Every time it snows the tracks would need to be cleared and that is not a negligible cost.
Do you know how reality works? Snow is light and powdery. A train is big and heavy. They don't clear the tracks for snow. The snow boring train is bought as part of the building cost of the line, and is generally used only for avalanche. They look like https://www.google.com/maps/@6... and are needed because an avalanche is snow, and lots of trees. They don't need it to cut through fallen snow.
I never said that summer traffic was cheap either; you did.
Ah, so when you said "Do you have any idea the cost of keeping a rail line through Siberia, Alaska and Northern BC open during the winter?" you were making a joke, not actually talking about the cost of running it.
If you thought it uneconomical in ideal conditions, why invent lies about the worst running conditions? Didn't think your lies would be read by someone who lives a few miles from the train pictured above, and has friends on the Alaskan rail, and knows more about trains in Alaska than you?
You are lying and making up lies about the high running cost, then telling others to prove you wrong. I don't have to. I can just point it out. Anyone reading this will know
YOU ARE A LIAR
I don't need to say any more.
If trains were more expensive than boats, why is there discussion on building the line? Because the billionaires are dumber than you? If that were true, why aren't you a billionare? Let me guess, because they are psychopaths, and you are just a benevolent genius.
Well you got the "idiot" part down. Now try working on "savant". I know you thought that the easy part, but that's only proof of your idiocy.
And if they bundle them into 100 per launch, does that change your calculations? You mention bundling, but then say "several hundred" launches. So they are going to bundle them in 2-3 at a time? No, I think they'll go for 100 at a time. If this happens, you can check me.
The problem with Iridium is that the projections for coverage were dumb (made up by managers based on hopes, not based in science), and that the cell phone wasn't big when it was proposed and funding started, and they failed to account for competition from terrestrial competitors. Two very basic, but massive errors.
And their real legacy is scaring money away from space becuase "space is hard" because some basic problems unrelated to where the cell towers are located.
The additional "cost" to keep the line open is negligible. The "cost" of winding through mountains is the same summer or winter. And that directly contradicts your previous statement.
The cost of a train winding through mountains in the winter is still much less than your cargo ship. And much quicker.
Right, so it was fixed price, but not backed by gold. Was US paper ever fully backed by gold? For as far back as I'm aware, it wasn't that way, but could have been in the 1800s or something.
The same fears started when people first started with saying that AIs could someday become sentient.
Aside from iRobot, nearly all SciFi indicate the problem post-singularity is when the humans try to kill the AI first. Sometimes because the AI starts it, other times, just because the AI is an AI and should be feared. iRobot was the AI staging a complete overthrow of humanity, "for our own good". That has been a recurring theme as well.
I know people complain about looking to fiction for answers to reality, but SciFi (at least the good stuff) is as much a thought exercise about technology as "fiction", and thus is often relevant.
Yeah, and there are people telling us that the recent increase in earthquakes in North Texas is unrealted to fracking. Though, nobody is proving it's cause, and the pro-fracking people are already coming out with the "the quakes are a good thing, many 3.x quakes mean you won't get a big one" line. As if they expect fracking to be blamed. Why would the people that defend fracking expect fracking to be the cause? What do they know that we don't?
When I've made all those changes, and you've made none, the Earth won't benefit. When I stop buying oil, the price will drop, so you buy more. That, and even libertarians understand that if you pollute my land, you owe me. The only point of discussion is defining which compounds are pollutants.
You already have gold, that US Dollar represents a certain amount of gold sitting in the US Treasury.
When did that happen? It wasn't that way when we went off the gold standard. If every printed note were "turned in" there wouldn't be enough gold to cover it. That, and the amout of "money" is much higher than the number of notes. So what do you do with your money in the bank when the bank goes down, and the feds take over, they'd have to print more money or pay out in gold from above reserves to cover that, if there were a run on it.
And nobody likes to talk about it, but gold standard is still fiat. It's "backed" by something, but only the word of the governmemt. It takes 10 seconds to change the gold standard from $20 to $35, or move off it. So, it's backed by the word of the government, and nothing else. i.e. fiat.
Try telling the guy who was just killed by a speeding driver
When NMSL was repealed (limits raised from 55), the result was increased speeds, and decreased deaths. Speeding saves lives. Every study done has shown that higher speeds are safer. You are more likely to die the slower you are going. And, since speed limits are still to low in most places (people using your brand of "common sense", which is wrong, but people treat it like religion), almost all crashes involve a speeding car. In my case, I crashed at 35 in a 55 and was given a ticket for "speeding" because if I crashed, I must have been going too fast. With logic like that state trooper, 100% of crashes are caused by "speed" so identifying it and dealing with it is irrelevant. It no longer correlates with crashing.
or the kid that just got shot during a drug deal
If drugs weren't illegal, then there'd not be a death. When's the last time you heard of a beer store owner shooting an unarmed patron trying to buy a beer? Oh, it's the beer's fault. If it weren't for beer, there'd be no shootings in alcohol stores.
the guy who's losing money because people would rather steal his stuff than pay for it
"steal" means take with the intention of depriving someone of its use. Most car "theft" isn't car theft. The reason Grand Theft Auto is defined, isn't because it's so "expensive" or troublesome, but that taking a car to joyride isn't "theft" by any legal definition of "theft".
As a thought experiment, if they could technologically create a reliable perimeter to their blocking would you then be in favor of it?
No. They are allowed to create a perimeter. But they don't own the airwaves within their hotel. They can block all signals at the perimeter. But it is (And should be) illegal for then to jam to cell-phone hot spot. If they have an issue with people pluging in routers to their wired connections and offering WiFi over that, it's a commercial, not criminal issue, and they should be required to use civil enforcement (contracts, fees, but not jammers and force).
I know I'll get hammered for saying I was in favor of what marroitt did but here me out. When I travel, I'm terrified of connecting to hotel networks.
Most of the "good" ones will have an Ethernet cable in the rooms. If it scares you, plug in. Or look up the WiFi service in the services directory. Your laziness/apathy doesn't constitute an emergency.
I've never worked with an AMP connector that took more than a screwdriver to break down. That's nice because the tightness of tools ensures a secure fit.
Sounds like amphenol. "Easy" to fix (presuming you can solder). Widely available. Vibration resistant. But they are heavy and expensive, so never used in automotive applications (for overly-generalized definitions of "never").
Nope, What if I'm anti H1-B, but for easier green card rules, resulting in a larger net migration? Is that still protectionism? Or is anything that would sustain the standard of living protectionism?
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
They have a term for 1 kg satellites. Odd to have a term for something that doesn't exist.
No more efficiently than a resistive heater, and less efficiently than a heat pump, and more expensively than a natural gas boiler/furnace.
Every time it snows the tracks would need to be cleared and that is not a negligible cost.
Do you know how reality works? Snow is light and powdery. A train is big and heavy. They don't clear the tracks for snow. The snow boring train is bought as part of the building cost of the line, and is generally used only for avalanche. They look like https://www.google.com/maps/@6... and are needed because an avalanche is snow, and lots of trees. They don't need it to cut through fallen snow.
I never said that summer traffic was cheap either; you did.
Ah, so when you said "Do you have any idea the cost of keeping a rail line through Siberia, Alaska and Northern BC open during the winter?" you were making a joke, not actually talking about the cost of running it.
If you thought it uneconomical in ideal conditions, why invent lies about the worst running conditions? Didn't think your lies would be read by someone who lives a few miles from the train pictured above, and has friends on the Alaskan rail, and knows more about trains in Alaska than you?
You are lying and making up lies about the high running cost, then telling others to prove you wrong. I don't have to. I can just point it out. Anyone reading this will know
YOU
ARE
A
LIAR
I don't need to say any more.
If trains were more expensive than boats, why is there discussion on building the line? Because the billionaires are dumber than you? If that were true, why aren't you a billionare? Let me guess, because they are psychopaths, and you are just a benevolent genius.
Well you got the "idiot" part down. Now try working on "savant". I know you thought that the easy part, but that's only proof of your idiocy.
And if they bundle them into 100 per launch, does that change your calculations? You mention bundling, but then say "several hundred" launches. So they are going to bundle them in 2-3 at a time? No, I think they'll go for 100 at a time. If this happens, you can check me.
The problem with Iridium is that the projections for coverage were dumb (made up by managers based on hopes, not based in science), and that the cell phone wasn't big when it was proposed and funding started, and they failed to account for competition from terrestrial competitors. Two very basic, but massive errors.
And their real legacy is scaring money away from space becuase "space is hard" because some basic problems unrelated to where the cell towers are located.
The additional "cost" to keep the line open is negligible. The "cost" of winding through mountains is the same summer or winter. And that directly contradicts your previous statement.
The cost of a train winding through mountains in the winter is still much less than your cargo ship. And much quicker.
Right, so it was fixed price, but not backed by gold. Was US paper ever fully backed by gold? For as far back as I'm aware, it wasn't that way, but could have been in the 1800s or something.
I've seen adapters for the iPad and most android tablets.
It can't even do that efficiently.
The same fears started when people first started with saying that AIs could someday become sentient.
Aside from iRobot, nearly all SciFi indicate the problem post-singularity is when the humans try to kill the AI first. Sometimes because the AI starts it, other times, just because the AI is an AI and should be feared. iRobot was the AI staging a complete overthrow of humanity, "for our own good". That has been a recurring theme as well.
I know people complain about looking to fiction for answers to reality, but SciFi (at least the good stuff) is as much a thought exercise about technology as "fiction", and thus is often relevant.
Yeah, and there are people telling us that the recent increase in earthquakes in North Texas is unrealted to fracking. Though, nobody is proving it's cause, and the pro-fracking people are already coming out with the "the quakes are a good thing, many 3.x quakes mean you won't get a big one" line. As if they expect fracking to be blamed. Why would the people that defend fracking expect fracking to be the cause? What do they know that we don't?
When I've made all those changes, and you've made none, the Earth won't benefit. When I stop buying oil, the price will drop, so you buy more. That, and even libertarians understand that if you pollute my land, you owe me. The only point of discussion is defining which compounds are pollutants.
Technically easy is orthoginal to practical. You have an issue with English, not his plan.
You already have gold, that US Dollar represents a certain amount of gold sitting in the US Treasury.
When did that happen? It wasn't that way when we went off the gold standard. If every printed note were "turned in" there wouldn't be enough gold to cover it. That, and the amout of "money" is much higher than the number of notes. So what do you do with your money in the bank when the bank goes down, and the feds take over, they'd have to print more money or pay out in gold from above reserves to cover that, if there were a run on it.
And nobody likes to talk about it, but gold standard is still fiat. It's "backed" by something, but only the word of the governmemt. It takes 10 seconds to change the gold standard from $20 to $35, or move off it. So, it's backed by the word of the government, and nothing else. i.e. fiat.
Try telling the guy who was just killed by a speeding driver
When NMSL was repealed (limits raised from 55), the result was increased speeds, and decreased deaths. Speeding saves lives. Every study done has shown that higher speeds are safer. You are more likely to die the slower you are going. And, since speed limits are still to low in most places (people using your brand of "common sense", which is wrong, but people treat it like religion), almost all crashes involve a speeding car. In my case, I crashed at 35 in a 55 and was given a ticket for "speeding" because if I crashed, I must have been going too fast. With logic like that state trooper, 100% of crashes are caused by "speed" so identifying it and dealing with it is irrelevant. It no longer correlates with crashing.
or the kid that just got shot during a drug deal
If drugs weren't illegal, then there'd not be a death. When's the last time you heard of a beer store owner shooting an unarmed patron trying to buy a beer? Oh, it's the beer's fault. If it weren't for beer, there'd be no shootings in alcohol stores.
the guy who's losing money because people would rather steal his stuff than pay for it
"steal" means take with the intention of depriving someone of its use. Most car "theft" isn't car theft. The reason Grand Theft Auto is defined, isn't because it's so "expensive" or troublesome, but that taking a car to joyride isn't "theft" by any legal definition of "theft".
As a thought experiment, if they could technologically create a reliable perimeter to their blocking would you then be in favor of it?
No. They are allowed to create a perimeter. But they don't own the airwaves within their hotel. They can block all signals at the perimeter. But it is (And should be) illegal for then to jam to cell-phone hot spot. If they have an issue with people pluging in routers to their wired connections and offering WiFi over that, it's a commercial, not criminal issue, and they should be required to use civil enforcement (contracts, fees, but not jammers and force).
I know I'll get hammered for saying I was in favor of what marroitt did but here me out. When I travel, I'm terrified of connecting to hotel networks.
Most of the "good" ones will have an Ethernet cable in the rooms. If it scares you, plug in. Or look up the WiFi service in the services directory. Your laziness/apathy doesn't constitute an emergency.
Bitcoin doesn't deliver any value, at least paper you can burn to keep warm.
I've never worked with an AMP connector that took more than a screwdriver to break down. That's nice because the tightness of tools ensures a secure fit.
Sounds like amphenol. "Easy" to fix (presuming you can solder). Widely available. Vibration resistant. But they are heavy and expensive, so never used in automotive applications (for overly-generalized definitions of "never").
For the Model-T, the raw materials was ore and trees in one end, and cars out the other, or something like that.
Or try training Americans for job shortage areas.
Are you still on about that? It was Reagan, in the '80s. Let it go, man.
Nope, What if I'm anti H1-B, but for easier green card rules, resulting in a larger net migration? Is that still protectionism? Or is anything that would sustain the standard of living protectionism?