I think if that was true, all Carbon would long ago been sucked out of the air. Instead, there is a balance reached, and the carbon being pulled from the atmosphere is (of course) equal to the carbon being emitted into the atmosphere.
And if THAT were true, we could burn all the oil in existence without seriously shifting the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
As far as we know, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was much higher in the early stages of life. Emergent life filtered the CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequestering it inside their bodies and eventually buried it under ground in the form of oil, coal, etc. The result is less atmospheric CO2 today. On a longer time scale this would result in even less CO2 in the air. Your assumption that such a process would have led to zero CO2 content today is baseless - you can't make such an assumption without knowing the original atmospheric content and the rate of sequestration over time.
To be perfectly honest, I'm against biodegradable products in areas that demand environmental resistance. I'd hate to have a biodegradable roof, for example.
Not to bee too pedantic here, but your roof IS biodegradable. The roofs of most modern houses are made of wood. It's the nice non-biodegradable shingles which keep you dry.
Maybe you could post some links to these websites, since I've never seen any of this "weirdness" of which you speak. I've seen the plates we use take all sorts of different calibers from short and long range, without much difficulty. Just about the only way you're going to punch through them is with a.50 cal, or by putting a full clip through 'em at spitting distance. That's (one of the reasons) why the majority of our KIA are from IED's.
Ignore the troll:) You guys did a heck of a job in Lebanon. Glad to hear you never took a hit. I've got a high level of confidence in the armour, but it's always nice if you can turn it back in to the QM without a scratch on it.
But wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to work on a complete remotely controlled robot to replace a soldier?
If all you want to do is kill, then yeah, maybe. We don't have the technology for it, but in the long run you could probably pull it off. You'd lose a lot of situational awareness, and have various other issues to overcome, but it might be worthwhile anyway.
Thing is, such machines would be fairly useless in a conflict like the current wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. You can't send a robot to check on shop owners, play with kids, share cigarettes and gossip with the local soldiers/police, and sit in on tribal meetings. Somehow I can't see the locals inviting a robot in for tea.
You could use them to augment combat missions - they'd be GREAT for room-clearing - but you're still going to need real people for most of your other work. Which means you still need all that other junk to protect your people, so you're not saving any money.
And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.
Actually, the plates generally in use by NATO nations are designed to stop up to 3 hits from 7.62 rounds. Now, granted "designed to" doesn't mean they will, but if you're suggesting that the plate is useless after only one hit from a 5.56 round, then you're just plain wrong.
Has Conficker done anything malicious yet?... It may yet only be used for SETI@Home, Folding@Home, winning a decryption contest, or analyze other spam-producing bot nets to identify their controllers and get them shut do
Funny you should mention that... back when I was still protected by the young offenders act, I made a trojan which essentially did just that. Got 3,000+ computers on it - you should have seen the Seti@Home work units rolling in...
Thinking back on it, though, I agree with everyone else - just the act of installing it is malicious. Moreover, nobody does this kind of thing without also building in some malicious code. I never used my botnet for anything horrible, but I wrote it with functions which could have caused plenty of harm if I had chosen to use it, or if someone else had stolen control of it. Add to that the fact that THIS particular worm also disables security services, and there's absolutely no question that this software is malicious.
Maybe it's hypocritical of me to criticize them, but I'd like to think I've learned a few things about morality since I was a teenager. I'm certainly in favour of prosecuting them regardless of whether they intentionally use it to cause harm.
Imagine a distributed supercomputer two orders of magnitude larger than Roadrunner. Whoops, no imagination required. We already have it--and no one knows how hostile it is.
I still cannot fathom why people scramble to get the latest copy of a Windows OS way before it's really even declared "ready."
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but my reason is simple. I was avoiding Vista like the plague, until just recently I finally decided to install it for compatibility with some games. In order to minimize the performance hit, I used vLite to rip everything out of it that I possibly could, but I'm still seeing some issues that I don't like. Since Windows 7 is essentially a better-working version of Vista, and since I'm still unhappy with Vista, I'm looking to install it ASAP. I've got nothing to lose. Worst case scenario I'll just downgrade to XP again, which I've been considering ever since I installed Vista.
for people who are interested in topic and pseudo-prove it is vaccine what causes it, http://chetday.com/autismdiet.htm [chetday.com] this article could help you
Oh, sweet, an anecdotal story! That's SO much better than scientific studies or court ruling based on the testimony of thousands of experts and hundreds of published papers! Thank you so much, you've completely converted me!
Again I have to wonder how your theory answers the fact that TFA uses scare tactics.
Quite frankly, after reading through that part of the article, I think Mr. Osmek is just looking for an excuse to make things go boom. I can just imagine the conversation that preceded that:
Boss: So let me get this straight. You're going to use 500lbs of explosives, shells, whistlers, and assorted pyrotechnics per day, in order to keep birds away from the airport?
Osmek: Uh. Yeah! To keep birds away. That's right....
From 1999-2001, flights were cheap. Immediately after 9/11, the prices jumped up a notch, and have been climbing steadily ever since, with the biggest increase being 2008, where they were nearly double the 2007 prices.
Ok, well since the stats I looked at showed 2007 prices, it's quite possible that you're right. On the other hand, I've been hearing similar claims for many many years, so you'll pardon me if I remain skeptical until I get a chance to reference some non-anecdotal data.
Yeah, alright, it MIGHT lower the odds of a bird ingestion on takeoff, which is the worst time for it to happen. But for major airports there's really no such thing as "between flights", at least not on a timescale that would allow for screwing around with dogs. And it really doesn't solve the general problem; namely, bird ingestion in the airspace immediately adjacent to the airport. If you're going to make use of any animals, I'd stick with hawks.
And according to Wikipedia at least, a typical modern jet engine shunts dead bird parts through a bypass rather than through the engine.
Not quite. What they're talking about there is the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan.
People seem to assume that "the engine" is the entire thing you see hanging off the wing. Really, the engine is a fraction of the diameter of what you're seeing - a lot of the rest is plumbing and bypass ducts. The big fan you see on the front does the same job as a propeller, forcing large quantities of air back at relatively low speeds. On a large turbofan engine, the majority of that air will bypass the actual engine and get shunted out the back end. So depending on which part of the fan is hit, you could end up with bird parts going out with the bypass air instead of getting sucked into the engine. That way you just get damage to the fan, which is much safer and a relatively cheap fix. It's not really something that was designed to make bird-strikes less dangerous, though, it's just an inherent property of large turbofans. The bigger your bypass ratio, the more likely it is that the bird bypasses the engine.
Another low tech approach I've heard of: dogs. They chase the birds away. In between takeoffs and landings of course.
Um... no. Unless those crazy gene-mixing biologists have managed to create flying dogs (with friggin' lasers?), all you're going to do is chase the birds away from the ground - where they're unlikely to cause problems - into the air - where they're very likely to cause problems.
We do occasionally make use of falcons, though. Not sure how widespread the practice is, but it seems to work fairly well.
My VOIP phone works just fine during a power outage. Of course, I had my UPS up and running well before I bought a VOIP plan... but considering how cheap you can get them these days, there's really no excuse not to have one. The savings on my phone bill within the first six months were more than enough to pay for a low-end UPS.
Another thing government could be doing to balance the substantial subsidies air industries have enjoyed is divert some of those dollars to rail and R&D into quieter and more efficient aircraft.
We don't need government money for that - private industry has been doing it for a long, long time. Here's just one example:
Exactly. It's like the Walmart approach. You can go to a fancy store, get great customer service, be treated like a king... and pay out the nose for it. Or you can go rummage around in the bins at Walmart, get ignored by the staff, stand in line for 30 minutes, and save a bunch of cash. Walmart didn't make shopping worse, they just provided a lower-cost option for those whose primary concern is saving money. For those who care more about the experience rather than the price, there are still plenty of other options.
There's something really appalling about spending $1,500 for a round trip cattle car flight with no food that previously cost $200
Sorry gramps, but obviously flying on a modern airliner is going to be a bit more expensive than your pre-WW2 price of piloting a sopwith camel.
Seriously, though, the statistics don't bear out your complaints. Between 1990 and 2007, the per-mile price of airline travel has only increased about 10%-20%. The increase in fuel costs alone is enough to justify that, let alone inflation, increased security measures, etc. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just stating that your experience is not typical. Maybe your regular route(s) did see a massive price increase, but, if so, it must be due to unique factors affecting just those routes. Overall, prices haven't changed much.
Of course evolution is true, fucking read what I write before you answer my post.
Frankly, I'm wishing I hadn't read it in the first place, since it's added absolutely nothing to the discussion, and lead me to waste my time crafting a response to an ignorant and rude jackass who apparently has no interest in actual discourse.
What the hell are you talking about? There are no multiple truths for the same subject in science
To quote you: "fucking read what I write before you answer my post".
Basicly this says that we must stop treating evolution as a theory and instead embrace it as truth
That's not even CLOSE to what it says, but, even if it were, the two are not mutually exclusive. The are dozens of scientific theories which we treat as truth. Hell, most people still look at Newtonian physics as being true even though we know that they're not a true description of the physical reality. Scientific theories would be useless if we could never accept them as true. Considering that we currently have more evidence to confirm Evolutionary Theory than we do to back Gravitational Theory, it would be just plain silly to suggest that evolution be treated as some half-baked hypothesis (which is what statements like yours are usually designed to advocate).
Slashdot Mirror
And if THAT were true, we could burn all the oil in existence without seriously shifting the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
As far as we know, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was much higher in the early stages of life. Emergent life filtered the CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequestering it inside their bodies and eventually buried it under ground in the form of oil, coal, etc. The result is less atmospheric CO2 today. On a longer time scale this would result in even less CO2 in the air. Your assumption that such a process would have led to zero CO2 content today is baseless - you can't make such an assumption without knowing the original atmospheric content and the rate of sequestration over time.
Not to bee too pedantic here, but your roof IS biodegradable. The roofs of most modern houses are made of wood. It's the nice non-biodegradable shingles which keep you dry.
Maybe you could post some links to these websites, since I've never seen any of this "weirdness" of which you speak. I've seen the plates we use take all sorts of different calibers from short and long range, without much difficulty. Just about the only way you're going to punch through them is with a .50 cal, or by putting a full clip through 'em at spitting distance. That's (one of the reasons) why the majority of our KIA are from IED's.
Ignore the troll :) You guys did a heck of a job in Lebanon. Glad to hear you never took a hit. I've got a high level of confidence in the armour, but it's always nice if you can turn it back in to the QM without a scratch on it.
If all you want to do is kill, then yeah, maybe. We don't have the technology for it, but in the long run you could probably pull it off. You'd lose a lot of situational awareness, and have various other issues to overcome, but it might be worthwhile anyway.
Thing is, such machines would be fairly useless in a conflict like the current wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. You can't send a robot to check on shop owners, play with kids, share cigarettes and gossip with the local soldiers/police, and sit in on tribal meetings. Somehow I can't see the locals inviting a robot in for tea.
You could use them to augment combat missions - they'd be GREAT for room-clearing - but you're still going to need real people for most of your other work. Which means you still need all that other junk to protect your people, so you're not saving any money.
Actually, the plates generally in use by NATO nations are designed to stop up to 3 hits from 7.62 rounds. Now, granted "designed to" doesn't mean they will, but if you're suggesting that the plate is useless after only one hit from a 5.56 round, then you're just plain wrong.
Funny you should mention that ... back when I was still protected by the young offenders act, I made a trojan which essentially did just that. Got 3,000+ computers on it - you should have seen the Seti@Home work units rolling in ...
Thinking back on it, though, I agree with everyone else - just the act of installing it is malicious. Moreover, nobody does this kind of thing without also building in some malicious code. I never used my botnet for anything horrible, but I wrote it with functions which could have caused plenty of harm if I had chosen to use it, or if someone else had stolen control of it. Add to that the fact that THIS particular worm also disables security services, and there's absolutely no question that this software is malicious.
Maybe it's hypocritical of me to criticize them, but I'd like to think I've learned a few things about morality since I was a teenager. I'm certainly in favour of prosecuting them regardless of whether they intentionally use it to cause harm.
OMFG, IS SKEYE NET!!!
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but my reason is simple. I was avoiding Vista like the plague, until just recently I finally decided to install it for compatibility with some games. In order to minimize the performance hit, I used vLite to rip everything out of it that I possibly could, but I'm still seeing some issues that I don't like. Since Windows 7 is essentially a better-working version of Vista, and since I'm still unhappy with Vista, I'm looking to install it ASAP. I've got nothing to lose. Worst case scenario I'll just downgrade to XP again, which I've been considering ever since I installed Vista.
Oh, sweet, an anecdotal story! That's SO much better than scientific studies or court ruling based on the testimony of thousands of experts and hundreds of published papers! Thank you so much, you've completely converted me!
Mod parent "Troll", please.
Quite frankly, after reading through that part of the article, I think Mr. Osmek is just looking for an excuse to make things go boom. I can just imagine the conversation that preceded that:
Boss: So let me get this straight. You're going to use 500lbs of explosives, shells, whistlers, and assorted pyrotechnics per day, in order to keep birds away from the airport?
Osmek: Uh. Yeah! To keep birds away. That's right ....
Ok, well since the stats I looked at showed 2007 prices, it's quite possible that you're right. On the other hand, I've been hearing similar claims for many many years, so you'll pardon me if I remain skeptical until I get a chance to reference some non-anecdotal data.
Yeah, alright, it MIGHT lower the odds of a bird ingestion on takeoff, which is the worst time for it to happen. But for major airports there's really no such thing as "between flights", at least not on a timescale that would allow for screwing around with dogs. And it really doesn't solve the general problem; namely, bird ingestion in the airspace immediately adjacent to the airport. If you're going to make use of any animals, I'd stick with hawks.
You'd have a lot of dead pilots?
Not quite. What they're talking about there is the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan.
People seem to assume that "the engine" is the entire thing you see hanging off the wing. Really, the engine is a fraction of the diameter of what you're seeing - a lot of the rest is plumbing and bypass ducts. The big fan you see on the front does the same job as a propeller, forcing large quantities of air back at relatively low speeds. On a large turbofan engine, the majority of that air will bypass the actual engine and get shunted out the back end. So depending on which part of the fan is hit, you could end up with bird parts going out with the bypass air instead of getting sucked into the engine. That way you just get damage to the fan, which is much safer and a relatively cheap fix. It's not really something that was designed to make bird-strikes less dangerous, though, it's just an inherent property of large turbofans. The bigger your bypass ratio, the more likely it is that the bird bypasses the engine.
Um ... no. Unless those crazy gene-mixing biologists have managed to create flying dogs (with friggin' lasers?), all you're going to do is chase the birds away from the ground - where they're unlikely to cause problems - into the air - where they're very likely to cause problems.
We do occasionally make use of falcons, though. Not sure how widespread the practice is, but it seems to work fairly well.
My VOIP phone works just fine during a power outage. Of course, I had my UPS up and running well before I bought a VOIP plan ... but considering how cheap you can get them these days, there's really no excuse not to have one. The savings on my phone bill within the first six months were more than enough to pay for a low-end UPS.
We don't need government money for that - private industry has been doing it for a long, long time. Here's just one example:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5683480.ece
Exactly. It's like the Walmart approach. You can go to a fancy store, get great customer service, be treated like a king ... and pay out the nose for it. Or you can go rummage around in the bins at Walmart, get ignored by the staff, stand in line for 30 minutes, and save a bunch of cash. Walmart didn't make shopping worse, they just provided a lower-cost option for those whose primary concern is saving money. For those who care more about the experience rather than the price, there are still plenty of other options.
Sorry gramps, but obviously flying on a modern airliner is going to be a bit more expensive than your pre-WW2 price of piloting a sopwith camel.
Seriously, though, the statistics don't bear out your complaints. Between 1990 and 2007, the per-mile price of airline travel has only increased about 10%-20%. The increase in fuel costs alone is enough to justify that, let alone inflation, increased security measures, etc. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just stating that your experience is not typical. Maybe your regular route(s) did see a massive price increase, but, if so, it must be due to unique factors affecting just those routes. Overall, prices haven't changed much.
Frankly, I'm wishing I hadn't read it in the first place, since it's added absolutely nothing to the discussion, and lead me to waste my time crafting a response to an ignorant and rude jackass who apparently has no interest in actual discourse.
To quote you: "fucking read what I write before you answer my post".
That's not even CLOSE to what it says, but, even if it were, the two are not mutually exclusive. The are dozens of scientific theories which we treat as truth. Hell, most people still look at Newtonian physics as being true even though we know that they're not a true description of the physical reality. Scientific theories would be useless if we could never accept them as true. Considering that we currently have more evidence to confirm Evolutionary Theory than we do to back Gravitational Theory, it would be just plain silly to suggest that evolution be treated as some half-baked hypothesis (which is what statements like yours are usually designed to advocate).
Oh noes! Well, luckily 10^4 gives 10,000 combinations. Maybe you should get your bank to invest in better ATM keypads?
Yes, of many species. But if you feel that 7 billion is too many, feel free to kill yourself at any time.