Boeing? I don't understand your point about Boeing.
That they would have considerable experience to bring to optimizing such a space glider (x-37b) and that they selected that design to demonstrate the technology.
We could also use risk management metrics to make the case against spaceplanes. The shuttle had too many criticality 1 components, etc.
The Shuttle had those critical components because it was a complex vehicle with launch components on it. If you are using the risk management metrics of a side by side launch configuration with engines in it, then we are not talking about the same thing.
The CAIB report pointed out that it's risk analysis of the shuttle launch configuration produced approximately 130 impacts to the heat shield per launch. That would be eliminated in a top of stack configuration. So too would the main engines making for a less complex, less massive vehicle. A space glider.
Whether you need wings is not what I am saying, I am making the observation that none of the designs we have seen implemented produced an optimal vehicle.
As I said. What my OP was suggesting was that we have not seen the most optimized design for a space plane, or more specifically, a space glider. We have never implemented a low mass glider from space.
Note: "to operate from an airport" is not an answer.
To reduce ballistic forces on re-entry, to not carry volatiles for landing, to carry more than three tons of payload back to earth, to build a simpler vehicle. Perhaps to use some of the launch energy on delivering a product produced in orbit to a specific place on earth. I don't know what possible future requirements there are. Any improvement to ablative heat shield technology, as the Dragon V2 will produce, can also be applied to a space glider.
You might be right or wrong. I'm not religiously connected to the idea of having wings in space enough to care. I accept all of the reasons you point out as pretty good reasons for not having winged space vehicles, however it still doesn't change what I saying: we have not seen the most optimized design for a space vehicle of this kind, specifically a space glider. That has nothing to do with the obsolescence of a design, idea or concept, simply a statement of fact.
My other suggestion was if there is a reason to have a space glider then the emerging market economy for space products will produce one.
Thanks for the conversation, I'll be in surgery and out of action for a while.
It's great to see the myths of non-reusable first stage technology being dispelled.
Indeed, SpaceX has thoroughly demolished the claims of SSTO fans that reuse and low cost are somehow incompatible with staging.
We agree that this is a step forwards in getting to orbit.
We don't need wings.
They are useful though.
For what?
For operating a vehicle in atmosphere, which occurs at two critical stages of a spacecraft's mission.
Spaceplanes are dead.
Does a spaceplane have to include engines?
Take Skylon as a representative example:
No. That is specifically the design I am arguing against. Please check my post again and you will see I deliberately *exclude* the mass of the engines.
Perhaps it would make more sense if I introduced the term "Space Glider" to describe what I am talking about.
assuming it lived up to expectations, Skylon
I agree, I doubt this design would have lived up to expectations and what we have seen is failed designs for a sort of spaceplane with engines. What my OP was suggesting was that we have not seen the most optimized design for a space plane, or more specifically, a space glider.
Well, it beats making them into the world's most complicated air planes as with the space shuttle. SpaceX has proven that they can do vertical landings of the first stage intact onto both land and a seagoing barge; after a trip out of the atmosphere and to about 1/5 of orbital velocity but not into orbit.
It's great to see the myths of non-reusable first stage technology being dispelled.
That turns out to be far less expensive and complicated than a space plane. It does turn out we need a lifting body for much larger vehicles. It still doesn't have to be a plane, though.
I think you have to separate the concept from the implementation of a space plane design. SpaceX's launcher effort is less expensive and complicated than the space planes implemented so far. However both Buran and the Space Shuttle had the orbiter on the side of the stack where their heat shield was exposed to debris from the launch vehicle. So much so it was considered to be 'In-Family' because it would occur every launch to some degree.
The Space Shuttle also had all of the complexity related to the main engines which had no business being in orbit. Having the mass of those engines also complicates the infrastructure of landing. Considering also many of the political issues that interfered with the implementation of the Shuttle it wasn't the best design for a space plane.
We don't need wings.
They are useful though. The contrast is having the space plane at the top of the launcher stack, which removes the 'in-family' debris, main engine mass and, complexity issues for operating a space plane, as the X-37 demonstrates. The X-37 is covered by a shroud, however having some control surfaces at the top of a launch stack for a larger vehicle could be useful considering launchers have control surfaces near the base to balance it. A less massive orbiter means more for vehicle and payload reaching orbit and returning.
Musk has taken the pork barrelling out of launcher design and shown that it is possible to recover launcher assets. That knowledge maybe the foundation of opening up commercial space ventures paving the way for more commercial launcher platforms to become available.
The good thing about commercialization could mean someone implementing a space plane with a better design or more specific role. With those things in mind maybe we haven't seen the most optimal design for a space plane yet.
Oh, I agree. I'm not sentimental about X11, however there is some good amongst the bad so it would be good to keep that. I would have googled it myself however I have an injury and can't spend a lot of time at the computer right now.
I think the most important usability features X11 has over Windows and mac is the suberbly powerful cut paste and remote display paradigm. If I can use those X features in Wayland I'll be happy, otherwise, I think you have a point Mr AC.
I switched from Windows to linux because I was sick of that shit, change for change sake. I want change for the sake of a usability improvment in a computing interface that I am compelled to use because it makes me more efficient at using a computer. I am an advanced user and I want an advanced interface. For me that is an ambidextrous mousing paradigm, remote windows, more advanced cut and paste, multiple desktops.
Frankly, UI configurability in linux has gone backwards since it got more popular, workspaces interfaces have *less* functionality than it did in 2008 when I could drag windows between workspaces and you could configure just about every aspect of gnome to customize your linux desktop experience. I didn't want a Mac or Windows UI and since their UI's adopted workspaces the functionality in linux seems to be dumbed down and advanced linux GUI features being domesticated.
Wayland looks like it is answering the need for backwards X11 compatibility with Weston so it remains to be seen if it will take the powerful features of X11 and leave some of the atropied aspects behind.
wayland initially was infested by the type of developers
Wayland was founded by the X developers who wanted to call it X12 but realized that people would freak the hell out if they fixed it the way that it needed fixing, based on their experience with X11.
Do you mean Kristian Høgsberg? I'm curious about how they needed to fix X11 and Wayland being the incremental successor X12, would you elaborate? Got a link?
Does it only work for chronic pain or something in particular? I've tried to use it in place of aspirin to little or no effect.
I snapped an achilles tendon and to control pain after the surgery, I polished off over a litre of morphine and had been using codine for several months. I had reached a level of use where the doctor told me I was facing liver or kidney failure if he proscribed any more and he suggested THC as an alternative to the pain killers.
It worked while I healed, during rehabilitation and it took two years to be able to walk again. Six months to recover from the surgery and eighteen months learning to walk again all of which required some really painful physiotherapy. It took another four years before I could sit in a car longer than 20 minutes. I used and recognised signs of THC dependency as simply getting tired of consuming it. So it was a lot easier to overcome, reduce and tolerate the withdrawal symptoms of the THC compared to being on morphine or codine for that long which made me feel like a zombie unable to do much.
To compare physical amounts, 25 cigarettes of tobacco as weed would take me about a week to consume to deal with chronic pain. The same amount may take over a month to consume recreationally as I am physically unable to consume that much weed.
My experiences were that you won't get high or euphoric when you use THC as a painkiller, however the sensation of pain will reduce and that helps you to relax. It also helped maintain my appetite when I didn't feel like eating. I also suffered several spinal injuries and found pain controling that using THC left me more alert and functional compared to opiate based pain killers.
For me pain control with THC help me through significant physical trauma, several times.
The core of the argument is sound though. It costs ~$500k to put up a 100kW wind turbine. With energy at about 12c/kWh, each hour at full power would generate only $12 and would thus break even after 5 years of full-time, full-power wind
You are talking about the full site establishment costs there. Energetic costs to host subsequent generations of turbines at each site become the cost of replacing the wind turbine with a crane.
however the largest turbines catch wind only 20% of the time and are only 30-45% efficient, smaller ones even less. So you're looking at 50 years before they break even.
This is why "measures" like "Capacity Factor" are bogus measures, every power generation techniques has characteristic. For example, nuclear reactors only us 0.3% of the energy in the fuel so they are relatively inefficient too. Inavailability of a reactor to produce power due to maintenance or some other reason that keeps them offline. Once the reactor is available there is also the utilization of the power it produces, they may produce a good base of power, but that doesn't mean a nuclear reactor can follow demand that well.
That is off course if they never needed maintenance, these turbines are specced for 20-30years of service WITH maintenance but most of them last only half that long.
That is a good platform for the incremental advancement of wind turbine technology. You cannot do that sort of advancement with operational nuclear reactor technology until you build a new reactor.
Wind power is a loss at this point in time unless we jack the price of energy like Germany does, we need way lower costs and way higher efficiencies but for that we need rare earth magnets and the like.
Well it would be devestaing if wind power melted down and spread radionuclides into the environment however it would seem the worst they do is overspeed and catch fire. I see as more wind power installations are deployed the grid itself will change in the way it responds to availability, demand and utilization.
Solar is better (less maintenance) but it still doesn't compare to a well-maintained nuclear plant or other forms of clean energy.
It would be difficult to imagine a large scale solar plant having more maintenance issues that a nuclear power plant.
Translation I want to smoke pot.
Now let me rationalize it.
No need to rationalize it. People don't rationalize drinking beer, wine or spirits - they do it because they want to. Here is a rationalization for you, I like it, I laugh my ass off and I have a great time.
However as a painkiller that my doctor suggested for having a snapped achillies tendon it was a much better option than liver failure from the oral painkillers I was taking.
Legalize Pot and all other crimes will stop because Pot funds them.
Why are you or anyone else qualified to make value judgements about peoples choices that have no impact on you.
It makes so much money, they FUND other crime.
That could all be tax money, deficit solved
Thank you.
What it does is criminalizes a lot of people that should not be exposed to the prison system. If you can, for a moment step out of your prejudice and ask yourself if the pot someone is smoking will do them more harm in ten years than a two year prison term will do, six months into it?
Or how much policing for violent crimes a police officer can do if they are not writing up a pot arrest for 3 hours in the station? How much time is taken up in the court system dealing with cases, how many prison officers have to be hired to guard them?
What does it say about a society that has social controls for a plant that has been with humanity for so long that there are receptors in our brain for Cannabinoids?
It causes less deaths than tobacco and alcohol and prohibition of it is just another form of social control. The absurdity of the 'house of cards' that prohibits it has more negative effects on society than the plant has ever caused and that's before we start looking at the plethora of medical benefits it has.
Take marijuana off the black market and the funding for many other criminal operations will dry up.
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough).
Evidently they didn't do the load testing properly. If they can't get that right how can anybody expect them to secure personal data properly.
Yet they're forcing mandatory retention of personal data.
They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
By claiming it's a DDOS it just proves even more that they can't secure anything. How can they be trusted to keep sensitive data if they can't get something so basic functioning properly?
Thank you Dr Papert, I did not know your name until now however I used Logo in my formative years of programming when on work experience from school on a real life mainframe. Moving that turtle around really made me think about programming so I, sir, learned your lessons and appreciate the impact your work had on my life.
I have lots of experience over the years, (with me), and I've done it every way.
Floss. That's all there is to it. You will have trouble with your gums and with cavities if you don't.
And your breath will be more pleasant. There is nothing worse than talking to someone who's breath makes you want to vomit.
You don't have to floss every day. Once a week is enough. Your dentist won't even be able to tell the difference.
Thank you. I always wondered if flossing once a week was enough, but I see I am not the only one - plus the gum massage feels pretty good. Most of all be true to your teeth and they won't be false to you:)
It is not like there is no tourism and business travelers already all year long...
In Olympic numbers all at once? FIFA world cup in Brazil 2014 drew 3.5 million people. The London Olympics in 2012 drew 19.5 million people. I am uncertain if there are any other event that draw people to a nation in such numbers that if requires a concerted effort at a government level to make modifications to a cities infrastructure to deal with them all.
Obviously we don't know what the attendance will be a Rio however I'm sure it will be labeled as 'The best olympics ever'.
The olympic games will not have any significant impact in the distribution of any disease...
It's logical that if you are going to have a mass of people in Rio all at once they are all going to come home.
News flash to some idiot creatures from the "developed world" lurking the internet. Most of this tropical diseases are mosquito-borne (Malaria, Dengue fever...) and mosquitos hate cold weather. So unless we don't put a hold on global warming you will never, and had never before, had this mosquitos in your country...
No need to have a cow. Whilst I'm sure that the operators will avoid filling their aircraft with mosquitos, I'm certain the people bitten by them with tickets won't have those problems. Perhaps the gestation period of anything contracted will be a factor, I don't know. I have no fixed opinion about what will happen, all I am doing is pointing to something obvious worthy of observation.
Tourists from all over the world have been travelling in and out of Brazil for over a hundred years, but you believe the fear-mongering in the papers, and honestly believe that suddenly NOW, in 2016 just before the Olympics, Brazil and all its beaches are a global health pandemic waiting to break out and kill the whole world?
No, that's what you say.
Step back from the TV, close your eyes, cover your ears, take a deep breath, and start using your head for once.
Last time I watched TV was over 2 years ago. Instead of reading something into what I wrote, why don't you just try reading what I wrote?
I remember that post and thought it was pretty interesting. Is that something for anyone or more for people that have really seen a lot of wear and tear on their bodies?
I think anyone can do it and that the only difference is the intensity of the treatment will vary depending on a person's individual experiences.
Have you gotten your hips realigned?
First some context, my hips are (were) out of alignment in two planes. They tilt up and back to the left. Since that last post I have had three release cycles and was able to capture data and some video over the 7 hours that it released. Each cavitation session went something like this:
Imagine looking down on your left foot pressed and anchored to ground with your body weight. Then swiveling your right leg in an arc around 180 degrees front to back. This is what started the cavitation cycle for my left ankle from a snapped achilles tendon injury and the hips. During that cycle the ankle cavitated at a rate of 90 cavitations per minute at the beginning to a rate of 12 cpm at the end of the 7 hours with roughly 4-9minute breaks between cycles. In that time the ankle and knee temperature went from 26C to 33C and 34C respectively. Stinky pee and no trouble sleeping - I was exhausted.
Since that I have had less intense events (around 1 hour) where the angle of the left foot varied and the same thing.
After those sessions the immediate consequences were that my feet split open and gradually healed over the next 2 weeks. I also found that the left big toe had rotated left and had a new contact point on the ground (owww) which I gradually got used to. Both the physio and the chiro noted substantial improvement in the movement of my left leg and the work continues to loosen up my hips.
They are now only out of alignment in one plane the tilt up to the left. From the front to back my legs are resting evenly and mostly flat. I still have more work to do (in about an hour actually) and apart from some minor setbacks things are progressing well.
Slashdot Mirror
Boeing? I don't understand your point about Boeing.
That they would have considerable experience to bring to optimizing such a space glider (x-37b) and that they selected that design to demonstrate the technology.
We could also use risk management metrics to make the case against spaceplanes. The shuttle had too many criticality 1 components, etc.
The Shuttle had those critical components because it was a complex vehicle with launch components on it. If you are using the risk management metrics of a side by side launch configuration with engines in it, then we are not talking about the same thing.
The CAIB report pointed out that it's risk analysis of the shuttle launch configuration produced approximately 130 impacts to the heat shield per launch. That would be eliminated in a top of stack configuration. So too would the main engines making for a less complex, less massive vehicle. A space glider.
Whether you need wings is not what I am saying, I am making the observation that none of the designs we have seen implemented produced an optimal vehicle.
Perhaps Boeing knows something we don't.
What do you need wings for?
As I said. What my OP was suggesting was that we have not seen the most optimized design for a space plane, or more specifically, a space glider. We have never implemented a low mass glider from space.
Note: "to operate from an airport" is not an answer.
To reduce ballistic forces on re-entry, to not carry volatiles for landing, to carry more than three tons of payload back to earth, to build a simpler vehicle. Perhaps to use some of the launch energy on delivering a product produced in orbit to a specific place on earth. I don't know what possible future requirements there are. Any improvement to ablative heat shield technology, as the Dragon V2 will produce, can also be applied to a space glider.
You might be right or wrong. I'm not religiously connected to the idea of having wings in space enough to care. I accept all of the reasons you point out as pretty good reasons for not having winged space vehicles, however it still doesn't change what I saying: we have not seen the most optimized design for a space vehicle of this kind, specifically a space glider. That has nothing to do with the obsolescence of a design, idea or concept, simply a statement of fact.
My other suggestion was if there is a reason to have a space glider then the emerging market economy for space products will produce one.
Thanks for the conversation, I'll be in surgery and out of action for a while.
It's great to see the myths of non-reusable first stage technology being dispelled.
Indeed, SpaceX has thoroughly demolished the claims of SSTO fans that reuse and low cost are somehow incompatible with staging.
We agree that this is a step forwards in getting to orbit.
We don't need wings.
They are useful though.
For what?
For operating a vehicle in atmosphere, which occurs at two critical stages of a spacecraft's mission.
Spaceplanes are dead.
Does a spaceplane have to include engines?
Take Skylon as a representative example:
No. That is specifically the design I am arguing against. Please check my post again and you will see I deliberately *exclude* the mass of the engines.
Perhaps it would make more sense if I introduced the term "Space Glider" to describe what I am talking about.
assuming it lived up to expectations, Skylon
I agree, I doubt this design would have lived up to expectations and what we have seen is failed designs for a sort of spaceplane with engines. What my OP was suggesting was that we have not seen the most optimized design for a space plane, or more specifically, a space glider.
Well, it beats making them into the world's most complicated air planes as with the space shuttle. SpaceX has proven that they can do vertical landings of the first stage intact onto both land and a seagoing barge; after a trip out of the atmosphere and to about 1/5 of orbital velocity but not into orbit.
It's great to see the myths of non-reusable first stage technology being dispelled.
That turns out to be far less expensive and complicated than a space plane. It does turn out we need a lifting body for much larger vehicles. It still doesn't have to be a plane, though.
I think you have to separate the concept from the implementation of a space plane design. SpaceX's launcher effort is less expensive and complicated than the space planes implemented so far. However both Buran and the Space Shuttle had the orbiter on the side of the stack where their heat shield was exposed to debris from the launch vehicle. So much so it was considered to be 'In-Family' because it would occur every launch to some degree.
The Space Shuttle also had all of the complexity related to the main engines which had no business being in orbit. Having the mass of those engines also complicates the infrastructure of landing. Considering also many of the political issues that interfered with the implementation of the Shuttle it wasn't the best design for a space plane.
We don't need wings.
They are useful though. The contrast is having the space plane at the top of the launcher stack, which removes the 'in-family' debris, main engine mass and, complexity issues for operating a space plane, as the X-37 demonstrates. The X-37 is covered by a shroud, however having some control surfaces at the top of a launch stack for a larger vehicle could be useful considering launchers have control surfaces near the base to balance it. A less massive orbiter means more for vehicle and payload reaching orbit and returning.
Musk has taken the pork barrelling out of launcher design and shown that it is possible to recover launcher assets. That knowledge maybe the foundation of opening up commercial space ventures paving the way for more commercial launcher platforms to become available.
The good thing about commercialization could mean someone implementing a space plane with a better design or more specific role. With those things in mind maybe we haven't seen the most optimal design for a space plane yet.
Just how many operating commercial breeder reactors are there? Exactly, just two, both in Russia.
OMG, Russian? - We're All Gonna Die!
if you want gnome 2 use mate, ffs
I am.
Oh, I agree. I'm not sentimental about X11, however there is some good amongst the bad so it would be good to keep that. I would have googled it myself however I have an injury and can't spend a lot of time at the computer right now.
I am indeed a Mr!
I think the most important usability features X11 has over Windows and mac is the suberbly powerful cut paste and remote display paradigm. If I can use those X features in Wayland I'll be happy, otherwise, I think you have a point Mr AC.
I switched from Windows to linux because I was sick of that shit, change for change sake. I want change for the sake of a usability improvment in a computing interface that I am compelled to use because it makes me more efficient at using a computer. I am an advanced user and I want an advanced interface. For me that is an ambidextrous mousing paradigm, remote windows, more advanced cut and paste, multiple desktops.
Frankly, UI configurability in linux has gone backwards since it got more popular, workspaces interfaces have *less* functionality than it did in 2008 when I could drag windows between workspaces and you could configure just about every aspect of gnome to customize your linux desktop experience. I didn't want a Mac or Windows UI and since their UI's adopted workspaces the functionality in linux seems to be dumbed down and advanced linux GUI features being domesticated.
Wayland looks like it is answering the need for backwards X11 compatibility with Weston so it remains to be seen if it will take the powerful features of X11 and leave some of the atropied aspects behind.
wayland initially was infested by the type of developers
Wayland was founded by the X developers who wanted to call it X12 but realized that people would freak the hell out if they fixed it the way that it needed fixing, based on their experience with X11.
Do you mean Kristian Høgsberg? I'm curious about how they needed to fix X11 and Wayland being the incremental successor X12, would you elaborate? Got a link?
Does it only work for chronic pain or something in particular? I've tried to use it in place of aspirin to little or no effect.
I snapped an achilles tendon and to control pain after the surgery, I polished off over a litre of morphine and had been using codine for several months. I had reached a level of use where the doctor told me I was facing liver or kidney failure if he proscribed any more and he suggested THC as an alternative to the pain killers.
It worked while I healed, during rehabilitation and it took two years to be able to walk again. Six months to recover from the surgery and eighteen months learning to walk again all of which required some really painful physiotherapy. It took another four years before I could sit in a car longer than 20 minutes. I used and recognised signs of THC dependency as simply getting tired of consuming it. So it was a lot easier to overcome, reduce and tolerate the withdrawal symptoms of the THC compared to being on morphine or codine for that long which made me feel like a zombie unable to do much.
To compare physical amounts, 25 cigarettes of tobacco as weed would take me about a week to consume to deal with chronic pain. The same amount may take over a month to consume recreationally as I am physically unable to consume that much weed.
My experiences were that you won't get high or euphoric when you use THC as a painkiller, however the sensation of pain will reduce and that helps you to relax. It also helped maintain my appetite when I didn't feel like eating. I also suffered several spinal injuries and found pain controling that using THC left me more alert and functional compared to opiate based pain killers.
For me pain control with THC help me through significant physical trauma, several times.
The core of the argument is sound though. It costs ~$500k to put up a 100kW wind turbine. With energy at about 12c/kWh, each hour at full power would generate only $12 and would thus break even after 5 years of full-time, full-power wind
You are talking about the full site establishment costs there. Energetic costs to host subsequent generations of turbines at each site become the cost of replacing the wind turbine with a crane.
however the largest turbines catch wind only 20% of the time and are only 30-45% efficient, smaller ones even less. So you're looking at 50 years before they break even.
This is why "measures" like "Capacity Factor" are bogus measures, every power generation techniques has characteristic. For example, nuclear reactors only us 0.3% of the energy in the fuel so they are relatively inefficient too. Inavailability of a reactor to produce power due to maintenance or some other reason that keeps them offline. Once the reactor is available there is also the utilization of the power it produces, they may produce a good base of power, but that doesn't mean a nuclear reactor can follow demand that well.
That is off course if they never needed maintenance, these turbines are specced for 20-30years of service WITH maintenance but most of them last only half that long.
That is a good platform for the incremental advancement of wind turbine technology. You cannot do that sort of advancement with operational nuclear reactor technology until you build a new reactor.
Wind power is a loss at this point in time unless we jack the price of energy like Germany does, we need way lower costs and way higher efficiencies but for that we need rare earth magnets and the like.
Well it would be devestaing if wind power melted down and spread radionuclides into the environment however it would seem the worst they do is overspeed and catch fire. I see as more wind power installations are deployed the grid itself will change in the way it responds to availability, demand and utilization.
Solar is better (less maintenance) but it still doesn't compare to a well-maintained nuclear plant or other forms of clean energy.
It would be difficult to imagine a large scale solar plant having more maintenance issues that a nuclear power plant.
"citation please"
I like sausages!
Then how would you like it if you were told it was illegal to eat them.
Your "freedom" stops at others' freedom
Your freedom stops where someone else's begins. You have no right
from your potentially reckless and harmful behaviour under the influence.
You mean like drunk people? Here is the science what drugs cause what harm
Pot gets you high much more easily than alcohol gets you drunk
citation please
Translation I want to smoke pot. Now let me rationalize it.
No need to rationalize it. People don't rationalize drinking beer, wine or spirits - they do it because they want to. Here is a rationalization for you, I like it, I laugh my ass off and I have a great time.
However as a painkiller that my doctor suggested for having a snapped achillies tendon it was a much better option than liver failure from the oral painkillers I was taking.
Legalize Pot and all other crimes will stop because Pot funds them.
Why are you or anyone else qualified to make value judgements about peoples choices that have no impact on you.
It makes so much money, they FUND other crime. That could all be tax money, deficit solved Thank you.
What it does is criminalizes a lot of people that should not be exposed to the prison system. If you can, for a moment step out of your prejudice and ask yourself if the pot someone is smoking will do them more harm in ten years than a two year prison term will do, six months into it?
Or how much policing for violent crimes a police officer can do if they are not writing up a pot arrest for 3 hours in the station? How much time is taken up in the court system dealing with cases, how many prison officers have to be hired to guard them?
What does it say about a society that has social controls for a plant that has been with humanity for so long that there are receptors in our brain for Cannabinoids?
It causes less deaths than tobacco and alcohol and prohibition of it is just another form of social control. The absurdity of the 'house of cards' that prohibits it has more negative effects on society than the plant has ever caused and that's before we start looking at the plethora of medical benefits it has.
Take marijuana off the black market and the funding for many other criminal operations will dry up.
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough).
Evidently they didn't do the load testing properly. If they can't get that right how can anybody expect them to secure personal data properly.
Yet they're forcing mandatory retention of personal data.
They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
By claiming it's a DDOS it just proves even more that they can't secure anything. How can they be trusted to keep sensitive data if they can't get something so basic functioning properly?
If I had mod points...
Thank you Dr Papert, I did not know your name until now however I used Logo in my formative years of programming when on work experience from school on a real life mainframe. Moving that turtle around really made me think about programming so I, sir, learned your lessons and appreciate the impact your work had on my life.
Digital epitaphs seem appropriate - thank you!
I have lots of experience over the years, (with me), and I've done it every way.
Floss. That's all there is to it. You will have trouble with your gums and with cavities if you don't.
And your breath will be more pleasant. There is nothing worse than talking to someone who's breath makes you want to vomit.
You don't have to floss every day. Once a week is enough. Your dentist won't even be able to tell the difference.
Thank you. I always wondered if flossing once a week was enough, but I see I am not the only one - plus the gum massage feels pretty good. Most of all be true to your teeth and they won't be false to you :)
It is not like there is no tourism and business travelers already all year long...
In Olympic numbers all at once? FIFA world cup in Brazil 2014 drew 3.5 million people. The London Olympics in 2012 drew 19.5 million people. I am uncertain if there are any other event that draw people to a nation in such numbers that if requires a concerted effort at a government level to make modifications to a cities infrastructure to deal with them all.
Obviously we don't know what the attendance will be a Rio however I'm sure it will be labeled as 'The best olympics ever'.
The olympic games will not have any significant impact in the distribution of any disease...
It's logical that if you are going to have a mass of people in Rio all at once they are all going to come home.
News flash to some idiot creatures from the "developed world" lurking the internet. Most of this tropical diseases are mosquito-borne (Malaria, Dengue fever...) and mosquitos hate cold weather. So unless we don't put a hold on global warming you will never, and had never before, had this mosquitos in your country...
No need to have a cow. Whilst I'm sure that the operators will avoid filling their aircraft with mosquitos, I'm certain the people bitten by them with tickets won't have those problems. Perhaps the gestation period of anything contracted will be a factor, I don't know. I have no fixed opinion about what will happen, all I am doing is pointing to something obvious worthy of observation.
Tourists from all over the world have been travelling in and out of Brazil for over a hundred years, but you believe the fear-mongering in the papers, and honestly believe that suddenly NOW, in 2016 just before the Olympics, Brazil and all its beaches are a global health pandemic waiting to break out and kill the whole world?
No, that's what you say.
Step back from the TV, close your eyes, cover your ears, take a deep breath, and start using your head for once.
Last time I watched TV was over 2 years ago. Instead of reading something into what I wrote, why don't you just try reading what I wrote?
And then bring it home to the rest of the world.
An example of the Olympic games forward planning and their high standards.
I remember that post and thought it was pretty interesting. Is that something for anyone or more for people that have really seen a lot of wear and tear on their bodies?
I think anyone can do it and that the only difference is the intensity of the treatment will vary depending on a person's individual experiences.
Have you gotten your hips realigned?
First some context, my hips are (were) out of alignment in two planes. They tilt up and back to the left. Since that last post I have had three release cycles and was able to capture data and some video over the 7 hours that it released. Each cavitation session went something like this:
Imagine looking down on your left foot pressed and anchored to ground with your body weight. Then swiveling your right leg in an arc around 180 degrees front to back. This is what started the cavitation cycle for my left ankle from a snapped achilles tendon injury and the hips. During that cycle the ankle cavitated at a rate of 90 cavitations per minute at the beginning to a rate of 12 cpm at the end of the 7 hours with roughly 4-9minute breaks between cycles. In that time the ankle and knee temperature went from 26C to 33C and 34C respectively. Stinky pee and no trouble sleeping - I was exhausted.
Since that I have had less intense events (around 1 hour) where the angle of the left foot varied and the same thing.
After those sessions the immediate consequences were that my feet split open and gradually healed over the next 2 weeks. I also found that the left big toe had rotated left and had a new contact point on the ground (owww) which I gradually got used to. Both the physio and the chiro noted substantial improvement in the movement of my left leg and the work continues to loosen up my hips.
They are now only out of alignment in one plane the tilt up to the left. From the front to back my legs are resting evenly and mostly flat. I still have more work to do (in about an hour actually) and apart from some minor setbacks things are progressing well.
Thank you for asking.