Here are a few of the people not of facebook, Hitler, Bin laden, Jack The Ripper, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan,... about 95% of all murders and rapists have never been on facebook. The statistics don't lie the majority of evil people through history have not been on facebook.
This may sound cold, but education prepares you for the real world, everyone does not get stickers for trying. In the vast majority of jobs, you are evaluated against your peers, that is how the world works, if someone has certain skills that are more valuable they will get paid more and move up quicker. Not all people are cut out for being paid by merit and that is why there are unions for those people to work in and get paid to do the bare minimum.
"Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen."
Exactly. Cops have no interest in preventing crime since they are evaluated by how they apprehend the criminals and how many of them.
They'll just use any advance knowledge they'll get, to be in position when the crime occurs to catch the criminals, not to force them to do another crime in a less predictable way.
Police are evaluated on the crime rates, and the percentage of violent crimes solved, the only other arrest that are made public is for DUI checkpoints. Crime rates are used to evaluate a city and their police force arrests are simply not used by the public when deciding on police bonds.
The whole idea of "register to vote" is, IMHO, a scam meant to reduce the number of voters.
That's pretty obvious. Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but it is quite convenient for the existing political class. I never understood why there is no broad movement against this in the US.
There is a very good reason for that, back in the early 1900's voter registration did not exist. If a dirty politician wanted to win an election he simply had his friend from the army bring the soldiers he commanded to go vote on the day of election. Registration is used to ensure things like this don't happen, verifying residency is now possible because of registration.
Unless somebody comes up with an electric with an on-board generator (screw hybrid drive trains, engines are *much* more efficient if they're running at fixed RPM... hook it up to an alternator or dynamo and generate electricity to power the purely electric drive train), my next car will be a turbodiesel. Diesel requires much less energy to produce than gasoline, it's ubiquitously available, and it allows much better efficiency than most gasoline cars on the market (and some hybrids).
There are two automobiles that currently have a generator that is not mechanically connected to the wheels the Hammerhead Eagle I-Thrust and the Fisker Karma. The chevy volt has a clutch between the engine and wheels that it can use so it wouldn't fall into your criteria.
Does it really matter other then to crown the most anal retentive person, 600,000 or 700,000 out of 1,300,000 does not make that much difference they both are a staggeringly high number of requests not backed by a court order.
this radar would have the sensitivity to track a 42mm ball bearing 10km, even though the sizes or significantly different every time your radius doubles the rx power decreases by 1/16 a 1mm diameter raindrop would have -80dB rcs or.0001w a 42mm sphere has an rcs of -25dB or 0.05623w it's about 10km that it could be tracked at bases on those values. At 10km any plane can deploy it's weapons and turn around before it gets any closer leaving the radar to track the missile that will hit it.
Detecting a stealth aircraft and being able to identify what you've detected as a stealth aircraft are two completely different animals.
I think that any "marble sized" object travelling near mach-1 would be suspicious
Radar is not nearly as high resolution as you seem to think it is. It's not going to be tracking a single marble sized object and be able to determine that it's traveling mach-1 and, thus, is likely a stealth aircraft. Sure it makes sense in your imagination. But reality differs.
Yes you can it's called doppler and it allows you to measure the speed of the object fairly easily, just like a cops radar gun.
It's not that simple you need to consider R^4, when a radar sends out a signal it outputs the wave it like a cone, the further away the more spread out the signal is, once the energy hits the object the same thing happens in return so every time the radius doubles power is reduce by 1/16. Now lets look at the size of the objects a 5mm sphere has an RCS of about -50 dB or 0.00316w a golf ball sized sphere has an RCS of -25 dB or 0.056w. If the detection range is 2km at 4km they can see an object with.05056w or -25.92dB. This is not an exact answer as I would have to know the frequencies and air density to properly calculate the the returns of the object but suffice to say it is no where near 1164km it's more like 4.2km. Gain from antennas is a constant so even a focused beam will suffer the fate of R^4.
Tracking individual rain drops may not help with storm tracking, but would be an excellent way to track cloud rotation it could give much better warnings.
You are going to want to protect all the equipment that is in the van, you could shell out some money for a good security system or simply put Rape Van on the side of it. Nobody will want to break into a rape van.
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
This is part of the decision written, as I have said it does not matter if it's for the grater good only if the government has the power to do so and they do.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
Where in the ruling did they say the power to tax people that don't buy a good can only be used if it's for the greater good of the people. Plain and simple the government has the power to tax you if you don't buy something, it doesn't matter what it is. Insurance is simply a good just like a gun or a statue of the president and the Federal government has the power to tax you if you don't buy it. I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as you and ignore the precedence that this sets but I can't.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
This is no different than a "tax break" for mortgage interest, or any other similar tax break, which is just a tax raise for the rest of us (i.e. people who rent their homes and therefore don't get the mortgage interest deduction)
If the government can raise your taxes for not having a mortgage, it follows it can raise your taxes for not having health insurance. The Supreme Court decision is logical given prior precedent.
Except they are not giving you a tax break for having health insurance, they are adding a tax if you do not buy have health insurance. It may seem like nuance but never before in the history of the US have we done it that way, the implications of taxing someone for not doing something are huge. Should the government tax people that don't own a statue of the president they apparently have the power too.
So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
I'll have to pay for coverage for things I don't use such as OBGYN.
So, thanks for raising my costs with no benefit to me.
Citation? You have insurance. You're not effected. If anything your costs will go down.
How will costs go down? People with preexisting conditions will pay the same rates as everyone else, they probably need 20-30 healthy people to make up the cost of the preexisting people. I doubt there are 20-30 healthy people choosing not to to pay for health insurance, for every person excluded for a preexisting condition.
It will be a tax on you, now that insurance companies must accept people with preexisting conditions and must charge them the same rate as everyone else they insurance companies have to make up the money elsewhere. They are hoping to offset the costs by forcing people to buy health insurance assuming they will go to the doctor less the truth is adding that small group will not make up for the preexisting group.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
Slashdot Mirror
Computer can not create random numbers, but there are many analog ways of producing random numbers, roulette comes to mind.
Here are a few of the people not of facebook, Hitler, Bin laden, Jack The Ripper, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, ... about 95% of all murders and rapists have never been on facebook. The statistics don't lie the majority of evil people through history have not been on facebook.
This may sound cold, but education prepares you for the real world, everyone does not get stickers for trying. In the vast majority of jobs, you are evaluated against your peers, that is how the world works, if someone has certain skills that are more valuable they will get paid more and move up quicker. Not all people are cut out for being paid by merit and that is why there are unions for those people to work in and get paid to do the bare minimum.
"Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen."
Exactly. Cops have no interest in preventing crime since they are evaluated by how they apprehend the criminals and how many of them. They'll just use any advance knowledge they'll get, to be in position when the crime occurs to catch the criminals, not to force them to do another crime in a less predictable way.
Police are evaluated on the crime rates, and the percentage of violent crimes solved, the only other arrest that are made public is for DUI checkpoints. Crime rates are used to evaluate a city and their police force arrests are simply not used by the public when deciding on police bonds.
The whole idea of "register to vote" is, IMHO, a scam meant to reduce the number of voters.
That's pretty obvious. Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but it is quite convenient for the existing political class. I never understood why there is no broad movement against this in the US.
There is a very good reason for that, back in the early 1900's voter registration did not exist. If a dirty politician wanted to win an election he simply had his friend from the army bring the soldiers he commanded to go vote on the day of election. Registration is used to ensure things like this don't happen, verifying residency is now possible because of registration.
Unless somebody comes up with an electric with an on-board generator (screw hybrid drive trains, engines are *much* more efficient if they're running at fixed RPM... hook it up to an alternator or dynamo and generate electricity to power the purely electric drive train), my next car will be a turbodiesel. Diesel requires much less energy to produce than gasoline, it's ubiquitously available, and it allows much better efficiency than most gasoline cars on the market (and some hybrids).
There are two automobiles that currently have a generator that is not mechanically connected to the wheels the Hammerhead Eagle I-Thrust and the Fisker Karma. The chevy volt has a clutch between the engine and wheels that it can use so it wouldn't fall into your criteria.
Does it really matter other then to crown the most anal retentive person, 600,000 or 700,000 out of 1,300,000 does not make that much difference they both are a staggeringly high number of requests not backed by a court order.
Your jammers do not have to be in missile range or on your stealth plane to be effective. They may know where the jammer is but can't reach them.
this radar would have the sensitivity to track a 42mm ball bearing 10km, even though the sizes or significantly different every time your radius doubles the rx power decreases by 1/16 a 1mm diameter raindrop would have -80dB rcs or .0001w a 42mm sphere has an rcs of -25dB or 0.05623w it's about 10km that it could be tracked at bases on those values. At 10km any plane can deploy it's weapons and turn around before it gets any closer leaving the radar to track the missile that will hit it.
Detecting a stealth aircraft and being able to identify what you've detected as a stealth aircraft are two completely different animals.
I think that any "marble sized" object travelling near mach-1 would be suspicious
Radar is not nearly as high resolution as you seem to think it is. It's not going to be tracking a single marble sized object and be able to determine that it's traveling mach-1 and, thus, is likely a stealth aircraft. Sure it makes sense in your imagination. But reality differs.
Yes you can it's called doppler and it allows you to measure the speed of the object fairly easily, just like a cops radar gun.
It's not that simple you need to consider R^4, when a radar sends out a signal it outputs the wave it like a cone, the further away the more spread out the signal is, once the energy hits the object the same thing happens in return so every time the radius doubles power is reduce by 1/16. Now lets look at the size of the objects a 5mm sphere has an RCS of about -50 dB or 0.00316w a golf ball sized sphere has an RCS of -25 dB or 0.056w. If the detection range is 2km at 4km they can see an object with .05056w or -25.92dB. This is not an exact answer as I would have to know the frequencies and air density to properly calculate the the returns of the object but suffice to say it is no where near 1164km it's more like 4.2km. Gain from antennas is a constant so even a focused beam will suffer the fate of R^4.
Tracking individual rain drops may not help with storm tracking, but would be an excellent way to track cloud rotation it could give much better warnings.
How well will it work when radar jamming planes in the area jam this sensitive radar?
They've been effectively taxing us for not doing things forever (by tax breaks for people who do it) - marriage, mortgage, children.
So then you agree that the federal government has the power to this for guns, statues of the president, cars, anything they choose.
de ment ed
adjective
1)crazy; insane; mad.
2)affected with dementia.
The glasses could improve driving conditions just imagine an IR camera integrated with the glasses, it would allow the user to see better at night.
You are going to want to protect all the equipment that is in the van, you could shell out some money for a good security system or simply put Rape Van on the side of it. Nobody will want to break into a rape van.
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
This is part of the decision written, as I have said it does not matter if it's for the grater good only if the government has the power to do so and they do.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
Where in the ruling did they say the power to tax people that don't buy a good can only be used if it's for the greater good of the people. Plain and simple the government has the power to tax you if you don't buy something, it doesn't matter what it is. Insurance is simply a good just like a gun or a statue of the president and the Federal government has the power to tax you if you don't buy it. I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as you and ignore the precedence that this sets but I can't.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
This is no different than a "tax break" for mortgage interest, or any other similar tax break, which is just a tax raise for the rest of us (i.e. people who rent their homes and therefore don't get the mortgage interest deduction) If the government can raise your taxes for not having a mortgage, it follows it can raise your taxes for not having health insurance. The Supreme Court decision is logical given prior precedent.
Except they are not giving you a tax break for having health insurance, they are adding a tax if you do not buy have health insurance. It may seem like nuance but never before in the history of the US have we done it that way, the implications of taxing someone for not doing something are huge. Should the government tax people that don't own a statue of the president they apparently have the power too.
So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
I'll have to pay for coverage for things I don't use such as OBGYN.
So, thanks for raising my costs with no benefit to me.
Citation? You have insurance. You're not effected. If anything your costs will go down.
How will costs go down? People with preexisting conditions will pay the same rates as everyone else, they probably need 20-30 healthy people to make up the cost of the preexisting people. I doubt there are 20-30 healthy people choosing not to to pay for health insurance, for every person excluded for a preexisting condition.
It will be a tax on you, now that insurance companies must accept people with preexisting conditions and must charge them the same rate as everyone else they insurance companies have to make up the money elsewhere. They are hoping to offset the costs by forcing people to buy health insurance assuming they will go to the doctor less the truth is adding that small group will not make up for the preexisting group.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
If you don't purchase what the government wants, you will find a new "tax" will appear to make you do it.
Fixed that for you