Speaking as an Irishman, just because someone is called Pat Murphy does NOT make them Irish. Americans seem to have this weird fixation with what they feel to be their roots, even if no-one else thinks that it is relevant.
How does that work? They would have to sue the majority shareholders, not the company. That is the point of limited liability. The shares are the property of the shareholder and not the company.
10 killed over 17 years, out of a population of around 360,000.(Sedgwick county population figures, 1986 from Wikipedia)
So that would be 0.16 per 100,000 per year from him.
Your point is?
As you said, it's off topic but Magna Carta is no longer of much legal status. The only significant section left in the law in England is:
"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Any of them. IF the invention by the original inventor was abandoned OR it was suppressed OR it was concealed THEN a patent can be issued to a later "inventor"
Remember that you can have a cruel punishment as long as it is usual, and an unusual punishment as long as it is not cruel because the wording in the 8th amendment is cruel AND unusual.
It may be weird, but it's also remarkably common. About half the LCDs on Newegg are reported as showing 16m or 16.2m colors, rather than 16.7m (2^24).
Eh? How does that work?
If you lose just one bit of colour information, you go from 16.7 to 8.4 million colours. I think they must just be rounding or writing it down poorly.
You could use Electron Beam Welding from both sides.
Off the top of my head, 1 week to get the materials in, 3 weeks to make the forging, 6 weeks for all work on it, 2 weeks to test it, 1 week to ship it out would add up to 13 weeks, giving you 4 per year.
Well fortunately this nerd is a chemical engineer who is working on an advanced metallurgy project so you're in luck. Aluminium melts at a cooler temperature than steel so that would be even more likely to go.
Hydrazine is a liquid so it would not be stored under pressure. Given that there would be a 1 bar differential pressure maximum between the inside and the outside of the bottle in space before using any fuel, the tank would NOT need to be designed as a pressure vessel under PV codes. And if it was relieved with a valve or bursting disc, then there wouldn't be any left once it reached the ground anyway!
The temperature that an object travelling through the atmosphere reaches can be calculated using the Bernoulli equation. An LEO satellite is travelling approximately 7 km/s when in orbit. Let us work out how hot it would reach at that speed at sea level. For conservative purposes, we will disregard the additional speed it would pick up from conversion from potential energy.
Air impacting the surface of the satellite will be (from the satellite's reference frame) be decelerated from 7 km/s to 0. This is a kinetic energy change of (7000^2)/2 = 24 500 000 J/kg, or 24.5 MJ/kg. Air has a heat capacity of approximately 1 kJ / kg K. Therefore the front of the satellite will be exposed to a temperature of around 24 500 C, assuming 0 C air for simplicity.
If only 6% of the kinetic energy that the satellite had *before it started falling and moving faster* is absorbed by the satellite it would be sufficient to melt steel. Not to mention that any temperature rise will boil the hydrazine and probably burst the tank anyway.
I don't know what the inversion point is for hydrazine, but above a certain temperature, evaporative cooling becomes heating due to the weirdness that is the Joule Thompson effect. So I wouldn't rely on that either.
Why would there be anything else? Satellites are designed to stay in space. Any re-entry shielding would be extra weight and hence extra cost for launching, for no intentional purpose.
Believe me, if you travel outside of Europe, the US etc you will see what real problems are. I'm working in Trinidad and there were close to 400 murders last year in a population of 1.3 million. Police don't even bother appearing at all. A teenage girl disappeared about 2 months ago. The official police report was that she was a "bad girl" who had run off with an older man. They decided not to investigate.
Her body was found during a search by people from her village 2 days later, raped, strangled and her face had been eaten by vultures.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work in practice. While I can design the equipment to manufacture catalyst for oil refineries, I don't have the tens of millions of pounds needed to make even a small catalyst manufacturing plant. It has to be done by a company. And if they don't have the patent, what is there to protect the investment?
Ah, but if the foreign intelligence service decided to give info without a request, then it would be legal. By agreeing to share info in general terms, and not specifically mentioning which case, then there isn't the proximity required for it to be illegal evidence gathering.
And of course there is no way that law enforcement / intelligence types from different countries would discuss off the record what they want looked at, is there...
Has the illegal activity been proven in court? Because until then it should not be reported except to the police. What you have committed there is prima facie libel.
Sorry - I meant valid.
Here's one example of precedent.
Collins v Godefroy [1831] 1 BAd 950 is the archetype of cases where a duty imposed by law cannot be taken as Consideration to support a Contract.
Godefroy promised Collins six guineas if he would attend court to testify on his behalf. At his agreement, Collins was subpeonaed. Godefroy refused to pay. In his defence, he claimed that there was no consideration moving from Collins, as he was obliged to attend court anyway. This view was upheld by the court.
The CC licences are not contracts. The photographer does not receive any consideration from the user.
A contract must contain an offer, an acceptance, and an exchange of considerations.
More or less. I used to monitor the operations of the DuPont (now Invista) nylon Common Offgas Abatement Unit in the UK. See page 15 of http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/2000/pdf/section5.pdf for an overview. As part of the work, we got set annually decreasing emissions targets which we had to meet. If you emitted less than them, you could sell the difference as credits. If you missed the targets, you had to either buy credits to make up for the difference, or shut down for the rest of the year. And the targets would be pro rated to the actual production rate so you couldn't just slow down production.
By having a free market for the trading of credits, a company can buy them to hedge the cost of reducing pollution, or even make it a profit centre where the cost of emission reduction is less than the cost of credits, as you can then sell the difference. Even if the net cost of reduction is still positive for the company, this may help to make a reduction project economical for other reasons - pollution represents wasted energy and materials that would be better used productively.
Since starting emissions trading in Europe, the price of credits has fallen dramatically indicating that the scheme is more successful than expected - the price will at equilibrium be equal to the average cost of plant changes resulting in reducing pollution by the same amount. As the year-on-year targets get stricter, this shows that pollution reduction continues, as otherwise supply would dry up and demand would increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude - that's what he's saying. The legal consequences are for following a however admirable moral policy rather than the laws.
In that hypothetical case, then the terrorists are right and the government is wrong.
Hyopothetically.
Speaking as an Irishman, just because someone is called Pat Murphy does NOT make them Irish. Americans seem to have this weird fixation with what they feel to be their roots, even if no-one else thinks that it is relevant.
How does that work? They would have to sue the majority shareholders, not the company. That is the point of limited liability. The shares are the property of the shareholder and not the company.
10 killed over 17 years, out of a population of around 360,000.(Sedgwick county population figures, 1986 from Wikipedia) So that would be 0.16 per 100,000 per year from him. Your point is?
I just picked a well known "and" to show the difference from "or" in law.
I know it's poor form to quote wikipedia but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Cruel_and_unusual_punishments - a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be automatically unconstitutional.
As you said, it's off topic but Magna Carta is no longer of much legal status. The only significant section left in the law in England is:
"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Any of them. IF the invention by the original inventor was abandoned OR it was suppressed OR it was concealed THEN a patent can be issued to a later "inventor" Remember that you can have a cruel punishment as long as it is usual, and an unusual punishment as long as it is not cruel because the wording in the 8th amendment is cruel AND unusual.
If you lose just one bit of colour information, you go from 16.7 to 8.4 million colours. I think they must just be rounding or writing it down poorly.
No. We have used the short scale since the 60s. A billion is 1000 million.
You could use Electron Beam Welding from both sides. Off the top of my head, 1 week to get the materials in, 3 weeks to make the forging, 6 weeks for all work on it, 2 weeks to test it, 1 week to ship it out would add up to 13 weeks, giving you 4 per year.
Other than Nielsen?
Well fortunately this nerd is a chemical engineer who is working on an advanced metallurgy project so you're in luck. Aluminium melts at a cooler temperature than steel so that would be even more likely to go.
Hydrazine is a liquid so it would not be stored under pressure. Given that there would be a 1 bar differential pressure maximum between the inside and the outside of the bottle in space before using any fuel, the tank would NOT need to be designed as a pressure vessel under PV codes. And if it was relieved with a valve or bursting disc, then there wouldn't be any left once it reached the ground anyway!
The temperature that an object travelling through the atmosphere reaches can be calculated using the Bernoulli equation. An LEO satellite is travelling approximately 7 km/s when in orbit. Let us work out how hot it would reach at that speed at sea level. For conservative purposes, we will disregard the additional speed it would pick up from conversion from potential energy.
Air impacting the surface of the satellite will be (from the satellite's reference frame) be decelerated from 7 km/s to 0. This is a kinetic energy change of (7000^2)/2 = 24 500 000 J/kg, or 24.5 MJ/kg. Air has a heat capacity of approximately 1 kJ / kg K. Therefore the front of the satellite will be exposed to a temperature of around 24 500 C, assuming 0 C air for simplicity.
If only 6% of the kinetic energy that the satellite had *before it started falling and moving faster* is absorbed by the satellite it would be sufficient to melt steel. Not to mention that any temperature rise will boil the hydrazine and probably burst the tank anyway.
I don't know what the inversion point is for hydrazine, but above a certain temperature, evaporative cooling becomes heating due to the weirdness that is the Joule Thompson effect. So I wouldn't rely on that either.
Why would there be anything else? Satellites are designed to stay in space. Any re-entry shielding would be extra weight and hence extra cost for launching, for no intentional purpose.
Believe me, if you travel outside of Europe, the US etc you will see what real problems are. I'm working in Trinidad and there were close to 400 murders last year in a population of 1.3 million. Police don't even bother appearing at all. A teenage girl disappeared about 2 months ago. The official police report was that she was a "bad girl" who had run off with an older man. They decided not to investigate. Her body was found during a search by people from her village 2 days later, raped, strangled and her face had been eaten by vultures.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work in practice. While I can design the equipment to manufacture catalyst for oil refineries, I don't have the tens of millions of pounds needed to make even a small catalyst manufacturing plant. It has to be done by a company. And if they don't have the patent, what is there to protect the investment?
No.
E=1/2 mv^2
If 32 MJ fires a projectile at Mach 8, a 64 MJ rail gun would fire the same projectile at Mach 11.3.
To get 4 times the velocity, you need 16 times the energy. So you would need to discharge 512 MJ.
And this is neglecting air resistance.
Firing a projectile into space using a rail gun would be possible, but would need a larger energy source than you've assumed.
Right there at the top of google.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
http://www.ibs.org/niv/booklist.php
The majority in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. Reference: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html
Ah, but if the foreign intelligence service decided to give info without a request, then it would be legal. By agreeing to share info in general terms, and not specifically mentioning which case, then there isn't the proximity required for it to be illegal evidence gathering. And of course there is no way that law enforcement / intelligence types from different countries would discuss off the record what they want looked at, is there...
Has the illegal activity been proven in court? Because until then it should not be reported except to the police. What you have committed there is prima facie libel.
Sorry - I meant valid. Here's one example of precedent. Collins v Godefroy [1831] 1 BAd 950 is the archetype of cases where a duty imposed by law cannot be taken as Consideration to support a Contract. Godefroy promised Collins six guineas if he would attend court to testify on his behalf. At his agreement, Collins was subpeonaed. Godefroy refused to pay. In his defence, he claimed that there was no consideration moving from Collins, as he was obliged to attend court anyway. This view was upheld by the court.
Fulfilling an existing legal obligation is not adequate consideration in a contract.
The CC licences are not contracts. The photographer does not receive any consideration from the user. A contract must contain an offer, an acceptance, and an exchange of considerations.
Don't give the MPAA any more ideas, please.
More or less. I used to monitor the operations of the DuPont (now Invista) nylon Common Offgas Abatement Unit in the UK. See page 15 of http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/2000/pdf/section5.pdf for an overview. As part of the work, we got set annually decreasing emissions targets which we had to meet. If you emitted less than them, you could sell the difference as credits. If you missed the targets, you had to either buy credits to make up for the difference, or shut down for the rest of the year. And the targets would be pro rated to the actual production rate so you couldn't just slow down production.
By having a free market for the trading of credits, a company can buy them to hedge the cost of reducing pollution, or even make it a profit centre where the cost of emission reduction is less than the cost of credits, as you can then sell the difference. Even if the net cost of reduction is still positive for the company, this may help to make a reduction project economical for other reasons - pollution represents wasted energy and materials that would be better used productively.
Since starting emissions trading in Europe, the price of credits has fallen dramatically indicating that the scheme is more successful than expected - the price will at equilibrium be equal to the average cost of plant changes resulting in reducing pollution by the same amount. As the year-on-year targets get stricter, this shows that pollution reduction continues, as otherwise supply would dry up and demand would increase.