Your own fucking Congress has ruled about that one...
Wtong. He paid for suicide bombers, made anPR event of the payments to families. He sheltered hijackers who murdered US citizens. He operated training camps. You have been fooled by political spin than that terrorist means al-qaeda, it does not. There are many branches on the terrorist family tree and Saddam nurtured some of them.
C'mon dood, who is currently America's major trading partner? China, the home of communism, where US companies are assisting the censor ship of the Chinese people. America had the opportunity to be rid of communism once and for all but has chosen to prop it up, Why?
It is silly to compare the US of 200x with the 1950s and 60s. The fear of communism was real, it was a justification for fighting to many, the US and China had in fact met in combat in Korea. Today communism has fallen and is not perceived as a threat. It is naive to think that the "communism with a chinese face" bears much resemblance to the communism of Mao from the 50s and 60s.
Not according to the inspectors. You know, the people who were actually there, actually looking for them, and assuring Bush that he was wrong to think so.
The inspectors who were fooled in the past, and their errors undiscovered until Saddam's son-in-law defected.
"The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war."
So breaking that agreement should result in UN approved sanctions against Iraq, not a military response.
They tried that for 12 years and accomplished nothing. On second thought, it did accomplish something, an increase in corruption at the UN as they managed "Oil for Food". Sanctions enriched Saddam and his henchmen and increased the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen. The later was Saddam's intent, a method of putting pressure on the UN to lift the sanctions.
The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.
I believe that to be a highly revisionist statement. What we had at the time were many unknowns. The UN's assurance that inspections are or would be successful, and intelligence estimates from countries profiting from military and oil trade with Iraq, were as tainted as those of hawks who wanted Saddam's head for decades. Nothing was *known* until a later time when US troops were on the ground inspecting facilities and palaces all over the country. Prior to that either side could have been correct, both sides were guessing, but one side knew of a way to be sure.
You know, I don't agree with this guy one bit, but how is this modded troll? Just because people don't agree with his opinion? I troll mod should be reserved for "FIRST POST!!!", people from the GNAA or someone who says "All you liberals suck! GO USA!!!" His opinion, while disagreeable to some, is still valid.
It is expected. The debate over this war is highly politicized. Honest mistakes become intentional lies. Prudently erring on the side of overestimating an enemy is a campaign of deceit. Those who guessed right before the answer was known are the geniuses of foreign policy. It is heresy to suggest that those who decided to invade may have had rational beliefs, that being rational and being correct are two different things. This is why there was so much support at the time of the voting for the authorization of force. It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.
What threat? Saddam had no delivery system capable of reaching the US with those "WMD".
He had a missile program and he was making continuous progress with respect to range.
More importantly, the decision to invade was made in a post 9/11 environment. Al-qaeda had no delivery system either. At the start of the manhattan project one delivery system considered was sailing a ship into the enemy's harbor and detonating a device, they did not know they could build a device small enough to fit on a bomber.
It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them.
According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."
I'm sure that quote is missing a qualifier such as "at this time".
Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)
If Bush had done nothing and Saddam eventually developed a nuke, a bug, or a nerve gas many of the same people who criticize him for removing Saddam would have criticized him for doing nothing to prevent the acquisition of such weapons. Ignoring the politicized environment that exists where whatever choice you make the opposition will demonize you, you don't think that he may have made a moral choice that the lesser of two evils would be to act to prevent acquisition of such weapons and to be wrong?
Consider the generational perspective too. Older generation are more aware of the option the British and French had to use force to prevent Hitler's rearming of Germany. They chose not to act. When comparisons are made to Hitler, older generations often think of this failure to take preemptive action. After World War II there was a strong sentiment that it would be better to intervene and to be wrong than to allow a larger tragedy to develop. I think you need to consider this when evaluating Bush's decision making. I do not believe he invented justifiers, I believe that he honestly believed there was a long term threat and chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils.
So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country.
The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war.
I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in.
Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life.:-|
And you believe that hysteria helps guide one out of an indescribably complex situation?
However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat.
Keep in mind that all of these claims were being offered in an incredibly partisan political environment. "Inflating the threat" is sometimes political spin on taking a pessimistic perspective. In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?
Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."
That is how the military has been trained since the 1950s. It is a common perspective to give these a certain equivalence.
Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented. Even without his approval a rogue agent could share. As was done in Pakistan with nuclear weapons design.
Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)
Inspectors are gatherers of data, not analysts. Between a lack of confidence in inspectors, additional information sources, and a rational tendency to overestimate a potential enemy it is understandable for an analyst to not accept an inspector's "minor" appraisal. The corruption at the UN oil for food programs proves that a lack of confidence in the UN was not unwarranted.
Things are far more complex that you suggest, and the data is not as clear as you suggest.
Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's?... Wake the fuck up.
I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in. The fear that Saddam may still possess WMD was real prior to the invasion. The issue was not determined until *after* the invasion. Saddam had it at one time and he *failed* to document its destruction, or to have the UN supervise its destruction. The UN's failure to find evidence of current WMD did not *prove* the absense of WMD. They had been fooled in the past. There was active interference in the past. It was not until there was unfettered near-simultaneous access to all facilities and palaces that the issue was settled, and that was post invasion. If there were no invasion, we would still probably not really know.
Now calm down and try to think for a second. Does this prove the invasion was justified? No, it proves neither justified nor unjustified. The point is that the decision makers did have rational reasons. Rational reasons can exist on both the incorrect and correct side.
The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.
You need to re-read my post. I'm not arguing that the reasons for invasion were always well thought out and justified. I am merely arguing that the countries are not invaded on a random basis as claimed, reasons do exist.
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s).
Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling)
Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do? The original typo is "raq", which gets autocorrected to "rag", and the missing "I" is manually added without noting the preceding change.
There is no Freudian slip since Saddam is not Iraq. The territory of Iraq and its people represent one of the births of agriculture, one of the births of civilization, one of the births of a written legal system based upon fairness, etc. I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.
I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.
you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution.
Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed. Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.
It also doesn't say the device takes in less than one watt for every watt it puts out. It says the device required less than one watt of extra effort on the part of the wearer to get one watt out. In other words it's capturing some of the energy that would have been wasted anyways.
Their measurements are naive. Respiration only indicates total energy consumption. It does not indicate a reallocation of energy within the body, for example digestion may have been slowed to provide additional energy. Furthermore what is the comparison of energy savings by reducing biological arresting of forward motion against the bodies own recapturing of energy and the additional energy required to operate without this evolutionary recapture system and the additional energy need to carry this apparatus around.
This device seems highly useful, but "free" with respect to bodily energy is a bit hard to believe. It is far easier to believe we have an incomplete picture.
Really? I could be mistaken then. I would have assumed the pedal on a bicycle based generator would have been bigger than the whole unit for a hand-crank one.
One implementation of the generator is a device that makes contact with a wheel and spins as the wheel rotates. These are very small devices. With regard to making a bicycle a stationary generator a hole and some minor carpentry skill will accomplish that. However I think that is a tangent. If you are going to walk to generate power you could probably bike.
"Well less than one watt in and a full watt out makes me think not science as well."
statements like that make me think: try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.
the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated.
Try thinking harder. Your logic seems to assume that there is sufficient kinetic inefficiency to make up the difference. While this may be true for cars it is unlikely for a biological organism that has gone through millions of years of evolution optimizing walking efficiency. Also measuring power via respiration is highly suspect. It only measures total energy and does not measure shifts of energy from one bodily function to another. For example was energy diverted from digestion?
She shouldda waited for that Supreme Court case that said divulging your password was a violation of your 5th amendment right.
Until the Supreme Court declares that you have a constitutional right to get on an airplane invoking the 5th won't help. Flying is currently not a right so it can be denied.
We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.
Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact. The US didn't want to take Saddam's word on it, and didn't trust in the UN's ability to discover the truth in the face of non-cooperation. Saddam wanted enemies to think that he may still have it, that would be a deterrent. His plan backfired. The truth of the matter is that no one really knew for sure until after the invasion and there were thousands of US boots on the ground going into every lab and palace. The fact that nothing was found, that the US got the unexpected answer, does not change the fact that short of such unfettered access we would have no answer. Saddam also had a tendency to shoot at US aircraft, not justification in itself but it does help to set a certain mood with regard to overall relations and level of trust.
Afghanistan: The people behind 9/11 were here, and they were being protected by the government.
Iraq I: They invaded Kuwait, were told to leave, and did not. Even the UN blessed this one.
Grenada: Communists building a runway capable of handling long range Soviet bombers. The spread of communism was feared.
South Vietnam: Communist North Vietnam fostering a civil war in the South, and invaded the South to a degree. The spread of communism was feared.
South Korea: Communist North Korea invaded the south. The UN blessed this one. The US also feared the spread of communism.
In the mode in which the brace is only activated while the knee is braking, the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated. A typical hand-crank generator, for comparison, takes an average of 6.4 watts of metabolic power to generate one watt of electricity because of inefficiencies of muscles and generators.
That is a bogus comparison, the arm and leg muscles are too different. A fair comparison might be bicycle based generator. Junk like this makes my think hype not science. Well less than one watt in and a full watt out makes me think not science as well.
To be fair, I think universities should be granted patents, if only to look good on walls and recognize commitments. But they should be made publicly available if the university benefits from public funds.
No, universities should charge for intellectual properties. It helps fund the universities, what they do not get by licensing IP to corporations they will get from tuition and taxpayer funding. I believe the University of California system works something like:
Any discoveries or inventions made by employees (staff, faculty, or student) must be submitted to the university.
The University will patent it if possible.
The employee(s) will personally receive 35% of the licensing fees collected, 15% will go to his/her department, and the remaining 50% will go to the University in general.
Licensing fees vary, small local startups are charged less then global conglomerates. Favor is shown towards organization that will work with the university (employ/fund faculty and students).
The university publishes a catalog of IP available for licensing.
The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. In deference to the militia? Sure, make me muster once a month in the town square with my shotgun and.357
That may not be necessary. All able bodied males between 17 and 45 are in the militia by federal law, in particular in the unorganized component. The National Guard is the organized component.
According to federal law, the militia includes all able bodied men. It is not just the National Guard. In particular note the unorganized militia class.
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
This is a VERY good thing because it ensures that the very real possibility of bitrot for the majority of documents written in the last 15 years is now greatly reduced.
I think the time window might need to be reduced a bit. Back in the 90s Microsoft used to publish the Word and Excel document formats. I recall that the specs/formats were downloadable from their website.
... the implausibility of the ticketing system just cheerfully accepting a 10-year-distant callback date...
There are always exceptions. You open a retirement account at age 25, the bank/broker's system schedules call backs every ten years to rebalance as your risk tolerance changes as you get closer to retirement age.
As a software developer I would consider the more common short term nature of tech support and the less likely long term nature of some other business relationships. The result would be that the time window allowed for callbacks would be in a configuration file, not "baked" into the code. Misconfiguration or poorly chosen values are highly plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hussein had no connections to terrrorism."
Your own fucking Congress has ruled about that one...
Wtong. He paid for suicide bombers, made anPR event of the payments to families. He sheltered hijackers who murdered US citizens. He operated training camps. You have been fooled by political spin than that terrorist means al-qaeda, it does not. There are many branches on the terrorist family tree and Saddam nurtured some of them.
C'mon dood, who is currently America's major trading partner? China, the home of communism, where US companies are assisting the censor ship of the Chinese people. America had the opportunity to be rid of communism once and for all but has chosen to prop it up, Why?
It is silly to compare the US of 200x with the 1950s and 60s. The fear of communism was real, it was a justification for fighting to many, the US and China had in fact met in combat in Korea. Today communism has fallen and is not perceived as a threat. It is naive to think that the "communism with a chinese face" bears much resemblance to the communism of Mao from the 50s and 60s.
Not according to the inspectors. You know, the people who were actually there, actually looking for them, and assuring Bush that he was wrong to think so.
The inspectors who were fooled in the past, and their errors undiscovered until Saddam's son-in-law defected.
"The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war."
So breaking that agreement should result in UN approved sanctions against Iraq, not a military response.
They tried that for 12 years and accomplished nothing. On second thought, it did accomplish something, an increase in corruption at the UN as they managed "Oil for Food". Sanctions enriched Saddam and his henchmen and increased the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen. The later was Saddam's intent, a method of putting pressure on the UN to lift the sanctions.
The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.
I believe that to be a highly revisionist statement. What we had at the time were many unknowns. The UN's assurance that inspections are or would be successful, and intelligence estimates from countries profiting from military and oil trade with Iraq, were as tainted as those of hawks who wanted Saddam's head for decades. Nothing was *known* until a later time when US troops were on the ground inspecting facilities and palaces all over the country. Prior to that either side could have been correct, both sides were guessing, but one side knew of a way to be sure.
You know, I don't agree with this guy one bit, but how is this modded troll? Just because people don't agree with his opinion? I troll mod should be reserved for "FIRST POST!!!", people from the GNAA or someone who says "All you liberals suck! GO USA!!!" His opinion, while disagreeable to some, is still valid.
It is expected. The debate over this war is highly politicized. Honest mistakes become intentional lies. Prudently erring on the side of overestimating an enemy is a campaign of deceit. Those who guessed right before the answer was known are the geniuses of foreign policy. It is heresy to suggest that those who decided to invade may have had rational beliefs, that being rational and being correct are two different things. This is why there was so much support at the time of the voting for the authorization of force. It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.
What threat? Saddam had no delivery system capable of reaching the US with those "WMD".
He had a missile program and he was making continuous progress with respect to range.
More importantly, the decision to invade was made in a post 9/11 environment. Al-qaeda had no delivery system either. At the start of the manhattan project one delivery system considered was sailing a ship into the enemy's harbor and detonating a device, they did not know they could build a device small enough to fit on a bomber.
It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them.
According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."
I'm sure that quote is missing a qualifier such as "at this time".
Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)
If Bush had done nothing and Saddam eventually developed a nuke, a bug, or a nerve gas many of the same people who criticize him for removing Saddam would have criticized him for doing nothing to prevent the acquisition of such weapons. Ignoring the politicized environment that exists where whatever choice you make the opposition will demonize you, you don't think that he may have made a moral choice that the lesser of two evils would be to act to prevent acquisition of such weapons and to be wrong?
Consider the generational perspective too. Older generation are more aware of the option the British and French had to use force to prevent Hitler's rearming of Germany. They chose not to act. When comparisons are made to Hitler, older generations often think of this failure to take preemptive action. After World War II there was a strong sentiment that it would be better to intervene and to be wrong than to allow a larger tragedy to develop. I think you need to consider this when evaluating Bush's decision making. I do not believe he invented justifiers, I believe that he honestly believed there was a long term threat and chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils.
So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country.
The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war.
I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in. Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life. :-|
And you believe that hysteria helps guide one out of an indescribably complex situation?
However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat.
Keep in mind that all of these claims were being offered in an incredibly partisan political environment. "Inflating the threat" is sometimes political spin on taking a pessimistic perspective. In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?
Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."
That is how the military has been trained since the 1950s. It is a common perspective to give these a certain equivalence.
Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented. Even without his approval a rogue agent could share. As was done in Pakistan with nuclear weapons design.
Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)
Inspectors are gatherers of data, not analysts. Between a lack of confidence in inspectors, additional information sources, and a rational tendency to overestimate a potential enemy it is understandable for an analyst to not accept an inspector's "minor" appraisal. The corruption at the UN oil for food programs proves that a lack of confidence in the UN was not unwarranted.
Things are far more complex that you suggest, and the data is not as clear as you suggest.
Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? ... Wake the fuck up.
I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in. The fear that Saddam may still possess WMD was real prior to the invasion. The issue was not determined until *after* the invasion. Saddam had it at one time and he *failed* to document its destruction, or to have the UN supervise its destruction. The UN's failure to find evidence of current WMD did not *prove* the absense of WMD. They had been fooled in the past. There was active interference in the past. It was not until there was unfettered near-simultaneous access to all facilities and palaces that the issue was settled, and that was post invasion. If there were no invasion, we would still probably not really know.
Now calm down and try to think for a second. Does this prove the invasion was justified? No, it proves neither justified nor unjustified. The point is that the decision makers did have rational reasons. Rational reasons can exist on both the incorrect and correct side.
The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.
You need to re-read my post. I'm not arguing that the reasons for invasion were always well thought out and justified. I am merely arguing that the countries are not invaded on a random basis as claimed, reasons do exist.
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling)
Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do? The original typo is "raq", which gets autocorrected to "rag", and the missing "I" is manually added without noting the preceding change.
There is no Freudian slip since Saddam is not Iraq. The territory of Iraq and its people represent one of the births of agriculture, one of the births of civilization, one of the births of a written legal system based upon fairness, etc. I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.
I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.
you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution.
Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed. Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.
It also doesn't say the device takes in less than one watt for every watt it puts out. It says the device required less than one watt of extra effort on the part of the wearer to get one watt out. In other words it's capturing some of the energy that would have been wasted anyways.
Their measurements are naive. Respiration only indicates total energy consumption. It does not indicate a reallocation of energy within the body, for example digestion may have been slowed to provide additional energy. Furthermore what is the comparison of energy savings by reducing biological arresting of forward motion against the bodies own recapturing of energy and the additional energy required to operate without this evolutionary recapture system and the additional energy need to carry this apparatus around.
This device seems highly useful, but "free" with respect to bodily energy is a bit hard to believe. It is far easier to believe we have an incomplete picture.
Really? I could be mistaken then. I would have assumed the pedal on a bicycle based generator would have been bigger than the whole unit for a hand-crank one.
One implementation of the generator is a device that makes contact with a wheel and spins as the wheel rotates. These are very small devices. With regard to making a bicycle a stationary generator a hole and some minor carpentry skill will accomplish that. However I think that is a tangent. If you are going to walk to generate power you could probably bike.
"Well less than one watt in and a full watt out makes me think not science as well."
statements like that make me think: try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.
the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated.
Try thinking harder. Your logic seems to assume that there is sufficient kinetic inefficiency to make up the difference. While this may be true for cars it is unlikely for a biological organism that has gone through millions of years of evolution optimizing walking efficiency. Also measuring power via respiration is highly suspect. It only measures total energy and does not measure shifts of energy from one bodily function to another. For example was energy diverted from digestion?
I think it was a fair comparison. How portable is a bicycle based generator?
Smaller than a hand crank, and they generate enough energy to power a headlight. And that was with 1970s tech.
She shouldda waited for that Supreme Court case that said divulging your password was a violation of your 5th amendment right.
Until the Supreme Court declares that you have a constitutional right to get on an airplane invoking the 5th won't help. Flying is currently not a right so it can be denied.
We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.
Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact. The US didn't want to take Saddam's word on it, and didn't trust in the UN's ability to discover the truth in the face of non-cooperation. Saddam wanted enemies to think that he may still have it, that would be a deterrent. His plan backfired. The truth of the matter is that no one really knew for sure until after the invasion and there were thousands of US boots on the ground going into every lab and palace. The fact that nothing was found, that the US got the unexpected answer, does not change the fact that short of such unfettered access we would have no answer. Saddam also had a tendency to shoot at US aircraft, not justification in itself but it does help to set a certain mood with regard to overall relations and level of trust.
Afghanistan: The people behind 9/11 were here, and they were being protected by the government.
Iraq I: They invaded Kuwait, were told to leave, and did not. Even the UN blessed this one.
Grenada: Communists building a runway capable of handling long range Soviet bombers. The spread of communism was feared.
South Vietnam: Communist North Vietnam fostering a civil war in the South, and invaded the South to a degree. The spread of communism was feared.
South Korea: Communist North Korea invaded the south. The UN blessed this one. The US also feared the spread of communism.
In the mode in which the brace is only activated while the knee is braking, the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated. A typical hand-crank generator, for comparison, takes an average of 6.4 watts of metabolic power to generate one watt of electricity because of inefficiencies of muscles and generators.
That is a bogus comparison, the arm and leg muscles are too different. A fair comparison might be bicycle based generator. Junk like this makes my think hype not science. Well less than one watt in and a full watt out makes me think not science as well.
To be fair, I think universities should be granted patents, if only to look good on walls and recognize commitments. But they should be made publicly available if the university benefits from public funds.
No, universities should charge for intellectual properties. It helps fund the universities, what they do not get by licensing IP to corporations they will get from tuition and taxpayer funding. I believe the University of California system works something like:
Any discoveries or inventions made by employees (staff, faculty, or student) must be submitted to the university.
The University will patent it if possible.
The employee(s) will personally receive 35% of the licensing fees collected, 15% will go to his/her department, and the remaining 50% will go to the University in general.
Licensing fees vary, small local startups are charged less then global conglomerates. Favor is shown towards organization that will work with the university (employ/fund faculty and students).
The university publishes a catalog of IP available for licensing.
Seem pretty reasonable IMHO.
The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. In deference to the militia? Sure, make me muster once a month in the town square with my shotgun and .357
That may not be necessary. All able bodied males between 17 and 45 are in the militia by federal law, in particular in the unorganized component. The National Guard is the organized component.
According to federal law, the militia includes all able bodied men. It is not just the National Guard. In particular note the unorganized militia class.
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+170+37++(militia)%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
This is a VERY good thing because it ensures that the very real possibility of bitrot for the majority of documents written in the last 15 years is now greatly reduced.
I think the time window might need to be reduced a bit. Back in the 90s Microsoft used to publish the Word and Excel document formats. I recall that the specs/formats were downloadable from their website.
... the implausibility of the ticketing system just cheerfully accepting a 10-year-distant callback date ...
There are always exceptions. You open a retirement account at age 25, the bank/broker's system schedules call backs every ten years to rebalance as your risk tolerance changes as you get closer to retirement age.
As a software developer I would consider the more common short term nature of tech support and the less likely long term nature of some other business relationships. The result would be that the time window allowed for callbacks would be in a configuration file, not "baked" into the code. Misconfiguration or poorly chosen values are highly plausible.