Yes, why analyze the system when it works out perfectly for your candidate?
Bush got a significant number more votes in 2004 than in 2000.
So did Kerry(well, got a significantly larger vote than Gore did). That's not much of a point. Really, your post doesn't go against anything the study showed. It's just hand waving.:-)
I do find it very ironic that we have two distinct crowds, largely both in the Democrat leaning arena which desire to challenge the election results. There are those who want to challenge the electronic voting and those who want to challenge the paper voting. Each group implies the other system is the better system. You can't have it both ways.
No, no, no. Sure, some people think that the different system is better, but most people who have problems with the system do not. Even people who have a problem with electronic voting machines do not want to get rid of them, they just want to make sure that they *work*, instead of giving their vote to someone else. Paper ballots aren't too good either. When you have a candidate *surprised* about how many votes he got in a country, and many people say they accidentally voted for that candidate, you can't say they're just trying to change their vote, there really *was* a problem.
Then it's like buying a copy of Microsoft Office when you only run Linux. There are solutions, they just take a little bit of effort, and a little bit of money. And it's your fault if you're too stupid to read the minimum system requirements.
Actually VLIW wasn't a dumb idea, nor was it really what set Itanium apart from traditional x86 processors. It was mainly a change that allowed the huge parallelism that *is* a big benefit for certain types of work. Unfortunately for Intel and HP, not too many people perform that kind of stuff anymore.
How could they wreck such a large industry! Do the cars have no feeling? No sense of right and wrong? Stupid cars! I say that we enact legislation to protect this industry vital to the nations industries.
Apparently applications for forensic examiners & assistant positions are up something like 100X in the last few years. Like JAG, Law & Order, ER and a bunch of other shows, CSI glamorizes a job that really isn't all that glamorous. I don't think it's entirely a bad thing, we do need people in those jobs but it isn't exactly giving people realistic expectations.
Yes, that's a funny thing. I've noticed that a lot of young people these days want to become forensics experts or psychologists, because they think that it'll just be like CSI. How stupid can you be? I guess it's *because* not everyone knows how innacurate CSI is, but even if you apply a little critical thinking, you should come to that conclusion. So essentially, we'll be getting a bunch of *stupid* forensic examiners these next couple decades. Guess what you'll have to thank for that?
See, they're trying to send a message. They want all of the stupid criminals out there to be deterred by forensic science's supposed capabilities. They aren't trying to be real, they're trying to protect YOU!:-)
Yes, and as you said, nuclear reactors are massive. I was talking about how easy it would be to launch that nuclear reactor into space, which would not be easy at all.
Let me note that after the equation for work, I didn't mean work in the technical manner.:-) Just thought I'd add that since we're catching each other in technicalities.
I meant that the gravity wasn't doing any work.:-) And it's dW=F(cos angle)*ds, which is why the work done by gravity is zero. Of course the engine does work. All I'm saying is that the engine *works* in the atmosphere, just not very well. So poorly in fact, that it's not worth using it there. If you set up the conditions so that it will work, you're replicating space, and for it to be useful, you'd have to make a frictionless vacuum tunnel so that it is even slightly worthwhile, and even then it wouldn't be.
Well, most people don't use incredibly weak motors to move things on earth. You are technically right, that when moving something tangentially to the gravitational force on a frictionless surface in a vacuum, it accelerates at the same speed as in space. What you have created though is pretty much space. I thought you were talking about lifting things into orbit with ion engines, which is pretty much impossible. On a sidenote, there is still a gravitational pull in space, it's just very small compared to being near the earth. Otherwise, the probe wouldn't *stay* in orbit.
Sure, but you're essentially operating in space. Sure, there's gravity, but you're operating on a tangent to the gravity so it doesn't perform any work.
Sure, it would just be a negligible amount of force. It probably wouldn't move as it wouldn't be able to break static friction. Of course, with a low enough amount of friction it would still work. It's just not meant to work in environments with more friction than space. It *can* work, just not very well.
Considering that Apollo got there in 3 days, I don't think so. And are you sure it's 80 million kilometers? Last time I checked, the moon wasn't that far away.
Weight is a measure of how much gravity is pulling down on the mass. If the weight is too large for the force of the engine, it will fall down. This is why weight is important.
No! It would work, but it wouldn't do anything. It doesn't have the strength to overcome earth's gravity. Air resistance and what not, or the lack of those factors does not change it. It will work in air, just not well. It will work inside the earth's gravity well, but not very well. It only works when it doesn't have gravity pulling on it very hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush got a significant number more votes in 2004 than in 2000.
So did Kerry(well, got a significantly larger vote than Gore did). That's not much of a point. Really, your post doesn't go against anything the study showed. It's just hand waving. :-)
No, actually, the day before the election, they had Kerry winning 298 to 231. That was *before* the exit polls. How is that a slight Bush lead again?
No, no, no. Sure, some people think that the different system is better, but most people who have problems with the system do not. Even people who have a problem with electronic voting machines do not want to get rid of them, they just want to make sure that they *work*, instead of giving their vote to someone else. Paper ballots aren't too good either. When you have a candidate *surprised* about how many votes he got in a country, and many people say they accidentally voted for that candidate, you can't say they're just trying to change their vote, there really *was* a problem.
Yes. whenever they voted for Gore and accidentally put in Buchanan, it *really* helped Gore out.
Then it's like buying a copy of Microsoft Office when you only run Linux. There are solutions, they just take a little bit of effort, and a little bit of money. And it's your fault if you're too stupid to read the minimum system requirements.
That was the whole point, someone said you couldn't, and you can. Steam isn't my favorite, but it's not the worst thing in the world.
Actually VLIW wasn't a dumb idea, nor was it really what set Itanium apart from traditional x86 processors. It was mainly a change that allowed the huge parallelism that *is* a big benefit for certain types of work. Unfortunately for Intel and HP, not too many people perform that kind of stuff anymore.
It was a good sandwhich too. Too bad the rescue crew pulled me out before I could eat the second half.
How could they wreck such a large industry! Do the cars have no feeling? No sense of right and wrong? Stupid cars! I say that we enact legislation to protect this industry vital to the nations industries.
Heh, he demand could grow. You're probably right though.
Yes, that's a funny thing. I've noticed that a lot of young people these days want to become forensics experts or psychologists, because they think that it'll just be like CSI. How stupid can you be? I guess it's *because* not everyone knows how innacurate CSI is, but even if you apply a little critical thinking, you should come to that conclusion. So essentially, we'll be getting a bunch of *stupid* forensic examiners these next couple decades. Guess what you'll have to thank for that?
See, they're trying to send a message. They want all of the stupid criminals out there to be deterred by forensic science's supposed capabilities. They aren't trying to be real, they're trying to protect YOU! :-)
Well, 60 miles up still isn't very far.
Yes, and as you said, nuclear reactors are massive. I was talking about how easy it would be to launch that nuclear reactor into space, which would not be easy at all.
Let me note that after the equation for work, I didn't mean work in the technical manner. :-) Just thought I'd add that since we're catching each other in technicalities.
I meant that the gravity wasn't doing any work. :-) And it's dW=F(cos angle)*ds, which is why the work done by gravity is zero. Of course the engine does work. All I'm saying is that the engine *works* in the atmosphere, just not very well. So poorly in fact, that it's not worth using it there. If you set up the conditions so that it will work, you're replicating space, and for it to be useful, you'd have to make a frictionless vacuum tunnel so that it is even slightly worthwhile, and even then it wouldn't be.
OK ok, I'll grant you that. :-)
Well, most people don't use incredibly weak motors to move things on earth. You are technically right, that when moving something tangentially to the gravitational force on a frictionless surface in a vacuum, it accelerates at the same speed as in space. What you have created though is pretty much space. I thought you were talking about lifting things into orbit with ion engines, which is pretty much impossible. On a sidenote, there is still a gravitational pull in space, it's just very small compared to being near the earth. Otherwise, the probe wouldn't *stay* in orbit.
Sure, but you're essentially operating in space. Sure, there's gravity, but you're operating on a tangent to the gravity so it doesn't perform any work.
Sure, it would just be a negligible amount of force. It probably wouldn't move as it wouldn't be able to break static friction. Of course, with a low enough amount of friction it would still work. It's just not meant to work in environments with more friction than space. It *can* work, just not very well.
Oh, ok. Oops, I take it back. :-)
So, getting it up there isn't a problem? OK then, just lend me your Saturn V, and I'll launch it up there for ya. :-)
Considering that Apollo got there in 3 days, I don't think so. And are you sure it's 80 million kilometers? Last time I checked, the moon wasn't that far away.
Weight is a measure of how much gravity is pulling down on the mass. If the weight is too large for the force of the engine, it will fall down. This is why weight is important.
No! It would work, but it wouldn't do anything. It doesn't have the strength to overcome earth's gravity. Air resistance and what not, or the lack of those factors does not change it. It will work in air, just not well. It will work inside the earth's gravity well, but not very well. It only works when it doesn't have gravity pulling on it very hard.