If there had been a complete statewide recount, we'd have a differenet president today.
And if Santa Claus were real I'd have a lot more presents under the tree today. "Ifs" mean nothing. No one asked for a "complete statewide recount" at the time. Gore only asked for a recount in heavily Democrat-controlled districts, a scenario under which he would have lost even had he had his way in the court. Woulda-shoulda-coulda.
He answered to the voters in 2004 (though apparantly not to you -- remember that you are not everybody) and the voters told him to keep doing what he was doing for another four years. In 2008, you can decide who you want to run the next four years. You are not five years old anymore. All the cookies are not for you.
Here in Texas it's the trailer-hitch ball on the pick-ups that sticks up and (ahem!) blocks the view of several, but not all, numbers on the license plate.
The answer to this is of course to get a SUV and a can of spray-on mud! The SUV establishes the bona-fides that you actually were out in the mud off-road somewhere, and the mud just happens to coincidentially (ahem!) obscure your number plate.
I found this very interesting. I would love to travel to the far reaches of the universe, just to see what's out there. But I would get lonely eventually.
I would be searching for liveable planets inhabited by earthlike beings. Preferable technologically advanced humanoids. With an abundance of shapely females.
Well, the phone calls, at least. The mail, and possibly the telegraphs, are legal under the 'border search' exemption, that it is legal to monitor stuff going in and out of the country.
What's the difference between telegraph communications and telephone calls? In 1941 they were both just variations in the voltage on a copper cable, the telegraph being a binary on-off variation and the telephone call being an analog waveform. Same for telegraph and e-mail. Both are just binary bits, the telegraph being transmitted at slow speeds, the e-mail at high speeds.
If you allow the search (and censorship!) of telegrams as a legal use of the inherent authority of the President to invoke the 'border crossing' exemption, the surely telephone calls must fall into the same legal category.
No court has ever held that anyone has the authority to warrantless searches on Americans. NOot executive, not legistlative. Period, full stop, no exceptions at all. This includes conversations that are only halfway including Americans.
Was there ever a court ruling on the legality of the "Office of Censorship" established by FDR? The "Office of Censorship" employed more than 10,000 people who opened, read, and censored if the Army deemed it necessary, all the international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls made by US citizens from 1941-1945. That's far more intrusive that anything Bush has done and it was all done to US citizens without so much as a single warrant.
Didn't we learn anything from the internment of Japanese citzens during WWII?
A better question might be: "Did we learn anything from the use of the 'Office of Censorship' which opened and read every international letter, postcard, package, telegram, or telephone call sent or received by US citizens from 1941-1945?" The answer to that would be a "Yes, it worked." Spies and sabateurs were caught. It was effective. And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
What is the best way for new IS managers to convince their superiors of the need for widespread change?
The most common method in the business world is for you to create some Powerpoint slides, call a meeting, and make a presenatation. Have coffee and doughnuts available in the conference room. Have a patsy in the rooms to speak up and say "That's a great idea." For usually, if this is as most business meetings are, no one will disagree with the first person to forcefully articulate a position.
In all seriousness, are we willing to accept phenomenal loss of human life in Pakistan, Indonesia, and the US gulf coast, because we don't want to pollute in the name of saving life?
Given that we ban DDT which if it were not banned would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives lost each year to Malaria -- the answer is "yes". The same for money spent on reducing CO2 emissions that if it were spent on providing clean water and sanitation in many third-world countries instead would save equal number of lives lost to Cholera and Dysentery. It's a choice made every day and we choose to let people die.
Can you give examples of inventions that were not [obvious progression of technology]? Preferably in recent times where we are familiar with "the obvious progression of technology".
I don't believe anyone toyed with sound recordings before Edison invented the phonograph. Certainly the zipper and perhaps Bakelite count too.
If this is true, it only shows how corrupt our laws have become. No serious person could think that Jefferson, Franklin and the other Constitution authors would ever think it's OK for a president to do something like this.
Like FDR did when in WWII ALL outgoing and incoming mail and telegrams were intercepted and censored if the government deemed it to be necessary?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt establishes the Office of Censorship in 1941 to censor communications between the United States and foreign countries and to prevent news organizations from publishing information the enemy might be interested in. Roosevelt appoints Byron Price, a respected journalist, to run the office. Price accepts the post on the condition that the media can voluntarily agree to self-censorship. The office employs 14,462 civilians to monitor cable, mail, and radio communications between the United States and other nations....
From December 19, 1941, until August 15, 1945, the Office of Censorship had the power to censor international communications at its "absolute discretion." With a staff of more than 10,000 censors, the office routinely examined mail, cables, newspapers, magazines, films, and radio broadcasts. Its operations constituted the most extensive government censorship of the media in U. S. history...
So we shouldn't even try to make their jobs safer? What kind of screwed up mind did that come from?
There are 40,000 highway deaths each year in America. If we tried to make cars as safe as Shuttles we would have only one car trip in America every three years (one Shuttle flight since Columbia). That's being OVERLY cautious in my opinion. And cars carry lots of small children who are NOT volunteering for the trip (unlike the astronauts) and who die in the process. Asking for (and paying for) 100% safety is unrealistic.
Do you feel the need to have a zeroth day of the month to precede the first day of December? Days of the month are ordinal numbers like Gregorian years are. Today is the 13th day of December. December 13th. Dec 13. 13 December. It is also the 2005th year of the common era. The last day of November is the last day before December. It is the first day that precedes December. There is no zeroth day. There is no zeroth year. The astronomy date scheme you cite is simply to be friendly to lazy math.
It appears that the guys who devised the Common Era calendar were a bit hazy about the concept of "zero".
It appears that you are a bit hazy about the concept of ordinal number versus cardinal number and the concept of a point versus a period of elapsed time. Years are ordinal numbers describing a period of time equal to 12 months. The "First Year" is the "First Year of the Common Era" or AD 1. It describes the whole 12 months, not the single point in time at the beginning of the year and the point separating the last year before the common era (1 BCE) from the first year of common era (AD 1). Zeroes on a number line describe points not elapsed time. This is the end of the 2,005th year of the common era. Next month we will start the 2006th year. Adding a zeroth year between 1 BCE and AD 1 would be extraordinarily stupid and mathematically innumerate.
It's just a collection of made-up sniglets so far. The fact that it doesn't require several citations of actual usage is its weakness. There seem to be several people spamming it with fake words as a joke.
It's a bit dated, but Don Wiss has documented the storefronts of most of the Brooklyn and Manhattan photo gear dealers. Some I would obviously neverbuyfrom. Others are just fine. A picture is worth a thousand words.
You're just jealous cause I throught up and IMPLEMENTED what you couldn't. Maybe if you got off your lazy ass for once, you could make something of yourself.
i cant. im an introvert. all i can do is sit here and think about it.
I pointed out to my wife how flawed that one was just by doing a thought experiment where both cars were stationary and idling like at a stop light. Obviously the car with the a/c on will be using more energy and therefore more fuel than the car with the a/c off and the windows down. So at some speed, the lines cross and the a/c on becomes more efficent as they claimed. I was disappointed they didn't test enough to find that point or at least point out that it existed rather than presumptivly dismissing it as "busted."
But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
The Army did not use WP against personnel targets. They used it in Fallujah against the fortifications the opposing side were hiding in. It is a legitimate use of the weapon to use it as an incendiary to burn down or destroy enemy fortifications so as to flush them out into the open or if they don't leave to kill them in the process. That's what I said earlier. That is not using it against personnel anymore than using a mortar round on their fortifications would be. Shooting a mortar into a crowd is also illegal. Shooting it into fortifications is not. Same with using WP.
Besides, the entangled photon pair in question are indeed perpendicular to each other, and so the action of polarization at other than 90degrees is a moot point.
And the polarization of the two polarizing filters that are perpendicular to each other can be defeated by adding a third in-between the others. There are circumstances (adding additional filters) where the polarization depolarizes. The model of polarized light as being filtered through a vertical gate is not wholly correct. It's much more involved. I don't understand it. But I can see how it would affect expected results of the experiment. Just as thinking of electrons as a planetary model is not correct and can lead to false assumptions.
Normally the photons exit the crystal such that one is aligned in a horizontally (H) polarized light cone, the other aligned vertically (V). By adjusting the experiment, the horizontal and vertical light cones can be made to overlap.
That's a too simple description of polarization. It doesn't work that way. Take a polarizing filter and shine a light through it. Add another polarizing filter but rotate it 90 degrees from the other. The light is cut off from passing all the way through both. So far, so good. Now here's the tricky part. Take a third polarizing filter and place it in between the two previous ones. Rotate it around. WOW! At some intervals you can now see through all three! With two if you rotate the second you get total blockage when the filter is at 90 and 270 degrees from the first. You get more blockage points around the 360 degrees with the in-between third one (Extra ponts: how many?)! Strange. Add another. You get even more blockage points. (How many now?) Very strange indeed. Does the experiment account for this, the real behavior of polarizing filters and not the simplistic one in the article?
Slashdot Mirror
And if Santa Claus were real I'd have a lot more presents under the tree today. "Ifs" mean nothing. No one asked for a "complete statewide recount" at the time. Gore only asked for a recount in heavily Democrat-controlled districts, a scenario under which he would have lost even had he had his way in the court. Woulda-shoulda-coulda.
He answered to the voters in 2004 (though apparantly not to you -- remember that you are not everybody) and the voters told him to keep doing what he was doing for another four years. In 2008, you can decide who you want to run the next four years. You are not five years old anymore. All the cookies are not for you.
Here in Texas it's the trailer-hitch ball on the pick-ups that sticks up and (ahem!) blocks the view of several, but not all, numbers on the license plate.
It's called a "video stabilizer."
The answer to this is of course to get a SUV and a can of spray-on mud! The SUV establishes the bona-fides that you actually were out in the mud off-road somewhere, and the mud just happens to coincidentially (ahem!) obscure your number plate.
I would be searching for liveable planets inhabited by earthlike beings. Preferable technologically advanced humanoids. With an abundance of shapely females.
What's the difference between telegraph communications and telephone calls? In 1941 they were both just variations in the voltage on a copper cable, the telegraph being a binary on-off variation and the telephone call being an analog waveform. Same for telegraph and e-mail. Both are just binary bits, the telegraph being transmitted at slow speeds, the e-mail at high speeds.
If you allow the search (and censorship!) of telegrams as a legal use of the inherent authority of the President to invoke the 'border crossing' exemption, the surely telephone calls must fall into the same legal category.
Was there ever a court ruling on the legality of the "Office of Censorship" established by FDR? The "Office of Censorship" employed more than 10,000 people who opened, read, and censored if the Army deemed it necessary, all the international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls made by US citizens from 1941-1945. That's far more intrusive that anything Bush has done and it was all done to US citizens without so much as a single warrant.
A better question might be: "Did we learn anything from the use of the 'Office of Censorship' which opened and read every international letter, postcard, package, telegram, or telephone call sent or received by US citizens from 1941-1945?" The answer to that would be a "Yes, it worked." Spies and sabateurs were caught. It was effective. And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
The most common method in the business world is for you to create some Powerpoint slides, call a meeting, and make a presenatation. Have coffee and doughnuts available in the conference room. Have a patsy in the rooms to speak up and say "That's a great idea." For usually, if this is as most business meetings are, no one will disagree with the first person to forcefully articulate a position.
Given that we ban DDT which if it were not banned would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives lost each year to Malaria -- the answer is "yes". The same for money spent on reducing CO2 emissions that if it were spent on providing clean water and sanitation in many third-world countries instead would save equal number of lives lost to Cholera and Dysentery. It's a choice made every day and we choose to let people die.
I don't believe anyone toyed with sound recordings before Edison invented the phonograph. Certainly the zipper and perhaps Bakelite count too.
Like FDR did when in WWII ALL outgoing and incoming mail and telegrams were intercepted and censored if the government deemed it to be necessary?
There are 40,000 highway deaths each year in America. If we tried to make cars as safe as Shuttles we would have only one car trip in America every three years (one Shuttle flight since Columbia). That's being OVERLY cautious in my opinion. And cars carry lots of small children who are NOT volunteering for the trip (unlike the astronauts) and who die in the process. Asking for (and paying for) 100% safety is unrealistic.
Do you feel the need to have a zeroth day of the month to precede the first day of December? Days of the month are ordinal numbers like Gregorian years are. Today is the 13th day of December. December 13th. Dec 13. 13 December. It is also the 2005th year of the common era. The last day of November is the last day before December. It is the first day that precedes December. There is no zeroth day. There is no zeroth year. The astronomy date scheme you cite is simply to be friendly to lazy math.
It appears that you are a bit hazy about the concept of ordinal number versus cardinal number and the concept of a point versus a period of elapsed time. Years are ordinal numbers describing a period of time equal to 12 months. The "First Year" is the "First Year of the Common Era" or AD 1. It describes the whole 12 months, not the single point in time at the beginning of the year and the point separating the last year before the common era (1 BCE) from the first year of common era (AD 1). Zeroes on a number line describe points not elapsed time. This is the end of the 2,005th year of the common era. Next month we will start the 2006th year. Adding a zeroth year between 1 BCE and AD 1 would be extraordinarily stupid and mathematically innumerate.
It's just a collection of made-up sniglets so far. The fact that it doesn't require several citations of actual usage is its weakness. There seem to be several people spamming it with fake words as a joke.
It's a bit dated, but Don Wiss has documented the storefronts of most of the Brooklyn and Manhattan photo gear dealers. Some I would obviously never buy from. Others are just fine. A picture is worth a thousand words.
i cant. im an introvert. all i can do is sit here and think about it.
I can't. I'm an introvert. I'd never do something so rash as to cold call someone. I'll let you extroverts take care of it.
I pointed out to my wife how flawed that one was just by doing a thought experiment where both cars were stationary and idling like at a stop light. Obviously the car with the a/c on will be using more energy and therefore more fuel than the car with the a/c off and the windows down. So at some speed, the lines cross and the a/c on becomes more efficent as they claimed. I was disappointed they didn't test enough to find that point or at least point out that it existed rather than presumptivly dismissing it as "busted."
The Army did not use WP against personnel targets. They used it in Fallujah against the fortifications the opposing side were hiding in. It is a legitimate use of the weapon to use it as an incendiary to burn down or destroy enemy fortifications so as to flush them out into the open or if they don't leave to kill them in the process. That's what I said earlier. That is not using it against personnel anymore than using a mortar round on their fortifications would be. Shooting a mortar into a crowd is also illegal. Shooting it into fortifications is not. Same with using WP.
And the polarization of the two polarizing filters that are perpendicular to each other can be defeated by adding a third in-between the others. There are circumstances (adding additional filters) where the polarization depolarizes. The model of polarized light as being filtered through a vertical gate is not wholly correct. It's much more involved. I don't understand it. But I can see how it would affect expected results of the experiment. Just as thinking of electrons as a planetary model is not correct and can lead to false assumptions.
That's a too simple description of polarization. It doesn't work that way. Take a polarizing filter and shine a light through it. Add another polarizing filter but rotate it 90 degrees from the other. The light is cut off from passing all the way through both. So far, so good. Now here's the tricky part. Take a third polarizing filter and place it in between the two previous ones. Rotate it around. WOW! At some intervals you can now see through all three! With two if you rotate the second you get total blockage when the filter is at 90 and 270 degrees from the first. You get more blockage points around the 360 degrees with the in-between third one (Extra ponts: how many?)! Strange. Add another. You get even more blockage points. (How many now?) Very strange indeed. Does the experiment account for this, the real behavior of polarizing filters and not the simplistic one in the article?
It will still exhibit red-shift/blue shift relative to the direction of the person moving at near-relativistic speeds won't it?