But the circular design must accelerate the object both linearly and towards the inside of the circle, with the acceleration towards the inside of the circle ever increasing to more than 800 Gs.
Using the same sort of drill that made the Chunnel, Yucca Mountain, etc., how about drilling a hole into a mountain instead, and launching from that? Seem like the high Gs of this design are due to the circular path; use a long straight shot to produce acceleration only in the forward direction instead, and you end up launching from 10,000+ feet rather than nearer sea level.
For a velocity of 8,000 m/s: acceleration along a (say) 4,000 meter path: v = at d = 1/2a t * t -> 8000 = a * t -> 4000 = 1/2 * (8000/t) * t * t = 1/2 * 8000 * t = 4000 * t -> t = 1, a = 8,000 m/s^2 = 800 G, a fair bit less.
Sounds like religion to me. I have worked with Lisp, and I have not found this to be true. In my experience, different languages are often better suited for different tasks, and those who believe that one language is optimized for everything just have a biased view based on their own preferences.
The details may be off, but the concept isn't. Both of my kids play youth soccer. One problem some naturally talented players have is that they're so much better than their fellow players, they don't pass because they find from experience that it is less effective than just keeping it themselves. So when they get promoted to leagues with better players, they don't have the mindset to pass when they should. Meanwhile players that take longer to develop learn to pass when they should, and do better once they play more skilled opposition.
David Kay: "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. "
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." -Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Enough already. There were no WMDs, nothing that was a threat to Iraq's neighbors or people, much less the U.S. Hussein himself hid in a pretty crummy hole in the ground; they weren't going to treat WMDs with more care than him.
It may not have started out as a lie, just self-delusion. But as the inspectors kept coming up empty, even with Cheney feeding them locations where they expected weapons to be, by the time of the invasion it definitely was a lie. Few if any of the Democrats had full access to the Intel, and the vote to support the use of force (which in no way required Bush to use it) was taken just before elections, where accusations of cowardice were ready to fly.
Seat belts keep the driver behind the wheel, and the front passenger from flying into the driver, and thus the driver is capable of keeping a minor accident into a major one. (Just watch a NASCAR race for examples of this, admittedly by drivers far better than the general population.) Note that seat belt laws only apply to people in the front seat and (with car seat law) those too young to decide for themselves.
Neither seems all that tricky to me. You really think it would be hard to identify fossil fuels? And there aren't that many producers that one has to track down, and keeping track of incoming tankers should be child's play.
As for the stage at which it's taxed, it doesn't particularly matter for the basic principle to work, and it seems to me like there's many taxes that work this way already.
I'm tired of hearing this one.
Again, you're quibbling on minutae. Compare an RX400h to a Geo Metro then. And no, hydrogen to diesel isn't a comparable comparison, since burning hydrogen doesn't yield CO2. We're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, which both diesel and gasoline engines do. Unless substantially more C02 is emitted by a diesel engine than a gasoline one per gallon of fuel burned, the comparison is in this case valid. (And in most other cases, why isn't it? We care about the efficiency for a given amount of crude; whether that's done via an ICE, diesel, hybrid, or a Stanley Steamer is irrelevant.)
You've said who you want to tax, and who you don't want to, but you've utterly failed to make up ANY metric for how this is going to be accomplished.
It's not a who that is taxed, it's a "what". The producers or importers of fossil fuels must pay a tax based on the mass of carbon in the fuel they import or produce. Doesn't seem that tricky to me, although enforcement is always an issue. Is your concern or concerns the definition of fossil fuel, the definition of carbon content (seems pretty easy science to me), or at what stage the tax is charged? There are certainly fairly similar taxes that already exist and aren't a nightmare to manage.
You've also completely failed to explain how this ANY DIFFERENT than every other fuel tax ever enacted.
Take a rough estimate of the damages global climate change might do to this country. Divide by the mass of fossil fuels consumed in this country. That's the tax rate. It's not to pay for highways or anything else.
General fuel taxes don't try to achieve this result. But there's plenty of other, hackneyed schemes which do. CAFE. Kyoto. Tax breaks for hybrids. California's latest initiatives. The problem with those schemes is they're all so convoluted that they invite gamesmanship and really don't reflect the cost/benefit analysis well. If I buy a 12 MPG Rolls Royce, why do I pay a gas-guzzler tax when the guy who bought a 12 MPG Suburban doesn't, just because Chevy sells Aveos to someone else? Why do I pay a gas guzzler tax at all for a car I only drive a few hundred miles a year? Why do only the first 60,000 hybrids of a given model get a tax break? Is the 60,0001st one more polluting? Why do hybrids get a tax break at all, when a Volkswagen TDI diesel gets basically the same mileage? What you want to do is make everone pay the external costs of what they do. That way that can make sensible cost/benefit choices when considering a green strategy, rather than playing the "What tax break do I get for this approach" game. Taxing the fuel itself directly reflects the actual mass of CO2 its consumption will produce, and thus is an objective, fair measure of its impact on global climate change.
While I wouldn't try to argue that you personally should have children, there is a distinct payoff; you're growing your most loyal, long-term friends. Not to mention all the things the other poster mentioned about caring for you when you're too old to take care of yourself.
Also, as well as being work, kids can often be a lot of fun. My best memories of the last ten years almost exclusively involve my kids.
Still own one? heck, I still sell N64 cartridges. Buying low and selling high, you can make a profit off of them even with shipping included. Then again, the same is true of Pokemon DVDs, so one man's trash...
Having developers on a merry-go-round between projects is probably a good reason why their products never make it past the Beta stage (which is terrible).
I don't think it's a merry-go-round, it's getting people to go where they're interested and motivated. Look at FOSS; they're purely volunteers, but many stick with projects for years.
I'm currently working on a project that is OK, but I think there are other projects I could work on that would be more useful and involve code I know better. I suspect that I would be a heck of a lot more productive (and the product improved more significantly) if I could choose what to work on. On the other hand, the thing I am working on might get neglected. So perhaps management should try to identify the self-motivated (and let them choose their projects) and leave the remaining tasks for the less-motivated.
You obviously don't intend for it to; but it certainly does, in the (only) way you've described it.
You're being obtuse. I clearly just described that it didn't, above. My original posting could be interpreted otherwise, but given my clarification, why are you going on about it? Fossil fuels only would be taxed, based on their carbon content. (That leaves the possibility that one could convert gasoline to ethanol or the like, but I'm assuming until informed otherwise that this isn't practical.) Argue against *that* plan, not some incorrect inferrence of what I meant.
Decomposing paper doesn't produce much in the way of toxic gasses, usually, and it decomposes so slowly that we might as well consider it a carbon sink. (Consider ballfields, etc. built on top of landfills. If CO2 disappears from within, we'd see significant settling.) Regardless, As I've outlined my plan, I'm not suggesting tax breaks for CO2 sequestration at this point, too tough to tell the real net effect. The amount of coal mined and oil drilled/imported is a little easier to do.
The problem is, your tax doesn't provide any way to account for that, unless you are ALSO crediting those who grow it, which would be more complex than just giving them a credit to begin with, and forgetting the tax.
Sure it does. My plan doesn't tax ethanol or biodiesel. Therefore, they become relatively cheaper than coal, petroleum derivatives, and natural gas.
Yes, but only in the short-term. In the long-term, it decomposes.
Not into pure atmospheric CO2, for the same reason we have dirt.
My point wasn't the vehicles themselves, but getting the fuels to the public. You can have all the E85 cars you want, but good luck finding an E85 station.
Fleets have pumps at the base parking lot. E85 stations exist, and the more E85-capable cars, the more there will be. it won't leap into existence, but that would be inefficient anyway. The idea of the "tax" is to make gasoline et al reflect their real cost, and then let the market adjust.
Yes, but it consumes it in its creation. So it's a net zero. We would just be taxing fossil fuels.
If anything, you'd want to give a tax-*credit* to anyone that grows anything, for their sequestering of atmospheric CO2.
Conceivably this could be done from the "tax" revenues, but it's very hard to measure. Consider, for example, that a landfill full of paper is a carbon sink.
The problem with that is the huge inertia oil has behind it...
That hasn't stopped people from working on electric cars, E85 vehicles, etc. And consider what $3/gallon gas did to auto sales and attitudes. Even a moderate tax may make it practical to use alternative fuels for fleet vehicles, or be enough incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Want to reduce emissions? "Tax" all CO2 producing fuel based on its carbon content. Let the tax be passed on to the consumers. Then, at the end of the year, distribute the money evenly, with checks to every man, woman, and child. Thus anyone who reduces emissions gets a bonus, while long-range Hummer drivers pay more. The incentive to produce alternative energy will come from its lower cost, the disincentive to produce more greenhouse gas will be represented in higher costs.
Simple, few bases for anyone to object (cabbies and long-distance truckers would have to raise their fares), promotes alternative energy.
You don't think the reason that Brezhnev didn't invade western Europe... well... um... didn't have anything to do with the thousands of nuclear bombs aimed at living person in the Soviet Union?
Maybe he had no intention of invading Western Europe, nukes or no. You might say that your shotgun is the reason I'm not burglarizing your house, but I don't think that's the real reason I'm not.
Oh and don't foget during Mr. Brezhnev's time he was more concerned about a conventional war with China than with the US.
Just to expound a bit more, Kruschev was saying that Communism would outlast Capitalism, that the Communists would be present at the funeral of Capitalism. He got it backwards, but he was saying that he would be an undertaker, not a murderer.
Is there any way to turn off their simple buildings if existing ones overlap them, or do you have to develop the whole model as add-ins?
I still think Google should use some of their pocket change to hire pilots to photograph some of the many towns that are unusable as satellite images. C'mon Sergei, go through the couch cushions!
If the taxes are going in to a "Fossil Fuel Cleanup Fund" then I think such a tax is justified.
However, if I know governments at all, it may as well be spent on tootsie roll pops.
My plan, yet to be written up, has the tax returned to all citizens (who bear the cost of the pollution damage) each year. No general funding from the gas tax, every man, woman, and child would get an annual check.
That makes it a heck of a lot harder to characterize as a tax increase, or a grab for more money for government to waste.
Slashdot Mirror
But the circular design must accelerate the object both linearly and towards the inside of the circle, with the acceleration towards the inside of the circle ever increasing to more than 800 Gs.
Using the same sort of drill that made the Chunnel, Yucca Mountain, etc., how about drilling a hole into a mountain instead, and launching from that? Seem like the high Gs of this design are due to the circular path; use a long straight shot to produce acceleration only in the forward direction instead, and you end up launching from 10,000+ feet rather than nearer sea level.
For a velocity of 8,000 m/s: acceleration along a (say) 4,000 meter path: v = at d = 1/2a t * t -> 8000 = a * t -> 4000 = 1/2 * (8000/t) * t * t = 1/2 * 8000 * t = 4000 * t -> t = 1, a = 8,000 m/s^2 = 800 G, a fair bit less.
Sounds like religion to me. I have worked with Lisp, and I have not found this to be true. In my experience, different languages are often better suited for different tasks, and those who believe that one language is optimized for everything just have a biased view based on their own preferences.
The details may be off, but the concept isn't. Both of my kids play youth soccer. One problem some naturally talented players have is that they're so much better than their fellow players, they don't pass because they find from experience that it is less effective than just keeping it themselves. So when they get promoted to leagues with better players, they don't have the mindset to pass when they should. Meanwhile players that take longer to develop learn to pass when they should, and do better once they play more skilled opposition.
David Kay:
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. "
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." -Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Enough already. There were no WMDs, nothing that was a threat to Iraq's neighbors or people, much less the U.S. Hussein himself hid in a pretty crummy hole in the ground; they weren't going to treat WMDs with more care than him.
Note the 2 #7s. This one goes up to 11!
It may not have started out as a lie, just self-delusion. But as the inspectors kept coming up empty, even with Cheney feeding them locations where they expected weapons to be, by the time of the invasion it definitely was a lie. Few if any of the Democrats had full access to the Intel, and the vote to support the use of force (which in no way required Bush to use it) was taken just before elections, where accusations of cowardice were ready to fly.
Seat belts keep the driver behind the wheel, and the front passenger from flying into the driver, and thus the driver is capable of keeping a minor accident into a major one. (Just watch a NASCAR race for examples of this, admittedly by drivers far better than the general population.) Note that seat belt laws only apply to people in the front seat and (with car seat law) those too young to decide for themselves.
Both the definition, and the stage.
Neither seems all that tricky to me. You really think it would be hard to identify fossil fuels? And there aren't that many producers that one has to track down, and keeping track of incoming tankers should be child's play.
As for the stage at which it's taxed, it doesn't particularly matter for the basic principle to work, and it seems to me like there's many taxes that work this way already.
I'm tired of hearing this one.
Again, you're quibbling on minutae. Compare an RX400h to a Geo Metro then. And no, hydrogen to diesel isn't a comparable comparison, since burning hydrogen doesn't yield CO2. We're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, which both diesel and gasoline engines do. Unless substantially more C02 is emitted by a diesel engine than a gasoline one per gallon of fuel burned, the comparison is in this case valid. (And in most other cases, why isn't it? We care about the efficiency for a given amount of crude; whether that's done via an ICE, diesel, hybrid, or a Stanley Steamer is irrelevant.)
How would you rate Mac OS X on its multiprocessor handling?
Obviously, you still need the apps to support it too.
Any chance one would fit in an iMac or a Mac Mini?
You've said who you want to tax, and who you don't want to, but you've utterly failed to make up ANY metric for how this is going to be accomplished.
It's not a who that is taxed, it's a "what". The producers or importers of fossil fuels must pay a tax based on the mass of carbon in the fuel they import or produce. Doesn't seem that tricky to me, although enforcement is always an issue. Is your concern or concerns the definition of fossil fuel, the definition of carbon content (seems pretty easy science to me), or at what stage the tax is charged? There are certainly fairly similar taxes that already exist and aren't a nightmare to manage.
You've also completely failed to explain how this ANY DIFFERENT than every other fuel tax ever enacted.
Take a rough estimate of the damages global climate change might do to this country. Divide by the mass of fossil fuels consumed in this country. That's the tax rate. It's not to pay for highways or anything else.
General fuel taxes don't try to achieve this result. But there's plenty of other, hackneyed schemes which do. CAFE. Kyoto. Tax breaks for hybrids. California's latest initiatives. The problem with those schemes is they're all so convoluted that they invite gamesmanship and really don't reflect the cost/benefit analysis well. If I buy a 12 MPG Rolls Royce, why do I pay a gas-guzzler tax when the guy who bought a 12 MPG Suburban doesn't, just because Chevy sells Aveos to someone else? Why do I pay a gas guzzler tax at all for a car I only drive a few hundred miles a year? Why do only the first 60,000 hybrids of a given model get a tax break? Is the 60,0001st one more polluting? Why do hybrids get a tax break at all, when a Volkswagen TDI diesel gets basically the same mileage? What you want to do is make everone pay the external costs of what they do. That way that can make sensible cost/benefit choices when considering a green strategy, rather than playing the "What tax break do I get for this approach" game. Taxing the fuel itself directly reflects the actual mass of CO2 its consumption will produce, and thus is an objective, fair measure of its impact on global climate change.
While I wouldn't try to argue that you personally should have children, there is a distinct payoff; you're growing your most loyal, long-term friends. Not to mention all the things the other poster mentioned about caring for you when you're too old to take care of yourself.
Also, as well as being work, kids can often be a lot of fun. My best memories of the last ten years almost exclusively involve my kids.
Still own one? heck, I still sell N64 cartridges. Buying low and selling high, you can make a profit off of them even with shipping included. Then again, the same is true of Pokemon DVDs, so one man's trash...
Having developers on a merry-go-round between projects is probably a good reason why their products never make it past the Beta stage (which is terrible).
I don't think it's a merry-go-round, it's getting people to go where they're interested and motivated. Look at FOSS; they're purely volunteers, but many stick with projects for years.
I'm currently working on a project that is OK, but I think there are other projects I could work on that would be more useful and involve code I know better. I suspect that I would be a heck of a lot more productive (and the product improved more significantly) if I could choose what to work on. On the other hand, the thing I am working on might get neglected. So perhaps management should try to identify the self-motivated (and let them choose their projects) and leave the remaining tasks for the less-motivated.
You obviously don't intend for it to; but it certainly does, in the (only) way you've described it.
You're being obtuse. I clearly just described that it didn't, above. My original posting could be interpreted otherwise, but given my clarification, why are you going on about it? Fossil fuels only would be taxed, based on their carbon content. (That leaves the possibility that one could convert gasoline to ethanol or the like, but I'm assuming until informed otherwise that this isn't practical.) Argue against *that* plan, not some incorrect inferrence of what I meant.
Decomposing paper doesn't produce much in the way of toxic gasses, usually, and it decomposes so slowly that we might as well consider it a carbon sink. (Consider ballfields, etc. built on top of landfills. If CO2 disappears from within, we'd see significant settling.) Regardless, As I've outlined my plan, I'm not suggesting tax breaks for CO2 sequestration at this point, too tough to tell the real net effect. The amount of coal mined and oil drilled/imported is a little easier to do.
The problem is, your tax doesn't provide any way to account for that, unless you are ALSO crediting those who grow it, which would be more complex than just giving them a credit to begin with, and forgetting the tax.
Sure it does. My plan doesn't tax ethanol or biodiesel. Therefore, they become relatively cheaper than coal, petroleum derivatives, and natural gas.
Yes, but only in the short-term. In the long-term, it decomposes.
Not into pure atmospheric CO2, for the same reason we have dirt.
My point wasn't the vehicles themselves, but getting the fuels to the public. You can have all the E85 cars you want, but good luck finding an E85 station.
Fleets have pumps at the base parking lot. E85 stations exist, and the more E85-capable cars, the more there will be. it won't leap into existence, but that would be inefficient anyway. The idea of the "tax" is to make gasoline et al reflect their real cost, and then let the market adjust.
Biodiesel and Ethanol has plenty of CO2 in it...
Yes, but it consumes it in its creation. So it's a net zero. We would just be taxing fossil fuels.
If anything, you'd want to give a tax-*credit* to anyone that grows anything, for their sequestering of atmospheric CO2.
Conceivably this could be done from the "tax" revenues, but it's very hard to measure. Consider, for example, that a landfill full of paper is a carbon sink.
The problem with that is the huge inertia oil has behind it...
That hasn't stopped people from working on electric cars, E85 vehicles, etc. And consider what $3/gallon gas did to auto sales and attitudes. Even a moderate tax may make it practical to use alternative fuels for fleet vehicles, or be enough incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Want to reduce emissions? "Tax" all CO2 producing fuel based on its carbon content. Let the tax be passed on to the consumers. Then, at the end of the year, distribute the money evenly, with checks to every man, woman, and child. Thus anyone who reduces emissions gets a bonus, while long-range Hummer drivers pay more. The incentive to produce alternative energy will come from its lower cost, the disincentive to produce more greenhouse gas will be represented in higher costs.
Simple, few bases for anyone to object (cabbies and long-distance truckers would have to raise their fares), promotes alternative energy.
I think the main reason to favor regeneration over prosthetics is economy.
Yes, but regrowing an eye doesn't give you zoom, splitscreen, quantel...
Not to mention I want my nipple to tune in jazz FM.
You don't think the reason that Brezhnev didn't invade western Europe... well... um... didn't have anything to do with the thousands of nuclear bombs aimed at living person in the Soviet Union?
Maybe he had no intention of invading Western Europe, nukes or no. You might say that your shotgun is the reason I'm not burglarizing your house, but I don't think that's the real reason I'm not.
Oh and don't foget during Mr. Brezhnev's time he was more concerned about a conventional war with China than with the US.
So you agree already anyway.
Just to expound a bit more, Kruschev was saying that Communism would outlast Capitalism, that the Communists would be present at the funeral of Capitalism. He got it backwards, but he was saying that he would be an undertaker, not a murderer.
Is there any way to turn off their simple buildings if existing ones overlap them, or do you have to develop the whole model as add-ins?
I still think Google should use some of their pocket change to hire pilots to photograph some of the many towns that are unusable as satellite images. C'mon Sergei, go through the couch cushions!
'Indulgence is just a click away, and nobody needs to know, except you and some server somewhere.' ...and Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales makes something happened that I thought simply couldn't happen; he made me miss John Ashcroft. Even his singing!
If the taxes are going in to a "Fossil Fuel Cleanup Fund" then I think such a tax is justified.
However, if I know governments at all, it may as well be spent on tootsie roll pops.
My plan, yet to be written up, has the tax returned to all citizens (who bear the cost of the pollution damage) each year. No general funding from the gas tax, every man, woman, and child would get an annual check.
That makes it a heck of a lot harder to characterize as a tax increase, or a grab for more money for government to waste.