WHAT THE FUCK IS DHS DOING CHASING CHILD PORN PEDDLERS?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the FBI's jurisdiction?
DHS isn't really a stand-alone agency like FBI or CIA. It actually exists to cut through the redtape associated with interagency movement of intelligence and such.
and the FBI is one of the agencies wired into DHS that way.
Doesn't look like those rules would actually prevent the ISP's from having a "no servers" rule for residential clients.
Those rules WILL make sure that if there's a server on the net, YOU will be able to access it. But there's nothing there that prevents an ISP from saying "no, you can't run a server on our service without paying commercial rates"...
Note that "reasonable network management" is a remarkably open-ended phrase. A good lawyer should be able to justify pretty much anything under it.
You sign off on massive debt for wars and other pointless silliness even as you cut funding to tiny projects that are likely to lead to prosperity in the future.
I'm really curious as to how the JWT is expected to "lead to prosperity in the future". Off the top of my head, I can't foresee anything meaningful to our standard of living coming from IR pictures of the early universe.
Sure it does. The point of language is to communicate. If you start arbitrarily changing the meaning of words people stop understanding what you mean.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to do something like add a new meaning to the word "brick". After all, everyone knows that "to brick" means to construct something out of bricks, such as a wall or a fireplace. It's not like "to brick" has anything to do with electronics.
Or did you mean that we shouldn't add new meanings to words after some arbitrary date of YOUR choice?
That said, we have a two party system because to get elected (other than president) you need to be able to win the majority of the vote in your state or district.
This is (mostly) false.
In general, you do NOT need to get a majority of the vote to win an election. You merely need to get more than anyone else. So if there were seven political parties splitting the vote approximately equally, the guy getting 15% of the vote could win.
Exceptions: in a few places, a majority vote is required. In those places, what is done is that all however-many candidates are voted on, then the two top vote-getters run against each other in a run-off election.
Net effect of the run-off process, a majority of the voters must actually vote for one candidate, but that candidate isn't actually required to be from one of the major Parties - if the second-place vote getter in the Primary is a Nazi, you have a run-off between him and the Crook, for example.
Remember - "Vote for the Crook, it's important". (yes, Louisiana actually had an election once where one candidate was a Nazi and one was a crook - the crook won, and will be getting out of jail pretty soon, I understand).
You might recall two years ago when they launched Omid, which completed about 700 orbits in two weeks.
Hmm, seems to me that 700 orbits in two weeks is about one orbit every thirty minutes.
It's been a long time since I was in school, but last I checked a 30 minute orbit around Earth is impossible.
Well, without a continuous 7G burn to keep the satellite from flying off out of the solar system - speed required to do a 30 minute orbit is about 60% more than solar escape speed.
If cargo ships only had a 99% chance of crossing the ocean, with a 1% chance of losing the ship at sea, I wouldn't want to be in the shipping business, either.
And yet...
Through most of the history of the world, ships didn't have better than 99% chance of making it across the ocean. And people kept right on sailing them, and making money with them through all that time.
So defense lawyers came up with the following solution: they ask the judges to make the plaintiffs to sign a consent form, which is then added to the subpoena sent to the sites in question, who then have no reason not to comply with the request.
Why are judges issueing subpeonas merely off a plaintiffs signature? That's what I'd like to know. This seems likely overturned on appeal, except IANAL.
Because it's information about the plaintiff that they're after?
The speed, relative to Earth, during the encounter will be quite high
The speed, relative to Earth, during the encounter will be similar to the speed Apollo had after it's lunar injection burn. Rather less than the speed required to send something to Mars.
In other words, not really a big deal, compared to things we've already sent into space.
Since you'd probably have to build roads along its path to build it, this is less likely than you might think.
(b) can be built where roads or rail are problematic (steep vertical ascents/descents)
Quite possibly. There are fewer places like that near major poulation/industrial centers than you might think.
(c) can be partially (or entirely) powered by gravity
You're drifting into perpetual motion machine here. Gravity can only provide energy for such a device if you ship significantly more weight down than up. Which pretty much implies that you're going to run out of weight to move down at some point.
(d) can be operated during heavy snows and floods
We don't have all that many floods on mountainsides where I come from. I'll grant you the snows though.
It's the same way we define fundamental properties like distance in terms of fundamental constants. Distance is defined relative to the speed of light, for example.
Either that, or it's defined relative to the orbital diameter of one not particularly important planet orbitting a not particularly important star.
Note that even the version defined relative to the speed of light uses the orbital period of a not particularly important planet orbitting a not particularly important star as part of the definition.
Admittedly, the latest definition of a meter (metre for some of you) was defined based on wavelengths of a particular type of light. Of course, we picked the number of wavelengths to keep the meter (metre) pretty damn close to that metal bar we use to use....
nuclear fission propulsion, like Project Orion, is incapable of the deltaV required for anything like a quick interstellar trip.
Orion, as originally conceived, produced an Isp of less than 2000. Which implies that a 10000T spacecraft would have to carry an additional 5.4E785 tons of fuel/reaction mass.
Note that 5E785 tons is rather more than the mass of the observable universe....
In all seriousness, the only reason the American Revolution worked out so well was because we had the enormous good fortune of A) having no nearby powers to take advantage and B) having technology at just the right point where we could win the war without having to deal with endless terrorist attacks afterward.
No, the reason our revolution worked was that we had George Washington, who told his officers not to stage a military coup (and convinced them to do as he said), and then, when he was elected President, chose to run for re-election only once, then retire quietly.
Unlike the assorted Presidents-for-Life that we saw from so many other revolutions....
In 1973 Egypt sent its forces to regain the Sinai and Israel did very badly, the US had to bail out Israel to a large extent
Umm, no.
While the USA sent munitions and such to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, they didn't send enough to matter. The war was too short for us to ship much there because, when all is said and done, you can't ship meaningful amounts of munitions by air, and the war was pretty much over before any could be shipped by sea.
The aid we provided Israel in '73 was far more a matter of a morale-boost than anything else....
Given parties with enough cash/clout, any treaty can be set aside. I'd bet that if a party well-heeled enough to get a mining system set up to get rare minerals from the moon to Earth on a fairly inexpensive basis (perhaps with a space elevator), the Outer Space Treaty would be shelved or amended to nothingness by at least one country.
Given that you'd have to spend a buttload of money first, convincing people to invest in an operation that can't ever make a return on investment without overturning a Treaty, I suspect it'll be a bit harder than you might expect.
The main concern relates more to legal title to the resources once extracted. The wealth locked up in NEOs is unfathomable and the private sector is in a far better position to leverage it than government.
The Outer Space Treaty pretty much makes it clear that legal title to the resources of the rest of the solar system won't be available to any private individual or corporation.
Which means that there's no incentive whatsoever to bother developing the capability to go there and extract said resources....
Slashdot Mirror
DHS isn't really a stand-alone agency like FBI or CIA. It actually exists to cut through the redtape associated with interagency movement of intelligence and such.
and the FBI is one of the agencies wired into DHS that way.
Doesn't look like those rules would actually prevent the ISP's from having a "no servers" rule for residential clients.
Those rules WILL make sure that if there's a server on the net, YOU will be able to access it. But there's nothing there that prevents an ISP from saying "no, you can't run a server on our service without paying commercial rates"...
Note that "reasonable network management" is a remarkably open-ended phrase. A good lawyer should be able to justify pretty much anything under it.
I'm really curious as to how the JWT is expected to "lead to prosperity in the future". Off the top of my head, I can't foresee anything meaningful to our standard of living coming from IR pictures of the early universe.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to do something like add a new meaning to the word "brick". After all, everyone knows that "to brick" means to construct something out of bricks, such as a wall or a fireplace. It's not like "to brick" has anything to do with electronics.
Or did you mean that we shouldn't add new meanings to words after some arbitrary date of YOUR choice?
This is (mostly) false.
In general, you do NOT need to get a majority of the vote to win an election. You merely need to get more than anyone else. So if there were seven political parties splitting the vote approximately equally, the guy getting 15% of the vote could win.
Exceptions: in a few places, a majority vote is required. In those places, what is done is that all however-many candidates are voted on, then the two top vote-getters run against each other in a run-off election.
Net effect of the run-off process, a majority of the voters must actually vote for one candidate, but that candidate isn't actually required to be from one of the major Parties - if the second-place vote getter in the Primary is a Nazi, you have a run-off between him and the Crook, for example.
Remember - "Vote for the Crook, it's important". (yes, Louisiana actually had an election once where one candidate was a Nazi and one was a crook - the crook won, and will be getting out of jail pretty soon, I understand).
Hmm, seems to me that 700 orbits in two weeks is about one orbit every thirty minutes.
It's been a long time since I was in school, but last I checked a 30 minute orbit around Earth is impossible.
Well, without a continuous 7G burn to keep the satellite from flying off out of the solar system - speed required to do a 30 minute orbit is about 60% more than solar escape speed.
And yet...
Through most of the history of the world, ships didn't have better than 99% chance of making it across the ocean. And people kept right on sailing them, and making money with them through all that time.
Because it's information about the plaintiff that they're after?
Norman Borlaug, 1970.
As one example, it's hard to post on /. if you're extinct.
See a lot of Homo Erectus posting on /.?
The speed, relative to Earth, during the encounter will be similar to the speed Apollo had after it's lunar injection burn. Rather less than the speed required to send something to Mars.
In other words, not really a big deal, compared to things we've already sent into space.
Since you'd probably have to build roads along its path to build it, this is less likely than you might think.
Quite possibly. There are fewer places like that near major poulation/industrial centers than you might think.
You're drifting into perpetual motion machine here. Gravity can only provide energy for such a device if you ship significantly more weight down than up. Which pretty much implies that you're going to run out of weight to move down at some point.
We don't have all that many floods on mountainsides where I come from. I'll grant you the snows though.
If a bullet hit the ground five yards past a deer, it went under his legs, not through him.
Yes. Extinction sucks.
Either that, or it's defined relative to the orbital diameter of one not particularly important planet orbitting a not particularly important star.
Note that even the version defined relative to the speed of light uses the orbital period of a not particularly important planet orbitting a not particularly important star as part of the definition.
Admittedly, the latest definition of a meter (metre for some of you) was defined based on wavelengths of a particular type of light. Of course, we picked the number of wavelengths to keep the meter (metre) pretty damn close to that metal bar we use to use....
Of course, noone banned either research or technology in the case of stem cell research. Or even of embryonic stem cell research.
Refusal to pay for something is not actually the same thing as banning it.
He read the Healthcare bill before voting for it last year?
Somehow, I think not...
nuclear fission propulsion, like Project Orion, is incapable of the deltaV required for anything like a quick interstellar trip.
Orion, as originally conceived, produced an Isp of less than 2000. Which implies that a 10000T spacecraft would have to carry an additional 5.4E785 tons of fuel/reaction mass.
Note that 5E785 tons is rather more than the mass of the observable universe....
No, the reason our revolution worked was that we had George Washington, who told his officers not to stage a military coup (and convinced them to do as he said), and then, when he was elected President, chose to run for re-election only once, then retire quietly.
Unlike the assorted Presidents-for-Life that we saw from so many other revolutions....
Umm, no.
While the USA sent munitions and such to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, they didn't send enough to matter. The war was too short for us to ship much there because, when all is said and done, you can't ship meaningful amounts of munitions by air, and the war was pretty much over before any could be shipped by sea.
The aid we provided Israel in '73 was far more a matter of a morale-boost than anything else....
I'm curious then - what language?
Actually, it would be -Syndrome
Given that you'd have to spend a buttload of money first, convincing people to invest in an operation that can't ever make a return on investment without overturning a Treaty, I suspect it'll be a bit harder than you might expect.
The Outer Space Treaty pretty much makes it clear that legal title to the resources of the rest of the solar system won't be available to any private individual or corporation.
Which means that there's no incentive whatsoever to bother developing the capability to go there and extract said resources....
"Sincerity is important for a politician. Once he can fake that, he's got it made."