The volume of the foam does not have to be that much since it could be mostly open-cell - all it has to do is prevent convection reaching the outer skin. Once the skin heats up enough when the liquid level drops, any remaining H2 in the foam will become gas and help push the last of the liquid H2 out. Also, even if the usable tank volume goes down, the volume - weight relation for a tank is cube - square, so it isn't that big a hit, considering the safety improvement and the fact that the oustide foam weight would have been greater. OTOH, any foam that did break off would have to be strained out so no big pieces go through the turbopump.
Then someone changed the log, too, or the picture was linked and changed from the other end, then the editor reverted the whole thing - I have no idea how it was done, but it happened just as I said in my original message.
The sum total of the information about safety on that page is that the microcar has a roll cage and it isn't nearly as unstable as it looks.
In any kind of impact, however, there just doesn't appear to be enough room for sufficiently smoothing out impact deceleration or for imact absorbing structures that won't get pushed into the cockpit. Show me the crash test videos and then I'll believe them.
No, things are not so screwed up yet that Congress needs to get permission from an agency in order to make law. They are going with a "sense of the Senate" clause because it is easier to get passed and to a politician the appearance of doing something is more important than the actuality.
Republican hatchetman Ken Mehlman's entry had a picture of a flaccid penis on it when I looked him up. Interestingly, the page was locked to edits. When I mentioned on the discussion page that it seemed to be a more figurative likeness than most Wikipedia readers were expecting, both the picture and my G-rated comment disappeared.
James Halperin's 1997 book, The Truth Machine is the most relevant SF book on this subject.
From Publishers Weekly What would the world be like if scientists developed the perfect lie detector? How would it change our criminal justice system? Psychiatric practice? International diplomacy? In his first novel, Halperin argues that such an invention could lead humanity into an era of unequaled prosperity, one in which crime is virtually unknown and true democracy is possible. A professional numismatist and a member of the World Future Society, Halperin is a relatively unskilled novelist. His prose is at best workmanlike, and his plotting and character development tend toward the simplistic. Nearly all of his major characters, from millionaire-genius protagonist Pete Armstrong on down, seem to be either the smartest, the richest, the most respected or the most influential people in the world. The traditional qualities of fiction are apparently of only secondary interest to the author, however. As a futurist, Halperin seems primarily concerned with suggesting innovations and then working out their implications over half a century. Heavily didactic, but supporting positions across the political spectrum, the book argues in favor of mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes, the privatization of schools, strict limits on insurance settlements, the elimination of the FAA, the legalization of assisted suicide, parental licensing and the establishment of a world government. Although crude from a literary point of view, Halperin's novel is not without strengths. His speculations about the next 50 years are fascinating, and the consequences of the truth machine are well worked out. In the final analysis, it's hard to believe that Halperin's near-utopian future could be so easily attained, but it would be nice to live there.
I can't find the spreadsheet I saw on this. See the CSS scores on pages 9, 10 and 21 of Deborah Ruf's "Assessment Service Bulletin Number 3 - Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities" published by Riverside, the maker of the Stanford-Binet for the raw data. http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb3.pdf
Predicting the age-equivalent score in the future for a child with a given present age and age-equivalent score is where the the hump in the rates of change shows up, not directly in the CSS scores themselves. The reason is that a small change in CSS score makes for larger changes in age equivalents as age increases. The hump in the projected years-ability increase vs. time graph is more pronounced the greater the disparity between mental and chronological age, so it's really a family of curves. The overall graph of average CSS scores vs. age is more like a log curve in shape, with a gradual flattening of the rate of development. The graph of the derivative of CSS vs. age is where the hump shows up.
No, standard IQ is calculated based on the rarity of a score on a test in a population that is assumed to have normally distributed scores using a mean of 100 and a 15-point standard deviation. IQ is not a constant or absolute measure of ability. It is on roughly an equal-interval scale, but in the tails of the distribution it closer to a ordinal scale since the actual distribution of abiliity is closer to log-normal.
Three years difference in scores is likely going to be substantially less than 27 IQ points. Figuring it out precisely is difficult because there is a huge spurt and then dropoff in the rate of increase in intelligence on a ratio (Rasch-based SB5 CSS score) scale from about 8 to 12, peaking at age 10. Testing would be a more accurate way of finding out the IQ equivalent of 3 years difference at that age in that population than attempting to calculate it anyway.
Regulations' applications cannot exceed their dissemination. If you not only didn't but couldn't know the regulation, it cannot legally be applied to you.
Show an example that does not involve preventing one person invading another's privacy, rather than the instant isue, which is that the government is requiring common carriers to invade their customers' privacy using a "secret law".
The government must show that there is a public law and that the burdens of its requrements are resonably needed to ensure all citizens' ability to exercise their freedoms, which is the neccesary justification for allowing the government to excercise its enumerated powers in the first place. The government does not have the right to use its powers for any ends but the general public's interest, although it often does so. When the government has not shown that it is actually serving the public's interest and a citizen has shown that his liberty is cutailed, then that application of the law is inequtable, and hence outside the prper powers of government. The plaintiff has shown that the regulations are not public, that the regulations are not the minimum needed to ensure proper govenmental ends, and that the rules are ineffective for achieving the ostensible govenmental purpose, which given their liberty cost therefore makes them invalid.
I agree with you, but the courts interpret those amendments slightly differently. IIRC, the legal meaning of those words is roughly:
"you have the right not to be ass-raped by unlicenced unicorns".
Which isn't very useful, as until recently unicorns didn't exist, and they're all in secret DIA research labs, and are presumed to be licenced under the modern "if the goventment does it, it might as well be legal" doctrine.
"where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on?"
In America, making calls abroad.
"Can you name one?"
No, because Bush is keeping the information secret to protect his ass.
"Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying? "
The violation of citizens' rights occurs when the invasion of privacy is committed; the commission of a felony occurs when the FISA court does not get a warrant application within three days.
53% are supporting it.
only because of the biased, leading way the question was asked. As the GP noted, it's amazing that only 53% would agree to something that was presented as "reducing the threat from terrorism". Thatis a phrase meant to disconnect the brain and elicit a reflex action, and it looks like it's about to stop working.
Let's look at sone other polls:
http://www.democrats.com/node/5217 June 30, 2005- "According to a poll released by Zogby today, 42% of Americans say they would favor impeachment proceedings if President Bush misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."
New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.
The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.
It has been a year since Bush's approval rating broke 50%. His approval has been falling almost continuously since 9/11/2001, and now is about 40%. A majority of Americans asked a fair question about the issue believe impeachment should be considered. The Bush spin appears to be losing traction.
Which part of "Bush is a liar!" is giving you trouble? Are you seriously suggesting after all the evidence in all the scandals that Bush hasn't lied to the public repeatedly?
"Reviewed by" implies that they had some sort of say in the matter, which they didn't.
[Q...] But is it legal for the president to ignore the law?
A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we're at war! You don't go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!
Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
Slashdot Mirror
The volume of the foam does not have to be that much since it could be mostly open-cell - all it has to do is prevent convection reaching the outer skin. Once the skin heats up enough when the liquid level drops, any remaining H2 in the foam will become gas and help push the last of the liquid H2 out. Also, even if the usable tank volume goes down, the volume - weight relation for a tank is cube - square, so it isn't that big a hit, considering the safety improvement and the fact that the oustide foam weight would have been greater. OTOH, any foam that did break off would have to be strained out so no big pieces go through the turbopump.
Then someone changed the log, too, or the picture was linked and changed from the other end, then the editor reverted the whole thing - I have no idea how it was done, but it happened just as I said in my original message.
Most important, a system that allows people to not deal with or be exposed to other people.
The sum total of the information about safety on that page is that the microcar has a roll cage and it isn't nearly as unstable as it looks.
In any kind of impact, however, there just doesn't appear to be enough room for sufficiently smoothing out impact deceleration or for imact absorbing structures that won't get pushed into the cockpit. Show me the crash test videos and then I'll believe them.
Federal highway funds and most state road expenditures do come from gas taxes. Your point is just plain wrong.
Actually, I think that's brilliant. Have to make it not absorb and hold onto too much fuel, though.
No, things are not so screwed up yet that Congress needs to get permission from an agency in order to make law. They are going with a "sense of the Senate" clause because it is easier to get passed and to a politician the appearance of doing something is more important than the actuality.
Republican hatchetman Ken Mehlman's entry had a picture of a flaccid penis on it when I looked him up. Interestingly, the page was locked to edits. When I mentioned on the discussion page that it seemed to be a more figurative likeness than most Wikipedia readers were expecting, both the picture and my G-rated comment disappeared.
James Halperin's 1997 book, The Truth Machine is the most relevant SF book on this subject.
From Publishers Weekly
What would the world be like if scientists developed the perfect lie detector? How would it change our criminal justice system? Psychiatric practice? International diplomacy? In his first novel, Halperin argues that such an invention could lead humanity into an era of unequaled prosperity, one in which crime is virtually unknown and true democracy is possible. A professional numismatist and a member of the World Future Society, Halperin is a relatively unskilled novelist. His prose is at best workmanlike, and his plotting and character development tend toward the simplistic. Nearly all of his major characters, from millionaire-genius protagonist Pete Armstrong on down, seem to be either the smartest, the richest, the most respected or the most influential people in the world. The traditional qualities of fiction are apparently of only secondary interest to the author, however. As a futurist, Halperin seems primarily concerned with suggesting innovations and then working out their implications over half a century. Heavily didactic, but supporting positions across the political spectrum, the book argues in favor of mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes, the privatization of schools, strict limits on insurance settlements, the elimination of the FAA, the legalization of assisted suicide, parental licensing and the establishment of a world government. Although crude from a literary point of view, Halperin's novel is not without strengths. His speculations about the next 50 years are fascinating, and the consequences of the truth machine are well worked out. In the final analysis, it's hard to believe that Halperin's near-utopian future could be so easily attained, but it would be nice to live there.
I can't find the spreadsheet I saw on this. See the CSS scores on pages 9, 10 and 21 of Deborah Ruf's "Assessment Service Bulletin Number 3 - Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities" published by Riverside, the maker of the Stanford-Binet for the raw data.
http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb3.pdf
Predicting the age-equivalent score in the future for a child with a given present age and age-equivalent score is where the the hump in the rates of change shows up, not directly in the CSS scores themselves. The reason is that a small change in CSS score makes for larger changes in age equivalents as age increases. The hump in the projected years-ability increase vs. time graph is more pronounced the greater the disparity between mental and chronological age, so it's really a family of curves. The overall graph of average CSS scores vs. age is more like a log curve in shape, with a gradual flattening of the rate of development. The graph of the derivative of CSS vs. age is where the hump shows up.
As William S. Burroughs said: "You thing rike jellyfish soon now"
No, standard IQ is calculated based on the rarity of a score on a test in a population that is assumed to have normally distributed scores using a mean of 100 and a 15-point standard deviation. IQ is not a constant or absolute measure of ability. It is on roughly an equal-interval scale, but in the tails of the distribution it closer to a ordinal scale since the actual distribution of abiliity is closer to log-normal.
Three years difference in scores is likely going to be substantially less than 27 IQ points. Figuring it out precisely is difficult because there is a huge spurt and then dropoff in the rate of increase in intelligence on a ratio (Rasch-based SB5 CSS score) scale from about 8 to 12, peaking at age 10. Testing would be a more accurate way of finding out the IQ equivalent of 3 years difference at that age in that population than attempting to calculate it anyway.
There is nothing in a Sears catalog that somebody doesn't want to sleep with.
Aw, come on, they weren't that harsh - they could have charged him with DCMA violations. {shudder}
If true, he definitely crossed the line.
Regulations' applications cannot exceed their dissemination. If you not only didn't but couldn't know the regulation, it cannot legally be applied to you.
Show an example that does not involve preventing one person invading another's privacy, rather than the instant isue, which is that the government is requiring common carriers to invade their customers' privacy using a "secret law".
The government must show that there is a public law and that the burdens of its requrements are resonably needed to ensure all citizens' ability to exercise their freedoms, which is the neccesary justification for allowing the government to excercise its enumerated powers in the first place. The government does not have the right to use its powers for any ends but the general public's interest, although it often does so. When the government has not shown that it is actually serving the public's interest and a citizen has shown that his liberty is cutailed, then that application of the law is inequtable, and hence outside the prper powers of government. The plaintiff has shown that the regulations are not public, that the regulations are not the minimum needed to ensure proper govenmental ends, and that the rules are ineffective for achieving the ostensible govenmental purpose, which given their liberty cost therefore makes them invalid.
I agree with you, but the courts interpret those amendments slightly differently. IIRC, the legal meaning of those words is roughly:
"you have the right not to be ass-raped by unlicenced unicorns".
Which isn't very useful, as until recently unicorns didn't exist, and they're all in secret DIA research labs, and are presumed to be licenced under the modern "if the goventment does it, it might as well be legal" doctrine.
...until you burn your house down and the insurance company refuses to pay.
Most men in the US are circumcised regardless of religion.
In the interests of not making a book-length post:
e s.html
h tml
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
Top ten lies.
http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm
With more lies from administration officials as well as Bush
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/
War on terror lies.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_li
Iraq lies.
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.
More lies.
Google " "bush lies" OR "Bush administration lies" " for another million or so pages.
"where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on?"
In America, making calls abroad.
"Can you name one?"
No, because Bush is keeping the information secret to protect his ass.
"Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying? "
The violation of citizens' rights occurs when the invasion of privacy is committed; the commission of a felony occurs when the FISA court does not get a warrant application within three days.
only because of the biased, leading way the question was asked. As the GP noted, it's amazing that only 53% would agree to something that was presented as "reducing the threat from terrorism". Thatis a phrase meant to disconnect the brain and elicit a reflex action, and it looks like it's about to stop working.
Let's look at sone other polls:
http://www.democrats.com/node/5217
June 30, 2005- "According to a poll released by Zogby today, 42% of Americans say they would favor impeachment proceedings if President Bush misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."
http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
Graph of all Bush approval rating polls since he took office from 15 major polling organizations:
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzm
It has been a year since Bush's approval rating broke 50%. His approval has been falling almost continuously since 9/11/2001, and now is about 40%. A majority of Americans asked a fair question about the issue believe impeachment should be considered. The Bush spin appears to be losing traction.
Which part of "Bush is a liar!" is giving you trouble? Are you seriously suggesting after all the evidence in all the scandals that Bush hasn't lied to the public repeatedly?
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/q-our-omnipot