The United States practices torture. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, Canada can tell the department of justice to GFY on any extraditions.
By that logic we would never extradite anyone to the UK either. I mean... have you ever tried British cuisine? I'd rather be water boarded any day.
Either extradite her to the US and be seen as an untrustable state that will pander to the US politically
Only an idiot would percieve the situation in those terms. While there is certainly no shortage of idots in this world, Canada doesn't make a habit of basing legal decisions on the opinions of such folks.
What both you and the Chinese (who have already threatened Canada over this) seem to be missing is the fact that Canada is a nation with an independent judiciary, and politicians cannot legally interfere with the process. Even if they wanted to, which they most certainly do not. China can huff and puff all it likes; our courts will decide whether there is good grounds for extradition regardless of what anyone else wants.
Maybe, maybe not. Yeah sometimes discovering completely impractical things opens up new lines of research which do turn out to be groundbreaking. Other times it goes nowhere.
We already knew that pressure could change the conductivity of various materials, and we already knew it was possible to superconducting at relatively high temperatures. Ergo this discovery seems more likely to fall into the "goes nowhere" camp.
The other money losers are the owner operator truck drivers. BAD DEAL.
The rest of your comment sounded like nonsense just based on quick back of he envelope math, but I wasn't ready to call bullshit until I got to this point. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had a couple trucker buddies who saved every penny they could to buy their own truck; they made an absolute killing afterwards. The smart one then saved all the money he made driving his own truck and bought several more trucks for others to drive for him. Today the cars sitting in his garage are worth more than my entire house.
They have pricing structures on their water bills to make it very expensive to use a lot of water. Use a little, pay X. Use 50% more, pay 2.5X. Use 100% more, pay 10X.
Would suck to be the poor bastard who has a wife and 6 daughters.
Density restrictions, so long as they are applied similarly to commercial construction, just increase sprawl and commute times, rather than driving up pricing. Any claim to the contrary demands evidence.
Wait... what? You think that you get to make a claim and then demand that others provide evidence to prove you wrong?
Don't be a jackass.
Of course sprawl increases prices. Look at any major city. The closer you are to the center of it, the higher the prices. Those who don't want to commute for 4 hours every day will pay top dollar to be closer to work. Any claim to the contrary demands evidence!
Or more precisely, they decided that a failure at low altitude was outside the design scope, and so if it happens, the aircraft by definition cannot function as designed, because it was not designed function in that scenario. They didn't design it to kill everyone - if they did, then it would be functioning as designed. They just ignored the problem, knowing that was the likely outcome.
You say "yes exactly" and then go on to say (simplifying) "well actually no". Which is it?
Take another example - the planes which slammed into the WTC on 9/11. Were they functioning as intended?
My persoective: mechanically they seemed perfectly fine, so I would say yes.
Your perspective: Well they killed a fuckload of people, so you would say no. Except the expected failure mode of slamming into a building is that everyone dies, so you would say yes. Except nobody actually designed them to do that, they just kinda ignored the possibility, so you would say... no?
Can you try to make up your own mind before trying to change mine?
However, they have proven that their design works, because they have landed their rocket on a pad before.
The fact that the design works has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this particular rocket worked as designed. Just like the fact that their emergency procedures worked has nothing to do with whether or not the rocket worked as designed. The rocket did NOT work as designed. That's why they had to land it in the water. If it had worked as designed it would have landed on the pad, and I wouldn't have ended up wasting thousands of words arguing with people who don't seem to understand that systems aren't designed with the goal of failing.
There's a reason takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight, and part of it is that low altitude failure tolerance mostly comes at a much higher cost(by price, weight, efficiency...) and is thus intentionally left out in favor of operating profits.
So, in other words, the intentional failure mode at low altitudes is for the plane to crash and kill everyone? I.e. that's the way it's designed? And when it fails and kills everyone, it was operating as designed?
You can design something to meet multiple requirements. Requirement 1: Rocket should be able to return to earth and land. Requirement 2: If unplanned events occur, rocket should crash into the ocean instead of the launch pad.
And you would say that a system which only meets some requirements due to mechanical failure is a system which worked as designed?
Cute. You must work in the Chinese automotive industry.
Slashdot Mirror
The United States practices torture. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, Canada can tell the department of justice to GFY on any extraditions.
By that logic we would never extradite anyone to the UK either. I mean ... have you ever tried British cuisine? I'd rather be water boarded any day.
Arresting a criminal is a dirty job?
On what fucking legal base was she arrested?
Fraud, you gormless shit-weasel. Ever hear of it?
Either extradite her to the US and be seen as an untrustable state that will pander to the US politically
Only an idiot would percieve the situation in those terms. While there is certainly no shortage of idots in this world, Canada doesn't make a habit of basing legal decisions on the opinions of such folks.
What both you and the Chinese (who have already threatened Canada over this) seem to be missing is the fact that Canada is a nation with an independent judiciary, and politicians cannot legally interfere with the process. Even if they wanted to, which they most certainly do not. China can huff and puff all it likes; our courts will decide whether there is good grounds for extradition regardless of what anyone else wants.
Are you Chinese, or are you retarded? I know it has to be one of the two ... not sure which.
Joke killing should be a capital offense.
Maybe, maybe not. Yeah sometimes discovering completely impractical things opens up new lines of research which do turn out to be groundbreaking. Other times it goes nowhere.
We already knew that pressure could change the conductivity of various materials, and we already knew it was possible to superconducting at relatively high temperatures. Ergo this discovery seems more likely to fall into the "goes nowhere" camp.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I guess you apple types have never heard of google image search.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Correct. And?
No, anti-political-correctness is just honesty.
I did provide the "incompetent" alternative.
You see a couch you like that they price at X, they take your money and promise delivery in 60 to 90 days.
Wtf kind of stores are you shopping at? Last time I bought a couch it was delivered the next day.
Then you're either a liar, or incompetent. Either way, if you actually have any clients, they need to find someone else.
The other money losers are the owner operator truck drivers. BAD DEAL.
The rest of your comment sounded like nonsense just based on quick back of he envelope math, but I wasn't ready to call bullshit until I got to this point. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had a couple trucker buddies who saved every penny they could to buy their own truck; they made an absolute killing afterwards. The smart one then saved all the money he made driving his own truck and bought several more trucks for others to drive for him. Today the cars sitting in his garage are worth more than my entire house.
Right? We used to think the sun was a god, until we learned better. Now we know there is no sun.
They have pricing structures on their water bills to make it very expensive to use a lot of water. Use a little, pay X. Use 50% more, pay 2.5X. Use 100% more, pay 10X.
Would suck to be the poor bastard who has a wife and 6 daughters.
Density restrictions, so long as they are applied similarly to commercial construction, just increase sprawl and commute times, rather than driving up pricing. Any claim to the contrary demands evidence.
Wait ... what? You think that you get to make a claim and then demand that others provide evidence to prove you wrong?
Don't be a jackass.
Of course sprawl increases prices. Look at any major city. The closer you are to the center of it, the higher the prices. Those who don't want to commute for 4 hours every day will pay top dollar to be closer to work. Any claim to the contrary demands evidence!
You can live as a man or a woman or something else on that spectrum though, by altering your appearance and behaviour etc.
Yeah, right. You can live as black by growing dreadlocks and speaking Ebonics.
They were inherently more valuable. That's obviously changed in recent times.
Sure, that's a lot more reasonable.
Yes. Exactly.
Or more precisely, they decided that a failure at low altitude was outside the design scope, and so if it happens, the aircraft by definition cannot function as designed, because it was not designed function in that scenario. They didn't design it to kill everyone - if they did, then it would be functioning as designed. They just ignored the problem, knowing that was the likely outcome.
You say "yes exactly" and then go on to say (simplifying) "well actually no". Which is it?
Take another example - the planes which slammed into the WTC on 9/11. Were they functioning as intended?
My persoective: mechanically they seemed perfectly fine, so I would say yes.
Your perspective: Well they killed a fuckload of people, so you would say no. Except the expected failure mode of slamming into a building is that everyone dies, so you would say yes. Except nobody actually designed them to do that, they just kinda ignored the possibility, so you would say ... no?
Can you try to make up your own mind before trying to change mine?
However, they have proven that their design works, because they have landed their rocket on a pad before.
The fact that the design works has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this particular rocket worked as designed. Just like the fact that their emergency procedures worked has nothing to do with whether or not the rocket worked as designed. The rocket did NOT work as designed. That's why they had to land it in the water. If it had worked as designed it would have landed on the pad, and I wouldn't have ended up wasting thousands of words arguing with people who don't seem to understand that systems aren't designed with the goal of failing.
Who wants to hang out with granma and grandpa? Those fuckers might break a hip.
I know that the snowflakes have a reputation for being fragile, but I don't think they're THAT fragile ...
There's a reason takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight, and part of it is that low altitude failure tolerance mostly comes at a much higher cost(by price, weight, efficiency...) and is thus intentionally left out in favor of operating profits.
So, in other words, the intentional failure mode at low altitudes is for the plane to crash and kill everyone? I.e. that's the way it's designed? And when it fails and kills everyone, it was operating as designed?
You can design something to meet multiple requirements. Requirement 1: Rocket should be able to return to earth and land. Requirement 2: If unplanned events occur, rocket should crash into the ocean instead of the launch pad.
And you would say that a system which only meets some requirements due to mechanical failure is a system which worked as designed?
Cute. You must work in the Chinese automotive industry.