Tethering is connecting other devices like a laptop to the phone to use the phone's internet.
For some reason, I couldn't remember that and had a hell of a time attempting to figure it out since the raw definition of tether is a cord that anchors something movable to a stationary point. Tethering as used in the article is more or less a play on this idea as the phone is tethered to the device (laptop) but stationary is more or less relative and no necessary.
I was thinking of a system similar to that. My solution came from actually being replaced because i was doing too much preventative maintenance. In my case, my replacement did no preventative maintenance and downtime were much longer plus his work load was much greater.
In order for it to be effective, you need to consider lost profit or down time potential too. I created some hypothetical numbers where the user is evaluated by costing the company 100 points a day and makes the company 300 points. so on a normal day, it would be 200 point average. I then rated the different applications and services they used based around how long they were in it and weight them appropriately. Something like the accounting app might be 40 because 30 percent of their normal workload is using it and they might need information from it to accomplish another 10 percent of their workload. Not sending faxes from the PC or IE not allowing them to shop for new shoes online was a 5. The IT ticket was 100 for anything done. And all this was divided between a normal shift of 8 hours to get an hourly rate.
Anyways, when something broke, lets say email and it effected 2 users which need it for 20 percent of their work. Suppose they were off line with it for 3 hours and it turned out that IT fixed it within an hour after being able to allocate resources to it (let's say someone sent a large email to these people which kept locking up their email clients and the solution was to copy the email out of their accounts, delete it inside it and allow them to open it externally with some other viewer). Lets also assume that an update would have fixed the email client's preview feature and it wouldn't have been locked up if updates were installed. Ok, so the costs would be the 200 x 2 employees divided by eight to get the per hour cost then multiplied by 3 hours, 200*2/8 *3 for 150. the email was 20 percent of their work so 150*.20 drops it down to 30 points. It took IT one hour so now it's 130. If preventative maintenance could have discovered the issue with the preview and certain types of large emails and applied the patch before the user was interrupted and was able to do this for less then 130, then it benefits to do the maintenance. It's hard to justify and compare if the user isn't effected, but after they are, then it goes.
BTW, I picked an email client update because something like the scenario I described wouldn't be included in an automatic update from MS as it isn't a security risk, The PM would be looking through the non security related updates availible and applying them periodically as their organization's requirements dictate.
Until they get the same requests from 20 different people 30 different times. Then the explanations stop and turn into no's.
Then you get those requests that make no sense at all. One of them was like the old hovering joke. Now to most people, hovering is what women do when using a public restroom they don't trust. But to some users, it's when you place the mouse pointed over something and the informational context menu pops something up. Anyways,a lot of request seem as weird as that "can you fix my problem when I hover". The obvious answer is no with no explainations, until you find that they were talking about something totally different then what you were thinking.
Um.. Dude, not to make you worry, but Bruce is your next door neighbor's gay cousin and the bring it on was a reference to your sweet ass, not an invitation to fight. I can understand the confusion, your eyes were closed and you were attempting to do the impossible.
Think about it, what self proclaimed bad ass talks about being tickled?
Signed, Your next door neighbor's straight cousin who is embarrassed for the confusion.
The answer to 1 is simply, don't care. Money going to Daryl on his terms is bad, on your terms is not, especially when you get what you want. Plus we would have the books and could look at Daryl's practices then report any illegal activity to the feds for prosecution. I think Giving him money to end his idiocy as well as having a chance at seeing him locked up is more then acceptable.
As for 2:The company would get stuck with all the debt from the lawsuit & such, with no income being generated. Remember, SCO is running on fumes, and what little comes in goes right back out to Darl & the lawyers.
This isn't as much of a problem as you might think. First, you would be buying by shares of a corporation, it isn't like you would assume this debt yourself personally. At best, your out your $100 or whatever. But this is where companies like IBM and Novel and others come into play. They can carry the debt for when profit being made isn't enough to cover it as well as we can sell off aspects of the Unix license or open source it in the process of "reinventing the business model" to make it profitable. Then the official statement would be that releases before X is open to anyone, even if the strategy backfires and bankrupts the company.
That last part can be done in several ways, one could be an indefinite contract to every major (or minor) distribution for a one time payment that allows them, they customers, and any down stream client to do whatever with the Unix code in whole or in part (basically follow the intents of the GPLv3 but without applying it and leaving the final license to the contracting parties other then SCO.
Well, maybe in the sense that there are still people who disagree with it, but not in the sense that it's unclear what the Court has held. Most people disagreed with Kelo too, but the current state of the law is that the state pretty much owns all your property. Is that a bad ruling? Absolutely. But it's not unclear.
True, the court has said X and other courts will use X. However, because people contest that premise, it doesn't mean that Y won't supplant X or that a successful arguments in the future will not supplant X.
I think the Migratory Bird Treaty Act opinion was agenda driven and somewhat unique to the specifics of Migratory birds. It can also be said that the opinion only allowed the Federal government assume obligations and rights not granted to them and reserved for the states and people when it can be demonstrated that a need exists. However obvious that sounds, it should limit the application of the ruling from applying to just anything.
I'm not saying that I agree with Justice Holmes.
I would hope that I never implied you did. You were bringing about information relevent to the topic of conversation and I hope I didn't attach that to your personal beliefs or anything. I tend to post as if anyone is reading it instead of directly communicating with a specific person and it could come out wrong.
There are lots of Supreme Court opinions I disagree with, and I think the worst of them are the "make it up as we go" decisions. I'm just saying that this is the state of the law
This is understandable. There are also a few others I don't agree with.
Treaties can do things that statutes can't. It's not because treaties trump the Constitution, but rather because under the current state of the law, the Constitution does not place any substantial limits on treaties. Sure, I'd love to see a narrowly-construed Commerce Clause too. That would eliminate about 90% of the federal government. I'd love to see those restrictions apply to treaties. A narrowly-construed Commerce Clause and treaties limited by the 10th Amendment would mean absolutely no Kyoto, which would be great. But we're just not there now.
I think your missing the point I was wanting to convey. Currently, the interpretation is that the constitution doesn't place substantial limits on the treaties because it isn't being interpreted correctly. It's like the commerce clause except that we don't have a slew of previous cases to prove it.
When I posted the treaties made, shall be made, under the authority of the United states, that statement was made that way for a reason. First it recognized that we were forming a new nation out of an existing one and the constitution was replacing the articles of confederation. It acknowledges that we had treaties already made and were obligated to which weren't under the same rules as the constitution. It then goes on to say which shall be made, under the authority of the United State which implies that all treaties are limited to the authority of the constitution which is the only thing at the time giving the United state authority (note: the articles of confederation would have been removed with the ratification of the constitution so it's authority would disappear).
In short, a treaty should be able to override a state law but only to the extent as the government has authority to do so. I highly suspect that if the Holmes opinion would have been over something like the press writing critical articles about England and how those articles were encouraging rebellion in Canada so the treaty outlawed it, it would have most definitely been completely different outcome. I expect that either the Holmes opinion will be limited or negated shall treaties start being the vehicle to get around the constitution.
I would buy SCO if I had the money. Not because I think it is a gold mine or anything but because of all the people claiming rights to Unix, SCO is the only company trying to claim Linux is a derivative and do something about it.
If a few geeks, maybe backed by Novel, IMB, or some other companies using linux in their products purchased SCO at the liquidated price, they could operate their own distro, are large enough to demand Unix drivers and could open enough specs to allow OSS drivers, and put an end to this saga once and for all. We could call this pack, GLOSCO or Geeks for Linux and getting Over SCO.
I'm seriously wondering why we have seen talk of something like that. SCO or SCOGQ is trading for around 15 cents a share now, if every geek in the world contributed $100, that would be 666 shares. With 15.2 million shares outstanding, it shouldn't take much more than 22 or 23 thousand people to buy it outright at $100 plops. Get IBM, Hitachi, Motorola, Novels, perhaps a few of the distros to donate and that number drops fast. All the IP gained could be placed into a trust account and SCO can operate as a commercial development platform with OSS driver access and open improvements for the rest of us.
We don't manipulate it. We can't manipulate constants. That fact is implicit in the definition of the word "constant". We make use of it, sure, just like we make use of gravity.
So we don't manipulate the speed of light for our own purposed? I thought that was the entire purpose of slowing it down.
We don't know why Pi is the value it is, either, but that doesn't mean that we don't know what it's value is, or how we can make use of it.
Yes we do. Pi is the ratio between a circle's circumference and diameter when measured. Pi is a little of an improper example because it is a property of a circle and we know how to make them.
Now, is it possible that we'll learn more about gravity as our understanding of the universe grows? Sure. In my opinion, it's quite probable. But that doesn't mean that what we know about it now isn't "fact", it just means that our understanding of it is probably incomplete. You can make the same statement regarding just about everything we know on any subject. We don't need to understand every possible aspect of every phenomenon in order to say that we know what it is.
That statement is more to my liking. Except I never said what we know wasn't fact, I said the facts we know doesn't prove it as fact. To understand that, look at it this way. A person awakes from a light sleep and sees a flash of light in a dark room, out of the corner of their eye, they see a person standing by the corner. When they turn the light on, the person is gone. The facts are there was a flicker of light, most probably a lightning strike or perhaps a car making corner down the road with a maladjusted headlight. The person in the room is a fact and that they think they saw someone else with them is a fact. It could have been an angel appearing and disappearing, a ghost, a burglar or some other intruder, or a coat rack that resembles another person. Now suppose other evidence in the area is that someone is breaking into houses and kidnapping people or is watching them sleep. There is no proof that anyone else was in the room, but there is enough facts that someone can believe there was whether they are right or wrong in that belief. They can even convince others that there was someone else in the room too but that doesn't mean it wasn't just an illusion from tree branches outside the window casting a shadow onto the coat rack when the flash of light happened. Gravity is much in the same way, we know it is there, have convinced ourselves of why or how it is there with competing theories and attempts to explain the quantum differences, but we don't have any more proof then that of the person who thinks they saw someone in the room in a brief flash of light. It is probable that we are right, it is probable that if we are wrong, we will be right, it is probable that were aren't off by much. But we are talking probables.
If you're trying to argue that we have a better understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum than we do of gravity, then sure, that much is true. Maybe we're just arguing about definitions.
It could be the definitions. The evidence and theories or evidence supporting theories for gravity show a good bit of understanding but they are incomplete and not proven as fact. Now fact is a direct observation that we can test for and repeat in science where fact outside of science means undisputed (indisputable) evidence. She walked across the room is a fact in both. The magician made the elephant appear out of nowhere is a fact that can only stand with the lack of other evidence like the secrets of the trick. Outside of science, that is a fact as perceived by the audience, inside science, it just means more is happening like smoke and mirrors.
It IS an irrational number, and we can calculate it's value to any digit you like since it's derived from a formula with specific measurements. The accuracy of the measurements might be a limiting factor, but that's beside the point. Your argument is ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying that I don't know the width of my desk because I can't measure it down to the subatomic level.
Nonsense. That wasn't what is being said at all. It's that we manipulate PI and use it. That is how you brought it up right?
No, we haven't. We've slowed down beams of light, but that's irrelevant since it happens naturally in any medium. By your "logic" you could shine a flashlight through a glass of water and claim that you've slowed down light. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, which is what I said earlier. The speed of light in various mediums is also a constant, but it's different in each medium.
The point is that the speed of light is being manipulated for our own purposes. The fact that you can limit it to "in a vacuum" means you got it and used it to your advantage just like with gravity. Except that we have proved we know ways to make light.
Now, do you have any specific criticisms about our understanding of gravity, or are you going to keep pulling unrelated arguments out of your ass? Because, if it's the latter, I think I'm done here.
Actually, the only criticisms I had was the premise of ideas being claimed as fact when they weren't. What we know about gravity, the driving force behind it, is not a proven fact. The facts all relate to properties of it. Sometimes these facts support what we think but cannot prove, but doesn't prove anything.
SO IC are all we are talking about? or is it other things like home heating and transportation in which IC may be part of, but aren't considered the big power ticket.
Two years ago I was replacing my water heater. About the best I could find at a reasonable price was around a.60-.70 efficiency rating. that's supposed to be good. However, I could have went with a.85-.90 efficient water heater but it costs more than twice as much. The savings from the increased efficiency would have been a little less then $100 over the 13 year expected life span.
This is something that is somewhat contested still. I have read his argument/opinion and don't agree with it. I will go on to explain why later but,
The funny thing here is that congress's power to do anything because of the commerce clause was granted by the supreme court after it already ruled the programs unconstitutional. That's somewhat important because when the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning, they were actually reverting that movement away from the unconstitutional ways. Now what funny or interesting about this is that a future court could view the subversion of the constitution as a negative and reverse this previous ruling with treaties. So at best, it's possible that given the right treaty, it could be negated within a matter of time.
Of course that would depend on whether the supreme court interpreted the constitution or thought of it as a living document and decided that "freedom of speech" as you mentioned, was only reletive to what society thought at that time.
Now, here is my objections to his ruling and it happens to be most of the controversy surrounding it that others have expressed. Article VI of the constitution says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;". (it actually says more but this is what we need to work with.
Here is says that all treaties made, and which shall be made, under the authority of the united states. Two problems with the anything goes in treaties argument. First is that both congress and the president are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution. The president is sworn with "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." but congress has no leniency (also, congress's oath is not mentioned in the constitution.) So it would seem that either by constitution or congressional rules, that the treaty would have to be in line with the constitution in the first place or they aren't allowed to adopt it. However, when we look at the supremacy clause, it makes a distinction between treaties already made and treaties that will(shall) be made. It says made under the authority of the united states.
To me, and quite a few others, this should mean that the president nor congress have the power to only create treaties within the limits of the constitution because the participants authority is only derived from the constitution which prohibits prohibits certain actions and only allows others. To this extent, It is where I disagree with the Holmes opinion. In it, he says "The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed." he then goes on to talk about the living document in how we can't rely on what the framers meant 100 years ago and need to breath our own experiences into it. I don't buy the living document idea as not only could it be used to expand the powers of congress, it could also be used to allow indefinite detention of terror suspects, warrant-less wire taps or searches, and so on. As soon as we break away from the intentions of the founders, we are more or less making crap up as we go. The constitution allows for changes and it should be the only way it can be changed (as long as the amendment is constitutional).
Anyways, a constitutional court with a strict constitutional interpretation would most likely reverse the idea of a treaty trumping the constitution.
It's nice having losers follow you around and mod everything down. It's confirmation that you pissed them off and they have nothing constructive to say or support their position.
That's what I mean, mass was just there and energy was just magically there and somehow, it magically got together and boom. Something was just magically there in order for the big bang to have happened.
Yea, what with nut jobs not understanding that? I mean science has their magic more right then a god ever could right. Oh wait, science doesn't do the it just happened thing, or does it?
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? We know exactly what the value of "Pi" is, yet we can't manipulate or adjust it in any way. We know what the speed of light in a vacuum is, bet we can't change it in any way. Why in the world would you expect us to be able to modify gravity when we cannot modify any other universal laws or constants?
You have too much faith in what you don't know. We don't know the value of Pi. It isn't an irrational number we shorten it to be useful to us. Thus we manipulate it. And yes, we have changed the speed of light We are even attempting to use it to our advantage.
Jesus Christ, don't be a dickhead. I already admitted I was wrong and confused on that. What the fuck are you trying to do, show that your not smart enough to follow a thread to see if whatever you think is so important to say hasn't already been said?
Your calling me true to my name when you're too lazy to click two links and notice that you had nothing constructive to add to the conversation? Now that's funny.
I'm not sure if you can see the irony here, bit if big trucks are driving too fast and the rocks are hitting your windshield, you are doing the same. The most effective counter to rocks flying from tires is to slow down and put some distance between the two of you.
On the unoiled roads around here, you pretty much need to set back almost 100 foot or more for moderate speeds just to see through the dust plume of the vehicle in front of you. Of course spaying oil on the roads dampen that effect quite a bit.
The answer is to elevate the road. I know, it sounds more expensive but that's pretty much what they do going through swamps and other places. The make a base structure that is separate from the surrounding ground structure which disperses the load of the road over more area. This would also add more mass to the base of the road which would retain heat better and limit the freeze cycles under the base.
With over 25 operating reactor installations you are talking less that 40 million per reactor - chump change really, and if it has to fund safety improvements from --==*donations*==-- is the nuclear industry in Russia viable any more. Do you feel re-assured, I certainly don't.
Slow down there Francis, I never said that was all that was spent. The Russian government spend quite a bit too. the 1 billion was to initial specific changes in which the Russian government followed with.
Besides, Chernobyl did/does have a fail safe mechanism. It was faults in that in which caused the explosion, not the lack of one. It's not like you would need to rebuild the entire plant. There was two basic problems that caused Chernobyl outside of the operating situation. The first problem was that the control rods were coated with graphite in order to get around a sticky control tube mechanism which was the second problem. It turns out that the tube for the control rods and the fuel rods would slightly twist due to heat and stress in which Russia compensated by coating them with graphite. Anyways, when the worker who didn't know of the tests saw that something was seriously wrong, he initiated the fail safe but the graphite caused an explosion when the boron rods were introduced. This shattered the control rods and made them ineffective as well as took the other tubes off line and damaged a second reactor which they only had limited control over but couldn't remain to monitor. All the measures had to do to fix that was strengthen supports for the insertion tubes so the materials wouldn't bind and remove the graphite coatings and then automate the shutdown process to happen on a single point of failure. Of course Chernobyl happened partially because the shutdown process was disabled while some workers were conducting tests.
Of 34 design changes recommended 25 years ago by an NRC chartered an industry panel. To re-iterate 3 design changes recommended 'make the entire facility underground', 'separate processing facilities', 'relocate the control room'. These are fundamental issues that have to be addressed. For accident mitigation the EPR design is better. Briefly the buildings that service the reactor are split into four (main) operational divisions (and the reactor containment). An accident, failure or maintenance in the other areas can be mitigated by the other divisions. It's planning, and being prepared for, problems.
To save money on construction costs the AP-1000 cuts back on concrete and steel, a lot. The result is a ratio of containment volume to thermal power below that of today's PWRs, thereby increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
Of those 25 year old design recommendations, have any of them been revamped because of changes in processes? 25 years seem like a lot of time when advancements are made quite often.
I think you have to consider why the information is vague and what safe means. A release of highly toxic elements into the environment as opposed to a core excursion such as Chernobyl or meltdowm seen at TMI. It's not just the reactors, it's the entire industry mining, enrichment, reactors and long term containment. None of it is engineers to deal with the geological time frames of the isotopes contained.
Well, not necessarily. It's intended for people with a working knowledge of that type of plant. The second link I provided seems to think the design is more then proven and more then safe. Although it was addressing the high pressure system itself more then ap1000. As for the rest of your complaint, that's a little beyond the ap1000 itself and we
No, not at all. Me stating the obvious, as I explained in my post, does not reflect the state of my ego. It reflect the state of your comment.
Well, sumdumass, I do not put moron into my user name..
Maybe you should be more honest in the future.
You may want to read "Culture of Fear" not that I did; because I get it, but you do not.
Propaganda books and other people incorrect assumptions does not make anything universal or correct as stated. If nothing else, it shows the shallowness and lack of depth in your understanding.
I take risks when on the road with selfish pricks in compensation cars and large coward mobiles with the latter tending to be more aggressive in their hogging of the road. I am not afraid; but I am careful because I am aware of the danger while others need extra protection because they either can't handle it or want to be care free (at the expense of others and their own pocketbook.) I don't need a study to be told that SUV drivers are more aggressive, careless, and less road conscious, I've observed it.
Oh, your just a regular jack bower aren't you. First, as I showed, your original assumptions of being safe, in which you did state that, was ill conceived and derived without any reference to fact. More fatal accidents happen at less then highway speeds as you mentioned was the only time your car wasn't safe. More fatal accidents happen off highways and more fatal accident happen to subcompacts then any other class of cars which counters your entire "my car is safe" argument you put forth. Personal anecdotal and localized evidence doesn't change any of that.
Here is a hint, you are not suspected of being a moron because because you hurt my ego, but because your views don't match reality. You can want to believe what you say, but that doesn't make it correct.
I suppose that one has to be a moron not to carry a gun around with them everywhere because some nut may have one? I suppose one has to be a moron if they do not have the biggest nuclear weapon stockpile? Never mind, don't suppose you see the connection.
No, no one ever said you had to do anything. You would be a moron though, if you said that all guns do is kill so no law abiding people should ever have one where the unlawful people won't care about your rules anyways. You would be a moron if in your anti nuclear weapons rant, you chose to completely disarm us so that we are subject to the will of any other country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction works because it removes any gains from a nuclear war and poses the problem of losing by the concept of winning. Taking that away and making the nuclear war a viable option for some country is shear moronic. All nuclear arsenal stock reduction has to be multilateral and verified.
Stop rationalizing and wake up. Why do people spend so much mental effort backing up positions they didn't put any effort into formulating??
Maybe you are the best to answer that question. As the links I provided show, your entire premise isn't in line with reality. Now, I don't consider posting some links as massive amounts of effort, especially when it is freely availible, and more or less public knowledge to anyone paying attention over the last couple decades.
Non-specific generic stats are sooo useful..(sarcasm)
Yes, non specific general stats are useful, especially when they specifically say what opposite of what you are claiming. You are more likely to die subcompact then you are in a SUV or truck, and you are more likely to die off the highway and at lower speeds then you are on the highway and at higher speeds.
First, I didn't say it wasn't measurable, I said show me where it has been done. You linked to a drawn picture. The difference is that I am not aware of it ever being done. I do know that time seems to increase/decrease relational to the center of an object.
And you are quite right that you weigh differentatly depending on whether you are on a mountain or in a valley, but this different isn't quite insignificant.
And this difference isn't an artifact from the atmospheric air density?
Thats not to say thats the only way the gravitational field changes though (moving further from the centre of the earth. It's something worth looking up).
The interesting part is that orbital and orbital escape velocity requirements are calculated using a constant for gravity. IF gravity changed, then it would be somewhat intuitive that there should be an exponential relationship there of some sort. Then there is the pioneer phenomenon in which both pioneer probes somehow slowed in their distant being gained away from the sun while the speed of their orbits increased. This doesn't seem to fit nicely together.
There is no such thing as "mathematical evidence". There are theories that describe gravity (such as Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's General Relativity), which have mathematical formulations, and there is physical evidence for said theories.
There are things that mathematics predict (such as frame dragging), but actual evidence for these phenomenon is something you get by testing and measuring.
We can pretty accuratly use mathmatics to determine with great success where a planet will be at a specific time because of what we know about gravity. In other words, we can verify what we know about it but not gravity istelf. As with what the parent was attempting to say, I was showing it the chicken after the egg and not the egg before the chicken.
Actually, we do know how to create it or manipulate it. Newton's formulas point out the most obvious way (gather a lot of mass in a single place), and General Relativity describes other ways (such as pressure, force, etc). The theory of Quantum Gravity, once we get that, might reveal still more ways.
So has anyone ever gathered enough mass in a single place to have a detectable or measurable effect on gravity? Surely if that was the case, you would weight different on top of a mountain verses being in the deepest above water Vally. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if it's impossible for humans to do, then it really isn't much different then saying God did it but we have a cooler sounding explanation. It's impossible for us to test.
However, I do agree that when quantum gravity starts showing some promising signs, a lot more of it will be figured out.
The reason why all this knowledge isn't currently used is because getting a gravitational field of significant strength requires absurd amounts of power. Think about it: all the mass in Earth causes such a weak gravity that a housefly can overcome it.
I wouldn't necessarily call that weak. It's a proportionally relative to the environment. The housefly uses gravity's effect on air to overcome the effect on itself. The fly is able to lift it's own weight by moving paddles through the air that have a large enough surface tension to displace a volume of air weighing greater the the fly itself. Of course gravity pulling on the air making it more dense at the surface helps this process by making smaller wings more effective but it is still something humans can't do and we have been known to lift up to three times our own weight or more.
Please let me rephrase that. I don't think the evidence for hydrodynamic flow in the core is much more then the magnetic fields and the secular variations and anomalies there.
I lost the concept there (twice today/tonight that has happened) and forgot the important part. I'm even in the wrong concept too.
Nonsense. Einstein figured it out 60 years ago, and all the evidence since then has shown hm to be correct.
Incorrect. The evidence since then has shown him not to be incorrect. There is a difference, while it supports his theory and doesn't prove him wrong, it also doesn't prove him right. There are several aspects of the theory that hasn't been addressed yet, space-time singularities and quantum gravity are a few popular points. In the past 15 years, there has been at least 4 new theories purposed with with three of them happening after 2002.
Again, nonsense. Judging by the way you phrased that, you probably don't even understand what gravity is. FYI, it's not a thing that we can "get", it's a curvature of space-time. Saying that we don't know how to "get or create gravity" is like saying that we don't know how to get or create time. It's a meaningless phrase, and a ridiculous concept.
Lol.. If we know what it is, then we can manipulate it, we can adjust it, we can do several things with it that means we can get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Tethering is connecting other devices like a laptop to the phone to use the phone's internet.
For some reason, I couldn't remember that and had a hell of a time attempting to figure it out since the raw definition of tether is a cord that anchors something movable to a stationary point. Tethering as used in the article is more or less a play on this idea as the phone is tethered to the device (laptop) but stationary is more or less relative and no necessary.
I was thinking of a system similar to that. My solution came from actually being replaced because i was doing too much preventative maintenance. In my case, my replacement did no preventative maintenance and downtime were much longer plus his work load was much greater.
In order for it to be effective, you need to consider lost profit or down time potential too. I created some hypothetical numbers where the user is evaluated by costing the company 100 points a day and makes the company 300 points. so on a normal day, it would be 200 point average. I then rated the different applications and services they used based around how long they were in it and weight them appropriately. Something like the accounting app might be 40 because 30 percent of their normal workload is using it and they might need information from it to accomplish another 10 percent of their workload. Not sending faxes from the PC or IE not allowing them to shop for new shoes online was a 5. The IT ticket was 100 for anything done. And all this was divided between a normal shift of 8 hours to get an hourly rate.
Anyways, when something broke, lets say email and it effected 2 users which need it for 20 percent of their work. Suppose they were off line with it for 3 hours and it turned out that IT fixed it within an hour after being able to allocate resources to it (let's say someone sent a large email to these people which kept locking up their email clients and the solution was to copy the email out of their accounts, delete it inside it and allow them to open it externally with some other viewer). Lets also assume that an update would have fixed the email client's preview feature and it wouldn't have been locked up if updates were installed. Ok, so the costs would be the 200 x 2 employees divided by eight to get the per hour cost then multiplied by 3 hours, 200*2 /8 *3 for 150. the email was 20 percent of their work so 150*.20 drops it down to 30 points. It took IT one hour so now it's 130. If preventative maintenance could have discovered the issue with the preview and certain types of large emails and applied the patch before the user was interrupted and was able to do this for less then 130, then it benefits to do the maintenance. It's hard to justify and compare if the user isn't effected, but after they are, then it goes.
BTW, I picked an email client update because something like the scenario I described wouldn't be included in an automatic update from MS as it isn't a security risk, The PM would be looking through the non security related updates availible and applying them periodically as their organization's requirements dictate.
Until they get the same requests from 20 different people 30 different times. Then the explanations stop and turn into no's.
Then you get those requests that make no sense at all. One of them was like the old hovering joke. Now to most people, hovering is what women do when using a public restroom they don't trust. But to some users, it's when you place the mouse pointed over something and the informational context menu pops something up. Anyways,a lot of request seem as weird as that "can you fix my problem when I hover". The obvious answer is no with no explainations, until you find that they were talking about something totally different then what you were thinking.
Um.. Dude, not to make you worry, but Bruce is your next door neighbor's gay cousin and the bring it on was a reference to your sweet ass, not an invitation to fight. I can understand the confusion, your eyes were closed and you were attempting to do the impossible.
Think about it, what self proclaimed bad ass talks about being tickled?
Signed,
Your next door neighbor's straight cousin who is embarrassed for the confusion.
The answer to 1 is simply, don't care. Money going to Daryl on his terms is bad, on your terms is not, especially when you get what you want. Plus we would have the books and could look at Daryl's practices then report any illegal activity to the feds for prosecution. I think Giving him money to end his idiocy as well as having a chance at seeing him locked up is more then acceptable.
As for 2:The company would get stuck with all the debt from the lawsuit & such, with no income being generated. Remember, SCO is running on fumes, and what little comes in goes right back out to Darl & the lawyers.
This isn't as much of a problem as you might think. First, you would be buying by shares of a corporation, it isn't like you would assume this debt yourself personally. At best, your out your $100 or whatever. But this is where companies like IBM and Novel and others come into play. They can carry the debt for when profit being made isn't enough to cover it as well as we can sell off aspects of the Unix license or open source it in the process of "reinventing the business model" to make it profitable. Then the official statement would be that releases before X is open to anyone, even if the strategy backfires and bankrupts the company.
That last part can be done in several ways, one could be an indefinite contract to every major (or minor) distribution for a one time payment that allows them, they customers, and any down stream client to do whatever with the Unix code in whole or in part (basically follow the intents of the GPLv3 but without applying it and leaving the final license to the contracting parties other then SCO.
True, the court has said X and other courts will use X. However, because people contest that premise, it doesn't mean that Y won't supplant X or that a successful arguments in the future will not supplant X.
I think the Migratory Bird Treaty Act opinion was agenda driven and somewhat unique to the specifics of Migratory birds. It can also be said that the opinion only allowed the Federal government assume obligations and rights not granted to them and reserved for the states and people when it can be demonstrated that a need exists. However obvious that sounds, it should limit the application of the ruling from applying to just anything.
I would hope that I never implied you did. You were bringing about information relevent to the topic of conversation and I hope I didn't attach that to your personal beliefs or anything. I tend to post as if anyone is reading it instead of directly communicating with a specific person and it could come out wrong.
This is understandable. There are also a few others I don't agree with.
I think your missing the point I was wanting to convey. Currently, the interpretation is that the constitution doesn't place substantial limits on the treaties because it isn't being interpreted correctly. It's like the commerce clause except that we don't have a slew of previous cases to prove it.
When I posted the treaties made, shall be made, under the authority of the United states, that statement was made that way for a reason. First it recognized that we were forming a new nation out of an existing one and the constitution was replacing the articles of confederation. It acknowledges that we had treaties already made and were obligated to which weren't under the same rules as the constitution. It then goes on to say which shall be made, under the authority of the United State which implies that all treaties are limited to the authority of the constitution which is the only thing at the time giving the United state authority (note: the articles of confederation would have been removed with the ratification of the constitution so it's authority would disappear).
In short, a treaty should be able to override a state law but only to the extent as the government has authority to do so. I highly suspect that if the Holmes opinion would have been over something like the press writing critical articles about England and how those articles were encouraging rebellion in Canada so the treaty outlawed it, it would have most definitely been completely different outcome. I expect that either the Holmes opinion will be limited or negated shall treaties start being the vehicle to get around the constitution.
I would buy SCO if I had the money. Not because I think it is a gold mine or anything but because of all the people claiming rights to Unix, SCO is the only company trying to claim Linux is a derivative and do something about it.
If a few geeks, maybe backed by Novel, IMB, or some other companies using linux in their products purchased SCO at the liquidated price, they could operate their own distro, are large enough to demand Unix drivers and could open enough specs to allow OSS drivers, and put an end to this saga once and for all. We could call this pack, GLOSCO or Geeks for Linux and getting Over SCO.
I'm seriously wondering why we have seen talk of something like that. SCO or SCOGQ is trading for around 15 cents a share now, if every geek in the world contributed $100, that would be 666 shares. With 15.2 million shares outstanding, it shouldn't take much more than 22 or 23 thousand people to buy it outright at $100 plops. Get IBM, Hitachi, Motorola, Novels, perhaps a few of the distros to donate and that number drops fast. All the IP gained could be placed into a trust account and SCO can operate as a commercial development platform with OSS driver access and open improvements for the rest of us.
So we don't manipulate the speed of light for our own purposed? I thought that was the entire purpose of slowing it down.
Yes we do. Pi is the ratio between a circle's circumference and diameter when measured. Pi is a little of an improper example because it is a property of a circle and we know how to make them.
That statement is more to my liking. Except I never said what we know wasn't fact, I said the facts we know doesn't prove it as fact. To understand that, look at it this way. A person awakes from a light sleep and sees a flash of light in a dark room, out of the corner of their eye, they see a person standing by the corner. When they turn the light on, the person is gone. The facts are there was a flicker of light, most probably a lightning strike or perhaps a car making corner down the road with a maladjusted headlight. The person in the room is a fact and that they think they saw someone else with them is a fact. It could have been an angel appearing and disappearing, a ghost, a burglar or some other intruder, or a coat rack that resembles another person. Now suppose other evidence in the area is that someone is breaking into houses and kidnapping people or is watching them sleep. There is no proof that anyone else was in the room, but there is enough facts that someone can believe there was whether they are right or wrong in that belief. They can even convince others that there was someone else in the room too but that doesn't mean it wasn't just an illusion from tree branches outside the window casting a shadow onto the coat rack when the flash of light happened. Gravity is much in the same way, we know it is there, have convinced ourselves of why or how it is there with competing theories and attempts to explain the quantum differences, but we don't have any more proof then that of the person who thinks they saw someone in the room in a brief flash of light. It is probable that we are right, it is probable that if we are wrong, we will be right, it is probable that were aren't off by much. But we are talking probables.
It could be the definitions. The evidence and theories or evidence supporting theories for gravity show a good bit of understanding but they are incomplete and not proven as fact. Now fact is a direct observation that we can test for and repeat in science where fact outside of science means undisputed (indisputable) evidence. She walked across the room is a fact in both. The magician made the elephant appear out of nowhere is a fact that can only stand with the lack of other evidence like the secrets of the trick. Outside of science, that is a fact as perceived by the audience, inside science, it just means more is happening like smoke and mirrors.
Nonsense. That wasn't what is being said at all. It's that we manipulate PI and use it. That is how you brought it up right?
The point is that the speed of light is being manipulated for our own purposes. The fact that you can limit it to "in a vacuum" means you got it and used it to your advantage just like with gravity. Except that we have proved we know ways to make light.
Actually, the only criticisms I had was the premise of ideas being claimed as fact when they weren't. What we know about gravity, the driving force behind it, is not a proven fact. The facts all relate to properties of it. Sometimes these facts support what we think but cannot prove, but doesn't prove anything.
IP is in article one section eight but I don't think that is what he was getting at.
The IP isn't the issue with him, it's the global warming treaties and what this government has claimed they were wanting to do.
SO IC are all we are talking about? or is it other things like home heating and transportation in which IC may be part of, but aren't considered the big power ticket.
Two years ago I was replacing my water heater. About the best I could find at a reasonable price was around a .60-.70 efficiency rating. that's supposed to be good. However, I could have went with a .85-.90 efficient water heater but it costs more than twice as much. The savings from the increased efficiency would have been a little less then $100 over the 13 year expected life span.
This is something that is somewhat contested still. I have read his argument/opinion and don't agree with it. I will go on to explain why later but,
The funny thing here is that congress's power to do anything because of the commerce clause was granted by the supreme court after it already ruled the programs unconstitutional. That's somewhat important because when the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning, they were actually reverting that movement away from the unconstitutional ways. Now what funny or interesting about this is that a future court could view the subversion of the constitution as a negative and reverse this previous ruling with treaties. So at best, it's possible that given the right treaty, it could be negated within a matter of time.
Of course that would depend on whether the supreme court interpreted the constitution or thought of it as a living document and decided that "freedom of speech" as you mentioned, was only reletive to what society thought at that time.
Now, here is my objections to his ruling and it happens to be most of the controversy surrounding it that others have expressed. Article VI of the constitution says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;". (it actually says more but this is what we need to work with.
Here is says that all treaties made, and which shall be made, under the authority of the united states. Two problems with the anything goes in treaties argument. First is that both congress and the president are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution. The president is sworn with "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." but congress has no leniency (also, congress's oath is not mentioned in the constitution.) So it would seem that either by constitution or congressional rules, that the treaty would have to be in line with the constitution in the first place or they aren't allowed to adopt it. However, when we look at the supremacy clause, it makes a distinction between treaties already made and treaties that will(shall) be made. It says made under the authority of the united states.
To me, and quite a few others, this should mean that the president nor congress have the power to only create treaties within the limits of the constitution because the participants authority is only derived from the constitution which prohibits prohibits certain actions and only allows others. To this extent, It is where I disagree with the Holmes opinion. In it, he says "The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed." he then goes on to talk about the living document in how we can't rely on what the framers meant 100 years ago and need to breath our own experiences into it. I don't buy the living document idea as not only could it be used to expand the powers of congress, it could also be used to allow indefinite detention of terror suspects, warrant-less wire taps or searches, and so on. As soon as we break away from the intentions of the founders, we are more or less making crap up as we go. The constitution allows for changes and it should be the only way it can be changed (as long as the amendment is constitutional).
Anyways, a constitutional court with a strict constitutional interpretation would most likely reverse the idea of a treaty trumping the constitution.
You also have the problem of congress critters actually reading the bills they vote on.
It's nice having losers follow you around and mod everything down. It's confirmation that you pissed them off and they have nothing constructive to say or support their position.
That's what I mean, mass was just there and energy was just magically there and somehow, it magically got together and boom. Something was just magically there in order for the big bang to have happened.
Yea, what with nut jobs not understanding that? I mean science has their magic more right then a god ever could right. Oh wait, science doesn't do the it just happened thing, or does it?
You have too much faith in what you don't know. We don't know the value of Pi. It isn't an irrational number we shorten it to be useful to us. Thus we manipulate it. And yes, we have changed the speed of light We are even attempting to use it to our advantage.
Jesus Christ, don't be a dickhead. I already admitted I was wrong and confused on that. What the fuck are you trying to do, show that your not smart enough to follow a thread to see if whatever you think is so important to say hasn't already been said?
Your calling me true to my name when you're too lazy to click two links and notice that you had nothing constructive to add to the conversation? Now that's funny.
I'm not sure if you can see the irony here, bit if big trucks are driving too fast and the rocks are hitting your windshield, you are doing the same. The most effective counter to rocks flying from tires is to slow down and put some distance between the two of you.
On the unoiled roads around here, you pretty much need to set back almost 100 foot or more for moderate speeds just to see through the dust plume of the vehicle in front of you. Of course spaying oil on the roads dampen that effect quite a bit.
The answer is to elevate the road. I know, it sounds more expensive but that's pretty much what they do going through swamps and other places. The make a base structure that is separate from the surrounding ground structure which disperses the load of the road over more area. This would also add more mass to the base of the road which would retain heat better and limit the freeze cycles under the base.
Slow down there Francis, I never said that was all that was spent. The Russian government spend quite a bit too. the 1 billion was to initial specific changes in which the Russian government followed with.
Besides, Chernobyl did/does have a fail safe mechanism. It was faults in that in which caused the explosion, not the lack of one. It's not like you would need to rebuild the entire plant. There was two basic problems that caused Chernobyl outside of the operating situation. The first problem was that the control rods were coated with graphite in order to get around a sticky control tube mechanism which was the second problem. It turns out that the tube for the control rods and the fuel rods would slightly twist due to heat and stress in which Russia compensated by coating them with graphite. Anyways, when the worker who didn't know of the tests saw that something was seriously wrong, he initiated the fail safe but the graphite caused an explosion when the boron rods were introduced. This shattered the control rods and made them ineffective as well as took the other tubes off line and damaged a second reactor which they only had limited control over but couldn't remain to monitor. All the measures had to do to fix that was strengthen supports for the insertion tubes so the materials wouldn't bind and remove the graphite coatings and then automate the shutdown process to happen on a single point of failure. Of course Chernobyl happened partially because the shutdown process was disabled while some workers were conducting tests.
Of those 25 year old design recommendations, have any of them been revamped because of changes in processes? 25 years seem like a lot of time when advancements are made quite often.
Well, not necessarily. It's intended for people with a working knowledge of that type of plant. The second link I provided seems to think the design is more then proven and more then safe. Although it was addressing the high pressure system itself more then ap1000. As for the rest of your complaint, that's a little beyond the ap1000 itself and we
No, not at all. Me stating the obvious, as I explained in my post, does not reflect the state of my ego. It reflect the state of your comment.
Maybe you should be more honest in the future.
Propaganda books and other people incorrect assumptions does not make anything universal or correct as stated. If nothing else, it shows the shallowness and lack of depth in your understanding.
Oh, your just a regular jack bower aren't you. First, as I showed, your original assumptions of being safe, in which you did state that, was ill conceived and derived without any reference to fact. More fatal accidents happen at less then highway speeds as you mentioned was the only time your car wasn't safe. More fatal accidents happen off highways and more fatal accident happen to subcompacts then any other class of cars which counters your entire "my car is safe" argument you put forth. Personal anecdotal and localized evidence doesn't change any of that.
Here is a hint, you are not suspected of being a moron because because you hurt my ego, but because your views don't match reality. You can want to believe what you say, but that doesn't make it correct.
No, no one ever said you had to do anything. You would be a moron though, if you said that all guns do is kill so no law abiding people should ever have one where the unlawful people won't care about your rules anyways. You would be a moron if in your anti nuclear weapons rant, you chose to completely disarm us so that we are subject to the will of any other country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction works because it removes any gains from a nuclear war and poses the problem of losing by the concept of winning. Taking that away and making the nuclear war a viable option for some country is shear moronic. All nuclear arsenal stock reduction has to be multilateral and verified.
Maybe you are the best to answer that question. As the links I provided show, your entire premise isn't in line with reality. Now, I don't consider posting some links as massive amounts of effort, especially when it is freely availible, and more or less public knowledge to anyone paying attention over the last couple decades.
Yes, non specific general stats are useful, especially when they specifically say what opposite of what you are claiming. You are more likely to die subcompact then you are in a SUV or truck, and you are more likely to die off the highway and at lower speeds then you are on the highway and at higher speeds.
First, I didn't say it wasn't measurable, I said show me where it has been done. You linked to a drawn picture. The difference is that I am not aware of it ever being done. I do know that time seems to increase/decrease relational to the center of an object.
And this difference isn't an artifact from the atmospheric air density?
The interesting part is that orbital and orbital escape velocity requirements are calculated using a constant for gravity. IF gravity changed, then it would be somewhat intuitive that there should be an exponential relationship there of some sort. Then there is the pioneer phenomenon in which both pioneer probes somehow slowed in their distant being gained away from the sun while the speed of their orbits increased. This doesn't seem to fit nicely together.
We can pretty accuratly use mathmatics to determine with great success where a planet will be at a specific time because of what we know about gravity. In other words, we can verify what we know about it but not gravity istelf. As with what the parent was attempting to say, I was showing it the chicken after the egg and not the egg before the chicken.
So has anyone ever gathered enough mass in a single place to have a detectable or measurable effect on gravity? Surely if that was the case, you would weight different on top of a mountain verses being in the deepest above water Vally. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if it's impossible for humans to do, then it really isn't much different then saying God did it but we have a cooler sounding explanation. It's impossible for us to test.
However, I do agree that when quantum gravity starts showing some promising signs, a lot more of it will be figured out.
I wouldn't necessarily call that weak. It's a proportionally relative to the environment. The housefly uses gravity's effect on air to overcome the effect on itself. The fly is able to lift it's own weight by moving paddles through the air that have a large enough surface tension to displace a volume of air weighing greater the the fly itself. Of course gravity pulling on the air making it more dense at the surface helps this process by making smaller wings more effective but it is still something humans can't do and we have been known to lift up to three times our own weight or more.
Please let me rephrase that. I don't think the evidence for hydrodynamic flow in the core is much more then the magnetic fields and the secular variations and anomalies there.
I lost the concept there (twice today/tonight that has happened) and forgot the important part. I'm even in the wrong concept too.
Thanks.
Incorrect. The evidence since then has shown him not to be incorrect. There is a difference, while it supports his theory and doesn't prove him wrong, it also doesn't prove him right. There are several aspects of the theory that hasn't been addressed yet, space-time singularities and quantum gravity are a few popular points. In the past 15 years, there has been at least 4 new theories purposed with with three of them happening after 2002.
Lol.. If we know what it is, then we can manipulate it, we can adjust it, we can do several things with it that means we can get it.