Exactly. The perfect outsider is the one who is socially acceptable, technically competent, but isn't scared to ask 'Why are we doing this?' When you have a group of people that think the same, always agree, and don't deviate from the norm, you won't grow. If you have one person that frequently asks why or enjoys being the devil's advocate, then you get get change. Without change, you can never grow from where you are.
Of course, some people are just asses. And those people need to be, uh, wiped off the books.
One of these days we'll actually be able to make a true bionic man, a la Steve Austin. With prosthetic arms that you can control with your brain, using yeast to get energy from your blood, and ocular implants, we're just about all there. It just came in over budget and behind schedule. (Not that I'm surprised.)
You don't need to make an official endorsement to show a bias toward one side or the other.
I think this actually fosters more discussion by allowing more voices in a particular market. If there is only one large newspaper spewing out it's story, then you can't get counterpoints from other papers. I think this bill would actually allow people to keep their voices by not letting finances silence them.
Considering that when a local newspaper goes under a small part of the community is gone, I think this is a good idea. These small papers fill the niche market that are only in small communities have and help promote local issues that larger newspapers tend to gloss over. Losing the political endorsements would actually be a good thing since it might make the papers less biased. Providing both sides of an issue is much more informative than printing one sided articles because of the political leanings of the paper.
They already do. The problem is traffic management.
Airlines would love to save gas by going right up to the point where they can cut the engines to idle and then coast in to the airport. But since everyone wants to do that it would create a traffic nightmare. They need a way to line everyone up on the same runway so they can space them out properly. And if it's cloudy, you need a way to make sure you can be lined up on your runway when you come out of the clouds. So they make instrument approaches that use navigation aids on the ground or GPS.
This works well at small airports, but busy ones have too many planes coming in so they make these things called a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). Everyone flies to one of these routes and then they join up to an instrument approach to land.
Airlines would love nothing more than to save gas by doing exactly what you suggest, and people on the ground would also like to not have airplanes buzzing their house at all hours of the day, but it's not even close to practicable.
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
I mean, seriously people. I'm no economics expert, but I did take the required class in high school, and I'm pretty sure that was covered. Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Seriously, why does every career or activity have to have an exact 50-50 mix of males and females? Last time I checked, the hormonal balance in men and women were quite a bit different and each sex has a general preference to what interests them. The examples of teachers, nurses, and garbage collectors are excellent examples. The two sexes are different. Why do so many people have a hard time accepting that?
Oh, wait, scratch that. It will look completely different and won't use any previous research. I mean they already spent some money to come up with a new acronym, so why not go all the way?
I'll be damned if my kid hasn't picked up some from her Leapster. All the games have some educational content, and she loves the animal games. They use a reward system like XBox Achievements to get them motivation to play more mini games. And the mini games are things like fill in the missing letter, and simple math. My daughter is 5 and she loves it. There are plenty of games to pick from too, so there are options for everyone.
Honestly, about as good as anything else. Shoulder-fired SAMs are very short range, and low altitude missiles, so even a manned plane would have minimal warning before impact. The accuracy isn't all that great, and even if they do hit they might not go off. There was a plane in Egypt (I think) that was hit by one and landed with the missile still sticking out of the plane.
Here are your answers:
1) The bulge covers the satellite dish. The dish has to rotate and change it's elevation angle to track the satellite that it's looking at so it needs a nice big bulge to move around in.
2) The prop is in the back because it elminates the effects of prop wash over the body of the plane. A prop in front will cause the plane to yaw side to side with power changes. In the back you avoid all that. (It's in the front of manned planes so pilots won't hit it as if they have to bail out.)
3) The tail is a V-tail with a stabliazation fin on the bottom. The v-tail has been around for a while, and the plane needs a little more yaw stabliazation than a V-tail can provide.
4) The ball on the bottom of the nose is the sensor with a day-TV camera, an IR camera, an IR illuminator, and a laser designator. It's sticking out because if it was recessed you lose a lot of visiblity. At the speeds it's flying it's not too big of a drag on the plane.
And yes, the satellite link is the weak point, but only the big boys have the ability to knock out one. But we all saw from the Chinese test how messy that can be for everyone, so it's not to likely a threat.
Well, even if only 10% of the games coming out are worth getting, it will be that many more games that I might buy. And the experience the developers get by making a game for the Wii will (hopefully) make future games that much better.
You do realize that over 90% of the steel in cars and at least 25% of appliances (fridges, washers/dryers) comes from recycled steel?
More info here: http://www.recycle-steel.org/
Of course the encryption is already broken. From the article:
SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.
That's exactly what Wynne is trying to say. They wouldn't be 'testing' anything. The weapon would be fully developed and given to police forces or even prison guards to be used on crowds that need to be controlled. The Air Force wants to validate the useability of these 'weapons' before they are used in a combat situation. They would use these new weapons in place of things like stun grenades, tear gas, and other already available non-lethal weapons.
What he is trying to say is, "If we aren't willing to use these non-lethal weapons on our civilians to stop civil disorder, how can we justify using them on enemeny combatants?"
But it's an enormous disappointment after Snakes spent more than a year as fodder for Internet chat, jokes, gossip and spoofs, including hundreds of fake trailers.
I think they missed what the "Internet" was trying to tell them: You have a dumb movie, and we are making fun of you.
I wonder if they really read the blogs, jokes, and other comments. Marketing people should be able to tell when people are laughing with you, vs. laughing at you. Even without seeing 95% of the content out there, I could have told you that people thought it was going to be a dumb movie.
It was S. Jackson, his couple of good lines, and people wanting to see just how bad it is that got them just into first for the weekend.
I agree completely. Wireless gives you advantage of no cables, but you have to set up encryption, make sure you don't have interference, ensure that people can't steal your transmissions, and suffer from a lack of fidelity. The bandwidth in a wire is almost always more than you can get in the air. You also have to pay more for initial setup, and in some cases more for the batteries. A wired mouse and wired keyboard don't need to have batteries replaced. Ever. Cosidering the fact that I'm paying more for less, I avoid wireless whenever I can.
Some form of gas or disel that we use now. There is a lot of infrastructure in place that can't be replaced (cheaply) in ten years. Either we'll have powerful hybrids, or super efficient gasoline/disel engines, but replacing the vast amount of infrastructure out there isn't going to happen quickly. I'd buy a total conversion in maybe 30 years, but in the short tern, we're looking at gas. There are research projects that are looking at making synthetic gasoline, and doing so would allow you to use the same infrastructure while reducing the CO2 that we add to the air. (Synthetic fuel would come from plants, plants use the CO2 in the air to grow.)
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The perfect outsider is the one who is socially acceptable, technically competent, but isn't scared to ask 'Why are we doing this?' When you have a group of people that think the same, always agree, and don't deviate from the norm, you won't grow. If you have one person that frequently asks why or enjoys being the devil's advocate, then you get get change. Without change, you can never grow from where you are.
Of course, some people are just asses. And those people need to be, uh, wiped off the books.
So to speak.
One of these days we'll actually be able to make a true bionic man, a la Steve Austin. With prosthetic arms that you can control with your brain, using yeast to get energy from your blood, and ocular implants, we're just about all there. It just came in over budget and behind schedule. (Not that I'm surprised.)
You don't need to make an official endorsement to show a bias toward one side or the other.
I think this actually fosters more discussion by allowing more voices in a particular market. If there is only one large newspaper spewing out it's story, then you can't get counterpoints from other papers. I think this bill would actually allow people to keep their voices by not letting finances silence them.
Considering that when a local newspaper goes under a small part of the community is gone, I think this is a good idea. These small papers fill the niche market that are only in small communities have and help promote local issues that larger newspapers tend to gloss over. Losing the political endorsements would actually be a good thing since it might make the papers less biased. Providing both sides of an issue is much more informative than printing one sided articles because of the political leanings of the paper.
I had to go through 3 websites/blogs before I got the direct link. So if you have Verizon and want to opt out directly, here you go.
https://ebillpay.verizonwireless.com/vzw/accountholder/profile/CPNISettings.action
They already do. The problem is traffic management.
Airlines would love to save gas by going right up to the point where they can cut the engines to idle and then coast in to the airport. But since everyone wants to do that it would create a traffic nightmare. They need a way to line everyone up on the same runway so they can space them out properly. And if it's cloudy, you need a way to make sure you can be lined up on your runway when you come out of the clouds. So they make instrument approaches that use navigation aids on the ground or GPS.
This works well at small airports, but busy ones have too many planes coming in so they make these things called a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). Everyone flies to one of these routes and then they join up to an instrument approach to land.
Airlines would love nothing more than to save gas by doing exactly what you suggest, and people on the ground would also like to not have airplanes buzzing their house at all hours of the day, but it's not even close to practicable.
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
I mean, seriously people. I'm no economics expert, but I did take the required class in high school, and I'm pretty sure that was covered. Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Seriously, why does every career or activity have to have an exact 50-50 mix of males and females? Last time I checked, the hormonal balance in men and women were quite a bit different and each sex has a general preference to what interests them. The examples of teachers, nurses, and garbage collectors are excellent examples. The two sexes are different. Why do so many people have a hard time accepting that?
No, not that one. This one.
Oh, wait, scratch that. It will look completely different and won't use any previous research. I mean they already spent some money to come up with a new acronym, so why not go all the way?
Thank goodness! No more 10 minute sessions of inventory management just to juggle your potions around.
You might end up with a few not so family-oriented games with a suit like that.
Hell, I can think of one right now: Wii-sure Suit Larry.
Not everyone lives in a "-ium" country. And IUAPC swings both ways. Get used to it.
I'll be damned if my kid hasn't picked up some from her Leapster. All the games have some educational content, and she loves the animal games. They use a reward system like XBox Achievements to get them motivation to play more mini games. And the mini games are things like fill in the missing letter, and simple math. My daughter is 5 and she loves it. There are plenty of games to pick from too, so there are options for everyone.
So that's why we can't get iTunes on a PC. Oh, wait...
Use VMware in Windoze. All the fun of Ubuntu while still meeting the terms of the punishment.
Honestly, about as good as anything else. Shoulder-fired SAMs are very short range, and low altitude missiles, so even a manned plane would have minimal warning before impact. The accuracy isn't all that great, and even if they do hit they might not go off. There was a plane in Egypt (I think) that was hit by one and landed with the missile still sticking out of the plane.
Here are your answers:
1) The bulge covers the satellite dish. The dish has to rotate and change it's elevation angle to track the satellite that it's looking at so it needs a nice big bulge to move around in.
2) The prop is in the back because it elminates the effects of prop wash over the body of the plane. A prop in front will cause the plane to yaw side to side with power changes. In the back you avoid all that. (It's in the front of manned planes so pilots won't hit it as if they have to bail out.)
3) The tail is a V-tail with a stabliazation fin on the bottom. The v-tail has been around for a while, and the plane needs a little more yaw stabliazation than a V-tail can provide.
4) The ball on the bottom of the nose is the sensor with a day-TV camera, an IR camera, an IR illuminator, and a laser designator. It's sticking out because if it was recessed you lose a lot of visiblity. At the speeds it's flying it's not too big of a drag on the plane.
And yes, the satellite link is the weak point, but only the big boys have the ability to knock out one. But we all saw from the Chinese test how messy that can be for everyone, so it's not to likely a threat.
Good thing I have a wheat port.
Well, even if only 10% of the games coming out are worth getting, it will be that many more games that I might buy. And the experience the developers get by making a game for the Wii will (hopefully) make future games that much better.
You do realize that over 90% of the steel in cars and at least 25% of appliances (fridges, washers/dryers) comes from recycled steel? More info here: http://www.recycle-steel.org/
Of course the encryption is already broken. From the article:
Nice try. I'll give you a cookie.That's exactly what Wynne is trying to say. They wouldn't be 'testing' anything. The weapon would be fully developed and given to police forces or even prison guards to be used on crowds that need to be controlled. The Air Force wants to validate the useability of these 'weapons' before they are used in a combat situation. They would use these new weapons in place of things like stun grenades, tear gas, and other already available non-lethal weapons. What he is trying to say is, "If we aren't willing to use these non-lethal weapons on our civilians to stop civil disorder, how can we justify using them on enemeny combatants?"
I think they missed what the "Internet" was trying to tell them: You have a dumb movie, and we are making fun of you.
I wonder if they really read the blogs, jokes, and other comments. Marketing people should be able to tell when people are laughing with you, vs. laughing at you. Even without seeing 95% of the content out there, I could have told you that people thought it was going to be a dumb movie.
It was S. Jackson, his couple of good lines, and people wanting to see just how bad it is that got them just into first for the weekend.
I agree completely. Wireless gives you advantage of no cables, but you have to set up encryption, make sure you don't have interference, ensure that people can't steal your transmissions, and suffer from a lack of fidelity. The bandwidth in a wire is almost always more than you can get in the air. You also have to pay more for initial setup, and in some cases more for the batteries. A wired mouse and wired keyboard don't need to have batteries replaced. Ever. Cosidering the fact that I'm paying more for less, I avoid wireless whenever I can.
Some form of gas or disel that we use now. There is a lot of infrastructure in place that can't be replaced (cheaply) in ten years. Either we'll have powerful hybrids, or super efficient gasoline/disel engines, but replacing the vast amount of infrastructure out there isn't going to happen quickly. I'd buy a total conversion in maybe 30 years, but in the short tern, we're looking at gas. There are research projects that are looking at making synthetic gasoline, and doing so would allow you to use the same infrastructure while reducing the CO2 that we add to the air. (Synthetic fuel would come from plants, plants use the CO2 in the air to grow.)