What happens when you bail and go sliding along the snow on your "buttons" and you suddenly find that not only have you busted your knee, you are now listening to your girlfriend's side of the disc...
There's generally two conditions for this happening.
The first is when someone is passing another person and collides with them while side-by-side. In this case it is the passing persons fault. This also goes for people who cut other people off.
The second is when two trails merge. In that case the more-horizontal trail (or the trail with the yield sign if there is one) must yield to the uphill trail.
Finally, it is possible that two people can collide as you mentioned without either of the above to cases being true. In that instance, the case will be evaluated and if things like excessive speed/reckless skiing are involved, guess who's fault it is...
I would suspect that any judge who take into account music playing as well when reviewing a collision lawsuit.
"By law, you are only responsible for those in front of you. All skiers in front of you have the right of way. Sound has nothing to do with your ability to see them."
There is right, and then there is dead right. While skiing fatalities are not too common from collisions with other people, serious injuries are. I would rather hear the jackass about to cut me off and avoid him than spend the next 6 months in hospital (or possibly paraplegic) and get a couple million bucks in a lawsuit.
Skiing (well) is risky enough as is (that's why I like it:-), so there is no need to make it moreso in a really avoidable fashion.
That said, I support listening to music on chairlifts.
I have been a ski racer on the youth circuit now for several years, and just became FIS carded, so I happen to know a thing or two about skiing.
I can tell you that all too frequently when I am ripping along, my ears have alerted me to a potential (and often real) danger.
The most recent examples include hearing the scrape of someones edges as they are about to burst out of the trees ahead of me or cut me off. Not to mention hearing a bunch of snowboarders chatting right underneath the tabletop i'm about to go flying off of. Even on a slow traverse when it seems there is nothing better to do, the sound of someones edges coming up fast behind you can alert you to the fact that someone is passing you.
Music is a great way to pass time on the chairlift, but please, when you're on the hill, take out the earplugs!
A farady cage is: a) more effective than lead b) safer than lead (you don't have to worry about lead getting into the work environment, then lead poisoning, etc...)
Specifically, what advantages does it offer over traditional airplanes? Especially considering that gliding off of mountain waves is actually quite risky, would you trust your brand new telescope to that rather than a proven airplane?
Gliders are to Airplanes as sailboats are to powered freighters. Ask anyone who sails and they will tell you that there is a certain "aura" around sailing that is not achievable in powered craft, but when you get down to economics and practicality, there really is no contest.
ummm... no, "have you smoked pot > 15 times" does not constitute a "complex question" (in legal terminology). Put it this way, someone who has never smoked pot could respond no and be perfectly honest. Hint: 0 is less than 15:-)
Whereas someone who has never beaten his wife could not truthfully respond no to the question "have you stopped beating your wife lately?".
If they had asked "Have you stopped smoking pot?" then you would be correct, but they didn't. So next time use a little logic before u post.
-A coal powered power plant produces 920 kg of CO2/MWh -> 920/1000 =.92 kg / KWh
-An EV1 uses 26 KWh/100 miles -> 26*.92 = 24 kg CO2/100 miles
-average car produces 9 kg CO2/gallon of gas
-A 2002 Mazda 626 gets 1 gallon/26 miles -> 9kg/26 miles.
-Compare: an EV1 gets.24 kg CO2/gallon, a car gets.35 kg CO2/gallon...
So the difference exists, and is actually quite significant, but ultimatly the EV1 gets better fuel mileage. (Mind you, this does not count any of the inefficiencies introduced in the transmission of the electricity, nor does it account for highway driving, i used city driving stats only.)
"only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private"."
Yes, but "extremely private" only means that law enforcement must present extra evidence above and beyond what is normally required to obtain a warrant. And unlike the US, us Canadians don't have a patriot act that enables our CSIS agents to print their own warrants without a judge.
"could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation?"
Obviously, the issue here is where one draws the line. I think that requiring that ISPs keep the logs in the first place is a VERY good thing, because then, should these logs be required in a future case, they will be available. Your analogy to stripsearching everyone who walks out of a supermarket is completely irellevant because in the case of the ISP's logs, a warrant must still be obtained. As long as the logs of innocent citezens are kept private by warrants, then I am supportive of these measures.
I must state outright that I agree with the poster to whom you are replying. As I am a Canadian, when I first read this, I almost immediately fired off an email to la-al@justice.gc.ca (the privacy commissioner's office) stating that I was against the act. However, before I did this, I took the time to find the full text and I am very glad that I did.
First of all, this is a proposal. Just that. Nothing more. It is a suggestion that the Canadian Government look into the issue of passing and Act or Statute which will enable the lawful interception of computer data, in conjunction with the EU convention.
Furthermore, as I read the proposal, I realized that most of it made sense and that I agreed with it. It clearly mentioned in the preamble the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its intent to uphold it. I was actually surprised to find that the documents authors' held true to their word: after every major section or point that they make in the document, there is a section entitled "Issues to be Considered" in which they outline every single one of the privacy concerns that had come to my mind while reading the above section.
As well, all the way through the document, considerable effort was made to insure that due process (namely search warrants) would have to be undertaken before any of these searches could be undertaken.
In all I was quite pleased at how the document was presented, but one item piqued my interest. When reading the subject regarding "Interception of Email" (which btw, dealt as much with criminal's interception of email as it did with law enforcement's) I was initially disturbed to find that previous, already passed legislation had determined that only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private". All letters, bothe written and electronic, are considered to be "private". This means that one only needs a standard search warrant to lawfully intercept these communications whereas to intercept oral communications, a police officer must present extra evidence to obtain a warrant. However, on reflection I think this seems reasonable.
I would now finally like to reply to your direct question by asking you another one: could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation? Keep in mind this may also include times once a person has already been arrested and the crown is building evidence against them.
If the forces in use are only Van der Waals, and these forces are present everywhere, what makes geckos, or rather their little hairs, special so that their molecules can stick to walls and mine can't?
The article mentions how it has something to do with the geometry of the hairs, but doesn't go into detail. Any physicists care to shed some light on this?
" Drugs like marijuana supposedly foster more crime. Get fucking real. "
Well, actually, they do. It is not the pot smokers that are fostering the crime, it is the illegal dealers, growops, and gangs that run the drugs that foster crime. It is times when to dealers are having a turf-war and innocent people get shot that marijuana causes crime, because if marijuana dealing didn't exist, then that wouldn't be a problem.
Which brings me to my point: If marijuana is legalized, then the drug dealers will be out of buisiness and won't be committing drug-related crimes! And whats more, then police can concentrate on harder drugs that not only cause more crime on the dealer-side of things, but cause addicted-people to become violent and to loot and steal for drug-money...
It only seems common sense to me.
Re:Another article stolen from Kuro5hin.
on
Electric Armor
·
· Score: 1
Ya, except for the fact that a ceramic projectile would be USELESS!
The way current RPGs work is by projecting a stream of molten metel (usually cooper) which is hot enough to melt right through the armor and go inside the tank...
If safety is such an enormous concern, why not eliminate live audiences alltogether? The entire thing could be filmed in a concrete bunker by other camera robots. If you want, you could still bring live audiences in to watch the battle on cctv, and then get to watch the toasted, flaming bots get dragged out of the arena.
A system lie this would make everything much more exciting, b/c then do you not only have the option firearm-style weapons, high explosives and rockets also become possible...
And if the robots are autonomous, imagine the excitement when one robot wins, only to be immediately disqualified as it goes haywire and turns its sights onto one of the "camera bots"...
Yes, I know i'm replying late and that noone will probably ever read this but...
If a circle has 360 degrees in it, and you are trying to detect polarization, only half of the circle matters. This is because when one is talking about polarization, one is dealing with a diameter of the circle, not a radius - thus, 181 deg. == 1 deg. for all intents and purposes. The resolution part comes from the fact that you may/may not be able to tell the difference between 1 deg. and 2 degs., thus your semicircle resolution would be less than 90 degs. (360/2 / 2)
Furthermore, while we are on the subject of bullshit and which of it is accurate, lets take a look at yours. First of all, where the hell in random space did u pull that formula of probability=cos(a)^2 ? Anyone who knows anything about math can tell you that that formula was completely randomly thought up. And if you are going to make up bullshit formulas, get your numbers right at least: cos(45)^2=.2759 OR 27.6% !!!
"Something as trivial as a squirtgun, hitting a passing piece of junk with a cloud of vapor and ice crystals, would destroy and/or deorbit most hazardous objects."
You mentioned the problem inherent in your own proposition just there: ice crystals. The crystals would only have to be 5mm in area on one face to become as bad a problem as the space junk they are supposed to be deorbiting... and in the coldness of space on the dark-side of the earth, these would occur far too frequently.
I think a more promising solution would be some sort of automated cleaner system that uses armor similar to what the british have been developing for use on their tanks. Basically the cleaner is armored with a capacitor, the inner plate be live and the outer plate being "ground", when a piece of space junk impacts the outer shell, it makes a connection between the two plates of the capacitor, thus causing thousands of amps to flow through it - vaporizing it instantly. You could just have a dozen cleaning machines sporting shields such as these running around in space smashing into objects.
One could use the idea that another poster had - two angular tethers instead of one. Then one tether is reserved for traffic goin up and the other is for traffic coming down. The trick would be keeping the tethers far enough apart that congestion doesn't occur at the space end of things but balancing this with transportation costs incurred from having the tethers' earth-side attatchments far apart.
Of course, one could just have two space elevators beside each other, the transport between the two in space would not be difficult to managae. For that matter, a REALLY wide space-station-end could just be used with two vertical tethers...
I have no ideas regarding the feasability of these suggestions, but they're a start.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when you bail and go sliding along the snow on your "buttons" and you suddenly find that not only have you busted your knee, you are now listening to your girlfriend's side of the disc...
that would suck.
There's generally two conditions for this happening.
The first is when someone is passing another person and collides with them while side-by-side. In this case it is the passing persons fault. This also goes for people who cut other people off.
The second is when two trails merge. In that case the more-horizontal trail (or the trail with the yield sign if there is one) must yield to the uphill trail.
Finally, it is possible that two people can collide as you mentioned without either of the above to cases being true. In that instance, the case will be evaluated and if things like excessive speed/reckless skiing are involved, guess who's fault it is...
I would suspect that any judge who take into account music playing as well when reviewing a collision lawsuit.
"By law, you are only responsible for those in front of you. All skiers in front of you have the right of way. Sound has nothing to do with your ability to see them."
:-), so there is no need to make it moreso in a really avoidable fashion.
There is right, and then there is dead right. While skiing fatalities are not too common from collisions with other people, serious injuries are. I would rather hear the jackass about to cut me off and avoid him than spend the next 6 months in hospital (or possibly paraplegic) and get a couple million bucks in a lawsuit.
Skiing (well) is risky enough as is (that's why I like it
That said, I support listening to music on chairlifts.
I have been a ski racer on the youth circuit now for several years, and just became FIS carded, so I happen to know a thing or two about skiing.
I can tell you that all too frequently when I am ripping along, my ears have alerted me to a potential (and often real) danger.
The most recent examples include hearing the scrape of someones edges as they are about to burst out of the trees ahead of me or cut me off. Not to mention hearing a bunch of snowboarders chatting right underneath the tabletop i'm about to go flying off of. Even on a slow traverse when it seems there is nothing better to do, the sound of someones edges coming up fast behind you can alert you to the fact that someone is passing you.
Music is a great way to pass time on the chairlift, but please, when you're on the hill, take out the earplugs!
did they HAVE to name it NASDA?
man that is going to get confusing...
A farady cage is:
a) more effective than lead
b) safer than lead (you don't have to worry about lead getting into the work environment, then lead poisoning, etc...)
What would be the point of using a glider?
Specifically, what advantages does it offer over traditional airplanes? Especially considering that gliding off of mountain waves is actually quite risky, would you trust your brand new telescope to that rather than a proven airplane?
Gliders are to Airplanes as sailboats are to powered freighters. Ask anyone who sails and they will tell you that there is a certain "aura" around sailing that is not achievable in powered craft, but when you get down to economics and practicality, there really is no contest.
Is that "492187.5 ft^3" at sea level or at 41,000 ft?
Just curious as to whether you factored that into your calcualtions.
a farady cage wall.
ummm... no, "have you smoked pot > 15 times" does not constitute a "complex question" (in legal terminology). Put it this way, someone who has never smoked pot could respond no and be perfectly honest. Hint: 0 is less than 15 :-)
Whereas someone who has never beaten his wife could not truthfully respond no to the question "have you stopped beating your wife lately?".
If they had asked "Have you stopped smoking pot?" then you would be correct, but they didn't. So next time use a little logic before u post.
What if you disabled the actual beacon, but then enabled all of these bogus ones?
That should throw one more wrench into the intruder's machinery...
"I'm still in the "nuke it" camp, myself."
:-)
Me too, the power:cost/complexity/weight ratio is just too high to consider other alternatives...
Unless maybe the rockets you used were nuclear powered ones ala project orion...
The sources used for this post: A government study of power plant efficiencies, The EV1 specs page and a government report on the efficiency of the 2002 mazda 626 (the most efficient non-HEV sedan this year).
.92 kg / KWh
.24 kg CO2/gallon, a car gets .35 kg CO2/gallon...
-A coal powered power plant produces 920 kg of CO2/MWh -> 920/1000 =
-An EV1 uses 26 KWh/100 miles -> 26*.92 = 24 kg CO2/100 miles
-average car produces 9 kg CO2/gallon of gas
-A 2002 Mazda 626 gets 1 gallon/26 miles -> 9kg/26 miles.
-Compare: an EV1 gets
So the difference exists, and is actually quite significant, but ultimatly the EV1 gets better fuel mileage. (Mind you, this does not count any of the inefficiencies introduced in the transmission of the electricity, nor does it account for highway driving, i used city driving stats only.)
He would have to have incredible intuition (ESP?) to crack a good password. But then again, if he's cracking solely from a browser window...
"only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private"."
Yes, but "extremely private" only means that law enforcement must present extra evidence above and beyond what is normally required to obtain a warrant. And unlike the US, us Canadians don't have a patriot act that enables our CSIS agents to print their own warrants without a judge.
"could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation?"
Obviously, the issue here is where one draws the line. I think that requiring that ISPs keep the logs in the first place is a VERY good thing, because then, should these logs be required in a future case, they will be available. Your analogy to stripsearching everyone who walks out of a supermarket is completely irellevant because in the case of the ISP's logs, a warrant must still be obtained. As long as the logs of innocent citezens are kept private by warrants, then I am supportive of these measures.
I must state outright that I agree with the poster to whom you are replying. As I am a Canadian, when I first read this, I almost immediately fired off an email to la-al@justice.gc.ca (the privacy commissioner's office) stating that I was against the act. However, before I did this, I took the time to find the full text and I am very glad that I did.
First of all, this is a proposal. Just that. Nothing more. It is a suggestion that the Canadian Government look into the issue of passing and Act or Statute which will enable the lawful interception of computer data, in conjunction with the EU convention.
Furthermore, as I read the proposal, I realized that most of it made sense and that I agreed with it. It clearly mentioned in the preamble the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its intent to uphold it. I was actually surprised to find that the documents authors' held true to their word: after every major section or point that they make in the document, there is a section entitled "Issues to be Considered" in which they outline every single one of the privacy concerns that had come to my mind while reading the above section.
As well, all the way through the document, considerable effort was made to insure that due process (namely search warrants) would have to be undertaken before any of these searches could be undertaken.
In all I was quite pleased at how the document was presented, but one item piqued my interest. When reading the subject regarding "Interception of Email" (which btw, dealt as much with criminal's interception of email as it did with law enforcement's) I was initially disturbed to find that previous, already passed legislation had determined that only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private". All letters, bothe written and electronic, are considered to be "private". This means that one only needs a standard search warrant to lawfully intercept these communications whereas to intercept oral communications, a police officer must present extra evidence to obtain a warrant. However, on reflection I think this seems reasonable.
I would now finally like to reply to your direct question by asking you another one: could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation? Keep in mind this may also include times once a person has already been arrested and the crown is building evidence against them.
"In most circumstances, a court order would be required for government agents to conduct Internet monitoring."
Heck, this clause should do it. Most circumstances? howabout all circumstances.
If the forces in use are only Van der Waals, and these forces are present everywhere, what makes geckos, or rather their little hairs, special so that their molecules can stick to walls and mine can't?
The article mentions how it has something to do with the geometry of the hairs, but doesn't go into detail. Any physicists care to shed some light on this?
first post..
so scuk it
" Drugs like marijuana supposedly foster more crime. Get fucking real. "
Well, actually, they do. It is not the pot smokers that are fostering the crime, it is the illegal dealers, growops, and gangs that run the drugs that foster crime. It is times when to dealers are having a turf-war and innocent people get shot that marijuana causes crime, because if marijuana dealing didn't exist, then that wouldn't be a problem.
Which brings me to my point: If marijuana is legalized, then the drug dealers will be out of buisiness and won't be committing drug-related crimes! And whats more, then police can concentrate on harder drugs that not only cause more crime on the dealer-side of things, but cause addicted-people to become violent and to loot and steal for drug-money...
It only seems common sense to me.
Ya, except for the fact that a ceramic projectile would be USELESS!
The way current RPGs work is by projecting a stream of molten metel (usually cooper) which is hot enough to melt right through the armor and go inside the tank...
I'd like to see you make a ceramic that hot...
If safety is such an enormous concern, why not eliminate live audiences alltogether? The entire thing could be filmed in a concrete bunker by other camera robots. If you want, you could still bring live audiences in to watch the battle on cctv, and then get to watch the toasted, flaming bots get dragged out of the arena.
A system lie this would make everything much more exciting, b/c then do you not only have the option firearm-style weapons, high explosives and rockets also become possible...
And if the robots are autonomous, imagine the excitement when one robot wins, only to be immediately disqualified as it goes haywire and turns its sights onto one of the "camera bots"...
Yes, I know i'm replying late and that noone will probably ever read this but...
If a circle has 360 degrees in it, and you are trying to detect polarization, only half of the circle matters. This is because when one is talking about polarization, one is dealing with a diameter of the circle, not a radius - thus, 181 deg. == 1 deg. for all intents and purposes. The resolution part comes from the fact that you may/may not be able to tell the difference between 1 deg. and 2 degs., thus your semicircle resolution would be less than 90 degs. (360/2 / 2)
Furthermore, while we are on the subject of bullshit and which of it is accurate, lets take a look at yours. First of all, where the hell in random space did u pull that formula of probability=cos(a)^2 ? Anyone who knows anything about math can tell you that that formula was completely randomly thought up. And if you are going to make up bullshit formulas, get your numbers right at least: cos(45)^2=.2759 OR 27.6% !!!
"Something as trivial as a squirtgun, hitting a passing piece of junk with a cloud of vapor and ice crystals, would destroy and/or deorbit most hazardous objects."
You mentioned the problem inherent in your own proposition just there: ice crystals. The crystals would only have to be 5mm in area on one face to become as bad a problem as the space junk they are supposed to be deorbiting... and in the coldness of space on the dark-side of the earth, these would occur far too frequently.
I think a more promising solution would be some sort of automated cleaner system that uses armor similar to what the british have been developing for use on their tanks. Basically the cleaner is armored with a capacitor, the inner plate be live and the outer plate being "ground", when a piece of space junk impacts the outer shell, it makes a connection between the two plates of the capacitor, thus causing thousands of amps to flow through it - vaporizing it instantly. You could just have a dozen cleaning machines sporting shields such as these running around in space smashing into objects.
One could use the idea that another poster had - two angular tethers instead of one. Then one tether is reserved for traffic goin up and the other is for traffic coming down. The trick would be keeping the tethers far enough apart that congestion doesn't occur at the space end of things but balancing this with transportation costs incurred from having the tethers' earth-side attatchments far apart.
Of course, one could just have two space elevators beside each other, the transport between the two in space would not be difficult to managae. For that matter, a REALLY wide space-station-end could just be used with two vertical tethers...
I have no ideas regarding the feasability of these suggestions, but they're a start.