This technology isn't new. It's being used around the world already. The company's name is Hydration Technology, not SeaPack. SeaPack is the product name for that particular version intended for maritime use.
They provide the same kind of devices for humanitarian purposes. There is at least one version for military use, and I was able to pick up a few of the early versions through a company contact.
Yeah, that's why Skybus is the only airline left in business. Competition does result in reduced costs but quality can only be reduced to what the majority of customers are willing to accept.
I think Skybus shows something diffferent. The majority of the customers (flyers) don't need to accept a cut in quality from one provider, only a sufficient number of them that the cut-rate airline can continue to operate at a profit.
As long as a company can accept being a small airline, they don't need to worry about attracting a majority of customers, only "enough". The other side of the coin is that the majority airlines don't need to provide all the services that the majority of passengers desire, just more than the cut-rate outfits do. When both sides of the coin are examined, you'll find that services and other expenses have been cut by all airlines, some of them more than others.
You forgot one thing: If you cut too many corners then you might find your passengers vote for your competitor (with their wallets).
Not if the corners they cut are inherently invisible to the end user. Things like safety inspections not being done on a regular basis. Recurrent pilot training and evaluation. Maintenance of replaceable parts.
E.g., during normal operations, a pilot who hasn't had recurrent sim training on emergency procedures for two years will never need them. It's during the emergencies that he will, and that's the wrong time to find out he hasn't had them.
That tire that looks a little worn? Replace it next month, save a bundle of money. It likely won't blow out.
Yes, at some point the lack of safety MAY catch up with the company and they'll lose passengers. Is the cost of those passengers covered by the savings of not doing regular inspections? Could be.
The other reason it wouldn't cost them pax is if everyone is doing it. When everyone charges $100 to check the first bag, that becomes an irrelevant issue in choosing your air carrier.
Outside aviation, consider Walmart. Is everyone flocking away from Walmart because they've cut corners too much? I don't think so.
The real problem with the TSA is that even a child can see they're not actually increasing security.
No, actually, the real problem with TSA is that they aren't actually increasing security, not that a three year old can see that. One would expect a healthy normal three year old to observe this fact, so that one can see it can't be the problem.
The REALY REALLY bad idea in the suggestion of privatization is privatizing the AIRSPACE. The airspace is a public resource, just like the airwaves. Imagine an aviation system where large chunks of airspace are raffled off and only Delta can use the space surrounding Chicago, for example.
Why can a cube not be composed of 3x4x5 cells so long a the cells are sized such that the cube is well, a cube?
Because when you try to rotate the five-cell face, e.g., you'll be trying to move some of the cubelets from the four-cell face to the 3-cell face and vice versa. You'll have four cells trying to match up to 3 cells and vice versa. That may work, but if you then try to rotate the four-cell face, you'll be trying to move fractional cubelets.
Personally, I'll be impressed when the algorithm handles 50x50x50x50 Rubick's Hypercubes (patent pending).
Yeah... you're kind of equating the two. One group of scientists is being paid to do science; the other is being paid to be whores.
Well, if you start with the assumption that the people you are talking about have no ethics, then it is pretty easy to come up with an argument that they don't. "You're paid to be a whore, thus you are a whore because you are being paid."
While it's hard for people of more limited intelligence to comprehend,
Your mother wears army boots. The pair that Corporal Klinger left under her bed when you were conceived. Dispense with the personal insults now, shall we?
there are a lot of things that can be researched. If research subject number one doesn't pan out you can always go to numbers two through 568 million.
Unless there is no money to study numbers 2 through X because it is all being consumed trying to find a solution to a problem that will "kill us all in a decade" and "make the planet inhabitable". You seem to think that someone who doesn't study AGW can just as easily get money to study the role of the monogenomal aphid in raspberry horticulture... or would have any desire to do so.
He'll also have a very hard time convincing the funding agency that he has any special insight or skills to apply to that problem, if his current career is studying some facet of AGW. Funding chances: nill.
He might get money -- from the Raspberry Industry, but then he'll be a paid industry shill and his science invalid and his ethics questionable.
Are you serious? You really think that university scientists are as biased as those working on corporate payroll?
Where did you see me say this?
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that the problem is the hypocricy of one side claiming that the scientists they disagree with are unethical because they are paid to do their research while the scientists they agree with are lilly white despite being paid to do their research.
The same argument you apply to Scientist A applies to Scientist B, whether or not you agree with A or B. If A can be unethical and his results ignored because of his source of money, then B can be (not IS, CAN BE) just as unethical and his results ignored. Goose, meet gander.
Two minor notes:
* Climatologists don't generally research things like wave-generated energy.
The comment I replied to was talking about funding going to Universities and funding agencies. If you don't think that a University can have an AGW studies area and a wave energy area, then you are mistaken.
The climatologists who figured out that there was AGW were, not surprisingly, getting funding and researching the climate before anyone knew AGW was a problem.
And they have gotten a lot more since. Do you think they would still be getting the level of funding had they said "not a problem, nothing to see here"?
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy.
No more than a sale on beanie babies at the local Walmart and the resulting lack of stock there was the result of some vast conspiracy to run the local Walmart out of stock by a Beanie Baby Coalition. No more than the flock of people at the indoor beer gardens in Munich on a rainy day was the result of a vast "Let's Pack the Indoor Beer Gardens Conspiracy, Inc."
I.e., a common causal link can make many people behave the same way, even if those people are not part of a "vast conspiracy".
The only ones talking "conspiracy" are those who question the ethics of some scientists because of how they are paid while ignoring that the scientists they like are also paid.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change.
That's not true. It is so freakingly obviously wrong I can't imagine why you would say it.
Assume for a second that early findings on AGW said "we aren't responsible for it. Our 'greenhouse emissions' aren't a problem. There may be change taking place, but it's nothing we can stop." Just how much research money into, oh, wave generated energy, do you think Universities would get if there was no real impetus to fund it? Yes, some, based on "running out of oil", but when a scientist can tack on "and has lower carbon emissions" it's a no-brainer for the funding agencies. When that agency goes back to congress and can say "we're funding studies on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is important", don't you think that congress will hand them more money to do that? Where does that money go? To the researchers.
Not to mention that the scientists who said "AGW not a problem" won't get funding to study AGW anymore. It's not a problem! Sheesh, Universities are creating Climate Change Policy Centers left and right, based on both federal and state money. Do you really imagine that there would be that much money if the finding on AGW was "ho hum nothing to see here"?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
The hypocricy of those who point fingers at scientists (not their research, but the people themselves) who are paid by industry and claim that the source of the money has bought their ethics, yet deny that there is money flowing to those who are funded by the government the same way, isn't laughable, it is sad. Now, before you jump up and down and try to argue that the ivy tower scientists are lilly white... note that I didn't say they weren't. I said that the hypocricy of thinking that one group is coal black because of how they are paid while the other side is lilly white is the issue.
You want to argue the science, fine. You want to argue the person and deny the science simply because of who paid for it, that's pathetic. It's certainly not how science is supposed to work.
Ever heard of India?
1.1 Billion people. Land area is 40% of USA. 70% of the people live in remote rural areas with sporadic electricity, no roads etc. But, in remotest areas, I got full bar signal from multiple networks.
Did India ever have the heavily subsidized rural wireline telephone initiative that the US did? Long before cell was a glimmer in anyone's eye, the US took action to build the wired telecom system, to the point that there was a charge on everyone's phone bill to pay for it. If you lived "in remote rural areas" everyone else helped pay for that wire that ran from the nearest CO to you.
I don't think India ever had that.
Why is it important? Because when most of the people already have a telephone (wired) there is less need to cover the area with cells to provide basic phone service. Less demand, less supply.
So, now, in India, they skipped the wired part of the process and went right to cell when cell became cheap. Since people didn't have ANY phones they wanted THIS -- because it was all that was available. Lots of demand, lots of supply follows.
Like they say, "good enough is the enemy of perfect." Getting "good enough" phones in the rural areas meant the "perfect" solution of high bandwidth cell/4g etc wasn't as necessary, because it cannot piggyback on the need to provide "good enough".
Other than the fact that that is a lie promulgated by conservative talk radio hosts, it would be a good point.
Either you don't work at a Univeristy or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring is a significant part of your evaluations and status within the University and the science community as a whole. When a University looks at hiring someone for the faculty, one of the things they look at is grant history and existing grant money that the new hire will bring with him. (Not the only thing, but one of them.) If you want to move up the ladder you need to have grants.
Research faculty write their salaries into those grants. If they don't get grants, they either don't get paid or they have to take University money which has teaching responsibilities attached. If you want to do research full time instead of being saddled with the 100 level undergrad courses, you pray for grants.
If they don't get grants, they don't get to buy the fancy new computers and pay for graduate students and research assistants. The larger your number of supported people, the higher your status.
The more students you have, the more conferences that you are likely to attend. If you are thinking about doing field work, the more students you have means the more likely you are to be able to do that field work. (If your grant is to do field work and you don't pull it off, your chances of getting another one drops significantly.) Those students will be busy doing research which will result in papers being published which will be added to your vitae, and when it comes time for tenure to be granted, your publication history is one of those things they look at. Lots of grants, lots of students, lots of papers, more likely to get tenure.
Now, when it comes time to write those grants, is someone going to write a grant that says "this isn't really much of a problem but it is an interesting science question", or will they be likely to write "DANGER DANGER this could kill us all if we don't study it!"? Yes, that was hyperbole, but the impetus to be more like the latter than the former is still there. Funding agencies have limited amounts of money and are often tasked with supporting research to find practical answers to pressing issues. They're more likely to fund something that is "DANGER kill us all!" than "yawn, why is the sky blue?" kinds of things.
So, no, it isn't a lie propogated by talk radio hosts. Quite the opposite. And anyone who works in a University knows it and has seen it first hand. Other than maybe the janitors. Anyone whose job involves being paid by grants know this.
And the assumption that the desire to be regulated by the feds instead of 50 separate state government has anything to do with corruption or bribery. ANY company would rather be regulated by ONE common set of standards and not 50 "almost the same but not quite" different sets. That's just good business practice. Even if that one set is more difficult to comply with, at least you don't have to worry about a customer in Idaho using a tower in Montana and which laws cover that situation.
Yes, I understand what they are doing. The question is why apply a resist layer to put down a tin layer, and then remove the resist and then etch the copper? Why not just put down a resist layer directly and etch what the resist doesn't protect? That seems much simpler. "It's a pain to etch through copper" may be true, but that is what happens either way.
Added to that ti's a stupid ruse. What do you do if more then one person is n the car?
The same thing if there was only one person hiding in the car, get beaten and robbed. Why does it matter if there is more than one hiding?
What if a passer by see them?
Then a passer by gets to see someone being beaten and robbed. And if the passer by tries to help, he'll get beaten and robbed, too.
Portland, Oregon, a few days ago. A couple of people were beating a guy on the street. A good samaritan stepped in to help, he got beaten, too. By the time the cops showed up, the muggers were gone. They were caught, however. Why? Because of stellar police work and detectives tracking down leads based on witness description? No. Because the moron muggers returned to the scene of the crime while the cops were there.
It's interesting to find out that they process things backwards from what one would expect. They apply the resist and use it to protect the places they WILL etch away, then protect the parts they DON'T etch with tin, then remove the resist and then etch.
Can someone familiar with the process answer why they do this extra step, instead of simply protecting the copper they want to keep with the resist and bypassing the tin-plating step altogether? The only reason I can come up with is that the electroplating step that creates the vias needs a complete circuit to all the vias, and after you etch you lose that. But if you electroplate before etching, you still have that current path.
Isn't the copper that is etched off recovered and used to electroplate? Or is the cost of the copper more than the cost of tin plating, unplating, and recovering the tin?
Firefox and Chrome came from nowhere and succeeded,
Firefox came from Mozilla which came from Netscape which came from "NOT MICROSOFT!". That created a lot of early support.
Chrome came from Google and seems to be one of those things that Google likes to sneak in during installs of something else that you really do want. You know, that small print with the pre-checked approval to "also install X?" during the installation process for something else.
"A week" "with a youth group" is unlikely to be "summer camp". It sounds like a special trip for a specific purpose. Summer camps tend to have professional staff and insurance policies to keep parents happy. A "summer camp" on an island accessible only by boat will have professional staff taking the kids out to the island and won't need some adult coming along for the ride.
"Youth group" trips are whoever got roped into it going places without professional staff to deal with the kids.
If he could unplug, I'm sure he'd have chosen that option instead of spending money on "blogs and photos", and would not have bothered asking.
I suspect that it is the parents of the youth group members that are pressing for updates and pictures, and not the guy going there. Parents can be anal about such things. Remember, it's for the children.
Dentist stand behind a lead shield and the patient wears a lead apron that covers the gonads.
The dentist stands in another part of the building smoking a cigarette or chatting up the cute hygenist. It's the assistant who stands behind a shield.
Even a $10 clock can get WWV time. Solved problem.
If your clock is plugged into the AC mains, you've already got your timebase right there. Why add extra cost for no gain? A resistive divider and a couple of diodes creates a pretty good timing signal. Much easier and cheaper than any radio receiver and data decoder.
And, I'll point out, not even every "WWV clock" can pick up WWV. I have some that have never synced in their current location, and a couple that sync only once a day when the propogation is good enough for one of the WWV signals to make it. (Or WWVB, similar issues.)
I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.
Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.
Second, "shooting to wound" would become a less-than-deadly force option, which means it would be justified in more cases. You'd have more officer-involved shootings, not less. And more people would die because "shooting to wound" sometimes results in death.
So no, you do NOT want to teach cops to "shoot to wound" because you'd not be happy with the results.
Bullshit. Flat out lie. There is a difference between being on call and being on duty. Police are not paid for 24/7 duty. Period.
You've never been involved in a disaster response, have you? "What, you're at home with your family and don't want to come help deal with the effects of this tornado? You're 'off duty'? Oh, ok, never mind."
By the way, WHOOSH. What I wrote was SARCASM. I was parroting the nonsense argument about the expectation to privacy to cover the posting of home addresses. I thought I was being over the top enough that it was obvious, then I saw some that exact argument used in other postings, including taping cops in the bathroom.
Except that rarely happens. And in fact, the exactly opposite is considered standard operating procedure.
On what planet? Here on earth, citizens who have taken video of cops in action rarely, if ever, edit them to make the cops look good. There is just no benefit for them to do that. They can stay out of it altogether and nobody will notice.
What does happen is that those citizens who have an axe to grind with whatever copshop they feel like grinding an axe with can and do edit the videos to show what they want shown. They get to prove how bad the cops are; it's a win for them. They have a motive for doing it.
So, you say that people who have no motivation to do something do it all the time, and those who have huge, personal motives to do something never do it. I'd say that's upside down, at best.
But please stop characterizing them as all good.
Oh, for a minute, because you were quoting me, I assumed you were talking to me. I haven't painted them as "all good". I answered the question of why anyone who was doing their job properly would not want it video taped. That "doing their job properly" part kind of assumes I'm talking only about those who are "doing their job properly", now doesn't it? And also implies there are those who don't.
Slashdot Mirror
They provide the same kind of devices for humanitarian purposes. There is at least one version for military use, and I was able to pick up a few of the early versions through a company contact.
Here's the direct link: http://www.htiwater.com/
Yeah, that's why Skybus is the only airline left in business. Competition does result in reduced costs but quality can only be reduced to what the majority of customers are willing to accept.
I think Skybus shows something diffferent. The majority of the customers (flyers) don't need to accept a cut in quality from one provider, only a sufficient number of them that the cut-rate airline can continue to operate at a profit.
As long as a company can accept being a small airline, they don't need to worry about attracting a majority of customers, only "enough". The other side of the coin is that the majority airlines don't need to provide all the services that the majority of passengers desire, just more than the cut-rate outfits do. When both sides of the coin are examined, you'll find that services and other expenses have been cut by all airlines, some of them more than others.
You forgot one thing: If you cut too many corners then you might find your passengers vote for your competitor (with their wallets).
Not if the corners they cut are inherently invisible to the end user. Things like safety inspections not being done on a regular basis. Recurrent pilot training and evaluation. Maintenance of replaceable parts.
E.g., during normal operations, a pilot who hasn't had recurrent sim training on emergency procedures for two years will never need them. It's during the emergencies that he will, and that's the wrong time to find out he hasn't had them.
That tire that looks a little worn? Replace it next month, save a bundle of money. It likely won't blow out.
Yes, at some point the lack of safety MAY catch up with the company and they'll lose passengers. Is the cost of those passengers covered by the savings of not doing regular inspections? Could be.
The other reason it wouldn't cost them pax is if everyone is doing it. When everyone charges $100 to check the first bag, that becomes an irrelevant issue in choosing your air carrier.
Outside aviation, consider Walmart. Is everyone flocking away from Walmart because they've cut corners too much? I don't think so.
The real problem with the TSA is that even a child can see they're not actually increasing security.
No, actually, the real problem with TSA is that they aren't actually increasing security, not that a three year old can see that. One would expect a healthy normal three year old to observe this fact, so that one can see it can't be the problem.
The REALY REALLY bad idea in the suggestion of privatization is privatizing the AIRSPACE. The airspace is a public resource, just like the airwaves. Imagine an aviation system where large chunks of airspace are raffled off and only Delta can use the space surrounding Chicago, for example.
Why can a cube not be composed of 3x4x5 cells so long a the cells are sized such that the cube is well, a cube?
Because when you try to rotate the five-cell face, e.g., you'll be trying to move some of the cubelets from the four-cell face to the 3-cell face and vice versa. You'll have four cells trying to match up to 3 cells and vice versa. That may work, but if you then try to rotate the four-cell face, you'll be trying to move fractional cubelets.
Personally, I'll be impressed when the algorithm handles 50x50x50x50 Rubick's Hypercubes (patent pending).
Yeah... you're kind of equating the two. One group of scientists is being paid to do science; the other is being paid to be whores.
Well, if you start with the assumption that the people you are talking about have no ethics, then it is pretty easy to come up with an argument that they don't. "You're paid to be a whore, thus you are a whore because you are being paid."
Kinda proves my point, I guess.
While it's hard for people of more limited intelligence to comprehend,
Your mother wears army boots. The pair that Corporal Klinger left under her bed when you were conceived. Dispense with the personal insults now, shall we?
there are a lot of things that can be researched. If research subject number one doesn't pan out you can always go to numbers two through 568 million.
Unless there is no money to study numbers 2 through X because it is all being consumed trying to find a solution to a problem that will "kill us all in a decade" and "make the planet inhabitable". You seem to think that someone who doesn't study AGW can just as easily get money to study the role of the monogenomal aphid in raspberry horticulture... or would have any desire to do so.
He'll also have a very hard time convincing the funding agency that he has any special insight or skills to apply to that problem, if his current career is studying some facet of AGW. Funding chances: nill.
He might get money -- from the Raspberry Industry, but then he'll be a paid industry shill and his science invalid and his ethics questionable.
Are you serious? You really think that university scientists are as biased as those working on corporate payroll?
Where did you see me say this?
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that the problem is the hypocricy of one side claiming that the scientists they disagree with are unethical because they are paid to do their research while the scientists they agree with are lilly white despite being paid to do their research.
The same argument you apply to Scientist A applies to Scientist B, whether or not you agree with A or B. If A can be unethical and his results ignored because of his source of money, then B can be (not IS, CAN BE) just as unethical and his results ignored. Goose, meet gander.
Two minor notes: * Climatologists don't generally research things like wave-generated energy.
The comment I replied to was talking about funding going to Universities and funding agencies. If you don't think that a University can have an AGW studies area and a wave energy area, then you are mistaken.
The climatologists who figured out that there was AGW were, not surprisingly, getting funding and researching the climate before anyone knew AGW was a problem.
And they have gotten a lot more since. Do you think they would still be getting the level of funding had they said "not a problem, nothing to see here"?
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy.
No more than a sale on beanie babies at the local Walmart and the resulting lack of stock there was the result of some vast conspiracy to run the local Walmart out of stock by a Beanie Baby Coalition. No more than the flock of people at the indoor beer gardens in Munich on a rainy day was the result of a vast "Let's Pack the Indoor Beer Gardens Conspiracy, Inc."
I.e., a common causal link can make many people behave the same way, even if those people are not part of a "vast conspiracy".
The only ones talking "conspiracy" are those who question the ethics of some scientists because of how they are paid while ignoring that the scientists they like are also paid.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change.
That's not true. It is so freakingly obviously wrong I can't imagine why you would say it.
Assume for a second that early findings on AGW said "we aren't responsible for it. Our 'greenhouse emissions' aren't a problem. There may be change taking place, but it's nothing we can stop." Just how much research money into, oh, wave generated energy, do you think Universities would get if there was no real impetus to fund it? Yes, some, based on "running out of oil", but when a scientist can tack on "and has lower carbon emissions" it's a no-brainer for the funding agencies. When that agency goes back to congress and can say "we're funding studies on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is important", don't you think that congress will hand them more money to do that? Where does that money go? To the researchers.
Not to mention that the scientists who said "AGW not a problem" won't get funding to study AGW anymore. It's not a problem! Sheesh, Universities are creating Climate Change Policy Centers left and right, based on both federal and state money. Do you really imagine that there would be that much money if the finding on AGW was "ho hum nothing to see here"?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
The hypocricy of those who point fingers at scientists (not their research, but the people themselves) who are paid by industry and claim that the source of the money has bought their ethics, yet deny that there is money flowing to those who are funded by the government the same way, isn't laughable, it is sad. Now, before you jump up and down and try to argue that the ivy tower scientists are lilly white ... note that I didn't say they weren't. I said that the hypocricy of thinking that one group is coal black because of how they are paid while the other side is lilly white is the issue.
You want to argue the science, fine. You want to argue the person and deny the science simply because of who paid for it, that's pathetic. It's certainly not how science is supposed to work.
Ever heard of India? 1.1 Billion people. Land area is 40% of USA. 70% of the people live in remote rural areas with sporadic electricity, no roads etc. But, in remotest areas, I got full bar signal from multiple networks.
Did India ever have the heavily subsidized rural wireline telephone initiative that the US did? Long before cell was a glimmer in anyone's eye, the US took action to build the wired telecom system, to the point that there was a charge on everyone's phone bill to pay for it. If you lived "in remote rural areas" everyone else helped pay for that wire that ran from the nearest CO to you.
I don't think India ever had that.
Why is it important? Because when most of the people already have a telephone (wired) there is less need to cover the area with cells to provide basic phone service. Less demand, less supply.
So, now, in India, they skipped the wired part of the process and went right to cell when cell became cheap. Since people didn't have ANY phones they wanted THIS -- because it was all that was available. Lots of demand, lots of supply follows.
Like they say, "good enough is the enemy of perfect." Getting "good enough" phones in the rural areas meant the "perfect" solution of high bandwidth cell/4g etc wasn't as necessary, because it cannot piggyback on the need to provide "good enough".
Other than the fact that that is a lie promulgated by conservative talk radio hosts, it would be a good point.
Either you don't work at a Univeristy or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring is a significant part of your evaluations and status within the University and the science community as a whole. When a University looks at hiring someone for the faculty, one of the things they look at is grant history and existing grant money that the new hire will bring with him. (Not the only thing, but one of them.) If you want to move up the ladder you need to have grants.
Research faculty write their salaries into those grants. If they don't get grants, they either don't get paid or they have to take University money which has teaching responsibilities attached. If you want to do research full time instead of being saddled with the 100 level undergrad courses, you pray for grants.
If they don't get grants, they don't get to buy the fancy new computers and pay for graduate students and research assistants. The larger your number of supported people, the higher your status.
The more students you have, the more conferences that you are likely to attend. If you are thinking about doing field work, the more students you have means the more likely you are to be able to do that field work. (If your grant is to do field work and you don't pull it off, your chances of getting another one drops significantly.) Those students will be busy doing research which will result in papers being published which will be added to your vitae, and when it comes time for tenure to be granted, your publication history is one of those things they look at. Lots of grants, lots of students, lots of papers, more likely to get tenure.
Now, when it comes time to write those grants, is someone going to write a grant that says "this isn't really much of a problem but it is an interesting science question", or will they be likely to write "DANGER DANGER this could kill us all if we don't study it!"? Yes, that was hyperbole, but the impetus to be more like the latter than the former is still there. Funding agencies have limited amounts of money and are often tasked with supporting research to find practical answers to pressing issues. They're more likely to fund something that is "DANGER kill us all!" than "yawn, why is the sky blue?" kinds of things.
So, no, it isn't a lie propogated by talk radio hosts. Quite the opposite. And anyone who works in a University knows it and has seen it first hand. Other than maybe the janitors. Anyone whose job involves being paid by grants know this.
And the assumption that the desire to be regulated by the feds instead of 50 separate state government has anything to do with corruption or bribery. ANY company would rather be regulated by ONE common set of standards and not 50 "almost the same but not quite" different sets. That's just good business practice. Even if that one set is more difficult to comply with, at least you don't have to worry about a customer in Idaho using a tower in Montana and which laws cover that situation.
Yes, I understand what they are doing. The question is why apply a resist layer to put down a tin layer, and then remove the resist and then etch the copper? Why not just put down a resist layer directly and etch what the resist doesn't protect? That seems much simpler. "It's a pain to etch through copper" may be true, but that is what happens either way.
Added to that ti's a stupid ruse. What do you do if more then one person is n the car?
The same thing if there was only one person hiding in the car, get beaten and robbed. Why does it matter if there is more than one hiding?
What if a passer by see them?
Then a passer by gets to see someone being beaten and robbed. And if the passer by tries to help, he'll get beaten and robbed, too.
Portland, Oregon, a few days ago. A couple of people were beating a guy on the street. A good samaritan stepped in to help, he got beaten, too. By the time the cops showed up, the muggers were gone. They were caught, however. Why? Because of stellar police work and detectives tracking down leads based on witness description? No. Because the moron muggers returned to the scene of the crime while the cops were there.
Can someone familiar with the process answer why they do this extra step, instead of simply protecting the copper they want to keep with the resist and bypassing the tin-plating step altogether? The only reason I can come up with is that the electroplating step that creates the vias needs a complete circuit to all the vias, and after you etch you lose that. But if you electroplate before etching, you still have that current path.
Isn't the copper that is etched off recovered and used to electroplate? Or is the cost of the copper more than the cost of tin plating, unplating, and recovering the tin?
Firefox and Chrome came from nowhere and succeeded,
Firefox came from Mozilla which came from Netscape which came from "NOT MICROSOFT!". That created a lot of early support.
Chrome came from Google and seems to be one of those things that Google likes to sneak in during installs of something else that you really do want. You know, that small print with the pre-checked approval to "also install X?" during the installation process for something else.
It works much better if you say "People for the Edible Treatment of Animals". Ticks them off more.
Or use catamarans from the sea.
Or you could simply fling them into the city with a trebuchet.
That would have been funnier if I could have thought of a word that contained "cat" that had something to do with flinging things...
There are two reasons kids go to summer camp.
"A week" "with a youth group" is unlikely to be "summer camp". It sounds like a special trip for a specific purpose. Summer camps tend to have professional staff and insurance policies to keep parents happy. A "summer camp" on an island accessible only by boat will have professional staff taking the kids out to the island and won't need some adult coming along for the ride.
"Youth group" trips are whoever got roped into it going places without professional staff to deal with the kids.
If he could unplug, I'm sure he'd have chosen that option instead of spending money on "blogs and photos", and would not have bothered asking.
I suspect that it is the parents of the youth group members that are pressing for updates and pictures, and not the guy going there. Parents can be anal about such things. Remember, it's for the children.
Dentist stand behind a lead shield and the patient wears a lead apron that covers the gonads.
The dentist stands in another part of the building smoking a cigarette or chatting up the cute hygenist. It's the assistant who stands behind a shield.
Even a $10 clock can get WWV time. Solved problem.
If your clock is plugged into the AC mains, you've already got your timebase right there. Why add extra cost for no gain? A resistive divider and a couple of diodes creates a pretty good timing signal. Much easier and cheaper than any radio receiver and data decoder.
And, I'll point out, not even every "WWV clock" can pick up WWV. I have some that have never synced in their current location, and a couple that sync only once a day when the propogation is good enough for one of the WWV signals to make it. (Or WWVB, similar issues.)
(cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable)
I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.
Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.
Second, "shooting to wound" would become a less-than-deadly force option, which means it would be justified in more cases. You'd have more officer-involved shootings, not less. And more people would die because "shooting to wound" sometimes results in death.
So no, you do NOT want to teach cops to "shoot to wound" because you'd not be happy with the results.
Bullshit. Flat out lie. There is a difference between being on call and being on duty. Police are not paid for 24/7 duty. Period.
You've never been involved in a disaster response, have you? "What, you're at home with your family and don't want to come help deal with the effects of this tornado? You're 'off duty'? Oh, ok, never mind."
By the way, WHOOSH. What I wrote was SARCASM. I was parroting the nonsense argument about the expectation to privacy to cover the posting of home addresses. I thought I was being over the top enough that it was obvious, then I saw some that exact argument used in other postings, including taping cops in the bathroom.
Except that rarely happens. And in fact, the exactly opposite is considered standard operating procedure.
On what planet? Here on earth, citizens who have taken video of cops in action rarely, if ever, edit them to make the cops look good. There is just no benefit for them to do that. They can stay out of it altogether and nobody will notice.
What does happen is that those citizens who have an axe to grind with whatever copshop they feel like grinding an axe with can and do edit the videos to show what they want shown. They get to prove how bad the cops are; it's a win for them. They have a motive for doing it.
So, you say that people who have no motivation to do something do it all the time, and those who have huge, personal motives to do something never do it. I'd say that's upside down, at best.
But please stop characterizing them as all good.
Oh, for a minute, because you were quoting me, I assumed you were talking to me. I haven't painted them as "all good". I answered the question of why anyone who was doing their job properly would not want it video taped. That "doing their job properly" part kind of assumes I'm talking only about those who are "doing their job properly", now doesn't it? And also implies there are those who don't.