Keep repeating those shallow reasonings, you may eventually to believe them. Mussolini was an anticlerical atheist. Of course he was also a politician and so he had to make a deal with the powerful Catholic Church, like he had to make a deal with the monarchic exponents but he was not a Catholic nor a royalist: he was just pragmatic. Like Hitler or Stalin or Napoleon or Saddam: they all used religion, as a political mean, because religion is/was powerful in their state, but they weren't religious in a traditional sense.
I don't think that a youtube video with out-of-contest, mistranslated words is going to support your point (he's talking about communists by the way). Mussolini, the theorist of fascism, was an atheist. After all, it's really difficult to imagine a leader of a totalitarian regime supportive of some kind of religion or religious power. It is true that totalitarian states (from Napoleon onward) tried to embrace, extend and extinguish religion and so at some point they had to take care of religious people and religious power, however that is just a struggle with an alien power on the road to the true totalitarian state. Even Stalin had to make a deal with religious authorities during the second world war: totalitarian leaders are politician and you'd make a huge mistake judging a politician by his words instead of his actions.
NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches, that's a lot more than $57 million per launch.
Then you said
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development.
So, I replied
In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
And now you say
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system.
Why not? Because it doesn't suit the mantra that SpaceX is so cheaper than the alternatives? The cost of a resupply mission will never be cheaper than what it is now, let alone near to the famous $57 million, and the fact that the contract was prolonged for an undisclosed price proves this. That's a fact.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
It is relevant, unless you want to compare apples to oranges. Other vectors include insurance and services in the total cost, when SpaceX says $61 million does not ($57 million is the old cost for the Falcon 9 v1.0). US government requires insurance and all that, so the cost is about $90 million (per launch, not including Dragon), not $60 million: for example Vega rockets cost €32 million services included, but €25 to €22 million is the cost excluding services.
Well, that is not the full story. NASA paid $278 million to SpaceX to develop the Dragon module, on top of that they paid $1.6 billion more to have "at least" 12 resupply missions, that should deliver "at least" 20 metric tons of supplies to the space station. NASA, in March 2015, already prolonged the deal with SpaceX with 3 more launches in 2017, for an "undisclosed" price, because "the data is sensitive" and, after all, they assured that the total contract cannot exceed $3.1 billion.
On top of that, in 2017 SpaceX will launch NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite for $87 million, because $61.2 million is the launch price for private companies, while $90 million the price for the US government (insurance cost, certifications and all that). In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
Besides the fact that I'd find Russia a better fit as the Portugal of the race to the New (Space) World, I think that you need to study a bit of history. Sometimes it turns useful.
The circumstances are equally important. For example it must be not a case that in 2014 a new mayor was elected in Pesaro: the new city council for some reason decided to switch back to MS Office. Perhaps there was some kind of deal, perhaps the new city councilors were not as expert as the old ones, that were in charge since 2004 (two elections). Perhaps there were people complaining about the transition and the new council just wanted to quickly fulfill those wishes (they are politicians after all).
The same article says that other cities use Google Docs. While some municipalities, much bigger than Pesaro, are switching to Open Office. Some towns, like Turin, have very detailed and well supported plans, perhaps it is just that Pesaro didn't have a good plan.
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
The Serbs simply demonstrated that you could use radar equipment from the '70s to shoot down modern "stealth" aircraft. All these proxy wars are a testing ground for military technologies, not only Americans, but also Russians and Chinese gather information on the performance of the new weapons and begin to design countermeasures, like the new Chinese radar drone. The idea is to combine long range with fire control: you fire a missile, you guide it with VHF until it is near the objective, at that point the objective is not so stealth and you can use more accurate pointing systems.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion. Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The article says that the F-35 is designed to operate on internal fuel (because otherwise it loses its only advantage, that is stealth) and so has a bigger combat radius than an F-16 or an F-18, however an F-16 or an F-18 could use external tanks to match or exceed the F-35 combat radius and then drop them before combat to greatly exceed the F-35 combat capabilities. A loaded F-16 has better acceleration, thrust, manoeuvrability than an F-35 relying only on its internal load: an externally loaded F-35 is painfully worse than an F-16 or an F-18 at everything and it is _not_ stealth.
Saying the US would be facing 20:1 odds simply isn't supported by the facts. The US has FAR more combat aircraft than any other country and the US has exactly half (11/22) of the world's supply of aircraft carriers.
If you had followed closely the whole debate about the F-35, you'd know that the 20:1 figure is indeed supported by facts. It has to do with the ability of the US to wage war against distant enemies, e.g. China. In an hypothetical war with China, the US would have a bunch of scattered air bases on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, with very limited aircraft capacities, only a fraction of those thousands of aircraft could be operated from there. On the other hand the Chinese could rely on a big network of air bases and could use their air force at full capacity. The result would be that the US air force would be outnumbered: it doesn't matter the total number of your forces, it matters how scattered or concentrated they are. So, to be effective in this scenario, the F-35 should be able to take down all the enemy fighters before having to reload or refuel, otherwise it could let those air bases open for enemy retaliation and, as a consequence, losing the ability to attack mainland China (that is losing the war).
I don't see any reason why this is "stunning" or a big controversy. It's just a new fossil and they'll argue a bit on where it goes into the taxonomy tree... happens all the time.
The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.
Having read the article, I think it's more likely that those weak limbs were used for tree climbing than for grabbing preys and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.
Capitalism only works when you have free markets and China is the opposite of that.
But China is not trying to be capitalist. They're trying to fit together free market and socialism, that is a free market with state control of capitals.
Easy. Five launches: 3 complete failures, 1 test launch, 1 commercial launch of space debris. First fully "privately" developed rocket: its first 3 launches were all bought by US government agencies (NASA, US Army) and all 3 failed. After its only successful commercial launch, it was scrapped because none wanted to use it: so much for SpaceX could exist without NASA money. Reusable rocket, that never was reusable (but but but falcon 9 will be, believe). Ridicule payload.
It was a complete commercial failure, which is quite a problem when your aim is to make money.
The problem is: the rocket they had (Falcon 1) sucked hard. It was only *after they got money from NASA (a lot of money) that they built a half decent rocket.
It dramatically demonstrates that getting a booster into space is anything but easy.
Or at least it was in the '50s and '60s.
Falcon 9 track record is nothing exceptional for a current design like Delta II and IV, Vega, H-IIB, Soyuz-FG, Minotaur... Even Ariane 5 now is at 65 straight successful launches.
It is a NASA failure. NASA paid $278 million to develop the rocket and then NASA paid $1.6 billion more for 12 launches that should have happened since 2nd quarter 2008: the first launch was delayed more than two years to December 2010, the first two launches were just test launches, the contract said "delivery of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station" while the actual cargo delivered is half that after 8 launches (9 with the failed one), the fabled objective of reusable stuff is still far away.
NASA spent a lot of money to gain nothing, beside the fact that they can blame SpaceX in case of failure, but that was probably the plan all along. It fails? Its SpaceX fault. It works? We managed it well.
Justin Angel's post is quite insightful on the matter. He is simply reckoning that.net is probably past its prime: there are much less jobs for.net than for Java/Swift/HTML5+JS, open source developers are leaving.net, the ecosystem as whole is shrinking and fragmenting. He lists a number of reasons for this decline, but he doesn't say in a year there will be no more.net, just that it is going down.
I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.
You:
after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Are you unable to see the difference?
One NASA climate scientist said "the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012", not "NASA predicted complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013".
No, I'm not, because, according to your point of view, even in this case is not NASA, but five random NASA guys (mainly from the Radar dept.) saying that "[Larsen B] will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years" and that "Larsen B will eventually break it apart completely, probably around the year 2020", so OP is right: NASA guys were wrong before, so NASA guys could be wrong again.
Alarmed by the Prof. Thompson study, way back in 2006, Tanzania President Jakaya Kikwete imposed a total ban on tree harvesting in Kilimanjaro region in a move aimed to halt catastrophic environmental degradation, including melting of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro.
As a result of the measures, the forest cover on the mount Kilimanjaro is slowly, but surely becoming thick.
Experts say the forests on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes absorb moisture from the cloud hovering near the peak, and in turn nourish flora and fauna below
after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.
That's like saying that France and French Republic are synonyms and that France is the entire country (including French Guyana, Polynesia, St. Pierre etc.), while the European part of it is called European France.
Historically Russia is the land of the Russi (in latin, Rus' in slavic ), this led to the creation of a number of Russias (e.g. Belarus, which means White Russia) and to the fact that the Czar was called the "Emperor of all Russias" during the Russian Empire. For a long time, during the empire, there was a border between Russia and Siberia and it was only in the late XIX century that Siberia became fully integrated with Russia proper (before it was just a kind of colony).
The fact that Russians may be interested in calling all the Russian territory as "land of the Russians" (the meaning of Russia) is a different issue.
Yeah, but what is their impact on climate in numbers? What is the the end result of the sum of greenhouse gasses emission, global dimming, deforestation etc.? You cannot just say X causes Y therefore if we eliminate X we avoid the Y result, that is totally wrong and there are a lot of cases where a poor comprehension or an oversimplification of a system has caused unwanted consequences, i.e. the mesopredator release hypothesis.
We commonly say that a theory has been "proved" when all its predictions have been verified. It can be disproved again later, but that is another problem.
The two body problem is itself an idealization, not to say that even the pendulum model or every other simple model of classical mechanics is exact in the same sense. However, a sufficiently exact model must not diverge from the observations; in this case models tend to diverge or to not converge after they are perturbed by noise, discrepancies etc. This is a symptom of not good enough, i.e. wrong, models.
Using the word deniers is a way to demonize who dissent, for every reason, and hamper further discussions. Usually, progress is the result of a discussion between different point of views, not the result of blind adherence to a creed.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep repeating those shallow reasonings, you may eventually to believe them. Mussolini was an anticlerical atheist. Of course he was also a politician and so he had to make a deal with the powerful Catholic Church, like he had to make a deal with the monarchic exponents but he was not a Catholic nor a royalist: he was just pragmatic. Like Hitler or Stalin or Napoleon or Saddam: they all used religion, as a political mean, because religion is/was powerful in their state, but they weren't religious in a traditional sense.
I don't think that a youtube video with out-of-contest, mistranslated words is going to support your point (he's talking about communists by the way). Mussolini, the theorist of fascism, was an atheist. After all, it's really difficult to imagine a leader of a totalitarian regime supportive of some kind of religion or religious power. It is true that totalitarian states (from Napoleon onward) tried to embrace, extend and extinguish religion and so at some point they had to take care of religious people and religious power, however that is just a struggle with an alien power on the road to the true totalitarian state. Even Stalin had to make a deal with religious authorities during the second world war: totalitarian leaders are politician and you'd make a huge mistake judging a politician by his words instead of his actions.
NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches, that's a lot more than $57 million per launch.
Then you said
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development.
So, I replied
In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
And now you say
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system.
Why not? Because it doesn't suit the mantra that SpaceX is so cheaper than the alternatives? The cost of a resupply mission will never be cheaper than what it is now, let alone near to the famous $57 million, and the fact that the contract was prolonged for an undisclosed price proves this. That's a fact.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
It is relevant, unless you want to compare apples to oranges. Other vectors include insurance and services in the total cost, when SpaceX says $61 million does not ($57 million is the old cost for the Falcon 9 v1.0). US government requires insurance and all that, so the cost is about $90 million (per launch, not including Dragon), not $60 million: for example Vega rockets cost €32 million services included, but €25 to €22 million is the cost excluding services.
Well, that is not the full story. NASA paid $278 million to SpaceX to develop the Dragon module, on top of that they paid $1.6 billion more to have "at least" 12 resupply missions, that should deliver "at least" 20 metric tons of supplies to the space station. NASA, in March 2015, already prolonged the deal with SpaceX with 3 more launches in 2017, for an "undisclosed" price, because "the data is sensitive" and, after all, they assured that the total contract cannot exceed $3.1 billion.
On top of that, in 2017 SpaceX will launch NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite for $87 million, because $61.2 million is the launch price for private companies, while $90 million the price for the US government (insurance cost, certifications and all that). In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
Besides the fact that I'd find Russia a better fit as the Portugal of the race to the New (Space) World, I think that you need to study a bit of history. Sometimes it turns useful.
Well, at this point Falcon 9 already had one partial failure due to an engine problem.
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches, that's a lot more than $57 million per launch. And those 12 launches included 2 test launches.
The circumstances are equally important. For example it must be not a case that in 2014 a new mayor was elected in Pesaro: the new city council for some reason decided to switch back to MS Office. Perhaps there was some kind of deal, perhaps the new city councilors were not as expert as the old ones, that were in charge since 2004 (two elections). Perhaps there were people complaining about the transition and the new council just wanted to quickly fulfill those wishes (they are politicians after all).
The same article says that other cities use Google Docs. While some municipalities, much bigger than Pesaro, are switching to Open Office. Some towns, like Turin, have very detailed and well supported plans, perhaps it is just that Pesaro didn't have a good plan.
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
The Serbs simply demonstrated that you could use radar equipment from the '70s to shoot down modern "stealth" aircraft. All these proxy wars are a testing ground for military technologies, not only Americans, but also Russians and Chinese gather information on the performance of the new weapons and begin to design countermeasures, like the new Chinese radar drone. The idea is to combine long range with fire control: you fire a missile, you guide it with VHF until it is near the objective, at that point the objective is not so stealth and you can use more accurate pointing systems.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion. Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The article says that the F-35 is designed to operate on internal fuel (because otherwise it loses its only advantage, that is stealth) and so has a bigger combat radius than an F-16 or an F-18, however an F-16 or an F-18 could use external tanks to match or exceed the F-35 combat radius and then drop them before combat to greatly exceed the F-35 combat capabilities. A loaded F-16 has better acceleration, thrust, manoeuvrability than an F-35 relying only on its internal load: an externally loaded F-35 is painfully worse than an F-16 or an F-18 at everything and it is _not_ stealth.
Saying the US would be facing 20:1 odds simply isn't supported by the facts. The US has FAR more combat aircraft than any other country and the US has exactly half (11/22) of the world's supply of aircraft carriers.
If you had followed closely the whole debate about the F-35, you'd know that the 20:1 figure is indeed supported by facts. It has to do with the ability of the US to wage war against distant enemies, e.g. China. In an hypothetical war with China, the US would have a bunch of scattered air bases on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, with very limited aircraft capacities, only a fraction of those thousands of aircraft could be operated from there. On the other hand the Chinese could rely on a big network of air bases and could use their air force at full capacity. The result would be that the US air force would be outnumbered: it doesn't matter the total number of your forces, it matters how scattered or concentrated they are. So, to be effective in this scenario, the F-35 should be able to take down all the enemy fighters before having to reload or refuel, otherwise it could let those air bases open for enemy retaliation and, as a consequence, losing the ability to attack mainland China (that is losing the war).
I don't see any reason why this is "stunning" or a big controversy. It's just a new fossil and they'll argue a bit on where it goes into the taxonomy tree... happens all the time.
The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.
Having read the article, I think it's more likely that those weak limbs were used for tree climbing than for grabbing preys and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.
Capitalism only works when you have free markets and China is the opposite of that.
But China is not trying to be capitalist. They're trying to fit together free market and socialism, that is a free market with state control of capitals.
Easy. Five launches: 3 complete failures, 1 test launch, 1 commercial launch of space debris. First fully "privately" developed rocket: its first 3 launches were all bought by US government agencies (NASA, US Army) and all 3 failed. After its only successful commercial launch, it was scrapped because none wanted to use it: so much for SpaceX could exist without NASA money. Reusable rocket, that never was reusable (but but but falcon 9 will be, believe). Ridicule payload.
It was a complete commercial failure, which is quite a problem when your aim is to make money.
The problem is: the rocket they had (Falcon 1) sucked hard. It was only *after they got money from NASA (a lot of money) that they built a half decent rocket.
It dramatically demonstrates that getting a booster into space is anything but easy.
Or at least it was in the '50s and '60s.
Falcon 9 track record is nothing exceptional for a current design like Delta II and IV, Vega, H-IIB, Soyuz-FG, Minotaur... Even Ariane 5 now is at 65 straight successful launches.
It is a NASA failure. NASA paid $278 million to develop the rocket and then NASA paid $1.6 billion more for 12 launches that should have happened since 2nd quarter 2008: the first launch was delayed more than two years to December 2010, the first two launches were just test launches, the contract said "delivery of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station" while the actual cargo delivered is half that after 8 launches (9 with the failed one), the fabled objective of reusable stuff is still far away.
NASA spent a lot of money to gain nothing, beside the fact that they can blame SpaceX in case of failure, but that was probably the plan all along. It fails? Its SpaceX fault. It works? We managed it well.
If that was the case he'd still be on windows. He wants something better, that's both distributed and has version control.
Justin Angel's post is quite insightful on the matter. He is simply reckoning that .net is probably past its prime: there are much less jobs for .net than for Java/Swift/HTML5+JS, open source developers are leaving .net, the ecosystem as whole is shrinking and fragmenting. He lists a number of reasons for this decline, but he doesn't say in a year there will be no more .net, just that it is going down.
OP:
I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.
You:
after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Are you unable to see the difference?
One NASA climate scientist said "the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012", not "NASA predicted complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013".
No, I'm not, because, according to your point of view, even in this case is not NASA, but five random NASA guys (mainly from the Radar dept.) saying that "[Larsen B] will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years" and that "Larsen B will eventually break it apart completely, probably around the year 2020", so OP is right: NASA guys were wrong before, so NASA guys could be wrong again.
And by the way, that one NASA climate scientist is NASA's Chief Cryosphere Scientist.
Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (National Geographic - 2007)
US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 (The Guardian)
That's like saying that France and French Republic are synonyms and that France is the entire country (including French Guyana, Polynesia, St. Pierre etc.), while the European part of it is called European France.
Historically Russia is the land of the Russi (in latin, Rus' in slavic ), this led to the creation of a number of Russias (e.g. Belarus, which means White Russia) and to the fact that the Czar was called the "Emperor of all Russias" during the Russian Empire. For a long time, during the empire, there was a border between Russia and Siberia and it was only in the late XIX century that Siberia became fully integrated with Russia proper (before it was just a kind of colony).
The fact that Russians may be interested in calling all the Russian territory as "land of the Russians" (the meaning of Russia) is a different issue.
Russia is in Europe: Russia is the European part of the Russian Federation, the Asian part is called Siberia.
Yeah, but what is their impact on climate in numbers? What is the the end result of the sum of greenhouse gasses emission, global dimming, deforestation etc.? You cannot just say X causes Y therefore if we eliminate X we avoid the Y result, that is totally wrong and there are a lot of cases where a poor comprehension or an oversimplification of a system has caused unwanted consequences, i.e. the mesopredator release hypothesis.