Now, read my post again in the context of GP's comments and you'll see that my point was that should sea levels rise more than 60 meters (the GP's suggestion, not mine), we'd have much bigger problems than GP thinks.
The maximum possible sea level rise is about 80m, and that would take thousands of years no matter how much CO2 we emit.
Such a change would still be so gradual that it lost in the noise of ordinary human activity: people moving and having or not having kids. So, no, "we" wouldn't have any big problems, and neither would our children; neither we nor our children would even be aware of it.
Does that make a little more sense to you? Or is there a a lack of imagination holding you back? Sigh.
What makes sense to me is that you and people like you are wracked by irrational fears. It must be the left wing equivalent of Christian conservatives fearing the wrath of God.
I'm not wracked ny anything except orons like you trying to twist what I say. Fuck you. Twist on that.,
Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees
Each year, about 15% of the US population move. That means that after less than 20 years, the equivalent of the entire population of the US has moved. Does this cause people to become homeless refugees? No, of course not. Sea level rise is so slow relative to natural migration that it has never mattered and will never matter.
along with the loss of arable land
Most arable land is not on the coast, and climate change likely does not cause a significant net gain/loss in arable land. (You can find the papers yourself on Scholar).
infrastructure and all manner of other things
Just like people move around, infrastructure effectively needs to be replaced every few decades anyway. It makes little difference whether it is replaced in the same location or elsewhere.
Is that correct?
No, you got just about everything wrong.
There's something called context. Please place my comments in relation to the GP's comments, which was to posit that, and I quote,."Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost."
Now, read my post again in the context of GP's comments and you'll see that my point was that should sea levels rise more than 60 meters (the GP's suggestion, not mine), we'd have much bigger problems than GP thinks. That it's unlikely (in the extreme) for the polar ice caps to melt completely (at least not any time in the foreseeable future) isn't really relevant. Does that make a little more sense to you? Or is there a a lack of imagination holding you back? Sigh.
You do realize that about 44% (~3 billion) people live within 150km (~93 miles) and more than half of us live withing 200km (~124 miles) of coasts. Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees, along with the loss of arable land, infrastructure and all manner of other things. Is that correct?
Since noone (except possibly you) believes that we're going to lose all land within 150km of the coasts in the next 50 years, your argument is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Predicted sea level rise over the rest of this century (~85 years, not 50) is low enough that the routine level maintenance around New Orleans (a city that basically sits at or below sea level) will easily handle the problem. I'd imagine we could teach the stupider people of the world how to manage building a levee a whole 30cm tall within the frightfully short interval of 85 years, don't you think?
Note: arguing AGW is usually interesting, but some arguments are just plain idiotic....
Firstly, yes your assessment is reasonable.
Secondly, please read the comment I was replying to:
Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost. And lets face it, sooner or later it will happen regardless of whether or not it's anthropogenic.
The 50 year number I mentioned wasn't a prediction of doom, rather it was, IMHO, a reasonable idea about population growth over that period. As you can see, I was responding to GP's ridiculous suggestion that should the polar ice caps melt, that it [paraphrasing here] wasn't really a big deal. I merely pointed out that the consequences of such an occurrence were much more severe than he(she?) made them out to be.
These idiots act like the world is about ignite...
Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost. And lets face it, sooner or later it will happen regardless of whether or not it's anthropogenic.
You do realize that about 44% (~3 billion) people live within 150km (~93 miles) and more than half of us live withing 200km (~124 miles) of coasts. Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees, along with the loss of arable land, infrastructure and all manner of other things. Is that correct?
Where exactly do you think those people will go? Right to your house, bub. I hope you made some extra potato salad.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
I wasn't trying to brow-beat you, I was genuinely surprised that someone whose first language was English and who, presumably, is a product of an English language secondary school would be ignorant of such a famous piece of literature. I can only assume you're a high school drop out, your school sucked or you just weren't paying attention.
My sincere apologies for thinking that you might have a *valid* reason not to be aware of Swift's work -- such as not being from an English speaking country.
Then I was correct in my original assessment of your intent and I repeat my reply to your statement:
""
Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument is offensively retarded.
""
Why did you correct me if I got guessed your context?
You complained giving the impression that you were just kidding...
I cite Poe's law.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
And then here we are full circle with it confirmed that my initial assessment was correct thus rendering your subsequent complains self contradictory.
*flicks frozen peas at adversary*
Try harder.
You do misunderstand. Clearly there's a reading comprehension issue going on, so I'll keep this to words of three syllables or less:
No. I don't accuse you of wanting to kill and eat babies. That's satire. However, your comments show you to lack empathy and seem to hold views that are almost as disgusting as those satirized in "A Modest Proposal" and "A Christmas Carol." What is more, you don't seem to realize how hateful and nasty your statements are.
I agree that symmetric connections to the Internet could help open up public participation in culture. But lack of a symmetric connection isn't the only obstacle to self-publishing. If we solve the other obstacles first, people can be ready to go once the symmetric Internet connections are ready
There are obstacles to just about everything. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let's move forward and deal with whatever issues may arise as they do so.
I'm not a lawyer or a talent agent. I see wealthy business interests stifling freedom, creativity and innovation. As a networking guy I see solutions in the technology.
Are there issues? Yes. Are those issues any different without high-speed, symmetric internet connections? No.
I say implement the technologies and the rest will sort itself out. With new business models, new technologies, the courts and through the public at-large. If we're lucky, once enough people see just how royally they've been screwed all these years, we'll see some changes.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle; Let the chips fall where they may; and several other hackneyed cliches advocating openness, freedom, choice and the inevitability of technological progress.
I'm sorry. Were you replying to my post? Because your ramblings have fuck all to do with what I posted. If so, please explain what FCC regulations have to do with last-mile protocols developed by private groups and how they're designed to prop up failing business models?
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
Again. PERIOD.
And with that... there is clarity.:-)
Oh, I get it. Loud and clear. And yes, the satire was *most definitely* directed at you, sir. Your comments caused me to think of Swift's writing and now of Dickens':
‘Are there no prisons?”
‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’
‘Both very busy, sir.’
‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’
‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’
‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.
‘You wish to be anonymous?’
‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’
‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’
‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
--Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
With you, in the role of Scrooge.
Is that enough context for you to take my meaning, sir?
peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content
But do most home users, especially those who aren't paid for producing "creative content", have the legal right to share most of the "creative content" stored on their devices?
Who knows what folks would do with the opportunities provided by high-speed symmetric links? Individually made feature films distributed by the filmmakers. Bands distributing their music directly. Authors selling their books. P2P social networks that are secured (in that you maintain control over your data on your own systems) and include only those you choose. And on and on and on.
The lack of symmetric links props up the business models created in the era of mass marketing. It could be quite disruptive to the content providers who dominate the ISP market (and generally only offer asymmetric links to their customers) as well. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
As for using such network links to distribute the intellectual property of others, the current model doesn't really stop that anyway does it?
The only folks that asymmetric (with hobbled upload) links benefits are those who profit from controlling the distribution of creative content, those who profit by creating centralized servers for social networks, product sales and other human feedlots so the information stored on their servers can be analyzed and PI based on viewing, browsing and buying habits as well as personal interests can be sold to marketers. And since most of those don't use any sort of encryption, the government gets to spy on you too.
So. Do you want freedom to communicate, collaborate and share only with those you choose to do so with, or do you want the big corporations and the government six inches up your ass? Yes, that's a straw man. But through it, I hope you get my point.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
I'll also point out, since it's clearly outside your limited vision, that the technologies and methods being used by VG are different from those using traditional ground-launched rockets. From that perspective, what VG is doing is both interesting and may well give us data, processes and technology which could help move us toward single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
I invite you to read what *you* wrote, as that's what I was responding to. My point (and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand) was that nothing exists simply to achieve a specific goal. The potential for sub-orbital flights reducing travel times enormously may or may not be achieved by anything done by VG (or at all, for that matter), but that's no reason not to experiment and try *new* things. The Wright brothers didn't have the goal to go from NYC to Dallas in 3 or so hours either, but because of the Wright brothers (in part), we can do that now. They had no idea such a thing might come of their experimentation, even though they had other goals for their efforts. VG has goals too. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the work they do has benefits 100 years from now that we haven't even considered.
Understand now? Or should I make a pop-up book for you?
It sounds like they're intending to draw a distinction between nodes that principally receive data from those that principally transmit data.
If the node has a high ratio of bits received to bits transmitted, it's an "End User." If it has a high ratio of bits transmitted to bits received, it's an "edge provider."
It's like that because of the artificial restrictions placed on upload speeds by the DOCSIS and ADSL protocols. Which is just the big boys trying to protect their business model by keeping us from being creators and sharing on a peer-to-peer basis.
High speed, symmetrical network links for everyone, and peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content and ensuring freedom of speech could be incredibly empowering and liberating technologies.
Unfortunately, those technologies which would allow users to share directly with each other, as well as strong encryption would most certainly limit the ability of the corporatocracy and the governement to spy on us for their benefit. So of course it must be stopped.
I really hate how cynical I'm getting, but our corporate and government overlords keep taking our freedoms and most people are cheering them on. Good consumers. No need to be a citizen. Just be a good little consumer.
Wouldn't it be great if someday we could have safe and affordable suborbital flights available to ordinary people?
Yes, that would be great. But rockets are neither safe nor affordable.
At one time, cars were neither safe nor affordable. The same is true for airplanes. And cell phones. And microprocessors. And just as true for just about every technological advancement from the the windmill to the telescope to the smallpox vaccine to the mercury thermometer.
If it were up to you, we'd all be living in caves, or at best, mud huts. No thanks. I'll take technological advancement even if it isn't safe or cheap.
But TFA is not talking about whether space tourism is dirty. It is talking about the eulogies given by the CEO's. If the flight was just a regular air flight going to Maldives, nobody would be talking about heroes moving frontiers. We would be discussing whether the planes are properly maintained, the pilots having enough rest, etc. Now, we are willing to ignore those questions because it involves "space". The pilots may or may not be aware about the severity of the risk they were taking. The CEO may or may not have cut safety costs to turn a profit. But all those questions should be asked as we would have done if it was an airline company.
Having the guy that stands to make billions, talking about the heroic deaths of two of his employees that were doing their jobs (which is more or less trying to make him richer) is just disgusting. Yes, these are hard, risky (and comparatively well payed) jobs. But there is nothing heroic in being a pilot transporting rich tourists.
Okay. So you've criticized VG's executives for their heartless and inane statements. Please, you who are so much nobler, smarter and more wonderful than those guys, praytell, what *should* they have said? Moron.
On December 17, 1903, Orville Wright piloted the first powered airplane 20 feet above a wind-swept beach in North Carolina. The flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. Three more flights were made that day with Orville's brother Wilbur piloting the record flight lasting 59 seconds over a distance of 852 feet.
That was even more unlike a 30 minute flight from NYC to Dallas than the SS2. It's a good thing you weren't around back then to troll the Wright brothers. Sigh.
The reality is that SC is advertising what is for all intents and purposes a highly experimental way of going up. Professionals pilots and test pilots can take the risk. Can your rich aunt betty and your uncle harry take such risks ? Or your son and daughter ?
And so it is. And yes, Betty and Harry most certainly *can* take those risks, should they choose to do so. Who the hell are you to decide what risks other people should or should not take? It wouldn't be your life at stake, rather it will be those who choose to take such risks, their choice not yours.
Don't you have as PTA meeting or something to go to where you demand that books or the teaching of evolution be banned?
You reminded me of the of this:
The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies.
We already have the understanding. We know how to make proper orbital rockets, so why not optimize those (like Space-X is doing), rather than going back 60 years in time with a design that is only leading to a dead end.
Because rockets launches as we've done them before (including the shuttle) are extremely expensive and wasteful. Using a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) spacecraft is likely the only way we will be able to reduce the cost (currently estimated at between USD$15,000 and USD$50,000 per kg depending on the payload and orbital destination) and waste down to something that is commercially viable (USD$500/kg? USD$100/kg?).
I can certainly see how the VG SS2 might help refine some of the technologies necessary for this. Is it the final answer? No. Is it worthwhile? Richard Branson certainly thinks so, and so do those who work for him on this project. It's their money and lives they are gambling with, and I'm quite appreciative that they are doing so.
If you don't think it's worthwhile and/or are too chickenshit to put your blood and treasure on the line, no one is asking you to do so.
If so, get out of the way and let those with the vision and the intestinal fortitude go about it their own way. They may fail. At least one has died. No one said this was a safe endeavour. It's not.
I, for one, admire these people. Not just the Virgin Galactic folks, but everyone who is putting their asses (literally and economically) on the line to make commercial space travel a reality for all of us.
Point taken. At the same time, Poe's Law notwithstanding, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is likely the most famous piece of English language satire. Ever.
Since I *linked* to it, and it was clearly attributed to its author, I never imagined that anyone with a modicum of English language education (which, of course , may not apply to you -- are you Dutch? German?) wouldn't recognize it as the famous satire it is. It is pretty much required reading in most American (and English, Canadian, Irish and probably Australian, I'd expect) secondary schools. My apologies for any confusion.
A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift suggests that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies.[2] This satirical hyperbole mocks heartless attitudes towards the poor, as well as Irish policy in general. In English writing, the phrase "a modest proposal" is now conventionally an allusion to this style of straight-faced satire. [Emphasis mine]
Not eligible doesn't mean the same thing as not receiving. A lot of states, like Massachusetts, have rules against asking about immigration status when processing applications for benefits. Obama's own aunt Z lived in Boston public housing as an illegal alien while US citizens were wait-listed. There are laws against being in the country illegally, yet an estimated thirty million are here. Laws don't mean shit anymore.
You're talking about *state* benefits rather than Federal benefits. As I said, "Eligibility for state benefits varies from state to state." If you don't like how a particular state deals with immigrants, legal or otherwise, you're free to move. America! What a country!
NotSanguine, I do not mind you , democ-rat party, libs paying the added cost for ISP service for those victims of oppressive USA system. I do not mind if you work to hours a day to pay for it or getting a 2nd job. If NYC , NY or USA mandate us to pay ISP services, COMCAST will pass on the cost to the rest of us. You can also take a loan if you want to pay for their FREE ISP service.
I pay my taxes as I'm required by the 16th amendment and the law. What is more, as Justice Jackson pointed out, I don't mind paying taxes. With it, I buy civilization. Have a *nice* day!
Yes, and the 10% with money go to private. Obviously reading comprehension is a problem with many Americans, dare I say 90% of them.
actually, that's incorrect. Most (as I said, 90%) kids go to public schools -- in wealthy areas, the public schools are often quite good. Reality is really a downer when it disagrees with your prejudices, eh?
Oh stop acting like a hysterical gaywad. Jesus Christ, you are an embarassment to the species. You know, it IS possible to discuss things without being a twat about it... although as a libertarian I disagreed with the post you replied to, but at least he discussed it like a rational human being, unlike you, who behaves as if this were freerepublic dot com or something.
What, exactly, is a "gaywad?" And why is my comment hysterical? GP set up straw men and knocked them down. I called him(her?) on it and made suggestions as to how to deal with the situation. I'm guessing you're just a sock puppet for GP, but hey, good for you. At least it gets you blathering on with someone else rather than talking to yourself. Rock on, friend!
Slashdot Mirror
The maximum possible sea level rise is about 80m, and that would take thousands of years no matter how much CO2 we emit.
Such a change would still be so gradual that it lost in the noise of ordinary human activity: people moving and having or not having kids. So, no, "we" wouldn't have any big problems, and neither would our children; neither we nor our children would even be aware of it.
What makes sense to me is that you and people like you are wracked by irrational fears. It must be the left wing equivalent of Christian conservatives fearing the wrath of God.
I'm not wracked ny anything except orons like you trying to twist what I say. Fuck you. Twist on that.,
Each year, about 15% of the US population move. That means that after less than 20 years, the equivalent of the entire population of the US has moved. Does this cause people to become homeless refugees? No, of course not. Sea level rise is so slow relative to natural migration that it has never mattered and will never matter.
Most arable land is not on the coast, and climate change likely does not cause a significant net gain/loss in arable land. (You can find the papers yourself on Scholar).
Just like people move around, infrastructure effectively needs to be replaced every few decades anyway. It makes little difference whether it is replaced in the same location or elsewhere.
No, you got just about everything wrong.
There's something called context. Please place my comments in relation to the GP's comments, which was to posit that, and I quote, ."Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost."
Now, read my post again in the context of GP's comments and you'll see that my point was that should sea levels rise more than 60 meters (the GP's suggestion, not mine), we'd have much bigger problems than GP thinks. That it's unlikely (in the extreme) for the polar ice caps to melt completely (at least not any time in the foreseeable future) isn't really relevant. Does that make a little more sense to you? Or is there a a lack of imagination holding you back? Sigh.
Since noone (except possibly you) believes that we're going to lose all land within 150km of the coasts in the next 50 years, your argument is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Predicted sea level rise over the rest of this century (~85 years, not 50) is low enough that the routine level maintenance around New Orleans (a city that basically sits at or below sea level) will easily handle the problem. I'd imagine we could teach the stupider people of the world how to manage building a levee a whole 30cm tall within the frightfully short interval of 85 years, don't you think?
Note: arguing AGW is usually interesting, but some arguments are just plain idiotic....
Firstly, yes your assessment is reasonable.
Secondly, please read the comment I was replying to:
The 50 year number I mentioned wasn't a prediction of doom, rather it was, IMHO, a reasonable idea about population growth over that period. As you can see, I was responding to GP's ridiculous suggestion that should the polar ice caps melt, that it [paraphrasing here] wasn't really a big deal. I merely pointed out that the consequences of such an occurrence were much more severe than he(she?) made them out to be.
These idiots act like the world is about ignite... Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost. And lets face it, sooner or later it will happen regardless of whether or not it's anthropogenic.
You do realize that about 44% (~3 billion) people live within 150km (~93 miles) and more than half of us live withing 200km (~124 miles) of coasts. Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees, along with the loss of arable land, infrastructure and all manner of other things. Is that correct?
Where exactly do you think those people will go? Right to your house, bub. I hope you made some extra potato salad.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
I wasn't trying to brow-beat you, I was genuinely surprised that someone whose first language was English and who, presumably, is a product of an English language secondary school would be ignorant of such a famous piece of literature. I can only assume you're a high school drop out, your school sucked or you just weren't paying attention.
My sincere apologies for thinking that you might have a *valid* reason not to be aware of Swift's work -- such as not being from an English speaking country.
Then I was correct in my original assessment of your intent and I repeat my reply to your statement: "" Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument is offensively retarded. ""
Why did you correct me if I got guessed your context?
You complained giving the impression that you were just kidding...
I cite Poe's law.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
And then here we are full circle with it confirmed that my initial assessment was correct thus rendering your subsequent complains self contradictory.
*flicks frozen peas at adversary*
Try harder.
You do misunderstand. Clearly there's a reading comprehension issue going on, so I'll keep this to words of three syllables or less:
No. I don't accuse you of wanting to kill and eat babies. That's satire. However, your comments show you to lack empathy and seem to hold views that are almost as disgusting as those satirized in "A Modest Proposal" and "A Christmas Carol." What is more, you don't seem to realize how hateful and nasty your statements are.
We clear now, sport?
I agree that symmetric connections to the Internet could help open up public participation in culture. But lack of a symmetric connection isn't the only obstacle to self-publishing. If we solve the other obstacles first, people can be ready to go once the symmetric Internet connections are ready
There are obstacles to just about everything. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let's move forward and deal with whatever issues may arise as they do so.
I'm not a lawyer or a talent agent. I see wealthy business interests stifling freedom, creativity and innovation. As a networking guy I see solutions in the technology.
Are there issues? Yes. Are those issues any different without high-speed, symmetric internet connections? No.
I say implement the technologies and the rest will sort itself out. With new business models, new technologies, the courts and through the public at-large. If we're lucky, once enough people see just how royally they've been screwed all these years, we'll see some changes.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle; Let the chips fall where they may; and several other hackneyed cliches advocating openness, freedom, choice and the inevitability of technological progress.
I'm sorry. Were you replying to my post? Because your ramblings have fuck all to do with what I posted. If so, please explain what FCC regulations have to do with last-mile protocols developed by private groups and how they're designed to prop up failing business models?
If not, carry on.
Either way, have a great day!
Sigh... I quoted Poe's law and everything.
Fine.
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
Again. PERIOD.
And with that... there is clarity. :-)
Oh, I get it. Loud and clear. And yes, the satire was *most definitely* directed at you, sir. Your comments caused me to think of Swift's writing and now of Dickens':
--Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
With you, in the role of Scrooge.
Is that enough context for you to take my meaning, sir?
Have a lovely day
If you want to discuss things, learn how to behave in polite conversation. I have zero interest in ever talking to you again now.
Thank goodness. I was hoping you'd say that. Have a wonderful life!
peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content
But do most home users, especially those who aren't paid for producing "creative content", have the legal right to share most of the "creative content" stored on their devices?
Who knows what folks would do with the opportunities provided by high-speed symmetric links? Individually made feature films distributed by the filmmakers. Bands distributing their music directly. Authors selling their books. P2P social networks that are secured (in that you maintain control over your data on your own systems) and include only those you choose. And on and on and on.
The lack of symmetric links props up the business models created in the era of mass marketing. It could be quite disruptive to the content providers who dominate the ISP market (and generally only offer asymmetric links to their customers) as well. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
As for using such network links to distribute the intellectual property of others, the current model doesn't really stop that anyway does it?
The only folks that asymmetric (with hobbled upload) links benefits are those who profit from controlling the distribution of creative content, those who profit by creating centralized servers for social networks, product sales and other human feedlots so the information stored on their servers can be analyzed and PI based on viewing, browsing and buying habits as well as personal interests can be sold to marketers. And since most of those don't use any sort of encryption, the government gets to spy on you too.
So. Do you want freedom to communicate, collaborate and share only with those you choose to do so with, or do you want the big corporations and the government six inches up your ass? Yes, that's a straw man. But through it, I hope you get my point.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
I'll also point out, since it's clearly outside your limited vision, that the technologies and methods being used by VG are different from those using traditional ground-launched rockets. From that perspective, what VG is doing is both interesting and may well give us data, processes and technology which could help move us toward single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
I invite you to read what *you* wrote, as that's what I was responding to. My point (and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand) was that nothing exists simply to achieve a specific goal. The potential for sub-orbital flights reducing travel times enormously may or may not be achieved by anything done by VG (or at all, for that matter), but that's no reason not to experiment and try *new* things. The Wright brothers didn't have the goal to go from NYC to Dallas in 3 or so hours either, but because of the Wright brothers (in part), we can do that now. They had no idea such a thing might come of their experimentation, even though they had other goals for their efforts. VG has goals too. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the work they do has benefits 100 years from now that we haven't even considered.
Understand now? Or should I make a pop-up book for you?
It sounds like they're intending to draw a distinction between nodes that principally receive data from those that principally transmit data.
If the node has a high ratio of bits received to bits transmitted, it's an "End User." If it has a high ratio of bits transmitted to bits received, it's an "edge provider."
It's like that because of the artificial restrictions placed on upload speeds by the DOCSIS and ADSL protocols. Which is just the big boys trying to protect their business model by keeping us from being creators and sharing on a peer-to-peer basis.
High speed, symmetrical network links for everyone, and peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content and ensuring freedom of speech could be incredibly empowering and liberating technologies.
Unfortunately, those technologies which would allow users to share directly with each other, as well as strong encryption would most certainly limit the ability of the corporatocracy and the governement to spy on us for their benefit. So of course it must be stopped.
I really hate how cynical I'm getting, but our corporate and government overlords keep taking our freedoms and most people are cheering them on. Good consumers. No need to be a citizen. Just be a good little consumer.
Wouldn't it be great if someday we could have safe and affordable suborbital flights available to ordinary people?
Yes, that would be great. But rockets are neither safe nor affordable.
At one time, cars were neither safe nor affordable. The same is true for airplanes. And cell phones. And microprocessors. And just as true for just about every technological advancement from the the windmill to the telescope to the smallpox vaccine to the mercury thermometer.
If it were up to you, we'd all be living in caves, or at best, mud huts. No thanks. I'll take technological advancement even if it isn't safe or cheap.
But TFA is not talking about whether space tourism is dirty. It is talking about the eulogies given by the CEO's. If the flight was just a regular air flight going to Maldives, nobody would be talking about heroes moving frontiers. We would be discussing whether the planes are properly maintained, the pilots having enough rest, etc. Now, we are willing to ignore those questions because it involves "space". The pilots may or may not be aware about the severity of the risk they were taking. The CEO may or may not have cut safety costs to turn a profit. But all those questions should be asked as we would have done if it was an airline company. Having the guy that stands to make billions, talking about the heroic deaths of two of his employees that were doing their jobs (which is more or less trying to make him richer) is just disgusting. Yes, these are hard, risky (and comparatively well payed) jobs. But there is nothing heroic in being a pilot transporting rich tourists.
Okay. So you've criticized VG's executives for their heartless and inane statements. Please, you who are so much nobler, smarter and more wonderful than those guys, praytell, what *should* they have said? Moron.
An airplane that can get you from NYC to Dallas is unlike the SpaceShipTwo in nearly every possible way.
From http://www.eyewitnesstohistory... :
That was even more unlike a 30 minute flight from NYC to Dallas than the SS2. It's a good thing you weren't around back then to troll the Wright brothers. Sigh.
The reality is that SC is advertising what is for all intents and purposes a highly experimental way of going up. Professionals pilots and test pilots can take the risk. Can your rich aunt betty and your uncle harry take such risks ? Or your son and daughter ?
And so it is. And yes, Betty and Harry most certainly *can* take those risks, should they choose to do so. Who the hell are you to decide what risks other people should or should not take? It wouldn't be your life at stake, rather it will be those who choose to take such risks, their choice not yours.
Don't you have as PTA meeting or something to go to where you demand that books or the teaching of evolution be banned?
You reminded me of the of this:
--Robert Heinlein
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies.
We already have the understanding. We know how to make proper orbital rockets, so why not optimize those (like Space-X is doing), rather than going back 60 years in time with a design that is only leading to a dead end.
Because rockets launches as we've done them before (including the shuttle) are extremely expensive and wasteful. Using a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) spacecraft is likely the only way we will be able to reduce the cost (currently estimated at between USD$15,000 and USD$50,000 per kg depending on the payload and orbital destination) and waste down to something that is commercially viable (USD$500/kg? USD$100/kg?).
I can certainly see how the VG SS2 might help refine some of the technologies necessary for this. Is it the final answer? No. Is it worthwhile? Richard Branson certainly thinks so, and so do those who work for him on this project. It's their money and lives they are gambling with, and I'm quite appreciative that they are doing so.
If you don't think it's worthwhile and/or are too chickenshit to put your blood and treasure on the line, no one is asking you to do so.
If so, get out of the way and let those with the vision and the intestinal fortitude go about it their own way. They may fail. At least one has died. No one said this was a safe endeavour. It's not.
I, for one, admire these people. Not just the Virgin Galactic folks, but everyone who is putting their asses (literally and economically) on the line to make commercial space travel a reality for all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Point taken. At the same time, Poe's Law notwithstanding, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is likely the most famous piece of English language satire. Ever.
Since I *linked* to it, and it was clearly attributed to its author, I never imagined that anyone with a modicum of English language education (which, of course , may not apply to you -- are you Dutch? German?) wouldn't recognize it as the famous satire it is. It is pretty much required reading in most American (and English, Canadian, Irish and probably Australian, I'd expect) secondary schools. My apologies for any confusion.
From the Wikipedia page on the work:
Not eligible doesn't mean the same thing as not receiving. A lot of states, like Massachusetts, have rules against asking about immigration status when processing applications for benefits. Obama's own aunt Z lived in Boston public housing as an illegal alien while US citizens were wait-listed. There are laws against being in the country illegally, yet an estimated thirty million are here. Laws don't mean shit anymore.
You're talking about *state* benefits rather than Federal benefits. As I said, "Eligibility for state benefits varies from state to state." If you don't like how a particular state deals with immigrants, legal or otherwise, you're free to move. America! What a country!
NotSanguine, I do not mind you , democ-rat party, libs paying the added cost for ISP service for those victims of oppressive USA system. I do not mind if you work to hours a day to pay for it or getting a 2nd job. If NYC , NY or USA mandate us to pay ISP services, COMCAST will pass on the cost to the rest of us. You can also take a loan if you want to pay for their FREE ISP service.
I pay my taxes as I'm required by the 16th amendment and the law. What is more, as Justice Jackson pointed out, I don't mind paying taxes. With it, I buy civilization. Have a *nice* day!
Yes, and the 10% with money go to private. Obviously reading comprehension is a problem with many Americans, dare I say 90% of them.
actually, that's incorrect. Most (as I said, 90%) kids go to public schools -- in wealthy areas, the public schools are often quite good. Reality is really a downer when it disagrees with your prejudices, eh?
Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument offensively retarded.
Satire motherfucker, do you get it?
With apologies to Quentin Tarantino.
Oh stop acting like a hysterical gaywad. Jesus Christ, you are an embarassment to the species. You know, it IS possible to discuss things without being a twat about it... although as a libertarian I disagreed with the post you replied to, but at least he discussed it like a rational human being, unlike you, who behaves as if this were freerepublic dot com or something.
What, exactly, is a "gaywad?" And why is my comment hysterical? GP set up straw men and knocked them down. I called him(her?) on it and made suggestions as to how to deal with the situation. I'm guessing you're just a sock puppet for GP, but hey, good for you. At least it gets you blathering on with someone else rather than talking to yourself. Rock on, friend!