If you were watching a group that stole a fleet of cars, then figured out how to make keys for a bunch of their cars, would you pour sugar in the gas tanks after you were done joyriding to make sure they wouldn't be drivable again?
The more gasoline powered cars there are, the more likely an accident will happen. The more accidents that occur increases the likelihood that one of those will be a severe accident. It's simple probability.
This argument can be used for anything but has a faulty premise. Airplanes don't fall out of the sky everyday simply because we have more of them. In fact, the incidence of fatal airline crashes has decreased significantly since the beginning of commercial aviation.
The truth is that despite the risks of nuclear power or any other, experience from decades operation and design has improved its safety and reliability by orders of magnitude. Numbers are not the only part of the equation and neither are they the most significant part.
Aside from that, the Kursk was not a nuclear accident. A reactor accident on that ship would not have resulted in doors in the torpedo room being blown outward with the engine room remaining intact.
Keep your scaremongering to yourself or back it up with facts and logic.
There are exceptions, but they're fairly rare and usually involve someone who either: a) invented the thing (Colt revolvers or Ferris Wheels), or; b) donated a tonne of money (anybody remember Enron stadium, or the Ken Lay Chair in Economics at Methodist University?)
Let's not forget my personal favorite:
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport
. Because of that jackass, I gotta see his name every time I fly in or out of Alaska.
I would agree with you if it were that simple. The problem is that the legal system evolves and favors those who have the resources to contend in court.
A regular person does not have resources to fight civil lawsuits that may last indefinitely. It is not in an individual's best interest (typically) to drag out a proceeding and exhaust every legal option in pursuit of a victory. A big corporation, however, does and can benefit from it.
If the system were rigged towards the smaller party, I agree it probably would be equally injust (see the current state of patent law).
It would probably be helpful to the average working man if judges limited the scope of the better-funded party's arguments in a case. But that wouldn't make it just.
Except that the Japanese did not surrender after the first nuke was dropped. We gave them three days and got no answer. The emperor made the decision to surrender the day after the second bomb was dropped.
What is a grundel, and why would you want to save it?
A grundel is an Old English bipedal monster or dragon, descended from Cain. I would imagine you would want to save it for yourself in order to keep your neighbor's dog off your lawn.
The law applies in the case of an argument where one party uses a comparison to Hitler or the Third Reich as an ad hominem or to attack their opponent's stance.
In this case, NYCL uses the analogy to refer to the actions of a third party not involved in the discussion. Also, this jab is intended to be humorous and poingnant, rather than a mean-spirited barb. Therefore, Godwin's law cannot be applied here and the conversation is neither over nor lost.
Simple math will not suffice here. In electromagnetics, waves are a form of resonance may be evanescent. Here's a prime example why electrical engineers must use imaginary numbers in their equations.
The trick here is to make the transmitted energy be coherent when directed toward the receiver they want to power and evanescent at all other times. Essentially, they use a particular antenna at both ends and the beam is harmless if anything non-resonant is in the path (including people, pets, and clothing).
does it matter that it's open source or not? Open source is not inherently better than closed source.
Being able to show exactly which steps a CAS went through to arrive at a solution can be important. With Mathematica, you have to trust that the methods they use, which you can't see, are legitimate and don't introduce any unforeseen error.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh Mathematica; it's an excellent program. But being able to show 100% of your work has intrinsic value.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were watching a group that stole a fleet of cars, then figured out how to make keys for a bunch of their cars, would you pour sugar in the gas tanks after you were done joyriding to make sure they wouldn't be drivable again?
The more gasoline powered cars there are, the more likely an accident will happen. The more accidents that occur increases the likelihood that one of those will be a severe accident. It's simple probability.
This argument can be used for anything but has a faulty premise. Airplanes don't fall out of the sky everyday simply because we have more of them. In fact, the incidence of fatal airline crashes has decreased significantly since the beginning of commercial aviation.
The truth is that despite the risks of nuclear power or any other, experience from decades operation and design has improved its safety and reliability by orders of magnitude. Numbers are not the only part of the equation and neither are they the most significant part.
Aside from that, the Kursk was not a nuclear accident. A reactor accident on that ship would not have resulted in doors in the torpedo room being blown outward with the engine room remaining intact.
Keep your scaremongering to yourself or back it up with facts and logic.
It worked for Alaska, too.
Can it be referred to as the Former Lightweight Authentication of Centrally Controlled ID, or FLACCID?
*Sigh*
For mods who don't get the reference.
I triit's fast as fast can be, you'll never catch me!
No big deal. It's been too long since they had a good blackout riot there, anyway.
Here's a reference. The second definition is the context I've heard most often.
I think he means "free as in ponies".
There are exceptions, but they're fairly rare and usually involve someone who either: a) invented the thing (Colt revolvers or Ferris Wheels), or; b) donated a tonne of money (anybody remember Enron stadium, or the Ken Lay Chair in Economics at Methodist University?)
Let's not forget my personal favorite: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport . Because of that jackass, I gotta see his name every time I fly in or out of Alaska.
But I'm not bitter.
My kingdom for a mod point today...
A regular person does not have resources to fight civil lawsuits that may last indefinitely. It is not in an individual's best interest (typically) to drag out a proceeding and exhaust every legal option in pursuit of a victory. A big corporation, however, does and can benefit from it.
If the system were rigged towards the smaller party, I agree it probably would be equally injust (see the current state of patent law).
It would probably be helpful to the average working man if judges limited the scope of the better-funded party's arguments in a case. But that wouldn't make it just.
Looks like you missed the reference.
That's great. It starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and airplanes. Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Stone generally requires different instruments, such as saws, picks and drills.
... With that in mind I recommend you give one or two of them a copy of All the Mathematics You Missed But Need to Know for Graduate School, and suggest they pass it onto someone else if they find it "too hard".
Seconded. I'm in grad school and I have that right next to my desk. I wish I would've found that before I started grad school.
No, it can't. Ants have no souls.
Except that the Japanese did not surrender after the first nuke was dropped. We gave them three days and got no answer. The emperor made the decision to surrender the day after the second bomb was dropped.
What is a grundel, and why would you want to save it?
A grundel is an Old English bipedal monster or dragon, descended from Cain. I would imagine you would want to save it for yourself in order to keep your neighbor's dog off your lawn.
The law applies in the case of an argument where one party uses a comparison to Hitler or the Third Reich as an ad hominem or to attack their opponent's stance.
In this case, NYCL uses the analogy to refer to the actions of a third party not involved in the discussion. Also, this jab is intended to be humorous and poingnant, rather than a mean-spirited barb. Therefore, Godwin's law cannot be applied here and the conversation is neither over nor lost.
Reference:The Godwin's Law FAQ
Simple math will not suffice here. In electromagnetics, waves are a form of resonance may be evanescent. Here's a prime example why electrical engineers must use imaginary numbers in their equations.
The trick here is to make the transmitted energy be coherent when directed toward the receiver they want to power and evanescent at all other times. Essentially, they use a particular antenna at both ends and the beam is harmless if anything non-resonant is in the path (including people, pets, and clothing).
You're the man now, dog!
If buildings were built the same way software is written, the first woodpecker would have destroyed civilization.
does it matter that it's open source or not? Open source is not inherently better than closed source.
Being able to show exactly which steps a CAS went through to arrive at a solution can be important. With Mathematica, you have to trust that the methods they use, which you can't see, are legitimate and don't introduce any unforeseen error.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh Mathematica; it's an excellent program. But being able to show 100% of your work has intrinsic value.
5 years, for a 90 day lander is impressive, and has achieved a lot of scientific goals.
I share your exuberance, but it's only been five months.