Every auto parts/tools outfit has restocking fees for at least some stuff. Sometimes this reflects their typical usage pattern (like auto code scanners) and other times just the cost of dealing with fraud and the actual cost of dealing with restocking, as in electrical components. A percentage of what you get back will be the pulled parts, cleaned up.
Probably contravenes typical
they had meters that could handle time-of-use metering before they had meters that could handle realtime reporting. they had to come to your house with a fancy PDA once a month and get a dump from the meter.
It's a natural result of group dynamics and peer pressure.
This isn't about conformity, this is about self-justification. It can't possibly be bad, because I'm doing it, and I am a good person!
I will be steering my son towards one of the well established local community colleges we have around here when the time comes.
I don't know how it works where you are, in part because I don't know where you are, but here in California you get guaranteed matriculation into a state college if you graduate from a community one. With some care you can knock out a bunch of prereqs for a real degree in the process, and get it done much more cheaply than doing it at the U. However, a two year degree is good for nothing else but preparation for a four year degree. No one gives one tenth of one fuck about a two year degree any more. Even a four year degree is a yawn.
I still heartily recommend it. Tell him to spend three years getting a two year degree so that he can enjoy himself by taking classes which are just for fun while it's cheap.
Civics taught you how the government was run
it didn't, though. We have it as mandatory in California, or at least we did when I was in school, and I only learned the bare boring facts, and rapidly forgot most of those. They don't teach you what you really need to know, which is how corporations control the law in detail. I didn't get that until college, by which time I already pretty much got it.
It's not that private spaceflight is the only good work, it's that spaceflight is good work. It benefits the human race, or at least, it has done so in the past, continues to do so in the present, and has the potential to do even more. Anyone who advances spaceflight without my tax money is doing a good deed in my book.
They're daring, sure, but they're not pioneering new territory, as we did this over 50 years ago; they're just making it cheaper.
What makes someone a hero is other people's dependence on them. We install businesses into high-rises for convenience, not out of necessity. There would be lesser environmental impact using another method; indeed, we have usable commercial buildings sitting idle all over this country, and sprinkled across much of the planet. Ask China or even Spain about that.
Being a hero implies acting for the benefit of someone other than one's self.
Exactly. And, one might add, at potential cost to oneself.
The men that died building the empire state building were in fact heroes
No, they were in your opinion heroes.
I'm sure their loved ones would take issue with your opinion
I'm sure that does not bear on whether the average person would consider them heroes.
I think most people would consider them failures. Most people who worked on those projects didn't die. How many of those people died because they tripped, or because they otherwise didn't pay adequate attention to safety?
They built one of the greatest buildings ever designed
It's an eyesore we only "need" because of the twisted shape of our society. Oh look, my opinion is different from yours.
Try this on for size: A construction worker helping to build an energy-intensive concrete and steel monstrosity is actually harming the rest of us. How in fuck does that make them a hero? It seems to me like they're the antagonists in this story.
He did not say "I predict in the future there will only ever be five computers." He said "I think we currently have five potential customers for our computer device."
You're forgetting the IBM (and indeed corporate) mentality. To the president of IBM, those two things were one and the same.
Er, rich people did fund it, although it was in the form of taxes.
But that was a period characterized by a shift in taxation towards the middle class. I don't think rich people did fund it.
SQLite Apache MacOSX Interpreted-language-of-choice
That can't be the opposite, Windows and OSX are both shitty places to run your webserver.
Why is voter registration even required?
For the purpose of disenfranchisement, of course. They only publicize the last day to register in the neighborhoods from which they want votes.
This is here because it helps to get slashdot's conservative base riled up. This site has been pandering to the right wing for some time now, and this helps with that.
This site has been trolling both wings for some time now, and this helps with that. FTFY.
One of the common problems with any aircraft design is that you can't have backups for everything. There simply isn't the capacity, unless you double the size of the aircraft and thus eliminate all of the benefits of having a backup engine (perhaps the most critical system to have a backup of). Thus, some level of failure is inevitable.
(Even if you have backups, that won't necessarily save your skin. The DH98 Mosquito could fly perfectly fine on one engine, but crashes from engine failure still happened. The Space Shuttle, on at least one occasion, lost two or more of the five onboard computers. There's a limit to what you can do in these sorts of cases.)
All flight is, inherently, dangerous. That's the nature of the beast. You can improve safety, which is always a good thing to do, but improvements will be asymptotic to a value below perfectly safe. How much below is unclear, I don't think anyone has really done that calculation. Nonetheless, whatever it is, there's declining returns after a given point. Commercial manufacturers tend to put a ballpark figure on what's an acceptable number of deaths per thousand (miles|hours) of flight and will invest to around that level of safety. Understandable - more than that gets very expensive very quickly but won't affect sales, aircraft usage or aircraft reputation.
Now, high atmospheric/suborbital/orbital/space travel is a great deal worse. Engines have to cope with vastly higher pressures, which means that much smaller defects can be disastrous. You've far worse radiation to contend with, so control circuits have to be better screened and radiation-hardened. They also have to cope with far greater G forces, vibrations from hell, variations in temperature that they're not going to like, and (since atmospherics can be nasty) survive (without producing erroneous signals) plasmas and electrical discharges that aren't always predictable and not always that well understood.
In this particular case, it looks from the amateur footage that claims to be of the accident (you can never be sure) that the engine ruptured. The engine, as I understand it, was a new type. Probably smarter to do the first flight unmanned for that, but that's easy to say now. My guess would be that the engine casing had not been properly made and failed. Not enough to total the aircraft at high altitude, but enough to make a complete mess of things. Again, it's only a guess, but that sounds like the engine wasn't yet full power. If it had been, I doubt there'd have been anything large enough for the video cameras to film.
Engine casings are tough to make flawlessly. You can do limited testing with ultrasonics and assorted remote sensors, and those'll find a lot of flaws, but the only known way to test if an engine is working perfectly is to fire it up to maximum power and hold it there until the fuel runs out or it explodes. If it's still intact, it was fine. It probably isn't now, though.