Honestly. I have allergies to Spruce/Pine/Fir (SPF) and most softwoods that end up as the pulp feedstock for paper. I'm also allergic to my current residence, which is constructed mostly of SPF. I actively purge dead-tree materials in favor of electronic equivalents. The "textbook" and "newspaper" smells that some people praise are anathema to me. However, putting adverts in reference material is just as bad.
That said, the college textbook requirements have always been a scam perpetrated by the university(ies) in collusion with the publishers. The university environment is one that isn't subject to free-market forces, and will abuse the students to their tolerance limit. The university can dictate terms. It's in the publisher's best interest to play along. Consider it the price of admission.
"If they go boom, then we'll be certain that they were a terrorist. And if they just burn..." then you're perfectly confident that the individual was a Witch (an equally undesirable member of society.) I seem to recall similar tests using ducks and small rocks, but I don't remember the details.
I'm amused at the Rube-Goldbergian prospect of using Solar_cells -> electricity -> batteries -> bulbs -> light to grow plants. Maybe we could add a water wheel and some chipmunks in the path too.
Seriously, plants already operate off solar... you'd probably get better overall efficiency using reflectors and light pipes. Of course, you can't grow 24-hours a day that way.
Staircase power is a bad choice. The circuits are designed to be efficient (cost, installation, materials, etc) for the staircase light load. There isn't going to be a ton of margin left on that circuit. Lighting circuits, in general, aren't designed for larger loads. The 220V HVAC connection is a better choice. I understand that the "growers" aren't the sharpest hammers in the drawer, and don't always have access to better sources... but you're never going to be able to pull "huge amounts of power" from a stairwell lighting circuit. You'll get a modest amount, but it'll be limited.
I disagree. Patents exist to allow Joe Sixpack (back in the day, that would have been "Jofeph Fix Pence") to create an invention and benefit from it. The big threat is that someone with more money/ifrastructure than you can swoop down and swipe your idea. The "exclusivity" is there to promote development:
The US Constitution doesn't mention Copyright or Patent by name, but includes a section that identifies the need for such structures. If we didn't have this, there would exist an entire subculture of predatory corporations who only existed to swipe the inventions of others. So yes, it's supposed to level the field (i.e. you have an opportnity to create/invent without having to fight the IP-swipers.) Unfortunately, it's being abused right now. The Patent system needs an overhaul pretty desperately.
Pascal was/is a great learning language. It's not too difficult to comprehend, but it's strong enough that you don't immediately exceed it's capabilities once you "get it."
Turbo Pascal was a great because a) it was inexpensive compared to everyone else; and b) it compiled soooo much faster than everyone else. The development environment concept was pretty innovative too, and eliminated much of the command line funkiness. Funny, I didn't Turbo Pascal in the press release - Delphi, C++, C#. I guess you could call Delphi "object Pascal" if you wanted to.
However, this press release stinks of a marketing cash-grab where they try to make a quick buck by squeezing the legacy heritage of a well-known trademark. I just don't see that they're adding any value to the proposition. Some marketroid probably did the math based on "no new development NRE" and was brimming at the huge potential margins on such a re-release (i.e. Margin:= (1 - Expenses / Revenue); ). There's competition now, and most machines owned by hobby-programmers and students will cruise through the compilation process fast enough that the "turbo" brand doesn't offer a compelling solution like it used to. There are OSS solutions available, so the "less expensive" compulsion is gone as well. Back in the day (man, y'all are making me feel old...) the alternative was the Microsoft compiler that was dog slow and required a manual linking step... from the command line... both ways.
Tell Blaise that I still have fond memories... now get the hell off my lawn!
Clearwater is a hotbed of Scientology controversy. I half expected to see Dr. Brian Zwan (google cache) on the Board of Directors at Robotic Parking. Seems like businesses in Clearwater are required to have the corporate motto "Do Evil."
The Robotic Parking website has some very agressive language (middle and bottom of page) that summarizes as "You will license this from us." I wouldn't purchase such a thing with these terms. When I purchase an item from the patent holder, I obtain explicit permission to use the item - mainly because I paid the patent holder. A patent is intended to level the playing field with regard to big and small manufacturers, not to allow a manufacturer to extort money from his customers. If I purchase your patented Widget {TM} (c) [Pat. Pend.], once the sale is complete I may grind it into a fine powder should I choose to do so. Your patent does not extend into dictating *how* I may use the product that I now own.
If the City of Hoboken got a purchase discount in exchange for Robo-Parking getting a piece of the action, that's a completely different contractual arrangement. Regardless, this contract is stinky. The elected officials who signed this turd need to be un-elected (and possibly punished.)
The police don't really have a choice on this one. They've already acted, and put the now-very-public process in motion.
They can't admit that they're wrong. That'd destroy their credibility. They're supposed to be "experts" on the law and it's interpretation. If they came out and said "Whups, we screwed up," there'd be formal inquiries and all sorts of hell to pay.
The case is a loser. If they continue down that road, they make it more public and the damage is worse. The DA recognized that there's no chance they'd be able to convince a jury to convict, simply because the jury is composed of folks just like the defendant. The DA pulled the plug as more of a damage-control reaction than "it's the right thing to do."
So they've basically pleaded "no contest." They're dropping the charges without admitting any wrongdoing. They're hoping the matter will slide under the carpet as soon as Britney Spears or Mel Gibson is in the headlines again.
As for "right or wrong," I firmly believe that the police should be under public scrutiny as long as they're acting as an agent of the state. They are acting in the public trust, and consequently *all* of their actions need public exposure and scrutiny. They should expect *zero* privacy while on the job... that's one of the motivating/correcting forces that keeps them from abusing their position as LawGivers.
I hope you meant HAZMAT suit (i.e. Hazardous Materials.) The only HVAC I'm familiar with is "Heating, Ventillation, and Air Conditioning"... you know, the butt-crack-showing maintenance guys. I'm amused at the thought of the SWAT folks having a "secret" conversation with some HVAC techs about the proper way to heat/cool a particular emergency site.
I've always thought the "Apple Newton" was an unfortunate name choice. I prefer the Nabisco product myself, though the "apple"-types appear to have been discontinued in favor of Strawberry and Raspberry. There's a new "Caramel Apple Newtons" on the market, though.
The bank doesn't own your car. You do. The bank has a lien against it. The bank does't want to own your car... they just want to take it from you when you fail to pay the loan.
The lien exists such that you can own the car, and such that the county/state/fed government may tax you appropriately (which is actually the reason a lien exists.) The gub'ment wants your money, and they can't take it from *you* by trying to tax a bank located in another state/country. But that a completely different (but related) rant...
Ultimately, the publishers wish to control distribution. They make a buck if they do, and get squat if you bypass them. They want to make it illegal to transfer ownership of a work (be it a book or a cd or a DVD) without getting a cut. The states will probably support them because financial transactions involve taxation. The problem arises when your audio CD is conveyed to you as "property." You have certain rights regarding property, and those rights include the ability to transfer title to the property to someone else. Publishers would like nothing better than to convince the gub'ment that the audio CD is merely a container, and the copyright on the information within should devalue the owner's property status to that of licensee (because the container and information are inseparable, or some crap like that.) Subsequently, you will become a felon because you sold your non-transferrable audio CD to someone else. Of course, this cuts both ways, and your momma becomes a felon when she buys you a Metalica CD for your birthday (she bought it, but can't legally transfer title to you because she bought it and the license would be non-transferrable. Right?)
The **AA-types want "property" status in order to complete the initial sales transaction, but they want your ownership status to magically change to "licensee" at some point when it's financially convenient. They can't have it both ways... yet. We had huge "civil rights" issues in the 1960s in the US. I expect that the next big social upheaval will be over "information rights."
The professor's website is being hammered by us, so I've only got the Star article to go from. "The R/C turbine provides thrust to get up to takeoff speed, at which point the flapping wings take over." I didn't see mention of a secondary propulsion means that causes the wings to flap. Electric motor? Pedal power? Briggs & Stratton? I'm curious how much horsepower it takes to keep his bird aloft. Anyone know?
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You've created a contrived and improbable scenario where an "important call" might show up demanding your attention. Having swallowed the "importance of the call" rhetoric hook, line, and sinker, you're now prepared to alter your life behavior in order to service the telephone. Answering the phone shouldn't automatically be your highest priority in life. Sooo, in your "valid scenario" above, do you spend all your time hovering over the phone waiting for the "might be important" calls to show up? Why not?
Like in a computer, a phone call is an interrupt and should be prioritized accordingly. Have you ever written code that blocks interrupts because whatever you're doing is critical? Have you had to write code to service prioritized interrupts? Your life should work much the same way.
If it's truely important, the caller will re-dial after hanging up on your answering machine's greeting. Works fine.
Honestly, the "what about emergencies" arguement is as badly abused as "think of the children." My telephone is a resource for *my* convenience, paid for by *me.* If someone calls while I'm eating dinner with my family, the call is allowed to roll-over to the answering machine. If there's an immediate call-back, I'll probably interrupt what I'm doing. Somebody screaming into the answering machine in the next room would be a good clue too. Everything else gets done on *my* schedule.
It used to be that receiving a telephone call was a big deal - think back to the early 1900's. Nobody had phones. If somebody called you, there was probably large expense (money, time, effort) to place the call from the other end. That expectation persists to today, in spite of the ubiquity and low-value of most phone calls. The phone companies go to great lengths to maintain this perception of "high priority interrupt." They're in your face, and they want to stay there (but that's a completely different rant.)
Think of the children. They're busy eating their dinner and experiencing some family time. Call back later. (To address the original poster: get an answering machine; learn to use it; don't let the phone rule your life.)
6.5 Trillion? Either I was asleep while *everyone* was breeding, or you're off by three orders of magnitude. I'm not trying to be a Population Nazi, but having 6.5 trillion meat-popsicles on this rock would be pretty disturbing.
Let's do the math - using the trusty old v = at equation.
using data from line 2: (1 minute)*(60 sec/min) * (17g)*(9.8m/s^2/g) = 9996 m/s
Yep. Orbital velocity at LEO is typically about 7.5 km/s, so if you can tolerate 17g for 45 seconds, you're there. Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s, so if you can tolerate 17g for (11000/9.8/17) = 66 seconds, you may leave the planet and go elsewhere.
Note: this analysis is "napkin math," and is intended to check to see if the numbers are in the right ballpark. It intentionally ignores things like atmospheric drag. If you want the full-blown analysis, you may contract my services for $165/hr.
I actually saw (the result of) this access method about 25 years ago. The "bad guys" trolled an upscale neighborhood with a garage door code scanner. They got a hit on a house, backed a van into the garage, and closed the door from the inside. They used a chainsaw to extract the entire doorframe from the garage wall, and had pretty unrestricted access to the house at that point. They took a van's-worth of stuff and left, with nobody in the neighborhood seeing anything out of the ordinary. The cops suspect they used an electric chainsaw powered from the house - less noise that way.
While this was an upscale smash-and-grab, I thought it was pretty well thought out.
Man, you're making me feel old... I've witnessed 40 of those 50 years. BTW, your description of the situaiton as Breach of Contract is very well worded.
That said, I feel like I'm in the same exact situation. I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the Sonny Bono Indefinite Copyright Extension nastiness. The retro-active part makes me particularly furious... that's the piece I consider to be the material breach. More specifically, the original copyright terms formed a valid contract - the three requisite parts were satisfied (offer, acceptance, and consideration.) The "consideration" in this case is an exchange of a short-term monopoly for public-domain status at the end of that term. Disregarding the offer and acceptance aspects of the retroactive extension, there's only benefit for the copyright holders and none for the public. The copyright extension act therefore fails the consideration test, and is not a valid contract. The public already had the "revert to public-domain" element in the original contract. The extension offers benefit to the copyright holder in exchange for... what? (hint: nothing.)
I've used the term "breach of contract" in many discussions. Is it possible to file a class-action lawsuit against Congress for Breach of Contract?
I'm quite certain that the lawyers would have a field day with that. The original contract was negotiated by representatives of the people, and I'm also quite certain that they'd argue that the terms of said contract were re-negotiated by representatives of the people. The whole "representation" thing creates a nasty grey area - we citizens aren't allowed to opt-out of laws we don't like.
In the words of Ed Howdershelt: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
Looks like we're exhausted the first two... are we up to number three already?
"I pay for my fax line. It's there for my convenience, paid for at my expense. You and everyone else has exactly *zero* right to use my telephone line (which I lease) or my equipment (which I own) simply because it has a connection to the PSTN. Only persons explicitly authorized to use the equipment may do so."
If you don't have explicit authorization to use my facilities and equipment, you may not do so. I shouldn't be constantly performing defensive maneuvers to protect my fax line (which you obstruct with spam.) You spamming asshats shouldn't be abusing the telecommunications networks in the first place. Legislation should put you cockroaches out of business.
I wouldn't do that before reading the actual sale contract. If there's a clause about "adoping all assets, liabilities, etc." you could be adoping a bucket of debt for your penny. It wouldn't be the first time a scummy company tried to offload it's financial liabilities onto someone else.
Nothing fishy; just math and basic physics. You know the boundary conditions - v(initial) = 0, and v(exit) = 11km/s. With an 11km-long launch tube, you've got a pretty well-defined system. If you start with the easiest scenario - a constant-value acceleration, starting from standstill, you can calculate the necessary equations:
a = a (which happens to be a constant) Integrate to get velocity:
v = a * t (which happens to be the equation for a line intersecting with [0,0]) Integrate to get distance:
d = 1/2 * a * (t^2) (which happens to be a parabola)
If you have an 11km tube, and you enter it at zero velocity, and exit it at 11km/s, the above equations define the *minimum* acceleration necessary to meet the requirements. If you substitute a more complex acceleration profile and do the integrations, you'll come out with similar equations, but the peak acceleration is going to be higher at some points than with the constant version.
And the math is just... math. It doesn't have an opinion. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't make it wrong. The system you asked for - escape velocity at the end of an 11km launch tube, starting at standstill - defines the environment. The math told you what you'd need to do in order to achieve those goals.
Turn it around. I'll give you some "artistic license," too. I'll allow you to have 100g constant acceleration over the duration of the launch, and make the assumption that we invent some tech that allows hyu-mons to survive the stress. The d=1/2at^2 equation dictates that 11km=1/2(100*9.8m/s/s)(t^2). It'll take 4.738 seconds to traverse the tube. You now know "t", so you can calculate the exit velocity as v = at = (100*9.8)*(4.738) = 4643.24 m/s. Unfortunately, that's not quite LEO orbital velocity (7.5km/s), so you're passengers will need additional protection from the ballistic trajectory (and subsequent re-entry).
It's not my opinion... it's math. Embrace the Math, it's powerful stuff. As for the car accelerating to 27m/s in 3 seconds, it's all about horsepower (or kW outside the US.) Using the same equations above, v = at says (27m/s) = a (3s). Solving for acceleration, a = 27/3 = 9m/s/s, or about 1g (not terribly impressive.) Performance cars have upwards of 300hp (220kW) powerplants, which probably isn't "power at the wheel." Another poster indicated the need to have about 12.1GW to put 100kg through your launch tube... that's 5 orders of magnitude more power required. Nah, the math is consistent.
That's what my job is for. I get plenty of challenging situations that are "for real" at work. I don't want gameplay to be similar to the workplace *at all.*
Games are entertainment, and have no substantial value beyond that. I don't seek anything "real" from playing games. Playing with or without cheats enabled results in the same thing - I spent time sitting on my butt pushing buttons. In the end, I've accomplished nothing "real."
Blasting synthetic bad-guys all to hell is just escapism, but it's quite effective at helping to release stress caused by real-world events. The games have value in that regard, but the God Mode gameplay value is higher for me because I don't have to deal with the frustration that results from failing to perform the perfect 1-pixel-aligned jump while pressing some innane combination of keys while battling the opponents. I just want to blast 'em all to hell, no questions asked.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly. I have allergies to Spruce/Pine/Fir (SPF) and most softwoods that end up as the pulp feedstock for paper. I'm also allergic to my current residence, which is constructed mostly of SPF. I actively purge dead-tree materials in favor of electronic equivalents. The "textbook" and "newspaper" smells that some people praise are anathema to me. However, putting adverts in reference material is just as bad.
That said, the college textbook requirements have always been a scam perpetrated by the university(ies) in collusion with the publishers. The university environment is one that isn't subject to free-market forces, and will abuse the students to their tolerance limit. The university can dictate terms. It's in the publisher's best interest to play along. Consider it the price of admission.
"If they go boom, then we'll be certain that they were a terrorist. And if they just burn ..." then you're perfectly confident that the individual was a Witch (an equally undesirable member of society.) I seem to recall similar tests using ducks and small rocks, but I don't remember the details.
I'm amused at the Rube-Goldbergian prospect of using Solar_cells -> electricity -> batteries -> bulbs -> light to grow plants. Maybe we could add a water wheel and some chipmunks in the path too.
... you'd probably get better overall efficiency using reflectors and light pipes. Of course, you can't grow 24-hours a day that way.
... but you're never going to be able to pull "huge amounts of power" from a stairwell lighting circuit. You'll get a modest amount, but it'll be limited.
Seriously, plants already operate off solar
Staircase power is a bad choice. The circuits are designed to be efficient (cost, installation, materials, etc) for the staircase light load. There isn't going to be a ton of margin left on that circuit. Lighting circuits, in general, aren't designed for larger loads. The 220V HVAC connection is a better choice. I understand that the "growers" aren't the sharpest hammers in the drawer, and don't always have access to better sources
The US Constitution doesn't mention Copyright or Patent by name, but includes a section that identifies the need for such structures. If we didn't have this, there would exist an entire subculture of predatory corporations who only existed to swipe the inventions of others. So yes, it's supposed to level the field (i.e. you have an opportnity to create/invent without having to fight the IP-swipers.) Unfortunately, it's being abused right now. The Patent system needs an overhaul pretty desperately.
Pascal was/is a great learning language. It's not too difficult to comprehend, but it's strong enough that you don't immediately exceed it's capabilities once you "get it."
:= (1 - Expenses / Revenue); ). There's competition now, and most machines owned by hobby-programmers and students will cruise through the compilation process fast enough that the "turbo" brand doesn't offer a compelling solution like it used to. There are OSS solutions available, so the "less expensive" compulsion is gone as well. Back in the day (man, y'all are making me feel old ...) the alternative was the Microsoft compiler that was dog slow and required a manual linking step ... from the command line ... both ways.
... now get the hell off my lawn!
Turbo Pascal was a great because a) it was inexpensive compared to everyone else; and b) it compiled soooo much faster than everyone else. The development environment concept was pretty innovative too, and eliminated much of the command line funkiness. Funny, I didn't Turbo Pascal in the press release - Delphi, C++, C#. I guess you could call Delphi "object Pascal" if you wanted to.
However, this press release stinks of a marketing cash-grab where they try to make a quick buck by squeezing the legacy heritage of a well-known trademark. I just don't see that they're adding any value to the proposition. Some marketroid probably did the math based on "no new development NRE" and was brimming at the huge potential margins on such a re-release (i.e. Margin
Tell Blaise that I still have fond memories
Clearwater is a hotbed of Scientology controversy. I half expected to see Dr. Brian Zwan (google cache) on the Board of Directors at Robotic Parking. Seems like businesses in Clearwater are required to have the corporate motto "Do Evil."
The Robotic Parking website has some very agressive language (middle and bottom of page) that summarizes as "You will license this from us." I wouldn't purchase such a thing with these terms. When I purchase an item from the patent holder, I obtain explicit permission to use the item - mainly because I paid the patent holder. A patent is intended to level the playing field with regard to big and small manufacturers, not to allow a manufacturer to extort money from his customers. If I purchase your patented Widget {TM} (c) [Pat. Pend.], once the sale is complete I may grind it into a fine powder should I choose to do so. Your patent does not extend into dictating *how* I may use the product that I now own.
If the City of Hoboken got a purchase discount in exchange for Robo-Parking getting a piece of the action, that's a completely different contractual arrangement. Regardless, this contract is stinky. The elected officials who signed this turd need to be un-elected (and possibly punished.)
The police don't really have a choice on this one. They've already acted, and put the now-very-public process in motion.
... that's one of the motivating/correcting forces that keeps them from abusing their position as LawGivers.
They can't admit that they're wrong. That'd destroy their credibility. They're supposed to be "experts" on the law and it's interpretation. If they came out and said "Whups, we screwed up," there'd be formal inquiries and all sorts of hell to pay.
The case is a loser. If they continue down that road, they make it more public and the damage is worse. The DA recognized that there's no chance they'd be able to convince a jury to convict, simply because the jury is composed of folks just like the defendant. The DA pulled the plug as more of a damage-control reaction than "it's the right thing to do."
So they've basically pleaded "no contest." They're dropping the charges without admitting any wrongdoing. They're hoping the matter will slide under the carpet as soon as Britney Spears or Mel Gibson is in the headlines again.
As for "right or wrong," I firmly believe that the police should be under public scrutiny as long as they're acting as an agent of the state. They are acting in the public trust, and consequently *all* of their actions need public exposure and scrutiny. They should expect *zero* privacy while on the job
I hope you meant HAZMAT suit (i.e. Hazardous Materials.) The only HVAC I'm familiar with is "Heating, Ventillation, and Air Conditioning" ... you know, the butt-crack-showing maintenance guys. I'm amused at the thought of the SWAT folks having a "secret" conversation with some HVAC techs about the proper way to heat/cool a particular emergency site.
I've always thought the "Apple Newton" was an unfortunate name choice. I prefer the Nabisco product myself, though the "apple"-types appear to have been discontinued in favor of Strawberry and Raspberry. There's a new "Caramel Apple Newtons" on the market, though.
If you're gonna have snakes, you must have planes, too.
The bank doesn't own your car. You do. The bank has a lien against it. The bank does't want to own your car ... they just want to take it from you when you fail to pay the loan.
...
... yet. We had huge "civil rights" issues in the 1960s in the US. I expect that the next big social upheaval will be over "information rights."
The lien exists such that you can own the car, and such that the county/state/fed government may tax you appropriately (which is actually the reason a lien exists.) The gub'ment wants your money, and they can't take it from *you* by trying to tax a bank located in another state/country. But that a completely different (but related) rant
Ultimately, the publishers wish to control distribution. They make a buck if they do, and get squat if you bypass them. They want to make it illegal to transfer ownership of a work (be it a book or a cd or a DVD) without getting a cut. The states will probably support them because financial transactions involve taxation. The problem arises when your audio CD is conveyed to you as "property." You have certain rights regarding property, and those rights include the ability to transfer title to the property to someone else. Publishers would like nothing better than to convince the gub'ment that the audio CD is merely a container, and the copyright on the information within should devalue the owner's property status to that of licensee (because the container and information are inseparable, or some crap like that.) Subsequently, you will become a felon because you sold your non-transferrable audio CD to someone else. Of course, this cuts both ways, and your momma becomes a felon when she buys you a Metalica CD for your birthday (she bought it, but can't legally transfer title to you because she bought it and the license would be non-transferrable. Right?)
The **AA-types want "property" status in order to complete the initial sales transaction, but they want your ownership status to magically change to "licensee" at some point when it's financially convenient. They can't have it both ways
The professor's website is being hammered by us, so I've only got the Star article to go from. "The R/C turbine provides thrust to get up to takeoff speed, at which point the flapping wings take over." I didn't see mention of a secondary propulsion means that causes the wings to flap. Electric motor? Pedal power? Briggs & Stratton? I'm curious how much horsepower it takes to keep his bird aloft. Anyone know?
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You've created a contrived and improbable scenario where an "important call" might show up demanding your attention. Having swallowed the "importance of the call" rhetoric hook, line, and sinker, you're now prepared to alter your life behavior in order to service the telephone. Answering the phone shouldn't automatically be your highest priority in life. Sooo, in your "valid scenario" above, do you spend all your time hovering over the phone waiting for the "might be important" calls to show up? Why not?
Like in a computer, a phone call is an interrupt and should be prioritized accordingly. Have you ever written code that blocks interrupts because whatever you're doing is critical? Have you had to write code to service prioritized interrupts? Your life should work much the same way.
If it's truely important, the caller will re-dial after hanging up on your answering machine's greeting. Works fine.
Honestly, the "what about emergencies" arguement is as badly abused as "think of the children." My telephone is a resource for *my* convenience, paid for by *me.* If someone calls while I'm eating dinner with my family, the call is allowed to roll-over to the answering machine. If there's an immediate call-back, I'll probably interrupt what I'm doing. Somebody screaming into the answering machine in the next room would be a good clue too. Everything else gets done on *my* schedule.
It used to be that receiving a telephone call was a big deal - think back to the early 1900's. Nobody had phones. If somebody called you, there was probably large expense (money, time, effort) to place the call from the other end. That expectation persists to today, in spite of the ubiquity and low-value of most phone calls. The phone companies go to great lengths to maintain this perception of "high priority interrupt." They're in your face, and they want to stay there (but that's a completely different rant.)
Think of the children. They're busy eating their dinner and experiencing some family time. Call back later. (To address the original poster: get an answering machine; learn to use it; don't let the phone rule your life.)
6.5 Trillion? Either I was asleep while *everyone* was breeding, or you're off by three orders of magnitude. I'm not trying to be a Population Nazi, but having 6.5 trillion meat-popsicles on this rock would be pretty disturbing.
Let's do the math - using the trusty old v = at equation.
using data from line 2: (1 minute)*(60 sec/min) * (17g)*(9.8m/s^2/g) = 9996 m/s
Yep. Orbital velocity at LEO is typically about 7.5 km/s, so if you can tolerate 17g for 45 seconds, you're there. Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s, so if you can tolerate 17g for (11000/9.8/17) = 66 seconds, you may leave the planet and go elsewhere.
Note: this analysis is "napkin math," and is intended to check to see if the numbers are in the right ballpark. It intentionally ignores things like atmospheric drag. If you want the full-blown analysis, you may contract my services for $165/hr.
I actually saw (the result of) this access method about 25 years ago. The "bad guys" trolled an upscale neighborhood with a garage door code scanner. They got a hit on a house, backed a van into the garage, and closed the door from the inside. They used a chainsaw to extract the entire doorframe from the garage wall, and had pretty unrestricted access to the house at that point. They took a van's-worth of stuff and left, with nobody in the neighborhood seeing anything out of the ordinary. The cops suspect they used an electric chainsaw powered from the house - less noise that way.
While this was an upscale smash-and-grab, I thought it was pretty well thought out.
Man, you're making me feel old ... I've witnessed 40 of those 50 years. BTW, your description of the situaiton as Breach of Contract is very well worded.
... that's the piece I consider to be the material breach. More specifically, the original copyright terms formed a valid contract - the three requisite parts were satisfied (offer, acceptance, and consideration.) The "consideration" in this case is an exchange of a short-term monopoly for public-domain status at the end of that term. Disregarding the offer and acceptance aspects of the retroactive extension, there's only benefit for the copyright holders and none for the public. The copyright extension act therefore fails the consideration test, and is not a valid contract. The public already had the "revert to public-domain" element in the original contract. The extension offers benefit to the copyright holder in exchange for ... what? (hint: nothing.)
... are we up to number three already?
That said, I feel like I'm in the same exact situation. I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the Sonny Bono Indefinite Copyright Extension nastiness. The retro-active part makes me particularly furious
I've used the term "breach of contract" in many discussions. Is it possible to file a class-action lawsuit against Congress for Breach of Contract?
I'm quite certain that the lawyers would have a field day with that. The original contract was negotiated by representatives of the people, and I'm also quite certain that they'd argue that the terms of said contract were re-negotiated by representatives of the people. The whole "representation" thing creates a nasty grey area - we citizens aren't allowed to opt-out of laws we don't like.
In the words of Ed Howdershelt: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
Looks like we're exhausted the first two
I'd like to see clarification in the legislation:
"I pay for my fax line. It's there for my convenience, paid for at my expense. You and everyone else has exactly *zero* right to use my telephone line (which I lease) or my equipment (which I own) simply because it has a connection to the PSTN. Only persons explicitly authorized to use the equipment may do so."
If you don't have explicit authorization to use my facilities and equipment, you may not do so. I shouldn't be constantly performing defensive maneuvers to protect my fax line (which you obstruct with spam.) You spamming asshats shouldn't be abusing the telecommunications networks in the first place. Legislation should put you cockroaches out of business.
>AC bids 0.01 USD.
I wouldn't do that before reading the actual sale contract. If there's a clause about "adoping all assets, liabilities, etc." you could be adoping a bucket of debt for your penny. It wouldn't be the first time a scummy company tried to offload it's financial liabilities onto someone else.
Nothing fishy; just math and basic physics. You know the boundary conditions - v(initial) = 0, and v(exit) = 11km/s. With an 11km-long launch tube, you've got a pretty well-defined system. If you start with the easiest scenario - a constant-value acceleration, starting from standstill, you can calculate the necessary equations:
... math. It doesn't have an opinion. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't make it wrong. The system you asked for - escape velocity at the end of an 11km launch tube, starting at standstill - defines the environment. The math told you what you'd need to do in order to achieve those goals.
... it's math. Embrace the Math, it's powerful stuff. As for the car accelerating to 27m/s in 3 seconds, it's all about horsepower (or kW outside the US.) Using the same equations above, v = at says (27m/s) = a (3s). Solving for acceleration, a = 27/3 = 9m/s/s, or about 1g (not terribly impressive.) Performance cars have upwards of 300hp (220kW) powerplants, which probably isn't "power at the wheel." Another poster indicated the need to have about 12.1GW to put 100kg through your launch tube ... that's 5 orders of magnitude more power required. Nah, the math is consistent.
a = a (which happens to be a constant)
Integrate to get velocity:
v = a * t (which happens to be the equation for a line intersecting with [0,0])
Integrate to get distance:
d = 1/2 * a * (t^2) (which happens to be a parabola)
If you have an 11km tube, and you enter it at zero velocity, and exit it at 11km/s, the above equations define the *minimum* acceleration necessary to meet the requirements. If you substitute a more complex acceleration profile and do the integrations, you'll come out with similar equations, but the peak acceleration is going to be higher at some points than with the constant version.
And the math is just
Turn it around. I'll give you some "artistic license," too. I'll allow you to have 100g constant acceleration over the duration of the launch, and make the assumption that we invent some tech that allows hyu-mons to survive the stress. The d=1/2at^2 equation dictates that 11km=1/2(100*9.8m/s/s)(t^2). It'll take 4.738 seconds to traverse the tube. You now know "t", so you can calculate the exit velocity as v = at = (100*9.8)*(4.738) = 4643.24 m/s. Unfortunately, that's not quite LEO orbital velocity (7.5km/s), so you're passengers will need additional protection from the ballistic trajectory (and subsequent re-entry).
It's not my opinion
That's what my job is for. I get plenty of challenging situations that are "for real" at work. I don't want gameplay to be similar to the workplace *at all.*
Games are entertainment, and have no substantial value beyond that. I don't seek anything "real" from playing games. Playing with or without cheats enabled results in the same thing - I spent time sitting on my butt pushing buttons. In the end, I've accomplished nothing "real."
Blasting synthetic bad-guys all to hell is just escapism, but it's quite effective at helping to release stress caused by real-world events. The games have value in that regard, but the God Mode gameplay value is higher for me because I don't have to deal with the frustration that results from failing to perform the perfect 1-pixel-aligned jump while pressing some innane combination of keys while battling the opponents. I just want to blast 'em all to hell, no questions asked.
and Blackjack! and hookers!
God Mode + FPS = Stress Relief