If you're willing to go there REALLY slowly, then yes, this would work. The slingshot effect won't help much for very high velocities.
Basically, for sensible, remotely useful interstellar travel, we'll have to wait for either some magic source of energy, or a Bussard ramjet, or some other magic thing. I'll be a while:)
Actually, that's one of the nice things about it. Assuming the other star has the same solar wind as the original (which it probably won't) your spacecraft may actually come to a complete halt at the other star, which is what you want. A classic problem with interstellar travel is that not only do you need to carry fuel to accellerate you towards the objective, but to slow you once you get there as well.
Don't be silly. The constitution was a largely symbolic statement (read it; it more or less reflects the status quo). The EU maintains all its previous power.
Europe doesn't do death penalty;). But yep, if in the long term they don't sort themselves out, that fine could potentially be increased (tho it would require additional authority).
That's an emotional exaggeration. There have undoubtedly been far nastier people. They just haven't made such a big splash. He's up there in terms of nastiness, and he may be the nastiest leader the world has ever seen (though genocide is nothing new), but most evil human ever? Come on.
This is a natural part of a free market economy. The same people who are complaining about this would also complain about a planned economy. Moral of the story: you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Re:$42.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda
on
Photoshop for DNA
·
· Score: 1
For all Microsoft's unethical business behaviour, that foundation does a hell of a lot of good, and Bill should be given credit for it. He's far more generous than a lot of the super-rich.
Google "warsaw ghetto gas" or somesuch. When the Nazis tried to round up the people in the Warsaw Jewish ghetto to send them to concentration camps, they revolted. Eventually, they were mostly killed with artillery, gas and flamethrowers. This went on for over a month.
No, it would have been worse. The Nazis were very much into systematic killing; those other regiemes were quite random and didn't go in for genocide as such. Hitler wanted, quite literally, an Aryan world; that would require the extermination of most of the world's population.
Mutually assured destruction works quite nicely, once they have enough bombs (no evidence that Iran does or ever will, North Korea probably has some and if so will soon have lots). They can't bomb you, you can't bomb them.
For a parallel universe where this happened, see Stephen Fry's "Making History" (the Nazi party, under different leadership, disguised its bigotry for a while, nuked Moscow, and took over most of the world; the US never got involved).
Despite wartime conditions, the Germans managed a fair few pieces of impressive engineering (Z3, V2, super-long range giant bomber, jet engine etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're willing to go there REALLY slowly, then yes, this would work. The slingshot effect won't help much for very high velocities. Basically, for sensible, remotely useful interstellar travel, we'll have to wait for either some magic source of energy, or a Bussard ramjet, or some other magic thing. I'll be a while :)
IA64, perhaps?
Certainly; they'll fall through and land on the turtle. Serves them right ;)
Actually, that's one of the nice things about it. Assuming the other star has the same solar wind as the original (which it probably won't) your spacecraft may actually come to a complete halt at the other star, which is what you want. A classic problem with interstellar travel is that not only do you need to carry fuel to accellerate you towards the objective, but to slow you once you get there as well.
For that matter, US parties have names like 'Democratic' and 'Repulbican' ;)
Wouldn't be too surprised if he was right, too. I don't see how the US can keep up its current silliness indefinitely without driving its people mad.
Bloody colonials! ;)
But yep, there's often considerable ambiguity about just who is a terrorist.
Doctors are paid adaquately in most European countries.
There are no international treaties forbidding the EU from enforcing its trade laws.
Don't be silly. The constitution was a largely symbolic statement (read it; it more or less reflects the status quo). The EU maintains all its previous power.
Because they'd like to keep their market and assets in the world's largest economy, perhaps?
Europe doesn't do death penalty ;). But yep, if in the long term they don't sort themselves out, that fine could potentially be increased (tho it would require additional authority).
Sorry, that's http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/18/battery_de cade/
Why not try one of http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/18/battery_de cade/these ? ;)
That's an emotional exaggeration. There have undoubtedly been far nastier people. They just haven't made such a big splash. He's up there in terms of nastiness, and he may be the nastiest leader the world has ever seen (though genocide is nothing new), but most evil human ever? Come on.
This is a natural part of a free market economy. The same people who are complaining about this would also complain about a planned economy. Moral of the story: you can't please all of the people all of the time.
For all Microsoft's unethical business behaviour, that foundation does a hell of a lot of good, and Bill should be given credit for it. He's far more generous than a lot of the super-rich.
Google "warsaw ghetto gas" or somesuch. When the Nazis tried to round up the people in the Warsaw Jewish ghetto to send them to concentration camps, they revolted. Eventually, they were mostly killed with artillery, gas and flamethrowers. This went on for over a month.
What?! Deport them to the US immediately! Next you'll be saying we have fat people ;)
It's actually quite likely that fewer people would have died in war. This would be offset by billions dying in concentration camps, though.
A better world. Are you totally out of your tiny little mind?
Why "stolen more then (sic) likely"? They were an evil-minded totalitarian nightmare, but they did have good engineers.
No, it would have been worse. The Nazis were very much into systematic killing; those other regiemes were quite random and didn't go in for genocide as such. Hitler wanted, quite literally, an Aryan world; that would require the extermination of most of the world's population.
Mutually assured destruction works quite nicely, once they have enough bombs (no evidence that Iran does or ever will, North Korea probably has some and if so will soon have lots). They can't bomb you, you can't bomb them.
For a parallel universe where this happened, see Stephen Fry's "Making History" (the Nazi party, under different leadership, disguised its bigotry for a while, nuked Moscow, and took over most of the world; the US never got involved). Despite wartime conditions, the Germans managed a fair few pieces of impressive engineering (Z3, V2, super-long range giant bomber, jet engine etc.)