I can potentially see (via thought experiment) a difference between gravity and inertial mass...

Picture two identical hypothetical objects, each a mile long with identical large masses at the end of a thin support rod.

Place one on the Earth with the mass resting on the thin support rod, one mile from the surface.

Place the other similarly on the nose of a 'space ship' accelerating at exactly one gravity.

The mass leading the spaceship by a mile will experience exactly one gravity while the one spaced a mile above the Earth (a one gravity reference) will experience LESS than one gravity due to it's distance from the gravity source.

Don't like the small difference? Make the rods 10 miles or 100 miles long. At each increase the gravity effects on the Earth reference device will be reduced more due to distance from the source, while the apparent gravity experienced by the space ship based device will still be the exact same 1G.

Now step back from this and realize that it means that the effect of gravity, such as from the Earth's mass, is different for each part of ANY other mass, depending on its distance from the source, while the effect is IDENTICAL for each part of any mass experiencing "pseudo" gravity due to constant acceleration, no matter where located.

It would make more sense in pictures, and even more in mathematical terms, but I am not even going to try. I quit doing that sort of stuff 30 or 40 years ago.

Maybe someone can bother to rough it out and see what shows up?

--
Tomas

...I just received a postcard from Earthlink in the mail today that also details the new 250GB limit on my 8 year old Earthlink Broadband service with the "last mile" by Comcast (originally AT&T for the last mile).

For right now, the 250GB limit really doesn't affect me, as I use considerbley less than that, but that does NOT mean that will ALWAYS be the case.

For me, though, I'll just wait and see how this plays out.

--
Tomas

Where I live is a small place that is actually incorporated as a "city" so legally it is probably a "city."

HOWEVER, it has no central business district. Want to shop head to one of the adjacent towns/cities that have business districts and malls.

We are a "bedroom community" that is mostly residential or stands of trees.

We have a golf course, we have waterfront, we have parks, we have espresso shops, we even have a few grocery stores and a grocery/ hardware/ furniture/ clothing/ drugs/ electronics store with a big parking lot (Fred Meyer), but we really aren't "self contained" as I would expect a city or even a town to be.

We have a Post Office!

I like it, but the "City of University Place" isn't.

Guess I'll call it a town, since the most obvious classification for it, "suburb" isn't a choice.

--
Tomas

... and I use AdBlock against my OWN site because I can't stand the sometimes interminable delays caused by some of the lousy crap that sponsors have buried in their ads.

I can understand sites needing to make enough money to keep the servers running, so I allow ads on many sites I visit, but if the delays and hang-ups get too bad, they are BLOCKED.

(On my site I try to keep the delays minimal, but when administering a sometimes very fast moving set of forums, I just cannot put up with even fairly short delays.)

No, there are two Cable TV providers (Comcast and Click) offering high speed internet, the local phone company (Qwest) offering DSL, and Clearwire/Sprint 4G wireless (Clear) providing service to this complex.

(My usual "backup" happens to be a couple who has a WiFi base on their Clear 4G tranceiver.)

I haven't yet seen all four of those go down at the same time.

--Tomas

An additional problem with a good number of the earlier "Anonymous" posts is that they were originally owned by and identified to their copyright owners with the use of the Groklaw User IDs. In 2004, PJ went through a purge of a number of folks she disagreed with, deleted their users accounts, and all of their comments were instantly anonymized with no chance of recovery.

PJ's essentially removing the copyright identification from those thousands of posts caused a bit of upset from those who felt that by removing the only copyright information from the posts by replacing the name in the headers with "Anonymous" overstepped ethical bounds.

My standing with those who felt she had overstepped by doing that is the reason my original "Tomas" ID ( http://www.groklaw.net/users.php?mode=profile&uid=2502 )was banned from Groklaw. I've done very little posting under my replacement ID.

--Tomas

Yeah, I'm off to one edge of the complex - I'd probably have a lot more choice in signals if I were closer to the middle.

As it is, I can "see" about 20 signals flickering in and out of existence right now, but only 9 of those are steady and strong enough to use, and only one of those has no security. It varies throughout the day. :o)

...and it is an amazingly target rich environment.

There are usually between 8 and 15 signals with usable levels (11 right now) and often at least a couple of 'em have zero security.

It is handy when my broadband carrier goes down - I'm able to at least check mail using the advertised and open for use systems near me...

--
Tomas

No, pilots DO need to be screened, because the chance of ONE cockpit crew member going bad and wanting to take the plane out is much better tha the chance of ALL the cockpit crew members wanting that.

That means that with zero screening the "bad pilot" could bring on board a weapon (gun, grenade, knife, flammable liquid, acid, whatever) to either take out the rest of the cockpit crew or the controls.

If the "bad pilot" is unable to get something more dangerous than normal on board, he has less chance to destroy the plane - and the others have a better chance to get him "under control."

There is no reason to allow anyone past the security chokepoint without being screened, but ESPECIALLY those who will be out of view in the cockpit and able to kill of the rest of the crew or damage the aircraft beyond being flyable.

Gotta think these things through, people.

--Tomas (Ex-USAF)

I agree in the informing and being informed by our society and culture. To your Heinlein, Niven, and Clarke, I would add John Varley and Spider Robinson as some excellent source material.

I'm now retired, but all the way back to my first tech job interview in the '60s, the interviews have included tests of my ability to perform as needed.

If one cannot test an applicant one is seriously handicapped in making valid hiring decisions.

--
Tomas
University Place, WA

...though any and all other methods will not be excluded.

...that it also means I get a free little electronic goody of my very own if they attach it to my vehicle and I find it. ;^P

... and I'm already pushing 63 this year.

Males in my family seldom make it past 72.

The women often make it into the 90's or even low 100's

I'm resigned to it.

Good points!

The thrust of the idea is to use a readily available flammable liquid and flares as a deterrent, and gasoline would be a quite reasonable substitute and a small handpump with a hose would also be reasonable as a delivery method.

The idea is to get flammable liquid onto the pirates, their craft, and the surrounding water, then ignite it.

Hopefully it would be enough to ruin the pirates day while easily passing muster in port as not being offensive weapons...

I'm sure the crews could work out the details.