Whatever happened to those guys?
Over 27,000 cycles of data (each 1.5 sec cycle energizing the system for 0.75 sec and de-energizing it for 0.75 sec) were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.
Is that enough?
Except the test results seem to indicate that it does.
But then you are a world class physicist and know better than this NASA team that's been testing this device for years, eh?
Wouldn't a more reasonable person think that there must be some interesting physics going on here instead of poo pooing the idea like a modern day Baron Kelvin.
It was his decision to record music and sell it to the public.
If you enjoyed his work, he happens to have a sale going on...$10 for the album and you can enjoy it anytime you want. You can put it on your computer, ipod, cell phone and enjoy it anywhere.
But if you just download it and do the same, then you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifted a bag of chips from 7-11.
So I expect you are against patents too. So if you invest 5 years and 5 million dollars into designing a product that no one else has and everyone needs, you're cool with someone stealing your design and selling it for lower costs?
If you wrote some software and sold it to someone for $1000, you are cool with them making copies and giving it away?
After all, you still have your copy and the original buyer still has theirs. So it's not stealing, right?
noun: copyright; plural noun: copyrights
1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
1. protected by copyright.
"permission to reproduce photographs and other copyright material"
Sure...just because you write a tune doesn't mean people will pay for it. But if someone wants to hear what you wrote, you have every right to charge them. Same as if you wrote a book. If you charge too much, or what you wrote sucks...no profits for you. If they DO like it, then you have every right to profit from it.
You are depriving the artists of revenue. You are taking money out of his pocket.
Why do people think all this music is Free?
Sure, musicians are being screwed over by the labels and publishers, but that's not a reason to outright steal it and deny the musicians the meager cash they are getting paid.
No government policy should be based on anything that can't be seen or challenged by the public except in emergency situations or national security. Anytime anyone in authority says "Because I say so" when making law, you should be suspicious.
Your reading implies that Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants if it deems it to be for the General Welfare. That pretty much flied in the face of the idea of limited government, which is the central pillar of our Constitution.
At first glance, all of these technologies are implemented solely for the purpose for bring in more money to the government.
But I'm sure I'm not being at all cynical enough and probably a bit of Tin Foil Hat theory wouldn't be inappropriate.
Kill it with Fire.
Fracking has been going on for nearly 50 years.
But now...NOW, it's causing earthquakes.
So a program used by a program used by researchers in some other program which you think is essential is being cut.
With that reasoning you should be all for tripling the defense budget since most technology comes from research that supports it in some way.