The new democrats were corporate sell outs and their success only helped move their party in that direction. The republicans sold out much sooner and obviously degraded to an even worse condition where in the last 8 years they completely oppose their founding principles.
This would be insightful, if you were actually aware of the Parties' "founding principles". I note that the Republican Party was the Civil Rights Party at its founding, and was quite close to being socialist (by 19th century standards, anyway). The Democratic Party, at its founding, was quite similar to the popular impression of the modern Republican Party (small government, low taxes, that sort of thing).
Looking back at the history of the Parties, both have switched rolls several times. And they will continue to do so in future. What we're seeing now is just the beginning of a shift in Party principles that will, most likely, end up like the early 70's, when the Republicans were the Party of Big Government, and the Democrats were the Party of Limited Government. As opposed to the 30's, when the reverse was true.
Don't we have a device that removes CO2 from the air? I thought they were called "trees."
Trees remove CO2 from the air while they live. As soon as they die, they start dumping that CO2 back into the air. So planting trees just moves the problem back by the lifetime of the tree, or requires that we find a way to dispose of every dead tree in the world pretty much as soon as they die, without releasing the CO2 within them.
The observation: Further research will probably show this to be wrong (and I think it is), but AFAWK we are special in one way: we are the only planet in the universe that we know harbors life.
Operational phrase being "that we know". Note that most other planets harbouring life can probably make the same assertion, with the same validity.
Given, of course, that there are other planets harbouring life. But I'd hate to have to bet against life being found pretty much everywhere.
Yes, the racists were Democrats. They left en masse for the Republican party leading to its current make up of the bottom of the barrel of our society. Welfare leeches
Read more history. The racists stayed with the Democratic Party for several decades, until they just couldn't stomach some of the things the left was doing. Then they left, reluctantly.
Also, note that, traditionally, the "welfare leeches" were, and are, staunch Democrats to this day. Remember, Welfare was also an invention of the Democrats.
You're a typical loony lefty
Wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a lefty! I'm not sure whether to applaud you, or suggest that you're not bright enough to pour sand from a boot with instructions printed on the heel, since I've been posting here for years and years, mostly to the right.
Though perhaps, if you're as far right as you sound like (just a tad right of David Duke), I look like the left from there.
Oh, you should also read enough history to know what you're talking about when you discuss religion in this country. From your rant above, you haven't a clue in the world about the subject.
Even if it was symmetrical, it simply isn't true. I'm not asking them for shit except to stay the fuck out of other people's business.
Oh, nonsense! You use those neat, government supplied roads. And those neat, government supplied raillines (yes, I know the government didn't build them, they just gave away enormous tracts of land to the railroads to get the railroad companies to build them). And that neat, government supplied electricity in your house (don't know where you live, of course, but there's not anywhere in the country that electricity isn't regulated by the government). And that neat, government supplied sewage and water and waste pickup thing (again, don't know where you live, but unless it's way out in the country, you use government supplied services for all that). And that neat, government supplied police/fire protection.
I could go on for a long time about how dependent you are on the government. But I don't feel like wasting any more of my lifespan on the subject. Suffice it to say that most everyone (you included) considers the government services you use to be just part of the background of life. The government services you don't use are for the "leeches". So kindly take your brain out of "park", and look at the real world, not your delusions about it.
I want some of whatever it is that you're smoking.
Mea culpa. You're right. I was thinking the 2002 elections forced the issue, not the 2006 one. Though I should point out that the Dems controlled the Senate from 2000-2002, after Jeffords switched parties.
Note that if you require a veto-proof majority to do anything against the will of the President, that pretty much noone has had that since Johnson was President (though Jimmy Carter had a veto-proof House for two years,and Ford's last two years included a veto-proof Democratic House). Certainly Republicans under Clinton didn't. So if lack of a veto-proof majority is justification for blaming Bush for the actions of Congress, then it's justification for blaming Clinton for the actions of Congress.
Not worth it in the big picture. In the big picture it leads to welfare leeches claiming that they hate socialism while remaining the largest recipients of it while not contributing at all.
This sort of delusional belief is a primary contributor to the hostility of the rural people for those who pull their own weight. It's why they keep voting for fascist Republicans against their own best interests and against everybody else's.
Sorry, but promoting ignorant and damaging behavior at my expense is complete crap if you actually look at the big picture instead of the narrow view you are taking while claiming it's the big picture.
My, you have a distorted picture of the universe. HINT: the Rural Electrification Act was passed by the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Another hint: most people in the country aren't terribly interested in being part of a group that favours gun control (they pretty much all hunt), gay marriages (traditional is a way of life in the country, for good or ill), etc.
Note further that until the Democrats decided to swing to the left in the 60's, most people in the country were staunch Democrats. Hell, my grandfather would have died rather than vote Republican. (personally, I've always believed he did - he died the year that Dukakis was the Democratic candidate for President)
Note, by the way, that from the point of view of most everyone else "promoting ignorant and damaging behavior at my expense is complete crap" works nicely. Too bad they think that most of the things YOU think are important are part of "ignorant and damaging behavior at my expense" to THEM.
An example of "ignorant and damaging behaviour at my expense" is the notion that electricity is a privilege only for urban dwellers, or the very wealthy. Sorry, I think it would be nice if every farmhouse could have lights at night. Likewise phone service. I remember having to drive 20 miles to the store with my grandfather to make a phone call. I think that the idea that he be wealthy, or move to a city, to get phone service in his home is "ignorant and damaging".
And ditto for broadband. Five years ago, I considered it a luxury. Now it's a basic necessity, like phone service or electricity. or indoor plumbing, for that matter. And so it should be provided to everyone, not just to the self-serving idiots who can't imagine that some people don't live the way they do.
AND raiding your neighbors' wallets for $3 a month to cover your costs. If I did that, I'd feel guilty of theft. If I live in no man's land, then *I* should be the one to pay for the cost of running the wires out to my home, not my neighbors.
Plus the additional fact the the electrification act encourages suburban sprawl which encourages environmental destruction & needless paving-over of valuable farmland.
Note that without the Rural Electrification Act, most farms would not have electricity to this day. My grandfather didn't get electricity until I was a teenager, as I recall.
Note that the REA didn't actually cause the spread of the suburbs. Suburbs are densely enough populated that it is quite profitable to provide electricity and phone service to them without the REA. The REA was for the benefit of country houses in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado. You know, those physically large States with so few people that you need a car to visit your next-door neighbor?
Yes, I'm aware that very few/.ers are aware that people still live in the country. Fact is, the food you eat was pretty much grown by people who live in the country. Mostly far enough out in the country that they'd have no phone service and no electricity without government intervention.
Don't know about you, but I'm not terribly bothered by the idea that the government required industry to provide basic amenities like electricity and phone service to ALL Americans, not just the ones who live in cities.
Note, by the way, that the REA hasn't actually provided those services to ALL Americans, though it pretty much covered the parts of the country that were part of the country when the Act was passed. Alaska is still a place where electricity and phone service can be problematic outside the cities. And given that Alaska has the fewest people of any State, and the largest land area of any State, it's likely to stay that way for a long time to come.
That's my point. If your parents were willing to pay enough, they could get broadband. They don't think it's worth paying, so why should we pay for them?
Hmm, if they were willing to pay enough. "Enough", in this case, is an upgrade to the wiring for four miles, plus the field hardware. $100,000 or so sound reasonable?
I hear a lot on/. about the notion of "infrastructure" as one of the responsibilities of government. And I agree with that completely - the government SHOULD be in the business of maintaining the infrastructure of the country. Well, the capability for broadband on any given telephone line is part of that infrastructure.
Note that I don't consider any particular speed of broadband to be "infrastructure". But a certain minimum capability (256K is about as low as I've seen, so that should work as a working minimum) is the responsibility of the government to provide, whether they do so by laying lines and building hardware themselves (the dumb way), or requiring the people already in business doing that to do it. For everyone, not just those who choose to live in the Burbs.
All true. How much of that was due to the telco/ISP providing new hardware, and how much was due to YOU buying a better modem? Looks like, if you toss out the modem-based improvements, the increase has only been a bit smaller than you state. From the telco's PoV of course.
Note that the telco/ISP will gladly increase bandwidth if there is demand for it. Which they did. Remember web-browsing at 28.8K? Lot of demand for improvements from 28.8K. Not so much demand for improvements from, say, 256K. Since the 99% of everyone who uses the web for email and reading the news can do so just fine with 256K.
When a significant fraction of that 99% (1/4 of them? 1/3? 1/2?) decide they really need 100M bandwidth, then it'll happen. As long as they're happy with 768K, or whatever the standard is these days, it won't.
Nonsense. My house was situated similar to your parents' house, but last year Verizon started selling DSL over the existing phone lines
Alas, that's not quite the case here. My brother works for Ma Bell. He has gone to the trouble of checking, and there are no plans to EVER put DSL out to my mother's house. Or, for that matter, his own house, which is also in the country.
Adding DSL capability requires an investment. It's a profitable investment if enough customers can be served by a single upgrade. If only eight other families live within a mile of you, it doesn't work out too well.
Fact is, there are parts of the country that will NOT get broadband (except satellite, which is a poor substitute, at best) this century without government intervention. Rural Alaska comes to mind as a place where it's just not going to happen. Or New Mexico - when I drove through there earlier this year, I took the scenic route, and saw houses whose nearest neighbor was better than 50 miles away. Do you really think the telcos/ISPs are going to put together the hardware to provide ONE HOUSE DSL?
I love it how the right-wing media is trying to spin this that "it's all Clinton's fault" when we have a law passed by a Republican controlled congress,
Don't worry, the left-wing media is spending time talking about how laws passed by a Democrat controlled congress are all Bush's fault.
Face it, the guy in the hot seat, right behind the "The Buck Stops Here" sign gets the blame or credit for whatever bad or good happens, even when it's not especially his fault. I note that, as an example, Clinton got a fair amount of heat for a recession that was really the fault of the previous Bush Administration.
But do remember that everything that goes before Congress now does so with the approval of the Democrats, who have been in charge there for most of Bush's presidency.
Note, by the way, that the author(s) of a Bill aren't nearly so important as the people who vote for it. There hasn't been a bill before Congress in the history of the country that was passed because all the authors voted for it, and everyone else voted against.
That may be true today, but once you start considering high-bandwidth content (480p+ video, etc) and it's rapid growth since the availability of broadband, the demand for even faster connections will absolutely go up.
Absolutely agree. And if people are willing to pay for faster connections, the ISP's will provide them. It's unlikely that they'll provide them for free, though I notice that my broadband rate has tripled since I started subscribing, with no increase in rates (Hell, they didn't even tell me it had been raised, I just noticed it on a bill recently because I was bored enough to read it).
In the longer term, broadband rates will, like everything else related to modern electronics, get better, faster, and cheaper. But before that happens, a much larger fraction of the users are going to have to want faster broadband. And that won't happen this year. Or next.
Maybe in five years, more likely in ten. Certainly in twenty.
A lot of people don't think faster broadband is worth paying for. So the ISPs don't provide broadband in those areas. But you're saying that everybody else should be forced to pay the cost of installing broadband in those areas? Why?
You should try reading with your prejudices turned off.
A lot of people don't think faster broadband is worth paying for. Absolutely true.
The ISP's don't provide broadband in those areas. Well, no. They don't provide FASTER broadband in those areas. Note the "faster", which allows the second statement to talk about the same thing as the first, unlike in your post.
That said, there are areas which have NO BROADBAND. My parents' house, as an example. It's about six miles outside town, and won't get broadband within the lifetime of the universe, if only market forces apply. Hence an equivalent to the Rural Electrification Act.
Which I support. Faster broadband for the people who already have broadband? I'm not interested in having the government provide that - if there's a demand, it'll happen. If there's not, it won't.
This isn't $40 million out of the ether, it's YOUR money (if you're a US taxpayer, anyhow).
It's peanuts. My family's share is forty cents. I'll pay it, just for the information, which ought to be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Remember, the ISP's and such really don't have much interest in expanding access to broadband.
Not because they can't, but because they don't see a return on the required investment as ever paying off. Because it won't. Very few people are going to be willing to pay more for faster access - the few who do already are, the vast majority of internet users are still just doing web browsing and email, which really doesn't improve all that much with faster broadband.
Now, if the information gathered under this Bill results in a broadband equivalent of the Rural Electrification Act, it'll be a good thing. Annoying, to have my broadband rates raised to pay to provide broadband to the areas it isn't provided, but worth it, in the big picture.
Please see Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
Oddly enough, when I look up that Bill, I find it was approved by both Parties (90 votes for in the Senate, 343 in the House), and signed by a Democratic President (Clinton was President in 1999, remember?).
If it was an evil Republican plot to rob the dear people, then why did the "Defenders of All That is Good and Right" (aka the Democrats) approve it? Remember, most of them voted in favour of this also.
Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
The idea of capital punishment for homosexuality is definitely subject to debate considering what Jesus said about the coming Kingdom, but no "twisting" of the text is required.
Yah, just take it out of context.
Hint: the Law (Leviticus, the Old Testament in general) is binding on Jews, it is NOT binding on Christianity. Christians got a new deal with God. Hence the phrase "New Testament".
I know it's out of vogue, but I'd like to point out that if the LHC were to explode in a fireball whose energy exceeded the energy we put into it, it'd be a good thing for science -- imagine a new energy source we can use to power our further expansion into the universe?
The law of conservation of energy makes for some very unsexy conclusions, like the lhc is probably fairly safe from destroying the universe.
I take it you didn't read the article describing the first BEC "explosion". Assuming it is accurate, the BEC boom would be a nuclear effect, involving ~50% of the matter involved being converted to energy. The magnetic field would be nothing more than a trigger.
Got to admit, though, that it would be a pretty neat new power source, if it were reasonably harnessable. Which, frankly, it sounds like it is.
Also, it was a "generally well known fact" when cars were invented that going above 50 mph would cause the driver's lungs to collapse from wind pressure, as well as tear off his face.
I think you're confusing an idea popular when steam locomotives were first developed.
Especially since by the time cars were invented, pretty much everyone had gone 50 mph or higher riding a train.
WHY do we need incentives to do the "right" thing?
Because, contrary to rumour, it costs money to make buildings more energy efficient.
It costs enough that you're generally better off NOT doing it - you're likely to stop using the building before the energy efficiency upgrade pays for itself, much less shows a return.
Note that this isn't necessarily true for ALL buildings. But, in general, the cheap easy improvements were made decades back, the last time we panicked about energy prices. What's left are the changes that cost a lot, and don't really provide much improvement.
Nice to see that they have the capability to restart the upper stage's engine reliably. We'll assume reliably, anyway, till proven otherwise.
The burn to circularize the orbit (change from 205/404 to 400) would have required a deltaV of about 90 m/s. Which represents a second burn no longer than 10 seconds. About what one would expect, really, if the vehicle were in an elliptical orbit and wanted to pull perigee up a couple hundred miles.
I'm still wondering where that 5200 m/s figure came from....
Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.
The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.
Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.
In fact, if it wasn't for publicly funded exploration (which did orbital flights 50 years ago;) this company wouldn't exist.
And if it weren't for the pioneering work of Goddard, von Braun (back before he was funded by the Nazis), etc., then the publically funded exploration wouldn't have happened. They're symbiotic - each feeds off the successes of the other.
It's considerably less than orbital speed in low Earth orbit. It's the kind of orbital speed I'd expect at 15,000 Km radius, not the 7,000- Km radius Falcon 1 is nominally intended for, where orbital speed is a lot closer to 8,000 m/s than to 7,000 m/s, much less 5200.
Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work.
What are you babbling about? The first stage engine (the one they're clustering nine of) is the same as the one used in Falcon 1. And hasn't failed even once. The closest to an engine failure was on Flight 1, when a leaking fuel ignited and caused the propellant valves to shut and starve the engine.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be insightful, if you were actually aware of the Parties' "founding principles". I note that the Republican Party was the Civil Rights Party at its founding, and was quite close to being socialist (by 19th century standards, anyway). The Democratic Party, at its founding, was quite similar to the popular impression of the modern Republican Party (small government, low taxes, that sort of thing).
Looking back at the history of the Parties, both have switched rolls several times. And they will continue to do so in future. What we're seeing now is just the beginning of a shift in Party principles that will, most likely, end up like the early 70's, when the Republicans were the Party of Big Government, and the Democrats were the Party of Limited Government. As opposed to the 30's, when the reverse was true.
Trees remove CO2 from the air while they live. As soon as they die, they start dumping that CO2 back into the air. So planting trees just moves the problem back by the lifetime of the tree, or requires that we find a way to dispose of every dead tree in the world pretty much as soon as they die, without releasing the CO2 within them.
Maybe we could shoot them into the Sun....
Operational phrase being "that we know". Note that most other planets harbouring life can probably make the same assertion, with the same validity.
Given, of course, that there are other planets harbouring life. But I'd hate to have to bet against life being found pretty much everywhere.
Read more history. The racists stayed with the Democratic Party for several decades, until they just couldn't stomach some of the things the left was doing. Then they left, reluctantly.
Also, note that, traditionally, the "welfare leeches" were, and are, staunch Democrats to this day. Remember, Welfare was also an invention of the Democrats.
Wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a lefty! I'm not sure whether to applaud you, or suggest that you're not bright enough to pour sand from a boot with instructions printed on the heel, since I've been posting here for years and years, mostly to the right.
Though perhaps, if you're as far right as you sound like (just a tad right of David Duke), I look like the left from there.
Oh, you should also read enough history to know what you're talking about when you discuss religion in this country. From your rant above, you haven't a clue in the world about the subject.
Oh, nonsense! You use those neat, government supplied roads. And those neat, government supplied raillines (yes, I know the government didn't build them, they just gave away enormous tracts of land to the railroads to get the railroad companies to build them). And that neat, government supplied electricity in your house (don't know where you live, of course, but there's not anywhere in the country that electricity isn't regulated by the government). And that neat, government supplied sewage and water and waste pickup thing (again, don't know where you live, but unless it's way out in the country, you use government supplied services for all that). And that neat, government supplied police/fire protection.
I could go on for a long time about how dependent you are on the government. But I don't feel like wasting any more of my lifespan on the subject. Suffice it to say that most everyone (you included) considers the government services you use to be just part of the background of life. The government services you don't use are for the "leeches". So kindly take your brain out of "park", and look at the real world, not your delusions about it.
Mea culpa. You're right. I was thinking the 2002 elections forced the issue, not the 2006 one. Though I should point out that the Dems controlled the Senate from 2000-2002, after Jeffords switched parties.
Note that if you require a veto-proof majority to do anything against the will of the President, that pretty much noone has had that since Johnson was President (though Jimmy Carter had a veto-proof House for two years,and Ford's last two years included a veto-proof Democratic House). Certainly Republicans under Clinton didn't. So if lack of a veto-proof majority is justification for blaming Bush for the actions of Congress, then it's justification for blaming Clinton for the actions of Congress.
My, you have a distorted picture of the universe. HINT: the Rural Electrification Act was passed by the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Another hint: most people in the country aren't terribly interested in being part of a group that favours gun control (they pretty much all hunt), gay marriages (traditional is a way of life in the country, for good or ill), etc.
Note further that until the Democrats decided to swing to the left in the 60's, most people in the country were staunch Democrats. Hell, my grandfather would have died rather than vote Republican. (personally, I've always believed he did - he died the year that Dukakis was the Democratic candidate for President)
Note, by the way, that from the point of view of most everyone else "promoting ignorant and damaging behavior at my expense is complete crap" works nicely. Too bad they think that most of the things YOU think are important are part of "ignorant and damaging behavior at my expense" to THEM.
An example of "ignorant and damaging behaviour at my expense" is the notion that electricity is a privilege only for urban dwellers, or the very wealthy. Sorry, I think it would be nice if every farmhouse could have lights at night. Likewise phone service. I remember having to drive 20 miles to the store with my grandfather to make a phone call. I think that the idea that he be wealthy, or move to a city, to get phone service in his home is "ignorant and damaging".
And ditto for broadband. Five years ago, I considered it a luxury. Now it's a basic necessity, like phone service or electricity. or indoor plumbing, for that matter. And so it should be provided to everyone, not just to the self-serving idiots who can't imagine that some people don't live the way they do.
Note that without the Rural Electrification Act, most farms would not have electricity to this day. My grandfather didn't get electricity until I was a teenager, as I recall.
Note that the REA didn't actually cause the spread of the suburbs. Suburbs are densely enough populated that it is quite profitable to provide electricity and phone service to them without the REA. The REA was for the benefit of country houses in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado. You know, those physically large States with so few people that you need a car to visit your next-door neighbor?
Yes, I'm aware that very few /.ers are aware that people still live in the country. Fact is, the food you eat was pretty much grown by people who live in the country. Mostly far enough out in the country that they'd have no phone service and no electricity without government intervention.
Don't know about you, but I'm not terribly bothered by the idea that the government required industry to provide basic amenities like electricity and phone service to ALL Americans, not just the ones who live in cities.
Note, by the way, that the REA hasn't actually provided those services to ALL Americans, though it pretty much covered the parts of the country that were part of the country when the Act was passed. Alaska is still a place where electricity and phone service can be problematic outside the cities. And given that Alaska has the fewest people of any State, and the largest land area of any State, it's likely to stay that way for a long time to come.
Hmm, if they were willing to pay enough. "Enough", in this case, is an upgrade to the wiring for four miles, plus the field hardware. $100,000 or so sound reasonable?
I hear a lot on /. about the notion of "infrastructure" as one of the responsibilities of government. And I agree with that completely - the government SHOULD be in the business of maintaining the infrastructure of the country. Well, the capability for broadband on any given telephone line is part of that infrastructure.
Note that I don't consider any particular speed of broadband to be "infrastructure". But a certain minimum capability (256K is about as low as I've seen, so that should work as a working minimum) is the responsibility of the government to provide, whether they do so by laying lines and building hardware themselves (the dumb way), or requiring the people already in business doing that to do it. For everyone, not just those who choose to live in the Burbs.
All true. How much of that was due to the telco/ISP providing new hardware, and how much was due to YOU buying a better modem? Looks like, if you toss out the modem-based improvements, the increase has only been a bit smaller than you state. From the telco's PoV of course.
Note that the telco/ISP will gladly increase bandwidth if there is demand for it. Which they did. Remember web-browsing at 28.8K? Lot of demand for improvements from 28.8K. Not so much demand for improvements from, say, 256K. Since the 99% of everyone who uses the web for email and reading the news can do so just fine with 256K.
When a significant fraction of that 99% (1/4 of them? 1/3? 1/2?) decide they really need 100M bandwidth, then it'll happen. As long as they're happy with 768K, or whatever the standard is these days, it won't.
Alas, that's not quite the case here. My brother works for Ma Bell. He has gone to the trouble of checking, and there are no plans to EVER put DSL out to my mother's house. Or, for that matter, his own house, which is also in the country.
Adding DSL capability requires an investment. It's a profitable investment if enough customers can be served by a single upgrade. If only eight other families live within a mile of you, it doesn't work out too well.
Fact is, there are parts of the country that will NOT get broadband (except satellite, which is a poor substitute, at best) this century without government intervention. Rural Alaska comes to mind as a place where it's just not going to happen. Or New Mexico - when I drove through there earlier this year, I took the scenic route, and saw houses whose nearest neighbor was better than 50 miles away. Do you really think the telcos/ISPs are going to put together the hardware to provide ONE HOUSE DSL?
Don't worry, the left-wing media is spending time talking about how laws passed by a Democrat controlled congress are all Bush's fault.
Face it, the guy in the hot seat, right behind the "The Buck Stops Here" sign gets the blame or credit for whatever bad or good happens, even when it's not especially his fault. I note that, as an example, Clinton got a fair amount of heat for a recession that was really the fault of the previous Bush Administration.
But do remember that everything that goes before Congress now does so with the approval of the Democrats, who have been in charge there for most of Bush's presidency.
Note, by the way, that the author(s) of a Bill aren't nearly so important as the people who vote for it. There hasn't been a bill before Congress in the history of the country that was passed because all the authors voted for it, and everyone else voted against.
Absolutely agree. And if people are willing to pay for faster connections, the ISP's will provide them. It's unlikely that they'll provide them for free, though I notice that my broadband rate has tripled since I started subscribing, with no increase in rates (Hell, they didn't even tell me it had been raised, I just noticed it on a bill recently because I was bored enough to read it).
In the longer term, broadband rates will, like everything else related to modern electronics, get better, faster, and cheaper. But before that happens, a much larger fraction of the users are going to have to want faster broadband. And that won't happen this year. Or next.
Maybe in five years, more likely in ten. Certainly in twenty.
You should try reading with your prejudices turned off.
A lot of people don't think faster broadband is worth paying for. Absolutely true.
The ISP's don't provide broadband in those areas. Well, no. They don't provide FASTER broadband in those areas. Note the "faster", which allows the second statement to talk about the same thing as the first, unlike in your post.
That said, there are areas which have NO BROADBAND. My parents' house, as an example. It's about six miles outside town, and won't get broadband within the lifetime of the universe, if only market forces apply. Hence an equivalent to the Rural Electrification Act.
Which I support. Faster broadband for the people who already have broadband? I'm not interested in having the government provide that - if there's a demand, it'll happen. If there's not, it won't.
It's peanuts. My family's share is forty cents. I'll pay it, just for the information, which ought to be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Remember, the ISP's and such really don't have much interest in expanding access to broadband.
Not because they can't, but because they don't see a return on the required investment as ever paying off. Because it won't. Very few people are going to be willing to pay more for faster access - the few who do already are, the vast majority of internet users are still just doing web browsing and email, which really doesn't improve all that much with faster broadband.
Now, if the information gathered under this Bill results in a broadband equivalent of the Rural Electrification Act, it'll be a good thing. Annoying, to have my broadband rates raised to pay to provide broadband to the areas it isn't provided, but worth it, in the big picture.
Oddly enough, when I look up that Bill, I find it was approved by both Parties (90 votes for in the Senate, 343 in the House), and signed by a Democratic President (Clinton was President in 1999, remember?).
If it was an evil Republican plot to rob the dear people, then why did the "Defenders of All That is Good and Right" (aka the Democrats) approve it? Remember, most of them voted in favour of this also.
Yah, just take it out of context.
Hint: the Law (Leviticus, the Old Testament in general) is binding on Jews, it is NOT binding on Christianity. Christians got a new deal with God. Hence the phrase "New Testament".
I take it you didn't read the article describing the first BEC "explosion". Assuming it is accurate, the BEC boom would be a nuclear effect, involving ~50% of the matter involved being converted to energy. The magnetic field would be nothing more than a trigger.
Got to admit, though, that it would be a pretty neat new power source, if it were reasonably harnessable. Which, frankly, it sounds like it is.
I think you're confusing an idea popular when steam locomotives were first developed.
Especially since by the time cars were invented, pretty much everyone had gone 50 mph or higher riding a train.
Because, contrary to rumour, it costs money to make buildings more energy efficient.
It costs enough that you're generally better off NOT doing it - you're likely to stop using the building before the energy efficiency upgrade pays for itself, much less shows a return.
Note that this isn't necessarily true for ALL buildings. But, in general, the cheap easy improvements were made decades back, the last time we panicked about energy prices. What's left are the changes that cost a lot, and don't really provide much improvement.
Nice to see that they have the capability to restart the upper stage's engine reliably. We'll assume reliably, anyway, till proven otherwise.
The burn to circularize the orbit (change from 205/404 to 400) would have required a deltaV of about 90 m/s. Which represents a second burn no longer than 10 seconds. About what one would expect, really, if the vehicle were in an elliptical orbit and wanted to pull perigee up a couple hundred miles.
I'm still wondering where that 5200 m/s figure came from....
The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.
Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.
Checking the data sheet for the Falcon, it peaks out at about 2000 Km above Earth with a payload the size they were lifting. Which is 8400 Km radius.
Orbital speed at 8400 Km is 6900 m/s.
And if it weren't for the pioneering work of Goddard, von Braun (back before he was funded by the Nazis), etc., then the publically funded exploration wouldn't have happened. They're symbiotic - each feeds off the successes of the other.
I'm curious where that figure came from.
It's considerably less than orbital speed in low Earth orbit. It's the kind of orbital speed I'd expect at 15,000 Km radius, not the 7,000- Km radius Falcon 1 is nominally intended for, where orbital speed is a lot closer to 8,000 m/s than to 7,000 m/s, much less 5200.
What are you babbling about? The first stage engine (the one they're clustering nine of) is the same as the one used in Falcon 1. And hasn't failed even once. The closest to an engine failure was on Flight 1, when a leaking fuel ignited and caused the propellant valves to shut and starve the engine.