It says cars not car. Most cars have 2 axles, so the plate gets depressed twice per car. Lots of places have speed humps, so they waste energy too, what's wrong with trying to recapture some of it ?
Lets take your 238,000 crossings and deal with reality. The plate will probably move 3 inches or so, so that brings the figure down to 79333, divide that by 2 for the number of axles gives 39667, each car probably leaves in less than an hour, so divide by 2 again which gives 19833 crossings. Not so unachievable now. And when you see the size of those car park flow control plates that only allow one way traffic, they could probably generate a foot of movement for each axle, so you could divide by 4 again. Roughly 5000 cars per hour. And that's assuming only one such device is installed. But I forget, this is slashdot, where everything has to be perfect or be subjected to ill-informed hyperbole.
The problem is that there are no certifications for linux that actually mean much of anything, unlike the windows world where you have the MS cert. Sure, there are a few companies that offer certs for linux but anyone who knows anything in HR will sneer at them as the meaningless drivel they are.
"A tomb is a repository for the remains of the dead. The term generally refers to any structurally enclosed interment space or burial chamber, of varying sizes. The word is used in a broad sense to encompass a number of such types of places of interment or, occasionally, burial..."
Link
Anyway, the bodies ARE buried under ground. The ground is piled up over the tombs. Or does grass grow in the air ?
Why does England have such a problem with knife violence.
It doesn't. The media make it into a big problem to sell their wares. In fact the media are actually causing the rates to rise due to idiots believing the media, and arming themselves to feel safe.
In WWII we fought industrialized nation states. They weren't quite as industrialized as the US, but it was a close call.
WTF ?
They were every bit as industrialized as the US. The only reason they failed is due to everybody bombing the fuck out of their industry. How many bomber raids did the US suffer in WW2 ?
And the guerilla warfare is because they're occupied fuckwit. You are not fighting the government forces. Industry is something that stable countries have, and is the most vulnerable target you can have.
You don't have to go to an Adobe site. Under linux you can find the cookies at ~/.macromedia Browse any directories below that and files with the.sol extension are cookies. Delete away. If you really want to, just delete all the cookies:
Yes you can. Try it sometime. You can't post as yourself and mod, because that would allow you to mod yourself up. Anon coward doesn't accrue mod points so it doesn't matter.
But it's the Windows users doing it ! You make it seem like users of other OSes are "hating on Microsoft". Why should we care ? It's funny, but we don't care. Take a look closer to home.
So if you don't want to send money out of the country, emit less. It's really quite simple. You are not FORCED to trade emissions, but you should do something instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and denying others things you have come to take for granted. Per capita, the US emits the largest quantity of harmful gases in the world. I can't see how preventing 3rd world countries from reaching even lesser per capita levels helps the US. Yes the third world is dirtier at the moment, but without industry they will never have the cash to "go green". The US already has the cash, but refuses to because "they don't have to , why should we ?" Sounds like a childs argument. If you had any sense, you would develop the green technology then sell it to the third world.
No, you can't "pollute as much as you want" - that's my air you're fucking up as well as yours.
The name is Lacoste, due to the fact it was founded by legendary tennis player René Lacoste. Hardly surprising coming from a nation who think McDonalds is a restaurant instead of a burger bar.
Firstly, planes don't just fly anywhere at will. There are "lanes" which are subdivided by height according to direction of travel. So the only places over a city where aircraft will fly will be in defined lanes. These may correspond or be in addition to the landing vectors for airports. You do not drop out of the sky from flight level 350 to land at the airport. You get lower in stages and the final glidepath can be around 5 to 10 miles long (roughly 3 degrees). So you are no-where near 35000 feet as you approach the airport, more like 2 to 3 thousand when you are 5 miles away.
Secondly, the wind in the jet stream goes in one direction (which direction depends on the altitude), so you can pretty much guarantee where the kites anchor lines will be. You simply anchor the kites in places away from the glide paths of aircraft and the two will never meet. Light aircraft rarely go much above 3000 ft anyway, and there are already no-fly zones in place for other reasons. If they can observe those, they can observe some new ones too.
Or is this just "I'm a whinging twat" day on slashdot, where nothing is possible because you lack the wit or the will to find solutions ?
Hydro is still the greenest energy generation method. You are using the force of gravity to generate electricity. I don't see gravity about to run out, and it doesn't contribute to pollution. The infrastructure does, but only once. The fish issue was only an issue because they didn't account for it in early designs, now they do. The land use issues are a trade-off. Either you want energy or you want land. Most of the land involved is usually steep sided and un-farmable anyway. The main issue is greed. The people creating the schemes want as much profit as they can so they fore-go reasonable solutions in favour of fuck em all, flood the whole area - more for me.
Even if it weren't for the veto other people mentioned, just where do you think the U.N. gets most of the funding from?
That's notional funding. The US have been repeatedly censured for NOT paying their UN dues.
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion.
Maybe if the US didn't dick about with the cash, the UN might actually have the resources to get something done. But the US doesn't want things done, it wants power, which is why it withholds the funds.
I'm sorry but that's crap. Many people die because their parachutes don't open or get tangled. They don't redesign the parachute every time. And the cost is irrelevant. How much more can you spend on a chute to make sure it deploys correctly ? For all we know the chute didn't deploy correctly or tangled, or the gas bags didn't inflate before landing. To say it failed because they spent too much on instrumentation is just ridiculous. And you realise that the Beagle2 used US suppliers (who later pulled out) for airbags and chutes ? Due mainly to their existing reliability record. And that US regulations regarding IP rights and arms shipments prevented the Beagle2 team from knowing the full technical details of the descent systems ? Sure you can throw money at a problem, but you can never ever guarantee success, even on earth let alone on another planet, on a first time mission. There are at least 16 different possibilities as to why the mission failed, ranging from abnormally low atmospheric pressure, to failure of the antenna once the probe was down. Even NASA has had data showing "surprisingly low atmospheric pressure" during the Spirit and Opportunity landings.
Presumably the bolts are on the outside, so any gasses or fragments are blown* away from the vehicle before the lid actually gets open. This is taking place in space, so the velocity of the gas and particles would mean they depart the area pretty quickly never to return. they don't hang around and then dive back in. It would be silly to put explosives anywhere near the sensors. Like you would think it was silly to use explosive bolts to separate the SRBs from the space shuttle, considering they are right next to a huge tank of fuel. But they do use them and it doesn't detonate the tank. Funny that, almost like they know what they're doing !
* And that's blown as in explosively, not by the wind !
Concentrating on the paradoxes isn't very useful. It just gives a way to avoid the question of "is it possible". If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year, it still has taken a year to do that. If it then travels back at the same speed, it will take a year to do that. So 2 years have passed since you set off. I don't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth. You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from, either in the ship or on the earth, but it is not a deal breaker. If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time. So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c (ship time) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach (earth time). You wouldn't come back before you left because you can't have negative time, either on earth or in the ship. If you go faster, then relatively more time passes on earth, you don't go backwards in time. Whatever speed you travel at, time passes. It takes time to go anywhere, as speed is a function of time and distance. Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time.
Flight is a very good example IMHO. The first people who wanted to fly, jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again. So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air. Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent, and this gradually became a "wing". So they got as far as the hang glider. Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered. Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first.
So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it. Nothing is invented in reverse. Except in computing, where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem. Your last sentence speaks the truth, but negates your argument. Yes, heavier than air flight was considered impossible, and yet boeing 747s are commonplace. But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees.
I was following a truck on the Stuart Highway in Australia once. I was a good 4 or 5 seconds behind it when I saw a stone get kicked up. It was about the size of your fist. It bounced, 3 times and then hit my windscreen, leaving a hole about 2 inches across, with cracking and damage about 6 inches across. It never gained a height of 12m, more like 2.5m at the most. And it's not 3 seconds it's 2.
Do you intend to submit your course work using the word "macadame" because you are an idiot. The mans name was John McAdam, and that is what the technique is named after. When bitumen was added to the surface of that structure it became "tarmacadam", usually shortened to tarmac.
And a gravel road is not a McAdam road anyway. The stones and gravel have to be laid very specifically, large stones, then a bit smaller then smaller still, and the whole is then compacted to form a smooth surface. Just dumping gravel on the ground is not a McAdam road.
Where I live it is common for the top layer, the one with the bitumen, to contain quite sizeable stones so that the finished surface looks like it has been grouted with bitumen. These roads last quite a bit longer than plain old black top, which although it contains stone, it is only stone chips and dust. I know this because I used to deliver the stone to tarmac plants for use in road building. The stone was small enough to be blown from a tanker through a pipe up into the silos. The kind of stuff that gives you silicosis, if you're not careful.
Comprehension fail. No-one said that taxes on fuel should pay for schools. Taxes on fuel should pay for roads. But you should not earmark _more_ budget for the roads when there are other more important issues, like schools to deal with. People can only pay so much tax. It makes more sense to reduce the burden in one area, allowing you to use what funds you have more efficiently. Do you really think that the tax you pay on fuel pays for all the road building and maintenance ? If that were true, you would be driving gravel roads already.
No, never was that true. James the first was King of England & Scotland. I don't see how a private publication has any bearing on what the official definition of the nation might be either. Britain refers to the group of islands, not the nation. The nation is the United Kingdom. How is that England on its own ?
I can't remember the last time I saw a camera, except in high traffic areas where they are used for traffic monitoring or in city centres where it makes more sense than trying to patrol every street and back alley to prevent crime. The whole big brother thing has been vastly over-inflated. If the cameras were ubiquitous, then the police would know who's been vandalising my car, or the sculpture a bit further down the road. They don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
It says cars not car. Most cars have 2 axles, so the plate gets depressed twice per car. Lots of places have speed humps, so they waste energy too, what's wrong with trying to recapture some of it ?
Lets take your 238,000 crossings and deal with reality. The plate will probably move 3 inches or so, so that brings the figure down to 79333, divide that by 2 for the number of axles gives 39667, each car probably leaves in less than an hour, so divide by 2 again which gives 19833 crossings. Not so unachievable now. And when you see the size of those car park flow control plates that only allow one way traffic, they could probably generate a foot of movement for each axle, so you could divide by 4 again. Roughly 5000 cars per hour. And that's assuming only one such device is installed.
But I forget, this is slashdot, where everything has to be perfect or be subjected to ill-informed hyperbole.
Er ...
https://www.redhat.com/training/
Anyway, the bodies ARE buried under ground. The ground is piled up over the tombs. Or does grass grow in the air ?
THESE ARE ...!
It also works with Firefox 2.0.0.20.
It doesn't. The media make it into a big problem to sell their wares. In fact the media are actually causing the rates to rise due to idiots believing the media, and arming themselves to feel safe.
And the rest of us can concrete over the entrances. Win Win.
WTF ?
They were every bit as industrialized as the US. The only reason they failed is due to everybody bombing the fuck out of their industry. How many bomber raids did the US suffer in WW2 ?
And the guerilla warfare is because they're occupied fuckwit. You are not fighting the government forces. Industry is something that stable countries have, and is the most vulnerable target you can have.
Mission accomplished yet ?
You don't have to go to an Adobe site. Under linux you can find the cookies at ~/.macromedia .sol extension are cookies. Delete away. If you really want to, just delete all the cookies :
Browse any directories below that and files with the
rm -Rf ~/.macromedia/Flash_Player/*
rm -Rf ~/.macromedia/Macromedia/*
In windows they are stored under C:\documents and settings\Local User name\Application Data\Macromedia\
s/accrue mod points/accrue karma
Yes you can. Try it sometime. You can't post as yourself and mod, because that would allow you to mod yourself up. Anon coward doesn't accrue mod points so it doesn't matter.
But it's the Windows users doing it ! You make it seem like users of other OSes are "hating on Microsoft". Why should we care ? It's funny, but we don't care. Take a look closer to home.
So if you don't want to send money out of the country, emit less. It's really quite simple. You are not FORCED to trade emissions, but you should do something instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and denying others things you have come to take for granted. Per capita, the US emits the largest quantity of harmful gases in the world. I can't see how preventing 3rd world countries from reaching even lesser per capita levels helps the US. Yes the third world is dirtier at the moment, but without industry they will never have the cash to "go green". The US already has the cash, but refuses to because "they don't have to , why should we ?" Sounds like a childs argument. If you had any sense, you would develop the green technology then sell it to the third world.
No, you can't "pollute as much as you want" - that's my air you're fucking up as well as yours.
The name is Lacoste, due to the fact it was founded by legendary tennis player René Lacoste.
Hardly surprising coming from a nation who think McDonalds is a restaurant instead of a burger bar.
Firstly, planes don't just fly anywhere at will. There are "lanes" which are subdivided by height according to direction of travel. So the only places over a city where aircraft will fly will be in defined lanes. These may correspond or be in addition to the landing vectors for airports. You do not drop out of the sky from flight level 350 to land at the airport. You get lower in stages and the final glidepath can be around 5 to 10 miles long (roughly 3 degrees). So you are no-where near 35000 feet as you approach the airport, more like 2 to 3 thousand when you are 5 miles away.
Secondly, the wind in the jet stream goes in one direction (which direction depends on the altitude), so you can pretty much guarantee where the kites anchor lines will be. You simply anchor the kites in places away from the glide paths of aircraft and the two will never meet. Light aircraft rarely go much above 3000 ft anyway, and there are already no-fly zones in place for other reasons. If they can observe those, they can observe some new ones too.
Or is this just "I'm a whinging twat" day on slashdot, where nothing is possible because you lack the wit or the will to find solutions ?
Hydro is still the greenest energy generation method. You are using the force of gravity to generate electricity. I don't see gravity about to run out, and it doesn't contribute to pollution. The infrastructure does, but only once. The fish issue was only an issue because they didn't account for it in early designs, now they do. The land use issues are a trade-off. Either you want energy or you want land. Most of the land involved is usually steep sided and un-farmable anyway. The main issue is greed. The people creating the schemes want as much profit as they can so they fore-go reasonable solutions in favour of fuck em all, flood the whole area - more for me.
That's notional funding. The US have been repeatedly censured for NOT paying their UN dues.
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion.
Maybe if the US didn't dick about with the cash, the UN might actually have the resources to get something done. But the US doesn't want things done, it wants power, which is why it withholds the funds.
I'm sorry but that's crap. Many people die because their parachutes don't open or get tangled. They don't redesign the parachute every time. And the cost is irrelevant. How much more can you spend on a chute to make sure it deploys correctly ? For all we know the chute didn't deploy correctly or tangled, or the gas bags didn't inflate before landing. To say it failed because they spent too much on instrumentation is just ridiculous. And you realise that the Beagle2 used US suppliers (who later pulled out) for airbags and chutes ? Due mainly to their existing reliability record. And that US regulations regarding IP rights and arms shipments prevented the Beagle2 team from knowing the full technical details of the descent systems ? Sure you can throw money at a problem, but you can never ever guarantee success, even on earth let alone on another planet, on a first time mission. There are at least 16 different possibilities as to why the mission failed, ranging from abnormally low atmospheric pressure, to failure of the antenna once the probe was down. Even NASA has had data showing "surprisingly low atmospheric pressure" during the Spirit and Opportunity landings.
Try reading the mission report.(pdf)
Presumably the bolts are on the outside, so any gasses or fragments are blown* away from the vehicle before the lid actually gets open. This is taking place in space, so the velocity of the gas and particles would mean they depart the area pretty quickly never to return. they don't hang around and then dive back in. It would be silly to put explosives anywhere near the sensors. Like you would think it was silly to use explosive bolts to separate the SRBs from the space shuttle, considering they are right next to a huge tank of fuel. But they do use them and it doesn't detonate the tank. Funny that, almost like they know what they're doing !
* And that's blown as in explosively, not by the wind !
Concentrating on the paradoxes isn't very useful. It just gives a way to avoid the question of "is it possible".
If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year, it still has taken a year to do that. If it then travels back at the same speed, it will take a year to do that. So 2 years have passed since you set off. I don't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth. You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from, either in the ship or on the earth, but it is not a deal breaker. If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time. So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c (ship time) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach (earth time). You wouldn't come back before you left because you can't have negative time, either on earth or in the ship. If you go faster, then relatively more time passes on earth, you don't go backwards in time. Whatever speed you travel at, time passes. It takes time to go anywhere, as speed is a function of time and distance. Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time.
That's why you need a Heisenberg Compensator !
Flight is a very good example IMHO. The first people who wanted to fly, jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again. So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air. Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent, and this gradually became a "wing". So they got as far as the hang glider. Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered. Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first.
So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it. Nothing is invented in reverse. Except in computing, where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem.
Your last sentence speaks the truth, but negates your argument. Yes, heavier than air flight was considered impossible, and yet boeing 747s are commonplace. But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees.
You realise stones bounce right ?
I was following a truck on the Stuart Highway in Australia once. I was a good 4 or 5 seconds behind it when I saw a stone get kicked up. It was about the size of your fist. It bounced, 3 times and then hit my windscreen, leaving a hole about 2 inches across, with cracking and damage about 6 inches across. It never gained a height of 12m, more like 2.5m at the most. And it's not 3 seconds it's 2.
Do you intend to submit your course work using the word "macadame" because you are an idiot. The mans name was John McAdam, and that is what the technique is named after. When bitumen was added to the surface of that structure it became "tarmacadam", usually shortened to tarmac.
And a gravel road is not a McAdam road anyway. The stones and gravel have to be laid very specifically, large stones, then a bit smaller then smaller still, and the whole is then compacted to form a smooth surface. Just dumping gravel on the ground is not a McAdam road.
Where I live it is common for the top layer, the one with the bitumen, to contain quite sizeable stones so that the finished surface looks like it has been grouted with bitumen. These roads last quite a bit longer than plain old black top, which although it contains stone, it is only stone chips and dust. I know this because I used to deliver the stone to tarmac plants for use in road building. The stone was small enough to be blown from a tanker through a pipe up into the silos. The kind of stuff that gives you silicosis, if you're not careful.
Comprehension fail.
No-one said that taxes on fuel should pay for schools. Taxes on fuel should pay for roads. But you should not earmark _more_ budget for the roads when there are other more important issues, like schools to deal with. People can only pay so much tax. It makes more sense to reduce the burden in one area, allowing you to use what funds you have more efficiently.
Do you really think that the tax you pay on fuel pays for all the road building and maintenance ? If that were true, you would be driving gravel roads already.
No, never was that true. James the first was King of England & Scotland. I don't see how a private publication has any bearing on what the official definition of the nation might be either. Britain refers to the group of islands, not the nation. The nation is the United Kingdom. How is that England on its own ?
I can't remember the last time I saw a camera, except in high traffic areas where they are used for traffic monitoring or in city centres where it makes more sense than trying to patrol every street and back alley to prevent crime. The whole big brother thing has been vastly over-inflated. If the cameras were ubiquitous, then the police would know who's been vandalising my car, or the sculpture a bit further down the road. They don't know.