...to having technology seen only in science fiction stories happen right in front of our eyes.
This technology could easily make it possible for soldiers to carry very heavy armor that could possibly protect them from most all small arms fire and possibly even some heavy fire. All the while carrying heavy machine guns and small autoloading cannons that these days require crews to move and operate.
How could any of you think this is a bad thing? If the US Army had full armored exoskeletons, there would have been virtually 0 US casualties. Most Iraqis would not even try small arms (and protection from some small explosions/grenades is not unreasonable). What's the problem if it lowers casualties, probably on both sides?
Re:Yes and no
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Not if you keep making mistakes like that. Escape velocity is defined as the velocity needed to escape from a gravity well with no additional energy input. True, IF I move a meter per second radially away from the earth, and IF I continue to apply force to overcome gravity, THEN I will escape from the earth (in the limit), HOWEVER that is not "escape velocity" since I am continuing to oppose the force of gravity.
However, IF I want to take a "running start" at it, and then coast, I need to be moving at roughly 7 miles per second to have enough kinetic energy to be able to convert it to the potential energy of being "infinitely far" from the earth (escape conditions).
I did not make a mistake, although you may be misreading what I wrote (I admit it wasn't very clearly written). As I said, the energy required to achieve escape velocity is the same as the energy required to keep going 1 m/s away from the earth infinitely far (although you would have the additional kinetic energy of moving 1 m/s, but that's insignificant). The difference of putting all the energy into your initial motion, and the energy required to "fight" gravity is the same.
Re:Only so much carbon...
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 1
Assuming average person 70 kg, average density about water (actually would be a little more dense without air in our lungs). So about 3/4 mi.
Re:Yes and no
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Plus, you don't need extra speed to get you out of Earth's gravity well. Even if you travel at only one meter per second away from the Earth, you will still eventually get outside its gravity well. You only need to reach escape velocity if you plan to reach a velocity and then coast from there on out.
No. The energy required to achieve escape velocity is the same as going one meter per second. If you're going one m/s, you need to fight the pull of gravity, but if you're going escape velocity you're speed would exactly compensate for gravity.
You just aim yourself at a planet and slingshot yourself off it to gain some pretty good speed. Then, you fly by another planet and use its gravity well not to change the magnitude of your velocity (although you'll do that too),
This wouldn't do anything. You don't gain energy (or velocity) by slingshotting off another planet. The energy you gain going in is the same as the energy 'given back' when you go out.
but to change the direction you're travelling. If you do this right, you can be going straight towards the Sun at a very high rate of speed and with no component of your velocity that is perpendicular to the line between you and the Sun.
This wouldn't work without some sort of guidance system, which would be a lot more expensive. And if they had a guidance system, then it would be easier to just go straight to it anyway.
Rush gives a pretty good response for most (maybe all, I didn't check) of those. He admits at several points that he made an error or mispoke, something FAIR does not do once. I definitely do not see a single case where he was lying, not mistaken (Exagerating does not count as lying. If you listen to Rush often, you will know how often he exagerates, and can tell when he does. It is understandable that someone reading a quote from him can misunderstand that).
You're right...it'd be much better to have a dictator who can just order the execution of any rebels, their families, their villages, and anyone they have ever contacted.
I don't listen to or have access to Rush (other than some articles I read). I don't want to listen to him anyway. The prolbem is not that Rush lies. Yes, there are quite a few lies but let's just ignore them for now. The problem is that he is BIASED. I don't think he makes up stuff. But he does present a one-sided view. Are parts of Iraq better off than ever? Absolutely! Is most of Iraq better than before? Nope!
If you really want to be informed, the answer is not to avoid corporate-controlled mainstream media. The answer, instead, is to read/listen/watch/etc multiple sources.
I do read/watch/listen to multiple sources, and I believe that Rush is right almost always. I do not accept anything he says simply because he said it, but I do agree with most everything he says. After listening to Rush for a long time, I can see how incredibly (and subtly) biased most of the mainstream media. Rush does not at all hide his bias (if you can even really call it that...really its just his opinion. the problem in mainstream media is when they report their opinion as fact, ie when they say that the war that took less than two months to invade and conquer a country was 'bogged down' at any point).
And if you believe that most of Iraq is not better off now than before, you are a fool. I don't want to resort to name-calling, but if you believe that there's really no other word for it, unless you only get your news from CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/etc, then its understandable.
I'd like to see you name one time where Rush Limbaugh lied, or clearly and purposely distorted the facts. I listen to him most days, and I know that he does not.
And before you bring up his drug quote from '95, he has already addressed that issue: he has said many times taking drugs was a bad thing, and he was *NOT* hypocritical by taking drugs. Yes, he has always said that drugs are bad, but it is certainly not a point he adressed consistently and not something he defined himself by. It would be hypocritical if he was known as a strong anti-drug advocate while taking every drug under the sun. He got addicted after surgery, and acknowledged his mistake. Saying what he believed, that drug use was wrong, does not make him a hypocrite, despite that he was not strong enough to follow his beliefs all the time.
Whether or not he acquired the drugs legally not is in question, but there is no proof outside of the National Enquirer that he was buying them illegally.
I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but I'll answer anyway.
The reason I know so much about this, and the true situation in Iraq, is because I do not get my news from the mainstream media. I certainly read a lot of articles in the mainstream press, but I doubt them, because of how wrong they often are (one example: CNN did not report all of the murders they knew about in Iraq, just so that Saddam would allow them to continue reporting inside Iraq. The truth didn't matter, only the ability to stay in Iraq). The person who gives a clear view on the facts in Iraq is Rush Limbaugh.
Rush picks up on the many reports of individual soldier/engineers reporting on these situations, as well as some of the reporters who go over there, and are shocked by how different the situation is from how the mainstream media reports it.
Yes, he is a somewhat biased person, but he certainly does not lie. He reports, and then gives his (very accurate) opinion. I'm guessing he is not broadcast in Norway, but if you want to listen to him you can go to rushlimbaugh.com.
The infrastructure in Iraq is a HELL of a lot better now than it ever was under Saddam. I'm not going to quote articles about this b/c I don't give a damn about improving my excellent karma:), but I know there are some stories out there about army engineers bringing running water and electricity to villages in Iraq that *never* had them under Saddam. As far as food goes, if you think that more people are starving now than under Saddam, you're a fool.
Electricity was restored to most of the areas it was knocked out very quickly. The US went in to help the Iraqis, not to exploit them, despite what your tinfoil hat theories are.
There are some (very few, but some) legitimate arguments for why going into Iraq was a bad idea, but saying that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam is stupid.
Not really. As I understand it, it was seen pretty much as a theory that happened to explain certain things, but theories don't mean much until they correctly predict/explain something not originally intended. For general relativity, this happened when Einstein's revised gravity formulas explained the change in orbit of Mercury, something that was unexplained by gravitational pulls of other planets, but perfectly explained by general relativity.
You want to know why were in a recession? Its simple, really. The people earning that money don't spend it. Not because they're malicious, but because you *can't* spend $700M, not unless you're buying solid gold toilets every day, or something equally silly. Since the money doesn't get spent, it simply vanishes from the economy. The truth is that trickle down would work, if the upper 1% spent all (or even most) of their money. Since they can't, trickle down is doomed to fail, as is the economy unless money starts flowing *out* of Eisner et al, and into the general economy...
No, that't not right. The $700M or $30M or whatever these people are making is not vanishing from the economy. Actually, very little of it does not make it back into the economy. Anything that is put in a bank, the bank invests, so it is in the economy. Anything not put in a bank is generally put in the stock market anyway. The only way this money would 'vanish' from the economy is if they convert all their money to cash and store it in their own house.
Anyway, the upper 1% making $250,000 generally do spend most of their money, on house payments, car payments, TAXES, school tuition, etc.
This is a real easy concept that anyone taken algebra can figure out. After looking in the article, there is also more information about the history of the debate, but the summary doesn't mention that.
Agreed. I realized this when I got a phone call two weeks after I registered my first domain asking if I needed their 'services' for hosting. Of course, the sales pitch made it sound like my domain would not work without their services.
I realized this again when I got a letter in the mail telling me to renew a domain b/c it was about to expire. What's the big deal, you say? The domain wasn't registered with them, but they made it sound like if I didn't send THEM money, I was gonna lose it.
This isn't about keeping computer costs down. This is about false advertising. When I buy a 100 GB drive, I want a 100 GB drive. Not a huge difference between them, but it is false advertising in a way.
What's wrong with the recall? There is a legal recourse if the citizens of California want a recall by signing a petition. This has happened, and so there will be one.
This is the decision of the people. Democracy at its finest.
I don't recall hearing Rush come out against anything Bush has been pushing. Maybe I missed that day.
He has said repeatedly that he does not support Bush's domestic agenda, and has critized several specific issues. You obviously do not listen to Rush regularly, so stop trying to sound like you know what he says.
I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative".
OK.
First off, I want to refer you to Rush Limbaugh. He is a conservative (obviously), and has a much better way of saying this than I do, but I'll give it a shot.
For the first time in a LONG time, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the White House. Many conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh and myself, were hoping that this would be a chance to implement the "limited government" touted by Reagan. This has obviously not happened.
One of the main tenets of conservatism is relying on yourself for basic needs, not government. What liberals (and now Bush) have been trying to do is just the opposite: make as many people as possible as dependant as possible on the government, through Social Security, prescription drug coverage for all seniors, welfare, etc. Don't get me wrong here, I believe that if someone cannot feed themselves or their family, I have no problem with them getting help from the government (preferably in a program that will help them on the way to self dependance). I do have a problem with my taxes paying for Bill Gates' prescription drugs after he retires--which will happen if that bill is passed.
Bush may be trying to 'recruit' democrats and some more liberal voters to his cause by this, as it definitely is not a conservative ideal.
Also, one of the duties of the government is national defense. I have to say, I am in full support of most of Bush's foreign policy. He is going after people that are a threat to this nation. Most of the press I have been seeing about the Patriot Act is on/., which we all know has a liberal slant, so I don't know if I would be in support of it or not.
One more thing--many of the House Republicans have been resisting Bush on many of the more liberal issues he is supporting, which is the reason the prescription drug bill was not passed last session.
To sum it up, Bush is not the definition of Conservatism, and don't take him as such. If you are looking for the best definition of Conservatism, look at Rush Limbaugh (and actually try listening to him also).
Neither article got into any detail, but I get the impression this is just a "bigger better" thing, not any particular breakthrough. Just put a few more coils and you get something stronger...no big surprise? Or is there something I'm not seeing here?
Slashdot Mirror
This technology could easily make it possible for soldiers to carry very heavy armor that could possibly protect them from most all small arms fire and possibly even some heavy fire. All the while carrying heavy machine guns and small autoloading cannons that these days require crews to move and operate.
How could any of you think this is a bad thing? If the US Army had full armored exoskeletons, there would have been virtually 0 US casualties. Most Iraqis would not even try small arms (and protection from some small explosions/grenades is not unreasonable). What's the problem if it lowers casualties, probably on both sides?
However, IF I want to take a "running start" at it, and then coast, I need to be moving at roughly 7 miles per second to have enough kinetic energy to be able to convert it to the potential energy of being "infinitely far" from the earth (escape conditions).
I did not make a mistake, although you may be misreading what I wrote (I admit it wasn't very clearly written). As I said, the energy required to achieve escape velocity is the same as the energy required to keep going 1 m/s away from the earth infinitely far (although you would have the additional kinetic energy of moving 1 m/s, but that's insignificant). The difference of putting all the energy into your initial motion, and the energy required to "fight" gravity is the same.
70 kg/person * 70000 mL/kg * 1cm^3/ml * 1 mi^3/(4.16818183*10^15cm^3) * 6*10^9 persons = .705 mi^3
Assuming average person 70 kg, average density about water (actually would be a little more dense without air in our lungs). So about 3/4 mi.
No. The energy required to achieve escape velocity is the same as going one meter per second. If you're going one m/s, you need to fight the pull of gravity, but if you're going escape velocity you're speed would exactly compensate for gravity.
You just aim yourself at a planet and slingshot yourself off it to gain some pretty good speed. Then, you fly by another planet and use its gravity well not to change the magnitude of your velocity (although you'll do that too),
This wouldn't do anything. You don't gain energy (or velocity) by slingshotting off another planet. The energy you gain going in is the same as the energy 'given back' when you go out.
but to change the direction you're travelling. If you do this right, you can be going straight towards the Sun at a very high rate of speed and with no component of your velocity that is perpendicular to the line between you and the Sun.
This wouldn't work without some sort of guidance system, which would be a lot more expensive. And if they had a guidance system, then it would be easier to just go straight to it anyway.
IANAP (physicist), but I will be in two years.
Link to goatse in sig = troll
Do not mod people up with goatse in their sigs.
Rush gives a pretty good response for most (maybe all, I didn't check) of those. He admits at several points that he made an error or mispoke, something FAIR does not do once. I definitely do not see a single case where he was lying, not mistaken (Exagerating does not count as lying. If you listen to Rush often, you will know how often he exagerates, and can tell when he does. It is understandable that someone reading a quote from him can misunderstand that).
I was not lying. Perhaps I am misinformed.
You're right...it'd be much better to have a dictator who can just order the execution of any rebels, their families, their villages, and anyone they have ever contacted.
If you really want to be informed, the answer is not to avoid corporate-controlled mainstream media. The answer, instead, is to read/listen/watch/etc multiple sources.
I do read/watch/listen to multiple sources, and I believe that Rush is right almost always. I do not accept anything he says simply because he said it, but I do agree with most everything he says. After listening to Rush for a long time, I can see how incredibly (and subtly) biased most of the mainstream media. Rush does not at all hide his bias (if you can even really call it that...really its just his opinion. the problem in mainstream media is when they report their opinion as fact, ie when they say that the war that took less than two months to invade and conquer a country was 'bogged down' at any point).
And if you believe that most of Iraq is not better off now than before, you are a fool. I don't want to resort to name-calling, but if you believe that there's really no other word for it, unless you only get your news from CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/etc, then its understandable.
I'd like to see you name one time where Rush Limbaugh lied, or clearly and purposely distorted the facts. I listen to him most days, and I know that he does not.
And before you bring up his drug quote from '95, he has already addressed that issue: he has said many times taking drugs was a bad thing, and he was *NOT* hypocritical by taking drugs. Yes, he has always said that drugs are bad, but it is certainly not a point he adressed consistently and not something he defined himself by. It would be hypocritical if he was known as a strong anti-drug advocate while taking every drug under the sun. He got addicted after surgery, and acknowledged his mistake. Saying what he believed, that drug use was wrong, does not make him a hypocrite, despite that he was not strong enough to follow his beliefs all the time.
Whether or not he acquired the drugs legally not is in question, but there is no proof outside of the National Enquirer that he was buying them illegally.
I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but I'll answer anyway.
The reason I know so much about this, and the true situation in Iraq, is because I do not get my news from the mainstream media. I certainly read a lot of articles in the mainstream press, but I doubt them, because of how wrong they often are (one example: CNN did not report all of the murders they knew about in Iraq, just so that Saddam would allow them to continue reporting inside Iraq. The truth didn't matter, only the ability to stay in Iraq). The person who gives a clear view on the facts in Iraq is Rush Limbaugh.
Rush picks up on the many reports of individual soldier/engineers reporting on these situations, as well as some of the reporters who go over there, and are shocked by how different the situation is from how the mainstream media reports it.
Yes, he is a somewhat biased person, but he certainly does not lie. He reports, and then gives his (very accurate) opinion. I'm guessing he is not broadcast in Norway, but if you want to listen to him you can go to rushlimbaugh.com.
The infrastructure in Iraq is a HELL of a lot better now than it ever was under Saddam. I'm not going to quote articles about this b/c I don't give a damn about improving my excellent karma :), but I know there are some stories out there about army engineers bringing running water and electricity to villages in Iraq that *never* had them under Saddam. As far as food goes, if you think that more people are starving now than under Saddam, you're a fool.
Electricity was restored to most of the areas it was knocked out very quickly. The US went in to help the Iraqis, not to exploit them, despite what your tinfoil hat theories are.
There are some (very few, but some) legitimate arguments for why going into Iraq was a bad idea, but saying that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam is stupid.
You are incorrect. He was talking about individual photons, which always have a certain wavelength, and a definite color.
Not really. As I understand it, it was seen pretty much as a theory that happened to explain certain things, but theories don't mean much until they correctly predict/explain something not originally intended. For general relativity, this happened when Einstein's revised gravity formulas explained the change in orbit of Mercury, something that was unexplained by gravitational pulls of other planets, but perfectly explained by general relativity.
He claimed. She said.
Nice facts.
No, that't not right. The $700M or $30M or whatever these people are making is not vanishing from the economy. Actually, very little of it does not make it back into the economy. Anything that is put in a bank, the bank invests, so it is in the economy. Anything not put in a bank is generally put in the stock market anyway. The only way this money would 'vanish' from the economy is if they convert all their money to cash and store it in their own house.
Anyway, the upper 1% making $250,000 generally do spend most of their money, on house payments, car payments, TAXES, school tuition, etc.
This is a real easy concept that anyone taken algebra can figure out. After looking in the article, there is also more information about the history of the debate, but the summary doesn't mention that.
Return rate on spam is about .02% (I think).
Think about the bottom half of the population. They aren't real intelligent. Then think about the bottom half of THAT population. Repeat 10 times.
Those are the people that buy stuff from spam.
Agreed. I realized this when I got a phone call two weeks after I registered my first domain asking if I needed their 'services' for hosting. Of course, the sales pitch made it sound like my domain would not work without their services.
I realized this again when I got a letter in the mail telling me to renew a domain b/c it was about to expire. What's the big deal, you say? The domain wasn't registered with them, but they made it sound like if I didn't send THEM money, I was gonna lose it.
This isn't about keeping computer costs down. This is about false advertising. When I buy a 100 GB drive, I want a 100 GB drive. Not a huge difference between them, but it is false advertising in a way.
What's wrong with the recall? There is a legal recourse if the citizens of California want a recall by signing a petition. This has happened, and so there will be one.
This is the decision of the people. Democracy at its finest.
He has said repeatedly that he does not support Bush's domestic agenda, and has critized several specific issues. You obviously do not listen to Rush regularly, so stop trying to sound like you know what he says.
OK.
First off, I want to refer you to Rush Limbaugh. He is a conservative (obviously), and has a much better way of saying this than I do, but I'll give it a shot.
For the first time in a LONG time, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the White House. Many conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh and myself, were hoping that this would be a chance to implement the "limited government" touted by Reagan. This has obviously not happened.
One of the main tenets of conservatism is relying on yourself for basic needs, not government. What liberals (and now Bush) have been trying to do is just the opposite: make as many people as possible as dependant as possible on the government, through Social Security, prescription drug coverage for all seniors, welfare, etc. Don't get me wrong here, I believe that if someone cannot feed themselves or their family, I have no problem with them getting help from the government (preferably in a program that will help them on the way to self dependance). I do have a problem with my taxes paying for Bill Gates' prescription drugs after he retires--which will happen if that bill is passed.
Bush may be trying to 'recruit' democrats and some more liberal voters to his cause by this, as it definitely is not a conservative ideal.
Also, one of the duties of the government is national defense. I have to say, I am in full support of most of Bush's foreign policy. He is going after people that are a threat to this nation. Most of the press I have been seeing about the Patriot Act is on /., which we all know has a liberal slant, so I don't know if I would be in support of it or not.
One more thing--many of the House Republicans have been resisting Bush on many of the more liberal issues he is supporting, which is the reason the prescription drug bill was not passed last session.
To sum it up, Bush is not the definition of Conservatism, and don't take him as such. If you are looking for the best definition of Conservatism, look at Rush Limbaugh (and actually try listening to him also).
Neither article got into any detail, but I get the impression this is just a "bigger better" thing, not any particular breakthrough. Just put a few more coils and you get something stronger...no big surprise? Or is there something I'm not seeing here?