I don't know if that is accurate or not, but if it is...
This is exactly why selective enforcment of laws is a problem. When 2 people break the law and one gets busted, but the other ignored, it is just a way for the law enforcement community to force it's prejudices on the population.
A white suburban kid gets caught with a few joints, he gets a warning. A black inner city kid gets caught with some weed and gets sent to jail.
Bobby denounces the US, and gets busted. Paul smiles a lot and gets let off. This is a backdoor violation of Bobbies first amendment rights!
Laws that get ignored, most of the time, but selectivly enforced are just tools for discrimination (see Mass reviving a law that hasn't been used for decades to prevent itself from marrying out of state gays).
I mean drunk under the classification of drunk from 20 or so years ago. Today's "drunk" means "I drank a single beer, waited 30 minutes, and then went out on the road". That's not drunk. That's not even inebriated.
God damn you are a fucking light weight (literally)!
To get to.08 BAC on one drink you would have to weight in the neigbhorhood of 50-60 pounds.
Personally all of the tables about body weight and BAC, say that I could have 3-4 drinks and then drive home legally. I am big, but I am no fat ass, I have run 2 marathons in the last 3 years, and I am currently training for a century (100 mile bike ride).
That said, I set my personal limit much lower. If number of drinks - number of hours since I started drinking exceeds 1, I don't drive. I don't mind taking risks with myself, but I don't want to risk others life/health...
Do you honestly believe that the US government has not been the killer of more than 3000 inocent americans?
Thousands of blacks were put to death all over the south either at the hands of the government, or under conditions where it could easily be argued that the government shirked it's duty to protect it's citizens to the extent that it was criminally neglegent. Some of these black men were guilty of crimes for which a white man would have been put to death, but many, if not most of them were put to death for the "crimes" of registering to vote, or wistling at a white woman, or (gasp) persuing a relationship with a white woman...
And that is just the civil rights strugle... What about the students at Kent state? What about Amadu Dialo? What about all of the people being released from death row recently due to evidence that they were wrongly convicted exposed with new technology, do you propose that we did not execute many innocents accidentaly?
The USA is better than most in regards to this topic, but we are certainly no exception.
What it does is prevent them from informing you that a judge has approved that you can be monitored.
Don't you get it? If there was a judge in the loop, it would be OK. The problem it that the searches are entirely at the discretion of the FBI, no warrent needed! That is what is scary...
All unchecked powers are scary, that is why the founding fathers require the judicial branch to be involved in determining what reasonable search and seizure is.
My question to liberals: How many [al Queda] terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on US soil since 9/11? Pardon, say that again? "None"
You are correct, there have been none in the last ~3 years. How many years went by between WTC attack #1, and 9/11?
What's that? Oh... 8 years huh...
Al Queda doesn't attack often, they never have... They prefer to attack in a grand fasion infrequently. So I don't think that keeping al al queda from attacking for ~3 years can be awarded as a bush accomplishment anymore than keeping them from attacking for ~7 can be seen as a clinton sucess.
An Abomb is a f***ing popcap compared to what's in the US arsenal. If the world was only armed with ABombs, then there never would have been a concern about MAD. But the superpowers are armed with weapons far more powerful that have the potential to completely destroy a small country.
True, but as long as it is unaceptable for us to sustain a nuclear detonation in a US or friendly city, an Abomb is plenty to detur us.
If someone had a pistol pointed at you and you had an RPG pointed at them, would you shoot them, knowing that you would be shot too, or, would you hold your fire, knowing that he is unlikly to shoot you. For me the answer depends on the situation. If there its lead flying all around (a war is already started), I would shoot, but if nobody has fired yet (just posturing), I would hold my fire.
Because they can already see that the US is going to roll over and let them keep "their bomb"....
HELL NO! We'd nuke their sorry asses (bomb and all) out of existence before we allowed a credible threat to US soil.
Why have we not turned North Korea into a parking lot by now if that is the case?
We know it would be a blood bath for both sides if we invaded, and a nuclear preemptive strike would be completely unacceptable (plus they might actually be able to nuke Seoul in the time between becoming aware of our attack and impact). It is easier to let them have their deturant as long as they know that using it means they get nuked. It is a mini cold war.
Geez, what do we look like over here? Children who are afraid of being spanked with a rod?
number 1 is the only real problem for a terrorist group.
for number 2 they just do the test, at a target... If it fails, it is still a dirty bomb, if it suceeds, well then they blew up a city...
Knowing that it will fission it not necisarry for using the weapon. If fact, a failed nuclear detonation on US soil would inspire extraordinary amounts of fear, a long the lines of "what if it works next time...?".
For a 3rd world nation, a sucessful test is exactly what they want, a big sign that says "don't fuck with us, we got the bomb". They don't want secrecy, they want publicity.
Q: What did it take for the US to build it's first nuclear weapon?
A: Several brilliant people and a hell of a lot less computing power than a single P4 (you could run all the programs they ran on a palm pilot in under a day).
It would take even fewer brilliant people now, since it has been done before... Trying to keep the computing power to build a nuke out of the wrong hands is futile at best.
Out of the 30 flaming email I got, and 9 replys to various comments I have made on this topic, you are the only one that responds intelligently and not in an angry fury.
Razzlefrog has been quite civil with you, and definatly inteligent.
Do you claim that his responces are not intelegent, (because you disagree with his conclusions?), or do you think he was in an angry fury (I did not see tones of angry fury in his posts, perhaps heated disagreement, but certainly not angry fury)?
How is it out of context? Please explain how any of the phrases I snipped alter the meaning of the sentance.
You critisized people who ignore evedence and then went on to state that you don't care about any evidence one might present that runs counter to your conclusion. Quite simply you are critisizing others for flaws you have, and that makes you a hypocrite.
I think you are wrong about porn. Porn, like anything else (TV,Video games, Blogging) is disruptive if it becomes an obsesion, but in moderation it is fine. But if I was confronted with solid (none of this coralation => causality crap) evidence to the contrary, I would re-evaluate my positon.
and even worse is your knee-jerk reaction without analyzing the statements at hand.
what statements am I supposed to be analyzing?
Are you talking about all that stuff you said about objectifying women? I have seen plenty of porn in my day, and I have no problems with my view of women. 2 of my 3 closest friends are women, and no, I haven't had sex with either of them, and I am straight. I know that is not conclusive evidence, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will have to do for me.
Still have the same problem of getting covered in snow and crushed.
I don't think so... I think they would get covered in snow and get stronger. one of the beauties of a dome is that it can take huge loads provided that they are fairly uniform. Getting covered in snow is very uniform loading. Snow, when under enough presure turns in to ice. Ice is the material the igloo is made of. I am pretty sure that the igloo walls would just thicken with time.
You would still have to worry about shifting ice causing asymetric loading of your dome.
Also you couldn't make it one big igloo, it would have to an interconected network of smaller ones. The thickness of wall required to construct an unsuported span (dome in this case) is pretty damn non-linear, and it would not be practicle to build ice walls large enough to support big rooms, when you could just make 4 smaller ones, and get twice the space...
That tells me a lot. When was the last time you heard NPR discuss the improved economic condition in Iraq?
I can't find the link right now, but there was discusion during on episode of morning edition last week.
Where is the NPR leading story on the propaganda piece Moore just put out with a list of all the factual errors Moore made?
Where are the factual errors? Name one!
That said, I listened to a half a dozen reviews from various NPR contributers last week, and several of them had a negative tone to them.
How about a study that shows that people who watch cable news (not just fox, but fox far worse than others) for their primary news source were far more likely to harbor misconseptions about facts pertaining to the war in Iraq? NPR listeners did much better...
Moore states, quite plainly, that school violence is nothing new. The movie is about the american culture of fear, and the increased coverage of violence in recent years, all of the sensationalism.
Please, try to watch things before critisizing them.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.
That's from the AP. You know, the Associated Press. Also quoted on CNN. Sorry, no Fox bias here.
Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...
Debate the morality of homosexuality- There is no moral componant to homosexuality. Homosexuality can not be good or bad as it doesn't effect anyone who is not homosexual unless that person makes a concious decision to allow it to effect them.
Debate the war- We had no valid reasons to attack Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. I happen to agree with the stance president Bush took during his campaign for president: It is not our business to be going around the world telling people how is it going to be. (paraphrased)
Debate socialism- This all depends on the economic thoeries you believe. Do you believe Keynes, or the chicago school of economists? Based on my reading of history, social programs have been extremely sucessful in this country, and Reaganomics was a compairative failure. Wether or not to support social programs also depends on what your economic goals are. Would you prefer the maximum GDP, or the highest mean standard of living among the population? I would choose the later. Social programs like those contained in the new deal are largly responsible for the creation of the middle class. This is in keeping with the predictions of Keynes. During the times that Reaganomics was in full force, the rich were getting richer, and the GDP was rising, but the benifits of this were not being seen by most participating in the economy. Lastly social programs promote entrepreneurship, the force that drives inovation, and ultimatly the economy. People are more likly to take the financial risk accosiated with starting their own business, if they know that failure in busness doesn't mean that their family will not eat.
Liberals haven't been able to hold their own in a debate since JFK because there is no defensible argument for their positions. Cheney was the one who resorted to telling Leahy to go fuck himself.
...keep in mind that several big universities, Northwestern, Cornell, U of Chicago have done extensive studies showing massive left-bias of the media. U of Chicago (a VERY liberal University) just did a brilliant study which found that FOX's Special Report is the most politically CENTERED-- ie. closest to the real political center of modern Americans-- news show on television.
U of Chicago? Liberal? Cornell is liberal, but Chicago is far from it. U of Chicago is the birthplace of supply side economics.
Special Report is actually decent in my opinion, and by far the most centered show on FOX.
If someone is successful or wealthy, they knock him down just to see him destroyed No. I think that those few who are fortunate enough to be sucessful have a responsibility to help those who are not. I include myself in that list of the fortunate, while I am not rich, I do make substantially more than the average american family. And to think I could make more than the average american without the masses is simply ignorant. I went to college at a top engineering institution, with the tax payers of Illinois footing most of the bill. I am currently working on the tax payers dime as well, I get payed from grants from the NSF and NASA. Without the NSF and NASA supporting basic research, do you think our technology would be anywhere near where it is today? I can tell you with absolute certainty that my previous employer (Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines) was terified of the investments required to do basic research, and it simply wouldn't have happened without NASA, NSF and the DoD. I know I am where I am because of taxes (I suspect taxes played a greater role in you getting where you are than you know), and I will gladly pay for it, I would like the others that have benifited greatly to pay as well.
Liberals produce nothing. They contribute nothing. They have no original ideas. hmmm. I have been involved deaply in the production of many techonoligies that will be employed in the next generation of gas turbine aircraft engine. Are
I will admit that I am far left (on most issues). I watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX; I also listen to NPR and the BBC all on a regular basis.
To insist that Fox is balanced is idiotic. They do have liberals come on, but then they do not let them talk (Hannity is particularly offensive in this regard, but O'Rielly is pretty bad too). Also the 'liberal media' has conservatives on all the time, and they are actually permitted to exprese coheirant thoughts on camera. Perhaps that is the reason Moore will not go on fox. He has seen what it meens to be a liberal guest on fox, it means sitting there being critizised with no opportunity for rebuttle.
O'Reilly being anti-death penalty doesn't make him any less conservative than my opposition to affirmative action and abortion makes me not a liberal. And RFK? That is ancient history in terms of political affiliation, Strom Thurmand was a democrat in his youth.
Lastly, calling mainstream media liberal only indicates a lack of familiarity with real left wing media. Go listen to democracy now and tell me cnn and npr are liberal. This even ignores the fact that CNN (with the US as a whole) is downright conservative by international standards.
Watch news for facts, then form your own opinion, and if you think you can get all of your facts from one side of the spectrum, you are sadly mistaken...
No true feminist would demand that the seat be put down. Only hypocrytical 'feminists' who are actually female supremacists (and just as bad as the men they criticize so much) demand that.
Real feminist demand that women register for the selective service, and that men get paternitiy leave. In other words they demand equality.
On their site they address zombie machines. They claim that users of zombies would be more likely to notice the infection if it sucked up all their CPU and made their systems run hot...
I somehow doubt that.
But what I can't disagree with, is that getting the same amount of spam sent as they currently are, would take many (orders of magnitude) more zombies. They claim on their site that if you maxed out every known zombie you couldn't generate stamps fast enought to send spam at the current rates.
This could be a step in the right direction, but I am worried about many issues for a sender pays system.
What really has me curious is why they included power ports for laptops in the thing. With the battery life it has (or hasn't), who would dare add on anything that would use more electricity?
A laptop could run for weeks on the batteries in this car and shorten your range by feet. The power recuired for a laptop is just miniscule compaired to that required for driving.
They've got a really nice site that lets you choose from a dozen different colors (I really liked the dark purple) for the car, but what I would really like to see is an option to cover it with solar cells so it can recharge on its own. That should extend the driving range slightly, but most importantly it would recharge it while I am sitting in the office for 8 hours.
The other responces to you post are right, there just isn't enough surface area on that car to make solar charging practical. I was on the solar raycing team at the University of Illinois when I was a student there. We had a car the length and width of a 15 passenger van, that could power steady state driving at about 35 mph.
What you could do for this car (if you want solar charging) is sell an accesory that is a fold up array, much larger than the car (say... 6'X9' ish), that mounts to the roof and tracks the sun. Unless it is really bad weather you could get 10-20 miles worth of charge in 8 hours with something like that...
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, I figured that out after I hit submit...
Nobody had commented when I started typing...
I don't know if that is accurate or not, but if it is...
This is exactly why selective enforcment of laws is a problem. When 2 people break the law and one gets busted, but the other ignored, it is just a way for the law enforcement community to force it's prejudices on the population.
A white suburban kid gets caught with a few joints, he gets a warning. A black inner city kid gets caught with some weed and gets sent to jail.
Bobby denounces the US, and gets busted. Paul smiles a lot and gets let off. This is a backdoor violation of Bobbies first amendment rights!
Laws that get ignored, most of the time, but selectivly enforced are just tools for discrimination (see Mass reviving a law that hasn't been used for decades to prevent itself from marrying out of state gays).
I mean drunk under the classification of drunk from 20 or so years ago. Today's "drunk" means "I drank a single beer, waited 30 minutes, and then went out on the road". That's not drunk. That's not even inebriated.
.08 BAC on one drink you would have to weight in the neigbhorhood of 50-60 pounds.
God damn you are a fucking light weight (literally)!
To get to
Personally all of the tables about body weight and BAC, say that I could have 3-4 drinks and then drive home legally. I am big, but I am no fat ass, I have run 2 marathons in the last 3 years, and I am currently training for a century (100 mile bike ride).
That said, I set my personal limit much lower. If number of drinks - number of hours since I started drinking exceeds 1, I don't drive. I don't mind taking risks with myself, but I don't want to risk others life/health...
Conservatives don't care if you are gay, as long as you don't have sex
Don't you remember the outrage over that decision?
Maybe some conservative don't care if people are gay, but I have known to many conservaties who do care to believe that most don't.
Do you honestly believe that the US government has not been the killer of more than 3000 inocent americans?
Thousands of blacks were put to death all over the south either at the hands of the government, or under conditions where it could easily be argued that the government shirked it's duty to protect it's citizens to the extent that it was criminally neglegent. Some of these black men were guilty of crimes for which a white man would have been put to death, but many, if not most of them were put to death for the "crimes" of registering to vote, or wistling at a white woman, or (gasp) persuing a relationship with a white woman...
And that is just the civil rights strugle... What about the students at Kent state? What about Amadu Dialo? What about all of the people being released from death row recently due to evidence that they were wrongly convicted exposed with new technology, do you propose that we did not execute many innocents accidentaly?
The USA is better than most in regards to this topic, but we are certainly no exception.
What it does is prevent them from informing you that a judge has approved that you can be monitored.
Don't you get it? If there was a judge in the loop, it would be OK. The problem it that the searches are entirely at the discretion of the FBI, no warrent needed! That is what is scary...
All unchecked powers are scary, that is why the founding fathers require the judicial branch to be involved in determining what reasonable search and seizure is.
My question to liberals: How many [al Queda] terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on US soil since 9/11? Pardon, say that again? "None"
You are correct, there have been none in the last ~3 years. How many years went by between WTC attack #1, and 9/11?
What's that? Oh... 8 years huh...
Al Queda doesn't attack often, they never have... They prefer to attack in a grand fasion infrequently. So I don't think that keeping al al queda from attacking for ~3 years can be awarded as a bush accomplishment anymore than keeping them from attacking for ~7 can be seen as a clinton sucess.
This is Al Queda'a MO, not bushes policies.
An Abomb is a f***ing popcap compared to what's in the US arsenal. If the world was only armed with ABombs, then there never would have been a concern about MAD. But the superpowers are armed with weapons far more powerful that have the potential to completely destroy a small country.
True, but as long as it is unaceptable for us to sustain a nuclear detonation in a US or friendly city, an Abomb is plenty to detur us.
If someone had a pistol pointed at you and you had an RPG pointed at them, would you shoot them, knowing that you would be shot too, or, would you hold your fire, knowing that he is unlikly to shoot you.
For me the answer depends on the situation. If there its lead flying all around (a war is already started), I would shoot, but if nobody has fired yet (just posturing), I would hold my fire.
Because they can already see that the US is going to roll over and let them keep "their bomb". ...
HELL NO! We'd nuke their sorry asses (bomb and all) out of existence before we allowed a credible threat to US soil.
Why have we not turned North Korea into a parking lot by now if that is the case?
We know it would be a blood bath for both sides if we invaded, and a nuclear preemptive strike would be completely unacceptable (plus they might actually be able to nuke Seoul in the time between becoming aware of our attack and impact). It is easier to let them have their deturant as long as they know that using it means they get nuked. It is a mini cold war.
Geez, what do we look like over here? Children who are afraid of being spanked with a rod?
A nuclear weapon is a lot more than a rod.
number 1 is the only real problem for a terrorist group.
for number 2 they just do the test, at a target... If it fails, it is still a dirty bomb, if it suceeds, well then they blew up a city...
Knowing that it will fission it not necisarry for using the weapon. If fact, a failed nuclear detonation on US soil would inspire extraordinary amounts of fear, a long the lines of "what if it works next time...?".
For a 3rd world nation, a sucessful test is exactly what they want, a big sign that says "don't fuck with us, we got the bomb". They don't want secrecy, they want publicity.
Q: What did it take for the US to build it's first nuclear weapon?
A: Several brilliant people and a hell of a lot less computing power than a single P4 (you could run all the programs they ran on a palm pilot in under a day).
It would take even fewer brilliant people now, since it has been done before... Trying to keep the computing power to build a nuke out of the wrong hands is futile at best.
Out of the 30 flaming email I got, and 9 replys to various comments I have made on this topic, you are the only one that responds intelligently and not in an angry fury.
Razzlefrog has been quite civil with you, and definatly inteligent.
Do you claim that his responces are not intelegent, (because you disagree with his conclusions?), or do you think he was in an angry fury (I did not see tones of angry fury in his posts, perhaps heated disagreement, but certainly not angry fury)?
How is it out of context? Please explain how any of the phrases I snipped alter the meaning of the sentance.
You critisized people who ignore evedence and then went on to state that you don't care about any evidence one might present that runs counter to your conclusion. Quite simply you are critisizing others for flaws you have, and that makes you a hypocrite.
I think you are wrong about porn. Porn, like anything else (TV,Video games, Blogging) is disruptive if it becomes an obsesion, but in moderation it is fine. But if I was confronted with solid (none of this coralation => causality crap) evidence to the contrary, I would re-evaluate my positon.
and even worse is your knee-jerk reaction without analyzing the statements at hand.
what statements am I supposed to be analyzing?
Are you talking about all that stuff you said about objectifying women? I have seen plenty of porn in my day, and I have no problems with my view of women. 2 of my 3 closest friends are women, and no, I haven't had sex with either of them, and I am straight. I know that is not conclusive evidence, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will have to do for me.
Still have the same problem of getting covered in snow and crushed.
I don't think so... I think they would get covered in snow and get stronger. one of the beauties of a dome is that it can take huge loads provided that they are fairly uniform. Getting covered in snow is very uniform loading. Snow, when under enough presure turns in to ice. Ice is the material the igloo is made of. I am pretty sure that the igloo walls would just thicken with time.
You would still have to worry about shifting ice causing asymetric loading of your dome.
Also you couldn't make it one big igloo, it would have to an interconected network of smaller ones. The thickness of wall required to construct an unsuported span (dome in this case) is pretty damn non-linear, and it would not be practicle to build ice walls large enough to support big rooms, when you could just make 4 smaller ones, and get twice the space...
So many people ... when told something like that ... dismiss you outright and keep on pretending everything is normal...
porn is a problem, and I don't care what anyone says.
Hypocrite
That tells me a lot. When was the last time you heard NPR discuss the improved economic condition in Iraq?
I can't find the link right now, but there was discusion during on episode of morning edition last week.
Where is the NPR leading story on the propaganda piece Moore just put out with a list of all the factual errors Moore made?
Where are the factual errors? Name one!
That said, I listened to a half a dozen reviews from various NPR contributers last week, and several of them had a negative tone to them.
How about a study that shows that people who watch cable news (not just fox, but fox far worse than others) for their primary news source were far more likely to harbor misconseptions about facts pertaining to the war in Iraq? NPR listeners did much better...
here it is. And here is the original pdf
Moore states, quite plainly, that school violence is nothing new. The movie is about the american culture of fear, and the increased coverage of violence in recent years, all of the sensationalism.
Please, try to watch things before critisizing them.
Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...
Debate the morality of homosexuality-
...keep in mind that several big universities, Northwestern, Cornell, U of Chicago have done extensive studies showing massive left-bias of the media. U of Chicago (a VERY liberal University) just did a brilliant study which found that FOX's Special Report is the most politically CENTERED-- ie. closest to the real political center of modern Americans-- news show on television.
There is no moral componant to homosexuality. Homosexuality can not be good or bad as it doesn't effect anyone who is not homosexual unless that person makes a concious decision to allow it to effect them.
Debate the war-
We had no valid reasons to attack Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. I happen to agree with the stance president Bush took during his campaign for president: It is not our business to be going around the world telling people how is it going to be. (paraphrased)
Debate socialism-
This all depends on the economic thoeries you believe. Do you believe Keynes, or the chicago school of economists? Based on my reading of history, social programs have been extremely sucessful in this country, and Reaganomics was a compairative failure. Wether or not to support social programs also depends on what your economic goals are. Would you prefer the maximum GDP, or the highest mean standard of living among the population? I would choose the later. Social programs like those contained in the new deal are largly responsible for the creation of the middle class. This is in keeping with the predictions of Keynes. During the times that Reaganomics was in full force, the rich were getting richer, and the GDP was rising, but the benifits of this were not being seen by most participating in the economy. Lastly social programs promote entrepreneurship, the force that drives inovation, and ultimatly the economy. People are more likly to take the financial risk accosiated with starting their own business, if they know that failure in busness doesn't mean that their family will not eat.
Liberals haven't been able to hold their own in a debate since JFK because there is no defensible argument for their positions.
Cheney was the one who resorted to telling Leahy to go fuck himself.
U of Chicago? Liberal? Cornell is liberal, but Chicago is far from it. U of Chicago is the birthplace of supply side economics.
Special Report is actually decent in my opinion, and by far the most centered show on FOX.
If someone is successful or wealthy, they knock him down just to see him destroyed
No. I think that those few who are fortunate enough to be sucessful have a responsibility to help those who are not. I include myself in that list of the fortunate, while I am not rich, I do make substantially more than the average american family. And to think I could make more than the average american without the masses is simply ignorant. I went to college at a top engineering institution, with the tax payers of Illinois footing most of the bill. I am currently working on the tax payers dime as well, I get payed from grants from the NSF and NASA. Without the NSF and NASA supporting basic research, do you think our technology would be anywhere near where it is today? I can tell you with absolute certainty that my previous employer (Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines) was terified of the investments required to do basic research, and it simply wouldn't have happened without NASA, NSF and the DoD. I know I am where I am because of taxes (I suspect taxes played a greater role in you getting where you are than you know), and I will gladly pay for it, I would like the others that have benifited greatly to pay as well.
Liberals produce nothing. They contribute nothing. They have no original ideas.
hmmm. I have been involved deaply in the production of many techonoligies that will be employed in the next generation of gas turbine aircraft engine. Are
I will admit that I am far left (on most issues). I watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX; I also listen to NPR and the BBC all on a regular basis.
To insist that Fox is balanced is idiotic. They do have liberals come on, but then they do not let them talk (Hannity is particularly offensive in this regard, but O'Rielly is pretty bad too). Also the 'liberal media' has conservatives on all the time, and they are actually permitted to exprese coheirant thoughts on camera.
Perhaps that is the reason Moore will not go on fox. He has seen what it meens to be a liberal guest on fox, it means sitting there being critizised with no opportunity for rebuttle.
O'Reilly being anti-death penalty doesn't make him any less conservative than my opposition to affirmative action and abortion makes me not a liberal. And RFK? That is ancient history in terms of political affiliation, Strom Thurmand was a democrat in his youth.
Lastly, calling mainstream media liberal only indicates a lack of familiarity with real left wing media. Go listen to democracy now and tell me cnn and npr are liberal. This even ignores the fact that CNN (with the US as a whole) is downright conservative by international standards.
Watch news for facts, then form your own opinion, and if you think you can get all of your facts from one side of the spectrum, you are sadly mistaken...
No true feminist would demand that the seat be put down. Only hypocrytical 'feminists' who are actually female supremacists (and just as bad as the men they criticize so much) demand that.
Real feminist demand that women register for the selective service, and that men get paternitiy leave. In other words they demand equality.
Require your users to whitelist your address, and then don't stamp your messages.
those spammers are a clever bunch...
they would just throttle their cpu usage, or suspend their process when there is a user at the machine
On their site they address zombie machines. They claim that users of zombies would be more likely to notice the infection if it sucked up all their CPU and made their systems run hot...
I somehow doubt that.
But what I can't disagree with, is that getting the same amount of spam sent as they currently are, would take many (orders of magnitude) more zombies. They claim on their site that if you maxed out every known zombie you couldn't generate stamps fast enought to send spam at the current rates.
This could be a step in the right direction, but I am worried about many issues for a sender pays system.
What really has me curious is why they included power ports for laptops in the thing. With the battery life it has (or hasn't), who would dare add on anything that would use more electricity?
A laptop could run for weeks on the batteries in this car and shorten your range by feet. The power recuired for a laptop is just miniscule compaired to that required for driving.
They've got a really nice site that lets you choose from a dozen different colors (I really liked the dark purple) for the car, but what I would really like to see is an option to cover it with solar cells so it can recharge on its own. That should extend the driving range slightly, but most importantly it would recharge it while I am sitting in the office for 8 hours.
The other responces to you post are right, there just isn't enough surface area on that car to make solar charging practical. I was on the solar raycing team at the University of Illinois when I was a student there. We had a car the length and width of a 15 passenger van, that could power steady state driving at about 35 mph.
What you could do for this car (if you want solar charging) is sell an accesory that is a fold up array, much larger than the car (say... 6'X9' ish), that mounts to the roof and tracks the sun. Unless it is really bad weather you could get 10-20 miles worth of charge in 8 hours with something like that...