How much diference is there between a meteor defense and an ICBM defence? Think about it seriously. The only real diference is where the target is comming from, and that a meteor needs to be redirected, not destroyed. The rest of the system can prety much be the same. The explosive/kinetic bomb part of the system remains the same, same with targeting and everything else.
From the Treaty itself: First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
As long as no weapons orbiting the earth are Nuclear or another type of WMD then there is no treaty violation. Seeing as how the article makes no mention of these types and that the weapons it does talk about are designed to take out ICBMs there is still no treaty violation.
WordPerfect became the market leader, then they got all fat and lazy, providing the opportunity for Microsoft to come along and eat their lunch with just a few new features that the folks at WordPerfect were too lazy to implement.
Actually, what happened is that when Microsoft came out with Windows they refused to give the WordPerfect programmers access to the Windows GUI APIs. This prevented them from making a version of Word Perfect that would run in a window instead of through MS-DOS. Microsoft released their MS-WORD with Windows support and became the market leader because no one wanted to stick with a DOS only aplication. It wasn't until later when MS-WORD was the leader that they finally let the WP Programers have access to the APIs. That is why they have a case against Microsoft.
Fraud, misinformation, harassment, illegal transactions, theft of resources, breaking and entering (hacking into computers), copyright infringement, and many other exact or approximate electronic analogs of improper behavior can be found on the Internet.
And thats just the corporations! Seriously though, it would be great if someone could just set up a few basic rules that everyone could agree to and enforce those and only those. And have a mandate limiting them to that. maybe like a Wyat Erp of the old west?
If the patent is only a year old then they don't have anything to stand on since Amazon will say "Well, we've been using this thing for 4(?) years. Everyone knows this. You just patented something you saw us doing for X years. That's your prior art." Patent Busted.
Ok, Lets say that somehow a piece of audio is recorded perfectly in full 24 or 32 or however many bits. When playing back that piece through the highest end amplifier money can buy (assume you are pumping your optical output into a high end amplifier/reciever) the thermal noise in the system is greater than the precision of the system around the 21st bit. Basically, if you sampled at the output of a 20 bit system and a 24 bit system and a 32 bit system as it went out to the speakers, the first 20 bits would all be the same and the rest would be diferent due to noise in the system.
You got off lucky. There is this one lady at work that used the trial and then it expire. An AOL charge showed up on her credit card bill. She never gave AOL her credit card number. The only way we have been able to figure out that they got it is that she bought something through Amazon. We think they picked up the number through their browser and sent it to a central database. I'm not sure , but I don't think it is legal.
Keith: Certainly for more professional soundcards there is a need for 32-bit support as producers often like to do the mastering in the highest level possible before downcoverting for the final tracks. I agree though that it is more difficult to justify 32-bit support on the desktop. I don't think its really intended as a marketing gimmick, its just more that the HD Audio spec supported 32-bit operation, so they are of course touting that support. I would not expect to see many 32-bit HD Audio codecs in the foreseeable future though.
Current hadware is only really able to achieve an effective ~20bit resolution due to thermal noise in the components. Unitl we take that down a couple of notches there is no reason to use anything more precise such as 32bit.
Before saying a reactor can be made into a dirty bomb think about how hard it woul dbe to blow up a reactor. They make the casings around them very strong. And crashing a plane into them won't do anything. You might destroy a smoke stack, but you won't get the reactor. As for the shipments? Thats why they are protected. The shipments wouldn't occur once a month either. Nuclear fuel in a reactor doesn't need to be replaced that often. And when it is shipped, it is given a hell of a lot of security.
Actually, what would probably happen if this got implemented is that the Oil and Coal power plants would be replaced and put side by side the new nuclear power plants. The same companies would supply power, just the mode of generation would change.
Look at the safety record of Nuclear Power in the US. 3 Mile island is the worst accident we've had at a comercial power plant. 30 something things went wrong, the reactor melted down, the workers were in a rush and ignored protocol and still less radiation was released than you would get on a cross country plane trip. Since that was using 30 year old technology I'd say they're safe. I'd even live right next to one.
To ad even more to the or a deadly, uncontainable waste product that cannot be controlled and is simply released into the atmosphere Coal cotains small amounts of radioactive material that gets release when burned. I have heard that more radioactive material has been released due to coal than every single nuclear accident and nuclear bomb detonated.
The only thing about electricity generation is that it is really only economical to have one central site when you start to get up their in watts needed. Portable generators are fine for small applications. However, when you start needin to supply houses and large buildings all the time it gets much more expensive. Sure some people have generators, but they can't run their house at full power and have to be carefull that they don't over load it usually. The only time you find really big generators are in places that need the power on all the time. Like hospitals. Power generation requires a large plant in order to be economical for constant generation.
Aside from that, there is a minimum size to creating a nuclear reactor. Not sure exactly what it is, but it isn't as compact as a gas generator.
The oil industry has been moving away from only producing oil and gas. They are investing in other technology like Hydrogen and fuel cells. They know oil will run out some day and are working at moving on to other energy production technologies now.
Ah, but here we have an interestng advantage over fossil fuels. Think about all the nuclear material floating out there in space in the asteroid belt. Baring that, we always have fusion power and Helium3 from the moon.
1) We can recycle the nuclear waste we have. Yes, it is possible. What we essentially do is re-enrich and purify it. The problem with this is that it is that it is the same process used to create weapons grade material. I think that is the only reason why it is not done. If we start refining the waste, the amount of toxic material left over shrinks rapidly to less than 1% of the volume.
2) Nuclear power supplies about 20% of the total power generated in the US. There is a lot of uranium and plutonium in the world. We have enough in order to supply it. Epsecially if we start re-enrichment of the waste.
Last time, Florida was called earily while the panhandle of florida was still open and voting (different timezone)
One of the other things is that the media reported the Florida polls closed at 7pm eastern. Those polls in the other were still open for another hour and had a lower voter turnout cause people thought the polls were closed even though they weren't.
Of course they could also check to see if the number of phone calls placed to that number equals the number of voting machines reporting. If there were more phone calls than machines then you just need to figure out where the extra calls came from. This is also assuming the extra calls were connected long enough to hack into a machine and change the results. Key in this case is long enough to change the results.
And why do you hope this? Is it that you don't like the results? Or do you believe that the election was rigged and want it to be proven? And by the way. The Audit can still be a success if it proves the election wasn't rigged, if there was no fraud. So don't autmatically claim that the audit has failed if they didn't find and fraud. Cause there probably isn't any.
Well, seeing as how the democrats said there were about 170,000 provisional ballots. That comes out to Kerry needing ~90% of those ballots in order to tie. Seeing as I highly doubt that those provisional ballots make up that many voters for Kerry, I don'think he would have won. Besides, they will probablycount those ballots and post the results anyway. So just pay attention to the Ohio election site for details for the final count.
Oh god, I just got out of college in May (I went to a college in Connecticut). Every single student I knew from New York and New Jersey hates her. And that is putting it nicely compared to the way they put it. A lot of them think she is a disgrace to the state of New York. Mainly cause "She hasn't done anything".
Slashdot Mirror
How much diference is there between a meteor defense and an ICBM defence? Think about it seriously. The only real diference is where the target is comming from, and that a meteor needs to be redirected, not destroyed. The rest of the system can prety much be the same. The explosive/kinetic bomb part of the system remains the same, same with targeting and everything else.
From the Treaty itself:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
As long as no weapons orbiting the earth are Nuclear or another type of WMD then there is no treaty violation. Seeing as how the article makes no mention of these types and that the weapons it does talk about are designed to take out ICBMs there is still no treaty violation.
And again, see other post The didn't lose it cause they didn't jump on the windows bandwagon, but cause MS would liscense them the GUI APIs.
Reason why Word Perfect didn't have a GUI for windows: Other post
WordPerfect became the market leader, then they got all fat and lazy, providing the opportunity for Microsoft to come along and eat their lunch with just a few new features that the folks at WordPerfect were too lazy to implement.
Actually, what happened is that when Microsoft came out with Windows they refused to give the WordPerfect programmers access to the Windows GUI APIs. This prevented them from making a version of Word Perfect that would run in a window instead of through MS-DOS. Microsoft released their MS-WORD with Windows support and became the market leader because no one wanted to stick with a DOS only aplication. It wasn't until later when MS-WORD was the leader that they finally let the WP Programers have access to the APIs. That is why they have a case against Microsoft.
Fraud, misinformation, harassment, illegal transactions, theft of resources, breaking and entering (hacking into computers), copyright infringement, and many other exact or approximate electronic analogs of improper behavior can be found on the Internet.
And thats just the corporations! Seriously though, it would be great if someone could just set up a few basic rules that everyone could agree to and enforce those and only those. And have a mandate limiting them to that. maybe like a Wyat Erp of the old west?
If the patent is only a year old then they don't have anything to stand on since Amazon will say "Well, we've been using this thing for 4(?) years. Everyone knows this. You just patented something you saw us doing for X years. That's your prior art." Patent Busted.
Ok, Lets say that somehow a piece of audio is recorded perfectly in full 24 or 32 or however many bits. When playing back that piece through the highest end amplifier money can buy (assume you are pumping your optical output into a high end amplifier/reciever) the thermal noise in the system is greater than the precision of the system around the 21st bit. Basically, if you sampled at the output of a 20 bit system and a 24 bit system and a 32 bit system as it went out to the speakers, the first 20 bits would all be the same and the rest would be diferent due to noise in the system.
You got off lucky. There is this one lady at work that used the trial and then it expire. An AOL charge showed up on her credit card bill. She never gave AOL her credit card number. The only way we have been able to figure out that they got it is that she bought something through Amazon. We think they picked up the number through their browser and sent it to a central database. I'm not sure , but I don't think it is legal.
Keith: Certainly for more professional soundcards there is a need for 32-bit support as producers often like to do the mastering in the highest level possible before downcoverting for the final tracks. I agree though that it is more difficult to justify 32-bit support on the desktop. I don't think its really intended as a marketing gimmick, its just more that the HD Audio spec supported 32-bit operation, so they are of course touting that support. I would not expect to see many 32-bit HD Audio codecs in the foreseeable future though.
Current hadware is only really able to achieve an effective ~20bit resolution due to thermal noise in the components. Unitl we take that down a couple of notches there is no reason to use anything more precise such as 32bit.
Before saying a reactor can be made into a dirty bomb think about how hard it woul dbe to blow up a reactor. They make the casings around them very strong. And crashing a plane into them won't do anything. You might destroy a smoke stack, but you won't get the reactor. As for the shipments? Thats why they are protected. The shipments wouldn't occur once a month either. Nuclear fuel in a reactor doesn't need to be replaced that often. And when it is shipped, it is given a hell of a lot of security.
Actually, what would probably happen if this got implemented is that the Oil and Coal power plants would be replaced and put side by side the new nuclear power plants. The same companies would supply power, just the mode of generation would change.
So that would give us 100 years to develope another technology like fusion to supply us with our energy woudn't it?
Can nuclear energy ever be truly safe?
Look at the safety record of Nuclear Power in the US. 3 Mile island is the worst accident we've had at a comercial power plant. 30 something things went wrong, the reactor melted down, the workers were in a rush and ignored protocol and still less radiation was released than you would get on a cross country plane trip. Since that was using 30 year old technology I'd say they're safe. I'd even live right next to one.
FYI our reactors can't go critical in the first place. They are designed that way and have been since the first one.
To ad even more to the or a deadly, uncontainable waste product that cannot be controlled and is simply released into the atmosphere Coal cotains small amounts of radioactive material that gets release when burned. I have heard that more radioactive material has been released due to coal than every single nuclear accident and nuclear bomb detonated.
The only thing about electricity generation is that it is really only economical to have one central site when you start to get up their in watts needed. Portable generators are fine for small applications. However, when you start needin to supply houses and large buildings all the time it gets much more expensive. Sure some people have generators, but they can't run their house at full power and have to be carefull that they don't over load it usually. The only time you find really big generators are in places that need the power on all the time. Like hospitals. Power generation requires a large plant in order to be economical for constant generation.
Aside from that, there is a minimum size to creating a nuclear reactor. Not sure exactly what it is, but it isn't as compact as a gas generator.
The oil industry has been moving away from only producing oil and gas. They are investing in other technology like Hydrogen and fuel cells. They know oil will run out some day and are working at moving on to other energy production technologies now.
Ah, but here we have an interestng advantage over fossil fuels. Think about all the nuclear material floating out there in space in the asteroid belt. Baring that, we always have fusion power and Helium3 from the moon.
1) We can recycle the nuclear waste we have. Yes, it is possible. What we essentially do is re-enrich and purify it. The problem with this is that it is that it is the same process used to create weapons grade material. I think that is the only reason why it is not done. If we start refining the waste, the amount of toxic material left over shrinks rapidly to less than 1% of the volume.
2) Nuclear power supplies about 20% of the total power generated in the US. There is a lot of uranium and plutonium in the world. We have enough in order to supply it. Epsecially if we start re-enrichment of the waste.
Last time, Florida was called earily while the panhandle of florida was still open and voting (different timezone)
One of the other things is that the media reported the Florida polls closed at 7pm eastern. Those polls in the other were still open for another hour and had a lower voter turnout cause people thought the polls were closed even though they weren't.
Of course they could also check to see if the number of phone calls placed to that number equals the number of voting machines reporting. If there were more phone calls than machines then you just need to figure out where the extra calls came from. This is also assuming the extra calls were connected long enough to hack into a machine and change the results. Key in this case is long enough to change the results.
I sure do hope it proves elections were rigged
And why do you hope this? Is it that you don't like the results? Or do you believe that the election was rigged and want it to be proven? And by the way. The Audit can still be a success if it proves the election wasn't rigged, if there was no fraud. So don't autmatically claim that the audit has failed if they didn't find and fraud. Cause there probably isn't any.
Well, seeing as how the democrats said there were about 170,000 provisional ballots. That comes out to Kerry needing ~90% of those ballots in order to tie. Seeing as I highly doubt that those provisional ballots make up that many voters for Kerry, I don'think he would have won. Besides, they will probablycount those ballots and post the results anyway. So just pay attention to the Ohio election site for details for the final count.
Oh god, I just got out of college in May (I went to a college in Connecticut). Every single student I knew from New York and New Jersey hates her. And that is putting it nicely compared to the way they put it. A lot of them think she is a disgrace to the state of New York. Mainly cause "She hasn't done anything".