Every time I see the beautiful pictures from a couple guys who put a camera in a balloon and send it 100,000 ft up, I always wonder how big of a rocket is the minimum needed to get something hand-sized or smaller into orbit.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations once and determined I wouldn't be launching anything from my backyard anytime soon. Has anyone else taken a closer look at this though?
It's good to know whether you should take what someone says with a grain of salt, I'll give you that. But for a true debate, it's logical fallacy.
If one were to argue that the guy is biased to the degree that he'd be willing to proffer fraudulent data, his background and motives are fair game - I don't see anyone making this point though, so the data itself should be taken at face value.
Real scientists are contrite enough to reevaluate their hypotheses in light of inconsistent data, regardless of the source.
I'm likely one of the few people here without a smartphone - is it worth it yet?
It's an extra $20 something a month for the data plan, and right now I have a waterproof shockproof phone to mitigate the risk of shelling out a few hundred if my phone breaks.
But the flip side of your first drawback is that during the winter it can make continuous observations 24-7 whereas an equatorial telescope might miss something during the day.
Granted not a lot of astronomical phenomena happen on such short timescales, but this would be a good spot to focus on those things.
"...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society" is a subset of "removes existing societal structure". I have been trying (clearly in vain) to express this to you. I have not contradicted myself in any way.
Your talking points are of the vein "A is not like B in ways X, Y, Z, etc". I don't care about X, Y, Z, or anything else. I have clearly said how I think "A is like B in this way C". You must realize that under your logic, any comparison between Obama and Lincoln is invalid. Obama is black, a democrat, rich, has no beard, doesn't wear a tophat, has different motivations, has differet policies, isn't fighting a civil war, and so on. Just because I can list a thousand things that make them different doesn't make it silly or baseless to point out that they were both Senators from Illinois before they became President.
You also continue to bring up the flamingo. Yes, they both have two legs. But the reason this is a silly comparison is there are no flamingo cartoon sections in the newspaper, and there is no way to construe an Obama-flamingo caricature as having a political basis.
Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.
One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.
That's what it always was. From my first post here: "eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society". The Constitution is the foundation of the United States. Obama is destructive towards this foundation.
"anyone could say this about any politician they do not like, providing he changed anything."
Did you read my last post? "I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure", because you are right in that many politicians do that, and thus the poster should be used for your local mayor who cuts the budget, which is obviously ridiculous."
And the motivation, goal, means, etc. still do not match up.
And you wonder why I was "painting" you as claiming I thought they were exactly the same. You obviously think this is a necessity for any comparison, ever.
I do think their similarity constitutes a fair comparison, in the format of the poster in question.
You can strongly disagree about the degree to which it is an appropriate comparison. That's fine, you're from Europe.:-P
I never claimed he was more like a terrorist than like a politician, but he is a radical Statist.
You're misreading me again - I said if I were in office, undoing his crap would be a "restoration" not a "reconstruction". The key point being he is tearing down or ignoring our foundation in the Constitution. Anything I would be tearing down would be his new unconstitutional big-spending big-government programs. It's like the founding fathers made a painting, Obama slapped some black paint over the middle of it, and I would be working to restore the painting.
I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure", because you are right in that many politicians do that, and thus the poster should be used for your local mayor who cuts the budget, which is obviously ridiculous. I am saying they both are "destructive towards the foundations of a society". One is surely more violent than the other. But Obama trashes the Constitution and is spending us into oblivion, which is destructive on a much larger scale, albeit less obvious since it's done in their smiley-faced slowly creeping fascism.
I did read your post, and you insist on calling "silly" something people do everyday. A non-PC cartoon could depict Obama as a monkey, because they have big ears in common. Another cartoon could depict Bush as a cowboy with a foot in his mouth. Neither of these are literal of course. They are caricatures based on a perceived similarity. I have been merely trying to express how this similarity is perceived, and thus the poster is justified, whether you agree with it or not.
Your case rests on your assertion that the attribute they share is irrelevant. My original point in posting here was to say that it is not irrelevant, and to point out that which is similar between the two so that people confused about the poster might understand.
I fail to see how I'm painting you as making a different point. I am very curious why you think this. My defense, to reiterate, is that I am not equating Obama and the Joker, I am pointing out how they are similar in a not-irrelevant way as an explanation of the poster.
Perhaps you believe their similarity is not as poignant as I find it, and that's fine. I'm just trying to express why the poster exists.
You don't listen to me, so this will be my last post here. He has legs, so does a flamingo. Did I ever call him a flamingo? Let me answer for you, no. Did I ever say he is the Joker or he's exactly like the Joker? Let me answer for you, no. Rational people can point out a similarity without taking it to the extreme of saying two things are one and the same.
If I were to undo anything he did, it would be a restoration, not a remaking; and anything I undid would not be undoing or destroying our foundation, which is the Constitution.
Well for those of us that think our political foundation i.e. the Constitution is kind of important, the comparison works. I agree Obama probably doesn't want anarchy, and isn't doing what he's doing to show people that they're animals. But he wants a new society nonetheless, which means dismantling to some degree the one we have, which is what he has in common with the Joker.
It may be a stretch, but I for one am tired of the bailouts, the lobbyists, and the involvement of big business. We just traded one guy who had all this reportedly with "Big Oil" and now we have one who does them even bigger with Goldman Sachs, GE, "green" companies, and "community organizations". So I don't complain if the poster may make him seem worse to people, because some don't seem to see, hear, or care about the things going on.
I have an inkling we probably disagree on a lot of issues, but that's why the more local government is, the better. If Massachusetts wants to outlaw guns and have a 30% tax rate, fine. If Montana wants everyone to have a gun and no speed limits on long straight roads, fine. Your town knows what your school needs better than your state, and much better than D.C. Why must we do everything at a federal level nowadays?
Let me be clear. "remake" does not equal "destruction" and I never claimed this.
"remake" always does entail some level of destruction or deconstruction, otherwise one would use the words "tweak", "improve", "enhance", "fix", "repair", etc.
I don't like corporations or the media swaying the people and the government either. The founding fathers would probably rebel for many things both sides dislike. I think both sides have a lot in common with the founding fathers in that no one wants any person or group to be too powerful, and I find it sad that the politicians in both parties are degrading the framework laid down to prevent that.
Yes, that's what I'm arguing, and your analogy is off the mark again. I'm saying when you get a car, wheels are a part of that, not that the car is wheels. When you remake something, you have to take it apart first.
I do think Bush and Obama are similar, which is why I don't like Bush. I agree Jefferson et al. would have rebelled long ago (probably with FDR) but you have to admit Bush and especially Obama have taken it to a new level.
Yes. How do you remake a vase? You smash it, turn it back into clay and make a new vase. This is different from improving the vase by say painting it a different color.
The tearing down Obama is doing isn't of basic social cohesion like "don't murder", he's tearing down the free-market small government principles that America was founded on. In this way I'm not wrong at all; if Jefferson or Washington were here today they'd have a stroke and start another revolution.
I didn't mention health care.
I didn't say having a social program will make us into the USSR.
I said free markets and free people are the best thing for everyone, and steps in the other direction mean we're worse off.
There is no strawman here. Read your own post. If the government controls production and ownership of health care, roads, education, and more (e.g. the auto and financial industries) how is that not more like Communism, and less like Capitalism? Please tell me because I'm desperately trying to find some seam of logic in people that argue the way you do, so I can have hope in humanity's future.
Stalin and Mao were self-described Communists. Nazi comes from National Socialist. You can't keep pretending that "communism is great, they just didn't do it right".
"Successful socialist countries" - their success is in that they're not completely state run. And success is relative, ours being much greater, having been non-socialist until the 1930's and getting worse in the '60s.
If you think "Obama is a centrist" is a fact, you are indeed a communist. He may say Reagan is his favorite president, but he hasn't done anything like him.
I support no tenet of fascism. If you would pay attention you would see that Obama does. Here's the definition of fascism: "a governmental system led by a (1) dictator having complete power, (2) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, (3) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and (4) emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often (5) racism." [numbers added]
(1) He has yet to show signs of acting like a dictator, but he has created many "czars" to run new departments in the executive branch.
(2) He supports the "Fairness Doctrine" by which opposition and criticism would be suppressed.
(3) He has regimented industry and commerce- the government now owns much of the financial and auto industries.
(4) He gets a pass on the nationalism part since he's always apologizing for the U.S.
(5) He went to "Reverend" Wright's church and appointed someone to the Supreme Court who is a racist.
In as much as the politicians and judges have deserted the Constitution (Democrat and Republican) I consider that traitorous by definition.
Socialism is Communism lite. Either free markets and personal freedom is ideal, or it's not. I think history has shown that it is ideal, and that Communism at the other extreme is deplorable. Why take any step, however small, from the ideal towards tyranny?
Slashdot Mirror
Can I put this on my walls in the summer and actually get energy from cooling my house down?
Every time I see the beautiful pictures from a couple guys who put a camera in a balloon and send it 100,000 ft up, I always wonder how big of a rocket is the minimum needed to get something hand-sized or smaller into orbit.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations once and determined I wouldn't be launching anything from my backyard anytime soon. Has anyone else taken a closer look at this though?
"inarguable" - I disagree :)
It's good to know whether you should take what someone says with a grain of salt, I'll give you that. But for a true debate, it's logical fallacy.
If one were to argue that the guy is biased to the degree that he'd be willing to proffer fraudulent data, his background and motives are fair game - I don't see anyone making this point though, so the data itself should be taken at face value.
Real scientists are contrite enough to reevaluate their hypotheses in light of inconsistent data, regardless of the source.
I'm not sure that solar is competitive now without subsidies, perhaps it is.
The only way to know is to do away with all subsidies and actually allow them to be directly competitive.
Government funding for R&D can be debated, but it seems downright wrong for them to pick winners and losers in industry via handouts/special credits.
It seems to me, Higher jobs/MW = Higher cost/MW
How much of this industry growth is fueled by government subsidies?
Thanks - sounds like the Titanium was meant for me!
Does that mean it's ok to keep smoking now?
Yeah - less flammable!
I'm likely one of the few people here without a smartphone - is it worth it yet?
It's an extra $20 something a month for the data plan, and right now I have a waterproof shockproof phone to mitigate the risk of shelling out a few hundred if my phone breaks.
Am I really missing out?
I would work part-time, say 20 hours a week. That way I could keep programming and keep busy, but have more time to spend as I wish.
Recycle Congress.
Second drawback: really cold.
But the flip side of your first drawback is that during the winter it can make continuous observations 24-7 whereas an equatorial telescope might miss something during the day.
Granted not a lot of astronomical phenomena happen on such short timescales, but this would be a good spot to focus on those things.
You are very tiring.
"...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society" is a subset of "removes existing societal structure". I have been trying (clearly in vain) to express this to you. I have not contradicted myself in any way.
Your talking points are of the vein "A is not like B in ways X, Y, Z, etc". I don't care about X, Y, Z, or anything else. I have clearly said how I think "A is like B in this way C". You must realize that under your logic, any comparison between Obama and Lincoln is invalid. Obama is black, a democrat, rich, has no beard, doesn't wear a tophat, has different motivations, has differet policies, isn't fighting a civil war, and so on. Just because I can list a thousand things that make them different doesn't make it silly or baseless to point out that they were both Senators from Illinois before they became President.
You also continue to bring up the flamingo. Yes, they both have two legs. But the reason this is a silly comparison is there are no flamingo cartoon sections in the newspaper, and there is no way to construe an Obama-flamingo caricature as having a political basis.
Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.
One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.
"anyone could say this about any politician they do not like, providing he changed anything."
Did you read my last post?
"I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure", because you are right in that many politicians do that, and thus the poster should be used for your local mayor who cuts the budget, which is obviously ridiculous."
And the motivation, goal, means, etc. still do not match up.
And you wonder why I was "painting" you as claiming I thought they were exactly the same. You obviously think this is a necessity for any comparison, ever.
I do think their similarity constitutes a fair comparison, in the format of the poster in question.
:-P
You can strongly disagree about the degree to which it is an appropriate comparison. That's fine, you're from Europe.
I never claimed he was more like a terrorist than like a politician, but he is a radical Statist.
You're misreading me again - I said if I were in office, undoing his crap would be a "restoration" not a "reconstruction". The key point being he is tearing down or ignoring our foundation in the Constitution. Anything I would be tearing down would be his new unconstitutional big-spending big-government programs. It's like the founding fathers made a painting, Obama slapped some black paint over the middle of it, and I would be working to restore the painting.
I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure", because you are right in that many politicians do that, and thus the poster should be used for your local mayor who cuts the budget, which is obviously ridiculous. I am saying they both are "destructive towards the foundations of a society". One is surely more violent than the other. But Obama trashes the Constitution and is spending us into oblivion, which is destructive on a much larger scale, albeit less obvious since it's done in their smiley-faced slowly creeping fascism.
argh I can't resist continuing :)
I did read your post, and you insist on calling "silly" something people do everyday. A non-PC cartoon could depict Obama as a monkey, because they have big ears in common. Another cartoon could depict Bush as a cowboy with a foot in his mouth. Neither of these are literal of course. They are caricatures based on a perceived similarity. I have been merely trying to express how this similarity is perceived, and thus the poster is justified, whether you agree with it or not.
Your case rests on your assertion that the attribute they share is irrelevant. My original point in posting here was to say that it is not irrelevant, and to point out that which is similar between the two so that people confused about the poster might understand.
I fail to see how I'm painting you as making a different point. I am very curious why you think this. My defense, to reiterate, is that I am not equating Obama and the Joker, I am pointing out how they are similar in a not-irrelevant way as an explanation of the poster.
Perhaps you believe their similarity is not as poignant as I find it, and that's fine. I'm just trying to express why the poster exists.
You don't listen to me, so this will be my last post here. He has legs, so does a flamingo. Did I ever call him a flamingo? Let me answer for you, no. Did I ever say he is the Joker or he's exactly like the Joker? Let me answer for you, no. Rational people can point out a similarity without taking it to the extreme of saying two things are one and the same.
If I were to undo anything he did, it would be a restoration, not a remaking; and anything I undid would not be undoing or destroying our foundation, which is the Constitution.
You: "Because what, remake entails destruction?"
Me: "Yes, that's what I'm arguing"
Well for those of us that think our political foundation i.e. the Constitution is kind of important, the comparison works. I agree Obama probably doesn't want anarchy, and isn't doing what he's doing to show people that they're animals. But he wants a new society nonetheless, which means dismantling to some degree the one we have, which is what he has in common with the Joker.
It may be a stretch, but I for one am tired of the bailouts, the lobbyists, and the involvement of big business. We just traded one guy who had all this reportedly with "Big Oil" and now we have one who does them even bigger with Goldman Sachs, GE, "green" companies, and "community organizations". So I don't complain if the poster may make him seem worse to people, because some don't seem to see, hear, or care about the things going on.
I have an inkling we probably disagree on a lot of issues, but that's why the more local government is, the better. If Massachusetts wants to outlaw guns and have a 30% tax rate, fine. If Montana wants everyone to have a gun and no speed limits on long straight roads, fine. Your town knows what your school needs better than your state, and much better than D.C. Why must we do everything at a federal level nowadays?
Let me be clear. "remake" does not equal "destruction" and I never claimed this. "remake" always does entail some level of destruction or deconstruction, otherwise one would use the words "tweak", "improve", "enhance", "fix", "repair", etc.
I don't like corporations or the media swaying the people and the government either. The founding fathers would probably rebel for many things both sides dislike. I think both sides have a lot in common with the founding fathers in that no one wants any person or group to be too powerful, and I find it sad that the politicians in both parties are degrading the framework laid down to prevent that.
Yes, that's what I'm arguing, and your analogy is off the mark again. I'm saying when you get a car, wheels are a part of that, not that the car is wheels. When you remake something, you have to take it apart first.
I do think Bush and Obama are similar, which is why I don't like Bush. I agree Jefferson et al. would have rebelled long ago (probably with FDR) but you have to admit Bush and especially Obama have taken it to a new level.
Yes. How do you remake a vase? You smash it, turn it back into clay and make a new vase. This is different from improving the vase by say painting it a different color.
The tearing down Obama is doing isn't of basic social cohesion like "don't murder", he's tearing down the free-market small government principles that America was founded on. In this way I'm not wrong at all; if Jefferson or Washington were here today they'd have a stroke and start another revolution.
I didn't mention health care.
I didn't say having a social program will make us into the USSR.
I said free markets and free people are the best thing for everyone, and steps in the other direction mean we're worse off.
There is no strawman here. Read your own post. If the government controls production and ownership of health care, roads, education, and more (e.g. the auto and financial industries) how is that not more like Communism, and less like Capitalism? Please tell me because I'm desperately trying to find some seam of logic in people that argue the way you do, so I can have hope in humanity's future.
Stalin and Mao were self-described Communists. Nazi comes from National Socialist. You can't keep pretending that "communism is great, they just didn't do it right".
"Successful socialist countries" - their success is in that they're not completely state run. And success is relative, ours being much greater, having been non-socialist until the 1930's and getting worse in the '60s.
If you think "Obama is a centrist" is a fact, you are indeed a communist. He may say Reagan is his favorite president, but he hasn't done anything like him.
I support no tenet of fascism. If you would pay attention you would see that Obama does. Here's the definition of fascism:
"a governmental system led by a (1) dictator having complete power, (2) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, (3) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and (4) emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often (5) racism." [numbers added]
(1) He has yet to show signs of acting like a dictator, but he has created many "czars" to run new departments in the executive branch.
(2) He supports the "Fairness Doctrine" by which opposition and criticism would be suppressed.
(3) He has regimented industry and commerce- the government now owns much of the financial and auto industries.
(4) He gets a pass on the nationalism part since he's always apologizing for the U.S.
(5) He went to "Reverend" Wright's church and appointed someone to the Supreme Court who is a racist.
3.5 / 5 says he's more fascist than you think.
You missed the point completely. I'm for improving. Obama is for "remaking" i.e. getting rid of what's already there and making something new.
In as much as the politicians and judges have deserted the Constitution (Democrat and Republican) I consider that traitorous by definition.
Socialism is Communism lite. Either free markets and personal freedom is ideal, or it's not. I think history has shown that it is ideal, and that Communism at the other extreme is deplorable. Why take any step, however small, from the ideal towards tyranny?