According to your thinking California could pump the aquifers dry and let all the stored water flow to the oceans and it wouldn't be a problem because it had all gone back into the environment. If you're taking it out of the local environment faster than it's being replenished in the local environment you have a problem. Spoken like someone who thinks water comes in endless streams from a tap. If you hadn't noticed the environment isn't partitioned by state and national boundaries and the water returning to the environment is free to rain out in the ocean or on a wetter region.
It's known as a dust lane. The particles of dust absorb light so obscure the stars behind.
The dust lanes in the Milky way are seen as a dark "constellation" depicting an emu by Australian aborigines: <http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/AboriginalAstronomy/Examples/emu.htm>
It would be possible except there is no such system in place. We use datalink to send instructions to equipped aircraft but it's hardly suitable for use in a crowded airspace. It would be like using e-mail when you need an instant reply.
Use the skills you learn to get a job in the town that has such infrastructure? And what's wrong with using a hand cranked device if that's all there is?
The things you mention pre-date computers by a considerable period, but doesn't make them a necessary precursor.
Why not just plomp down an AMD PIC or two per classroom and use the same time sharing process? That'd not only be cheaper, but it could ACTUALLY BE DONE TODAY!!!
Yeah, but try hand cranking it! One of the "selling" points is independence from a quite possibly non-existent or at best unreliable electrical supply.
Nothing like taking a gun on board a plane at all - a phone can't be used to hijack anything.
People are trusted to board the plane & not run around thumping people - why not trust people to do the right thing with their phones? Most people will do the right thing & the rest can be arrested, restrained & have their phone confiscated. The recalcitrants will get the idea soon enough.
Airlines have nothing to do with it. It's a regulatory function. Phones are banned from use on aircraft in Australia, not by the airlines but by the government. It's illegal.
The airlines will let you use their special phones at a steep rate. You can't modify an existing aircraft in any significant way - the cost is far too high. Why would they spend a cent to allow you to use a facility they don't control & can't make money from? How can they make money from you using your phone?
Oh for heaven's sake - you're quoting one example & saying "see nothing bad happens". They flew visually into the Pentagon, they weren't making a precision approach using navigation aids.
So don't use your phone - they're banned here in Oz. Is your phone guaranteed not to emit stray RF? After one year? Two years? Five? Get the idea?
How much do you want to pay for your ticket because your budget carrier has to replace their entire fleet with brand new aircraft?
Aicraft have kilometres of wiring - perfect for picking up stray RF. Sure, replace it with optical fibre but you can't eliminate the aerials for the navaids.
Why not redesign the phones then? They're the problem. And the idiots using them.
As a user of such software I can tell you there are no guarantees. Only better reliablity because the software is used in a controlled environment on controlled hardware after extensive testing.
Sorry, marriage has moved on, at least in Australia. It is a legal entity & legally has nothing to do with God. If you choose to also have a religious ceremony then that's your business, but it is not a requirement for legal marriage.
You can't suddenly redefine marriage to exclude those already included just because they didn't include a religious component.
Sorry, but your God does not have a monopoly on marriage.
The answer is that marriage is a religious sacrement, and gov't has no business to imbue a religious status upon any couple. It violates the concept of separation of state and church.
Marriage is a religious sacrement for those who wish it, but legally that aspect is immaterial. Or are you saying non-religious heterosexuals can't get married either?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, wow indeed.
According to your thinking California could pump the aquifers dry and let all the stored water flow to the oceans and it wouldn't be a problem because it had all gone back into the environment. If you're taking it out of the local environment faster than it's being replenished in the local environment you have a problem. Spoken like someone who thinks water comes in endless streams from a tap. If you hadn't noticed the environment isn't partitioned by state and national boundaries and the water returning to the environment is free to rain out in the ocean or on a wetter region.
It's known as a dust lane. The particles of dust absorb light so obscure the stars behind.
The dust lanes in the Milky way are seen as a dark "constellation" depicting an emu by Australian aborigines:
<http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/AboriginalAstronomy/Examples/emu.htm>
Funnily enough that must have been the last time your were there. Aeorbridges all round now.
Absolutely! Works to rid yourself of right wing loonies - at least it did down here recently.
I've never understood the fondness/obsession in the US for mechanising/automating simple things & making them complicated.
It would be possible except there is no such system in place. We use datalink to send instructions to equipped aircraft but it's hardly suitable for use in a crowded airspace. It would be like using e-mail when you need an instant reply.
From http://picasa.google.com/
System Requirements
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0+
Maybe IE isn't such a requirement after all?
Use the skills you learn to get a job in the town that has such infrastructure? And what's wrong with using a hand cranked device if that's all there is?
The things you mention pre-date computers by a considerable period, but doesn't make them a necessary precursor.
Why not just plomp down an AMD PIC or two per classroom and use the same time sharing process? That'd not only be cheaper, but it could ACTUALLY BE DONE TODAY!!!
Yeah, but try hand cranking it! One of the "selling" points is independence from a quite possibly non-existent or at best unreliable electrical supply.
Nothing like taking a gun on board a plane at all - a phone can't be used to hijack anything.
People are trusted to board the plane & not run around thumping people - why not trust people to do the right thing with their phones? Most people will do the right thing & the rest can be arrested, restrained & have their phone confiscated. The recalcitrants will get the idea soon enough.
Airlines have nothing to do with it. It's a regulatory function. Phones are banned from use on aircraft in Australia, not by the airlines but by the government. It's illegal.
The airlines will let you use their special phones at a steep rate. You can't modify an existing aircraft in any significant way - the cost is far too high. Why would they spend a cent to allow you to use a facility they don't control & can't make money from? How can they make money from you using your phone?
Oh for heaven's sake - you're quoting one example & saying "see nothing bad happens". They flew visually into the Pentagon, they weren't making a precision approach using navigation aids.
More like Hollywood is the source of your research....
Claiming they will cause a crash is just looneyYou ignore "fly-by-wire" aircraft. RF can cause incorrect commands to be passed to the aircraft taking control away from the pilot.
So don't use your phone - they're banned here in Oz. Is your phone guaranteed not to emit stray RF? After one year? Two years? Five? Get the idea?
How much do you want to pay for your ticket because your budget carrier has to replace their entire fleet with brand new aircraft? Aicraft have kilometres of wiring - perfect for picking up stray RF. Sure, replace it with optical fibre but you can't eliminate the aerials for the navaids. Why not redesign the phones then? They're the problem. And the idiots using them.As a user of such software I can tell you there are no guarantees. Only better reliablity because the software is used in a controlled environment on controlled hardware after extensive testing.
You can't suddenly redefine marriage to exclude those already included just because they didn't include a religious component.
Sorry, but your God does not have a monopoly on marriage.The answer is that marriage is a religious sacrement, and gov't has no business to imbue a religious status upon any couple. It violates the concept of separation of state and church.
Marriage is a religious sacrement for those who wish it, but legally that aspect is immaterial. Or are you saying non-religious heterosexuals can't get married either?