Re: Question to someone sciencey.
Who said anything about high pressure tanks? You only need to compress it enough to reduce buoyancy, which wouldn't take much pressure at all.
1624 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Who said anything about high pressure tanks? You only need to compress it enough to reduce buoyancy, which wouldn't take much pressure at all.
And powered by the reincarnation of a mongolian bicycle repair man named after a time monk.
@AC, Since they figured out that running away from the bullets and blockading calais tends to get positive results for the French.
One good example: They dropped out of the Eurofighter program early on and built their own Rafale instead. It came out lighter, more manoeuvrable, more versatile, capable of carrier service from the start, cheaper and was flying sooner - and they didn't have to faff around waiting for guns to arrive after the plane was officially in service.
They know their stuff, the French.
Bated. You only have baited breath if you're a cat who ate some cheese to attract the mice.
Algebra is an arabic word, but the mathematics it names come from India. As do our numbers. Arabs didn't invent these things (or the 0, before someone leaps in with that myth).
I'm getting very tired of all this cultural one-upmanship and willy waving going on these days. Mediaeval Europe wasn't a barbaric cesspit and the arabs weren't enlightened beings bringing science to the unwashed masses. Both sides advanced and retreated at different times and in different ways.
much boldy, very go, such space. wow.
Vince, are you seriously saying you want the government to start setting prices for these things? Think about who would have the most influence over that price? It won't be resellers or owners. It'll be members of FAST, and the only price they'll tolerate for second-hand licenses will be one so low that reselling is no longer viable. Preferably zero.
At the moment the market determines a price for second-hand licenses and the system works quite well.
I never understand this urge people have to say "there should be a law". It's like they don't realise who writes the damn things.
It's also worth mentioning that hydrogen is ridiculously reactive with just about anything you use to store it. Liquified, it only contains about a quarter of the energy by volume as petrol, and even to achieve that requires cryogenic cooling. Compression adds to the complexity and the danger, because now you have a cryogenic, highly reactive liquid stored at high pressure. It's pretty much just a bomb waiting to go off at that point.
And to top it off, hydrogen leaks through just about ever seal we can contrive.
The only way to store hydrogen effectively is to stabilise it in a compound. You can oxidise it and get water. Or you could pick some other element, something known to form stable bonds through a wide range of temperatures. Carbon, for instance.
Given these are all issues that need to be overcome anyway if we're ever to get a permanent presence off this rock, I don't quite understand your objection.
To me this highlights why we ultimately need people up there alongside the rovers. It takes days to figure out what this is due to the restricted view and restricted motion, whilst a chap standing there and looking directly at it could figure it out in moments.
Avoidance is not paying taxes that you aren't required to pay. What's unethical or immoral about that? Expecting people to fork over money they don't owe is what's immoral.
I like the way you tried to conflate evasion (illegal) and avoidance (entirely legal) as the same thing.
I've had one running for two years now and it wasn't that difficult to set up. Nightmare? Maybe if you're scared of text...
They do. In fact you've been able to set up your own private sync server since 2010.
It happens. I have more than my fair share of those moments. :)
Except html or xhtml markup like iframe has never been camel-cased. It is always written as iframe (or IFRAME if you want to shout about it), and in XHTML 1.0 onward, a requirement for case sensitivity of markup tags means that iFrame and iframe are different tags. Convention prior to that was for tags to be rendered in a single case for the sake of clarity.
So no, I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. This is in fact a lot to do with Apple, or more accurately to do with people automatically emulating the Apple iThing style in situations where it has no business appearing.
One detail missing: do you have to turn on USB debugging before you can compromise the device by connecting it to a computer?
You mean who had the idea of selling their own products in their own stores?
Random example: Greggs. They make their own pastries. You can't buy them anywhere other than at a Greggs bakery. Sure it's not exactly high tech, but it's the same essential model.
The idea of product-exclusive retailers owned by the company that makes the product is about as old as the idea of, well, the entire retail industry.
You're forgetting how the EU works.
This won't be funded by the Member States through ENLETS or through another EU institution. Instead the EU will issue a series of memorandums and guidelines on the harmonisation of technological measures for law enforcement and encourage reciprocity between member states on the sharing of technology and information, as well as encouraging cross-border cooperation on such matters. Member states will start implementing their own schemes to work toward a common operating procedure and common technological solutions to the problem outlined - without a single, EU-wide budget.
Eventually the EU will start to issue regulatory and technical directives (which are not debated or voted on in national legislatures, but implemented directly into law) on key areas of the scheme in order to further harmonise and standardise the technology and procedures involved. Then it will issue a final set of directives on the broad scope of the scheme, at which point there will be a de-facto EU-wide traffic law enforcement system that is nominally run by local police forces, but is in fact almost entirely divorced from them.
And so it goes.
Meanwhile, ENLETS will get a small budget increase and continue to write memos.
I had my red pen out to correct you when I realised what you meant.
I'll just... be over there.
I do seem to like to use the word broadly a lot...
Left wing and right wing aren't the issue here. The problem is how statist they are. Obama is very definitely left-wing in his politics - even by European standards, or certainly by UK standards, his political goals are left-wing. However, he is also extremely authoritarian - something people like you interpret as "right wing", even though strong right-wingers would never, to pick a random example, countenance a nationalised healthcare system of any sort.
Bush, Bush, Clinton and Barry are all statists. Thatcher was quite heavily statist in certain areas, less-so in others - but still overall statist. So was Reagan, by and large, in deeds if not words. Almost every western leader since the end of world war 2 has been broadly statist - they have broadly favoured stronger government control over things. The difference has only been which "things" they want to control. Broadly speaking, Thatcher, Reagan and Bush - right-wingers - wanted more government control over individual "vices" and moral activity. Obama, Clinton and Blair - left-wingers - wanted more government control over economic and "social" activity.
They all wanted more control over _something_.
You can play the left-wing right-wing game all you want but it won't solve the problem as long as we keep placing people who want _more control_ in charge of us. You may believe that because they want to take more control over the things _you_ think should be controlled, that makes them "good" and the others "bad" - but they never stop at your personal limits. They always want _more_ control, and they will always take it. Always.
That's all because the United States wasn't designed to have a large, centralised federal government. Under the constitution the fed was meant to be as small as possible - ensuring the common border and national defence, and preventing individual states from taking belligerent acts against one another - and the state governments held most of the power. The system worked very well for quite a long time, but once power started to be pulled to the federal government, it began to fail.
Sounds like Symbian...
You're correct that we don't have a document called "The Constitution", but you aren't correct that we don't have a constitution. A constitution is simply that which constitutes a thing - and we have that in spades. We have the founding documents of the modern United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Bill of Rights and a few other bits and pieces of legislation and treaty, and accompanying that we have legal precedent as set by the courts over about a thousand years.
Together the form our constitution - they constitute the legal foundation of Parliament and grant its authority to govern by the will of the people.
Up until about seventy years ago it was common for people of a certain sort to discuss British constitutional issues. Knowledge of the constitution of our nation was taught widely and in rather great depth. Not any more. The lack of knowledge of our constitution allows the current governments to sweep away huge swathes of our ancient liberties without even bothering to convince us why, and people aren't able to properly protest because they've accepted the idea that we have no constitutional body of law defining the limits of Parliament's power, and outlining the source of that power.
On top of that: courts can and do overturn legislation all the time. Our legal system rests on the assumption that the courts have the authority to overturn legislation that is unjust, or goes against the rights of the people, or when a precedent exists to contradict the legislation in place. The courts used to limit the power of the legislature rather nicely by this mechanism.
Where do you think the Americans got the idea in the first place?
Engage your critical thinking for a moment.
First: would they release an image with such a fundamental mistake if they were faking it?
second: the LEM had this great big firework strapped to the bottom; it blew away a lot of the regolith and revealed the darker material beneath as it touched down.
Even if you're joking about this: shut up! I am sick to death with people coming up with all this conspiracy bullshit about the moon landings. it's as if you can't bring yourself to accept that we as a species are capable of achieving anything of note.
A bin-lid over a crater isn't a missile shield.
Could be a christmas pudding. Plenty of proof in one of those.
True. Should be "received several electric shocks" as electrocution is what happens when you die from a shock.
Speaking as one who has had qiite a few shocks in my career, they're not all that much fun even when you don't get electrocuted.
Perhaps he's been trying to install it on a dead badger?
Optimus I haven't used, but a quick investigation reveals that it has issues with particular fairly uncommon hardware configurations.
The rest, I have. Printers work fine, sound works fine, battery life is the edge case due to a pile of "undocumented features" and "optimisations" laptop manufacturers build into their power management systems - without providing references or drivers for linux.
So edge case, lie, lie, edge case.
Oh cram it up your arse, AC. Everything you've just stated is edge-case at best, or a complete and utter lie at worst.
Notice I made no comment on the "goodness" of the pledge; just that the perception of its political alignment has changed.
Want to know a funny thing?
The pledge of allegiance, veneration of the flag and "the republic" as unitary entity all date from the end of the 19th century and were originally introduced by christian socialists, who wanted to break the bond between the states and their citizens in order to craft the perception of the USA as a unitary nation. At the time, US citizens identified themselves by their state, the state government was their primary means of representation, and the federal government was still a remote thing with little impact on their lives.
It's amusing that what was once a very left-wing project is now taken as a very right-wing ideal.
This before or after they hatched the nuke?
I think you may need to think for a moment before describing Tony as "dumb", chum. He wrote the article. The headline and strap are most likely written by a subeditor, likely some malnourished intern locked in a basement without any natural light.
Besides, ad hominem is hardly an effective argument technique.
"your argument is stupid"
One of these is a valid criticism. The other is just rude.
The original spelling was Cnut.
You figure it out. :)
Of course it's utter bollocks. I've seen this same anon on any article about linux, either posting obnoxious twattery claiming that linux has some number of orders of magnitude more security holes than windows (which is apparently so secure that the NSA cries its collective self to sleep at night worrying about to crack it) or just claiming flat out that linux is insecure because... well they never actually say why.
And it is always the same anon. You can tell by the writing style and the copy-pasting of bullshit statistics.
No, the law works on the basis that a criminal conviction must be evidenced _beyond reasonable doubt_. You are talking about suspicion: your fellow with a balaclava might be arrested for suspicion of intent to commit burglary, but unless they can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then he gets away scot free.
Was he seen in the commission of a crime? Did he confess intent to commit a crime? Without that all they have is circumstantial evidence and suspicion, and frankly that doesn't amount to much.
With this lass, they suspect she had them turned on. Can they prove it? If they can prove beyond doubt she was distracted then that's one thing, but if there is ANY doubt at all, if she can demonstrate that the glasses were turned off or even demonstrate that the officers in question couldn't tell if they were turned on, then she wins. A criminal sentence would be overturned on appeal faster than you can say "unsafe conviction".
You're so adorable.
You mean rifles, surely? An automatic rifle and a "machine gun" are very different classes of weapon. The infantry carry rifles (M16A1 for the US, LA85 SA80 for the UK). There might be the odd shotgun floating around, and the odd 50cal if they want to make a real mess, but the majority will be carrying rifles and enough ammo to deal with most situations.
What they won't be carrying is a bloody heavy lump of metal designed to make people feel manly.
And all this talk about the military rebuilding their weapons with CNC machines? Please. They would order a half-million custom units, not buy stock and rebuild it. Nor would they order a pistol that didn't use 9mm NATO.
And the British Army don't fly jets. That's the RAF's job, and they have the sense to order them with the right engines to begin with.
I'm starting to think you don't actually know what you're talking about.
The universe is also (in one model) currently thought to be the surface of a four-dimensional sphere, which would mean there's technically no middle and no edge to it in three dimensions. It might also be the surface of a four-dimensional torus. I'm not sure what difference that makes...
A "regional assembly" that would have added nothing except another layer of bureaucracy, justified the removal of yet more power from the local councils, and been funded entirely from whitehall, thus making it entirely beholden to the national government anyway. Disenfranchising the people and stealing more power to the centre of the state does not make a more independent or representative government.
He's using Debian from which, I assume you're aware, Ubuntu is derived and from which it inherits apt. The mere fact that apt is used does not signify that he's using ubuntu - which is not even supported on the pi, nor is any build available from canonical.
Hot air? That's no good. Once all the excitement is done with and the politico has gone home the tyre will collapse faster than politician's promise in the face of cold reality.
I always expect mine to blow up - and I'm never disappointed!
The one with Jeb Kerman sewn into the collar please...
I've sung the praises of the asus transformer range before now. Bloody marvelous idea.
Much as I would want to support a study that pushes back against the whole "games are evil! think of the children!" mantra, there are two words in this article that destroy the validity of the whole affair.
A data dredge, in other words. Pile a bunch of studies into a pot and then slice it up with bullshit statistics and ludicrous probability thresholds until you get the result you want.
If the rest of your network is GigE then you will be fine using this as an endpoint for media viewing. My raspberry pi is only 10/100 and it can stream very heavy full HD movies just fine.