Once you've reached the downward spiral, the mental problems trigger social problems which trigger mental problems. You're in an infinite loop and looking at it will tell you nothing. Breaking out is almost impossible as psychiatry is too primitive and neurology too expensive.
Frankly, I think you should have the country. I think all people left of Ronald Wilson Reagan should go on general strike, refuse to work, refuse to vote, refuse to hold office, refuse to buy goods or services beyond the essential. Give them the judiciary, the Supreme Court seats, everything.
Let the right have the country, if they want it so damned bad. All of it.
But refuse to lift even one finger to help them. Not one.
They do all the work. They do all the teaching. They do all the science and engineering. They staff all the hospitals and GP clinics. Let them clean the streets and build the houses. Let them, the third of America that whines, do every last bit.
Maybe it will be an outstanding success. This is the one and only way they'll ever be able to prove they're capable, so give them that chance. For eight years, so that there's no question about lingering effects from before, or insufficient opportunity.
Don't let the right claim to be better, give them a chance. Let them prove it, with no help and no support from anyone else.
I have my own ideas on the outcome, but ideas don't count. Only experiment matters.
I'll put one rider on that. If the experiment fails, if the right can't do it, they agree to shut up about the left and let the left do exactly the same for eight years, run everything with zero opposition and zero support. Exactly the same conditions. This is only if they fail. If they succeed, they've proved their point and they can decide where to go, they've shown they're up to it.
If the right is so sure it is perfect and God's answer to the hamster dance, then what does it have to lose?
The characters in Star Trek live off welfare. Yes, it's fictional, but I'll bet you a toasted cheese sandwich that a lot of people would love to live in such a universe.
The idea that people would do nothing if paid is fiction. People have a primal drive to work far greater than for sex, sleep or food.
If you mean people believe in such stuff, sure, but then there are people who believe in the Tooth Fairy and a Microsoft that has their interests at heart.
But the end result is the same. The Nash Equilibrium is the point of maximum overall gain for all participants in the long run. This is achieved when everyone works in their best interests and the interests of the group.
It is not an instantaneous maximum and is subject to abuse.
I would like to propose a bug fix. The group must also act in the interest of the group and the individuals. (The rule of law, in mathematical terms.)
A safety net is when you catch those who need it (I know plenty of unemployed who are ineligible for any benefits because they - gasp - moved States to where they could get a job, and Dates only provide benefits if you worked in that State).
A safety net doesn't cripple. When it's better to stay unemployed than work, nobody will work. Benefits must fall off at less than the rate of income, so that it's always better to work.
A safety net is liveable. Nobody lives in a slum because they want to. No State offers benefits you could actually remain physically and mentally healthy from.
A safety net doesn't penalise. Last time I was unemployed in the U.S., I was fined for going to job interviews, something the unemployment office made sure to tell the employer, leading to me being fired for getting a job.
Nobody says any of those, well except for communism never having been tried. Neither has capitalism. Nobody wants either. Oh, and they're not opposites.
In other news, Ayn Rand fans have declared reality a conspiracy against their religion, and economists with a brain (all three of them) have sighed with relief that the world actually follows logical rules.
You can't use adaptive optics or computed images in interferometry. You're eliminating the information needed. That's a big reason you don't see optical VLBI arrays. In fact, you don't see optical interferometry at all past a very small number of telescopes (usually two) or a few of the multiple mirror telescopes.
That gives you an upper limit of really not much more than already exists.
The upper limit for a space-based VLBI? There isn't one. You could build telescopes on every asteroid and put one on every moon of Saturn and Jupiter and link them up into one gigantic array and still not be close to the limits of the approach.
You couldn't build an Optical SKA telescope on Earth, or build any telescope of equal resolving power to such a telescope in space.
Terrestrial telescopes can be refined, but you're in serious diminishing returns territory.
You've assumed that single telescopes and arrays work in similar ways, and that you can scale one to be as good as the other. Not a good assumption.
You're also assuming Hubble was any good. It was as good as you could get with a single defective mirror that was launched from the ground. It was not SVLSI and you simply cannot use Hubble as some kind of indicator of what SVLSI would do.
And further, you're assuming that space tech hasn't progressed since Hubble was first designed, never mind launched, even though you've admitted astronomical tech has.
I'm going by a 1989 NASA calculation for a solar sail.
They reckoned that you need 1 square km of sail per 10g of probe, but that you could reach a quarter light speed by the time you exited the solar system.
Since the fall off of energy follows the inverse square law, and the mass will increase due to dust and other debris accumulating on the sail as a function of velocity, it seems reasonable to assume that if their 0.25C is correct, you'd reach more than that half way (since you'd have much less than half the dust and much more than half the energy).
It takes about 17 hours for a signal to travel from the heliopause to Earth. If that's the edge NASA was using, it would take the aforementioned probe 5.7 days to reach it, which can't be right - the sails can't get enough energy in that time.
They might have been using the Oort cloud, which NASA's website describes as an edge of the solar system. In that case, you're looking at about a light year. That means under 8 years to get there, although most of that distance will be over 1/8 C.
So you've 2 light years to go at 0.25C (8 years travel) the 1 ly at either side. Let's say that's averaging 1/3 C. So that's 6 years on either side, bringing us up to 22 years. We're probably averaging more than that, since it's not linear acceleration. That's how you get down to below 20.
Remember, the equations most balance, so you have a solar sail for going out, which you discard when acceleration approaches zero (as galactic winds will essentially act as a brake) and you open up a second solar sail facing the other way when you reach the equivalent point in the other solar system.
You now degenerate to zero, since the total momentum exerted in each direction must now be equal and you started at zero.
Worse, because the "correction" is itself a non-random error, it's liable to experience constructive interference in the ground. That means you'll get artefacts. A hundred telescopes in an interferometer on the ground will not reliably distinguish actual observation from artefact.
The same number of telescopes in space won't have such artefacts to contend with because the signal isn't being "cleaned".
In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN clean a signal from a single interferometer in an array. The whole point of such a system is that you're using constructive interference to identify real signals. Atmospherics will constitute noise thousands of times larger. Anything that smoothes out atmospherics must surely eliminate the very signals an interferometer is designed to detect.
If adaptive optics are out, then optical SVLBI is really the only option.
Slashdot Mirror
Peace sells but who's buying?
This, we're also assured, is the news.
No such thing as leftist. Making things up doesn't count as covering ignored issues. Falsifying evidence is not an opinion.
When you say on the TV, you mean as a picture on the screen, right? I could imagine contexts where an elevated voice would be expected.
How about 7 easy payments of $88, optional $50 fire insurance.
Progressive politics solve problems, leaving less to complain about. Do you know how many political pundits and priests that puts out of work?
Mental health problems normally have a cause.
Once you've reached the downward spiral, the mental problems trigger social problems which trigger mental problems. You're in an infinite loop and looking at it will tell you nothing. Breaking out is almost impossible as psychiatry is too primitive and neurology too expensive.
Viable theory. Problem is, there are a lot of opinions on what "fixing" means. However, I'm convinced you've identified the correct starting point.
Frankly, I think you should have the country. I think all people left of Ronald Wilson Reagan should go on general strike, refuse to work, refuse to vote, refuse to hold office, refuse to buy goods or services beyond the essential. Give them the judiciary, the Supreme Court seats, everything.
Let the right have the country, if they want it so damned bad. All of it.
But refuse to lift even one finger to help them. Not one.
They do all the work. They do all the teaching. They do all the science and engineering. They staff all the hospitals and GP clinics. Let them clean the streets and build the houses. Let them, the third of America that whines, do every last bit.
Maybe it will be an outstanding success. This is the one and only way they'll ever be able to prove they're capable, so give them that chance. For eight years, so that there's no question about lingering effects from before, or insufficient opportunity.
Don't let the right claim to be better, give them a chance. Let them prove it, with no help and no support from anyone else.
I have my own ideas on the outcome, but ideas don't count. Only experiment matters.
I'll put one rider on that. If the experiment fails, if the right can't do it, they agree to shut up about the left and let the left do exactly the same for eight years, run everything with zero opposition and zero support. Exactly the same conditions. This is only if they fail. If they succeed, they've proved their point and they can decide where to go, they've shown they're up to it.
If the right is so sure it is perfect and God's answer to the hamster dance, then what does it have to lose?
The characters in Star Trek live off welfare. Yes, it's fictional, but I'll bet you a toasted cheese sandwich that a lot of people would love to live in such a universe.
The idea that people would do nothing if paid is fiction. People have a primal drive to work far greater than for sex, sleep or food.
If you mean people believe in such stuff, sure, but then there are people who believe in the Tooth Fairy and a Microsoft that has their interests at heart.
A similar failure to see rising unemployment happened in Washington State, which isn't based on oil.
They increased minimum wage, despite fears of mass unemployment.
Unemployment fell faster than the national all average.
Conclusion: More people with money doesn't lead to unemployment.
The movie isn't quite how Nash worked it out.
But the end result is the same. The Nash Equilibrium is the point of maximum overall gain for all participants in the long run. This is achieved when everyone works in their best interests and the interests of the group.
It is not an instantaneous maximum and is subject to abuse.
I would like to propose a bug fix. The group must also act in the interest of the group and the individuals. (The rule of law, in mathematical terms.)
Communism has no relationship to socialism.
Socialism works fine, seven of the top ten nations are socialist.
No, those aren't safety nets.
A safety net is when you catch those who need it (I know plenty of unemployed who are ineligible for any benefits because they - gasp - moved States to where they could get a job, and Dates only provide benefits if you worked in that State).
A safety net doesn't cripple. When it's better to stay unemployed than work, nobody will work. Benefits must fall off at less than the rate of income, so that it's always better to work.
A safety net is liveable. Nobody lives in a slum because they want to. No State offers benefits you could actually remain physically and mentally healthy from.
A safety net doesn't penalise. Last time I was unemployed in the U.S., I was fined for going to job interviews, something the unemployment office made sure to tell the employer, leading to me being fired for getting a job.
That is not a safety net. That is degenerate.
Nobody says any of those, well except for communism never having been tried. Neither has capitalism. Nobody wants either. Oh, and they're not opposites.
In other news, Ayn Rand fans have declared reality a conspiracy against their religion, and economists with a brain (all three of them) have sighed with relief that the world actually follows logical rules.
Uh, no. That may be your definition, but freedom in the rest of the world includes freedom from disinformation and freedom from propaganda.
Freedom to control the minds of others is only freedom for the controller.
You can't use adaptive optics or computed images in interferometry. You're eliminating the information needed. That's a big reason you don't see optical VLBI arrays. In fact, you don't see optical interferometry at all past a very small number of telescopes (usually two) or a few of the multiple mirror telescopes.
That gives you an upper limit of really not much more than already exists.
The upper limit for a space-based VLBI? There isn't one. You could build telescopes on every asteroid and put one on every moon of Saturn and Jupiter and link them up into one gigantic array and still not be close to the limits of the approach.
You couldn't build an Optical SKA telescope on Earth, or build any telescope of equal resolving power to such a telescope in space.
Terrestrial telescopes can be refined, but you're in serious diminishing returns territory.
You've assumed that single telescopes and arrays work in similar ways, and that you can scale one to be as good as the other. Not a good assumption.
You're also assuming Hubble was any good. It was as good as you could get with a single defective mirror that was launched from the ground. It was not SVLSI and you simply cannot use Hubble as some kind of indicator of what SVLSI would do.
And further, you're assuming that space tech hasn't progressed since Hubble was first designed, never mind launched, even though you've admitted astronomical tech has.
I'm going by a 1989 NASA calculation for a solar sail.
They reckoned that you need 1 square km of sail per 10g of probe, but that you could reach a quarter light speed by the time you exited the solar system.
Since the fall off of energy follows the inverse square law, and the mass will increase due to dust and other debris accumulating on the sail as a function of velocity, it seems reasonable to assume that if their 0.25C is correct, you'd reach more than that half way (since you'd have much less than half the dust and much more than half the energy).
It takes about 17 hours for a signal to travel from the heliopause to Earth. If that's the edge NASA was using, it would take the aforementioned probe 5.7 days to reach it, which can't be right - the sails can't get enough energy in that time.
They might have been using the Oort cloud, which NASA's website describes as an edge of the solar system. In that case, you're looking at about a light year. That means under 8 years to get there, although most of that distance will be over 1/8 C.
So you've 2 light years to go at 0.25C (8 years travel) the 1 ly at either side. Let's say that's averaging 1/3 C. So that's 6 years on either side, bringing us up to 22 years. We're probably averaging more than that, since it's not linear acceleration. That's how you get down to below 20.
NASA calculates a solar sail could accelerate a probe to 0.25 C.
That fast enough for you?
If you want to tell them they're hopeless at engineering, go right ahead. That's between you and them, though.
Why? You have two sets of solar sails, one facing one way, one facing the other.
You don't need the ship facing the other way. The ship isn't doing anything useful, it's space not water.
You open up the first set on leaving, jettison when it ceases to be useful, then open the other set at the equivalent point in the other system.
0 + X - X = 0
Repeat the process for the return journey.
You have two solar sails.
Remember, the equations most balance, so you have a solar sail for going out, which you discard when acceleration approaches zero (as galactic winds will essentially act as a brake) and you open up a second solar sail facing the other way when you reach the equivalent point in the other solar system.
You now degenerate to zero, since the total momentum exerted in each direction must now be equal and you started at zero.
Are you arguing that ultra-pure materials can't be made in space? That'll be news to, well, everyone.
Worse, because the "correction" is itself a non-random error, it's liable to experience constructive interference in the ground. That means you'll get artefacts. A hundred telescopes in an interferometer on the ground will not reliably distinguish actual observation from artefact.
The same number of telescopes in space won't have such artefacts to contend with because the signal isn't being "cleaned".
In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN clean a signal from a single interferometer in an array. The whole point of such a system is that you're using constructive interference to identify real signals. Atmospherics will constitute noise thousands of times larger. Anything that smoothes out atmospherics must surely eliminate the very signals an interferometer is designed to detect.
If adaptive optics are out, then optical SVLBI is really the only option.
Agreed, the numbers matter. Physicists and engineers are left-wing, psychologists backed Bush. Seems you got the direction the wrong way.