Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 313

by MBGMorden (#48040345) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

The Constitution was written almost immediately after citizens had overthrown their previous government (England) via armed revolt. Many times England had tried to disarm to Colonists to prevent just such a thing from happening.

Do you honestly think its "nonsense" to think that a group that had just overthrown their government would not think it possible (and in the right circumstances necessary) to do so again?

Comment: Re:Hai! (Score 1) 18

by Tumbleweed (#48040169) Attached to: Japan's Shinkansen Bullet Trains Celebrate 50th Anniversary

Hai does not exactly mean yes in Japanese. It _can_ mean yes, but it more often is just an acknowledgment that someone is listening to you. You may hear a phrase like, "Hai, ." This doesn't mean, it's difficult but yes, this is actually their polite way of saying 'no', because saying no outright is considered rude. When they mean 'yes', they will often just make a sound like 'uhn'.

Be careful of literal translations. :)

Comment: Re:And still nothing in the US (Score 1) 18

by jedidiah (#48040053) Attached to: Japan's Shinkansen Bullet Trains Celebrate 50th Anniversary

...that it's still cheaper to fly jets like buses for the same kinds of routes a bullet train would cover.

Americans get all excited about this stuff without ever actually experiencing it firsthand. They never see the high prices or how it might be simpler just to rent your own car.

Bullet trains more of a glamour tech item like a Battleship or an Aircraft Carrier. They look good but they aren't nearly as practical as they seem.

If the US wants to act like it's in love with trains again, it would be far better to beef up CARGO capacity. However that's not sexy. No one gets exited about efficient cargo service.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 313

by Jane Q. Public (#48039875) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.

The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.

For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at all, and that States had the power to oppose the Federal government if it overstepped its Constitutional bounds... Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. (The latter was made clearer later by Jefferson and Madison.)

This much is clear: the Constitution would never have been ratified if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that the Federal government is a tool of the collective States, not the other way around. The Federal government has the authority allowed it by the States, and no more.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 313

by Jane Q. Public (#48039733) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line.

You need to take some history lessons. The Second Amendment wasn't written by the South. And the writers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that in the day it was written, there was no way it would be ratified by the States if they tried to abolish slavery immediately and directly.

But if you notice, it was written in such a way that it guaranteed rights to every person... making it easy to amend it later to abolish slavery. They didn't HAVE to write it that way, you know.

The Second Amendment was written because the British government tried to control arms in order to suppress dissent and rebellion. Our Founding Fathers understood that denying arms to the people, no matter what excuse is given for it, is always a tool of oppression.

Comment: Re:No collection happens until examination (Score 1) 108

by Jane Q. Public (#48039577) Attached to: The Executive Order That Redefines Data Collection

So if I download lots of copyrighted music and films, but never listen to them -- then I'm apparently okay right?

OP's basic premise is BS. It is not possible to "redefine" common words in a government document. That's not the way the law works.

Words have accepted meanings. In Common Law countries like the U.S., it is the original MEANING of a statute, or section of the Constitution, for example, that is the governing factor.

Official (like the President) do not have authority to "change" a law simply by saying "I think this word means something different now than when the law was passed." It doesn't matter what he thinks or how he tries to re-define it. What matters is what the ORIGINAL AUTHORS of the legislation meant when they wrote it.

It's just another example of the Whitehouse ignoring Constitutional law, and going off in its own rogue direction.

Comment: Re:Having tried to pull in medical data from an EM (Score 1) 136

by quietwalker (#48039493) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records

This is pretty standard in most established industries.

In banking, for example, one of the most popular formats for representing ACH transactions is defined in 2 pages. It takes a 2 volume set of books to explain what each field means, in relationship to the rest, and there's STILL room for interpretation.

I mean, they're usually not PDF format bad, but it's pretty awful. Worse, since these sorts of protocols are used by a relatively small subset of development houses who are not paid to make their software interchangeable - so there's no business reason to spend the money (via time and effort) to collaborate like that. Obviously there's also no open source or free libraries, it's all proprietary.

Comment: The problem is the market, not the maker (Score 1) 136

by quietwalker (#48039397) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records

I've done some consulting in the realm of medical software and while I don't know every major in-and-out, the real problem is the market.

Here's an example of bringing a piece of software to the medical market:
    - Come up with the idea for some software, write, debug, document it. **This is not the problem**
    - Find a hospital or clinic, meet with the board (3+ months wait) to see if you can petition it's doctors/nurses/whomever to use your software.
    - Find a group of medical staff that is willing to use said software, free of charge, on the side. You probably have to 'pay' them to do it somehow - give it away for free, or discount, when you actually start selling the software, or just a lot of business lunches. These people cannot legally use your software for actual medical purposes. They're just doubling their workload by using your system next to whatever the current mechanism they use.
    - 6+ months go by. Now it's time to approach the board of directors of the hospital - make a presentation with the recommendations of the software users
    - Now, hire an independent software analyst to review your software, while working with a lawyer - who themselves will work with one or more of the hospital's lawyers - to ensure that you're following all the legal requirements and hopsital software requirements. 1-6 months before you're certified for that hospital.
    - Unfortunately, there may be other requirements that supersede the hospital's individual requirements, usually municipal, state, federal regs. You'll need to get certified on these (0-3 years duration).
    - Finally get it rolled out to the hospitals and sold in the wild (note: repeat the certification steps for each new hospital/hospital group, but they'll be expedited)

Okay, so that's the general process. One part software development, 82 parts legal wrangling, red tape, and butt kissing.

You're also not going to make this thing very open. You won't use public libraries, because they need to be certified. You won't have common data, because every hospital wants different things. You're not going to use new technology or standards because it takes years to get it live, and when you make changes like that you have to start over.

You're also not being paid to add the features to make this externally accessible to god knows what.

Imagine the extra requirements involved in providing legal access to medical records to third parties. It's not a technological barrier; it's almost all legal. They must be certified, the two must have a contract, etc, etc. You can't just give it to anyone who asks - you have to have a legal relationship with each asker. That will have to be signed off on by the board too. And so on, and so on.

The project I did some consulting on? They're basically a sort of spreadsheet with calculations. It's been ~4 years, and it's still bouncing around, not yet fully certified and ready to open for sale. If they went back and added 3'd party export functionality, it'd be another 4.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 57

by Jane Q. Public (#48039173) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference

You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.

And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations.

Once again, Jane insists electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Once again, Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.

NO. That is NOT what I claimed, and that is not what I am claiming. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means.

I do not claim "no" radiation is absorbed. To repeat once again: no NET power from radiation is absorbed. Those are 2 completely different claims. You keep saying I claim the former, when I've actually only claimed the latter. And by now, there can be no remaining misunderstanding about that. You are simply lying. Again.

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Prof. Brown. Now Jane claims that Prof. Brown is spreading "garbage" that contradicts just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. But Jane certainly isn't arguing with Prof. Brown or Dr. Shore or even me. Perish the thought.

No, I am not arguing with them right now, as I made clear. I was arguing with YOU about Spencer's experiment. And you lost the argument.

When A is warmer than B, (Ta^4 - Tb^4) yields a positive number. Which means all NET radiative energy transfer goes from A to B. That is clearly indicated by the minus sign, and is further dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no NET energy going from B to A. Only when B is hotter than A does any NET energy transfer in the other direction.

A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction.

Further, by the same equation the temperature (T) of warmer A does not depend on the cooler B. And as the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature-power relation (e*s)*T^4 clearly implies, the power output of A also does not depend on B.

Power output of A at a given temperature Ta is independent of B. Changing the temperature of B (as long as it remains cooler) does not affect the power output of A. This is exactly where you have been getting it wrong, by trying to use a heat transfer equation rather than a power output equation.

This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU.

I haven't used moderator points in over a year. But the fact that Jane is so convinced I am that he's cussing and screaming in ALL CAPS is emblematic of Jane's reasoning problems, just like when Jane was absolutely convinced that I'm a six-headed hydra.

It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.

Comment: Re:depends on circumstance (Score 1) 442

by fyngyrz (#48039091) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

Confident? I'm just stating the obvious. There can be life on planets. It can be intelligent. It can go to space.

I don't need confidence to make those observations; even a vague awareness of the world around me suffices.

And I fail to see what my intelligence has to do with any of it. These very simple facts wouldn't change any regardless if I was Einstein or a drooling idiot.

Your comment is downright strange.

Comment: Re:Hope He Continues (Score 1) 313

by jedidiah (#48038995) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

...except we did actually enact "strict but sane gun laws".

The mass shootings didn't stop.

Banning scary ugly weapons didn't really help. That law came and went and nothing really changed.

In both cases, the "strict but sane gun laws" probably had ZERO influence on both outcomes.

Gun control is a childish fantasy for people that have graduated from the tooth fairy.

Comment: Re:Drug charges (Score 1) 208

by drinkypoo (#48038967) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

We restrict access to certain drugs for (mostly) very good reasons.

All the evidence shows that this is nonsense, that you always cause more problems than you solve because you drive addiction underground and people wind up taking drugs of varying quality because of their illegal nature.

If you can explain to me the upside to society of someone having a cocaine or heroin addiction then I'll concede the point.

If prohibition prevented use, you would have a point.

Comment: Re: the solution: (Score 1) 313

by jedidiah (#48038895) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

> In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Neither does "militia".

For the original spirit of the 2nd Amendment, it really doesn't matter if your rifle can be used to uniquely identify you or to spy on you after the fact. It only needs to be functionally correct.

Distorting technology in order to make the job of law enforcement easier really isn't in scope here.

Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.