The American Revolution is proof that you are wrong, as they won the war using only paper money.
Nope. They tried using fiat money and quickly realized, that's a losing proposition. Hence the gold standard, which lasted until Roosevelt.
One need only read Plato's Laws to understand how money was always recognized as political, and the gold fetish was alien to Civilization.
Ah, I see, where you are confused... You took my post as advocacy for "gold standard" — which it was not. I merely objected to the GP's claim, that money is: a) inherently corrupting; and b) its importance is somehow new — he used the word "nowadays". The historical examples we both are citing defeat that claim handily — money always was important. Was it always dangerous? Yes — much like an energy-storing battery can explode and/or cause fire, the value-storing money can cause bad things to happen.
Money is not a store of value.
BZZZ, wrong. Whether fiat or backed by some medium (such as gold), money is a way to store value — among other things.
It is a unit of political capital, the value of which is entirely dependent upon the power of the sovereignty that issued it.
Here you are talking about a government's fiat money, which does indeed have the drawbacks you list. But that's irrelevant to my original point.
With an onboard em source you would need to carry your own fuel and have a massive em emitter.
That's not necessarily a problem — even a kilo of material contains enormous amounts of power (m*c*c), we just don't yet know, how to extract it...
It would seem, the first such craft — if any are built — will have both. The sail for long distance travel, and EM for shorter-distance maneuvering, when nearby stars may not be sufficiently "bright". Not at all unlike the first coal-powered ships, which still used sails too.
Heck, maybe, Alpha Centauri can be reached first, contrary to TFA, if the breaking is assisted by an EM-drive — with each kilo of its fuel burned, the breaking becoming easier and easier to achieve...
because we're not ugly, and we're not social reject losers. like you. but thanks for letting us know you know 2nd grade grammar
Talking about unrelated flaws of someone, who pointed out your mistake, reveals nothing other than your own acute need of Vaseline...
Correct the mistake if you can and, perhaps, even thank for pointing it out. Or just keep quiet and apply the ointment where it hurts (and you do know, where that is, don't you?)
Why is light sail considered entirely possible, while EM-propulsion remains in the domain of evolution-denying (and even Trump-voting)? Aren't they both using light (of some frequency or another) as, uhm, tangible? Something, against which it is possible to push, however slightly?
Over two millennia before that, in 5th century BC, Periclean's Athens — industrious and skilled in commerce — were prevailing against Sparta's famous warriors skilled in little other than battle thanks to wealth. It took Persian money for Sparta to win at the end...
"Nowadays" my tail... No, money — a store of value — has always been as influential as the value it stored.
The corruption of science we are observing stems not from the money itself, but from the government being in charge of so many more things, than it was even 100 years ago. When those funding and those deciding, how to spend the funds, are distinct groups — that's, when you get either sincere mismanagement and outright corruption.
Keys directly libelled and slandered Yudkin, with the result that his work was disgracefully neglected
Even in the way you tell this story, it has nothing to do with money... Our misguided "war on fat" was due to the government deciding to expand into dietary advice — which it never should have done.
why did Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence committee call a hearing on the subject?
Because millions of people, believe there is — there must be! — something to investigate, even if they can not come up with a coherent accusation when responding to a post obviously requesting one.
House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.
Phlease, there is nothing to "investigate" there. I'm yet to hear even a coherent accusation — much less any evidence, however circumstantial or otherwise unreliable.
He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo
He-he... Much comfort that is — from the loving care of MPs to the gentle mercies of civilian wardens. More importantly, perhaps, Obama also changed the entire doctrine from capturing suspected terrorists to outright killing them. That's actually bona-fide evil, but with media airbrushing it, he was given a pass — even the unwarranted killing of Osama bin Laden was celebrated with only a few people asking, why he was ordered killed, not captured.
To recap, the folks, who roasted Bush alive for detaining suspected terrorists, were perfectly fine with Obama murdering same. And still he has not fulfilled his promise to drain Guantanamo...
until Republicans took over congress under his watch
Two years... Two years was not enough for him to disperse a few hundred prisoners... Trump's been in office for less than 100 days and you are already trumpeting his "failures"...
As long as you do not dispute, that the CEOs are more accountable than the government officials
I neither dispute nor accept your claim. I never did either.
Bzzzz! Hold it right there. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own facts. You did dispute this twice higher up in this thread, when you stated that CEOs are "never" held accountable and then softened up a little bit by changing that to "they aren't held accountable as much" (...as someone else).
Because wether or not CEOs are held accountable sufficiently strictly to satisfy you, is not relevant. What is important is that they are held accountable better than government officials. I cited evidence of this being true. You cited precisely nothing — and are now claiming, you made no claim, which you obviously did make.
Truth matters, and you keep lying, which is why I'm unlikely to engage with you in further conversations. Run along and remember to logout.
I passed no judgment, actually. I just pointed out, the deck is not stacked in Trump's favor — certainly not "entirely".
Sadly, in US politics these days if you are seen even eating in the same restaurant as someone from the other party you are vilified and torn down the next time you come up for re-election as a traitor to the party.
Apparently, people are periodically shifting in their opinion on whether or not party-loyalty (and consequent predictability) are a good thing. For every time you blast one's sticking to the party line, I can counter, that it is good thing, that a politician not doing that is not fulfilling the promise his party-affiliation made to the electorate.
With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.
About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.
As to the original point about being "surprised" — no. After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor), Presidents failing to deliver on their core promises does not surprise me one bit...
People who are attached to the project have voluntarily accepted the risks - unlike everybody else. How does that NOT make sense?
They may have accepted the risk, but it still illegal to recklessly endanger them.
that I didn't claim, have no knowledge off, do not care about and are not relevant.
I explained in detail, why it is relevant.
the alternative is making sure that the law is such that CEOs [...]
Ah, so you do agree, that space-exploration should be done by Capitalist enterprises, good. Wootery's comment was against that — and it was his anti-Capitalism stand, that I criticized.
lie awake at night terrified of the consequences if their company harms
Now, this really is irrelevant. As long as you do not dispute, that the CEOs are more accountable than the government officials, we do not need to continue arguing in this thread.
'they' is everyone who contributes to space junk, and 'what' is their contribution to space junk. Do keep up.
When arguing, it is best to be explicit and avoid pronouns — to prevent both unexpected confusion and deliberate traps.
So sure, no humans have yet been harmed. Good job cherry-picking.
?? Who else are we talking about? Rabbits? Fish? Of course, it is about humans.
Apparently though there really is a legal deterrent these days
Good, good — if only you did this research before going on the anti-Capitalism crusade.
My point stands, though: if someone — a human — is injured by space-junk, it can easily be traced to the original owners, who can then be sued/prosecuted by the victim(s). Which makes your sentence about "externality" incorrect. Have a good one.
No one — in the 60+ years history of humanity's space-exploration so far — has been injured by space debris. Either it is not really a significant threat or something is working as a deterrent.
I don't need to give citations for claims I never made. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about government space disasters
There are no other options: space exploration will be done either by the evil KKKapitali$t$ or by the omni-scient and benevolent government workers.
Earlier in this thread it was alleged, that the former will not pay attention to the dangers of the space-junk injuring folks on the ground because, as Wootery wrote, it will not be the (reckless) capitalist, that will bear the costs of the injury. I countered that pointing out, that the origin of space-junk will be very easy to trace back to the original capitalist, which would allow to prosecute same for reckless endangerment.
To that you replied, that "CEOs are never prosecuted" and that "there is no justice for the rich" — or, if they are prosecuted, they never get the sort of punishment you'd get for the same crime. Even if we stipulate your Che Guevarra-like allegations, you still need to show, that the alternative — government-administered space exploration — ensures more accountability (as well as cost-efficiency, etc.) For that, as a minimum, you need to cite examples of government officials getting punished for their share of disasters. Still waiting...
ZERO cases where a government space craft has caused harm to a civilian not attached to the project
And why do you exclude people attached to the project — it makes no sense... But, hey, it is nice to finally see you trying to explain lack of prosecution by lack of crimes — in your rantings against the CEOs you obviously imply, they commit just as many crimes, but just aren't prosecuted as well.
Anyway, space junk is not actually a big problem back here on Earth — not yet, anyway. So, I'll expand my request for citations — can you name 3 government officials charged in relation to negligence, recklessness, or abuse of power in anything they've been involved in the course of their duties? All I can recall are cases of "early retirement"...
the history of capitalism has been to maximize externalities
Sure! As one would say, it "makes them smart". But the only alternative is it being by done government, which is even harder to punish (in addition to being horribly inefficient in everything they touch).
Or this guy: "The former CEO of drug company Inyx Inc has been charged in connection with a fraud scheme".
Now you list the folks prosecuted for anything in relation to space-related disasters — such as the Challenger Shuttle explosion... Oh, wait — evidence is not really your thing, is it? You still owe me a list of successful predictions made by Climate Scientists — though, having exposed you as a bona-fide liar, I understand your reluctance to come back to that thread...
If I launch a satellite in a cheap 'junk-heavy' way, it's not me who it harms.
Of course, it will be you — if there is enough of it left to hurt somebody on Earth upon falling, that's enough to determine, who launched it. Reckless Endangerment is a crime. Criminal and civil penalties will soon follow.
Unless, of course, it was launched by a government organization, which is immune to prosecution. Figure that into your KKKapitali$t-bashing next time...
So... scientific evidence is not "proof" of a scientific claim in your mind?
Scientific evidence would've been proof — if it existed. But IPCC report does not have it. Nor is the entire discipline of "Climate Science" particularly well-established. This is partly due to the very nature of their domain — climate change is a very slow process making reproducible experiments very hard. What hampers it further is politization — Statists have seized on it long ago to justify further encroachment by the government into people's daily lives.
Climate Science's record is very poor — I challenge you to find two of their predictions, that have turned true. The rules are here... Try it yourself.
Because the proof that gravity exists is, in fact, significantly weaker than the evidence that human are causing climate change.
The existence of gravity is trivially verified. Predictions made by the scientific discipline (Physics, or, more specifically — Mechanics) are very precise. We know, how to compute the time it will take for an object to fall with high precision and, indeed, a wide variety of machines and other mechanisms (from well-heads to airplanes and spaceships) have been built because of how well we do understand gravity.
Climate change, on the other hand, remains poorly understood (although highly politicized). Thus we rate your claim, that evidence of gravity is "significantly weaker" than that of anthropogenic climate change as Four Pinnochios and Liar Liar Pants on Fire.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. They tried using fiat money and quickly realized, that's a losing proposition. Hence the gold standard, which lasted until Roosevelt.
Ah, I see, where you are confused... You took my post as advocacy for "gold standard" — which it was not. I merely objected to the GP's claim, that money is: a) inherently corrupting; and b) its importance is somehow new — he used the word "nowadays". The historical examples we both are citing defeat that claim handily — money always was important. Was it always dangerous? Yes — much like an energy-storing battery can explode and/or cause fire, the value-storing money can cause bad things to happen.
BZZZ, wrong. Whether fiat or backed by some medium (such as gold), money is a way to store value — among other things.
Here you are talking about a government's fiat money, which does indeed have the drawbacks you list. But that's irrelevant to my original point.
That's not necessarily a problem — even a kilo of material contains enormous amounts of power (m*c*c), we just don't yet know, how to extract it...
It would seem, the first such craft — if any are built — will have both. The sail for long distance travel, and EM for shorter-distance maneuvering, when nearby stars may not be sufficiently "bright". Not at all unlike the first coal-powered ships, which still used sails too.
Heck, maybe, Alpha Centauri can be reached first, contrary to TFA, if the breaking is assisted by an EM-drive — with each kilo of its fuel burned, the breaking becoming easier and easier to achieve...
Talking about unrelated flaws of someone, who pointed out your mistake, reveals nothing other than your own acute need of Vaseline...
Correct the mistake if you can and, perhaps, even thank for pointing it out. Or just keep quiet and apply the ointment where it hurts (and you do know, where that is, don't you?)
Why is light sail considered entirely possible, while EM-propulsion remains in the domain of evolution-denying (and even Trump-voting)? Aren't they both using light (of some frequency or another) as, uhm, tangible? Something, against which it is possible to push, however slightly?
Did you say "Nowadays"? The colonies nearly lost the war against Britain for lack of money — in the 18th century.
Over two millennia before that, in 5th century BC, Periclean's Athens — industrious and skilled in commerce — were prevailing against Sparta's famous warriors skilled in little other than battle thanks to wealth . It took Persian money for Sparta to win at the end...
"Nowadays" my tail... No, money — a store of value — has always been as influential as the value it stored.
The corruption of science we are observing stems not from the money itself, but from the government being in charge of so many more things, than it was even 100 years ago. When those funding and those deciding, how to spend the funds, are distinct groups — that's, when you get either sincere mismanagement and outright corruption.
Even in the way you tell this story, it has nothing to do with money... Our misguided "war on fat" was due to the government deciding to expand into dietary advice — which it never should have done.
WTF? Since when is the Executive Branch doing the sentencing?!
Because millions of people, believe there is — there must be! — something to investigate, even if they can not come up with a coherent accusation when responding to a post obviously requesting one.
Things' prices ought to reflect their real costs. By twisting Internet- and other service-providers, governments keep services scarce and expensive for all.
Phlease, there is nothing to "investigate" there. I'm yet to hear even a coherent accusation — much less any evidence, however circumstantial or otherwise unreliable.
He-he... Much comfort that is — from the loving care of MPs to the gentle mercies of civilian wardens. More importantly, perhaps, Obama also changed the entire doctrine from capturing suspected terrorists to outright killing them. That's actually bona-fide evil, but with media airbrushing it, he was given a pass — even the unwarranted killing of Osama bin Laden was celebrated with only a few people asking, why he was ordered killed, not captured.
To recap, the folks, who roasted Bush alive for detaining suspected terrorists, were perfectly fine with Obama murdering same. And still he has not fulfilled his promise to drain Guantanamo...
Two years... Two years was not enough for him to disperse a few hundred prisoners... Trump's been in office for less than 100 days and you are already trumpeting his "failures"...
Bzzzz! Hold it right there. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own facts. You did dispute this twice higher up in this thread, when you stated that CEOs are "never" held accountable and then softened up a little bit by changing that to "they aren't held accountable as much" (...as someone else).
Because wether or not CEOs are held accountable sufficiently strictly to satisfy you, is not relevant. What is important is that they are held accountable better than government officials. I cited evidence of this being true. You cited precisely nothing — and are now claiming, you made no claim, which you obviously did make.
Truth matters, and you keep lying, which is why I'm unlikely to engage with you in further conversations. Run along and remember to logout.
I passed no judgment, actually. I just pointed out, the deck is not stacked in Trump's favor — certainly not "entirely".
Apparently, people are periodically shifting in their opinion on whether or not party-loyalty (and consequent predictability) are a good thing. For every time you blast one's sticking to the party line, I can counter, that it is good thing, that a politician not doing that is not fulfilling the promise his party-affiliation made to the electorate.
I'm too young to remember those — and I lived in another country back then — so I went for the more recent example.
About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.
As to the original point about being "surprised" — no. After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor), Presidents failing to deliver on their core promises does not surprise me one bit...
They may have accepted the risk, but it still illegal to recklessly endanger them.
I explained in detail, why it is relevant.
Ah, so you do agree, that space-exploration should be done by Capitalist enterprises, good. Wootery's comment was against that — and it was his anti-Capitalism stand, that I criticized.
Now, this really is irrelevant. As long as you do not dispute, that the CEOs are more accountable than the government officials, we do not need to continue arguing in this thread.
When arguing, it is best to be explicit and avoid pronouns — to prevent both unexpected confusion and deliberate traps.
?? Who else are we talking about? Rabbits? Fish? Of course, it is about humans.
Good, good — if only you did this research before going on the anti-Capitalism crusade.
My point stands, though: if someone — a human — is injured by space-junk, it can easily be traced to the original owners, who can then be sued/prosecuted by the victim(s). Which makes your sentence about "externality" incorrect. Have a good one.
Who are "they" and "what" are they doing?
No one — in the 60+ years history of humanity's space-exploration so far — has been injured by space debris. Either it is not really a significant threat or something is working as a deterrent.
Yeah, "an" EPA to police the entire planet's upper atmosphere and the vacuum beyond... Seriously?
How do you know?
-1 Offtopic. Wrong thread.
Well...... you asked him, after all.
I asked him to reply in the other thread, duh...
There are no other options: space exploration will be done either by the evil KKKapitali$t$ or by the omni-scient and benevolent government workers.
Earlier in this thread it was alleged, that the former will not pay attention to the dangers of the space-junk injuring folks on the ground because, as Wootery wrote, it will not be the (reckless) capitalist, that will bear the costs of the injury. I countered that pointing out, that the origin of space-junk will be very easy to trace back to the original capitalist, which would allow to prosecute same for reckless endangerment.
To that you replied, that "CEOs are never prosecuted" and that "there is no justice for the rich" — or, if they are prosecuted, they never get the sort of punishment you'd get for the same crime. Even if we stipulate your Che Guevarra-like allegations, you still need to show, that the alternative — government-administered space exploration — ensures more accountability (as well as cost-efficiency, etc.) For that, as a minimum, you need to cite examples of government officials getting punished for their share of disasters. Still waiting...
And why do you exclude people attached to the project — it makes no sense... But, hey, it is nice to finally see you trying to explain lack of prosecution by lack of crimes — in your rantings against the CEOs you obviously imply, they commit just as many crimes, but just aren't prosecuted as well.
Anyway, space junk is not actually a big problem back here on Earth — not yet, anyway. So, I'll expand my request for citations — can you name 3 government officials charged in relation to negligence, recklessness, or abuse of power in anything they've been involved in the course of their duties? All I can recall are cases of "early retirement"...
Sure! As one would say, it "makes them smart". But the only alternative is it being by done government, which is even harder to punish (in addition to being horribly inefficient in everything they touch).
We are well into the 21st century — where are the Shipstones?
-1 Offtopic. Wrong thread.
Citations missing, as is customary with silentcoder.
Yeah, yeah...
Meanwhile, the request for citations of government employees prosecuted for governmental space-disasters remains unanswered...
Yes, criminal and civil penalties. It happens all the time. Like these:
Now you list the folks prosecuted for anything in relation to space-related disasters — such as the Challenger Shuttle explosion... Oh, wait — evidence is not really your thing, is it? You still owe me a list of successful predictions made by Climate Scientists — though, having exposed you as a bona-fide liar, I understand your reluctance to come back to that thread...
Of course, it will be you — if there is enough of it left to hurt somebody on Earth upon falling, that's enough to determine, who launched it. Reckless Endangerment is a crime. Criminal and civil penalties will soon follow.
Unless, of course, it was launched by a government organization, which is immune to prosecution. Figure that into your KKKapitali$t-bashing next time...
Scientific evidence would've been proof — if it existed. But IPCC report does not have it. Nor is the entire discipline of "Climate Science" particularly well-established. This is partly due to the very nature of their domain — climate change is a very slow process making reproducible experiments very hard. What hampers it further is politization — Statists have seized on it long ago to justify further encroachment by the government into people's daily lives.
Climate Science's record is very poor — I challenge you to find two of their predictions, that have turned true. The rules are here... Try it yourself.
The existence of gravity is trivially verified. Predictions made by the scientific discipline (Physics, or, more specifically — Mechanics) are very precise. We know, how to compute the time it will take for an object to fall with high precision and, indeed, a wide variety of machines and other mechanisms (from well-heads to airplanes and spaceships) have been built because of how well we do understand gravity.
Climate change, on the other hand, remains poorly understood (although highly politicized). Thus we rate your claim, that evidence of gravity is "significantly weaker" than that of anthropogenic climate change as Four Pinnochios and Liar Liar Pants on Fire.