Every legislator voting for a law must write out that law, longhand, with pen and paper. The writing shall be video recorded, and the recording made part of the public record. The video recording shall be made in such a manner that both the law and the legislator can be unmistakably identified.
I've actually done a little experimenting with the gyroscopic effect of a bicycle wheel. It has to be spinning very fast or be artificially heavily weighted to be have forces large enough to help keep the bike upright. In actual practice, it doesn't help at all. If you don't correct with steering or balance changes, no amount of gyro force is going to keep a bike upright. Furthermore, the spinning wheel also opposes the turning of the handlebar which is the cyclist's primary tool for keeping a bike upright. It would actually be easier to operate a bicycle in the absence of gyroscopic forces.
The claim that gyroscopic action of a bicycle's wheels make it easier to keep a bike vertical is pure BS offered by teachers who aren't thinking carefully. They say it because it sounds plausible and that's what their teachers told them. Alas, it's just not true.
There's an additional factor that makes the blackhawk comparison invalid. The hoverbike's fans sweep a pretty small area. The smaller the area, the higher the speed through the fan needed to produce the same thrust. That higher speed means energy wasted accelerating air. I don't know the math, so what we need here is some aero engineer to provide a good estimate and some rough guidelines. Any volunteers?
My first impression was no roll control vanes, but a closer, calmer look revealed to me surfaces that might be for roll control. Nonetheless, this does look like a twitchy design. I'd want to see some very convincing numbers for recovery from high roll angles while hovering.
Something that pops up again and again in various scientific and engineering endeavors is the "cube-square law". This law reflects properties that scale as area versus properties that scale as volume. In the case of the spider's osmotic sack, if we scale the sack up from spider size ( 1 cm ) to human size ( 2 m ), 200X, the sack's area increases by 200^2 = 40000 while the living being's body mass ( and presumably its metabolic activity ) increases by 200^3 = 8000000.
If the sack's osmotic rate is just barely good enough for the spider, it is only 40000/8000000 = 0.005 of good enough for a human if both the sack and the human are scaled up by the same amount from spider-size.
To use a technology similar to the spider's for humans, it either has to be scaled up disproportionately or changed in some major manner (like pleating the sack, using forced water flow to provide more dissolved oxygen, using a better osmotic membrane, etc.
In most poor places, the accumulation of wealth is prevented by force. In anarchic areas, theft and destruction by bad people removes wealth and the incentive to produce new wealth. In areas controlled by a government, theft and destruction by non-governmental forces is limited; it is the government that steals and destroys and by bureaucratic interference retards the development of wealth. The presence of a decent government over a long time encourages the development of wealth.
Most household machines can be designed to last for hundreds of years if they are designed intelligently. (Heavy duty bearings, brushless motors, no rubber or other degrading parts, etc.) There's no good reason that in the absence of destructive human forces, most people who want a washing machine couldn't have one, and once it's there, it's "permanently" there, to be enjoyed by the owner and his descendants who go on and buy other consumer goods. With productive effort and in the absence of human interference, the accumulation of wealth is almost inevitable, everywhere. That we don't see it is damning evidence of people who oppose the producers.
There are two factors to standard of living, not one.
Food, travel, things that wear out quickly, all either use up or process resources on a continuing basis.
More durable things are also part of a standard of living. A big, comfortable house can be made mostly of wood. When the area that provided trees for that house is replanted, very little in the way of resources has been consumed, but someone's standard of living may have been vastly upgraded.
Assuming that your firearm takes inexpensive ammunition, you can buy several hundred rounds for a trivial price. If you need to use that much ammunition to kill all the people attacking you, you'll soon be dead anyway, no matter how much ammo you have.
Except in a true severe food shortage, gold and food will tend to track. Gold is more portable and durable, but you may find some difficulty in trading your gold for food quickly. You'll have to do your own thinking to match your particular situation.
I recently read the first part of the final autobiography of Mark Twain. He noted that in his youth his family paid a doctor for his services for an entire year in advance. In effect, the doctor acted both as doctor and insurance provider. Given the limits of available technology, this worked quite well: it was in the doctor's best interest to keep the family healthy and to cure diseases as early as possible, before they became expensive to treat.
The loss of purchasing power for a given amount of currency discourages saving money, because the saved money loses value. The faster the currency loses value, the faster people spend it to avoid that loss.
There are two ways to get the money needed to start a major (read efficient) venture: save it or borrow it. Both become difficult to impossible with rapid devaluation (commonly but mistakenly called inflation). Thus loss of purchasing power erodes industrial production and prevents development of advanced technology if it's severe enough. People get poorer in terms of the goods they can afford. (Re Wiemar Germany). If this devaluation is deliberate, it is a profoundly destructive and immoral action. It encourages people to "live for today", to not plan for their long-term best interests.
The idea that it's OK to have devaluation because we're richer today than we were in the 1800s is fallacious: there are too many confounding factors, notably the cumulative advances in knowledge and technology. We would be much better off if the value of the dollar remained fairly constant.
It's common knowledge that the US uses the threat of the removal of highway funds to push states into passing certain laws.
It's been less that two years since the owners of a small business minting gold coins were imprisoned and all their assets stolen by the federal government.
Please don't use the word "fascist" when it is inaccurate or irrelevant. It's hard enough to identify and cure the misbehavior of government without gratuitous insults. If you call a murderer "fascist" you allow him to spend his time proving he's not fascist, and evading the fact that he's a murderer. Furthermore, by misusing standard political terms, you make it more difficult for other people to understand politics.
The mention of King's actions after the beating incident show that he remained a thoroughgoing scumbag. It's like a character witness: it doesn't overturn facts, but it isn't irrelevant, either.
Never mentioned in the standard boohoo about the police continuing to strike King after he was down was that King continued to attempt to get up. Also seldom mentioned is that the video that's commonly shown is severely edited to favor King and malign the police. Remember, the standard is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
That said, LA police and LA politics generally have been notoriously corrupt for over a century. But if you want to demonstrate inexcusable abuse, you'll have to find something clearer than the King case.
That sure sounds like a true manufacturer's warning, fully self-contradictory.
On a more serious note, have you never seen a solar powered fan? There's no need to have a fast, high powered solar laptop if the goal is just to have a solar laptop. A six inch by 10 inch solar array can generate about 7 watts, and that's more than enough for a carefully designed, if somewhat feeble, netbook.
Nice rewriting of history. MCI and Sprint were already successful before AT&T was broken up. The "antitrust" action took a stagnant AT&T, created 7 squabbling RBOCs of varying competence, and effectively destroyed Bell Labs.
With the exception of their search engine and related functions, without which they would die, Google is one of the worst examples of software providers. They make programs with incomplete functionality, difficult and nonstandard interfaces, and other obvious flaws. It's "OOH SHINY" and not ready for serious work.
Google behaves as if it were run by amateurs, and breaking compatibility is just what is to be expected from such clowns.
Slashdot Mirror
The peers of liars are liars.
They've had 50 years to prepare for a triffid attack, but I bet they're not ready for that, either.
By this argument, hidden cameras in toilet stalls aren't a problem.
Every legislator voting for a law must write out that law, longhand, with pen and paper. The writing shall be video recorded, and the recording made part of the public record. The video recording shall be made in such a manner that both the law and the legislator can be unmistakably identified.
The sentence is ambiguous. Whether "expanded" refers to "lot" or "US government" is not explicit, nor is it obvious from context.
I've actually done a little experimenting with the gyroscopic effect of a bicycle wheel. It has to be spinning very fast or be artificially heavily weighted to be have forces large enough to help keep the bike upright. In actual practice, it doesn't help at all. If you don't correct with steering or balance changes, no amount of gyro force is going to keep a bike upright. Furthermore, the spinning wheel also opposes the turning of the handlebar which is the cyclist's primary tool for keeping a bike upright. It would actually be easier to operate a bicycle in the absence of gyroscopic forces.
The claim that gyroscopic action of a bicycle's wheels make it easier to keep a bike vertical is pure BS offered by teachers who aren't thinking carefully. They say it because it sounds plausible and that's what their teachers told them. Alas, it's just not true.
There's an additional factor that makes the blackhawk comparison invalid. The hoverbike's fans sweep a pretty small area. The smaller the area, the higher the speed through the fan needed to produce the same thrust. That higher speed means energy wasted accelerating air. I don't know the math, so what we need here is some aero engineer to provide a good estimate and some rough guidelines. Any volunteers?
My first impression was no roll control vanes, but a closer, calmer look revealed to me surfaces that might be for roll control. Nonetheless, this does look like a twitchy design. I'd want to see some very convincing numbers for recovery from high roll angles while hovering.
Something that pops up again and again in various scientific and engineering endeavors is the "cube-square law". This law reflects properties that scale as area versus properties that scale as volume. In the case of the spider's osmotic sack, if we scale the sack up from spider size ( 1 cm ) to human size ( 2 m ), 200X, the sack's area increases by 200^2 = 40000 while the living being's body mass ( and presumably its metabolic activity ) increases by 200^3 = 8000000. If the sack's osmotic rate is just barely good enough for the spider, it is only 40000/8000000 = 0.005 of good enough for a human if both the sack and the human are scaled up by the same amount from spider-size.
To use a technology similar to the spider's for humans, it either has to be scaled up disproportionately or changed in some major manner (like pleating the sack, using forced water flow to provide more dissolved oxygen, using a better osmotic membrane, etc.
touché
In most poor places, the accumulation of wealth is prevented by force. In anarchic areas, theft and destruction by bad people removes wealth and the incentive to produce new wealth. In areas controlled by a government, theft and destruction by non-governmental forces is limited; it is the government that steals and destroys and by bureaucratic interference retards the development of wealth. The presence of a decent government over a long time encourages the development of wealth.
Most household machines can be designed to last for hundreds of years if they are designed intelligently. (Heavy duty bearings, brushless motors, no rubber or other degrading parts, etc.) There's no good reason that in the absence of destructive human forces, most people who want a washing machine couldn't have one, and once it's there, it's "permanently" there, to be enjoyed by the owner and his descendants who go on and buy other consumer goods. With productive effort and in the absence of human interference, the accumulation of wealth is almost inevitable, everywhere. That we don't see it is damning evidence of people who oppose the producers.
There are two factors to standard of living, not one.
Food, travel, things that wear out quickly, all either use up or process resources on a continuing basis.
More durable things are also part of a standard of living. A big, comfortable house can be made mostly of wood. When the area that provided trees for that house is replanted, very little in the way of resources has been consumed, but someone's standard of living may have been vastly upgraded.
Either you are very ignorant of history, or you don't understand the word "new".
Assuming that your firearm takes inexpensive ammunition, you can buy several hundred rounds for a trivial price. If you need to use that much ammunition to kill all the people attacking you, you'll soon be dead anyway, no matter how much ammo you have.
Except in a true severe food shortage, gold and food will tend to track. Gold is more portable and durable, but you may find some difficulty in trading your gold for food quickly. You'll have to do your own thinking to match your particular situation.
I recently read the first part of the final autobiography of Mark Twain. He noted that in his youth his family paid a doctor for his services for an entire year in advance. In effect, the doctor acted both as doctor and insurance provider. Given the limits of available technology, this worked quite well: it was in the doctor's best interest to keep the family healthy and to cure diseases as early as possible, before they became expensive to treat.
The loss of purchasing power for a given amount of currency discourages saving money, because the saved money loses value. The faster the currency loses value, the faster people spend it to avoid that loss.
There are two ways to get the money needed to start a major (read efficient) venture: save it or borrow it. Both become difficult to impossible with rapid devaluation (commonly but mistakenly called inflation). Thus loss of purchasing power erodes industrial production and prevents development of advanced technology if it's severe enough. People get poorer in terms of the goods they can afford. (Re Wiemar Germany). If this devaluation is deliberate, it is a profoundly destructive and immoral action. It encourages people to "live for today", to not plan for their long-term best interests.
The idea that it's OK to have devaluation because we're richer today than we were in the 1800s is fallacious: there are too many confounding factors, notably the cumulative advances in knowledge and technology. We would be much better off if the value of the dollar remained fairly constant.
Innocent or not, if you want to live a long and happy life you need to restart your life in a new place with better friends.
I can't give you links, but...
It's common knowledge that the US uses the threat of the removal of highway funds to push states into passing certain laws.
It's been less that two years since the owners of a small business minting gold coins were imprisoned and all their assets stolen by the federal government.
There is this link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/04/utah-house-passes-recognizing-gold-silver-legal-tender/
Please don't use the word "fascist" when it is inaccurate or irrelevant. It's hard enough to identify and cure the misbehavior of government without gratuitous insults. If you call a murderer "fascist" you allow him to spend his time proving he's not fascist, and evading the fact that he's a murderer. Furthermore, by misusing standard political terms, you make it more difficult for other people to understand politics.
The mention of King's actions after the beating incident show that he remained a thoroughgoing scumbag. It's like a character witness: it doesn't overturn facts, but it isn't irrelevant, either.
Never mentioned in the standard boohoo about the police continuing to strike King after he was down was that King continued to attempt to get up. Also seldom mentioned is that the video that's commonly shown is severely edited to favor King and malign the police. Remember, the standard is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
That said, LA police and LA politics generally have been notoriously corrupt for over a century. But if you want to demonstrate inexcusable abuse, you'll have to find something clearer than the King case.
Since this solar laptop is for use in sunlight, there's no need for a powered backlight for the LCD display. Use the sun, that's what it's there for.
Providing some shade for the viewing side of the display would help contrast.
Heck, use a reflective LCD screen. No need for silly backlighting arrangements.
That sure sounds like a true manufacturer's warning, fully self-contradictory.
On a more serious note, have you never seen a solar powered fan? There's no need to have a fast, high powered solar laptop if the goal is just to have a solar laptop. A six inch by 10 inch solar array can generate about 7 watts, and that's more than enough for a carefully designed, if somewhat feeble, netbook.
Nice rewriting of history. MCI and Sprint were already successful before AT&T was broken up. The "antitrust" action took a stagnant AT&T, created 7 squabbling RBOCs of varying competence, and effectively destroyed Bell Labs.
Yup, by your reference, typically 100 ug/dl. In simpler words, 1 part per thousand by weight. That's not insignificant in a strong field.
With the exception of their search engine and related functions, without which they would die, Google is one of the worst examples of software providers. They make programs with incomplete functionality, difficult and nonstandard interfaces, and other obvious flaws. It's "OOH SHINY" and not ready for serious work.
Google behaves as if it were run by amateurs, and breaking compatibility is just what is to be expected from such clowns.