|
2006/7/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43577 Activity:nil |
7/6 Wow, I got this in my http://movietickets.com e-mail today: Islam: What the West Needs to Know (NR); NY/Wash/ATL ... this documentary demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government. \_ Islam or Death (In Michigan) http://lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/OPINION02/607050335& \_ Silly man, doesn't he realize that without cherry-picking the religious texts, there would be no western liberal (and that includes fundies, btw) Christianity? \_ That's a huge oversimplification of the situation. The core issue is not cherry picking. It is that the other major religions have all come to terms with the modern world but Islam has not. The world has all sorts of crazies but you don't see large organised well funded groups of <insert any religion but Islam here> running around suicide bombing civilians in some hopeless effort to turn the world into their idea of 8th century heaven. \_ and selectively ignoring inconvenient bits of one's religious texts is a key component of "[coming] to terms with the modern world" \_ Yes. It has to be. Is there a problem with that? The alternative is the aggressive Islam we see today. I much prefer people giving a wink and nod to people cutting off heads and keeping women as 4th class non- citizens. \_ Yeah. I'm curious how much of radical Islam has to do with the fact that most of it's followers are just really, really poor and uneducated. \_ Most of radical Islam relies entirely on its followers being illiterate and ignorant; if they don't have to rely on Imams for instruction, most people would reject radical Islam. \_ Except the 9/11 suicide bombers, who were on the whole well-educated and well-off. \_ ... i.e., "most." \_ Sounds just like the Catholic Crusaders. |
2006/7/6-7 [Consumer/Shipping] UID:43578 Activity:nil |
7/6 Got a serious problem. I ordered something with tracking number and according to USPS tracking it already arrived on 6/28. It is already 7/6 and I still haven't gotten anything. What is going on? FYI I live in a very secure place with sealed mailed boxes. What should I do at this point? \_ Tell USPS you didn't get it and ask them to find out who signed for it. |
2006/7/6-7 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:43579 Activity:moderate |
7/6 Are the Space Shuttles capable of taking off on a runway like an airplane, not to go into space but just to fly from one airport to another? \_ No. The thrusters are designed solely for assistive thrust during vertical takeoff. The space shuttle is a glider-shaped rocket. It is transported from one airport to another on the back of a specially modified 747 (see Moonraker) \_ I see. I thought piggybacking on a 747 is because it's cheaper to fly with jet engines than with rockets. \_ cheaper, true. But most likely it's because it's safer and less complicated. \_ You know that big orange thing the orbiter is attached to when the shuttle launches? That's the fuel tank for its main engines. It contains the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel for the rocket engines at the tail of the orbiter. The orbiter itself doesn't contain a fuel tank for those engines. If you designed conventional atmospheric flight capabilities into the orbiter, it would come at the price of making the orbiter heavier (and every pound of weight you add is a pound you take away from its payload capability, or an exponential addition to the fuel needed to reach orbit). Most of the time this is a nonissue, because the orbiter usually lands at the same site where they launch it. The biggest problem this introduces is that the orbiter lands as a glider, so you have to nail the landing every time (because you can't fly around for another pass if something goes wrong). That's never been a problem, probably because the pilots are really damn good, and thoroughly trained. \_ I thought that the Shuttle basically can land itself. \_ They recently (just this launch?) installed an autopilot system that can in theory land it, but a glider is a glider. Bad gale of wind? Slightly sticky aileron? Better hope everything goes perfect the first time, every time. \_ Buran can launch and land by itself. \_ So during re-entry the rocket engines at the tail of the orbiter doesn't fire to slow down the orbiter? \_ Nope, as pp noted, there's no fuel tank on the orbiter. It's all about the heat tiles and aerobraking. \_ When I was a kid, the shuttle age the fuel tank used to be be white. Why did they switch to orange afterwards? \_ When I was a kid, the fuel tank used to be white. Why did they switch to orange afterwards? \_ to save money on paint. The External Tank just burns up in the atmosphere after every launch (it is the only part that isn't reused), so little point in a nice paint job for it. \_ money and weight! every pound matters |
2006/7/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43580 Activity:nil |
7/6 http://csua.org/u/gcb (newsday.com) New York's highest court votes 4-2, finding law banning gay marriage complies with state constitution. Affirming justices cite case law defining due-process-derived "fundamental rights" as ones that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" (1977). In the 2006 opinion: "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times." Dissenting: "Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination - no matter how entrenched - does not make the discrimination constitutional. As history has well taught us, separate is inherently unequal." |
2006/7/6 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:43581 Activity:nil |
7/6 I just got my macbook. Anyone have any luck using Parallels? |
2006/7/6-7 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:43582 Activity:nil |
7/6 Finally, apartments under 300 grand in SF! http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2006/07/book_concern_bu_1.html \_ How Manhattanesque. \_ keywords: loft condo 300k manhattan SF real estate crash |
2006/7/6-7 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:43583 Activity:nil |
7/6 I just got my macbook. Anyone have any experience using Parallels? Is it fast (compared to say, bootcamp)? \_ It won't be as fast as bootcamp -- the VM has a single CPU, not the dual core you get native -- but I've been using it and so far it's pretty snappy, particularly in full-screen mode. And it's much more convenient -- lets you set up a shared folder to move files between the VM and the Mac. Two thumbs up. --dpassage \_ Bootcamp is wickedly fast on my Mini. Parallel is a bit slower, but still feels very fast compared to VirtualPC (VPC for Windows is slower than Parallels). One complaint I have is that on a MacBook, to suspend the VM, the swapping to hard disk takes quite some time when I have around 600MB to swap to hard disk. |