metric is a concise system based on 10 that even an imbecile can understand
That's why metric is a good choice for imbeciles. Sorry, you left yourself wide open on that one.
metric is a concise system based on 10 that even an imbecile can understand
Funny, but in the US 7 year olds master imperial units too. At least they did in the 1950s when I was 7.
P.S. - relax, I know metric is better for today and I don't have any problem with it. But I'm also not hung up on it. Either one works, and it's trivial to convert using calculators or computers. Actually, if you start with a knowledge of imperial, it really is child's play to learn metric, but not so much vice versa. Hmmm, maybe, just maybe, brain exercise is a Good thing.
Thank you for the highly amusing reply which proves nothing. Just in case you are who you claim to be, I'll play it straight. As to the flaws you find at periodic inspections - do you really think they were not there the month before you found them? You are always playing catch-up by the nature of the beast and people are on to the fact that you are riding the edge of the whirlwind.
They inspect airplanes regularly, too, you know. And every once in a while an airplane has a structural failure in flight due to some flaw that was not found in time. Maybe close is good enough for planes, where the maximum extent of the consequences is pretty well bound, but it's just not good enough for nuclear power.
As an EX supporter of nuclear power who finally woke up, the one thing this is not is "nonsensical fearmongering," and you show yourself in an unprofessional light to call it that.
The reason the US Navy builds reliable nuclear reactors is not because they have "unlimited" funding. That idea is absurd. They have a budget they must decide how to divide up, just like everybody else. Every extra dollar they spend on reactors is a dollar they could have spent on cruise missiles or fighters. The reason the US Navy builds reliable nuclear reactors is because their mission and their very expensive assets depend on that reliability. And they have the freedom to formulate specifications that a for-profit company would have a lot of trouble justifying to their stockholders/investors.
Oh for gosh sake. That's NOT "simple logic." It's bogus logic which fails to recognize the purpose of a corporation and the fiduciary responsibility of its management. A corporation will perform the minimum engineering required to meet specs. PERIOD. That's not a function of their evilness, it's a function of their PURPOSE. If you tax them less, it just means more will be left over for profit, or they will be able to cut the cost of their product. It certainly doesn't mean they will say, "Oh gee, the government is grabbing less of our money now, let's just blow off the stockholders and customers and spend more on engineering, just because we can."
Corporations are fundamentally less trustworthy than governments. Maybe governments are not trustworthy in practice, but at least nominally their sole responsibility is to the people, while the sole responsibility of corporations is to the stockholders. To the extent governments do not look out for the interests of the people, they are defective, corrupt. Corporations do not look out for the interests of the people by DESIGN; not because they are defective or corrupt.
If you want to change the behavior of a corporation in a case like this, you can only do it by REGULATING minimum specs, and ENFORCING those regulations.
And THAT is better than simple logic. That is realism.
So you don't think the metal pressure vessels, piping and fittings corrode and degrade under conditions of very high temperature, pressure, and nuclear radiation? They will never be as safe as the day they were built because it's not practical to inspect constantly and thoroughly enough to catch every single flaw before it becomes the least bit dangerous. The difference is if a coal, oil, or gas plant blows a pipe, a bunch of non-radioactive steam escapes, maybe kills some personnel on site, and maybe causes some fairly expensive damage. In a nuclear plant, there is always that possibility that a failure may progress to the catastrophic complete devastation of the entire site and some of the surrounding area.
I wonder if it's time to fork Gnome 2? Gnome 3 and Unity being the heaping steaming piles of shit that they are, just fucking fork it and give them the middle finger. There are plenty of rough edges and unconfigurable goofy behavior in Gnome 2 to improve. You could make the same argument about KDE 3.
Just go back to the last decent points in Gnome and KDE before they both went off the rails. For KDE, you could take 3.5.something, update the code to use the latest Qt, and you would have a wonderful starting point.
OK, how much RAM does your router have? Your cable modem? A small NAS device? Your concept of embedded devices may be only a small fraction of what's out there.
Nobody HAS explained it to you because nobody CAN explain it to you. When your own government openly and brazenly flouts the constitution which is its full and sole authority, what recourse have you? I thought of condemning the voters for continually putting clowns into office, but how can it be their fault, if Tweedledum and Tweedledee are selected for them, and their only choice for every elected office is between two clowns?
Oh, I am sure they would LIKE to get at credit card statements, but there's this little thing called due process that makes it just a little harder for them than would be the case if we didn't have a constitution.
If you used your brain, you would see that it would prevent the compulsion of the vendor to collect and remit the state sales tax for you. In so doing, it would also prevent an administrative cost to the vendor (which would obviously be passed on to the consumer) to perform that process. Yes, your state may tell you that it is still taxable, and you, the consumer/citizen are expected to report your purchases and voluntarily remit your tax on same, but it's going to be a lot harder for the state to compel you to do so.
Yes, I am aware that duties could still be collected on entry of the shipment into the US, but anything that makes it harder for the bastards to rape the citizens gains my favor. In my experience, at least for small ticket items, duty is usually not an issue.
The explosion was NOT inevitable. Hydrogen doesn't explode by magic. It's a chemical process which requires an ignition source to set it off. Somebody didn't make sure that all ignition sources were safely secured.
Every space shuttle (and every one of the old Saturns) vents hydrogen when it's sitting fueled on the pad. You can bet they make double damned sure that there is no ignition source around to set it off.
You can make your own hydrogen by electrolysing water. Many of us have done it in school or at home. If you make darn sure there is nothing around to ignite it before it is safely dissipated, no explosion happens.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It doesn't say anything like what you claim. The steady state radiation dose in space is not 10's of Sv/h. The actual measured doses received by Apollo astronauts worked out to the microSv/h range.
Yes, solar events can be a very significant problem, but the picture you paint is fantastic in the literal sense of the word.
Yes, of course you're entirely correct; whole body exposure to 10 Sv is lethal. Your parent is way, way off.
From your parent's post's own link - "Actual radiation dose measurements of Apollo crews measured by onboard dosimetry were, on average, 12 mSv." That's for the entire two way flight, not per hour.
He may have been talking about the calculated dose of 6 Sv in space at Earth's distance from the Sun if a major solar particle event occurred. That's 6 Sv TO THE SKIN PER EVENT, not per hour, or 0.9 Sv to the bone marrow. Or intersecting the path of a coronal mass ejection or solar flare, you could take 10's of Sv if floating naked in space, but fractions of 1 Sv inside a spacecraft. Cosmic ray exposure could be between 0.3 to 1 Sv per YEAR. While all these considerations are very serious, they are far from the cataclysmic levels portrayed by the poster.
How conveniently you fail to see the damage that doubling taxes would do to the economy. You never double the take when you double the rate. You would have every single taxpayer left with less of his own money to buy goods and services, fund charities, invest in businesses, etc. Most of all, the malevolent monster that is the government would have an orgasm finding new ways to waste all that extra take.
You can sing this tune as long as you want, but it doesn't hold up. 2010 budget numbers: defense, $689 billion; social security, medicare and medicaid: $1,494 billion. You can eff with the details all you want, but socialism dwarfs defense.
Adding interest on the debt changes nothing. If you add the burden to defense, you have to add it to socialism too. The ratio remains the same.
You conveniently split social security from medicare-and-medicaid solely in order to make each half of socialism look smaller (though each is still individually in fact larger than defense).
Veterans affairs couldn't morally be cut even if you eliminated defense overnight. Veterans served in good faith (or were forced to serve, before abolition of the draft), and deserve morally and ethically to be looked after. It's a consideration in recognition of service to others; fundamentally different than from of the three components of socialism enumerated above, which are handouts not predicated on service to others.
Oh, and defense is specifically enumerated as a responsibility of federal government in the constitution. Socialism is not. You can try to justify it on the basis of the much-abused "promote the general welfare" clause, but that is revisionism. None of that existed prior to the twentieth century, and it only started to get out of hand in the second half on the twentieth century. This was not done by amending the constitution, but rather by warping the interpretation beyond recognition in terms of the original intent. The votes were never there to do it honestly.
Yeah, it would be nice if we didn't need defense. Also, it would be nice in the abstract to have socialism if we could afford it. Heck, I'm not Mr. Potter, deriding and belittling everyone less fortunate. But neither of those nice ideals is possible. Not in the long run, and the long run is coming due faster and faster.
At this point, we cannot realistically either dispense with defense, or completely throw out socialism. The best we can do is try to improve the efficiency of both, and trim anything dispensable from both, but I think it's too late to save the nation as we have known it.
Entirely correct. And it's already too late. Politically you can't touch entitlements. The idiot voters say they want government curtailed but then they won't let you touch any of these sacred cows. There is going to be a spectacular national crash that will make what happened to the Soviet Union look tame.
Bull crap. You wouldn't be varying their pay. That's an absurd stretch. You would be temporarily laying them off without pay. Please don't throw in a red herring.
Slashdot Mirror
metric is a concise system based on 10 that even an imbecile can understand
That's why metric is a good choice for imbeciles. Sorry, you left yourself wide open on that one.
metric is a concise system based on 10 that even an imbecile can understand
Funny, but in the US 7 year olds master imperial units too. At least they did in the 1950s when I was 7.
P.S. - relax, I know metric is better for today and I don't have any problem with it. But I'm also not hung up on it. Either one works, and it's trivial to convert using calculators or computers. Actually, if you start with a knowledge of imperial, it really is child's play to learn metric, but not so much vice versa. Hmmm, maybe, just maybe, brain exercise is a Good thing.
Thank you for the highly amusing reply which proves nothing. Just in case you are who you claim to be, I'll play it straight. As to the flaws you find at periodic inspections - do you really think they were not there the month before you found them? You are always playing catch-up by the nature of the beast and people are on to the fact that you are riding the edge of the whirlwind.
They inspect airplanes regularly, too, you know. And every once in a while an airplane has a structural failure in flight due to some flaw that was not found in time. Maybe close is good enough for planes, where the maximum extent of the consequences is pretty well bound, but it's just not good enough for nuclear power.
As an EX supporter of nuclear power who finally woke up, the one thing this is not is "nonsensical fearmongering," and you show yourself in an unprofessional light to call it that.
The reason the US Navy builds reliable nuclear reactors is not because they have "unlimited" funding. That idea is absurd. They have a budget they must decide how to divide up, just like everybody else. Every extra dollar they spend on reactors is a dollar they could have spent on cruise missiles or fighters. The reason the US Navy builds reliable nuclear reactors is because their mission and their very expensive assets depend on that reliability. And they have the freedom to formulate specifications that a for-profit company would have a lot of trouble justifying to their stockholders/investors.
Oh for gosh sake. That's NOT "simple logic." It's bogus logic which fails to recognize the purpose of a corporation and the fiduciary responsibility of its management. A corporation will perform the minimum engineering required to meet specs. PERIOD. That's not a function of their evilness, it's a function of their PURPOSE. If you tax them less, it just means more will be left over for profit, or they will be able to cut the cost of their product. It certainly doesn't mean they will say, "Oh gee, the government is grabbing less of our money now, let's just blow off the stockholders and customers and spend more on engineering, just because we can."
Corporations are fundamentally less trustworthy than governments. Maybe governments are not trustworthy in practice, but at least nominally their sole responsibility is to the people, while the sole responsibility of corporations is to the stockholders. To the extent governments do not look out for the interests of the people, they are defective, corrupt. Corporations do not look out for the interests of the people by DESIGN; not because they are defective or corrupt.
If you want to change the behavior of a corporation in a case like this, you can only do it by REGULATING minimum specs, and ENFORCING those regulations.
And THAT is better than simple logic. That is realism.
So you don't think the metal pressure vessels, piping and fittings corrode and degrade under conditions of very high temperature, pressure, and nuclear radiation? They will never be as safe as the day they were built because it's not practical to inspect constantly and thoroughly enough to catch every single flaw before it becomes the least bit dangerous. The difference is if a coal, oil, or gas plant blows a pipe, a bunch of non-radioactive steam escapes, maybe kills some personnel on site, and maybe causes some fairly expensive damage. In a nuclear plant, there is always that possibility that a failure may progress to the catastrophic complete devastation of the entire site and some of the surrounding area.
I wonder if it's time to fork Gnome 2? Gnome 3 and Unity being the heaping steaming piles of shit that they are, just fucking fork it and give them the middle finger. There are plenty of rough edges and unconfigurable goofy behavior in Gnome 2 to improve. You could make the same argument about KDE 3.
Just go back to the last decent points in Gnome and KDE before they both went off the rails. For KDE, you could take 3.5.something, update the code to use the latest Qt, and you would have a wonderful starting point.
You, sir, understand the Unix philosophy.
You left yourself wide open. Here's my answer:
#!/usr/bin/perl
exec("du -x | sort -n");
Would I use it in place of
#!/bin/sh
du -x | sort -n
No. But it's not something I have to "try" very hard to do in the same number of lines and not many more characters.
OK, how much RAM does your router have? Your cable modem? A small NAS device? Your concept of embedded devices may be only a small fraction of what's out there.
Nobody HAS explained it to you because nobody CAN explain it to you. When your own government openly and brazenly flouts the constitution which is its full and sole authority, what recourse have you? I thought of condemning the voters for continually putting clowns into office, but how can it be their fault, if Tweedledum and Tweedledee are selected for them, and their only choice for every elected office is between two clowns?
Since when is 95,000 feet of altitude in "space?"
Sounds attractive but very ambitious.
Oh, I am sure they would LIKE to get at credit card statements, but there's this little thing called due process that makes it just a little harder for them than would be the case if we didn't have a constitution.
Yeah? And how much of that do you think has been collected?
Uh ... maybe the fact that it's NOT BEING SOLD IN THAT STATE could be an impediment?
If you used your brain, you would see that it would prevent the compulsion of the vendor to collect and remit the state sales tax for you. In so doing, it would also prevent an administrative cost to the vendor (which would obviously be passed on to the consumer) to perform that process. Yes, your state may tell you that it is still taxable, and you, the consumer/citizen are expected to report your purchases and voluntarily remit your tax on same, but it's going to be a lot harder for the state to compel you to do so.
Yes, I am aware that duties could still be collected on entry of the shipment into the US, but anything that makes it harder for the bastards to rape the citizens gains my favor. In my experience, at least for small ticket items, duty is usually not an issue.
Now see, any normal person would have said THANKS A LOT ASSHAT SOCIALIST DICK TURBAN.
Yes, idiot slashdot filter, I really do want to yell. I want to scream.
Some people choose to flagellate themselves.
The explosion was NOT inevitable. Hydrogen doesn't explode by magic. It's a chemical process which requires an ignition source to set it off. Somebody didn't make sure that all ignition sources were safely secured.
Every space shuttle (and every one of the old Saturns) vents hydrogen when it's sitting fueled on the pad. You can bet they make double damned sure that there is no ignition source around to set it off.
You can make your own hydrogen by electrolysing water. Many of us have done it in school or at home. If you make darn sure there is nothing around to ignite it before it is safely dissipated, no explosion happens.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It doesn't say anything like what you claim. The steady state radiation dose in space is not 10's of Sv/h. The actual measured doses received by Apollo astronauts worked out to the microSv/h range.
Yes, solar events can be a very significant problem, but the picture you paint is fantastic in the literal sense of the word.
Yes, of course you're entirely correct; whole body exposure to 10 Sv is lethal. Your parent is way, way off.
From your parent's post's own link - "Actual radiation dose measurements of Apollo crews measured by onboard dosimetry were, on average, 12 mSv." That's for the entire two way flight, not per hour.
He may have been talking about the calculated dose of 6 Sv in space at Earth's distance from the Sun if a major solar particle event occurred. That's 6 Sv TO THE SKIN PER EVENT, not per hour, or 0.9 Sv to the bone marrow. Or intersecting the path of a coronal mass ejection or solar flare, you could take 10's of Sv if floating naked in space, but fractions of 1 Sv inside a spacecraft. Cosmic ray exposure could be between 0.3 to 1 Sv per YEAR. While all these considerations are very serious, they are far from the cataclysmic levels portrayed by the poster.
How conveniently you fail to see the damage that doubling taxes would do to the economy. You never double the take when you double the rate. You would have every single taxpayer left with less of his own money to buy goods and services, fund charities, invest in businesses, etc. Most of all, the malevolent monster that is the government would have an orgasm finding new ways to waste all that extra take.
You can sing this tune as long as you want, but it doesn't hold up. 2010 budget numbers: defense, $689 billion; social security, medicare and medicaid: $1,494 billion. You can eff with the details all you want, but socialism dwarfs defense.
Adding interest on the debt changes nothing. If you add the burden to defense, you have to add it to socialism too. The ratio remains the same.
You conveniently split social security from medicare-and-medicaid solely in order to make each half of socialism look smaller (though each is still individually in fact larger than defense).
Veterans affairs couldn't morally be cut even if you eliminated defense overnight. Veterans served in good faith (or were forced to serve, before abolition of the draft), and deserve morally and ethically to be looked after. It's a consideration in recognition of service to others; fundamentally different than from of the three components of socialism enumerated above, which are handouts not predicated on service to others.
Oh, and defense is specifically enumerated as a responsibility of federal government in the constitution. Socialism is not. You can try to justify it on the basis of the much-abused "promote the general welfare" clause, but that is revisionism. None of that existed prior to the twentieth century, and it only started to get out of hand in the second half on the twentieth century. This was not done by amending the constitution, but rather by warping the interpretation beyond recognition in terms of the original intent. The votes were never there to do it honestly.
Yeah, it would be nice if we didn't need defense. Also, it would be nice in the abstract to have socialism if we could afford it. Heck, I'm not Mr. Potter, deriding and belittling everyone less fortunate. But neither of those nice ideals is possible. Not in the long run, and the long run is coming due faster and faster.
At this point, we cannot realistically either dispense with defense, or completely throw out socialism. The best we can do is try to improve the efficiency of both, and trim anything dispensable from both, but I think it's too late to save the nation as we have known it.
Entirely correct. And it's already too late. Politically you can't touch entitlements. The idiot voters say they want government curtailed but then they won't let you touch any of these sacred cows. There is going to be a spectacular national crash that will make what happened to the Soviet Union look tame.
Bull crap. You wouldn't be varying their pay. That's an absurd stretch. You would be temporarily laying them off without pay. Please don't throw in a red herring.