With Thailand, unless you did it in front of a cop, making a disparaging remark about the king wouldn't even get a reaction (getting angry is a major loss of face in Thai/Buddhist society). A local cop would just throw you into the local lock-up for a few hours and then until you coughed up a few thousand baht (B1000 is roughly AU$45).
And in the USA, making a disparaging remark about the Founding Fathers (or even the sitting President) in front of a cop would cause nothing to happen whatsoever.
Also, I would think Alaskans are far less likely to go around looting stores and shooting at rescue workers during an emergency.
A modern myth. Ever notice that in all those news stories about looting in New Orleans after Katrina, they showed the same footage? And most of the tales of someone shooting at a rescue worker were told third or fourth hand. Like the fairy tales about rape and murder in the Superdome....
It can't be as bad as Katrina. There are currently over 1,000,000 people in the New Orleans metro area. That's AFTER Katrina; the population of new Orleans literally dropped in half since 2000.
Umm, no. New Orleans metro area population dropped by maybe 25% since 2000. And a fair amount of that loss happened pre-Katrina, since New Orleans is basically a terrible place to live unless you're really into fine dining.
Have you not read anything about failed reactors? I have, and let me tell you -- it scares the shit out of me.
Have you read anything by anyone who knows what he's writing about? Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything written on the subject by a nuclear engineer....
Something tells me that if I marched into LAX with my Australian passport and shouted "George Washington was a Fag" someone would object.
Unlikely. They might look at you the way they look at the Moonies in the airport, but it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be so rude as to say word one about your comment.
Though, come to think of it, someone who was sleeping nearby might tell you off for yelling. Or at least glare at you.
Oh sure, we'd learn lots if we put people there without having to worry about the difficulty of getting them there and keeping them alive.
Von Braun designed a Mars mission in the 50's. There hasn't actually been a real impediment to a Mars mission since the late 70's, other than lack of willingness to spend the money.
I note that the Soviets kept people in free fall long enough to complete a Mars mission back in the early 80's.
Also, it should be noted that deltaV requirements to reach Mars are similar to that required to reach the Moon. Which we did in 1969. A lander, of course, is a whole other issue - it would need from 1.5x to 2x the deltaV of the LM.
In other words, the only reason we haven't sent a man or six to Mars is because we didn't want to, not because we didn't know how, or were incapable of it.
"The left"? Seriously? Why do you use that term, when it's been obsolete for decades?
Because it's not obsolete. Any more than the Right Wing is considered obsolete by the Left.
Also, it's not just "the left" who think Bush was evil or incompetent, it is people of all political persuasions.
Nice change of parameters. First it was "evil". Suddenly, it's "evil or incompetent". I've never met anyone who wasn't fairly far out on the Left who thought Bush was evil. I've met a few others who thought he was incompetent, but I've never actually heard any real evidence.
Other than a litany of things he didn't actually do, of course. The favorite one down here is Katrina response. Of course, Bush had very little to do with the Federal response to Katrina. Which was NOT poorly done, for all the media would have it so. Having sat out Katrina down here, I've got a better picture of the federal, state, and local response than most of the media, and virtually all of the people who weren't actually present. And none of it was especially bad, given the situation.
A great President? Doubt it seriously. Worst ever? Doubt it seriously.
The full quote was "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Which, if Bill were actually addressing Monica and referring to Hillary might have been true.
Well, if you mean the odds that a bunch of supposedly intelligent scientists would conduct an experiment as stupid as the one that destroyed Chernobyl, then pretty long.
If you meant the odds that, given that you're going to conduct this (insanely stupid) experiment, something might go horribly wrong, probably about 50:50.
Put the premiums in a conservative investment, and if the kid lives to be 70 it'll do a lot more to defray the funeral costs.
If the kid dies at age six, then the investment will be a bit shy of paying funeral expenses. The purpose of life insurance for children is to defray funeral expenses if the CHILD dies.
If the child lives to adulthood, presumably he can handle his own life insurance needs.
One thing many insurance salesmen do is talk parents into insuring their kids.
Note that life insurance for your children is primarily intended to defray funeral expenses. If someone is trying to get you to take out more life insurance than that for your kid, then it's a scam.
Stuff learned by sending probes not containing humans to Mars: lots.
Stuff learned by sending probes containing humans to Mars: zilch.
Of course, we sent a couple rovers to Mars that in five years have gone over almost as much terrain as one man could have covered on foot between breakfast and lunch.
While it is arguable that robots are better than humans for exploratory missions, it must be remembered that the constraint is that we learn things very, very slowly.
I've often wondered how much we'd know about Mars if we'd put six guys down there for 18 months back in the mid-80s....
"shall provide data on relevant economic, financial, grant, and contract information in user-friendly visual presentations to enhance public awareness of the use funds made available in this Act,"
The keyword is "relevant". The key question is "who decides what is relevant?"
Note that the answer isn't Obama. He can't micromanage to that level, even if he was so inclined (and I've seen no evidence that he's inclined to micromanage).
Note also that this seems to apply only to the Act in question, NOT the entire federal budget.
the other half will not need to be put anywhere as they'll be released.
Released where? The USA doesn't have an immigration quota for terror suspects, and so far, none of the other countries we've approached wants them. Except China, and we won't send people there for fear they'll be tortured.
If you've never experienced this ability, you
don't imagine how useful it would be. You just
ignore your own spontaneous desires for more info.
Alas, while I think that's really pretty neat, mom-in-law persists in just grabbing her encyclopedia when she wants to do something like that.
You don't need to develop arguments to convince me, you need to convince people who grew up who grew up BEFORE instant gratification became the norm....
Broadband saves times. Even the worst system where the connection is not really always on- but is on demand, take no more than 2 seconds to access the net, while dial up connections generally take a minimum of 30 seconds or more.
Contrary to popular rumour, most people don't get too excited about taking 30 seconds to connect. If nothing else, it gives you time to drink your coffee.
Broadband systems do not block the phone lines, even temporarily. For an e-mail only user this can still make a difference, because when on dial-up then cannot afford to risk checking their email while expecting an important phone call, but nothing prevents them from doing that when they have dialup.
Even my mother-in-law has a cellphone. So she really doesn't care about whether her landline is tied up. My mother, who is forced by circumstance (she lives in the country) to use dialup, keeps her computer connected almost all the time she's awake, so she doesn't have to deal with telemarketers. The most annoying thing about DSL for me is the fact that my phone is NOT tied up all the time. I get a telemarketing call five to ten times a day, on average.
Keeping the computer patched is much easier on broadband than dial-up, and don't think that this is not important for those who only connect for short periods at a time. They can most certainly get infected.
My mom-in-law's computer probably hasn't been patched in ten years. She hasn't noticed the lack.
When their friends/family send them email with absurdly large photos attached, it does not take half an hour to download the message.
My mother bitches about this all the time. Not that I send her large photos, but that some of her friends do. My mom-in-law looks at download time as a chance to do some work in the garden, so this is not especially important to her.
The problem here is that justifications for broadband are generally from the point of view of someone who already has it, already needs it, and would like even more. The people who could care less about it (my mom-in-law, for example) can't see anything compelling in your reasoning. And the people who CAN see something compelling in your reasoning are NOT in that 2/3 who don't care a fig for broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're going to call it a submarine, I'd like to see it able to operate underwater without a snorkel.
God, I don't remember which fledgling ISP we used back then. Pipeline, maybe?
And in the USA, making a disparaging remark about the Founding Fathers (or even the sitting President) in front of a cop would cause nothing to happen whatsoever.
A modern myth. Ever notice that in all those news stories about looting in New Orleans after Katrina, they showed the same footage? And most of the tales of someone shooting at a rescue worker were told third or fourth hand. Like the fairy tales about rape and murder in the Superdome....
Umm, no. New Orleans metro area population dropped by maybe 25% since 2000. And a fair amount of that loss happened pre-Katrina, since New Orleans is basically a terrible place to live unless you're really into fine dining.
Let's see. We insulted Bush the younger, Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Hoover...
Why do you think that Obama will get a pass?
Have you read anything by anyone who knows what he's writing about? Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything written on the subject by a nuclear engineer....
Unlikely. They might look at you the way they look at the Moonies in the airport, but it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be so rude as to say word one about your comment.
Though, come to think of it, someone who was sleeping nearby might tell you off for yelling. Or at least glare at you.
Hate to say this, but noone here really cares if you insult America's Founding Fathers. It's not like we don't do it ourselves a fair amount.
Hell, we insult sitting Presidents, so why shouldn't we insult dead ones?
Von Braun designed a Mars mission in the 50's. There hasn't actually been a real impediment to a Mars mission since the late 70's, other than lack of willingness to spend the money.
I note that the Soviets kept people in free fall long enough to complete a Mars mission back in the early 80's.
Also, it should be noted that deltaV requirements to reach Mars are similar to that required to reach the Moon. Which we did in 1969. A lander, of course, is a whole other issue - it would need from 1.5x to 2x the deltaV of the LM.
In other words, the only reason we haven't sent a man or six to Mars is because we didn't want to, not because we didn't know how, or were incapable of it.
Because it's not obsolete. Any more than the Right Wing is considered obsolete by the Left.
Nice change of parameters. First it was "evil". Suddenly, it's "evil or incompetent". I've never met anyone who wasn't fairly far out on the Left who thought Bush was evil. I've met a few others who thought he was incompetent, but I've never actually heard any real evidence.
Other than a litany of things he didn't actually do, of course. The favorite one down here is Katrina response. Of course, Bush had very little to do with the Federal response to Katrina. Which was NOT poorly done, for all the media would have it so. Having sat out Katrina down here, I've got a better picture of the federal, state, and local response than most of the media, and virtually all of the people who weren't actually present. And none of it was especially bad, given the situation.
A great President? Doubt it seriously. Worst ever? Doubt it seriously.
The full quote was "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Which, if Bill were actually addressing Monica and referring to Hillary might have been true.
Mounts came with Catacombs, as I recall.
Darkness Rising.
Which wasn't a paid expansion, as I recall. Though it's been so long my memory is fuzzy on which I paid for, and which just happened.
And you know this how?
Not saying you're wrong, mind you, though I don't think Bush was as evil as the left made him out to be. But how do you know this?
Well, if you mean the odds that a bunch of supposedly intelligent scientists would conduct an experiment as stupid as the one that destroyed Chernobyl, then pretty long.
If you meant the odds that, given that you're going to conduct this (insanely stupid) experiment, something might go horribly wrong, probably about 50:50.
If the kid dies at age six, then the investment will be a bit shy of paying funeral expenses. The purpose of life insurance for children is to defray funeral expenses if the CHILD dies.
If the child lives to adulthood, presumably he can handle his own life insurance needs.
Note that life insurance for your children is primarily intended to defray funeral expenses. If someone is trying to get you to take out more life insurance than that for your kid, then it's a scam.
Of course, we sent a couple rovers to Mars that in five years have gone over almost as much terrain as one man could have covered on foot between breakfast and lunch.
While it is arguable that robots are better than humans for exploratory missions, it must be remembered that the constraint is that we learn things very, very slowly.
I've often wondered how much we'd know about Mars if we'd put six guys down there for 18 months back in the mid-80s....
In this case:
"shall provide data on relevant economic, financial, grant, and contract information in user-friendly visual presentations to enhance public awareness of the use funds made available in this Act,"
The keyword is "relevant". The key question is "who decides what is relevant?"
Note that the answer isn't Obama. He can't micromanage to that level, even if he was so inclined (and I've seen no evidence that he's inclined to micromanage).
Note also that this seems to apply only to the Act in question, NOT the entire federal budget.
Released where? The USA doesn't have an immigration quota for terror suspects, and so far, none of the other countries we've approached wants them. Except China, and we won't send people there for fear they'll be tortured.
Alas, while I think that's really pretty neat, mom-in-law persists in just grabbing her encyclopedia when she wants to do something like that.
You don't need to develop arguments to convince me, you need to convince people who grew up who grew up BEFORE instant gratification became the norm....
Contrary to popular rumour, most people don't get too excited about taking 30 seconds to connect. If nothing else, it gives you time to drink your coffee.
Even my mother-in-law has a cellphone. So she really doesn't care about whether her landline is tied up. My mother, who is forced by circumstance (she lives in the country) to use dialup, keeps her computer connected almost all the time she's awake, so she doesn't have to deal with telemarketers. The most annoying thing about DSL for me is the fact that my phone is NOT tied up all the time. I get a telemarketing call five to ten times a day, on average.
My mom-in-law's computer probably hasn't been patched in ten years. She hasn't noticed the lack.
My mother bitches about this all the time. Not that I send her large photos, but that some of her friends do. My mom-in-law looks at download time as a chance to do some work in the garden, so this is not especially important to her.
The problem here is that justifications for broadband are generally from the point of view of someone who already has it, already needs it, and would like even more. The people who could care less about it (my mom-in-law, for example) can't see anything compelling in your reasoning. And the people who CAN see something compelling in your reasoning are NOT in that 2/3 who don't care a fig for broadband.
She got internet access way back then so that my wife would have internet access when we visited.
Is it even possible for something to be smaller than the Planck length?