Again, if you RTFA - the people who were expecting the ballots in the mail are calling the election officials with complaints that they didn't get them. That's how you know something is up.
It's quite clear that it's not a case of 2000 ballots being received back by the election office. It's a case of only 2000 people who asked for a ballot actually getting one. If you received your ballot and sent it back, you wouldn't be calling the officials about it because you'ld think everything was hunky-dory. But if you asked for a ballot two weeks ago and didn't get one, you'ld probably give them a call and ask why.
I'd imagine that once they receive a few hundred/few thousand of these calls over the past weeks, that's when the investigation starts. Then they determine that only about 2,000 out of 60,000 people who asked for a ballot actually got one. =Smidge=
No, what the article says is that 60,000 ballots were sent out to the voters, "However, only 2,000 of them have been delivered." (article quote) -- as in only 2,000 of the 60,000 recipients actually got them.
Noplace in the article does it even suggest what you claim.
Remember that the ballots need to be postmarked by election day. Delays in their delivery is basically the same as denying them of their vote.
And you're right, there is no way the post office would lose that many letters. Which leads me to this next article quote: "Meanwhile, the US postal service inspectorate said it was highly unlikely that 58,000 pieces of mail had just disappeared. A spokesman said inspectors were trying to establish whether the ballots were ever delivered to the postal service."
So there is a possibility that the 58,000 "missing" ballots never even made it to the post office in the first place, so they are investigating that. If this proves to be the case, someone's in a lot of trouble. If there is proof that all 60k ballots were delivered to the post office, then there will have to be more investigation as to how they didn't get to their destination. (And someone will STILL be in a lot of trouble, because the post office isn't prone to simply "misplacing" letters by the tens of thousands...) =Smidge=
Nonono, any researcher will tell you that. They just want to cover up the TRUTH. Those complex mathematical formulas are actually mystical runes that describe ancient spells. The formulas themselves DO make your phone work!
I think I see the problem here... You are using the term "DeltaV" to describe a velocity, which is incorrect. It CAN be used to describe a "change in velocity" (eg: "When the object hit the water, it's velocity decreased by 10m/s, therefore the DeltaV was -10m/s."), but that is useless when discussing things like travel times (eg: "How long will it take to get there if I have a DeltaV of 10m/s?" - "That depends, how fast were you going before your velocity changed?") It can only be used to compare two velocities of the same object at two points of reference: DeltaV = (V2-V1)
This implies a necessary acceleration, because velocity cannot change instantaneously, and if DeltaV is anything other than 0 then there must have been an acceleration to change it.
In other words, this really tells you nothing useful about how long a space ship will take to get to Mars since you have two unknown velocities... or are you assuming something that I'm missing? =Smidge=
"DeltaV/DeltaT" is not the same as "dV/dt". I also don't know where you got DeltaT=1 from. Have you had your coffee yet today?
The average acceleration is DeltaV/DeltaT. If you drive feom 0 to 60mph in 3 seconds, that's (60-0)/(3-0) = 20mph/sec average acceleration. But that is no instantaneous acceleration, unless your car actually does accelerate uniformly from 0 to 60. Chances are your car accelerates at a faster rate early on, tapers off as you reach the high end of first gear, increases when you shift into second gear, then tapers off again, etc.
And that still doesn't change the fact that "DeltaV", which is a change in velocity, is an acceleration. You simply cannot determine the magnitude of that acceleration without a corresponding DeltaT. By definition: your velocity can not change unless you accelerate. =Smidge=
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time (instantaneous), OR the change in velocity for a given period of time (average).
If an object has a velocity function V(t), the derivative of that function with respect to time, dV/dt, is the instantaneous acceleration of that object with respect to time.
"deltaV" is the change in velocity, and thus acceleration. In the given example, 20mhp/s and 5mph/s are average accelerations only. =Smidge=
Cannabidiol is a nonpsychoactive constituent of marijuana. Research has shown that CDB shows no psychophysiological, sedative hypnotic, or EEG effects. That same reseach also suggests that CDB hinders the metabolizing of barbituates, which would mean that it would help reduce the effects of other narcotics (such as THC).
Right... as a drug. Please re-read the part of my comment you cited and note that I intentionally made it neutral to legal or illegal drug applications. Calling it "medicine" doesn't make it less of a drug does it? =Smidge=
Actually Hemp and Marijuana are the same things, just different strains
So they're the same... only different? You basically just reinforced my argument: Hemp and Marijuana are not the same thing. They may be very closely related, but there is a clear distinction between the two. =Smidge=
One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
Or, you know, it could have implied that any suppression of speech for political gain would not be tolerated.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then here's some details about when Sinclair Broadcasting tried to stop the broadcasting of Iraq fatalities because it was "unpatriotic" (the word used in the article). Compare it with today's story about Sinclair leveraging their stations to air the anti-Kerry piece to as many people as possible so close to the national elections. It's a little tougher to explain why that's not hypocritical, don't you think? They couldn't POSSIBLY be politically motivated right? =Smidge=
Unfortunately, Hemp and Marijuana are not the same thing.
Hemp has many industrial uses for the oils and high strength fibers. It also contains such trivial amounts of the psychoactive chemical THC that nobody could possibly get high off of it. Thje saying goes that trying to get stoned on hemp is like trying to get drunk on non-alcoholic beer.
It also contains higher concentrations of a chemical called cannabidiol (CBD), which actually counters the effects of THC... so smoking industrial hemp would more likely get you UN-stoned (and deathly ill, I'd imagine).
Hemp can be used to make anything that's currently made of cotton or wood, perhaps of lower quality but certaintly of lower cost.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has no commercial value other than as a drug (illegal or otherwise). =Smidge=
Re:This is coming from a big DC fan but...
on
Dreamcast On a Chip
·
· Score: 1
There are a limited number of systems, and that number can only decrease because no more are being made. There is still a demand for them, though, and that creates market opportunity. A DC no bigger than a CD walkman (even though the DC is already pretty dang small) would certaintly have appeal to some people, power requirements aside.
There are a limited number of games, and even with a fairly goos homebrew community, there will be no new big-name titles if there is no console being sold. If someone comes out with a DC compatable console then perhaps there will be more games developed for it. =Smidge=
There is are typically 5 positions for the ignition key:
-1: Accessory power only (Radio, etc.) 0: Off and locked (Only position key can be removed in) +1: Off and unlocked (For towing/pushing) +2: On/Run (Normal driving) +3: Start (Momentary position)
In many (but not all) cars, there is a mechanism that adds an extra step to go from +1 to 0. Usually a lever ot button that much be pressed, or in some cases the key must be pushed in or the car must be in park. This mechanism is there for *exactly* the reason you mention. =Smidge=
While that is an incredibly stupid design, I've never heard of someone bursting into a busy intersection or driving off an overpass because their car overheated.:) =Smidge=
Actually, I used to drive a Chevy station wagon with a hydraulic power booster instead of a vacuum one. It was connected to the power steering pump (thus the same pump provided power assist for both steering and braking)
Not only was it amazingly expewnsive to repair, but when it failed you basically had NO brakes at all. Fortunately I was only going about 3mph when that happened... =Smidge=
Obviously it does not NEED to be enclosed. The point being that the shade will block most of the light entering the telescope coming from whatever direction the scope is looking. by blocking this "ambient noise" you can get a better image of what you are aiming at.
The reason fro the "enclosed box" is, with a traditional camera, you also have to worry about ambient light from all directions exposing the film. Using a telescope automatically eliminates most of this problem, and in space there isn't much ambient light that would be reflecting off the back of the shade to make a difference. =Smidge=
The difference being that with the X-15, it hadn't been done before. With SS1, the science and technology used was proven, mature and readily available.
Not to say SS1 isn't a teriffic accomplishment, but it's not fair to compare the costs of these projects so directly! =Smidge=
Foo Inc., has X stations running system Y which cost me $z a year to maintain. Foo Inc. changes to system B, which now costs $c a year to maintain.
Ignoring the cost of the changeover (Since that is NOT indicitive of the TCO, although it should definately be considered by any company thinking about switching...), you can then compare $z to $c and determine how you made out.
And/or you then compare that company with other companies of similar size running either the same or a different system, and see how they compare.
You don't ask "Do you feel that it costs less to use system X instead of system C?". It's a lot more objective than asking "Is system X easier to use than system C?" (Which you must invariably ask someone at some point, because the only way to determine this is to have a bunch of people try it and get there opinion - it's purely subjective) =Smidge=
Best guess I can make is that "usability" and "features" are too subjective to comment on. At least with the other categories, you can generate some hard numbers based on records and tests instead of opinions.
Not to sound like a bad Hollywood plot, but is it even imaginable that there could be a way to incite a controlled eruption? Something analogous to lancing a boyle or something...
Of course it's a projection, but you do not need to wait 200k years to determine if it will last that long or not. We have this school of thought called "science" that's pretty good as estimating things like this.
For example, you might compare the glass to known, natually occuring rock that has been dated, and based on that comparison you can estimate how long the material will last.
Or you could observe the material for a relatively breif period of time under laboratory conditions that simulate accelerated aging, and from that estimate a lifespan.
You are correct that we don't know if it's an ideal or conservative estimate, but they didn't just pull that number out of their ass. Even if the "worst case" is half that, it's still ten times longer than any other storage plan I'm aware of. =Smidge=
341 years of safe storage to 200,000 years of safe storage, done at 75% of the cost... that's a pretty big increment! Not to mention that this appears to be the first truly viable long-LONG-term solution to preventing the waste from leaking out of where it's stored. Still have to agree on a spot to put it, but once it's there you don't have to worry about it. That's half the battle won, and that's what makes it news.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, if you RTFA - the people who were expecting the ballots in the mail are calling the election officials with complaints that they didn't get them. That's how you know something is up.
It's quite clear that it's not a case of 2000 ballots being received back by the election office. It's a case of only 2000 people who asked for a ballot actually getting one. If you received your ballot and sent it back, you wouldn't be calling the officials about it because you'ld think everything was hunky-dory. But if you asked for a ballot two weeks ago and didn't get one, you'ld probably give them a call and ask why.
I'd imagine that once they receive a few hundred/few thousand of these calls over the past weeks, that's when the investigation starts. Then they determine that only about 2,000 out of 60,000 people who asked for a ballot actually got one.
=Smidge=
No, what the article says is that 60,000 ballots were sent out to the voters, "However, only 2,000 of them have been delivered." (article quote) -- as in only 2,000 of the 60,000 recipients actually got them.
Noplace in the article does it even suggest what you claim.
Remember that the ballots need to be postmarked by election day. Delays in their delivery is basically the same as denying them of their vote.
And you're right, there is no way the post office would lose that many letters. Which leads me to this next article quote: "Meanwhile, the US postal service inspectorate said it was highly unlikely that 58,000 pieces of mail had just disappeared. A spokesman said inspectors were trying to establish whether the ballots were ever delivered to the postal service."
So there is a possibility that the 58,000 "missing" ballots never even made it to the post office in the first place, so they are investigating that. If this proves to be the case, someone's in a lot of trouble. If there is proof that all 60k ballots were delivered to the post office, then there will have to be more investigation as to how they didn't get to their destination. (And someone will STILL be in a lot of trouble, because the post office isn't prone to simply "misplacing" letters by the tens of thousands...)
=Smidge=
Nonono, any researcher will tell you that. They just want to cover up the TRUTH. Those complex mathematical formulas are actually mystical runes that describe ancient spells. The formulas themselves DO make your phone work!
=Smidge=
I think I see the problem here... You are using the term "DeltaV" to describe a velocity, which is incorrect. It CAN be used to describe a "change in velocity" (eg: "When the object hit the water, it's velocity decreased by 10m/s, therefore the DeltaV was -10m/s."), but that is useless when discussing things like travel times (eg: "How long will it take to get there if I have a DeltaV of 10m/s?" - "That depends, how fast were you going before your velocity changed?") It can only be used to compare two velocities of the same object at two points of reference: DeltaV = (V2-V1)
This implies a necessary acceleration, because velocity cannot change instantaneously, and if DeltaV is anything other than 0 then there must have been an acceleration to change it.
In other words, this really tells you nothing useful about how long a space ship will take to get to Mars since you have two unknown velocities... or are you assuming something that I'm missing?
=Smidge=
"DeltaV/DeltaT" is not the same as "dV/dt". I also don't know where you got DeltaT=1 from. Have you had your coffee yet today?
The average acceleration is DeltaV/DeltaT. If you drive feom 0 to 60mph in 3 seconds, that's (60-0)/(3-0) = 20mph/sec average acceleration. But that is no instantaneous acceleration, unless your car actually does accelerate uniformly from 0 to 60. Chances are your car accelerates at a faster rate early on, tapers off as you reach the high end of first gear, increases when you shift into second gear, then tapers off again, etc.
And that still doesn't change the fact that "DeltaV", which is a change in velocity, is an acceleration. You simply cannot determine the magnitude of that acceleration without a corresponding DeltaT. By definition: your velocity can not change unless you accelerate.
=Smidge=
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time (instantaneous), OR the change in velocity for a given period of time (average).
If an object has a velocity function V(t), the derivative of that function with respect to time, dV/dt, is the instantaneous acceleration of that object with respect to time.
"deltaV" is the change in velocity, and thus acceleration. In the given example, 20mhp/s and 5mph/s are average accelerations only.
=Smidge=
Cannabidiol is a nonpsychoactive constituent of marijuana. Research has shown that CDB shows no psychophysiological, sedative hypnotic, or EEG effects. That same reseach also suggests that CDB hinders the metabolizing of barbituates, which would mean that it would help reduce the effects of other narcotics (such as THC).
=Smidge=
There are several medical uses for M
Right... as a drug. Please re-read the part of my comment you cited and note that I intentionally made it neutral to legal or illegal drug applications. Calling it "medicine" doesn't make it less of a drug does it?
=Smidge=
Actually Hemp and Marijuana are the same things, just different strains
So they're the same... only different? You basically just reinforced my argument: Hemp and Marijuana are not the same thing. They may be very closely related, but there is a clear distinction between the two.
=Smidge=
One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
Or, you know, it could have implied that any suppression of speech for political gain would not be tolerated.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then here's some details about when Sinclair Broadcasting tried to stop the broadcasting of Iraq fatalities because it was "unpatriotic" (the word used in the article). Compare it with today's story about Sinclair leveraging their stations to air the anti-Kerry piece to as many people as possible so close to the national elections. It's a little tougher to explain why that's not hypocritical, don't you think? They couldn't POSSIBLY be politically motivated right?
=Smidge=
Unfortunately, Hemp and Marijuana are not the same thing.
Hemp has many industrial uses for the oils and high strength fibers. It also contains such trivial amounts of the psychoactive chemical THC that nobody could possibly get high off of it. Thje saying goes that trying to get stoned on hemp is like trying to get drunk on non-alcoholic beer.
It also contains higher concentrations of a chemical called cannabidiol (CBD), which actually counters the effects of THC... so smoking industrial hemp would more likely get you UN-stoned (and deathly ill, I'd imagine).
Hemp can be used to make anything that's currently made of cotton or wood, perhaps of lower quality but certaintly of lower cost.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has no commercial value other than as a drug (illegal or otherwise).
=Smidge=
There are a limited number of systems, and that number can only decrease because no more are being made. There is still a demand for them, though, and that creates market opportunity. A DC no bigger than a CD walkman (even though the DC is already pretty dang small) would certaintly have appeal to some people, power requirements aside.
There are a limited number of games, and even with a fairly goos homebrew community, there will be no new big-name titles if there is no console being sold. If someone comes out with a DC compatable console then perhaps there will be more games developed for it.
=Smidge=
Contiki !
=Smidge=
There is are typically 5 positions for the ignition key:
-1: Accessory power only (Radio, etc.)
0: Off and locked (Only position key can be removed in)
+1: Off and unlocked (For towing/pushing)
+2: On/Run (Normal driving)
+3: Start (Momentary position)
In many (but not all) cars, there is a mechanism that adds an extra step to go from +1 to 0. Usually a lever ot button that much be pressed, or in some cases the key must be pushed in or the car must be in park. This mechanism is there for *exactly* the reason you mention.
=Smidge=
But then you'll be one of the few multi-millionaires who HAVEN'T done it yet! Don't lag behind!
=Smidge=
While that is an incredibly stupid design, I've never heard of someone bursting into a busy intersection or driving off an overpass because their car overheated. :)
=Smidge=
Actually, I used to drive a Chevy station wagon with a hydraulic power booster instead of a vacuum one. It was connected to the power steering pump (thus the same pump provided power assist for both steering and braking)
Not only was it amazingly expewnsive to repair, but when it failed you basically had NO brakes at all. Fortunately I was only going about 3mph when that happened...
=Smidge=
Obviously it does not NEED to be enclosed. The point being that the shade will block most of the light entering the telescope coming from whatever direction the scope is looking. by blocking this "ambient noise" you can get a better image of what you are aiming at.
The reason fro the "enclosed box" is, with a traditional camera, you also have to worry about ambient light from all directions exposing the film. Using a telescope automatically eliminates most of this problem, and in space there isn't much ambient light that would be reflecting off the back of the shade to make a difference.
=Smidge=
The difference being that with the X-15, it hadn't been done before. With SS1, the science and technology used was proven, mature and readily available.
Not to say SS1 isn't a teriffic accomplishment, but it's not fair to compare the costs of these projects so directly!
=Smidge=
Howso?
Foo Inc., has X stations running system Y which cost me $z a year to maintain. Foo Inc. changes to system B, which now costs $c a year to maintain.
Ignoring the cost of the changeover (Since that is NOT indicitive of the TCO, although it should definately be considered by any company thinking about switching...), you can then compare $z to $c and determine how you made out.
And/or you then compare that company with other companies of similar size running either the same or a different system, and see how they compare.
You don't ask "Do you feel that it costs less to use system X instead of system C?". It's a lot more objective than asking "Is system X easier to use than system C?" (Which you must invariably ask someone at some point, because the only way to determine this is to have a bunch of people try it and get there opinion - it's purely subjective)
=Smidge=
Best guess I can make is that "usability" and "features" are too subjective to comment on. At least with the other categories, you can generate some hard numbers based on records and tests instead of opinions.
=Smidge=
Yeah, but you can install a second set of CCDs as backup, and they are much easier to replace than a human eye.
=Smidge=
Not to sound like a bad Hollywood plot, but is it even imaginable that there could be a way to incite a controlled eruption? Something analogous to lancing a boyle or something...
=Smidge=
Of course it's a projection, but you do not need to wait 200k years to determine if it will last that long or not. We have this school of thought called "science" that's pretty good as estimating things like this.
For example, you might compare the glass to known, natually occuring rock that has been dated, and based on that comparison you can estimate how long the material will last.
Or you could observe the material for a relatively breif period of time under laboratory conditions that simulate accelerated aging, and from that estimate a lifespan.
You are correct that we don't know if it's an ideal or conservative estimate, but they didn't just pull that number out of their ass. Even if the "worst case" is half that, it's still ten times longer than any other storage plan I'm aware of.
=Smidge=
341 years of safe storage to 200,000 years of safe storage, done at 75% of the cost... that's a pretty big increment! Not to mention that this appears to be the first truly viable long-LONG-term solution to preventing the waste from leaking out of where it's stored. Still have to agree on a spot to put it, but once it's there you don't have to worry about it. That's half the battle won, and that's what makes it news.
=Smidge=