It's not PC but the problem is that most of the world has inferior cultures compared to the U.S. and Western Europe. In addition we are vastly outnumbered. There is no way to take in all of the people that need help and keep our culture. One of the reasons the U.S. was able to take in so many people in the 1800's was because we didn't have a welfare state and they were European and had similar cultures and ethics and we much more republican (as in the rule of law) and less democratic (as in rule of the majority) so having new voters didn't change the rules too much.
The most important thing is being there in the moment. Cell phones are fine for a couple of pictures or short videos but spend time actually experiencing life, not watching it through a 6" screen.
Lionfish are taking over reefs in Florida. Luckily they are easy to spear since they just stay still. They should also be an easy target for something like this.
Go see what it took in the old days to produce a TV show. The capital investment in cameras, editing equipment, lights, sound systems, etc was HUGE. You needed a large audience to make the economics work.
Today you can produce a decent quality show with a couple thousand dollars in equipment. So you can make money with a very small audience and you can have much more diverse subjects where as before when you had a huge audience you needed to appeal to everyone. There is nothing wrong with so many shows. The market is great at figuring out how many shows are needed.
Which version are you talking about? Catholics are very pro-sex. They want you to have lots of kids. It seems like liberal secularism is the death cult. With abortion, anti-children, and pro euthanasia. That why Western Europe is dying. It will be gone in a couple hundred years.
And civilization is based on keeping that under control. While sex may be fun it takes a mother and father to raise children properly. Data shows single parents are a very large risk for all sorts of bad outcomes for kids.
You and the other poster are correct. You would need 3 harpoons far enough apart to be able to kill the rotation. But you would have to do it very quick because if you are 100 km away and your harpoons are only 1 km apart that triangle is pretty steep.
It really depends on what the difference in velocity is. The AC's are correct that if you are in the same orbit then you don't get anything. But I think what is being suggested is you would be in different but intersecting orbits. Think of Spiderman shooting a web onto a moving bus or train.
Something that is questionable is you would still need a way to kill your angular momentum otherwise as you wind yourself down to land your angular velocity will increase.
An important part of creating a model is listing your assumptions. Hence the Physics jokes about spherical cows. An important part of science is figuring out of those assumptions are general.
So Newton's model of gravity was incorret because we have proved it doesn't work in certain circumstances. So far General Relativity (unless I'm mistaken) is the best model we have so far because we have not found evidence it's wrong yet.
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
The whole reason science in general works is because there are no leaders. Consensus means nothing. The only problem is that science can never discover the "Truth" (tm). The best it can do is come up with a model that has yet to be disproven. If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.
Right. Not sure what the right term is. The link text looked legit but if you looked at the link itself it was something else. Here is the link http://passwordtest.it-securit...
We had some idiot in our HR department of a US Government Agency with everyones personal information on their unencrypted laptop. Of course they left it in the back seat of their car and it was stolen. Nobody fired or demoted.
We also had our IT department send out an e-mail from a fake IP saying to follow a link to test the strength of your password. Something like 35% of the people fell for it.
Meanwhile I can't get the software I need to perform the work I am hired to do becaue I have so much crap running in the background of my machine that it's completely unstable.
We have the same thing in engineering. You can design mechanical or electrical systems using McMaster and Digikey and all off the shelf components just hooking them together. I consider it design not engineering, but it can be a cheap and fast way to get a job done. But it won't be optimal. Engineering is required to build custom parts and boards and prove it will work.
I'm a mechanical engineer but most technical people I know enjoy working if it's an important project and there is a plan to make it succeed. If you are working on something stupid forget it. If it's a great idea but no way to make it work (management, funding, politics) forget it as well.
I was put in a new project I thought was pretty cool. I spent 2 weeks doing an analysis which proved the optimal configuration based on the given requirements. I was told we are using the original less efficient configuration because it looks "innovative". I could hear the motivation leaving me.
It depends on the school of economics. The Austrian school makes no such assumption which is why it lacks specific predictive ability. It is based on how humans act which is basically they pick from what they perceive as the best choice of those they see as available at the time. What this doesn't allow is your judgement as to what is rational. If someone decides at a certain time smoking a bowl is preferable to going to work at that moment than that is what they do otherwise they would do something else. The problem with this is all choices are ordinal. Basically you can rank the choices based on what they did but you can't compare them to a non choice.
For example if someone went to the store and bought 4 apples for $2 all you can say is they preferred the apples to the $4 and time end effort to go to the store. You can draw no other conclusions.
But most economists hate this because it eliminates specific predictive power. For example you can predict that if the Fed creates a $1T and gives it to the banks there will be a bubble somewhere and a misallocation of resources into that bubble. But you have no clue where the bubble will be or when it will pop. The only conclusion you can reach is not to artificially create money in the first place and let the markets set interest rates and money supply.
The names are confusing you. El Niño causes more Pacific cyclones (both Eastern hurricanes and Western Typhoons). What happens in the Altamtic is just as many hurricanes are created near Africa but as they get near North America the strong winds either push them north or break up the storms so you have very few make landfall at hurricane strength.
I'm a Floridian so I'm always happy when El Niño is there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not PC but the problem is that most of the world has inferior cultures compared to the U.S. and Western Europe. In addition we are vastly outnumbered. There is no way to take in all of the people that need help and keep our culture. One of the reasons the U.S. was able to take in so many people in the 1800's was because we didn't have a welfare state and they were European and had similar cultures and ethics and we much more republican (as in the rule of law) and less democratic (as in rule of the majority) so having new voters didn't change the rules too much.
Exactly. Except for spearfishermen. Go to YouTube and look up spearfishing lionfish.
All of the ones I've speared are sitting pretty motionless above the reef. I'm sure they could move quick but they don't seem to.
The most important thing is being there in the moment. Cell phones are fine for a couple of pictures or short videos but spend time actually experiencing life, not watching it through a 6" screen.
Lionfish are taking over reefs in Florida. Luckily they are easy to spear since they just stay still. They should also be an easy target for something like this.
Go see what it took in the old days to produce a TV show. The capital investment in cameras, editing equipment, lights, sound systems, etc was HUGE. You needed a large audience to make the economics work.
Today you can produce a decent quality show with a couple thousand dollars in equipment. So you can make money with a very small audience and you can have much more diverse subjects where as before when you had a huge audience you needed to appeal to everyone. There is nothing wrong with so many shows. The market is great at figuring out how many shows are needed.
Why would I give her a pass?
Which version are you talking about? Catholics are very pro-sex. They want you to have lots of kids. It seems like liberal secularism is the death cult. With abortion, anti-children, and pro euthanasia. That why Western Europe is dying. It will be gone in a couple hundred years.
And civilization is based on keeping that under control. While sex may be fun it takes a mother and father to raise children properly. Data shows single parents are a very large risk for all sorts of bad outcomes for kids.
Yes. Continue promiscuous behavior and see what other diseases will evolve.
They can call it the teatherball landing.
True but I'd worry more about the high force causing the harpoon to pull out.
You and the other poster are correct. You would need 3 harpoons far enough apart to be able to kill the rotation. But you would have to do it very quick because if you are 100 km away and your harpoons are only 1 km apart that triangle is pretty steep.
I RTFA and this is the graphic I was referring to. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...
" after the resounding success of the Rosetta mission"
The lander completely failed to attach. The harpoon and ice screws both failed completely.
It really depends on what the difference in velocity is. The AC's are correct that if you are in the same orbit then you don't get anything. But I think what is being suggested is you would be in different but intersecting orbits. Think of Spiderman shooting a web onto a moving bus or train.
Something that is questionable is you would still need a way to kill your angular momentum otherwise as you wind yourself down to land your angular velocity will increase.
An important part of creating a model is listing your assumptions. Hence the Physics jokes about spherical cows. An important part of science is figuring out of those assumptions are general.
So Newton's model of gravity was incorret because we have proved it doesn't work in certain circumstances. So far General Relativity (unless I'm mistaken) is the best model we have so far because we have not found evidence it's wrong yet.
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
The whole reason science in general works is because there are no leaders. Consensus means nothing. The only problem is that science can never discover the "Truth" (tm). The best it can do is come up with a model that has yet to be disproven. If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.
Right. Not sure what the right term is. The link text looked legit but if you looked at the link itself it was something else. Here is the link
http://passwordtest.it-securit...
We had some idiot in our HR department of a US Government Agency with everyones personal information on their unencrypted laptop. Of course they left it in the back seat of their car and it was stolen. Nobody fired or demoted.
We also had our IT department send out an e-mail from a fake IP saying to follow a link to test the strength of your password. Something like 35% of the people fell for it.
Meanwhile I can't get the software I need to perform the work I am hired to do becaue I have so much crap running in the background of my machine that it's completely unstable.
We have the same thing in engineering. You can design mechanical or electrical systems using McMaster and Digikey and all off the shelf components just hooking them together. I consider it design not engineering, but it can be a cheap and fast way to get a job done. But it won't be optimal. Engineering is required to build custom parts and boards and prove it will work.
I'm a mechanical engineer but most technical people I know enjoy working if it's an important project and there is a plan to make it succeed. If you are working on something stupid forget it. If it's a great idea but no way to make it work (management, funding, politics) forget it as well.
I was put in a new project I thought was pretty cool. I spent 2 weeks doing an analysis which proved the optimal configuration based on the given requirements. I was told we are using the original less efficient configuration because it looks "innovative". I could hear the motivation leaving me.
It depends on the school of economics. The Austrian school makes no such assumption which is why it lacks specific predictive ability. It is based on how humans act which is basically they pick from what they perceive as the best choice of those they see as available at the time. What this doesn't allow is your judgement as to what is rational. If someone decides at a certain time smoking a bowl is preferable to going to work at that moment than that is what they do otherwise they would do something else. The problem with this is all choices are ordinal. Basically you can rank the choices based on what they did but you can't compare them to a non choice.
For example if someone went to the store and bought 4 apples for $2 all you can say is they preferred the apples to the $4 and time end effort to go to the store. You can draw no other conclusions.
But most economists hate this because it eliminates specific predictive power. For example you can predict that if the Fed creates a $1T and gives it to the banks there will be a bubble somewhere and a misallocation of resources into that bubble. But you have no clue where the bubble will be or when it will pop. The only conclusion you can reach is not to artificially create money in the first place and let the markets set interest rates and money supply.
The names are confusing you. El Niño causes more Pacific cyclones (both Eastern hurricanes and Western Typhoons). What happens in the Altamtic is just as many hurricanes are created near Africa but as they get near North America the strong winds either push them north or break up the storms so you have very few make landfall at hurricane strength.
I'm a Floridian so I'm always happy when El Niño is there.
This is exactly what would be expected from a record El Niño.