I'm not sure Venus is very ideal for terraforming. You have to make assumptions like 1) we develop a bacteria that absorbs sunlight and splits CO2 into C and O2, 2) that bacteria is 100% efficient, and 3) We have 3000 years to wait.
Laws don't have "intention". US laws are voted on by 435 people who have all sorts of different understandings and intentions. The court shouldn't be trying to divine intention except to the extent they need to understand what the words meant at the time the law was passed.
Bullshit. Scalia and Thomas are the only justices who understand the constitutional limits of the court's power. The rest of them are acting as a superlegislature. They're no different than Iran's Council of Guardians.
Nah, that's just experience talking. Every other version of windows has been usable, with the intervening ones garbage. By going from Windows 8 to Windows 10 Microsoft is letting us know they plan on skipping the good one this time around.
Apple giving away IOS makes some sense because Apple is trying to sell you hardware. What is Microsoft trying to sell me that will cover a major OS version upgrade? I don't see it.
It's more about the captive audiences. Sure, what you're saying is true if you're taking graduate level classes in a field that's changing. But there's no reason to charge that much for general education lower division classes. Lower division math, for example, hasn't changed in generations. From what I can see brand new textbooks on the subject offer no advantage over the ones written seventy or eighty years ago.
I've never seen any evidence this is true. The Catholic high school I went to was far more efficient with money than the local public school. The land wasn't free and we had administration. Not only did that school spend a fraction of what the public schools spent on students, our college acceptance rate was higher.
There are all sorts of areas private companies do better than public. While it's true you pay more for mobile service in the US than other places, that's mostly the result of stealth taxation. Last time I looked Verizon alone had paid seventeen billion to the government just for spectrum.
... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms.
True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.
Telecoms could only offer "unlimited" data because it was never truly unlimited. You can't provide unlimited anything in the real world. I don't necessarily think the FCC's ruling is a bad thing, but we're seeing pretty much what you'd expect to see as a result - higher prices for (still not really) unlimited data plans and more explicit data caps.
I suspect this idea will never reach fruition because
1. Pound for pound it costs as much to launch fuel to the refueling station as it does to launch new satellites
2. Extra fuel will be required for rendezvous
3. Satellites become technically obsolete pretty quickly, so if your I-SEE-YOU sat's been up there for six or seven years you'd most likely want to replace it with I-SEE-YOU 2 instead of just refueling it.
It's not uncommon to detect near-misses an orbit or two before they get close. For something like that a single nuke would be just fine, since a tiny perturbation would make it miss by a lot.
Thing is... we already have lots of nukes, so we don't have to build them to stop NEOs. We just have to put existing warheads on more powerful boosters. That's why he's asking if we should "retain" nukes, because his assumption is arms control will eventually eliminate them. Too me it seems like a moot point, since I doubt we'll ever get rid of nuclear weapons for a whole host of practical reasons.
What the hell is the bureaucracy doing making these kinds of decisions? Whether this is good policy or not is a separate question, but the FCC should not be taking on additional mandates like this without direction from Congress.
As a practical matter I don't see how this could be done without essentially shutting down the internet. There's no way you could know whether the software you're using is sending "understood" data.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure Venus is very ideal for terraforming. You have to make assumptions like 1) we develop a bacteria that absorbs sunlight and splits CO2 into C and O2, 2) that bacteria is 100% efficient, and 3) We have 3000 years to wait.
I like how Asians are simply assigned Honorary White People status when they don't fit the narrative.
Scalia is in the dissent because the majority created a legal liability out of whole cloth. That's pretty consistent on his part..
Laws don't have "intention". US laws are voted on by 435 people who have all sorts of different understandings and intentions. The court shouldn't be trying to divine intention except to the extent they need to understand what the words meant at the time the law was passed.
From a legal perspective there was no difference. You may want to go searching for that clue yourself.
Bullshit. Scalia and Thomas are the only justices who understand the constitutional limits of the court's power. The rest of them are acting as a superlegislature. They're no different than Iran's Council of Guardians.
No, they didn't disagree with him. They rewrote the law because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.
I know for a fact primitive people with spears and ropes can knock these things down with no problem. Seems like a waste of money.
Not true, at least not in my case. They gave out all kinds of scholarships to poor kids.
Nah, that's just experience talking. Every other version of windows has been usable, with the intervening ones garbage. By going from Windows 8 to Windows 10 Microsoft is letting us know they plan on skipping the good one this time around.
Apple giving away IOS makes some sense because Apple is trying to sell you hardware. What is Microsoft trying to sell me that will cover a major OS version upgrade? I don't see it.
There's an asshole in every crowd. You, huh?
I'm saying government owned providers don't pay for spectrum, so they don't have to recover tens of billions of dollars in your phone bill.
It's more about the captive audiences. Sure, what you're saying is true if you're taking graduate level classes in a field that's changing. But there's no reason to charge that much for general education lower division classes. Lower division math, for example, hasn't changed in generations. From what I can see brand new textbooks on the subject offer no advantage over the ones written seventy or eighty years ago.
It's not that they're acting like victims. It's that if "unlimited" is going to be interpreted this way they have to charge enough to provide it.
I've never seen any evidence this is true. The Catholic high school I went to was far more efficient with money than the local public school. The land wasn't free and we had administration. Not only did that school spend a fraction of what the public schools spent on students, our college acceptance rate was higher.
There are all sorts of areas private companies do better than public. While it's true you pay more for mobile service in the US than other places, that's mostly the result of stealth taxation. Last time I looked Verizon alone had paid seventeen billion to the government just for spectrum.
True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.
Telecoms could only offer "unlimited" data because it was never truly unlimited. You can't provide unlimited anything in the real world. I don't necessarily think the FCC's ruling is a bad thing, but we're seeing pretty much what you'd expect to see as a result - higher prices for (still not really) unlimited data plans and more explicit data caps.
I suspect this idea will never reach fruition because
It's not uncommon to detect near-misses an orbit or two before they get close. For something like that a single nuke would be just fine, since a tiny perturbation would make it miss by a lot.
Duhh! Space Nazis do it all the time.
No way. The danger someone could seize space based nukes and actually employ them is so close to zero it's academic.
Thing is... we already have lots of nukes, so we don't have to build them to stop NEOs. We just have to put existing warheads on more powerful boosters. That's why he's asking if we should "retain" nukes, because his assumption is arms control will eventually eliminate them. Too me it seems like a moot point, since I doubt we'll ever get rid of nuclear weapons for a whole host of practical reasons.
What the hell is the bureaucracy doing making these kinds of decisions? Whether this is good policy or not is a separate question, but the FCC should not be taking on additional mandates like this without direction from Congress.
As a practical matter I don't see how this could be done without essentially shutting down the internet. There's no way you could know whether the software you're using is sending "understood" data.
How could you possibly know a packet contains encrypted data?