An environment of safety is something that can be set by the top. China beats the US in lots of metrics. One reason is that a guy on a loading dock makes an error, and the CEO can lose his head over it (actual death penalty). If that accountability was used in the US, you honestly think that nothing would ever change?So nobody could have foreseen any ill consequences from putting a drunk in charge of an oil tanker that has a complicated and dangerous route?
...Because, of course, it's the board that chooses what route to take through a narrow channel, and the maintenance plan for the radar, and the sleeping schedule on the ship.
So you are asserting that no employee or contractor of Exxon knew about the captain's problem until after the crash?
Because that captain had a boss. If that boss knew nothing about the captain's performance, he's incompetent. And so on up the chain. Corporations are shields because we hold nobody responsible for anything. So they act like spoiled 3 year olds, knowing there's nothing they can't cry their way out of.
Their market cap was such that if they didn't pay, you nationalize them, then sell off the parts (stock or equipment, depending on which is worth more). And you'd get a better result.
What 3D printers were used in the 80s? My recollection is that "decades" ago, we were still crafting prototypes by hand, and casting those for moulds, and tooling was largely built by hand.
The customers have no knowledge of, nor ability to change, Exxon's practices. Even if *nobody* bought Exxon gasoline, they would have bought gasoline handled by Exxon. They just wouldn't have known.
The front is smashed more than the rear, so I've rebuilt the fronts much more than the backs. But backs aren't really different. And the thing in the way on the back is the cassette, though you build it with that off, so just the freewheel is on. The dérailleur gears are cogs, usually only two, and they move to force the chain onto new gears on the cassette. God, I haven't had to name anatomy of a bike in 20 years.
You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point.
Your presumption about my position is incorrect. Rather than lecturing my position at me, perhaps you could ask for clarification, and thus speak fewer falsehoods.
Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument.
It's much faster than the alternative, don't you think?
Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong. Any clarifications are met with arguments that your assumption is more accurate than the speaker's clarification.
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you dumb.
Or when they can build per atom with any material. They can call them "replicators". Even better if they have a fission/fusion power source that can assemble any element/compound that's atomically stable (the other excluded for safety reasons, though ordering up a 3l jug of HF or SbHF6, or some other relatively dangerous chemical
Nope. There has been no finding in court, but the judge agreed that it appeared to be breached because information was leaked. The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
One of the ways 3D printing makes everything cheaper is easier prototyping and drops in the cost of tooling, when you can make moulds out of 3D printed things, rather than by hand, then use those moulds to make the tooling, cutting retooling costs and time, dropping production cost.
For the military, I'd go with jump-jets. The "launch" is taken care of by a catepult. The jet pack needs half the fuel and only turns on at the apex. Parachute as backup for pack failure. You strap in at launch points (in a jump vehicle) and get shot out like meat-artillery. You then "glide" to the earth, maybe with a small gliding device and the pack for more lift.
How about an army of autogyros, droned with the human shooting from it as a flying weapon platform? That sounds like an evolution of the flying infantryman. Or whatever they call it when you have a parachute, and a huge fan on your back, giving you thrust and the chute lift, so you have the ability to climb or go long distances. That's more practical than the jump packs.
Flanking works great in today's wars because the armor goes at the front and the squishies in the back. If you come at them from the side/back, you get to take out more of their squishies than they get of yours. If you get them directly from both sides in a crossfire, then they must split their forces for a 2-front defense, greatly reducing their defensive effectiveness.
If you're impling that shops are taking advantage of people and selling them a new entire wheel, that's way, way down the "low" scale. I don't know a bike shop around that would replace rear wheel instead of replacing the tube and tire, unless the person damaged the rim by riding on it for too long with a flat tire; if you chew up the edge of the rim, it'll slowly destroy the sidewall of the tire.
Did you look at TFA? You didn't need to read it, just look at the pictures. It looked like a tire-friction device on the front wheel. It might be bad in the wet, but the standard tires on the bike in question look to be non-knobby, so it shouldn't tear up the knobs or such.
Build your own rims. It's surprisingly easy. So long as you don't rush, you can't ever do any damage. You don't even need any special tools (other than spoke wrenches you should have laying around anyway). You use the bike as the truing stand.
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
Before modern bars, you'd go to the local shopkeeper, and place an order for flour, sugar, salt, and you'd walk out the door, usually without paying. It was "one click pay" where the shopkeeper would collect later based on previously negotiated terms. There's thousands of years of documentation of "one click" transactions. It's not just a modern bar tab, which fails because you one-click each item into the cart, but then settle with a non-preciously agreed payment on your way out. Though some do it more like one-click. But regardless of the details, the idea of a near-authorizationless transaction based on previous agreement is thousands of years old.
Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.
I agree, but the nuance is lost on most, so we'd be better off with none than having it similar to now, with lots of room for error.
Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
Why did they keep it under their hat the second time? Because they wanted to spite the public for Mega corp's actions? The way patents are abused now, we'd be better off with none, than with what we have now.
Sounds like this guy did no more than if Gene Roddenberry had patented the cell phone in th 1960s based on the Star Trek communicator. He didn't invent it. He didn't implement it. He may have been the first to put something on paper and get it to the patent office, but that's not sufficient to be an "inventor".
Slashdot Mirror
You install them in every Humvee, as ejection seats.
Or just make the Humvees fly.
An environment of safety is something that can be set by the top. China beats the US in lots of metrics. One reason is that a guy on a loading dock makes an error, and the CEO can lose his head over it (actual death penalty). If that accountability was used in the US, you honestly think that nothing would ever change?So nobody could have foreseen any ill consequences from putting a drunk in charge of an oil tanker that has a complicated and dangerous route?
...Because, of course, it's the board that chooses what route to take through a narrow channel, and the maintenance plan for the radar, and the sleeping schedule on the ship.
So you are asserting that no employee or contractor of Exxon knew about the captain's problem until after the crash?
Because that captain had a boss. If that boss knew nothing about the captain's performance, he's incompetent. And so on up the chain. Corporations are shields because we hold nobody responsible for anything. So they act like spoiled 3 year olds, knowing there's nothing they can't cry their way out of.
Their market cap was such that if they didn't pay, you nationalize them, then sell off the parts (stock or equipment, depending on which is worth more). And you'd get a better result.
What 3D printers were used in the 80s? My recollection is that "decades" ago, we were still crafting prototypes by hand, and casting those for moulds, and tooling was largely built by hand.
They knew about the crash worthiness of the ship.
The customers have no knowledge of, nor ability to change, Exxon's practices. Even if *nobody* bought Exxon gasoline, they would have bought gasoline handled by Exxon. They just wouldn't have known.
You can only "punish" people so hard before they change their behavior, the harsher the punishment, the more they will change to avoid it.
Maybe it could get them to stop doing trillions of dollars in damage. That changed behavior is good.
The front is smashed more than the rear, so I've rebuilt the fronts much more than the backs. But backs aren't really different. And the thing in the way on the back is the cassette, though you build it with that off, so just the freewheel is on. The dérailleur gears are cogs, usually only two, and they move to force the chain onto new gears on the cassette. God, I haven't had to name anatomy of a bike in 20 years.
But it'd be cool.
"Flank from above"? Seriously?
That was a direct quote from the person I was responding to (well, their link).
We should start with covering the moon in solar panels and transmission stations.
You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point.
Your presumption about my position is incorrect. Rather than lecturing my position at me, perhaps you could ask for clarification, and thus speak fewer falsehoods.
Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument.
It's much faster than the alternative, don't you think?
Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong. Any clarifications are met with arguments that your assumption is more accurate than the speaker's clarification.
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you dumb.
this sounds like computer game logic, not military thinking.
Wars are games. Like Risk or Chess, but with real people. Many of the tactics used were thought up in game-like ways.
Or when they can build per atom with any material. They can call them "replicators". Even better if they have a fission/fusion power source that can assemble any element/compound that's atomically stable (the other excluded for safety reasons, though ordering up a 3l jug of HF or SbHF6, or some other relatively dangerous chemical
These laws are taxes, nothing else. They reduce economic activity not increase it.
You say that like a voluntary tax on racist bigots is a bad thing.
Nope. There has been no finding in court, but the judge agreed that it appeared to be breached because information was leaked. The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
One of the ways 3D printing makes everything cheaper is easier prototyping and drops in the cost of tooling, when you can make moulds out of 3D printed things, rather than by hand, then use those moulds to make the tooling, cutting retooling costs and time, dropping production cost.
For the military, I'd go with jump-jets. The "launch" is taken care of by a catepult. The jet pack needs half the fuel and only turns on at the apex. Parachute as backup for pack failure. You strap in at launch points (in a jump vehicle) and get shot out like meat-artillery. You then "glide" to the earth, maybe with a small gliding device and the pack for more lift.
How about an army of autogyros, droned with the human shooting from it as a flying weapon platform? That sounds like an evolution of the flying infantryman. Or whatever they call it when you have a parachute, and a huge fan on your back, giving you thrust and the chute lift, so you have the ability to climb or go long distances. That's more practical than the jump packs.
Flanking works great in today's wars because the armor goes at the front and the squishies in the back. If you come at them from the side/back, you get to take out more of their squishies than they get of yours. If you get them directly from both sides in a crossfire, then they must split their forces for a 2-front defense, greatly reducing their defensive effectiveness.
If you're impling that shops are taking advantage of people and selling them a new entire wheel, that's way, way down the "low" scale. I don't know a bike shop around that would replace rear wheel instead of replacing the tube and tire, unless the person damaged the rim by riding on it for too long with a flat tire; if you chew up the edge of the rim, it'll slowly destroy the sidewall of the tire.
Did you look at TFA? You didn't need to read it, just look at the pictures. It looked like a tire-friction device on the front wheel. It might be bad in the wet, but the standard tires on the bike in question look to be non-knobby, so it shouldn't tear up the knobs or such.
Build your own rims. It's surprisingly easy. So long as you don't rush, you can't ever do any damage. You don't even need any special tools (other than spoke wrenches you should have laying around anyway). You use the bike as the truing stand.
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
Before modern bars, you'd go to the local shopkeeper, and place an order for flour, sugar, salt, and you'd walk out the door, usually without paying. It was "one click pay" where the shopkeeper would collect later based on previously negotiated terms. There's thousands of years of documentation of "one click" transactions. It's not just a modern bar tab, which fails because you one-click each item into the cart, but then settle with a non-preciously agreed payment on your way out. Though some do it more like one-click. But regardless of the details, the idea of a near-authorizationless transaction based on previous agreement is thousands of years old.
Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.
I agree, but the nuance is lost on most, so we'd be better off with none than having it similar to now, with lots of room for error.
Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
Why did they keep it under their hat the second time? Because they wanted to spite the public for Mega corp's actions? The way patents are abused now, we'd be better off with none, than with what we have now.
Sounds like this guy did no more than if Gene Roddenberry had patented the cell phone in th 1960s based on the Star Trek communicator. He didn't invent it. He didn't implement it. He may have been the first to put something on paper and get it to the patent office, but that's not sufficient to be an "inventor".