That 9 oz pink copter won't fly outside anyway. Once you get to the tree-tops, the wind will blow faster than the copter can go, and it'll blow out of the park, to be lost forever. Also, the law won't be enforced against her.
You are presuming 100% enforcement. Not even homicides get that level of enforcement. Why would you presume this law would?
Such insane claims make you look like the luantic, not the governemnt.
I never said the effects in Kansas would be the same or worse than NYC. Just that the damaging range of the EMP would reach all 48 states. How does that violate the inverse square law?
Quite the opposite. Nuclear explosions outside the earth's atmosphere are not going to generate all that much EMP on the surface,
Then go edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia's claims directly contradict you. Don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out the cites prove you wrong. Go argue with the cites or reality.
Yes. The federal government has already banned cars around federal buildings (after OKC). This is the same thing. They are banning the drones in one specific area around federal buildings.
The octo copters are a model of what aircraft? One could argue that http://www.rc-airplanes-simpli... is a model aircraft. As it's literally a model of an aircraft, and RC. But an octo-copter is not a model of any actual aircraft, therefore it isn't a "model aircraft".
If you RC plane is a historically accurate P1 Mustang, feel free to fly it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and see what happens. Your court case will be enlightening, if your assertion that it's illegal for the FCC to regulate "model aircraft" is correct.
I think the general thought (here and at the FCC) is that an octocopter is not a model of an existing actual aircraft, nor designed to be.
After OKC bombings (and a lesser extent car bombings in the middle east), government agencies created no-drive zones around federal buildings. There were some complaints, but little resistance.
Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy. We shouldn't try to identify security flaws and patch them until after someone has exploited them with public results. Only then should the government be allowed to patch a security flaw.
That's how everyone has always done it. The progressive Founding Fathers of the USA were making it up as they went along as well. Taking bits of what worked, making sure to leave out what didn't and seeing what happens, we can always amend it later if it doesn't work. The first US constitution failed miserably. How are those Articles of Confederation working out?
The Mojave? Yes. The Sahara? Less so. The studies done so far indicate that the shade these bring improve the habitat for the desert, not detract from it, as they would in a more plant-rich desert, like in the US Southwest.
The sun is better in the desert, and you can't use the land in the desert for much else, unless you move 10M people there, pump your water in from other states, and make movies there.
The EMP would reach 100% of the lower 48. It'd take down NASDAQ and NYSE, as well as many of the planes flying over the fly over states, reset/lock up every computer in the 48, and probably blow out most long-distance transmission lines, and the transformers attached to them.
DPRK claims a functional H-bomb. That's sufficient for an EMP. Sized correctly, an ICBM carried nuclear warhead can make an EMP large enough to cover the contiguous US. Yes, it won't fry all electronics in the blast radius for all time, but it'll do enough damage to kill more than if they had targeted a city.
China doesn't like DPRK. China would be happy if, tomorrow DPRK was destroyed. China doesn't want DPRK hurt. China shares an unprotected land border with them. And China doesn't want millions of refugees wandering over. That's about the only thing that China cares about. If the US offered to secure the border, and ship every refugee to South Korea, China would probably agree to any military attack of DPRK that the US would dream up. The conventional destruction of Seoul from DPRK is the MAD that keeps DPRK safe for now. There's no way to take out the DRPK before Seoul is destroyed.
Most likely it was a control failure. Satellites are inherently unstable. A tiny push, and they tumble. So you need a complex control system to keep them aligned. Those often did fail, and resulted in satellite loss. That DPRK suffers a satellite loss through the most common method of satellite loss doesn't even hint at foreign involvement.
There is no real fallout from a high altitude blast. The most damage DPRK could do would be to launch it on an ICBM at South Africa over the US, and detonate it as it's over Kansas.
Second in damage may be a truck-based ground blast in DC, between the White House and Congress. Should be able to take out both, they are under 2 miles apart. And the damage wouldn't even be much beyond that, leaving DC largely intact, aside from the fallout from a ground blast.
China hates DPRK more than we do. China props them up for the sole reason of not wanting to take care of the refugees. There is a minor desire to keep them around to give the hateful Americans someone to hate who isn't them, as the US must always be at war. But China has no love for DPRK, and tolerates them more because at least they hold their refugees in-country, mostly.
Did you forget the Tim drove up a truck with a huge bomb-looking bomb in the back and parked it in the loading zone of a federal building and nobody noticed? It wouldn't be hard to put it in the smallest truck that'd hold it, and drive the 10 ton bomb that looks like a bomb down 15th St NW, or Constitution Ave and detonate it within sight of the White House and Congress. Sure, it wouldn't leave all of DC a crater, but it would make a point, and probably take out the President and Congress (if done without warning and during a session of Congress while the president is in DC).
They shouldn't launch it at DC. They should launch it at South Africa with a trajectory over the US, then detonate it over Kansas. The EMP will cover the entire contiguous states. That'll do more damage than a nuke hitting DC, and no aim is involved. Off by 100 miles would still be a direct hit, unlike DC.
And the US defense system has no protection from a low-orbit-ish ICBM passing over the US. And no plans for anything that would protect against it.
it takes 6k acres to power 1M people. So it should take 42M acres to power 7B people.
You'd need 1/1000th of land dedicated to power production. The nice thing is, you don't need arible land to make power. Put it in deserts and such. The other thing is, that though you need 1/100th of the land area to power the planet, you could instead use 1/2000th of the water area. That may end up the better solution, as the napkin numbers I gave are based on the power usage from TFA (low for USA level over-consumption) and morocco level power generation (higher than you'd get in Alaska).
Despite your assertion, 5.3*RI sized plant to power Europe would be a good thing, especially if you are using Sahara land to do it. Land not used to grow crops, house people, or do much of anything.
Windows Metro doesn't exist anymore. They are now "Windows Apps" and you can build a windows program or app and both will run on 8+, no need to develop multiple times unless you are going for Windows Phone, which uses apps only.
German test, 80 MK, Chinese test, 50 MK. Temperature of the sun: irrelevant. He insulted you because you seemed sure you said something insightful, but only passed on a non sequitur. And you said 15 MK was lower than 0. It's not. It's higher than 0, about 15 MK higher. The only reason the numbers don't work is because you aren't doing it right.
Slashdot Mirror
So because you are near DC, logic doesn't apply? I didn't realize the no-logic zone extended that far from Congress.
That 9 oz pink copter won't fly outside anyway. Once you get to the tree-tops, the wind will blow faster than the copter can go, and it'll blow out of the park, to be lost forever. Also, the law won't be enforced against her.
You are presuming 100% enforcement. Not even homicides get that level of enforcement. Why would you presume this law would?
Such insane claims make you look like the luantic, not the governemnt.
I never said the effects in Kansas would be the same or worse than NYC. Just that the damaging range of the EMP would reach all 48 states. How does that violate the inverse square law?
Quite the opposite. Nuclear explosions outside the earth's atmosphere are not going to generate all that much EMP on the surface,
Then go edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia's claims directly contradict you. Don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out the cites prove you wrong. Go argue with the cites or reality.
Yes. The federal government has already banned cars around federal buildings (after OKC). This is the same thing. They are banning the drones in one specific area around federal buildings.
The octo copters are a model of what aircraft? One could argue that http://www.rc-airplanes-simpli... is a model aircraft. As it's literally a model of an aircraft, and RC. But an octo-copter is not a model of any actual aircraft, therefore it isn't a "model aircraft".
If you RC plane is a historically accurate P1 Mustang, feel free to fly it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and see what happens. Your court case will be enlightening, if your assertion that it's illegal for the FCC to regulate "model aircraft" is correct.
I think the general thought (here and at the FCC) is that an octocopter is not a model of an existing actual aircraft, nor designed to be.
After OKC bombings (and a lesser extent car bombings in the middle east), government agencies created no-drive zones around federal buildings. There were some complaints, but little resistance.
Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy. We shouldn't try to identify security flaws and patch them until after someone has exploited them with public results. Only then should the government be allowed to patch a security flaw.
That's how everyone has always done it. The progressive Founding Fathers of the USA were making it up as they went along as well. Taking bits of what worked, making sure to leave out what didn't and seeing what happens, we can always amend it later if it doesn't work. The first US constitution failed miserably. How are those Articles of Confederation working out?
The car-bomb nuke is not any good for MAD, but not so bad for a first-strike.
The Mojave? Yes. The Sahara? Less so. The studies done so far indicate that the shade these bring improve the habitat for the desert, not detract from it, as they would in a more plant-rich desert, like in the US Southwest.
The sun is better in the desert, and you can't use the land in the desert for much else, unless you move 10M people there, pump your water in from other states, and make movies there.
The EMP would reach 100% of the lower 48. It'd take down NASDAQ and NYSE, as well as many of the planes flying over the fly over states, reset/lock up every computer in the 48, and probably blow out most long-distance transmission lines, and the transformers attached to them.
Flash ads, with malware in the 3rd party ads. XSS was invented for and used by ads to infect/attack users.
Abuse is selling intrusive 3rd party ads, especially with little to no quality control in the ads.
Yes, the people that created botnets are innocent victims here.
Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told..
The people who wrote the Wiki page on that disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DPRK claims a functional H-bomb. That's sufficient for an EMP. Sized correctly, an ICBM carried nuclear warhead can make an EMP large enough to cover the contiguous US. Yes, it won't fry all electronics in the blast radius for all time, but it'll do enough damage to kill more than if they had targeted a city.
China doesn't like DPRK. China would be happy if, tomorrow DPRK was destroyed. China doesn't want DPRK hurt. China shares an unprotected land border with them. And China doesn't want millions of refugees wandering over. That's about the only thing that China cares about. If the US offered to secure the border, and ship every refugee to South Korea, China would probably agree to any military attack of DPRK that the US would dream up. The conventional destruction of Seoul from DPRK is the MAD that keeps DPRK safe for now. There's no way to take out the DRPK before Seoul is destroyed.
Most likely it was a control failure. Satellites are inherently unstable. A tiny push, and they tumble. So you need a complex control system to keep them aligned. Those often did fail, and resulted in satellite loss. That DPRK suffers a satellite loss through the most common method of satellite loss doesn't even hint at foreign involvement.
There is no real fallout from a high altitude blast. The most damage DPRK could do would be to launch it on an ICBM at South Africa over the US, and detonate it as it's over Kansas.
Second in damage may be a truck-based ground blast in DC, between the White House and Congress. Should be able to take out both, they are under 2 miles apart. And the damage wouldn't even be much beyond that, leaving DC largely intact, aside from the fallout from a ground blast.
China hates DPRK more than we do. China props them up for the sole reason of not wanting to take care of the refugees. There is a minor desire to keep them around to give the hateful Americans someone to hate who isn't them, as the US must always be at war. But China has no love for DPRK, and tolerates them more because at least they hold their refugees in-country, mostly.
Did you forget the Tim drove up a truck with a huge bomb-looking bomb in the back and parked it in the loading zone of a federal building and nobody noticed? It wouldn't be hard to put it in the smallest truck that'd hold it, and drive the 10 ton bomb that looks like a bomb down 15th St NW, or Constitution Ave and detonate it within sight of the White House and Congress. Sure, it wouldn't leave all of DC a crater, but it would make a point, and probably take out the President and Congress (if done without warning and during a session of Congress while the president is in DC).
They shouldn't launch it at DC. They should launch it at South Africa with a trajectory over the US, then detonate it over Kansas. The EMP will cover the entire contiguous states. That'll do more damage than a nuke hitting DC, and no aim is involved. Off by 100 miles would still be a direct hit, unlike DC.
And the US defense system has no protection from a low-orbit-ish ICBM passing over the US. And no plans for anything that would protect against it.
Parts of them. The sandy deserts are less so (read as, not as all, unless you consider scattered bacteria a "biome").
it takes 6k acres to power 1M people. So it should take 42M acres to power 7B people.
You'd need 1/1000th of land dedicated to power production. The nice thing is, you don't need arible land to make power. Put it in deserts and such. The other thing is, that though you need 1/100th of the land area to power the planet, you could instead use 1/2000th of the water area. That may end up the better solution, as the napkin numbers I gave are based on the power usage from TFA (low for USA level over-consumption) and morocco level power generation (higher than you'd get in Alaska).
Despite your assertion, 5.3*RI sized plant to power Europe would be a good thing, especially if you are using Sahara land to do it. Land not used to grow crops, house people, or do much of anything.
Windows Metro doesn't exist anymore. They are now "Windows Apps" and you can build a windows program or app and both will run on 8+, no need to develop multiple times unless you are going for Windows Phone, which uses apps only.
German test, 80 MK, Chinese test, 50 MK. Temperature of the sun: irrelevant. He insulted you because you seemed sure you said something insightful, but only passed on a non sequitur. And you said 15 MK was lower than 0. It's not. It's higher than 0, about 15 MK higher. The only reason the numbers don't work is because you aren't doing it right.