I am in favor of forcing Facebook to take a neutral position on the facilitation of the legal sale of any product and for forcing them to treat the legal sales of any product the same way they treat the legal sale of any other product.
I'm in favor of allowing Facebook of doing what they damn well please. And since not selling firearms is not illegal, they don't have to.
You seem to believe in freedom of guns, but no other freedoms. Good day sir,
People who are willing to sell to a criminal are already not doing background checks and will continue not doing background checks. What on earth makes you think that this background check regulation will actually be followed by those knowingly selling to criminals?
Of course there will be people geting around laws. But because a person gets away with something that's against the law does not mean that there shouldn't be any laws. Your idea that we shouldn't have background checks at all because criminals will try to find ways around them is not quite sane. You an anarchist or something?
I had a friend who gave me an expensive Asus wireless router because he made a change to the configuration from his iPad that locked out his iPad. He refused to reset the router to factory settings and use my laptop to configure the settings via a wired connection. It had to be done through the iPad only. No matter how I tried to explain what he wanted wasn't realistic, it had to be done the way he wanted it done. He want back to using the Comcast modem, which had an external button for turning on the wireless.
Aren't these folks bizarre? Oh well, your gain in the end.
In principle, I agree, guns shouldn't be sold to dangerous individuals. But that's far easier to say than actually do. Forcing gun sales off of Facebook, where they can be tracked and logged, means the transactions will be negotiated elsewhere.
So you are in favor of forcing Facebook to facilitate firearm sales when they don't want to?
Seriously, have the gun nuts become so unhinged that they demand that others be forced to sell guns?
And in a world where the kooks find background checks for criminal activity an infringement on their rights, its hilarious to use Facebook as a honeypot.
Jeezzuz Kryst on a hoverboard, that's crazy talk!
You want to sell firearms without background checks, set up your own website instead of demanding that everyone else facilitate the sales.
It's a right to own a gun, not to be a gun dealer. There is also no constitutional right that buying a gun has to be easy. Subtle but important difference.
Liberals decry restrictions the GOP dreams up on abortions designed to make it hard or impossible to use one's Constitutional right to Choice but applaud any restrictions the Democrats dream up on doing the same to the Constitutional right to gun ownership.
And kooks like you think that a background check is the equivalent of an abortion.
Eventually one can only come to the conclusion that y'all kinda like criminals having guns. When you can get pissed at Facebook for closing one of your loopholes, it shows.
FYI - I'm no liberal, and I support gun ownership as well as owning a number of my own which I use regularly.
And yup, I also support that people who should have guns should own as many as they like. Conversely, people who shouldn't, shouldn't have any.
Go ahead and rant now. Just remember to clean the spittle of rage off your screen as you pull out your memes.
It's a right to own a gun, not an obligationto be a gun dealer. There is also no constitutional right that buying a gun has to be easy. Subtle but important difference.
Fixed that for you.
You are right of course.
Amazing that the kooks have come to the point that they believe that deciding not to sell guns via your website is depriving them of their rights.
Gotta go now - I'm having a yard sale, and the town where I live in Texas mandated that I sell firearms at my yard sale.
How are stories that are better suited to USA Today the most 'related' stories?
Slashdot, how the mighty have fallen.
If you look at the top of the page, you can select only the stories that won't give you booboo feelings They have Devices, Build, Entertainment, Technology, Open Source, Science, and YRO.
Or if you want, make a real statermentg and put "Why is this even on Slashdot?" as your tagline. There are some folks that jhave been here for years, with their only contribution "Why is this even on Slashdot?
Save for a leg that failed to lock into place, the last attempt would have been successful. If you have some engineering data to indicate that it "will never work" I'm sure SpaceX would be happy to know.
I'm the first to admit I\m the dumbest asshole on the planet
So anyhow, we have a roughtly pencil shaped object that is trying to land on a platform in the ocean which moves. To land it and have an idea of some stability, the landing legs have to make an approximation of a triangle, so that the rocket doesn't tip over. I dunno where the center of gravity is in a spent Spacex first stage or booster is, but if its above the triangle it can make for problems.
Any rocket that falls over for any reason is a failed landing. Unless the couple seconds after landing is a success. Personally, I would call the landing, refurbishment, and successful relaunch of the stage a success.
So after the stage lands on the barge safely, is there some method of securing the stage against high winds or waves? Immediately? I don't see anything. I haven't calculated the wind loading of the tube, but it has to be significant. Wind plays a part in the launch stage of rockets, I doubt that goes away on a pitchning and rolling barge
Falcon heavy launches will have three of these landings to stick as well.
Never work? I never said that. I am certain that with enough money poured into the project, and making live landings of these things on barges in the ocean the actual mission, they will indeed work.
I've seen one land on the ground after a launch and I'm impressed. Personally, I'd stick with that paradigm.
But I'll bet they could go bankrupt trying to land them on barges. But as people have already told me, Spacex has thought of everything.
This is the part where you might accuse me of hating Spacex, right? I don't. I wish them every success. And wishing them every success is why I think landing a pencil on a barge in the ocean is a great way to not have it.
I stopped submitting articles years back when Timmay & co ignored my submissions and chose to publish the same subjects (& sometimes even the same original sources) from later submitters that added on pejorative bait-click opinions instead of just presenting the facts.
I wonder if there will be a drop off in the Women in Stem clickbait articles? Hope springs eternal!
Now they are doing a parachute test using a block of metal. Not a parachute deploy from a dragon mockup, but they just heaved a chunk of metal with parachutes attached out of the back of a plane.
Are they working backwards in time or something?...
So what's with the backwards schedule?
They almost certainly are not working backwards. But yeah, landing a block of metal can sure seem that way. With all the different parts they are working with, there might be improvements on previous systems - think about all the incremental improvements on the F-1 engines.
So who knows? A new chute design to address a shortcoming? Something they didn't want to risk a capsule on? A lot of different tests going on at a lot of different places, and sometimes you just gotta start primitive.
Spacex does a lot of p.r. . I think that this one might have better been just a quick mention, not a whole story on their part. If they wanted to do p.r., they could do a modern day version of operation Dumbo Drop.
I agree, Using the terms "exploded on landing" is PressSpeak, "If it Bleeds, It Leads".
Having said that, the landing legs sort of have to work.
What do you suppose the time frame is for "successful landing" ? If they stick then landing, and a typhoon dumps the booster in the drink, do you suppose the reporters will say "Booster Sank in Ocean while Trying to Land" ?
Which of course is why landing on a barge in the ocean is sort of ridiculous in my estimation.
One of the first things is I don't look at this as failures, its more learning experiences.
But the second thing is I'm convinced that Spacex is taking on some new things too fast, and multiple things at the same time. And lest we go to Newspeak - my criticisms and observations do not detract from my being a fan of Spacex
These guys are making huge strides forward in reusable spaceflight, so it's hardly fair to dismiss the whole thing as "exploded upon landing" because of a mechanical leg failure after the damn thing landed and powered off.
Yes, it's fair. Because it did explode after landing. What you are complaining about is the reaction of people who have some axe to grind with Spacex.
From the rocketry standpoint, Spacex is doing some very cool stuff landing these candles. So much has almost worked. One at least was an unqualified success. My concerns such as they are is that there have been a fair number of mechanical issues, and they are learning a lot of things NASA has learned over the years.
And that "something" was forcing people to pay into a broken system by law? Isn't that a little like "fixing" high car prices by outlawing private sales (personal healthcare financing) and forcing people to go to car dealerships (health insurance)?
Hey - your group is trying to outlaw Tesla dealerships, so bad analogy.
Is perfect the enemy of good? Sorry, but the system which does have problems did not have tose problems because of th proponents, The problems are dirctly because of th opponents. You cant have it both ways, by declaring tires unsafe because you purposely let the ait out of therm. Or that no one should ever have tires on their car because they go flat occasionally. Or in this case purposely screwing up something the rest of the civilized world can do.
NO health care system will ever be perfect. And one thing is for certain. The insurance sysrtem that was in place was so monumentally fucked up that no replacement system coiuld ever be as bad. Have a pre-existing condition? Tough You are stuck in your job forever, or go without any insurance at all. The nastiest most anti-American provision of the Old system you seem to like. My wife's boss and his wife were both walled in, she had breast cancer, he had a blood clotting issue. And neither could get any new insurance, so they were stuck. No upward mobility, or just no health insurance at all, havint to go to the emergency room and participate in the positive feedback loop that teh American healthcare system had become.
Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at our incompetence.
The figure "the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills" is disingenuous.
Because healthcare insurance pays all its bills [citation needed], then unpaid bills are only payable by uninsured folk.
And Bingo! You pretty much summed up the issue here. The US was caught in a positive feedback loop. As more Americans were falling off the insurance roles, they took to going to emergency rooms for their medical treatments. These people were getting the most expensive healthcare in the world for relatively minor illnesses as well as more major ones. I got to verify this during the last year of my father's life when he went to the ER a few times. There were a lot of people there who looked like they just had a child with the flu or earache or something. I asked the doctor about it, and he noted they were the uninsured, but they still needed treatment, and they were a growing issue.
As with all things medical, everything is recorded, and billed out, but not paid. So the costs are eventually paid by the insurance company, who then raises rates, and then employers were either dropping health insurance or people were "voluntarily" dropping it, which was making a smaller pool of insured with more and more expenses, and now going to emergency rooms for their primary care.
A positive feedback loop with an obvious ending, and not a happy one either. For all the bluff and bluster over ObamaCare - or RomneyCare - and make no mistake, it is far from perfect - something had to be done. So it's now tweaking time.
This crowdfunding thing though is a national embarassment,
I think Stalinist Neocons would be a more accurate term, especially with your two last examples of the demagogues Trump and Cruz.
Cruz is an especially interesting case. He is a Domnionist, which is one of the more interesting versions of christianity.
His father, who is a dominionist Priest, outlines matters. They have two groups of leaders, one group called priests, the others are Kings. Ted is one of the Kings.
The Priests job is to preach to the faithful. Not too bad so far, although they have some odd ideas about the priests preaching to god - but whatever.
The tricky part is the King's job. And that is to do physical war with their god's enemies, take their enemies wealth, and give it to....... the dominionist priests!
Ted's activities fit more in with that role than as some patriotic American who wants to lead a country of all Americans in the rule of law. And as you note, nothing dies on the internet - go to YouTube, and search Dominionist Cruz. The best one is a little long, but revealing.
Slashdot Mirror
I am in favor of forcing Facebook to take a neutral position on the facilitation of the legal sale of any product and for forcing them to treat the legal sales of any product the same way they treat the legal sale of any other product.
I'm in favor of allowing Facebook of doing what they damn well please. And since not selling firearms is not illegal, they don't have to.
You seem to believe in freedom of guns, but no other freedoms. Good day sir,
People who are willing to sell to a criminal are already not doing background checks and will continue not doing background checks. What on earth makes you think that this background check regulation will actually be followed by those knowingly selling to criminals?
Of course there will be people geting around laws. But because a person gets away with something that's against the law does not mean that there shouldn't be any laws. Your idea that we shouldn't have background checks at all because criminals will try to find ways around them is not quite sane. You an anarchist or something?
Go die in a fire.
Yeah, she said that too.
I had a friend who gave me an expensive Asus wireless router because he made a change to the configuration from his iPad that locked out his iPad. He refused to reset the router to factory settings and use my laptop to configure the settings via a wired connection. It had to be done through the iPad only. No matter how I tried to explain what he wanted wasn't realistic, it had to be done the way he wanted it done. He want back to using the Comcast modem, which had an external button for turning on the wireless.
Aren't these folks bizarre? Oh well, your gain in the end.
In principle, I agree, guns shouldn't be sold to dangerous individuals. But that's far easier to say than actually do. Forcing gun sales off of Facebook, where they can be tracked and logged, means the transactions will be negotiated elsewhere.
So you are in favor of forcing Facebook to facilitate firearm sales when they don't want to?
Seriously, have the gun nuts become so unhinged that they demand that others be forced to sell guns?
And in a world where the kooks find background checks for criminal activity an infringement on their rights, its hilarious to use Facebook as a honeypot.
Jeezzuz Kryst on a hoverboard, that's crazy talk!
You want to sell firearms without background checks, set up your own website instead of demanding that everyone else facilitate the sales.
It's a right to own a gun, not to be a gun dealer. There is also no constitutional right that buying a gun has to be easy. Subtle but important difference.
Liberals decry restrictions the GOP dreams up on abortions designed to make it hard or impossible to use one's Constitutional right to Choice but applaud any restrictions the Democrats dream up on doing the same to the Constitutional right to gun ownership.
And kooks like you think that a background check is the equivalent of an abortion.
Eventually one can only come to the conclusion that y'all kinda like criminals having guns. When you can get pissed at Facebook for closing one of your loopholes, it shows.
FYI - I'm no liberal, and I support gun ownership as well as owning a number of my own which I use regularly.
And yup, I also support that people who should have guns should own as many as they like. Conversely, people who shouldn't, shouldn't have any.
Go ahead and rant now. Just remember to clean the spittle of rage off your screen as you pull out your memes.
It's a right to own a gun, not an obligation to be a gun dealer. There is also no constitutional right that buying a gun has to be easy. Subtle but important difference.
Fixed that for you.
You are right of course.
Amazing that the kooks have come to the point that they believe that deciding not to sell guns via your website is depriving them of their rights.
Gotta go now - I'm having a yard sale, and the town where I live in Texas mandated that I sell firearms at my yard sale.
The female may be durable, but I've seen my fair share of bent pins on the male end.
That's what she said!
Um, WHAT THE FUCK???
CGA? EGA? MDA? Hercules? NTSC? PAL? SECAM?
"and is by far the longest-lived port on the PC."
Serial port?
Who the fuck wrote this piece of shit revisionist ignorant blurb?
One of those people who think that everything can be done on a smartphone
How are stories that are better suited to USA Today the most 'related' stories?
Slashdot, how the mighty have fallen.
If you look at the top of the page, you can select only the stories that won't give you booboo feelings They have Devices, Build, Entertainment, Technology, Open Source, Science, and YRO.
Or if you want, make a real statermentg and put "Why is this even on Slashdot?" as your tagline. There are some folks that jhave been here for years, with their only contribution "Why is this even on Slashdot?
TL;DR version is not everyone is a programmer.
Save for a leg that failed to lock into place, the last attempt would have been successful. If you have some engineering data to indicate that it "will never work" I'm sure SpaceX would be happy to know.
I'm the first to admit I\m the dumbest asshole on the planet
So anyhow, we have a roughtly pencil shaped object that is trying to land on a platform in the ocean which moves. To land it and have an idea of some stability, the landing legs have to make an approximation of a triangle, so that the rocket doesn't tip over. I dunno where the center of gravity is in a spent Spacex first stage or booster is, but if its above the triangle it can make for problems.
Any rocket that falls over for any reason is a failed landing. Unless the couple seconds after landing is a success. Personally, I would call the landing, refurbishment, and successful relaunch of the stage a success.
So after the stage lands on the barge safely, is there some method of securing the stage against high winds or waves? Immediately? I don't see anything. I haven't calculated the wind loading of the tube, but it has to be significant. Wind plays a part in the launch stage of rockets, I doubt that goes away on a pitchning and rolling barge
Falcon heavy launches will have three of these landings to stick as well.
Never work? I never said that. I am certain that with enough money poured into the project, and making live landings of these things on barges in the ocean the actual mission, they will indeed work.
I've seen one land on the ground after a launch and I'm impressed. Personally, I'd stick with that paradigm. But I'll bet they could go bankrupt trying to land them on barges. But as people have already told me, Spacex has thought of everything.
This is the part where you might accuse me of hating Spacex, right? I don't. I wish them every success. And wishing them every success is why I think landing a pencil on a barge in the ocean is a great way to not have it.
I stopped submitting articles years back when Timmay & co ignored my submissions and chose to publish the same subjects (& sometimes even the same original sources) from later submitters that added on pejorative bait-click opinions instead of just presenting the facts.
I wonder if there will be a drop off in the Women in Stem clickbait articles? Hope springs eternal!
Not going to happen.
Is going to fail then.
Now they are doing a parachute test using a block of metal. Not a parachute deploy from a dragon mockup, but they just heaved a chunk of metal with parachutes attached out of the back of a plane.
Are they working backwards in time or something? ...
So what's with the backwards schedule?
They almost certainly are not working backwards. But yeah, landing a block of metal can sure seem that way. With all the different parts they are working with, there might be improvements on previous systems - think about all the incremental improvements on the F-1 engines.
So who knows? A new chute design to address a shortcoming? Something they didn't want to risk a capsule on? A lot of different tests going on at a lot of different places, and sometimes you just gotta start primitive.
Spacex does a lot of p.r. . I think that this one might have better been just a quick mention, not a whole story on their part. If they wanted to do p.r., they could do a modern day version of operation Dumbo Drop.
Ahh, cancel that idea.
I agree, Using the terms "exploded on landing" is PressSpeak, "If it Bleeds, It Leads".
Having said that, the landing legs sort of have to work.
What do you suppose the time frame is for "successful landing" ? If they stick then landing, and a typhoon dumps the booster in the drink, do you suppose the reporters will say "Booster Sank in Ocean while Trying to Land" ?
Which of course is why landing on a barge in the ocean is sort of ridiculous in my estimation.
One of the first things is I don't look at this as failures, its more learning experiences.
But the second thing is I'm convinced that Spacex is taking on some new things too fast, and multiple things at the same time. And lest we go to Newspeak - my criticisms and observations do not detract from my being a fan of Spacex
These guys are making huge strides forward in reusable spaceflight, so it's hardly fair to dismiss the whole thing as "exploded upon landing" because of a mechanical leg failure after the damn thing landed and powered off.
Yes, it's fair. Because it did explode after landing. What you are complaining about is the reaction of people who have some axe to grind with Spacex.
From the rocketry standpoint, Spacex is doing some very cool stuff landing these candles. So much has almost worked. One at least was an unqualified success. My concerns such as they are is that there have been a fair number of mechanical issues, and they are learning a lot of things NASA has learned over the years.
Best way to put it?
This shit ain't easy.
Don't forget that the Falcon 9 first stage is taller than the Statue of Liberty, about the size of a twelve storey apartment building.
Yup, it's landing a pencil on the eraser end. Quite a trick. The barge thing needs to go away.
OK then, How about a few questions.
I only have one - Why aren't you writing the stuff?
You and I may not value the service but they're wildly good at what they do.
So is malaria.
"something had to be done"
And that "something" was forcing people to pay into a broken system by law? Isn't that a little like "fixing" high car prices by outlawing private sales (personal healthcare financing) and forcing people to go to car dealerships (health insurance)?
Hey - your group is trying to outlaw Tesla dealerships, so bad analogy.
Is perfect the enemy of good? Sorry, but the system which does have problems did not have tose problems because of th proponents, The problems are dirctly because of th opponents. You cant have it both ways, by declaring tires unsafe because you purposely let the ait out of therm. Or that no one should ever have tires on their car because they go flat occasionally. Or in this case purposely screwing up something the rest of the civilized world can do.
NO health care system will ever be perfect. And one thing is for certain. The insurance sysrtem that was in place was so monumentally fucked up that no replacement system coiuld ever be as bad. Have a pre-existing condition? Tough You are stuck in your job forever, or go without any insurance at all. The nastiest most anti-American provision of the Old system you seem to like. My wife's boss and his wife were both walled in, she had breast cancer, he had a blood clotting issue. And neither could get any new insurance, so they were stuck. No upward mobility, or just no health insurance at all, havint to go to the emergency room and participate in the positive feedback loop that teh American healthcare system had become.
Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at our incompetence.
I do not support this project or the idea.
The figure "the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills" is disingenuous.
Because healthcare insurance pays all its bills [citation needed], then unpaid bills are only payable by uninsured folk.
And Bingo! You pretty much summed up the issue here. The US was caught in a positive feedback loop. As more Americans were falling off the insurance roles, they took to going to emergency rooms for their medical treatments. These people were getting the most expensive healthcare in the world for relatively minor illnesses as well as more major ones. I got to verify this during the last year of my father's life when he went to the ER a few times. There were a lot of people there who looked like they just had a child with the flu or earache or something. I asked the doctor about it, and he noted they were the uninsured, but they still needed treatment, and they were a growing issue.
As with all things medical, everything is recorded, and billed out, but not paid. So the costs are eventually paid by the insurance company, who then raises rates, and then employers were either dropping health insurance or people were "voluntarily" dropping it, which was making a smaller pool of insured with more and more expenses, and now going to emergency rooms for their primary care.
A positive feedback loop with an obvious ending, and not a happy one either. For all the bluff and bluster over ObamaCare - or RomneyCare - and make no mistake, it is far from perfect - something had to be done. So it's now tweaking time.
This crowdfunding thing though is a national embarassment,
The rest of the big boy and girl countries have figured this stuff out, and the US is reduced to begging.
I think Stalinist Neocons would be a more accurate term, especially with your two last examples of the demagogues Trump and Cruz.
Cruz is an especially interesting case. He is a Domnionist, which is one of the more interesting versions of christianity.
His father, who is a dominionist Priest, outlines matters. They have two groups of leaders, one group called priests, the others are Kings. Ted is one of the Kings.
The Priests job is to preach to the faithful. Not too bad so far, although they have some odd ideas about the priests preaching to god - but whatever.
The tricky part is the King's job. And that is to do physical war with their god's enemies, take their enemies wealth, and give it to....... the dominionist priests!
Ted's activities fit more in with that role than as some patriotic American who wants to lead a country of all Americans in the rule of law. And as you note, nothing dies on the internet - go to YouTube, and search Dominionist Cruz. The best one is a little long, but revealing.
Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.
I thought the body was stainless steel on these things - no need for paint.
Yes, I think you can call it the anti-Corvette. A steel body and a fiberglass frame.
That problem is usually due to connecting them the wrong way round.
That's almost as bad as crossing the beams!