I wouldn't argue with you about the maintenance. I'm sure that, in the last 30 years, maintenance techniques have advanced, and newer aircraft will have been designed to take advantage of that.
I was referring specifically to in-the-air efficiency.
RIght, your grammar flame totally clears up the ambiguity in that sentence. I had no idea that the person who wrote the sentence was actually expressing the thought. I was thinking he might be channeling Richard Pryor or something.
Iraq is a hideously unprofitable military occupation. If it was a colony, we'd have taken the oil and said "fuck all y'all."
I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and I think the way things are being run over there is a terrible cluster-fuck...but Iraq is in no meaningful way a colony.
How would you sell that to somebody who's just learned to program their VCR?
Or to somebody who hasn't?
I got a TiVO for Christmas with a six-month free subscription. The UI (and the TV guide) are almost bulletproof. $13/mo is steep, but if it frees me from the vagaries of TV schedules, if it saves me two Blockbuster rentals a month, it's worth it.
It's economically unfeasible to invade Switzerland. Part of that economic unfeasibility comes from the mountains full of partisans with guns that would make your occupation a living hell.
You know, like in Baghdad.
"realise that trying to always have the biggest weapon isn't a very brillant solution either."
That's not my argument at all. I'm saying that an armed populace makes it very hard to get too greedy with the Federal power.
"So all these accidents, all the small children doing stupid things, all the drunk/psychotic people using weapon when arguing, all morons shooting first and think aftwerward, all people commiting suicide using the wepons they have home, are all these worth the perceived increase of security attributed to having guns at home ?"
In a word? Yes. In several words? All of those problems can be addressed in ways that do not involve compulsory firearm registration and/or confiscation.
The one single solitary only thing that John Ashcroft ever did that I think was Good was refuse to turn over lists of firearms purchasers to law enforcement. He was Doing His Job. I wish he had done that more often, instead of going on a Patriot Act power grab.
If you look at the fuel consumption math for rocketry, you'll immediately understand why reducing thrown weight is THE design driver for orbital launches. Carrying around extra fuel just for landing vastly increases your launch vehicle weight, and that's Bad (and Expensive).
They've got a long way (engineering-wise) before they're ready to go to the moon. If they believe they're going to take off in a single-stage to orbit vehicle, fly it to the moon, land, take off again, and fly it back to Earth...well, it's a pretty vision, but pass the pixie dust. Not gonna happen. If they prove me wrong, I am going to be giddy as a six-year-old schoolgirl with a new dress, and I will be DELIGHTED to eat my words.
Rockets have stages for a reason. Look at the size of the Apollo command module vs. the size of the Saturn V stack. Meditate on the fact that it's designed that way for a reason.
Re:In adition to what other swiss slashdotters sai
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
It's only logical that where there are guns (or any other dangerous objects) there are deaths and/or injuries related to said dangerous objects. I'm NOT saying that guns are no more dangerous than dandelions...nothing could be further from my point.
I am saying that not owning guns is, for a society, more dangerous than owning guns. Tyrants like unarmed peasants. There's a reason that Switzerland has never been invaded.
The pacifist ideal is suicide. Just ask the Tibetans.
"While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there."
Those were your words, bud. That was what I was disagreeing with.
There is nitrogen on Mars, we know that. The only question is how much, and that will take further study.
Seems to me like we ought to figure out how to build a fusion reactor before we worry too much about where we're going to get HE3.
Yeah, right now, I've got the Braun self-cleaning razor that just cuts hair, not be a gameboy.
So far, so good. I haven't had to disassemble it yet, so I don't know what the battery sitchyation is.
This whole iPod battery question is just silly to me. How many members of John Q Public replaced the batteries in their cordless phones vs. buying a new one?
If in fact you're flying all over Europe for 1 pound Sterling (as another poster claimed), I say shut up and enjoy your advertising-subsidized vacation!
Hell, I'd wear a Sprint PCS tee-shirt on the flight if they paid for my flight...
Biodiesel was only one hypothesis. I think we'll be able to find something else to burn for fuel before we run out of good ol' dinosaur juice. It is the nature of human innovation to solve problems. This problem will be solved.
Build a nuclear powered combine harvester. Relatively simple to do, and it'd run forever. Hell, it'd power your house.
Oh, good, coal! The only fuel source that dumps more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear reactor. What a grand idea. How you going to build a coal-fired airplane?
You might suppose that fossil fuel powered land travel has gone the way of the dodo, but I'm willing to wager that lots of people within 50 yards of you got there in an internal combustion vehicle.
Nuclear is the most ecologically friendly power source. Live it. Love it. Know it.
I threw the whole cable "quality" argument in the trash can when I saw the gold-plated connectors on a TOSLINK cable.
Yeah. Gold plated...optical connectors. Riiiight.
Yes, the cable needs to be not-noisy enough to get the signal from point A to point B, but it doesn't need to be pure silver hand-rolled between the thighs of Cuban virgins, wrapped in rich Corinthian leather.
The interconnect cable mfrs sell snake oil. Lots of people seem to like snake oil, so good for them.
1) So, the US doesn't do what is defined as Imperialism. OK...
2) So governments are passe, so why are we talking about them? If you argue that US companies are imperialistic, I would have less of an argument with you. I don't get to vote about that.
Colonizing is about exploiting natural resources for profits back in the "mother" country. I'd differentiate that from building industrial capacity in under-developed countries, as those activities pay substantial local dividends.
In no case is the US (or US companies) any different from any other powerful entity on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't argue with you about the maintenance. I'm sure that, in the last 30 years, maintenance techniques have advanced, and newer aircraft will have been designed to take advantage of that.
I was referring specifically to in-the-air efficiency.
Nuclear reactors need shielding. Shielding is heavy. Airplanes HATE heavy.
Cracking water into H2 and O would make fine (if REALLY volatile) jet fuel.
Yes, because teaching robots to dance (apart from being pretty silly) makes other people, uh, not dance?
Come on. Some engineers thought of something they wanted to do. Should you be the cultural clearing house that says what Is or Is Not OK?
You want to preserve Noh dancing without robots? Cool. Good on ya. You don't? So what are you bitching about?
RIght, your grammar flame totally clears up the ambiguity in that sentence. I had no idea that the person who wrote the sentence was actually expressing the thought. I was thinking he might be channeling Richard Pryor or something.
But I've got you to thank, Mr. Ambiguity Cop!
Jesus.
Hawaii is a state. They get to vote.
Iraq is a hideously unprofitable military occupation. If it was a colony, we'd have taken the oil and said "fuck all y'all."
I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and I think the way things are being run over there is a terrible cluster-fuck...but Iraq is in no meaningful way a colony.
How would you sell that to somebody who's just learned to program their VCR?
Or to somebody who hasn't?
I got a TiVO for Christmas with a six-month free subscription. The UI (and the TV guide) are almost bulletproof. $13/mo is steep, but if it frees me from the vagaries of TV schedules, if it saves me two Blockbuster rentals a month, it's worth it.
Er, people like to eat plants. That's why nitrogen is important.
Grabbing comets is a much more ambitious project than setting up a sustainable Mars mission.
It's economically unfeasible to invade Switzerland. Part of that economic unfeasibility comes from the mountains full of partisans with guns that would make your occupation a living hell.
You know, like in Baghdad.
"realise that trying to always have the biggest weapon isn't a very brillant solution either."
That's not my argument at all. I'm saying that an armed populace makes it very hard to get too greedy with the Federal power.
"So all these accidents, all the small children doing stupid things, all the drunk/psychotic people using weapon when arguing, all morons shooting first and think aftwerward, all people commiting suicide using the wepons they have home, are all these worth the perceived increase of security attributed to having guns at home ?"
In a word? Yes. In several words? All of those problems can be addressed in ways that do not involve compulsory firearm registration and/or confiscation.
The one single solitary only thing that John Ashcroft ever did that I think was Good was refuse to turn over lists of firearms purchasers to law enforcement. He was Doing His Job. I wish he had done that more often, instead of going on a Patriot Act power grab.
If you look at the fuel consumption math for rocketry, you'll immediately understand why reducing thrown weight is THE design driver for orbital launches. Carrying around extra fuel just for landing vastly increases your launch vehicle weight, and that's Bad (and Expensive).
They've got a long way (engineering-wise) before they're ready to go to the moon. If they believe they're going to take off in a single-stage to orbit vehicle, fly it to the moon, land, take off again, and fly it back to Earth...well, it's a pretty vision, but pass the pixie dust. Not gonna happen. If they prove me wrong, I am going to be giddy as a six-year-old schoolgirl with a new dress, and I will be DELIGHTED to eat my words.
Rockets have stages for a reason. Look at the size of the Apollo command module vs. the size of the Saturn V stack. Meditate on the fact that it's designed that way for a reason.
It's only logical that where there are guns (or any other dangerous objects) there are deaths and/or injuries related to said dangerous objects. I'm NOT saying that guns are no more dangerous than dandelions...nothing could be further from my point.
I am saying that not owning guns is, for a society, more dangerous than owning guns. Tyrants like unarmed peasants. There's a reason that Switzerland has never been invaded.
The pacifist ideal is suicide. Just ask the Tibetans.
"While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there."
Those were your words, bud. That was what I was disagreeing with.
There is nitrogen on Mars, we know that. The only question is how much, and that will take further study.
Seems to me like we ought to figure out how to build a fusion reactor before we worry too much about where we're going to get HE3.
Yeah, right now, I've got the Braun self-cleaning razor that just cuts hair, not be a gameboy.
So far, so good. I haven't had to disassemble it yet, so I don't know what the battery sitchyation is.
This whole iPod battery question is just silly to me. How many members of John Q Public replaced the batteries in their cordless phones vs. buying a new one?
What are you going to do for water and nitrogen? Sure, you can recycle a lot, but you're still going to need water and nitrogen to sustain a colony.
That stuff is on Mars. Not on Luna.
Wow. That sure doesn't say they forgot how to build airplanes. Did you actually read the article?
But now they can do it without WIRES! This is the tipping point, man! The butterfly is flapping its wings! WHY ARE YOU NOT PANICKING?
*deep breaths*
Your link, she doesn't work so good.
Mars has an atmosphere, and water. The reason to go there is to live there.
The Moon will never be anything more than a base: There's no way to get a self-sustaining colony on that rock.
That's why Mars is interesting, and the Moon is not.
Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Carmack apparently chose the vertical-landing scenario because their launch range wouldn't let them use a parachute.
When you've got an atmosphere that's really good at slowing stuff down, using rocket fuel to slow you down is a really terrible idea.
Thank you. That's my point exactly, well stated.
If in fact you're flying all over Europe for 1 pound Sterling (as another poster claimed), I say shut up and enjoy your advertising-subsidized vacation!
Hell, I'd wear a Sprint PCS tee-shirt on the flight if they paid for my flight...
Biodiesel was only one hypothesis. I think we'll be able to find something else to burn for fuel before we run out of good ol' dinosaur juice. It is the nature of human innovation to solve problems. This problem will be solved.
Build a nuclear powered combine harvester. Relatively simple to do, and it'd run forever. Hell, it'd power your house.
Oh, good, coal! The only fuel source that dumps more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear reactor. What a grand idea. How you going to build a coal-fired airplane?
You might suppose that fossil fuel powered land travel has gone the way of the dodo, but I'm willing to wager that lots of people within 50 yards of you got there in an internal combustion vehicle.
Nuclear is the most ecologically friendly power source. Live it. Love it. Know it.
Your cable that cost you lots of money gives you pristine picture. That's not to say that a less expensive cable would not.
You're happy with your purchase. Cool. Commerce in action. I'm not willing to give Monster (or whoever) a nickel they don't earn.
And when that happens, I'll buy one and pop it in. I totally fail to understand why this is a big deal.
My electric razor had a battery soldered onto its "motherboard", and nobody cared. What's the big deal?
I threw the whole cable "quality" argument in the trash can when I saw the gold-plated connectors on a TOSLINK cable.
Yeah. Gold plated...optical connectors. Riiiight.
Yes, the cable needs to be not-noisy enough to get the signal from point A to point B, but it doesn't need to be pure silver hand-rolled between the thighs of Cuban virgins, wrapped in rich Corinthian leather.
The interconnect cable mfrs sell snake oil. Lots of people seem to like snake oil, so good for them.
1) So, the US doesn't do what is defined as Imperialism. OK...
2) So governments are passe, so why are we talking about them? If you argue that US companies are imperialistic, I would have less of an argument with you. I don't get to vote about that.
Colonizing is about exploiting natural resources for profits back in the "mother" country. I'd differentiate that from building industrial capacity in under-developed countries, as those activities pay substantial local dividends.
In no case is the US (or US companies) any different from any other powerful entity on Earth.