It also doesn't help that built in advantage for the incumbent gets reinforced because the people who think they have a real shot at winning wait for the next election. So not only are they the candidates trashing each other, most of them are crazy, which doesn't help make the party look good.
That's GP's point, that Huntsman's position is reasonable, even though he won't say it strongly for fear of alienating the party. The rest of the field believe they are their own experts when it comes to climate change.
Okay, I'm missing something here. Are they trying to claim the maker of the videos did something illegal under civil law? Because if they're going after him in the chancery it sounds like Canon Law is handling the internet just fine.
Preventing discrimination... is not forcing morals on anyone.
Isn't that entirely the point of any such law? And heck, most of the American ethos? That we think that those who would discriminate are morally wrong is a good thing.
I assume he means underwater, i.e. he owes more on his mortgage than he could sell it for. What that has to do with the current discussion, I'm not sure.
Slashdot is, as far as the hivemind can be said to hold any position, in favor of copyright reform. There is no consensus on what that should look like, generally either abolishing it altogether or restricting it to a term similar to that of patents. In either case, free and/or open licenses are considered a useful middle ground, though proponents of abolishment tend to favor BSD over GPL.
But then, given how long you've been around, you already knew that.
My best (worst?) tech support call was an "Our printer's broken." How can you tell? "There's a bullet hole in it." Ahhh, right, we'll get that replaced then. And I will never work at a bank branch.
As far as I can tell, we have 5 significant potential sources of power: 1. Solar is the big one, as you identified. It includes wind, hydro, and [biogenic] hydrocarbons. 2. Geothermal, which is fueled by the heat of planetary formation and essentially gravitational. 3. Tidal, which exploits a multi-body gravitational effect 4. Fission, which we're discussing here and is not limited in the short term 5. Fusion, which of course we can't control, yet. If we could do it effectively, we wouldn't need anything else, since hydrogen is everywhere.
Theoretically, we could drain the methane lakes of Titan as well, but I suspect once we get to that point it will be irrelevant.
I'll admit to being a bit concerned by your sexuality, but I suppose to each their own. I, personally, know what I would choose if given a choice between being forced into burgermaking or prostitution.
If you're saving the weight on the first stage, though, only about 1/5 of the weight saved goes to payload (this one reason why Musk doesn't mind spending weight on recovery hardware for the stage). Even so, based on Rutan's comments today, a vehicle this size could still get a 5-10% payload gain from the air launch, so the other considerations (as you mention) are apparently fairly considerable.
I honestly can't say why that wouldn't work, but Rutan actually specifically called that out in the press conference as "a really stupid idea." I'm just going to take his word for it, although just looking at his design the problem might just be that it's not powerful enough. The thing they've designed has almost twice the wingspan and half again as many engines, for example.
Wait, you're upset because a bunch of people who were upset with the service they were getting refused to stay with the service and thereby subsidize your use of it, and YOU are calling THEM spoiled?
I would love for that sort of breakthrough to happen, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it gets better MPG, but at a much higher price per gallon?
It's the high upfront cost that gets you, since the only functioning models are one offs in this lab. If (and as always, it's a big one) they can work out mass production of it, you probably will see it replacing ICEs
Another point, U.S. society is actually less spread out today than it was 100 years ago (that is a larger percentage of the population lives in cities today than did then).
I'll believe that, easily, but I'm curious whether it's true that there are fewer people (on an absolute basis) living outside of cities. It seems likely to me that stopping daily mail service to those areas would impact more people now than it would have 100 years ago. Not that that's precisely the point you were referring to, anyway.
As to your claim that there are no RTGs available: I could build a crude but functional one in about five minutes (if I had a pellet of [insert name of suitable isotope here]), and it's not as if we're short of radioisotopes suited for the task.
Yes we are. The only suitable isotope for these applications is PU-238, and Congress refuses to fund fund further production. Curiosity is the last piece of equipment that will carry an RTG for the foreseeable future.
Sadly I haven’t conducted much research on this myself, having only gotten my hands dirty one or twice, but I don’t see that it would be nearly as much fun with a condom, and I’ve no idea how lesbians would have protected oral sex.
Are you fucking kidding me? I'm an abstinence promoter who's never "gotten my hands dirty", and I can tell you about dental dams, which are (or at least should be) just as useful to heterosexual couples as lesbians. Hell, I'm even willing to undo moderation on this story to get the information out, since it's apparently not as common sense as I thought.
Corporations are not unions and do not represent the interests of their employees or board of directors.
Corporations represent the interests of their owners, who are already represented. Arguably, campaign contributions mean that they are already disproportionately represented.
Slashdot Mirror
The obvious.
It also doesn't help that built in advantage for the incumbent gets reinforced because the people who think they have a real shot at winning wait for the next election. So not only are they the candidates trashing each other, most of them are crazy, which doesn't help make the party look good.
That's GP's point, that Huntsman's position is reasonable, even though he won't say it strongly for fear of alienating the party. The rest of the field believe they are their own experts when it comes to climate change.
Okay, I'm missing something here. Are they trying to claim the maker of the videos did something illegal under civil law? Because if they're going after him in the chancery it sounds like Canon Law is handling the internet just fine.
Preventing discrimination ... is not forcing morals on anyone.
Isn't that entirely the point of any such law? And heck, most of the American ethos? That we think that those who would discriminate are morally wrong is a good thing.
And... what the fuck am I paying this college for, again?
The ability to get your resume past HR and in front of someone who knows what any of that means. Sorry.
I assume he means underwater, i.e. he owes more on his mortgage than he could sell it for. What that has to do with the current discussion, I'm not sure.
Slashdot is, as far as the hivemind can be said to hold any position, in favor of copyright reform. There is no consensus on what that should look like, generally either abolishing it altogether or restricting it to a term similar to that of patents. In either case, free and/or open licenses are considered a useful middle ground, though proponents of abolishment tend to favor BSD over GPL.
But then, given how long you've been around, you already knew that.
And yet all of us accept it...
Reasoning that "the ends never justify the means" is itself making a hard decision.
I'd pity him instead. Being able to remember something like that means it's probably applicable to where he works. I'll bet it's pinned to his wall.
My best (worst?) tech support call was an "Our printer's broken." How can you tell? "There's a bullet hole in it."
Ahhh, right, we'll get that replaced then. And I will never work at a bank branch.
As far as I can tell, we have 5 significant potential sources of power:
1. Solar is the big one, as you identified. It includes wind, hydro, and [biogenic] hydrocarbons.
2. Geothermal, which is fueled by the heat of planetary formation and essentially gravitational.
3. Tidal, which exploits a multi-body gravitational effect
4. Fission, which we're discussing here and is not limited in the short term
5. Fusion, which of course we can't control, yet. If we could do it effectively, we wouldn't need anything else, since hydrogen is everywhere.
Theoretically, we could drain the methane lakes of Titan as well, but I suspect once we get to that point it will be irrelevant.
I'll admit to being a bit concerned by your sexuality, but I suppose to each their own. I, personally, know what I would choose if given a choice between being forced into burgermaking or prostitution.
5:30 posting indeed! You were just fine with the original wording, though the alternative works as well. :)
If you're saving the weight on the first stage, though, only about 1/5 of the weight saved goes to payload (this one reason why Musk doesn't mind spending weight on recovery hardware for the stage). Even so, based on Rutan's comments today, a vehicle this size could still get a 5-10% payload gain from the air launch, so the other considerations (as you mention) are apparently fairly considerable.
I honestly can't say why that wouldn't work, but Rutan actually specifically called that out in the press conference as "a really stupid idea." I'm just going to take his word for it, although just looking at his design the problem might just be that it's not powerful enough. The thing they've designed has almost twice the wingspan and half again as many engines, for example.
Wait, you're upset because a bunch of people who were upset with the service they were getting refused to stay with the service and thereby subsidize your use of it, and YOU are calling THEM spoiled?
Yeah, at this point telling the probe to "Fear Ground" does sound kind of prophetic.
I would love for that sort of breakthrough to happen, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it gets better MPG, but at a much higher price per gallon?
It's the high upfront cost that gets you, since the only functioning models are one offs in this lab. If (and as always, it's a big one) they can work out mass production of it, you probably will see it replacing ICEs
How long before people just accept change and move on?
In my experience? Only once the next change happens. The best thing is always the previous version.
Another point, U.S. society is actually less spread out today than it was 100 years ago (that is a larger percentage of the population lives in cities today than did then).
I'll believe that, easily, but I'm curious whether it's true that there are fewer people (on an absolute basis) living outside of cities. It seems likely to me that stopping daily mail service to those areas would impact more people now than it would have 100 years ago. Not that that's precisely the point you were referring to, anyway.
As to your claim that there are no RTGs available: I could build a crude but functional one in about five minutes (if I had a pellet of [insert name of suitable isotope here]), and it's not as if we're short of radioisotopes suited for the task.
Yes we are. The only suitable isotope for these applications is PU-238, and Congress refuses to fund fund further production. Curiosity is the last piece of equipment that will carry an RTG for the foreseeable future.
Sadly I haven’t conducted much research on this myself, having only gotten my hands dirty one or twice, but I don’t see that it would be nearly as much fun with a condom, and I’ve no idea how lesbians would have protected oral sex.
Are you fucking kidding me? I'm an abstinence promoter who's never "gotten my hands dirty", and I can tell you about dental dams, which are (or at least should be) just as useful to heterosexual couples as lesbians. Hell, I'm even willing to undo moderation on this story to get the information out, since it's apparently not as common sense as I thought.
Corporations are not unions and do not represent the interests of their employees or board of directors.
Corporations represent the interests of their owners, who are already represented. Arguably, campaign contributions mean that they are already disproportionately represented.