Maybe you're interested in what is classified as hate speech in Germany: publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.
So saying the blacks should be sent to Africa is not ok. Saying that Muslims are terrorists is also not ok. Calling Mexicans rapists is also not ok. And this is as it should be.
Yeah, let's just get rid of the mainstream press and follow some random website that agrees with your preconceptions instead. You'll get all the alternative facts you want, everyone will support your conspiracy theories, and you won't be faced with inconvenient truths like global warming.
I'm not German, but I live in Germany, so I know a bit about what they think. What you are seeing is exactly the "nie wieder" in action. The Germans know very well how the Nazis used the openness of the Weimar republic to destroy it. How they used freedom of speech to advocate for the extermination of Jews. And so on.
The problem is the people who will use the very openness of a society to destroy it. See how the Nazis rose to power in Germany. This is known as the paradox of tolerance, proposed by Karl Popper, who personally saw everything going to shit, and in the end had to escape Austria before the concentration camps started working.
So no, the Germans know very well what they are doing, and they are doing it right: do not tolerate the intolerant.
Healthcare is the commodity, the more you make it available, the large demand grows and eventually it will be rationed.
Yes, that's exactly what happened in the 32 other countries which do have free healthcare for all. Everyone just wanted to go to the doctor all the time, and now you have to queue for hours to get your healthcare ration in order to fix a broken arm. That's why all the health indicators of these countries are so much worse than in the US./sarcasm
Ouch! Facts are so inconvenient, no? If you paid attention to them you would need to change your beliefs instead of just posting bullshit to Slashdot. Too much work, right?
GP was being sarcastic: burning diesel is rather expensive, about any other form of producing power is cheaper. And Australia uses mostly the cheapest of all, coal. The fact that it for these farmers it is cheaper to burn diesel than to buy electricity from a power plant shows how thoroughly fucked up the market there is.
I was simply not expecting you to deliberately misunderstand me, so I didn't write precisely enough. Sigh. It's much easier to have a constructive discussion when there is a minimal amount of goodwill.
What I meant is that you cannot run a hydroelectric power plant at full power all the time, as this would quickly drain the reservoir. And it is not even useful to do that, as you would just waste the energy produced at night. So lacking water for producing energy is actually a thing, unlike for example a nuclear power plant, which can run at full power pretty much all the time (i.e. but for maintenance and refuelling).
As a concrete example, Brazil had a major crisis in 2001 when its hydroelectrics couldn't produce enough energy due to a drought (I mean, the real cause was incompetence in planning, but the problem was triggered by a drought).
I'm all for forcing newer drivers to be more careful. I just don't think that being cruel to them accomplishes anything. If there is one thing that was shown over and over again by the criminal justice system is that harsher punishment has very little effect on behaviour. What makes people actually change behaviour is getting caught.
So what I'm favour of is measures that make younger drivers more likely to get caught. For example, forcing them to wear a device that records their speed and letting the police check it regularly, so that they know they can't get away with speeding. Or forcing them to glue a giant blue L in their windshields, so that the police (and other drivers) know that they should pay attention to this car.
I fail to see what is the point of punishing them more harshly for the same crime. Just because a 40 year old is less likely to race around doesn't make it less of a crime when he does race around.
Well, it is counterproductive to make it too strict. In Brazil, for example, the probation period lasts one year, and during it you lose your license for all but the most trivial infractions. The result is that people avoid driving at all during this probation period, defeating the whole point of the law.
My guess is that these laws are always made by older people who do not mind fucking over young ones.
If the US made voter registration mandatory and for free, as in all sensible countries, I would have no problem with voter ID laws. Otherwise, they are just making it difficult for people to vote.
They have tried to extend tethers in space, and run into multiple problems caused by them being not-rigid. Gemini 11 (which was tethered to it's Agena to test just these things) encountered problems with spin-up due to this and other dynamics issues.
Gemini 11 didn't try to dock while spinning, manoeuvre while spinning, or keep solar panels aligned while spinning.
The problems I cite spring directly from experience, mathematics, and engineering.
As any good theory does.
So no, my answer isn't theoretical.
You might want to review your definition of "theory". Hint: it is not an insult.
Unless you have actually tried to build a rotating space station, your answer is also theoretical. So it would be fair to say "Easy according to a bad theory, difficult according to a better theory".
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're interested in what is classified as hate speech in Germany: publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.
So saying the blacks should be sent to Africa is not ok. Saying that Muslims are terrorists is also not ok. Calling Mexicans rapists is also not ok. And this is as it should be.
Yeah, let's just get rid of the mainstream press and follow some random website that agrees with your preconceptions instead. You'll get all the alternative facts you want, everyone will support your conspiracy theories, and you won't be faced with inconvenient truths like global warming.
I'm not German, but I live in Germany, so I know a bit about what they think. What you are seeing is exactly the "nie wieder" in action. The Germans know very well how the Nazis used the openness of the Weimar republic to destroy it. How they used freedom of speech to advocate for the extermination of Jews. And so on.
It is very simple: you do not tolerate the intolerant.
The problem is the people who will use the very openness of a society to destroy it. See how the Nazis rose to power in Germany. This is known as the paradox of tolerance, proposed by Karl Popper, who personally saw everything going to shit, and in the end had to escape Austria before the concentration camps started working.
So no, the Germans know very well what they are doing, and they are doing it right: do not tolerate the intolerant.
Healthcare is the commodity, the more you make it available, the large demand grows and eventually it will be rationed.
Yes, that's exactly what happened in the 32 other countries which do have free healthcare for all. Everyone just wanted to go to the doctor all the time, and now you have to queue for hours to get your healthcare ration in order to fix a broken arm. That's why all the health indicators of these countries are so much worse than in the US. /sarcasm
Got a fact allergy, do you? If you cared to do a bit of research, you would see that the truth is the opposite: countries where the government is heavily involved in healthcare have much cheaper systems than the US.
Ouch! Facts are so inconvenient, no? If you paid attention to them you would need to change your beliefs instead of just posting bullshit to Slashdot. Too much work, right?
GP was being sarcastic: burning diesel is rather expensive, about any other form of producing power is cheaper. And Australia uses mostly the cheapest of all, coal. The fact that it for these farmers it is cheaper to burn diesel than to buy electricity from a power plant shows how thoroughly fucked up the market there is.
To be fair Scale Composites only got to space, which is much easier than getting into orbit.
And after they do land in the Moon you will no doubt invent new conspiracy theories to deny it.
Just look at the replies you are receiving: it is a proof that several Trump supporters actually believe his bullshit.
Their "CubeSat" is just a glovebox. Dishonest.
[citation needed]
I was simply not expecting you to deliberately misunderstand me, so I didn't write precisely enough. Sigh. It's much easier to have a constructive discussion when there is a minimal amount of goodwill.
What I meant is that you cannot run a hydroelectric power plant at full power all the time, as this would quickly drain the reservoir. And it is not even useful to do that, as you would just waste the energy produced at night. So lacking water for producing energy is actually a thing, unlike for example a nuclear power plant, which can run at full power pretty much all the time (i.e. but for maintenance and refuelling).
As a concrete example, Brazil had a major crisis in 2001 when its hydroelectrics couldn't produce enough energy due to a drought (I mean, the real cause was incompetence in planning, but the problem was triggered by a drought).
There is no point in replying to you, since you are just playing dumb.
The reservoir gets empty.
Try running a hydroelectrical power plant 24/7/365 and see what happens.
I'm all for forcing newer drivers to be more careful. I just don't think that being cruel to them accomplishes anything. If there is one thing that was shown over and over again by the criminal justice system is that harsher punishment has very little effect on behaviour. What makes people actually change behaviour is getting caught.
So what I'm favour of is measures that make younger drivers more likely to get caught. For example, forcing them to wear a device that records their speed and letting the police check it regularly, so that they know they can't get away with speeding. Or forcing them to glue a giant blue L in their windshields, so that the police (and other drivers) know that they should pay attention to this car.
By this logic the harshest punishments of all should be the dealt to drivers that are over 70.
I fail to see what is the point of punishing them more harshly for the same crime. Just because a 40 year old is less likely to race around doesn't make it less of a crime when he does race around.
Well, it is counterproductive to make it too strict. In Brazil, for example, the probation period lasts one year, and during it you lose your license for all but the most trivial infractions. The result is that people avoid driving at all during this probation period, defeating the whole point of the law.
My guess is that these laws are always made by older people who do not mind fucking over young ones.
If the US made voter registration mandatory and for free, as in all sensible countries, I would have no problem with voter ID laws. Otherwise, they are just making it difficult for people to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They have tried to extend tethers in space, and run into multiple problems caused by them being not-rigid. Gemini 11 (which was tethered to it's Agena to test just these things) encountered problems with spin-up due to this and other dynamics issues.
Gemini 11 didn't try to dock while spinning, manoeuvre while spinning, or keep solar panels aligned while spinning.
The problems I cite spring directly from experience, mathematics, and engineering.
As any good theory does.
So no, my answer isn't theoretical.
You might want to review your definition of "theory". Hint: it is not an insult.
Unless you have actually tried to build a rotating space station, your answer is also theoretical. So it would be fair to say "Easy according to a bad theory, difficult according to a better theory".