I encountered a doctor's office once where, not knowing what is what, they decided to install Windows 2003 Server on every computer, including the front desks.
"Nothing would ever get done if everyone in Congress refused to vote for anything that contained a provision that they didn't agree with."
That would be an ideal country to live in. The greatest politicians in history have been the ones that did not do anything. No bad ideas made reality, no debts paid back to campaign financiers, no added restrictions on individual rights. It's the ones that think they need to change the world - acting on their definition of "the Greater Good" - that you must worry about.
"Unless they can compete on price and performance, they don't get the business."
Yes, and that is still not a free market. You are deluding yourself if you believe that the government's only interests (if they even are interests) are price and performance. Besides that, they are all competing to fulfill the government's specific demands, which likely differ greatly from those of the public.
"In short, you are regurgitating the party line of the Space Fanboys rather than examining the facts."
I'm not sure who these space fanboys are or what their party line is. Is your statement somehow a refutation of what I've said? My only interest is in individual rights. Publicly-funded government-run services such as this are violations of those rights and manipulate the free market in the name of convenience and instant gratification.
"If Boeing had a blank check, you'd have a point."
As long as they are tied to a publicly-funded source they do have a blank check.
"If you are so unfamiliar with the history of the space industry, as you continually make abundantly evident, then there is little point in continuing this conversation."
Ad hominem. Who are these private launch providers and what are these new models they're rolling out? You brought it up as an example but have not backed it up with more than the words that make up that sentence.
"you retreat to handwaving and smokescreens."
Ad hominem. Still waiting on those facts or any refutation of what I've said so far. Two ad hominems in one post is all I've seen.
"No, what I'm doing is refusing to make an artificial and arbitrary distinction between (for example) Boeing and SpaceX."
If you're trying to hold up Boeing as an example of private industry, again you fail, as Boeing's primary customer is, of course, the federal government. It should come as no surprise that a company propped up by a blank check would have no interest in innovating. As long as they have unlimited funds taken by force, they are no competing in a free market.
"If there is no incentive to invest... Then why have launch providers been rolling out new models on a fairly regular basis for decades?"
Such as?
"You'd have a point - if NASA had a monopoly. They don't, and haven't for decades."
As long as the public thinks that some portion of its taxes are going toward space research already, they have little or no interest in funding yet another organization. Publicly-funded endeavors such as this are unjustified and immoral.
"Most of the "tax dollars that went to NASA" were spent on contracts to private corporations."
And? Any publicly-funded service is ultimately fulfilled through private companies. How does that make it anything like a free market?
"Private enterprise has no interest in something that won't turn a profit within a short period of time."
You're going to have to show some evidence that this is true, and that this would be true even in a free market. I would argue that the short-term has overtaken the long-term as a result of government interference in the economy. Every couple years, elections replace candidates with different financial promises to fulfill, and this is realized through selective taxation, selective tax breaks, tax rebates, contract cronyism, and most notably the federal reserve manipulation of the stock market and interest rates. Add to that the fact that our dollar is backed by nothing but the government's existence and stability, and it seems clear to me why not only are individuals, but also entire companies (which are just made up of individuals) forced to stick to short-term interests.
"And if you think that private enterprise is going to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars for a manned flight to Mars"
That would only happen if the interest is there from the public to invest in such an endeavor. And if the interest is not there, then, so what?
Which companies are you referring to? It seems like you're mixing up the aerospace industry with the space industry. There has been little incentive to invest in private space research, partly because of the existing monopoly held by NASA, and partly because of lack of interest in going to space.
And how much faster could the private space industry have expanded had the public been able to keep their tax dollars that went to NASA, and chosen instead to invest in private interests? You're basically saying, "look how much faster a monopoly expands!"
Which of those benefits I listed implies instant gratification? Obviously if you have an unlimited budget you can get things done faster but that does not justify the rights violations that come with publicly-funded services.
"Markets are generally bad at space flight, because a market (and those people in it who succeed through accepting the tenets of the market) perceives redundancy as waste and precise standards as bureaucracy. In space flight, extensive redundancy and anal retentive detail are survival techniques."
Your second sentence refutes your first. Obviously redundancy is necessary for these things to work, and so any company that ignores that in order to cut corners is going to fail. Your argument only seems valid if one assumes that a word ("redundancy") in one context can be blindly applied to other contexts.
The way you talk, one would think RAID is unheard-of among companies.
Where did I say the private sector would get things done faster? Obviously with an unlimited budget taken by force from the public, you can get whatever you want as soon as possible. But the purpose of privatization is not instant gratification, but to stop the widespread rights violations that come with public services.
If you think our current health care system is the epitome of privatization, you are wrong. Thank the government for first subsidizing Blue Cross / Blue Shield to destroy competition.
Is the country finally realizing that the private space industry, as with any private industry, will lead to more innovation, greater efficiency, and lower prices?
"No, that was the author of the comment that you replied to, which prompted my reply."
My bad. So rather than say "you've concocted", I should say "you've accepted". There. Done. The rest of my statement I stand by and await your response.
"As you have proven that you are not actually reading the comments you are replying to"
Neither I nor you have proven any such thing. All that has been shown is that "accepted" is a more correct term than "concocted" in that specific post. What any of this has to do with the discussion, I am not sure. It seems like an evasive tactic.
Obviously without evidence nobody is going to believe you, especially if the circumstances are also against you. I fail to see how that makes your argument universally true, given that it only makes sense in your one specific scenario.
You dolt, that was a typo on my part, which should have been obvious given the statement I was replying to and my use of the phrase "of course". Anyone who thinks the government is above the law is only doing so to save their asses because they are members of the government and they've done something wrong.
As for your spiel about illegal acts from illegal orders - there is a difference between forcing someone to do something at gunpoint or on threat of punishment, for which there is no way out, and telling someone to do something. If there is no threat to your life, and you believe the act immoral or illegal, you should not go through with it. But once your life or the life of someone for whom you care is in danger, then the only rational choice is to comply.
That was a typo. It should have been obvious, though, given the statement I was replying to and my use of "of course". But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.
I can agree in theory, although I could easily see the government withholding any and all evidence for "national security reasons", thus pushing all the blame on the telecoms. The true blame, however, still lies with the government. Any time you're up against a force-backed entity, this is a problem, so I would still be for granting immunity if they were in fact forced or coerced into complying.
"If a cop tells you to do something that is obviously illegal you should know that it is wrong. And in this particular example ("rob a bank") there is extra-special no excuse because you're in a bank and it's easy to throw the apparatus of the state at them."
You've concocted a particular hypothetical situation. So what? Why should we consider it archetypal? It is not. I can merely add my own modifications to your hypothetical which will destroy your conclusions. Let's say the person is forcing you at gunpoint, or that they are holding a family member hostage in a secret location. Your only responsibility is for your life and for the lives of those for whom you care. That is all that encompasses "doing the right thing."
"Do you really believe the things you're saying, or are you just stirring up shit?"
Slashdot Mirror
I encountered a doctor's office once where, not knowing what is what, they decided to install Windows 2003 Server on every computer, including the front desks.
Hello, I'm new to this ./ website. Can you please tell me know to moderate the summary (-1, binspam)?
TIA!
"Nothing would ever get done if everyone in Congress refused to vote for anything that contained a provision that they didn't agree with."
That would be an ideal country to live in. The greatest politicians in history have been the ones that did not do anything. No bad ideas made reality, no debts paid back to campaign financiers, no added restrictions on individual rights. It's the ones that think they need to change the world - acting on their definition of "the Greater Good" - that you must worry about.
Note: This is not flamebait. It is the truth.
"Unless they can compete on price and performance, they don't get the business."
Yes, and that is still not a free market. You are deluding yourself if you believe that the government's only interests (if they even are interests) are price and performance. Besides that, they are all competing to fulfill the government's specific demands, which likely differ greatly from those of the public.
"In short, you are regurgitating the party line of the Space Fanboys rather than examining the facts."
I'm not sure who these space fanboys are or what their party line is. Is your statement somehow a refutation of what I've said? My only interest is in individual rights. Publicly-funded government-run services such as this are violations of those rights and manipulate the free market in the name of convenience and instant gratification.
"If Boeing had a blank check, you'd have a point."
As long as they are tied to a publicly-funded source they do have a blank check.
"If you are so unfamiliar with the history of the space industry, as you continually make abundantly evident, then there is little point in continuing this conversation."
Ad hominem. Who are these private launch providers and what are these new models they're rolling out? You brought it up as an example but have not backed it up with more than the words that make up that sentence.
"you retreat to handwaving and smokescreens."
Ad hominem. Still waiting on those facts or any refutation of what I've said so far. Two ad hominems in one post is all I've seen.
"No, what I'm doing is refusing to make an artificial and arbitrary distinction between (for example) Boeing and SpaceX."
If you're trying to hold up Boeing as an example of private industry, again you fail, as Boeing's primary customer is, of course, the federal government. It should come as no surprise that a company propped up by a blank check would have no interest in innovating. As long as they have unlimited funds taken by force, they are no competing in a free market.
"If there is no incentive to invest... Then why have launch providers been rolling out new models on a fairly regular basis for decades?"
Such as?
"You'd have a point - if NASA had a monopoly. They don't, and haven't for decades."
As long as the public thinks that some portion of its taxes are going toward space research already, they have little or no interest in funding yet another organization. Publicly-funded endeavors such as this are unjustified and immoral.
"Most of the "tax dollars that went to NASA" were spent on contracts to private corporations."
And? Any publicly-funded service is ultimately fulfilled through private companies. How does that make it anything like a free market?
"Private enterprise has no interest in something that won't turn a profit within a short period of time."
You're going to have to show some evidence that this is true, and that this would be true even in a free market. I would argue that the short-term has overtaken the long-term as a result of government interference in the economy. Every couple years, elections replace candidates with different financial promises to fulfill, and this is realized through selective taxation, selective tax breaks, tax rebates, contract cronyism, and most notably the federal reserve manipulation of the stock market and interest rates. Add to that the fact that our dollar is backed by nothing but the government's existence and stability, and it seems clear to me why not only are individuals, but also entire companies (which are just made up of individuals) forced to stick to short-term interests.
"And if you think that private enterprise is going to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars for a manned flight to Mars"
That would only happen if the interest is there from the public to invest in such an endeavor. And if the interest is not there, then, so what?
Which companies are you referring to? It seems like you're mixing up the aerospace industry with the space industry. There has been little incentive to invest in private space research, partly because of the existing monopoly held by NASA, and partly because of lack of interest in going to space.
And how much faster could the private space industry have expanded had the public been able to keep their tax dollars that went to NASA, and chosen instead to invest in private interests? You're basically saying, "look how much faster a monopoly expands!"
Which of those benefits I listed implies instant gratification? Obviously if you have an unlimited budget you can get things done faster but that does not justify the rights violations that come with publicly-funded services.
"Markets are generally bad at space flight, because a market (and those people in it who succeed through accepting the tenets of the market) perceives redundancy as waste and precise standards as bureaucracy. In space flight, extensive redundancy and anal retentive detail are survival techniques."
Your second sentence refutes your first. Obviously redundancy is necessary for these things to work, and so any company that ignores that in order to cut corners is going to fail. Your argument only seems valid if one assumes that a word ("redundancy") in one context can be blindly applied to other contexts.
The way you talk, one would think RAID is unheard-of among companies.
Where did I say the private sector would get things done faster? Obviously with an unlimited budget taken by force from the public, you can get whatever you want as soon as possible. But the purpose of privatization is not instant gratification, but to stop the widespread rights violations that come with public services.
If you think our current health care system is the epitome of privatization, you are wrong. Thank the government for first subsidizing Blue Cross / Blue Shield to destroy competition.
Is the country finally realizing that the private space industry, as with any private industry, will lead to more innovation, greater efficiency, and lower prices?
"Its natural selection at its finest"
It's called selective tax breaks, and not only is it the exact opposite of natural selection, it is also unconstitutional and immoral.
In other news, the public will phase out Mercedes purchases by 2015.
Valid point and I concede that in this situation, they were not forced, and so should not be granted immunity.
Anyone care to venture how long it would take to burn such disc, if it is loaded full?
"No, that was the author of the comment that you replied to, which prompted my reply."
My bad. So rather than say "you've concocted", I should say "you've accepted". There. Done. The rest of my statement I stand by and await your response.
"As you have proven that you are not actually reading the comments you are replying to"
Neither I nor you have proven any such thing. All that has been shown is that "accepted" is a more correct term than "concocted" in that specific post. What any of this has to do with the discussion, I am not sure. It seems like an evasive tactic.
Obviously without evidence nobody is going to believe you, especially if the circumstances are also against you. I fail to see how that makes your argument universally true, given that it only makes sense in your one specific scenario.
Sarcasm, no, brain fart, yes.
""I was just following orders" is not a valid defense."
Agreed. But, "I was forced to at gunpoint or threat of punishment and I had no other way out" is a valid defense.
"WHAT?"
You dolt, that was a typo on my part, which should have been obvious given the statement I was replying to and my use of the phrase "of course". Anyone who thinks the government is above the law is only doing so to save their asses because they are members of the government and they've done something wrong.
As for your spiel about illegal acts from illegal orders - there is a difference between forcing someone to do something at gunpoint or on threat of punishment, for which there is no way out, and telling someone to do something. If there is no threat to your life, and you believe the act immoral or illegal, you should not go through with it. But once your life or the life of someone for whom you care is in danger, then the only rational choice is to comply.
That was a typo. It should have been obvious, though, given the statement I was replying to and my use of "of course". But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure why you mention Bush...
That should read "of course, the government is not above the law". of course, of course.
I can agree in theory, although I could easily see the government withholding any and all evidence for "national security reasons", thus pushing all the blame on the telecoms. The true blame, however, still lies with the government. Any time you're up against a force-backed entity, this is a problem, so I would still be for granting immunity if they were in fact forced or coerced into complying.
"If a cop tells you to do something that is obviously illegal you should know that it is wrong. And in this particular example ("rob a bank") there is extra-special no excuse because you're in a bank and it's easy to throw the apparatus of the state at them."
You've concocted a particular hypothetical situation. So what? Why should we consider it archetypal? It is not. I can merely add my own modifications to your hypothetical which will destroy your conclusions. Let's say the person is forcing you at gunpoint, or that they are holding a family member hostage in a secret location. Your only responsibility is for your life and for the lives of those for whom you care. That is all that encompasses "doing the right thing."
"Do you really believe the things you're saying, or are you just stirring up shit?"
Yes, no. How about you?