I am definitely in favor of alternating current - the odds of me dying from touching an exposed wire in my house drop significantly from what they would be with dc.
they have residential cafes in Europe... we might end up with a charging station on each block... maybe even stop building driveways at houses and have a carpark at the end of each (short?) block.
Perhaps both given a recent Forbes article on the environmental cost of first gen commercially available electric cars (not the 2011-12 models but older nickel or lead batteries). More importantly, if a car company can get cost down to under 30k initial and 40k 5 year cost coupled with 10 minutes charging time and regular "charging stations" along major highways, I'd switch to electric in a heartbeat even if the car could only go 100 odd miles per charge - why? It's healthy to get out and walk a bit on a long trip and we might see the storied rest stop volunteer projects start up again like they (and I have no direct experience with this) had back in the 50s and 60s.
The goal, in as far as I understand the theory since it hasn't been practiced much, in destroying opposition satellites is to wipe them out with the least potential collateral damage (since that would impact one's own satellites). Throwing up ball bearings to tear up the internals of a satellite would potentially create micro debris with unknown trajectories... since we also apparently have sufficient of that up in the air already, it would seem best to all space capable powers to avoid generating more junk.
With regard to my earlier post, this would seem to be best accomplished through guided satellite killers, indirect or direct access hacking of the satellite to take it down, or through a planned unpowered strike that would down the satellite without significant debris (my above post, which, did, unfortunately, use sci-fi language - but for "defensive grid" read small active radar devices with missiles or some such). Satellite killers (like China used) would be preventable because of detection as would direct access hacking using already extant laser systems (that are not developed apparently due to atmospheric use problems and inconvenient but advisable treaties). Groundside hacking would be the most likely problem for it to face given the likely difficulty of downing a satellite with a defense system directly.
You make me want to go and edit the elephant entry again.... Or maybe go and randomly edit something I know nothing about basing all my information off of other wikipedia articles, quoting them for authority. I think I might combine something about army ants, satellite antennas, and low-end computer speakers. Or maybe I'll just add the word "not" in front of a significant statement in one of the articles related to a student's upcoming paper to see if they bite the poison apple. Anyone else with me?
But don't you realize that everything is interconnected? Even if a bomb is totally obscured by thirty tons of rice around it in a packing crate, it will be detectable by taking a visible-light picture of the period in U.S.A. on the side of the separately packaged delivery manifest. This is the great thing about technology, it is always bringing us ever closer to a world where the primary question on our lips should be, "Do you know where your towel is?"
until such a time as everyone else gets pissed at them, and shoots down their satellite.
which, given the amount of energy available to satellite would be difficult. All it would have to do would be to temporarily divert the stream of energy to a defense system and it could vaporize something even as big as a shuttle... The only risk would be high speed stealth parabolic strikes... and that could be minimized by putting a defensive grid around the satellite for detection.
This probably has more to do with his ghostwriter (very common amongst celebrity figures and even those with busy lifestyles that aren't celebrities - CEOs for example) and the editors.
During exercise, sure. But physically active humans are more efficient at processing and use of oxygen. I would like to see what actual numbers are involved with this and whether an at rest "jock" is going to be using more air than an at rest smoking couch potato. From a relative's experience with extreme obesity, he requires so much oxygen just to remain seated doing nothing that he is at the max mechanical limit for oxygen delivery (via an O2 tank). He is sucking in enough oxygen that you or I would end up with oxygen toxicity as a result of breathing in what he breathes. I assume that CO2 production follows his inhalation of O2 (though I expect a lot of it is not exhaled as he has severe health issues and has to undergo transfusion, etc. from time to time).
I think you may be misreading the GP to suggest that he is promoting the government's looking the other way at vigilantism. He appears, rather, to be suggesting that when the government does not uphold order in society that it is to be expected that vigilantism will develop (usually trying to fill the void left by the government) and eventually we will have anarchy.
We see this more clearly than the copyright issue in the recent Arizona immigration debacle where the state was merely trying (whether you agree with their methods or not) to enforce an already extant federal law that was not being enforced by the federal government effectively due to budget cuts, etc. There have been a number of stories about increased violence along the border that is attributable not just to drug trafficking issues but also to immigration responses on the part of local residents. Some of these are gray area vigilantism and some in concord with local authorities ("Citizens border patrol" etc.).
Not quite sure where you read contradictions, lies, and misinformation into my comment there, but, and I am not stating this in an absolute sense here, most of the 'contradictions' I've seen posted on the net have been written by people who have ignored context, cultural background, and even, genre (poetic sections of the Bible are frequently ripped for being 'non-scientific' - which, for poetry, is actually a good thing, I think)...
And why shouldn't you? The populace loves to get out and vote, illustrating that they have a say in the everyday affairs of government as always. No doubt, Pres. Palin III will roll in on a wave of "Change we can believe in" echoing back to the days of her forebear's opponents and be just as successful in convincing the American (or Sino-American or whatever compound government will exist then) voters that there is a reason to vote. And, on some level, there will be... lesser of two evils is still a great motivator for many even today.
Cry - Steamboat Willie is completely unimportant, but if it is still copyrighted, more important things like Calvin and Hobbes will still be copyrighted too... unless we convince the government to let Disney have a special clause protecting Mickey and let the rest of the world live in peace with reasonable copyright laws. I am not holding my breath, though.
Can it not be that all politicians are showmen on some level and that when a given politician wins, he's convinced a plurality of voters that he is the best of bad choices (and various other voters that he is a good choice)?
Christians would seem to be your target religionX here and have not, as a group, rejected the idea of aliens. In fact, significant theologians among Protestants and Roman Catholics have both affirmed God's ability to do whatever He chooses to do. Roman Catholicism specifically finds no discord between evolutionary models of development and Christianity. Protestant groups are more varied and go from instantaneous creation of man on the sixth day to catastrophe/re-creation models to theistic evolution.
Throughout the history of both these and other branches of Christianity, the unknowability and extreme otherness of God has been promoted ("holiness" is the religious term here). The Christian claim is that for humans, God has sought to reveal himself through the Bible to the extent that humans can and should understand him. It makes no claim on how God would interact with other life throughout the universe (or whether or not there is life outside of earth).
No - a reasonable form of tax should take from all levels of society with higher taxes for those more able to pay. This is why food and other basic necessities are not taxed in most states (I would love a list as this strikes me as a fairly responsible approach that should be copied elsewhere). Luxury items frequently have separate, additional sales taxes (or simply separate taxes--telephones are an example from the past that need to have their tax adjusted in the present). Those able to pay for the 40k car should probably have a higher tax rate than those who are buying the used 2k car. We see this to a certain extent in the "gas guzzler" taxes as these usually apply to higher end luxury cars (where comfort overrides economy).
How is mitigation of risk through dormant devices (or human worms, read spies/moles) irresponsible in and of itself? This strikes me as a great way to ensure a less costly potential war scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
...only if you're from an ethnic group that historically demonstrates lactose intolerance.
buy space folding technology from the puppeteers or the outsiders?
I am definitely in favor of alternating current - the odds of me dying from touching an exposed wire in my house drop significantly from what they would be with dc.
they have residential cafes in Europe... we might end up with a charging station on each block... maybe even stop building driveways at houses and have a carpark at the end of each (short?) block.
Perhaps both given a recent Forbes article on the environmental cost of first gen commercially available electric cars (not the 2011-12 models but older nickel or lead batteries). More importantly, if a car company can get cost down to under 30k initial and 40k 5 year cost coupled with 10 minutes charging time and regular "charging stations" along major highways, I'd switch to electric in a heartbeat even if the car could only go 100 odd miles per charge - why? It's healthy to get out and walk a bit on a long trip and we might see the storied rest stop volunteer projects start up again like they (and I have no direct experience with this) had back in the 50s and 60s.
That was beautiful. I especially like the sunglasses / adblock plus linkage. I'll have to remember that next time someone asks me about it.
The goal, in as far as I understand the theory since it hasn't been practiced much, in destroying opposition satellites is to wipe them out with the least potential collateral damage (since that would impact one's own satellites). Throwing up ball bearings to tear up the internals of a satellite would potentially create micro debris with unknown trajectories... since we also apparently have sufficient of that up in the air already, it would seem best to all space capable powers to avoid generating more junk.
With regard to my earlier post, this would seem to be best accomplished through guided satellite killers, indirect or direct access hacking of the satellite to take it down, or through a planned unpowered strike that would down the satellite without significant debris (my above post, which, did, unfortunately, use sci-fi language - but for "defensive grid" read small active radar devices with missiles or some such). Satellite killers (like China used) would be preventable because of detection as would direct access hacking using already extant laser systems (that are not developed apparently due to atmospheric use problems and inconvenient but advisable treaties). Groundside hacking would be the most likely problem for it to face given the likely difficulty of downing a satellite with a defense system directly.
unless wikipedia is wrong, which is impossible
You make me want to go and edit the elephant entry again. ... Or maybe go and randomly edit something I know nothing about basing all my information off of other wikipedia articles, quoting them for authority. I think I might combine something about army ants, satellite antennas, and low-end computer speakers. Or maybe I'll just add the word "not" in front of a significant statement in one of the articles related to a student's upcoming paper to see if they bite the poison apple. Anyone else with me?
But don't you realize that everything is interconnected? Even if a bomb is totally obscured by thirty tons of rice around it in a packing crate, it will be detectable by taking a visible-light picture of the period in U.S.A. on the side of the separately packaged delivery manifest. This is the great thing about technology, it is always bringing us ever closer to a world where the primary question on our lips should be, "Do you know where your towel is?"
Nero tried that and it apparently worked well for him.
until such a time as everyone else gets pissed at them, and shoots down their satellite.
which, given the amount of energy available to satellite would be difficult. All it would have to do would be to temporarily divert the stream of energy to a defense system and it could vaporize something even as big as a shuttle... The only risk would be high speed stealth parabolic strikes... and that could be minimized by putting a defensive grid around the satellite for detection.
This probably has more to do with his ghostwriter (very common amongst celebrity figures and even those with busy lifestyles that aren't celebrities - CEOs for example) and the editors.
During exercise, sure. But physically active humans are more efficient at processing and use of oxygen. I would like to see what actual numbers are involved with this and whether an at rest "jock" is going to be using more air than an at rest smoking couch potato. From a relative's experience with extreme obesity, he requires so much oxygen just to remain seated doing nothing that he is at the max mechanical limit for oxygen delivery (via an O2 tank). He is sucking in enough oxygen that you or I would end up with oxygen toxicity as a result of breathing in what he breathes. I assume that CO2 production follows his inhalation of O2 (though I expect a lot of it is not exhaled as he has severe health issues and has to undergo transfusion, etc. from time to time).
I think you may be misreading the GP to suggest that he is promoting the government's looking the other way at vigilantism. He appears, rather, to be suggesting that when the government does not uphold order in society that it is to be expected that vigilantism will develop (usually trying to fill the void left by the government) and eventually we will have anarchy.
We see this more clearly than the copyright issue in the recent Arizona immigration debacle where the state was merely trying (whether you agree with their methods or not) to enforce an already extant federal law that was not being enforced by the federal government effectively due to budget cuts, etc. There have been a number of stories about increased violence along the border that is attributable not just to drug trafficking issues but also to immigration responses on the part of local residents. Some of these are gray area vigilantism and some in concord with local authorities ("Citizens border patrol" etc.).
This reminds me of the scene ending with Vizzini calling Wesley a fool and then falling over dead. Perhaps the same will happen with Iran.
Not quite sure where you read contradictions, lies, and misinformation into my comment there, but, and I am not stating this in an absolute sense here, most of the 'contradictions' I've seen posted on the net have been written by people who have ignored context, cultural background, and even, genre (poetic sections of the Bible are frequently ripped for being 'non-scientific' - which, for poetry, is actually a good thing, I think)...
... which movie? Doesn't Paris always get hit?
And why shouldn't you? The populace loves to get out and vote, illustrating that they have a say in the everyday affairs of government as always. No doubt, Pres. Palin III will roll in on a wave of "Change we can believe in" echoing back to the days of her forebear's opponents and be just as successful in convincing the American (or Sino-American or whatever compound government will exist then) voters that there is a reason to vote. And, on some level, there will be... lesser of two evils is still a great motivator for many even today.
Cry - Steamboat Willie is completely unimportant, but if it is still copyrighted, more important things like Calvin and Hobbes will still be copyrighted too... unless we convince the government to let Disney have a special clause protecting Mickey and let the rest of the world live in peace with reasonable copyright laws. I am not holding my breath, though.
Can it not be that all politicians are showmen on some level and that when a given politician wins, he's convinced a plurality of voters that he is the best of bad choices (and various other voters that he is a good choice)?
The asteroid was partially ferrous in the movie... maybe some innovative use of magnetization and such? ;)
Christians would seem to be your target religionX here and have not, as a group, rejected the idea of aliens. In fact, significant theologians among Protestants and Roman Catholics have both affirmed God's ability to do whatever He chooses to do. Roman Catholicism specifically finds no discord between evolutionary models of development and Christianity. Protestant groups are more varied and go from instantaneous creation of man on the sixth day to catastrophe/re-creation models to theistic evolution.
Throughout the history of both these and other branches of Christianity, the unknowability and extreme otherness of God has been promoted ("holiness" is the religious term here). The Christian claim is that for humans, God has sought to reveal himself through the Bible to the extent that humans can and should understand him. It makes no claim on how God would interact with other life throughout the universe (or whether or not there is life outside of earth).
Thank you - this was helpful - I have never lived in a state with income tax and was unaware it would model the federal system.
No - a reasonable form of tax should take from all levels of society with higher taxes for those more able to pay. This is why food and other basic necessities are not taxed in most states (I would love a list as this strikes me as a fairly responsible approach that should be copied elsewhere). Luxury items frequently have separate, additional sales taxes (or simply separate taxes--telephones are an example from the past that need to have their tax adjusted in the present). Those able to pay for the 40k car should probably have a higher tax rate than those who are buying the used 2k car. We see this to a certain extent in the "gas guzzler" taxes as these usually apply to higher end luxury cars (where comfort overrides economy).
How is mitigation of risk through dormant devices (or human worms, read spies/moles) irresponsible in and of itself? This strikes me as a great way to ensure a less costly potential war scenario.