What exactly do you think would happen on the ocean?
The coast is the problem if you believe to be somewhere where you actually are not.
Just so. As I learned when I was on a boomer these many years ago, the dangerous part of any patrol is the going out and coming back in, where the water is shallow and mistakes are not easily forgiven....
Of course I think they are all gone now, as they are no longer needed.
Those base stations can still be useful when you need precision measured in single-digit inches.
A long time ago, I worked for a company that provided differential GPS services. It was hit hard by Selective Availability going away, but Surveyers still need the kind of accuracy only DGPS can provide.
the guy interviewed on 60 Minutes last week, insisting that it was his democratic right to tell a woman to cover herself with a hijab AND expect her to comply,
Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.
Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.
Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....
Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....
The 4th signal is only to improve accuracy for civilians, as they do not have access to the military-accurate signals.
Umm, no.
Selective Availability (the coarser signal that used to be available to civilians) was turned off a long time ago. Now everyone gets the military grade signal.
Which doesn't mean that there's no point to that "fourth signal" you refer to. It's called differential GPS, and uses a GPS receiver at a surveyed point to broadcast corrections to (relatively nearby) receivers. However, these days, DGPS really only matters when you need a position that must be correct to within inches (someone doing survey work needs it, pretty much noone else cares).
Oh, and it's not being moved into orbit either. Pretty much can't be, since it requires a known position to work from, and orbits are, pretty much by definition, moving and therefore not known to the precision required (within low single-digit inches).
So, the whole operation began with an ASSumption that the roads were impassable? Maybe Plan B or Plan C should have arranged for these people to make their way BY FOOT and ACROSS COUNTRY to some other assembly point?
If you're actually worried about fallout from a nuclear accident, and the roads were impassable, then the most likely correct answer is "Stay in your homes. Close all windows and doors."
Which gives the authorities several days to sort things out and arrange a proper evacuation.
"Orbital SPEEDS" is probably the phrase you were groping blindly for when you typed the above.
Given sufficient speed, the direction vector that would turn that "speed" into "velocity" only has to meet one requirement - that it not intersect the ground.
And even that is technically moot - even if your "orbit" intersects the ground, it's still technically a ballistic orbit as long as the forces acting on the body doing the "orbit" reduce down to "gravity".
what exactly would "fix the economy and create jobs."
Probably the simplest solution to the whole "fix the economy and create jobs" thing is the one least likely to be tried: Stop monkeying with the system!
Instead, let's just leave the laws, rules and regulations currently in place alone long enough for things to settle down. Say, 20 years.
Then, if we don't like the result, let's change a few things, and wait another 20 years. Repeat as needed.
Alas, Governments, national and otherwise, don't like to do nothing for decades, and the dear people have come to expect that Government exists to fix problems now, Now, NOW!
Still, a constantly changing regulatory/tax environment is never going to be a good way to convince businesses to do anything they don't absolutely have to to get along....
Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution,
Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....
I'm waiting for the Republicans to scream bloody murder when they can't get anything done in the Senate because they don't have 60 votes to override a Democratic filibuster or 67 votes to override a presidential veto.
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Or did you really think that the Republicans were going to reinstate a rule that would handicap them?
And if the Democrats decide to reinstate the filibuster before they lose control, well, they've still established that it's pretty much okay to change the rules whenever it's convenient. So the Republicans will remove it if needed (I said when the Dems decided to ditch the filibuster that it would come back to haunt them next time they were the Senate minority - most/.'ers at the time insisted that the Reps would never have a Senate majority again)
You do realize that about 44% (~3 billion) people live within 150km (~93 miles) and more than half of us live withing 200km (~124 miles) of coasts. Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees, along with the loss of arable land, infrastructure and all manner of other things. Is that correct?
Since noone (except possibly you) believes that we're going to lose all land within 150km of the coasts in the next 50 years, your argument is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Predicted sea level rise over the rest of this century (~85 years, not 50) is low enough that the routine level maintenance around New Orleans (a city that basically sits at or below sea level) will easily handle the problem. I'd imagine we could teach the stupider people of the world how to manage building a levee a whole 30cm tall within the frightfully short interval of 85 years, don't you think?
Note: arguing AGW is usually interesting, but some arguments are just plain idiotic....
The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations
Since Congress has zilch to do with Treaties till it comes ratification time (negotiating Treaties is an Executive Branch thing), it matters not at all that Congress is being kept in the dark about them.
Now, once the Treaty is presented to Congress for ratification, they're in control - the President can't legally enforce a Treaty till it's been ratified, and ratification is entirely in the hands of the Senate.
Note that it takes 2/3 of the whole Senate to ratify a Treaty (that's 67 of them, for those of you who are hard of counting). Which means that a Treaty is NOT going to be pushed through by a single Party (not sure there has been a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate since the Civil War, and not sure there was one then), so the President has a pretty strong impetus to negotiate a reasonable treaty.
Do try to remember that whole "division of powers" thing....
Why is there such an opposition to businesses changing hours with the seasons, rather than changing the clocks?
Let's see...
Businesses change their hours twice a year, more or less at the times we now change the clocks...
Or we change the clocks...
Sounds like basically the same thing in terms of annoyance value (trivial), since if YOUR business changes hours, you'll still have to adjust your sleep schedule to deal with the new hours.
In other words, six of one, half dozen of the other....
A satellite "doing a perfect circle" is an imaginary satellite.
I'm not an astrophysics guy either, but my two vectors and one scalar (plus mass(es) of primary (and satellite)) is something I took from an old astrophysics textbook I still have laying around.
Just as an isolated example, take a certain satellite triplet. Then take that same satellite's triplet a few seconds later. None of the values of the triplet are the same, and yet it obviously describes the same trajectory.
Note that the fact that multiple triplets can describe the same orbit in no way implies that a particular triplet does not describe a particular orbit.
I find myself curious - what one dimension do you think describes any particular orbit?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way to describe an orbit that doesn't include (as a minimum) a mass (properly, two masses, but for satellite orbits in particular, the mass of the satellite is trivial compared to the mass of the primary, and can be ignored), a position vector, a velocity vector, and a time that those three values were valid....
It's about having the same rights under the law. If the government recognizes heterosexual marriages, it should recognize same sex marriages.
1) Note that I think that there's nothing wrong with either gay marriage or polygamy/polygyny/polyandry (and if the one should be legal, there's no good reason to oppose the other(s)).
2) Note that even without gay marriage, gays have the same rights under the law as straights - any woman can marry any guy who agrees, and vice versa.
2a) Note that "love" is irrelevant to marriage. You don't have to be in love to marry, nor is there any particular guarantee that the person you love will be willing to marry you. Which means that "right to marry the person I love" is meaningless drivel....
2b) Note that if "love" is a necessary and sufficient justification for making marriage legal, well, I can love two women. Or a woman and a man. Or two men. So why shouldn't it be legal to marry a threesome? Note that a threesome (or foursome, etc) has a lot of benefits for the children - makes it a lot easier to raise kids when one parent can afford to stay home because you still have two working parents (these days, two working parents is almost mandatory for working class people).
Slashdot Mirror
Just so. As I learned when I was on a boomer these many years ago, the dangerous part of any patrol is the going out and coming back in, where the water is shallow and mistakes are not easily forgiven....
I find myself wondering how they managed that, since they didn't control all the State governments, nor did they control the Federal Judiciary.
Which are the parties actually responsible for defining legislative districts...
Those base stations can still be useful when you need precision measured in single-digit inches.
A long time ago, I worked for a company that provided differential GPS services. It was hit hard by Selective Availability going away, but Surveyers still need the kind of accuracy only DGPS can provide.
It failed its design objective, then.
Nah, terrorists are Real Men (tm). They don't need pillows.
Well, it IS his democratic right to tell her to do so.
Likewise, it IS his democratic right to expect her to comply.
Whether she actually complies or not, well, that's a question of HER democratic rights....
Note that my own opinion is that she should "comply" by macing him....
Umm, no.
Selective Availability (the coarser signal that used to be available to civilians) was turned off a long time ago. Now everyone gets the military grade signal.
Which doesn't mean that there's no point to that "fourth signal" you refer to. It's called differential GPS, and uses a GPS receiver at a surveyed point to broadcast corrections to (relatively nearby) receivers. However, these days, DGPS really only matters when you need a position that must be correct to within inches (someone doing survey work needs it, pretty much noone else cares).
Oh, and it's not being moved into orbit either. Pretty much can't be, since it requires a known position to work from, and orbits are, pretty much by definition, moving and therefore not known to the precision required (within low single-digit inches).
Dams.
I realize some people like to curse dams, but still....
I managed to miss that one.
So now you have to make me aware of a new realm of stupidity in media. Gee, thanks....
If you're actually worried about fallout from a nuclear accident, and the roads were impassable, then the most likely correct answer is "Stay in your homes. Close all windows and doors."
Which gives the authorities several days to sort things out and arrange a proper evacuation.
What, you don't charge income tax for those workers' income earned in PA?
Everywhere I've ever lived, you pay income tax where you work, then pay more where you live, if tax rates are higher where you live.
Or do you think those people would be coming to PA to pay taxes if not for those jobs?
Okay, I'm irritated at the world today...
Pedant Mode...ON.
"Orbital SPEEDS" is probably the phrase you were groping blindly for when you typed the above.
Given sufficient speed, the direction vector that would turn that "speed" into "velocity" only has to meet one requirement - that it not intersect the ground.
And even that is technically moot - even if your "orbit" intersects the ground, it's still technically a ballistic orbit as long as the forces acting on the body doing the "orbit" reduce down to "gravity".
Probably the simplest solution to the whole "fix the economy and create jobs" thing is the one least likely to be tried: Stop monkeying with the system!
Instead, let's just leave the laws, rules and regulations currently in place alone long enough for things to settle down. Say, 20 years.
Then, if we don't like the result, let's change a few things, and wait another 20 years. Repeat as needed.
Alas, Governments, national and otherwise, don't like to do nothing for decades, and the dear people have come to expect that Government exists to fix problems now, Now, NOW!
Still, a constantly changing regulatory/tax environment is never going to be a good way to convince businesses to do anything they don't absolutely have to to get along....
Of course it affects a divorce case!
Hell, good S&M dungeons are expensive. Where did you think the savings account went? To the Caimans? Au contraire, it was spent on the dungeon....
Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Or did you really think that the Republicans were going to reinstate a rule that would handicap them?
And if the Democrats decide to reinstate the filibuster before they lose control, well, they've still established that it's pretty much okay to change the rules whenever it's convenient. So the Republicans will remove it if needed (I said when the Dems decided to ditch the filibuster that it would come back to haunt them next time they were the Senate minority - most /.'ers at the time insisted that the Reps would never have a Senate majority again)
Since noone (except possibly you) believes that we're going to lose all land within 150km of the coasts in the next 50 years, your argument is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Predicted sea level rise over the rest of this century (~85 years, not 50) is low enough that the routine level maintenance around New Orleans (a city that basically sits at or below sea level) will easily handle the problem. I'd imagine we could teach the stupider people of the world how to manage building a levee a whole 30cm tall within the frightfully short interval of 85 years, don't you think?
Note: arguing AGW is usually interesting, but some arguments are just plain idiotic....
Since Congress has zilch to do with Treaties till it comes ratification time (negotiating Treaties is an Executive Branch thing), it matters not at all that Congress is being kept in the dark about them.
Now, once the Treaty is presented to Congress for ratification, they're in control - the President can't legally enforce a Treaty till it's been ratified, and ratification is entirely in the hands of the Senate.
Note that it takes 2/3 of the whole Senate to ratify a Treaty (that's 67 of them, for those of you who are hard of counting). Which means that a Treaty is NOT going to be pushed through by a single Party (not sure there has been a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate since the Civil War, and not sure there was one then), so the President has a pretty strong impetus to negotiate a reasonable treaty.
Do try to remember that whole "division of powers" thing....
Let's see...
Businesses change their hours twice a year, more or less at the times we now change the clocks...
Or we change the clocks...
Sounds like basically the same thing in terms of annoyance value (trivial), since if YOUR business changes hours, you'll still have to adjust your sleep schedule to deal with the new hours.
In other words, six of one, half dozen of the other....
And I've remained in the USA for the last...hmm, it's been almost forty years since I lived in Europe.
And I haven't bothered to watch the (TV) news in longer than that. I'll scan the web for headlines, but that's about it.
Amazing how much happier it's possible to be when you don't waste your time worrying about things you have no control over....
Why does anyone really care how someone spends his own money?
If some rich dude decides to blow $100K flying up to the edge of space, why should anyone else really give a rat's ass?
And if he dies in the doing of the thing, well, that only matters to his heirs and whichever State gets the Estate taxes.
For that matter, if some average dude saves up his vacation money for a while for a ten-minute thrill ride, that's still noone's business but his....
A satellite "doing a perfect circle" is an imaginary satellite.
I'm not an astrophysics guy either, but my two vectors and one scalar (plus mass(es) of primary (and satellite)) is something I took from an old astrophysics textbook I still have laying around.
Note that the fact that multiple triplets can describe the same orbit in no way implies that a particular triplet does not describe a particular orbit.
I find myself curious - what one dimension do you think describes any particular orbit?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way to describe an orbit that doesn't include (as a minimum) a mass (properly, two masses, but for satellite orbits in particular, the mass of the satellite is trivial compared to the mass of the primary, and can be ignored), a position vector, a velocity vector, and a time that those three values were valid....
1) Note that I think that there's nothing wrong with either gay marriage or polygamy/polygyny/polyandry (and if the one should be legal, there's no good reason to oppose the other(s)).
2) Note that even without gay marriage, gays have the same rights under the law as straights - any woman can marry any guy who agrees, and vice versa.
2a) Note that "love" is irrelevant to marriage. You don't have to be in love to marry, nor is there any particular guarantee that the person you love will be willing to marry you. Which means that "right to marry the person I love" is meaningless drivel....
2b) Note that if "love" is a necessary and sufficient justification for making marriage legal, well, I can love two women. Or a woman and a man. Or two men. So why shouldn't it be legal to marry a threesome? Note that a threesome (or foursome, etc) has a lot of benefits for the children - makes it a lot easier to raise kids when one parent can afford to stay home because you still have two working parents (these days, two working parents is almost mandatory for working class people).
They'd have to really dislike us to put out a contract on us at interstellar distances....
On the other hand, we might get a ticket for littering by and by, if Voyager ever wanders near an interstellar traffic cop.