Doubtful. And this isn't a matter of case law, this is a matter of an actual *statute* which does *not* exist in American law
No. The Statute of Frauds exists in the US, and to my knowledge every common law nation derived from the English legal system. It is now codified in various state codes and the UCC. Statutes are further interpreted and construed by - "case law". It overstates it to say that English common law controls, but in novel situations the old English common law is persuasive secondary authority.
It won't matter much here, because the Manchester decision was not part of the common law prior to 1792. It doesn't sneak in by some sort of legal timewarp.
There's a fairly simple solution to that: dig a hole, build the station in it and pile the removed rubble on top
Not so easy in the limited gravity well of the Moon. As TFA states, there are serious problems engineering earth-moving machinery that will work on the Moon. Backhoes work on Earth largely because Earth's gravity is stronger than the force of the earth-moving arm exerted against the ground. Bulldozers work because Earth's gravity overcomes the forward force of the dozer, giving traction sufficient to move soil. There are serious problems with hydraulics and fluids in low gravity. The flying fine Moon soil particles are also serious problems for soil moving activity.
Construction on the Moon isn't as simple as "dig a hole, plop in base, cover".
Nazi Germany had a tremendous amount of scientific and technological achievement
And would have had more if research wasn't centrally directed by the Nazi ruling clique. Hitler stopped work on the German atomic research that could have led to the Nazi Bomb, for instance. The Allies even launched bombing raids and special forces sabotage raids to cripple the German heavy water production. No need, though. The Nazis sabotaged the program by diverting efforts to the V-2, and scaring off their best minds.
I do not want to read a science paper put together by a committee
Read the IPCC report on global climate change that so much climate research is authoratively based on. Science by committee, right there. I will let you come to your own conclusions as its merits, depending on your political bias.
I think Dr. Curry isn't up on her NAO research. The NAO has a 40-50 year variable decadal pattern. The beginning of the 20th century was a cold pattern, with rapid warming in the 1930s followed by 30 years of warm cycle, followed by another cold period up until the 1990s. The 90s were a sustained cold period with minimal hurricane activity, and now we're cycling into another warm period.
The decadal periods are bookended by monster hurricane cycles. See the 1900 Galveston hurricane (which destroyed Galveston), the 1964 Betsy hurricane (which destroyed New Orleans), and the 2005 Katrina hurricane (ditto). There was a rapid ramp-up in the 1930s, and there appears to be a rapid ramp-up in the 2000's.
T-space is doing interesting work on air-launched rocketry using a lanyard to upright the rocket. Requires less ground infrastructure, and can be launched over water - making it unnecessary to make expensively safe launch pad facilities in populated areas.
Safer too, supposedly. If the rocket screws up during light-up, the capsule would separate and parachute down. In contrast to blowing up on the pad.
Actually, after reading the article it appears that this suposed craft is also suborbital
The article repeatedly refers to the ship as "orbital". And it indicates that it can be suborbital or LEO depending on the needs of the mission.
From the Article:
If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital
The US government had a SpaceShipOne-like suborbital spaceplane/rocket, air launched, in the X-15 - decades before Rutan. That doesn't detract from Scaled's accomplishment, it is just that government suborbital spaceplanes are not the innovation that makes this story interesting.
I don't care about returning earth to some pristine state a billion years ago, I care about preserving it in a state that keeps it inhabitable, and that's the state that existed until the industrial revolution and that we are rapidly destroying
Despite what you may have been told, the world will not become uninhabitable if the planet warms 2 degrees Celcius, the high end of computer modelling. Hominids have existed for approximately 3 million years and longer, and during that period the planet has been both considerably warmer and colder than present.
The military and intelligence agencies aren't motivated primarily by cost or efficiency of method, but by its military or intelligence advantage.
A rocket launch is immediately identifiable by foreign satellite intelligence. That is how the Soviets and Americans verified arms control treaties during the Cold War, and it is the basis of Cold War nuclear-launch "early warning" systems. A rocket launch has no surprise value.
An air-launched space plane (or even an air-launched space rocket), however, is a different story.
Satellites have known flight paths that can be predicted, allowing others to move assets before they can be imaged. Again, an air-launched vehicle has advantages here.
It would take a major breakthrough in fuel technology
From the Article:
WORK ON THE ORBITER moved at a relatively slow pace until a "fuel breakthrough" was made, workers were told. Then, from 1990 through 1991, "we lived out there. It was a madhouse," a technician said. The new fuel was believed to be a boron-based gel having the consistency of toothpaste and high-energy characteristics, but occupying less volume than other fuels
Well, I'm no geo-scientist but it would seem to me that we're creating a dangerous imbalance in the eath's natural resources. Obviously, I have no idea what I'm talking about and maybe that doesn't mean anything, but I feel like the earth is going to do what it has to so it can "heal" itself. Again, this is just a completely uneducated guess
Your guess assumes that carbon sequestration is the natural state. That is not a reasonable assumption. Remember your food chain - that sequestered carbon was once atmospheric carbon until it was rendered by plants millions of years ago.
Compared to the long-term (billions of years), we are currently in an atmospheric carbon drought. As to the Earth "healing itself", if you mean that the planet's dynamic processes will adjust to the changed circumstances you are correct. If you mean that the Earth gives a damn about how much carbon is floating around free, you would be wrong. People may care, but the planet goes on magnificently detached, unaware, and uncaring.
When you have large unknowns, you do a risk assessment and then decide if that possibility of destroying the planet is important to you or not
Part of that analysis is the probability that destroying the planet is even a likelihood. That burden is on those who assert it is. Anyone that would base exceedingly costly and disruptive policy on 3 years of data on a subject (literally) with geologic timescales is foolish in the extreme. And, I would argue, not a very serious person.
What's important is the evidence that stopping our pollution will slow or stop the trend
Even the proponents of Kyoto recognize that its provisions wouldn't budge the trend in the slightest. From what I have read, any sort of provisions to "slow or stop the trend" would require essentially the reversal of the Industrial Revolution. No one is volunteering to be first, of course.
Because they're coming to get you - much faster than the seas will drown you
Was this a wake-up call about the potential devastation that climate change could cause?
No, it was a wake-up call that the North Atlantic Mode has made its 40 year cycle and we can expect two decades of intense storms. Like the Great Hurricane that flattened Galveston in 1900 and killed 6000 people, or Hurricane Betsy in 1964 that flooded half of New Orleans with 20 foot deep water.
Which was his point. Hundreds of thousands is a blip in geologic timescales. Modern humans have only been in existence for 200,000 years, and yet climate varied without us.
But if I can get you to stop braying like a FoxNews mule
I usually try not to throw accusations, but you are by far one of the biggest "brayers" on Slashdot. Now get all your little friends to mod me down for you.
But good job trying to minimaze the problems we face today
Problems facing today being the operative phrase. All the study shows is a 3 year trend. Which they extrapolated. 3 years is not a data set to base public policy OR firm geo science upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtful. And this isn't a matter of case law, this is a matter of an actual *statute* which does *not* exist in American law
No. The Statute of Frauds exists in the US, and to my knowledge every common law nation derived from the English legal system. It is now codified in various state codes and the UCC. Statutes are further interpreted and construed by - "case law". It overstates it to say that English common law controls, but in novel situations the old English common law is persuasive secondary authority.
It probably won't matter much here
It won't matter much here, because the Manchester decision was not part of the common law prior to 1792. It doesn't sneak in by some sort of legal timewarp.
Not so much about class and swagger as professionalism
Yes. This is why people would rather patronize a mechanic or plumber that doesn't look like he is a hick-ass Deliverance extra.
How about "light fuse on 1MT nuke. run like hell. boom. plop in base. cover
The US, UK, and Russia are banned from detonating nuclear devices in space, for any purpose, by treaty.
We'd also like to avoid making our construction site glow like a lightstick.
It also doesn't address the "cover" problem.
There's a fairly simple solution to that: dig a hole, build the station in it and pile the removed rubble on top
Not so easy in the limited gravity well of the Moon. As TFA states, there are serious problems engineering earth-moving machinery that will work on the Moon. Backhoes work on Earth largely because Earth's gravity is stronger than the force of the earth-moving arm exerted against the ground. Bulldozers work because Earth's gravity overcomes the forward force of the dozer, giving traction sufficient to move soil. There are serious problems with hydraulics and fluids in low gravity. The flying fine Moon soil particles are also serious problems for soil moving activity.
Construction on the Moon isn't as simple as "dig a hole, plop in base, cover".
Does the author have a problem with the Dewey decimal system? Hello?
well, underinformed. First of all, you are ARE a monkey, all humans are
You seem to be even more "underinformed". Humans are not monkeys, we are APES. And no, it is not the same thing.
Nazi Germany had a tremendous amount of scientific and technological achievement
And would have had more if research wasn't centrally directed by the Nazi ruling clique. Hitler stopped work on the German atomic research that could have led to the Nazi Bomb, for instance. The Allies even launched bombing raids and special forces sabotage raids to cripple the German heavy water production. No need, though. The Nazis sabotaged the program by diverting efforts to the V-2, and scaring off their best minds.
I do not want to read a science paper put together by a committee
Read the IPCC report on global climate change that so much climate research is authoratively based on. Science by committee, right there. I will let you come to your own conclusions as its merits, depending on your political bias.
I think Dr. Curry isn't up on her NAO research. The NAO has a 40-50 year variable decadal pattern. The beginning of the 20th century was a cold pattern, with rapid warming in the 1930s followed by 30 years of warm cycle, followed by another cold period up until the 1990s. The 90s were a sustained cold period with minimal hurricane activity, and now we're cycling into another warm period.
The decadal periods are bookended by monster hurricane cycles. See the 1900 Galveston hurricane (which destroyed Galveston), the 1964 Betsy hurricane (which destroyed New Orleans), and the 2005 Katrina hurricane (ditto). There was a rapid ramp-up in the 1930s, and there appears to be a rapid ramp-up in the 2000's.
1. Bacteria turn styrefome into lead.
2. Bacteria turn lead into copper.
3. Bacteria turn copper into gold.
4. It's the PHILOSOPHER STONE!!! Eureka!
Yeah, and the launch escape tower is a Hail Mary measure. Separating from an exploding rocket in mid-air is safer and more certain of survival.
T-space is doing interesting work on air-launched rocketry using a lanyard to upright the rocket. Requires less ground infrastructure, and can be launched over water - making it unnecessary to make expensively safe launch pad facilities in populated areas.
Safer too, supposedly. If the rocket screws up during light-up, the capsule would separate and parachute down. In contrast to blowing up on the pad.
Actually, after reading the article it appears that this suposed craft is also suborbital
The article repeatedly refers to the ship as "orbital". And it indicates that it can be suborbital or LEO depending on the needs of the mission.
From the Article:
If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital
The US government had a SpaceShipOne-like suborbital spaceplane/rocket, air launched, in the X-15 - decades before Rutan. That doesn't detract from Scaled's accomplishment, it is just that government suborbital spaceplanes are not the innovation that makes this story interesting.
I don't care about returning earth to some pristine state a billion years ago, I care about preserving it in a state that keeps it inhabitable, and that's the state that existed until the industrial revolution and that we are rapidly destroying
Despite what you may have been told, the world will not become uninhabitable if the planet warms 2 degrees Celcius, the high end of computer modelling. Hominids have existed for approximately 3 million years and longer, and during that period the planet has been both considerably warmer and colder than present.
The military and intelligence agencies aren't motivated primarily by cost or efficiency of method, but by its military or intelligence advantage.
A rocket launch is immediately identifiable by foreign satellite intelligence. That is how the Soviets and Americans verified arms control treaties during the Cold War, and it is the basis of Cold War nuclear-launch "early warning" systems. A rocket launch has no surprise value.
An air-launched space plane (or even an air-launched space rocket), however, is a different story.
Satellites have known flight paths that can be predicted, allowing others to move assets before they can be imaged. Again, an air-launched vehicle has advantages here.
It would take a major breakthrough in fuel technology
From the Article:
WORK ON THE ORBITER moved at a relatively slow pace until a "fuel breakthrough" was made, workers were told. Then, from 1990 through 1991, "we lived out there. It was a madhouse," a technician said. The new fuel was believed to be a boron-based gel having the consistency of toothpaste and high-energy characteristics, but occupying less volume than other fuels
It is just me or does it sound like a bigger, more complex version of SpaceShip One? Your tax dollars at work
Yeah, a bigger more complex version of SpaceShipOne that reaches orbit. Just like SpaceShipOne, a suborbital craft!
Well, I'm no geo-scientist but it would seem to me that we're creating a dangerous imbalance in the eath's natural resources. Obviously, I have no idea what I'm talking about and maybe that doesn't mean anything, but I feel like the earth is going to do what it has to so it can "heal" itself. Again, this is just a completely uneducated guess
Your guess assumes that carbon sequestration is the natural state. That is not a reasonable assumption. Remember your food chain - that sequestered carbon was once atmospheric carbon until it was rendered by plants millions of years ago.
Compared to the long-term (billions of years), we are currently in an atmospheric carbon drought. As to the Earth "healing itself", if you mean that the planet's dynamic processes will adjust to the changed circumstances you are correct. If you mean that the Earth gives a damn about how much carbon is floating around free, you would be wrong. People may care, but the planet goes on magnificently detached, unaware, and uncaring.
When you have large unknowns, you do a risk assessment and then decide if that possibility of destroying the planet is important to you or not
Part of that analysis is the probability that destroying the planet is even a likelihood. That burden is on those who assert it is. Anyone that would base exceedingly costly and disruptive policy on 3 years of data on a subject (literally) with geologic timescales is foolish in the extreme. And, I would argue, not a very serious person.
It seems to me the choice is clear
If you are going to propose a hypothesis that CO2 emissions are harmful, you have the burden of proof, not the other way around.
What's important is the evidence that stopping our pollution will slow or stop the trend
Even the proponents of Kyoto recognize that its provisions wouldn't budge the trend in the slightest. From what I have read, any sort of provisions to "slow or stop the trend" would require essentially the reversal of the Industrial Revolution. No one is volunteering to be first, of course.
Because they're coming to get you - much faster than the seas will drown you
I'm positively shaking with fear.
Was this a wake-up call about the potential devastation that climate change could cause?
No, it was a wake-up call that the North Atlantic Mode has made its 40 year cycle and we can expect two decades of intense storms. Like the Great Hurricane that flattened Galveston in 1900 and killed 6000 people, or Hurricane Betsy in 1964 that flooded half of New Orleans with 20 foot deep water.
hundreds of thousands of years
Which was his point. Hundreds of thousands is a blip in geologic timescales. Modern humans have only been in existence for 200,000 years, and yet climate varied without us.
But if I can get you to stop braying like a FoxNews mule
I usually try not to throw accusations, but you are by far one of the biggest "brayers" on Slashdot. Now get all your little friends to mod me down for you.
But good job trying to minimaze the problems we face today
Problems facing today being the operative phrase. All the study shows is a 3 year trend. Which they extrapolated. 3 years is not a data set to base public policy OR firm geo science upon.