their cake and eat it too.
The Metcalfe Effect "Value increases as the square of the size (number of nodes)" is extremely powerful and explains why Y! and Match predominate. One might die, and your idea might help one kill the other.
But it still is blind dating. No matter how your refine the online selection process, it cannot carry vital data. Refining the selection process may just lead to more false expectations and disappointment when you cannot explain why there is no chemistry on otherwise perfect matches. Which probably the limiting factor.
What part of "shared bandwidth" do you not understand? It boosts peak (short-term) rates by using other' users idle capacity. This has been done for 10+ years and is a feature of consumer-grade links that helps keep their costs down.
If you want a commercial-grade link you expect to saturate, pay for it! Otherwise, you are stealing from other users and the ISP should throttle you to be fair to them.
Well, of course US lawyers might look at Canadian copyright law and find it lacking compared to US law. It will be unfamiliar, and will lack the Sonny Bono [Disney] quasi-perpetuity extention.
Please note that Canadian lawyers (who enjoy generally greater social respect) will look at US law and find it similarly lacking. But do not have the insufferable American arrogance to claim their national laws should somehow govern all.
Canada is a different country with different norms and practices. Superficial language similarities mask much deeper fundamental differences. In copyright, Canada has a CD tax to compensate artists for such personal copies. The US does too (Music CD blanks), but it is little enforced.
As long as both the US and Canada conform to WIPO, neither has reasonable complaint of the others' national customizations. Utter arrogance and extraterritoriality to maintain otherwise.
Please note, Udy was stopped _OUTBOUND_ from Dulles to London. This is perfectly within the law since the United States exerts very strong jursidication and control over EXPORTS.
Perhaps you think they shouldn't, but they have since at least 1790 when the worry was exporting straight pine timber to make British Navy masts and spars.
Her laptop might itself have been technology that required an export licence, or it might have contained data that required an export licence. Nevermind logic of the laptop being made in Taiwan. Udy does not appear to be a US person (citizen or permanent resident), so she may not have been able to use the common licence exemptions for baggage, tools-of-trade and publicly-available software.
The US Customs is perfectly capable to remaining in the 18th century when it suits them. Unfortunately, not much can be done short of an Act of Congress. About the only thing she could and should have got is a receipt.
Odd how improvements come gratuitously -- when they're not even really needed. Flash has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years, to the point that HD-less PCs can be made. Especially on Linux which tends to take asmaller OS footprint.
Flash has always been relatively fast (slowed by USB 1.1 "interface". Now maybe USB 3.0 is needed or PATA/SATA internal boxes.
One place this may really help is cameras. The shutter lag is still bad, and this might help.
Slashdot Mirror
What is less clear is how eneregy and momentum would be recovered on a payload descent. Perhaps balanced by an ascending load on pulleys.
Every company has dud products. Nature of the game. My bigger issue with Apple is it follows the MS-formula of restricting users for its own profitability. Red-in-tooth-and-claw.
Apple is rather precarious. It has been successful in spurts, but has also been on the brink any number of times.
Older successes in thecomputing business include MS, TI, HP, Intel and others like AMD if you consider being to the brink and back no mar to success.
The essence of fanatacism is to be enamoured with the venerated things' advantages and willfully blind [deny] the things' disadvantages. To fail at introspection and self-awareness. The same goes for haters who are merely anti-fanatics.
In the case of Apple, they have relatively superior User Interface design, and very robust hardware design and manufacture. They are also secretive, autocratic, non-open and high priced.
Your "reductio-ad-absurdam" fails -- luck is random chance that evens out over the long run. BMW & 3M are long-term successes. Apple could have failed (and been bought by MS) had Diamond and other MP3 player competitors been more UI oriented. One off event.
But Apple was also skillful in using their undisputed UI skills to compete in this area.
I don't think you can call the iPod a reliable result of make'em bleed management style. Yes, it can and did happen. But I doubt as likely as under a more open system.
The important thing is to determine if someone is attracted to you/loves you as much as you are to them. Lots of faking here.
BTW, astrology probably once had some rationale: pre-industrial life and diet was highly seasonal -- gestation and infancy would be affected and could generate certain tendencies.
AFAIK, The US and Japan (India?) are the only major countries with independant legislators. Each vote on each issue must be won, one-by-one. All others are entirely behelden to their parties and eminently whippable. Especially the UK, where the sight of Tony Blair putting down three separate revolts over Iraq from Labour (traditionally anti-war and anti-US) back-benchers was truly awe-inspiring.
"Campaign finance reform", as lofty as it sounds likely would have the effect of making the party apparatus more powerful relative to the candidates. That would weaken an important check-and-balance and move further towards an elected dictatorship.
I recognize Japan is a pressure-cooker society, diffcult even for natives to bear. An unusually large series of contraints and tight paths to follow. However, it is not for outsiders to attempt to impose our values even if they are superior. Rhetorically counter-productive.
Is any such acceptance necessarily irrational? Perhaps there are customs or restrictions that limit the abuse of authority. Utterly unamerican notions like honor and public-service, perhaps?
Yet privacy is clearly a conditional right. You have to behave in order to enjoy it. Do bad things and you will lose it. Privacy cannot be a shield defending wrongdoing. That's the basis for police search warrants. The same or worse holds in the civil law sphere -- discovery and depositions are frightening things as some will find out.
With respect to governmental authorities, they operate with many legal privileges and immunities which shield punishment and so permit prejudice on their parts. Privacy becomes even more important in those relatively few (but serious) cases where offices are abused for personal gratification.
Civil discovery is a truly awful experience (bare all), and _they_ started this suit. They ought to have known they would have to produce anything connected to anything possibly introduced into evidence, and anything their opponents might want that could potentially lead to evidence. H3ll yes: logs, and then answer interrogatories about why they choose to prosecute some and not others.
Of course lawyers will argue and object. They're paid to do this even for the stall when they know they won't succeed. I expect the judge to deny the objection and refuse to allow redaction. There are very simple and very set rules of procedure to follow.
Even if it made it past design, those O-rings should have been red-flagged and fixed after the first test-firing of the SRBs showed leakage. They were not proper O-rings. The fact that it was not (perhaps for reasons of schedule or whatever) is somewhat culpable if not revealing a military (vs civilian) risk tolerence level.
The real problem was the closure design was ripped off from a Hahn & Clay patent which the NASA and contractors did not understand and implemented horribly. The large-diameter closure was supposed to be a three-piece floating (self-centering) design. Apparently to save fabrication cost, it was done as a two-piece closure (non-centering) and worse, with the gap was facing in a hazardous direction.
Sure, initial temperature could easily play a role by causing shrinkage and larger-than-usual packing gaps. But it wasn't some sort of brittle fracture since I very much doubt the brittle transition temperature of the packing material was anywhere as high as 30'F. More usual is 0'F and below.
Initial temperature could easily play a role by causing shrinkage and larger-than-usual packing gaps. But it wasn't some sort of brittle fracture since I very much doubt the brittle transition temperature of the packing material was anywhere as high as 30'F. More usual is 0'F and below.
As for "promised and paid-for", what _exactly_ were you promised? Continuous internet access at speeds up to X. And that is exactly what you get. Speeds up to X (wehere technically feasible) for a second or two to burst pages in. The "faster internet experience" advertised. They never promised you continuous speeds of X.
Maybe you don't like it, but how can you expect to argue successfully if you cannot see the other side clearly? Perhaps you think it's all about profit, and will get blindsided and shutdown by the fairness argument.
Yes, I'm aware some courts have upheld EULAs valid. Bad facts make bad law.
But the simple fact is a sale has taken place with certain terms. Imposing other terms afterwards is simply called "reaching". If the companies wanted EULAs enforced, they'd have tear-off signing cards on their products. Then it would be very simple. But the companies choose not to do so for marketing reasons or other convenience. Yet still wish to have the advantages of contract bestowed upon them. Have their cake and eat it too.
You have a valid complaint and need to press it. Some ISPs mislabel product.
But it still is blind dating. No matter how your refine the online selection process, it cannot carry vital data. Refining the selection process may just lead to more false expectations and disappointment when you cannot explain why there is no chemistry on otherwise perfect matches. Which probably the limiting factor.
If you want a commercial-grade link you expect to saturate, pay for it! Otherwise, you are stealing from other users and the ISP should throttle you to be fair to them.
Please note that Canadian lawyers (who enjoy generally greater social respect) will look at US law and find it similarly lacking. But do not have the insufferable American arrogance to claim their national laws should somehow govern all.
Canada is a different country with different norms and practices. Superficial language similarities mask much deeper fundamental differences. In copyright, Canada has a CD tax to compensate artists for such personal copies. The US does too (Music CD blanks), but it is little enforced.
As long as both the US and Canada conform to WIPO, neither has reasonable complaint of the others' national customizations. Utter arrogance and extraterritoriality to maintain otherwise.
Perhaps you think they shouldn't, but they have since at least 1790 when the worry was exporting straight pine timber to make British Navy masts and spars.
Her laptop might itself have been technology that required an export licence, or it might have contained data that required an export licence. Nevermind logic of the laptop being made in Taiwan. Udy does not appear to be a US person (citizen or permanent resident), so she may not have been able to use the common licence exemptions for baggage, tools-of-trade and publicly-available software.
The US Customs is perfectly capable to remaining in the 18th century when it suits them. Unfortunately, not much can be done short of an Act of Congress. About the only thing she could and should have got is a receipt.
Flash has always been relatively fast (slowed by USB 1.1 "interface". Now maybe USB 3.0 is needed or PATA/SATA internal boxes.
One place this may really help is cameras. The shutter lag is still bad, and this might help.