I can only imagine that Lockheed and United Launch Alliance's teams are all over this launch trying to discredit SpaceX. They cannot compete on price since SpaceX's ground-up engineering is so much cheaper than the Russian rockets they mark up. Last year they decided "We're going to cut our costs by half" - should have done that a long time ago. Seems like they're still struggilng to sort it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Honestly, it blows my mind that NASA didn't buy insurance in the first place. I agree with the other poster that pointed out, if "I ship something I buy the insurance if I need it." However, just like other types of delivery companies, those costs eventually get passed on to the consumer. It's probably cheaper for if NASA just pays for coverage as they need it, rather than having SpaceX insure every launch for X millions of dollars.
If we continue to follow your thesis that money chases power - has there been a massive increase (3x-5x increase ) in government involvement in the economy since Citizens United? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Citizens United is a very new and has significantly changed the calculus of political elections for the worse. It almost seems that your evaluating that outcome as a positive development.
It seems that you're taking it for granted that Citizens United ruling, that money is speech is reasonable and changed little. If money Money may chase the power to provide more money, we don't have to allow this to happen. Money isn't speech.
Yes, we are working on a update to help improve our explanation of some of these legilators bills/proposals. FENA just got introduced in the senate. We really need to add that! A very talented volunteer is working on it this week, in fact. If you'd like to get involved, please reach out!
-Mario
MAYDAY PAC
We have worked pretty closely with wolf-pac in the past, and continue to do so when it makes sense. Their founder is really a great guy. Geting invovled with us at MAYDAY or with wolfpac are both great ways to fight political corruption.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I wonder how one would qualify it as the "World's Most Dangerous Toy."
Plastic bags and pools are quite dangerous to unattended children. Yet, how could quantify the dangerousness of different toys? Hours of play per injury? How many hours of play would it take before the probability of injury or death approached 1? You'd probably also have to consider distribution of said toy.
Buckyballs became ubiquitous in offices, but how many children played with them - especially given the number of warnings the firm gave before they went out of business. I'm guessing that five minutes of play with a one year old will likely result in swallowing a buckyball. Also, if you google for "most dangerous toy," you'll find a spy kit with asbestos in the finger printing powder. How dangerous is that per minute of play? My guess both buckyballs and the asbestos kit are way more harmful than any low-level radiation from this toy, which would take several days to years to cause harm.
It would probably be a horrible statistic to actually calculate, but I wonder what the real most dangerous toy is.
I'm actually right in the middle of launching an organization to do just this. Initially, we're trying to focus on professional services of advertising professionals and programmers/tech pros to help create public service campaigns. The site isn't ready. We're right in the middle of a copy rewrite - we even still have lorem ipsum in some places. If you promise not to judge too harshly, you can visit our totally not ready site at: http://friendsofwe.org./
Like yourself, we're just trying to find ways we can contribute.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only imagine that Lockheed and United Launch Alliance's teams are all over this launch trying to discredit SpaceX. They cannot compete on price since SpaceX's ground-up engineering is so much cheaper than the Russian rockets they mark up. Last year they decided "We're going to cut our costs by half" - should have done that a long time ago. Seems like they're still struggilng to sort it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Honestly, it blows my mind that NASA didn't buy insurance in the first place. I agree with the other poster that pointed out, if "I ship something I buy the insurance if I need it." However, just like other types of delivery companies, those costs eventually get passed on to the consumer. It's probably cheaper for if NASA just pays for coverage as they need it, rather than having SpaceX insure every launch for X millions of dollars.
While it not a organization I support, congratulation for getting involved in your community!
If we continue to follow your thesis that money chases power - has there been a massive increase (3x-5x increase ) in government involvement in the economy since Citizens United? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Citizens United is a very new and has significantly changed the calculus of political elections for the worse. It almost seems that your evaluating that outcome as a positive development.
It seems that you're taking it for granted that Citizens United ruling, that money is speech is reasonable and changed little. If money Money may chase the power to provide more money, we don't have to allow this to happen. Money isn't speech.
Yes, we are working on a update to help improve our explanation of some of these legilators bills/proposals. FENA just got introduced in the senate. We really need to add that! A very talented volunteer is working on it this week, in fact. If you'd like to get involved, please reach out! -Mario MAYDAY PAC
We have worked pretty closely with wolf-pac in the past, and continue to do so when it makes sense. Their founder is really a great guy. Geting invovled with us at MAYDAY or with wolfpac are both great ways to fight political corruption.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I wonder how one would qualify it as the "World's Most Dangerous Toy."
Plastic bags and pools are quite dangerous to unattended children. Yet, how could quantify the dangerousness of different toys? Hours of play per injury? How many hours of play would it take before the probability of injury or death approached 1? You'd probably also have to consider distribution of said toy.
Buckyballs became ubiquitous in offices, but how many children played with them - especially given the number of warnings the firm gave before they went out of business. I'm guessing that five minutes of play with a one year old will likely result in swallowing a buckyball. Also, if you google for "most dangerous toy," you'll find a spy kit with asbestos in the finger printing powder. How dangerous is that per minute of play? My guess both buckyballs and the asbestos kit are way more harmful than any low-level radiation from this toy, which would take several days to years to cause harm.
It would probably be a horrible statistic to actually calculate, but I wonder what the real most dangerous toy is.
Hi,
I'm actually right in the middle of launching an organization to do just this. Initially, we're trying to focus on professional services of advertising professionals and programmers/tech pros to help create public service campaigns. The site isn't ready. We're right in the middle of a copy rewrite - we even still have lorem ipsum in some places. If you promise not to judge too harshly, you can visit our totally not ready site at: http://friendsofwe.org./
Like yourself, we're just trying to find ways we can contribute.
-Mario
mario-a/t-friendsofwe.org