but at this point in time (astronomically) the stuff in our solar system stays in our solar system.
Note that a comet falling in from the edge of the system can, if it passes near enough to Jupiter (but not too near) leave the vicinity of Jupiter moving at more than solar escape speed.
In which case, it would not stay in our solar system.
we can do some basic math to calculate travel time, if we make a few basic assumptions.
The entry speed of a meteorite into our atmosphere is ~11-25km/sec. Using a high average of 20km.sec, and placing that as the average travel speed of the object (huge assumption)
We can do some better calculations from those same numbers also.
For instance, 11km/s relative to Earth is below solar escape speed, so a rock moving that fast did NOT come from outside the solar system (barring some really interesting interactions with multiple planets on entry to the Solar System - and we can't assume that condition existed for most (or even many) of the meteors arriving at the low end of meteor speeds).
On the other hand, 25 km/s relative to Earth could be moving greater than solar escape speed, if it were moving more or less in the same direction Earth is at impact - if it's basically chasing Earth, then it's moving at about 31 km/s in excess of solar escape speed.
On the other hand, if it's coming in at a larger angle relative to Earth's motion, then it may still be moving at less than solar escape speed. Coming in perpendicular to Earth's orbital motion, for instance, leaves it moving about 4 km/s BELOW solar escape speed.
Which leave you with (assuming arbitrary of meteor orbits) less than half of all meteors coming in at the high-end of the speed range are interstellar, with an even small fraction of the slower ones being interstellar objects.
Which leaves you with most of them being local, with no regards to travel time.
Note, by the way, that travel time is pretty much irrelevant to the likelihood a rock came from around another star.
Note also that your travel time estimates are off by a several orders of magnitude. You have the approximate distance in meters to Alphacent correct, but you then divide that by a speed in km/s (giving you an error of 3 orders of magnitude), then you compound that error by assuming that the result of that first division was time in YEARS instead of SECONDS (giving you an error of another seven orders of magnitude).
The correct answer, by the by, for your numbers, is about 63000 years.
Unfortunately, there's no exact data on what the smallest of the smalls were, but if their "less than $100 million" had a median of $89 million, we're probably not talking a bunch of sub-$1 million companies.
Quite so. Which is why I wrote "While your main point is no doubt correct".
A patent troll isn't interested in really small new startups, since they don't have enough money on hand for a large award. If it costs more for your lawyers to sue someone than they can afford to pay, then you don't sue them.
On the other hand, if you've got a great new idea, and think you can make a metric buttload of money with it, then, at some point you're going to be visited by a patent troll.
And while $89 million may sound like a lot, Google just spent a significant fraction of that amount defending itself against Oracle. If you own a $90 million company, and a major patent troll comes after you (whether its actions are legally justified or just plain economic terrorism), then you're going to pretty much go broke defending yourself, even if you win.
This is the primary danger of the patent troll - a startup will either remain insignificant, or it'll attract the attention of a patent troll. Either way, the big boys aren't going to be threatened by a new player
Keep in mind, the only real way to prevent monopolies from forming is to encourage new players to enter the market. Having a bunch of lawyers playing gatekeeper for the big boys prevents that quite successfully.
I get the impression you read Atlas Shrugged a few too many times.
The funniest thing about "Atlas Shrugged" is that the heroes of "Atlas Shrugged" are people who invent neat new things, and put them to use, and the villains are people who buy legislation to get things done.
On the other hand,/. admires people who invent neat new things and put them to use, and vilify people who buy legislation to get things done.
The contradiction between "Atlas Shrugged" and/. is, or course, the main reason "Atlas Shrugged" is vilified on/.
Organisations of all sizes were affected by 2011 patent action, with the study finding that half of all patent litigation cases hit companies with less than $US100 million in annual revenue.
So, yes, if you're a startup with a hundred million in annual revenue, you may be a target for patent trolls.
While your main point is no doubt correct, it should be pointed out that "less than $100 Million" is NOT "$100 million".
Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?
Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.
Note that this is also pretty much irrelevant for ICBMs, since retargeting them is NOT quick. And you really can't do it without the cooperation of the chain of command.
Who won't. Cooperate, I mean.
Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.
Two man rule applies, as I recall. More realistically, Three (or five+) Man rule, in that the two men have to give an order to a general, who will then pass the order along to a colonel, who will pass it to a major.
The list of guys who can be the Two Men is pretty short, I understand. I expect Panetta can be the Second Man, but I doubt Hillary could, for instance.
Note also that something like this won't happen out of the blue. California would have to be in open rebellion for a while first, and by then the military would be pretty well split already - and not inclined to fire nukes at anyone.
In an era of ever-increasing oil prices & food prices, it makes logical sense for the U.S. (or EU or China or any country) to try and stabilize the population at a sustainable level to make the coming crisis less painful.
You seem to be unaware that the populations of both the EU and the USA are increasing solely because of immigration. Birthrates in the USA and EU are already below replacement rates.
Theoretically, China is also already into permanent population decline, but it's unclear to what extent the One Child Per Family laws are ignored/bypassed....
I can tell you what it's made of right now. it was a Lockheed Electra 10E was built at Lockheed Aircraft Company to her specifications. Information about her plane was highly documented before it took off. Really scientists, have you not discovered the internet?
So, you're saying that there is ZERO chance that they'll find something that is NOT Amelia Earhart's plane?
I take it you've already spent enough time searching that area that you know everything to be found there?
The article title says... "Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times" (emphasis mine).
Pf course, the question becomes "who is offering that advice?"
And the answer appears to be...
Patrick Thibodeau, the author of TFA.
Note, as a useful reference, the comment in TFA by Michael Wildes, managing partner at Wildes & Weinberg in New York (an immigration law firm, from TFA) that clients to carry proper documentation of their legal status.
Note also that Michael says that they've always been making this recommendation....
Of course, there's the idiotic comment by Jorge Lopez, since out-of-state driver's licenses have always been acceptable in any state....
Basically, the local gas companies have been either colluding or engaging in a wild gas war for the past few years - at any rate the price is *well* over what would be an acceptable profit in any other industry I am sure.
While I have no particular information about gasoline prices in Canada, in the USA, gasoline companies make a bit more than 6% profit.
As compared to, say, soft drink makers (14%+), brewers (16%+), magazine publishers (51%+), just to pick a few samples out of the list.
I can see how you could say something was 2,500 x bigger, lighter or some other measurable aspect but how can a model be 2,500 more accurate?
They didn't say "more accurate", they said "more precise". Not the same thing at all....
As an example, a temperature increase of 15 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree is much more precise than a temperature increase of 15 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees.
However, if the temperature actually increases 1 degree, neither the more precise nor the less precise number would be "accurate".
Of course, the fact that no houses have "burned to a cinder" isn't really the issue, is it?
After all, it's the people who were killed that are important, right? Alas, noone has been killed either.
Note, from TFA, that the shooters tried to put the fire out, then called 911 when they couldn't. Which is exactly what you'd expect from them, whether or not the fire was actually started by their gunfire...
Within my lifetime, gas has gone from.23/gal to 4.00/gal.
Ditto.
Of course, much of that increase is simple inflation. "Normal" price of gasoline is still closer to $3 than to $4, and probably closer to $2 than to $4.
And car prices have gone up by a factor of at least eight in my lifetime as well...
I guess the Maryland Democrats who run this city experienced catharsis after viewing the destruction of a nuclear holocaust, and decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business.
Hmm, so the cure to war is to make sure that your side won't win if one happens?
I've always preferred the "If thou would have peace, prepare then for war" POV....
Slashdot Mirror
I am NOT a millionaire, and never use Facebook.
Your point was?
So, what's the functional difference between the two, now?
Note that a comet falling in from the edge of the system can, if it passes near enough to Jupiter (but not too near) leave the vicinity of Jupiter moving at more than solar escape speed.
In which case, it would not stay in our solar system.
We can do some better calculations from those same numbers also.
For instance, 11km/s relative to Earth is below solar escape speed, so a rock moving that fast did NOT come from outside the solar system (barring some really interesting interactions with multiple planets on entry to the Solar System - and we can't assume that condition existed for most (or even many) of the meteors arriving at the low end of meteor speeds).
On the other hand, 25 km/s relative to Earth could be moving greater than solar escape speed, if it were moving more or less in the same direction Earth is at impact - if it's basically chasing Earth, then it's moving at about 31 km/s in excess of solar escape speed.
On the other hand, if it's coming in at a larger angle relative to Earth's motion, then it may still be moving at less than solar escape speed. Coming in perpendicular to Earth's orbital motion, for instance, leaves it moving about 4 km/s BELOW solar escape speed.
Which leave you with (assuming arbitrary of meteor orbits) less than half of all meteors coming in at the high-end of the speed range are interstellar, with an even small fraction of the slower ones being interstellar objects.
Which leaves you with most of them being local, with no regards to travel time.
Note, by the way, that travel time is pretty much irrelevant to the likelihood a rock came from around another star.
Note also that your travel time estimates are off by a several orders of magnitude. You have the approximate distance in meters to Alphacent correct, but you then divide that by a speed in km/s (giving you an error of 3 orders of magnitude), then you compound that error by assuming that the result of that first division was time in YEARS instead of SECONDS (giving you an error of another seven orders of magnitude).
The correct answer, by the by, for your numbers, is about 63000 years.
Yeah, shame that John Kennedy had to go and spoil that by lowering taxes, wasn't it?
Quite so. Which is why I wrote "While your main point is no doubt correct".
A patent troll isn't interested in really small new startups, since they don't have enough money on hand for a large award. If it costs more for your lawyers to sue someone than they can afford to pay, then you don't sue them.
On the other hand, if you've got a great new idea, and think you can make a metric buttload of money with it, then, at some point you're going to be visited by a patent troll.
And while $89 million may sound like a lot, Google just spent a significant fraction of that amount defending itself against Oracle. If you own a $90 million company, and a major patent troll comes after you (whether its actions are legally justified or just plain economic terrorism), then you're going to pretty much go broke defending yourself, even if you win.
This is the primary danger of the patent troll - a startup will either remain insignificant, or it'll attract the attention of a patent troll. Either way, the big boys aren't going to be threatened by a new player
Keep in mind, the only real way to prevent monopolies from forming is to encourage new players to enter the market. Having a bunch of lawyers playing gatekeeper for the big boys prevents that quite successfully.
The funniest thing about "Atlas Shrugged" is that the heroes of "Atlas Shrugged" are people who invent neat new things, and put them to use, and the villains are people who buy legislation to get things done.
On the other hand, /. admires people who invent neat new things and put them to use, and vilify people who buy legislation to get things done.
The contradiction between "Atlas Shrugged" and /. is, or course, the main reason "Atlas Shrugged" is vilified on /.
While your main point is no doubt correct, it should be pointed out that "less than $100 Million" is NOT "$100 million".
Without copyrights/patents (government) and corporations (more government), monopolies are actually very difficult to accomplish in the real world.
Most likely it's the NEW objectionable bits they snuck in without mentioning it.
Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.
Note that this is also pretty much irrelevant for ICBMs, since retargeting them is NOT quick. And you really can't do it without the cooperation of the chain of command.
Who won't. Cooperate, I mean.
Two man rule applies, as I recall. More realistically, Three (or five+) Man rule, in that the two men have to give an order to a general, who will then pass the order along to a colonel, who will pass it to a major.
The list of guys who can be the Two Men is pretty short, I understand. I expect Panetta can be the Second Man, but I doubt Hillary could, for instance.
Note also that something like this won't happen out of the blue. California would have to be in open rebellion for a while first, and by then the military would be pretty well split already - and not inclined to fire nukes at anyone.
You seem to be unaware that the populations of both the EU and the USA are increasing solely because of immigration. Birthrates in the USA and EU are already below replacement rates.
Theoretically, China is also already into permanent population decline, but it's unclear to what extent the One Child Per Family laws are ignored/bypassed....
So, you're saying that there is ZERO chance that they'll find something that is NOT Amelia Earhart's plane?
I take it you've already spent enough time searching that area that you know everything to be found there?
Pf course, the question becomes "who is offering that advice?"
And the answer appears to be...
Patrick Thibodeau, the author of TFA.
Note, as a useful reference, the comment in TFA by Michael Wildes, managing partner at Wildes & Weinberg in New York (an immigration law firm, from TFA) that clients to carry proper documentation of their legal status.
Note also that Michael says that they've always been making this recommendation....
Of course, there's the idiotic comment by Jorge Lopez, since out-of-state driver's licenses have always been acceptable in any state....
While I have no particular information about gasoline prices in Canada, in the USA, gasoline companies make a bit more than 6% profit.
As compared to, say, soft drink makers (14%+), brewers (16%+), magazine publishers (51%+), just to pick a few samples out of the list.
They didn't say "more accurate", they said "more precise". Not the same thing at all....
As an example, a temperature increase of 15 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree is much more precise than a temperature increase of 15 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees.
However, if the temperature actually increases 1 degree, neither the more precise nor the less precise number would be "accurate".
Since when?
I've never actually met a guy who thinks pretty women are intelligent.
Of course, I've never actually met a guy who would NOTICE that a pretty woman was intelligent....
Noone has lost his home as a result of this fire. A lot of people have evacuated, but the fire is still better than half a mile from ANY homes....
Of course, the fact that no houses have "burned to a cinder" isn't really the issue, is it?
After all, it's the people who were killed that are important, right? Alas, noone has been killed either.
Note, from TFA, that the shooters tried to put the fire out, then called 911 when they couldn't. Which is exactly what you'd expect from them, whether or not the fire was actually started by their gunfire...
Ditto.
Of course, much of that increase is simple inflation. "Normal" price of gasoline is still closer to $3 than to $4, and probably closer to $2 than to $4.
And car prices have gone up by a factor of at least eight in my lifetime as well...
Better to say that 55 trades fuel for time.
Gasoline isn't nearly expensive enough for me to be willing to take two days to get to my parents' house...
Neither am I, really.
On the other hand, rather than a Faraday Cage, my first thought was the O-N-O-F-F button....
Abe Lincoln, I think.
Though Tom Jefferson pretty much said the same thing more eloquently when he was President...
If you can't tell just by looking, then ask.
If they answer "Native American", then they're Indians.
Otherwise, they're Indian-Americans....
Hmm, so the cure to war is to make sure that your side won't win if one happens?
I've always preferred the "If thou would have peace, prepare then for war" POV....