See, your anecdote shows the problem with using the correct pronunciations: No one else knows what YOU are talking about.
Everytime I order a hefeweizen and pronounce it correctly, it takes American waitresses at least one "Huh?" before they understand that I meant one o' them heffy-whitezens.
I once set up a WPA-locked wi-fi with an SSID of "Call5555550000ForThePassword", just so I could have a physical link to other person or persons (or at least independently-operating groups of people) that wanted to use my wireless.
It was only operational for two months in a college apartment-type place over a summer, but I did get one call!
'The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively,'
Since when is "aggressive behavior" a bad thing? When did America go from encouraging the sort of aggressiveness and "seize the day by the short and curlies" ballsiness that made America great to insisting that it's a bad thing and must be suppressed?
We need more aggression! In the business world, aggression is rewarded. In sports, aggression is rewarded. In life, aggression will take you far. Quit emasculating America's youth and let them learn to live!
Or, you know, build a large heat engine using this heat to produce electricity at 67+% efficiency. I really don't see why we're so in to wasting energy around here...
The other big reason ethanol is impractical everywhere is that its lower heating value is less than half that of gasoline. Translation: You have to burn at least twice as much (by weight; more than that by volume) to get the same energy output. Considering the carbon content of a kg of ethanol vs. that of a kg of gasoline, there's absolutely no reason to support such a terrible stopgap. Get on board with gas-electric hybrids, all-electrics, small light diesels (efficiency, go!), and fast-breeder nuclear plants to reduce emissions, please.
This is similar to when Israeli soldiers were given Ruger.22LR rifles and told to aim for the legs of protest leaders and riot-inciters and such. The idea that the guns were for "non-lethal" suppression fire got into their heads and several of them started taking head shots with them.
I really tried to enjoy Future Weapons the first time I saw it, but the sensationalist, over-the-top, exaggerative manner in which EVERYTHING is presented and the supermegaultra dramatic voice that Machowicz uses for, uh, Every Single Line In The Show ("And now... I'm about to... go... to... the bathroom." Jesus.) precludes me even being able to stand being in the same room as a television with it on. Way to misrepresent even MORE sci/tech to the general populace, guys. They were almost starting to feel like they understood something. You sure helped them out by confusing them further.
Ethanol is a stopgap measure at best. Its HHV and LHV values are much too low for it to be seriously considered as a gasoline replacement and the production of enough etahnol to dent the gasoline market is almost completely unachievable and is most certainly not sustainable; the continual crops of corn/sugarcane will drain the soil of all of the nutrients necessary to allow good crops of corn/sugarcane to grow in that area. Not even Brazil and America together, if we converted all of our farmland to producing nothing by corn or sugarcane, could produce enough ethanol to wean us off of gasoline.
High-efficiency Diesel cycle engines are a much more realistic improvement to look for until tru electrics are fully developed. The infrastructure for fuel delivery is already there (hell of a lot more fueling stations with diesel than ethanol) and the increases in efficiency, especially during city driving (stop-and-go) due to the fuel-throttled nature of the Diesel cycle, are definitely worth the switch. Honda intends to release a Diesel version of its Accord next year. Keep an eye out.
Combined cycle gas turbine/steam engines running from a nuclear reactor and a fossil fuel ignition chamber. Cleaner, more efficient (like, almost 70% in some cases), cheap once implemented, low waste heat output (thermal pollution).
Reducing barrel-bullet friction would really only reduce wear on the barrels of high volume-of-fire weapons (crew-served, HMGs, SAWs). It wouldn't significantly aid in penetration or increase tissue trauma and in fact might reduce actual tissue damage.
If you want a low-friction, high penetration projectile, try a saboted depleted uranium.50 BMG penetrator round. We've already got those and this Casimir tech would not, I believe, ever become cost effective for use in such an application.
If the hijackers of 9/11 hadn't changed the paradigm for airplane hijackings so radically, 9/11 would never have happened.
Nowadays when someone starts some shit on a plane (have you not noticed this in the new lately?), everyone around them gets up and starts wailing on them with whatever happens to be near to hand! Pre-9/11, the usual order of things was "sit tight, land 'er, appease the criminals, get you guys off the plane, then send SWAT in to pop the 'jackers in the forehead." Now, the paradigm is, "Beat that fucker to a pulp, by God, this is America!"
I personally would be satisfied with just being allowed to carry my does-not-count-as-a-weapon-in-any-state-I-know-of 3.5" bladed sidelock pocketknife.
Mach number, it turns out is really only a function of the k value of the gas you're talking about (1.4 for air), the R value of that gas (.287 kJ/(kg*K) for air, again), and the temperature at that point. c = sqrt(kRT). So, since M = v/c, M=1 is v=c=sqrt(kRT). All you need to know is what temperature the Martian proto-atmosphere is out towards the edge and the makeup thereof.
Assuming Nitrogen and around 100K (really cold, just cause it is space), c= sqrt(1.4*290*100) = 201.5 m/s or 661 fps, approximately 60% what it is generally considered to be under normal Earth conditions. The lower c does NOT, however, mean you can ignore such things as normal shocks standing in the nozzle of a turbojet, or oblique shocks coming off of the nose of a lander. It just means all of those gnarly supersonic effects happen at a lower physical velocity.
Hit my keyboard's start button, start typing the name of an application and hit enter to launch the app.
For Windows XP, use Launchy. It's free, it's open source, it works. The standard shortcut is Alt-Space instead of the Windows key, but Launchy doesn't just do apps, it'll open folders for you, too. Oh, and it's skinable.
Yes, this scenario is theoretically plausible. However, as all concealed carry permit holders are made well aware by the training videos and tests they must watch and take, you may draw a weapon in defense of your own life or property etc. and you're going to be just fine. The phrase used as far as justified shootings go is "...as the situation reasonably appeared to you at the time". If the situation reasonably appeared to justify lethal force at the time, you're good to go. IF HOWEVER you are defending someone else's life/property/etc. the language used is "...as the situation actually was". You can't presume anyone is a good guy or a bad guy, because if you guess wrong, you're guilty of wanton endangerment up to murder depending on what happens.
Like I said, CCDW holders know this and therefore would most certainly NOT attempt to get involved until they could fully assess the situation. No one wants to be charged with recklessly brandishing a firearm (esp. since they'll take your CCDW away for that!).
Oh, and, by the way, every police officer I have ever met (and that's quite a few, thank you) has been in favor of issuing CCDW licenses to private citizens that meet very minimal requirements. They find that it reduces crime and makes their lives easier.
why is the world free to copy one but not the other?
Patents were only ever intended to encourage innovation by individuals. It was never intended to protect companies for long periods of time. A patent was to allow an inventor sole rights to the production and sale of a unique invention (like, an actual, honest-to-God device) to provide financial incentive to invent and to provide a way to stop the ludicrous trade secret nonsense that was leading to lost productivity and even lost knowledge. With a patent on some (actual) thing, you had published the schematics in a way that allowed review and archiving of the idea and implementation without surrendering competitive advantage.
That was why patents didn't used to last for decades+. The patent system was only supposed to provide an incentive for new inventions, not to encourage you to come up with one good idea and then kick back and enjoy the royalties for the rest of your years. You had a lock to begin with, then the market got ahold of your idea and competition was free to improve upon it while, theoretically, you were already working on the next big thing.
That said, if you come up with a neat implementation of some algorithm, sure, I believe you should be able to patent (or perhaps copyright...) the unique implementation thereof, i.e. if you can find someone making an (literally) exact copy of your code, you may claim infringement. But you can't sue someone for using the same idea to do something different or for using a trivially small portion of your code: an iterative if-then loop, a fairly standard call function, etc. Only large, original, blatantly ripped-off portions would be grounds for suit. Similar to the way the author of a book may not sue for the word "the" or the phrase "She gasped," or anything of that nature. Only something like, "Hiro watched the large, radioactive, spear-wielding drug lord ride his motorcycle into Chinatown." would be something upon which one might be able to call foul. And even then, there's fair use!
All that said, there's no really easy solution. [/rambling]
The appearance and motion of the plume is remarkably similar to an ornamental fountain on Earth, replicated on a gigantic scale.
Or perhaps more interestingly arranged: "The appearance and motion of an ornamental fountain on Earth is remarkably similar to the ash plume of an enormous volcano in a low-atmosphere environment, replicated on a terrestrial scale."
(NOTE: Not an Apple shill; owns no Apple products)
Apple's working on it. One of their latest iMac concepts included a screen that was completely clear when off and semi-translucent when in use. There was a Slashdot post about it, IIRC.
Slashdot Mirror
See, your anecdote shows the problem with using the correct pronunciations: No one else knows what YOU are talking about.
Everytime I order a hefeweizen and pronounce it correctly, it takes American waitresses at least one "Huh?" before they understand that I meant one o' them heffy-whitezens.
I once set up a WPA-locked wi-fi with an SSID of "Call5555550000ForThePassword", just so I could have a physical link to other person or persons (or at least independently-operating groups of people) that wanted to use my wireless.
It was only operational for two months in a college apartment-type place over a summer, but I did get one call!
Go wikipedia Stellite and Hastelloy. Unobtanium isn't anymore.
Since when is "aggressive behavior" a bad thing? When did America go from encouraging the sort of aggressiveness and "seize the day by the short and curlies" ballsiness that made America great to insisting that it's a bad thing and must be suppressed?
We need more aggression! In the business world, aggression is rewarded. In sports, aggression is rewarded. In life, aggression will take you far. Quit emasculating America's youth and let them learn to live!
Or, you know, build a large heat engine using this heat to produce electricity at 67+% efficiency. I really don't see why we're so in to wasting energy around here...
No no no, when the flood was over and there wasn't anything to eat, God commanded the Christians to eat the dinosaurs because they were so tasty!
Geez, what are they teaching you kids in Sunday school...
The other big reason ethanol is impractical everywhere is that its lower heating value is less than half that of gasoline. Translation: You have to burn at least twice as much (by weight; more than that by volume) to get the same energy output. Considering the carbon content of a kg of ethanol vs. that of a kg of gasoline, there's absolutely no reason to support such a terrible stopgap. Get on board with gas-electric hybrids, all-electrics, small light diesels (efficiency, go!), and fast-breeder nuclear plants to reduce emissions, please.
This is similar to when Israeli soldiers were given Ruger .22LR rifles and told to aim for the legs of protest leaders and riot-inciters and such. The idea that the guns were for "non-lethal" suppression fire got into their heads and several of them started taking head shots with them.
I really tried to enjoy Future Weapons the first time I saw it, but the sensationalist, over-the-top, exaggerative manner in which EVERYTHING is presented and the supermegaultra dramatic voice that Machowicz uses for, uh, Every Single Line In The Show ("And now... I'm about to... go... to... the bathroom." Jesus.) precludes me even being able to stand being in the same room as a television with it on. Way to misrepresent even MORE sci/tech to the general populace, guys. They were almost starting to feel like they understood something. You sure helped them out by confusing them further.
is the Answer! Mathematical proofs of lower regret index scores and essays on why RV will save us all Here.
Vote Ron Paul 2008.
Ethanol is a stopgap measure at best. Its HHV and LHV values are much too low for it to be seriously considered as a gasoline replacement and the production of enough etahnol to dent the gasoline market is almost completely unachievable and is most certainly not sustainable; the continual crops of corn/sugarcane will drain the soil of all of the nutrients necessary to allow good crops of corn/sugarcane to grow in that area. Not even Brazil and America together, if we converted all of our farmland to producing nothing by corn or sugarcane, could produce enough ethanol to wean us off of gasoline.
High-efficiency Diesel cycle engines are a much more realistic improvement to look for until tru electrics are fully developed. The infrastructure for fuel delivery is already there (hell of a lot more fueling stations with diesel than ethanol) and the increases in efficiency, especially during city driving (stop-and-go) due to the fuel-throttled nature of the Diesel cycle, are definitely worth the switch. Honda intends to release a Diesel version of its Accord next year. Keep an eye out.
Combined cycle gas turbine/steam engines running from a nuclear reactor and a fossil fuel ignition chamber. Cleaner, more efficient (like, almost 70% in some cases), cheap once implemented, low waste heat output (thermal pollution).
No feeding the trolls, etc, etc. but I have to...
.50 BMG penetrator round. We've already got those and this Casimir tech would not, I believe, ever become cost effective for use in such an application.
Reducing barrel-bullet friction would really only reduce wear on the barrels of high volume-of-fire weapons (crew-served, HMGs, SAWs). It wouldn't significantly aid in penetration or increase tissue trauma and in fact might reduce actual tissue damage.
If you want a low-friction, high penetration projectile, try a saboted depleted uranium
If the hijackers of 9/11 hadn't changed the paradigm for airplane hijackings so radically, 9/11 would never have happened.
Nowadays when someone starts some shit on a plane (have you not noticed this in the new lately?), everyone around them gets up and starts wailing on them with whatever happens to be near to hand! Pre-9/11, the usual order of things was "sit tight, land 'er, appease the criminals, get you guys off the plane, then send SWAT in to pop the 'jackers in the forehead." Now, the paradigm is, "Beat that fucker to a pulp, by God, this is America!"
I personally would be satisfied with just being allowed to carry my does-not-count-as-a-weapon-in-any-state-I-know-of 3.5" bladed sidelock pocketknife.
Mach number, it turns out is really only a function of the k value of the gas you're talking about (1.4 for air), the R value of that gas (.287 kJ/(kg*K) for air, again), and the temperature at that point. c = sqrt(kRT). So, since M = v/c, M=1 is v=c=sqrt(kRT). All you need to know is what temperature the Martian proto-atmosphere is out towards the edge and the makeup thereof.
Assuming Nitrogen and around 100K (really cold, just cause it is space), c= sqrt(1.4*290*100) = 201.5 m/s or 661 fps, approximately 60% what it is generally considered to be under normal Earth conditions. The lower c does NOT, however, mean you can ignore such things as normal shocks standing in the nozzle of a turbojet, or oblique shocks coming off of the nose of a lander. It just means all of those gnarly supersonic effects happen at a lower physical velocity.
Which is why you should actually instead be supporting the GOA.
For Windows XP, use Launchy. It's free, it's open source, it works. The standard shortcut is Alt-Space instead of the Windows key, but Launchy doesn't just do apps, it'll open folders for you, too. Oh, and it's skinable.
Ever read Starship Troopers? Floggings sounds like a fantastic idea!
Yes, this scenario is theoretically plausible. However, as all concealed carry permit holders are made well aware by the training videos and tests they must watch and take, you may draw a weapon in defense of your own life or property etc. and you're going to be just fine. The phrase used as far as justified shootings go is "...as the situation reasonably appeared to you at the time". If the situation reasonably appeared to justify lethal force at the time, you're good to go. IF HOWEVER you are defending someone else's life/property/etc. the language used is "...as the situation actually was". You can't presume anyone is a good guy or a bad guy, because if you guess wrong, you're guilty of wanton endangerment up to murder depending on what happens.
Like I said, CCDW holders know this and therefore would most certainly NOT attempt to get involved until they could fully assess the situation. No one wants to be charged with recklessly brandishing a firearm (esp. since they'll take your CCDW away for that!).
Oh, and, by the way, every police officer I have ever met (and that's quite a few, thank you) has been in favor of issuing CCDW licenses to private citizens that meet very minimal requirements. They find that it reduces crime and makes their lives easier.
Patents were only ever intended to encourage innovation by individuals. It was never intended to protect companies for long periods of time. A patent was to allow an inventor sole rights to the production and sale of a unique invention (like, an actual, honest-to-God device) to provide financial incentive to invent and to provide a way to stop the ludicrous trade secret nonsense that was leading to lost productivity and even lost knowledge. With a patent on some (actual) thing, you had published the schematics in a way that allowed review and archiving of the idea and implementation without surrendering competitive advantage.
That was why patents didn't used to last for decades+. The patent system was only supposed to provide an incentive for new inventions, not to encourage you to come up with one good idea and then kick back and enjoy the royalties for the rest of your years. You had a lock to begin with, then the market got ahold of your idea and competition was free to improve upon it while, theoretically, you were already working on the next big thing.
That said, if you come up with a neat implementation of some algorithm, sure, I believe you should be able to patent (or perhaps copyright...) the unique implementation thereof, i.e. if you can find someone making an (literally) exact copy of your code, you may claim infringement. But you can't sue someone for using the same idea to do something different or for using a trivially small portion of your code: an iterative if-then loop, a fairly standard call function, etc. Only large, original, blatantly ripped-off portions would be grounds for suit. Similar to the way the author of a book may not sue for the word "the" or the phrase "She gasped," or anything of that nature. Only something like, "Hiro watched the large, radioactive, spear-wielding drug lord ride his motorcycle into Chinatown." would be something upon which one might be able to call foul. And even then, there's fair use!
All that said, there's no really easy solution. [/rambling]
Or perhaps more interestingly arranged: "The appearance and motion of an ornamental fountain on Earth is remarkably similar to the ash plume of an enormous volcano in a low-atmosphere environment, replicated on a terrestrial scale."
The War on Content?
And that, my friends, is what concealed carry is all about.
(NOTE: Not an Apple shill; owns no Apple products)
- future-imac-pictures-transparent-screen-and-keyboa rd/
Apple's working on it. One of their latest iMac concepts included a screen that was completely clear when off and semi-translucent when in use. There was a Slashdot post about it, IIRC.
Right, here we go: http://ibloggedthis.com/2006/08/09/a-concept-of-a
Enjoy.