There is no such thing as a totally safe toy. If it's too small or soft to knock yourself unconscious with, too soft and blunt to damage your eye, then it's too weak to stop you from chewing it up, stuffing it in your throat, and asphyxiating yourself.
Sure, put your infant in a padded cell, but once they're old enough to understand, introduce it to mildly dangerous things and lecture it about safety. Supervise. Repeat the lecture many times, kids forget. Upgrade as they slowly gain wisdom.
110V 60Hz is about as dangerous as tech comes, silent, invisible, deadly, and everywhere. I don't see engineers making that any better during my lifetime
Many extension cords come with plastic fillers for the sockets, and you can buy fillers for wall sockets. Building code in many places for outdoor outlets require a big plastic box around the outlet, and that's fairly new. 60 years ago, lamp cords were rubber and fabric, now they're plastic, and the plastic has probably improved over the decades, too.
The fundamental of having 110 V in the house isn't likely to change unless we insist on inductive coupling. Materials and ergonomics are going to advance incrementally.
Perhaps, but more likely an engineer thought about the weakness, told his boss, and the boss said "Don't worry, that'll never happen" or "It's too expensive to fix."
They're in flight less than a day. If the inertial system was re-referenced so much that it landed out of sight of the CIA base, then the program that re-referenced the inertial system was too aggressive. This indicates fatally bad design. It needs to be fixed pronto, and a method put in place to prevent this design blunder in the future.
Inertial navigation doesn't drift that badly. Even 30 years ago it didn't drift that badly. (At which time I was working for Litton Guidance and Control). If the software didn't recognize such discrepancies and immediately head toward home (as deternimed by inertial navigation) at high altitude, broadcasting a distress signal, then it's well and truly FUBAR.
The four flare lines out of each bright spot in the image are very distracting. Can't they be properly removed in postprocessing to give a truer image?
A difference is when legal action can be applied to the violator.
In the absence of freedom of the press, if the government discovers that something it opposes is about to be published, it can prevent the publishing, destroy existing copies, and destroy the machinery of the press in extreme cases. With freedom of the press, the violator can be punished for the damage he does, but he cannot be prevented from publishing. Freedom of the press is a great tool against tyranny, because once the news gets out it's too late to stop it.
Freedom of speech, even taken literally, means that you cannot be prohibited from speaking. It does not mean that you cannot be punished for the damage that your speech causes.
All 4 are important politically, and the last (which you seem to think is the only political one) is in fact the least important. It's only been a few months since a federal court decided that although the government can be petitioned, the government has no responsibility to reply or consider that petition in any manner whatsoever.
Freedom of speech and the press are vitally important to spreading political ideas, and freedom of assembly is important for that reason also. To effectively oppose bad government policies the best approach is to get a great number of people informed and active, and to have those people communicate with their legislators (or replace them if necessary.)
The point is, if you look beyond the tip of your nose, all 4 involve politics. In fact, all 4 are protected for the purpose of preventing political oppression.
Writing can be considered protected by both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. "Freedom of expression" is much too broad, as it could easily be considered to include masturbating in front of a crowd of children. The founders chose their words very carefully according to their meanings circa 1790, and arbitrarily substituting what you think is roughly equivalent is unwise.
Countries (and companies) on the way up view patents as a hindrance
Atricle I
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Killing Iraqis and Afghanis is a good thing, if you support civilization, which is incompatible with Islam. Bush was not wrong in fighting the war, but in how he fought it. The US should have destroyed the government and all modern productive capabilities of both countries, and left. The war should have lasted a month or less.
Whatever his deficiencies as President, Bush did not send money to "politically correct" companies for the primary purpose of funding political campaigns and lining his own pocket.
A Ron Paul presidency would create the largest, most widespread economic boom in world history. It would last until the power vacuum caused by his Pollyanna foreign policy brought about a huge war.
Two 10 m dishes 100 km apart do not have the same resolution as a 100 km dish. You get diffraction effects appropriate to 10 m dishes, which messes up the "image" something awful. You can do interferometry equivalent to the 100 km dish (ignoring undersampling errors) and other such things, but pretending they're the same is just sloppy.
Euclidean geometry has been a staple of high school math for hundreds of years. Granted, it's full of holes from the viewpoint of an academic mathematician, but it surely involves "proving things within a formal system."
But anyone who's been out of school for a year knows that making money is only very rarely related to skilled competence. Since money does not grow on trees, in order to get some you must find someone who has money and convince them to give it to you. Basically, financial success is dependent on the ability to make friends with rich people
You sound very much like someone who is unsuccessful, incompetent, and jealous. Here's are some questions for you: if there is only one rich person, did he get rich by being friends with himself? If there are only two rich people, do they get rich by being each other's friend? (Feel free to extrapolate.) If nobody is rich, how does anybody become wealthy?
Wealth is not (in essence) money. Wealth is having goods and having people providing you services, and you earn those things by providing goods or services to others. (Of course, there are dishonorable ways to get goods and services [if they already exist] such as theft and fraud and slavery.) Providing goods and services requires the ability to create or improve something, and that is the "skilled competence", some of which is (or should be) taught in school.
Yep, children being forced to work is so much worse than having them die of starvation.
This is the 21st century in the USA. Comparing to the conditions that Dickens saw (and ignorantly complained about) is completely inappropriate and dishonest.
One of the worst things that a person can feel is helplessness. Just as education provides a person with the ability to read and do math (removing his feeling of helplessness when faced with writing and situations that require math ability), so learning a trade or how to do other things that are worth money will enable him to live a worthwhile life, removing that feeling of helplessness that a person who can't earn a living feels.
The wants of people, particularly children, are unlimited. The earlier a child learns to fulfill his own wants, the better his mental health, his happiness, and his value to those around him.
Among the reasons for a poor-but-passing score are you don't understand the subject and are just barely learning, or you only troubled yourself enough to learn 3/4 of the material. Poor but passing grades are a warning for a potential employer who needs a top-flight employee.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as a totally safe toy. If it's too small or soft to knock yourself unconscious with, too soft and blunt to damage your eye, then it's too weak to stop you from chewing it up, stuffing it in your throat, and asphyxiating yourself.
Sure, put your infant in a padded cell, but once they're old enough to understand, introduce it to mildly dangerous things and lecture it about safety. Supervise. Repeat the lecture many times, kids forget. Upgrade as they slowly gain wisdom.
I have a friend who (45 years ago) melted aluminum on the kitchen stove, using cast iron cookware. He used the aluminum to make duplicate keys.
Many extension cords come with plastic fillers for the sockets, and you can buy fillers for wall sockets. Building code in many places for outdoor outlets require a big plastic box around the outlet, and that's fairly new. 60 years ago, lamp cords were rubber and fabric, now they're plastic, and the plastic has probably improved over the decades, too.
The fundamental of having 110 V in the house isn't likely to change unless we insist on inductive coupling. Materials and ergonomics are going to advance incrementally.
Most BB guns aren't even air guns; they're spring powered, and can't even penetrate the skin.
Perhaps, but more likely an engineer thought about the weakness, told his boss, and the boss said "Don't worry, that'll never happen" or "It's too expensive to fix."
They're in flight less than a day. If the inertial system was re-referenced so much that it landed out of sight of the CIA base, then the program that re-referenced the inertial system was too aggressive. This indicates fatally bad design. It needs to be fixed pronto, and a method put in place to prevent this design blunder in the future.
Inertial navigation doesn't drift that badly. Even 30 years ago it didn't drift that badly. (At which time I was working for Litton Guidance and Control). If the software didn't recognize such discrepancies and immediately head toward home (as deternimed by inertial navigation) at high altitude, broadcasting a distress signal, then it's well and truly FUBAR.
The four flare lines out of each bright spot in the image are very distracting. Can't they be properly removed in postprocessing to give a truer image?
A difference is when legal action can be applied to the violator.
In the absence of freedom of the press, if the government discovers that something it opposes is about to be published, it can prevent the publishing, destroy existing copies, and destroy the machinery of the press in extreme cases. With freedom of the press, the violator can be punished for the damage he does, but he cannot be prevented from publishing. Freedom of the press is a great tool against tyranny, because once the news gets out it's too late to stop it.
There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits first degree murder.
People have been driven to suicide by blog posts.
The Constitution explicitly protects freedom of speech and the press.
Therefor nobody should be prohibited from using a blog to drive someone to suicide.
For those too thick to understand it, I consider the above hideous, evil, and wrong.
Freedom of speech, even taken literally, means that you cannot be prohibited from speaking. It does not mean that you cannot be punished for the damage that your speech causes.
All 4 are important politically, and the last (which you seem to think is the only political one) is in fact the least important. It's only been a few months since a federal court decided that although the government can be petitioned, the government has no responsibility to reply or consider that petition in any manner whatsoever.
Freedom of speech and the press are vitally important to spreading political ideas, and freedom of assembly is important for that reason also. To effectively oppose bad government policies the best approach is to get a great number of people informed and active, and to have those people communicate with their legislators (or replace them if necessary.)
The point is, if you look beyond the tip of your nose, all 4 involve politics. In fact, all 4 are protected for the purpose of preventing political oppression.
Writing can be considered protected by both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. "Freedom of expression" is much too broad, as it could easily be considered to include masturbating in front of a crowd of children. The founders chose their words very carefully according to their meanings circa 1790, and arbitrarily substituting what you think is roughly equivalent is unwise.
Atricle I ...
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
from the US Constitution, 1787 C.E.
Killing Iraqis and Afghanis is a good thing, if you support civilization, which is incompatible with Islam. Bush was not wrong in fighting the war, but in how he fought it. The US should have destroyed the government and all modern productive capabilities of both countries, and left. The war should have lasted a month or less.
Whatever his deficiencies as President, Bush did not send money to "politically correct" companies for the primary purpose of funding political campaigns and lining his own pocket.
You are ignorant either of Ron Paul or economics.
A Ron Paul presidency would create the largest, most widespread economic boom in world history. It would last until the power vacuum caused by his Pollyanna foreign policy brought about a huge war.
Two 10 m dishes 100 km apart do not have the same resolution as a 100 km dish. You get diffraction effects appropriate to 10 m dishes, which messes up the "image" something awful. You can do interferometry equivalent to the 100 km dish (ignoring undersampling errors) and other such things, but pretending they're the same is just sloppy.
Euclidean geometry has been a staple of high school math for hundreds of years. Granted, it's full of holes from the viewpoint of an academic mathematician, but it surely involves "proving things within a formal system."
You sound very much like someone who is unsuccessful, incompetent, and jealous. Here's are some questions for you: if there is only one rich person, did he get rich by being friends with himself? If there are only two rich people, do they get rich by being each other's friend? (Feel free to extrapolate.) If nobody is rich, how does anybody become wealthy?
Wealth is not (in essence) money. Wealth is having goods and having people providing you services, and you earn those things by providing goods or services to others. (Of course, there are dishonorable ways to get goods and services [if they already exist] such as theft and fraud and slavery.) Providing goods and services requires the ability to create or improve something, and that is the "skilled competence", some of which is (or should be) taught in school.
Does substance A taste good?
Yep, children being forced to work is so much worse than having them die of starvation.
This is the 21st century in the USA. Comparing to the conditions that Dickens saw (and ignorantly complained about) is completely inappropriate and dishonest.
One of the worst things that a person can feel is helplessness. Just as education provides a person with the ability to read and do math (removing his feeling of helplessness when faced with writing and situations that require math ability), so learning a trade or how to do other things that are worth money will enable him to live a worthwhile life, removing that feeling of helplessness that a person who can't earn a living feels.
The wants of people, particularly children, are unlimited. The earlier a child learns to fulfill his own wants, the better his mental health, his happiness, and his value to those around him.
National Ynstitutes of Mental Health?
http://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Clinton-Compromised-Security/dp/0895263335/
Among the reasons for a poor-but-passing score are you don't understand the subject and are just barely learning, or you only troubled yourself enough to learn 3/4 of the material. Poor but passing grades are a warning for a potential employer who needs a top-flight employee.
Vermin Supreme describes the contents of the White House now. Why vote for no change?