The fundamental issue is not private versus public.
Its unions versus your child's education.
Quite clearly the unions only motive is to protect its members, and if that protection is sometimes at the expense of your child's future then so be it. Do that for several generations and you get what we have now.
Aside from a couple of entitled *assholes, everyone co-operates and acts like there's 4 way stop sign.
I don't think the fear of wrecking your car, and sustaining possible major bodily damage, can strictly be called cooperation. A spontaneous Nash Equilibrium, sure.
OTRAG failed because of extraordinarily questionable management decisions, such as choosing one of the nastiest dictatorships on the planet for a launch site and selling easily-convertible technology to the highest bidder.
Your true colors shine through right here.
Its was cool for OTRAG to be a private space company as long as they didnt make business decisions like selling the technology they developed to the highest paying bidder. You do know how R&D works, right? When you do some R&D you often fund future R&D by selling rights to what you've accomplished so far.
Translation: OTRAG wasn't actually allowed to actually be a private company.
No, they do not. I suggest you actually read the numbers and the policies
I did read the numbers, and so did Neil deGrasse Tyson. The numbers are public record.
The numbers tell both of us that you are full of shit. You do seem to know the common Democrat propaganda, even though you don't know whats actually being done in and by the government.
The numbers don't lie. People do. Stop repeating people. Look at the numbers.
Ah yes, the "even though we are the ones that did it, its the other guys fault" defense that is quite common with Democrats (see the Affordable Care Act.)
The Department of Educations budgets are public record and the data includes both the actual appropriations as well as the amounts requested in the president budget (the president submits a budget request every year.)
We can end this on Bush's final year, his 2008 State of the Union address, where he asked congress to double science spending. Thats after he already increased science spending over his terms.
It was ILLEGAL to build and launch a private space craft in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's in the United States
Wrong. It was illegal for ANY American company to build and launch a private space craft anywhere in the world. The location of the launch or the production of the vehicle didn't matter.
Any private company could have built its space craft in France or Japan and launched it from Ecuador or Tahiti.
You mean like the West German company OTRAG that planned to launch from Zaire in the late 70's, but then faced political opposition from France and the Soviet Union resulting in the West German government shutting all in-country development down? OTRAG had to move its development to Libya of all places!
You really do not seem to know much of anything about the history of private space flight, or the extent to which many governments of the world (not just the United States, dummy) worked to prevent it. You cite France as a place that a private space industry might have developed, but history shows us that France especially was extremely hostile to private space development even in countries other than its own.
Funding for space goes up in Republican administrations because space exploration has traditionally been an outgrowth of the armaments industry.
..and what about funding of the NIH and NSF?
To add to this, funding for the Federal Department of Educations doubled under Bush Jr (its one of the first things his administration pushed for.)
You need to look at what these politicians do, not what they say.
Democrats constantly talk about how Republicans hate science, want to destroy education, hate medical research, and so on.. but the budget numbers across the board tell a different story. The Republicans are by no-means saints, but the Democrats constantly lie about the issues we are discussing today. It is the Democrats that actually don't put the money where their mouth is.
If you feel that the government making it illegal to explore space without using government vehicles is a bad thing, then its you that are in the "government is bad... m'kay" mindset.
You are projecting your own feelings onto me, something quite common among blindly-pro-government sheep. The government did a bad thing, and you agree. End of discussion.
I think that it should be noted, because the poster that you replied to was talking about liberals, that Neil deGrasse Tyson calls the liberals out on their complete hostility towards NASA funding (and science in general.)
Nothing here says that they'll look the other way in California and Colorado but crack down with federal felonies in Georgia and Virginia.
They already crack down on federal marijuana felonies in all States. Nothing here says that they wont continue this policy within States that havent taken it upon themselves to rescheduled marijuana.
We arent talking about new law here. The DEA has and uses its authority to arrest and prosecute marijuana growers, and nothing here says that its different now.
Indeed. To make this clear to everybody as to why, most of the delta-v we use to put things into orbit are not used to go upwards, but instead to go sideways fast enough to orbit the planet (the ISS goes sideways at a speed of 27,600 km/h.)
Escape velocity from the earths surface is 40,320 km/h, less than twice the delta-v needed to orbit at the ISS's altitude.
We only need 4 times the required earth escape delta-v to escape the solar system itself.
Without everything THE GOVERNMENT has done since WWII in research and development towards aeronautics and space exploration
You mean the former government mandated monopoly of space exploration? It was ILLEGAL to build and launch a private space craft in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's (until 1984, to be precise... just a little bit ironic) unless you used a government launch vehicle (the shuttle in the case of the U.S)
You did know that, right?
So your argument translates to: "The government did all the research and development of initial space technologies during the period where it monopolized space technologies through the use of force" -- well no fucking shit sherlock. Now, I'm going to believe that you were sadly misinformed about what held back commercial space launches, rather than being an outright dishonest government/nasa shill.
To be very very specific: The Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984 - prior to that point, it was completely illegal for any American company to use anything but a U.S. government launch vehicle to put anything into space. By 1997 (13 years), commercial launches outnumbered all government launches worldwide.
This is a very common problem in the US
You know whats a common problem in the U.S.? People being so sadly misinformed about things while defending the government based on arguments that fall to pieces when the light if knowledge is shines upon them.
yeah, I didnt bother because many other people already told you why you were stupid for picking a measure of efficiency on the topic of electricity generation efficiency that amazingly has to do with your local climate instead of anything to do with electricity generation efficiency... but hey... continue being that person that pays twice as much as everyone else (including most of Europe) and finding excuses for why it aint so bad that your government is fucking you that way.
Yes they do, but because production from this source is greatly limited by decades of NIMBY politics the price is still mainly rooted on the less efficient methods.
You will hear of this man again when a company decides to paint their logo over the entire visible surface of the moon. Its more practical than most people think.
You would not sit there and argue that a tax imposed on one 30mpg car but not on another more expensive but otherwise entirely identical 30mpg car isnt inefficient, would you?
So its because one is 30mpg and the other is 50mpg that you have failed to see that such a tax is an inefficiency.
An example of an entirely identical product being taxed differently can be found by observing our sugar industry. American sugar producers use a less efficient production method than foreign producers (here we grow sugar beets, there they grow sugar cane) but they produce the exact same product. We tax the hell out of imported sugar and also impose import caps, leading to Americans paying over twice what the rest of the worlds pays for sugar. If you think this protects American jobs then you would be wrong, as the U.S Commerce Department estimates the policy costs America over 10000 jobs (more than are actually employed growing sugar in America! and employed by the government because of the added revenue!)
So Americans pay more for the product than they would, and have fewer jobs because of it. When you fuck with price signals, people get hurt. Every. Fucking. Time.
That number keeps cropping up. I'm pretty sure all those studies didn't refer to 'accelerating' climate change.
This crowd of armchair AGW pundits (not the scientists) fears change itself, which is ironic because they dont self-identify as conservative.
At the end of the day, artificial inefficiency immediately makes people worse off, where worse more frequently than we would like includes famine, pestilence, and war. Thats the one thing on the climate change debate table that is neither a protection nor a theory.
Consuming green products isn't the answer - reduction of consumption is the answer - a nearly impossible task when we are programmed to define our self worth by the stuff we have, and economic growth defines our success internationally.
Your view of this is completely twisted, and I think you have led yourself here because you arent at the roots.
We define our worth by the the goods and services that we enjoy. Less goods and less services really does make us worse off.
You say that our priorities are wrong, but look at the fundamentals of countries whose people enjoy significantly less goods and services than we ourselves do. By most measures, but most of all Quality of Life, they are worse off. You can argue that some people are plenty happy and lead long lives with very little in the way of goods and services, but that isnt an argument that supports a notion of wrong priorities. Instead its an argument for liberty, so that those who can be plenty happy in that way may choose to live that way.
In the real world, many deaths could be avoided if it were not for the lack of goods and services that are available today but are only available somewhere else. Ask yourself what poverty actually is. Its not a lack of some amount of some nations currency. Its a lack of goods and services. For instance when people speak of being poor in America they are not talking about whats in their wallet.... they are talking about what goods and services they enjoy.
You began your post talking about the number of billions in currency spent on advertising, and ended talking about the currency we will spend committing acts of violence on Syria. You are caught up in the dollar values, and have thus completely missed the forest for the trees. Yes, it would be more efficient if the government didnt spend currency to buy up labor for its acts of violence on other countries, but its not because of the dollar values. Its because (a) its an act of violence, and 9b) that labor has become mis-allocated by the governments distortion of the labor market.
If the government instead used the money to support renewable energy, that too would be a distortion of the labor market. Yes it is clearly better if the distortion doesnt kill innocent folks in Syria, but better doesn't always mean right, efficient, or just. The government has no incentive to spend this money in a way that makes anyone but its current members better off, which is why they will spend it on violence against Syria and of not that then to reward their campaign donors like at Solyndra and Babcock & Brown (both were renewable energy companies that went belly up after receiving plenty of tax dollars, so goes right to your appeal.)
Which is why governments should use taxes to make that 30mpg car HURT your pocketbook more than the 50mpg car.
Yes. Lets artificially make cars more expensive, because then this guy wont have to worry so much about his retirement, or the expense of raising his kids. That also will be great for the people with jobs making cars.../sarcasm
The number one killer in the world is poverty. Advocating for artificial inefficiency is advocating for the killing of real living people. Deaths due to government-mandated inefficiency arent just theoretical.
50mpg cars already have a real economic advantage over 30mpg cars. If that advantage isn't good enough, then figure out why it isn't and fix the real problem. Artificial inefficiency doesnt actually fix problems, it just pretends to. Some people are OK with pretending, because they are shallow and the act of worshiping a particular cause makes them feel better even though at its core its just an empty high at the expense of everyone else.
You can choose different metrics for efficiency, but the definition is not arbitrary at all. For instance, your metric might be 'number of good feelings shared by all' -- but the efficiency would still be non-arbitrarily measured as the trade-off that buys those shared good feelings.
Until you understand that efficiency is not arbitrary, you should not talk about subjects that deal with efficiency or even economics. Its always about trade-offs, but the measure is never arbitrary (until you come up with a magic 'Instant Free Stuff' button)
However you use between 4 to 10 times the electricity a German household or person does.
But why bother thinking about the subject when you can just make stupid declarations like "efficiency is arbitrary." -- its not like anyone has ever lost their life due to inefficiency... oh.. wait.. yeah.. most of the people in the world wouldn't die at such an early age if their local economies were more efficient, but lets not call you a murderer for supporting inefficient policies.. that would be crass way to accurately describe you.
In case YOU missed it, Germans with their record breaking solar and wind production pay over twice as much for electricity as the average American. The record they are also breaking is how well they can spin their inefficiency to make their policies look efficient.
German Efficiency, even more of a myth than ever before.
Expand existing business-oriented product-lines to iOS, Android, and Linux, in addition to Windows.
I'd agree with this if it wasnt for the fact that their only real flagship (big revenue) software products other than windows are a desktop-centric and a server-centric product.
The days when Microsoft was selling BASIC to computer makers (such as to Apple, Commodore, etc..) is long gone, and its simply not coming back. Nobody is doing that now.
Slashdot Mirror
The fundamental issue is not private versus public.
Its unions versus your child's education.
Quite clearly the unions only motive is to protect its members, and if that protection is sometimes at the expense of your child's future then so be it. Do that for several generations and you get what we have now.
Aside from a couple of entitled *assholes, everyone co-operates and acts like there's 4 way stop sign.
I don't think the fear of wrecking your car, and sustaining possible major bodily damage, can strictly be called cooperation. A spontaneous Nash Equilibrium, sure.
OTRAG failed because of extraordinarily questionable management decisions, such as choosing one of the nastiest dictatorships on the planet for a launch site and selling easily-convertible technology to the highest bidder.
Your true colors shine through right here.
Its was cool for OTRAG to be a private space company as long as they didnt make business decisions like selling the technology they developed to the highest paying bidder. You do know how R&D works, right? When you do some R&D you often fund future R&D by selling rights to what you've accomplished so far.
Translation: OTRAG wasn't actually allowed to actually be a private company.
No, they do not. I suggest you actually read the numbers and the policies
I did read the numbers, and so did Neil deGrasse Tyson. The numbers are public record.
The numbers tell both of us that you are full of shit. You do seem to know the common Democrat propaganda, even though you don't know whats actually being done in and by the government.
The numbers don't lie. People do. Stop repeating people. Look at the numbers.
Ah yes, the "even though we are the ones that did it, its the other guys fault" defense that is quite common with Democrats (see the Affordable Care Act.)
The Department of Educations budgets are public record and the data includes both the actual appropriations as well as the amounts requested in the president budget (the president submits a budget request every year.)
We can end this on Bush's final year, his 2008 State of the Union address, where he asked congress to double science spending. Thats after he already increased science spending over his terms.
Nobody but you mentioned Obama.
You are projecting your own opinions onto others now.
It was ILLEGAL to build and launch a private space craft in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's in the United States
Wrong. It was illegal for ANY American company to build and launch a private space craft anywhere in the world. The location of the launch or the production of the vehicle didn't matter.
Any private company could have built its space craft in France or Japan and launched it from Ecuador or Tahiti.
You mean like the West German company OTRAG that planned to launch from Zaire in the late 70's, but then faced political opposition from France and the Soviet Union resulting in the West German government shutting all in-country development down? OTRAG had to move its development to Libya of all places!
You really do not seem to know much of anything about the history of private space flight, or the extent to which many governments of the world (not just the United States, dummy) worked to prevent it. You cite France as a place that a private space industry might have developed, but history shows us that France especially was extremely hostile to private space development even in countries other than its own.
Funding for space goes up in Republican administrations because space exploration has traditionally been an outgrowth of the armaments industry.
To add to this, funding for the Federal Department of Educations doubled under Bush Jr (its one of the first things his administration pushed for.)
You need to look at what these politicians do, not what they say.
Democrats constantly talk about how Republicans hate science, want to destroy education, hate medical research, and so on.. but the budget numbers across the board tell a different story. The Republicans are by no-means saints, but the Democrats constantly lie about the issues we are discussing today. It is the Democrats that actually don't put the money where their mouth is.
If you feel that the government making it illegal to explore space without using government vehicles is a bad thing, then its you that are in the "government is bad... m'kay" mindset.
You are projecting your own feelings onto me, something quite common among blindly-pro-government sheep. The government did a bad thing, and you agree. End of discussion.
I think that it should be noted, because the poster that you replied to was talking about liberals, that Neil deGrasse Tyson calls the liberals out on their complete hostility towards NASA funding (and science in general.)
He observed and noted that NASA funding goes up during Republican administrations and goes down during Democrat administrations: here is a video of him talking about NIH, NSF, and NASA budgets and Bush vs Clinton funding levels.
Nothing here says that they'll look the other way in California and Colorado but crack down with federal felonies in Georgia and Virginia.
They already crack down on federal marijuana felonies in all States. Nothing here says that they wont continue this policy within States that havent taken it upon themselves to rescheduled marijuana.
We arent talking about new law here. The DEA has and uses its authority to arrest and prosecute marijuana growers, and nothing here says that its different now.
LEO to Mars isn't such a gap
Indeed. To make this clear to everybody as to why, most of the delta-v we use to put things into orbit are not used to go upwards, but instead to go sideways fast enough to orbit the planet (the ISS goes sideways at a speed of 27,600 km/h.)
Escape velocity from the earths surface is 40,320 km/h, less than twice the delta-v needed to orbit at the ISS's altitude.
We only need 4 times the required earth escape delta-v to escape the solar system itself.
Without everything THE GOVERNMENT has done since WWII in research and development towards aeronautics and space exploration
You mean the former government mandated monopoly of space exploration? It was ILLEGAL to build and launch a private space craft in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's (until 1984, to be precise... just a little bit ironic) unless you used a government launch vehicle (the shuttle in the case of the U.S)
You did know that, right?
So your argument translates to: "The government did all the research and development of initial space technologies during the period where it monopolized space technologies through the use of force" -- well no fucking shit sherlock. Now, I'm going to believe that you were sadly misinformed about what held back commercial space launches, rather than being an outright dishonest government/nasa shill.
To be very very specific: The Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984 - prior to that point, it was completely illegal for any American company to use anything but a U.S. government launch vehicle to put anything into space. By 1997 (13 years), commercial launches outnumbered all government launches worldwide.
This is a very common problem in the US
You know whats a common problem in the U.S.? People being so sadly misinformed about things while defending the government based on arguments that fall to pieces when the light if knowledge is shines upon them.
Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.
yeah, I didnt bother because many other people already told you why you were stupid for picking a measure of efficiency on the topic of electricity generation efficiency that amazingly has to do with your local climate instead of anything to do with electricity generation efficiency... but hey... continue being that person that pays twice as much as everyone else (including most of Europe) and finding excuses for why it aint so bad that your government is fucking you that way.
Do they produce cheap energy?
Yes they do, but because production from this source is greatly limited by decades of NIMBY politics the price is still mainly rooted on the less efficient methods.
Supply cannot meet demand.
You will hear of this man again when a company decides to paint their logo over the entire visible surface of the moon. Its more practical than most people think.
You would not sit there and argue that a tax imposed on one 30mpg car but not on another more expensive but otherwise entirely identical 30mpg car isnt inefficient, would you?
So its because one is 30mpg and the other is 50mpg that you have failed to see that such a tax is an inefficiency.
An example of an entirely identical product being taxed differently can be found by observing our sugar industry. American sugar producers use a less efficient production method than foreign producers (here we grow sugar beets, there they grow sugar cane) but they produce the exact same product. We tax the hell out of imported sugar and also impose import caps, leading to Americans paying over twice what the rest of the worlds pays for sugar. If you think this protects American jobs then you would be wrong, as the U.S Commerce Department estimates the policy costs America over 10000 jobs (more than are actually employed growing sugar in America! and employed by the government because of the added revenue!)
So Americans pay more for the product than they would, and have fewer jobs because of it. When you fuck with price signals, people get hurt. Every. Fucking. Time.
That number keeps cropping up. I'm pretty sure all those studies didn't refer to 'accelerating' climate change.
This crowd of armchair AGW pundits (not the scientists) fears change itself, which is ironic because they dont self-identify as conservative.
At the end of the day, artificial inefficiency immediately makes people worse off, where worse more frequently than we would like includes famine, pestilence, and war. Thats the one thing on the climate change debate table that is neither a protection nor a theory.
Consuming green products isn't the answer - reduction of consumption is the answer - a nearly impossible task when we are programmed to define our self worth by the stuff we have, and economic growth defines our success internationally.
Your view of this is completely twisted, and I think you have led yourself here because you arent at the roots.
We define our worth by the the goods and services that we enjoy. Less goods and less services really does make us worse off.
You say that our priorities are wrong, but look at the fundamentals of countries whose people enjoy significantly less goods and services than we ourselves do. By most measures, but most of all Quality of Life, they are worse off. You can argue that some people are plenty happy and lead long lives with very little in the way of goods and services, but that isnt an argument that supports a notion of wrong priorities. Instead its an argument for liberty, so that those who can be plenty happy in that way may choose to live that way.
In the real world, many deaths could be avoided if it were not for the lack of goods and services that are available today but are only available somewhere else. Ask yourself what poverty actually is. Its not a lack of some amount of some nations currency. Its a lack of goods and services. For instance when people speak of being poor in America they are not talking about whats in their wallet.... they are talking about what goods and services they enjoy.
You began your post talking about the number of billions in currency spent on advertising, and ended talking about the currency we will spend committing acts of violence on Syria. You are caught up in the dollar values, and have thus completely missed the forest for the trees. Yes, it would be more efficient if the government didnt spend currency to buy up labor for its acts of violence on other countries, but its not because of the dollar values. Its because (a) its an act of violence, and 9b) that labor has become mis-allocated by the governments distortion of the labor market.
If the government instead used the money to support renewable energy, that too would be a distortion of the labor market. Yes it is clearly better if the distortion doesnt kill innocent folks in Syria, but better doesn't always mean right, efficient, or just. The government has no incentive to spend this money in a way that makes anyone but its current members better off, which is why they will spend it on violence against Syria and of not that then to reward their campaign donors like at Solyndra and Babcock & Brown (both were renewable energy companies that went belly up after receiving plenty of tax dollars, so goes right to your appeal.)
Which is why governments should use taxes to make that 30mpg car HURT your pocketbook more than the 50mpg car.
Yes. Lets artificially make cars more expensive, because then this guy wont have to worry so much about his retirement, or the expense of raising his kids. That also will be great for the people with jobs making cars... /sarcasm
The number one killer in the world is poverty. Advocating for artificial inefficiency is advocating for the killing of real living people. Deaths due to government-mandated inefficiency arent just theoretical.
50mpg cars already have a real economic advantage over 30mpg cars. If that advantage isn't good enough, then figure out why it isn't and fix the real problem. Artificial inefficiency doesnt actually fix problems, it just pretends to. Some people are OK with pretending, because they are shallow and the act of worshiping a particular cause makes them feel better even though at its core its just an empty high at the expense of everyone else.
You know efficiency can be defined arbitrarily.
No, it really cannot.
You can choose different metrics for efficiency, but the definition is not arbitrary at all. For instance, your metric might be 'number of good feelings shared by all' -- but the efficiency would still be non-arbitrarily measured as the trade-off that buys those shared good feelings.
Until you understand that efficiency is not arbitrary, you should not talk about subjects that deal with efficiency or even economics. Its always about trade-offs, but the measure is never arbitrary (until you come up with a magic 'Instant Free Stuff' button)
However you use between 4 to 10 times the electricity a German household or person does.
But why bother thinking about the subject when you can just make stupid declarations like "efficiency is arbitrary." -- its not like anyone has ever lost their life due to inefficiency... oh.. wait.. yeah.. most of the people in the world wouldn't die at such an early age if their local economies were more efficient, but lets not call you a murderer for supporting inefficient policies.. that would be crass way to accurately describe you.
In case YOU missed it, Germans with their record breaking solar and wind production pay over twice as much for electricity as the average American. The record they are also breaking is how well they can spin their inefficiency to make their policies look efficient.
German Efficiency, even more of a myth than ever before.
Expand existing business-oriented product-lines to iOS, Android, and Linux, in addition to Windows.
I'd agree with this if it wasnt for the fact that their only real flagship (big revenue) software products other than windows are a desktop-centric and a server-centric product.
The days when Microsoft was selling BASIC to computer makers (such as to Apple, Commodore, etc..) is long gone, and its simply not coming back. Nobody is doing that now.