You're making a straw man. I have no issue whatsoever with charity...I consider it a great virtue. I don't think it should be compulsory through taxation.
You keep talking about Iraq like I support that boondoggle. I don't. Please try to find issue with the arguments I'm making, rather than the ones that you're making up.
I don't know...you brought in the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy. I only pointed out that you're painting Americans with a fairly broad brush. I don't know where you're from, or what your allegiances are...only that your post was not particularly self-consistent.
What does not being a third world country have to do with social spending? The American Dream worked because America had vast natural resources, and allowed people to use them to create wealth. It had nothing to do with getting handouts from the government.
I'm serious. I want to know which of the New Deal Great Society Welfare State projects have actually solved the problems they set out to solve.
*eyebrow* Okay, Reality Master. Lay it out for me. You say that it won't be popular. I say that raw popularity is irrelevant. If there's an audience, it will be successful. If there isn't, there won't be. You haven't said anything that convinces me that you've got your finger on the pulse of the sporting universe, so I assert that you don't have anything to hang your argument on.
Oh yeah, and you're speaking about yourself in the third person. That is definitely not a good rhetorical tactic to get people to think you have any association whatsoever with the reality the rest of us are enjoying.
"Again, it's totally irrelevent what you as an individual care about." Nonsense. The only things I care about are things I care about. What other people care about is irrelevant to me. Of course my predilections are irrelevant TO YOU. They are, by definition, the only things that are relevant TO ME.
This is your objective assessment? I think you need to think this through a little better.
"They're not airplanes as such; they're rockets with wings"
Uh, what do you think an airplane is? Is the Bell X1 not an airplane? How about the X-15? How about the Rutan Vari-Eze with the rocket motor in the back, that's on all the pictures on the rocket racing web site? An airplane is a thing that travels through the air borne by wings that generate lift. These vehicles are clearly airplanes, powered by rocket motors.
"they use use a combination of rocket power and gliding, the gliding presumably used for the actual turns. In other words, drag racing"
Not sure where to begin here. Yes, except for the fact that it's in the air, and part of the time your motor isn't even turned on, and you make turns, it's just like drag racing. In other words, it's not at all like drag racing.
"I fail to see why rocket racing will succeed when airplane racing hasn't"
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Heck, I don't know if it'll be interesting to watch. I do know that I don't much care about taking viewership away from NASCAR.
"(to any great extent, the occasional race show notwithstanding)"
Ah, so excluding the popularity of air race shows, air race shows are not popular. Wow. You really are the Reality Master.
I don't think you really understand airplanes very well. I also don't think you understand that the vehicles in this race will be airplanes with rocket engines, not Flash Gordon tail-sitting cylinders with fins.
You're putting assertions in my mouth. I didn't say that popularity and economic viability were disconnected. I said that popularity is not a meaningful metric TO ME.
I don't know if this will be an interesting sport or not, but I don't think that popularity is going to change its interestingness to me. That's all I'm saying.
Am I looking at this from my own point of view? Duh, of course.
Where were the valid points? Were they when he changed the metric from popularity to economic viability, or when he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the vehicles in question?
You didn't say "economically viable". You said "popular". NASCAR and football are popular, but I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer than watch that stuff.
The organizers think they have a business model. You think it won't be popular. We'll see who's right.
"A rocket race will be worse -- they're not even as maneuverable as an airplane. "
Did you even bother to look at the pictures? They ARE airplanes...with rocket engines. But you're the Reality Master, so those facts probably don't have much to do with your judgement, right?
I'm a citizen, and I think this is really stupid. I suspect there are several other people like me. Therefore, you're painting with an overbroad brush.
If you'd said "sports fanatics", I'd have no argument with you. But you went for the "Gosh, aren't Americans dumb?" angle, which never fails to annoy me.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent! I almost completely agree with you. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify.
Again: What does social spending have to do with the scenario you're creating?
You're making a straw man. I have no issue whatsoever with charity...I consider it a great virtue. I don't think it should be compulsory through taxation.
You keep talking about Iraq like I support that boondoggle. I don't. Please try to find issue with the arguments I'm making, rather than the ones that you're making up.
I don't know...you brought in the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy. I only pointed out that you're painting Americans with a fairly broad brush. I don't know where you're from, or what your allegiances are...only that your post was not particularly self-consistent.
And the fact that you think that's a binary choice means you're not part of the solution.
I don't want there to be a federal teat. (Come on, I even spelled it for you...)
What does not being a third world country have to do with social spending? The American Dream worked because America had vast natural resources, and allowed people to use them to create wealth. It had nothing to do with getting handouts from the government.
I'm serious. I want to know which of the New Deal Great Society Welfare State projects have actually solved the problems they set out to solve.
So kick 'em out. I can't, because I refuse to register as a Republican to vote in the primaries.
If your party doesn't reflect your ideals, and you still vote for your party's candidate, you are part of the problem.
"like the constant bickering, positioning and coalition forming"
Yeah, because we don't have any of that in the US Congress, do we?
Funny, I think weaning the states off the federal teat is a good idea, in principle.
"calling any mainstream party in the USA 'left' is just too fucking hilarious"
"typical us vs them psychology"
Uh huh. Mr. Pot? Meet Mr. Kettle.
"enabling them to succeed in life"
Please provide statistically significant examples.
A new video card is a client side hardware modification. How is that cheating?
*eyebrow* Okay, Reality Master. Lay it out for me. You say that it won't be popular. I say that raw popularity is irrelevant. If there's an audience, it will be successful. If there isn't, there won't be. You haven't said anything that convinces me that you've got your finger on the pulse of the sporting universe, so I assert that you don't have anything to hang your argument on.
Oh yeah, and you're speaking about yourself in the third person. That is definitely not a good rhetorical tactic to get people to think you have any association whatsoever with the reality the rest of us are enjoying.
Just a thought.
"Again, it's totally irrelevent what you as an individual care about." Nonsense. The only things I care about are things I care about. What other people care about is irrelevant to me. Of course my predilections are irrelevant TO YOU. They are, by definition, the only things that are relevant TO ME.
This is your objective assessment? I think you need to think this through a little better.
"They're not airplanes as such; they're rockets with wings"
Uh, what do you think an airplane is? Is the Bell X1 not an airplane? How about the X-15? How about the Rutan Vari-Eze with the rocket motor in the back, that's on all the pictures on the rocket racing web site? An airplane is a thing that travels through the air borne by wings that generate lift. These vehicles are clearly airplanes, powered by rocket motors.
"they use use a combination of rocket power and gliding, the gliding presumably used for the actual turns. In other words, drag racing"
Not sure where to begin here. Yes, except for the fact that it's in the air, and part of the time your motor isn't even turned on, and you make turns, it's just like drag racing. In other words, it's not at all like drag racing.
"I fail to see why rocket racing will succeed when airplane racing hasn't"
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Heck, I don't know if it'll be interesting to watch. I do know that I don't much care about taking viewership away from NASCAR.
"(to any great extent, the occasional race show notwithstanding)"
Ah, so excluding the popularity of air race shows, air race shows are not popular. Wow. You really are the Reality Master.
I don't think you really understand airplanes very well. I also don't think you understand that the vehicles in this race will be airplanes with rocket engines, not Flash Gordon tail-sitting cylinders with fins.
You're putting assertions in my mouth. I didn't say that popularity and economic viability were disconnected. I said that popularity is not a meaningful metric TO ME.
I don't know if this will be an interesting sport or not, but I don't think that popularity is going to change its interestingness to me. That's all I'm saying.
Am I looking at this from my own point of view? Duh, of course.
And that would be cheating...how?
Where were the valid points? Were they when he changed the metric from popularity to economic viability, or when he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the vehicles in question?
Who cares?
You didn't say "economically viable". You said "popular". NASCAR and football are popular, but I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer than watch that stuff.
The organizers think they have a business model. You think it won't be popular. We'll see who's right.
"A rocket race will be worse -- they're not even as maneuverable as an airplane. "
Did you even bother to look at the pictures? They ARE airplanes...with rocket engines. But you're the Reality Master, so those facts probably don't have much to do with your judgement, right?
Yeah, because the popular sporting events are MUCH better.
I don't very much care how popular something is. Why do you?
What ARE you talking about?
How exactly does that make it look less ridiculous?
I'm a citizen, and I think this is really stupid. I suspect there are several other people like me. Therefore, you're painting with an overbroad brush.
If you'd said "sports fanatics", I'd have no argument with you. But you went for the "Gosh, aren't Americans dumb?" angle, which never fails to annoy me.