It's not my place to explain why they decided what they did. It's not my space ship. I proceed from the assumption that, since Burt Rutan has a highly successful track record of small-production run aircraft, he knows better than I do how to develop his concept.
I know more about aeronautical engineering than your average joe on the street. If I'm reluctant to armchair quarterback this guy, doesn't that say something?
His design worked. He's moving on to the next design. This is the sort of thing NASA would do well to look at.
What else would you like them to do with this proven design? The designer obviously feels like the aircraft did what it needed to do, and I'm willing to make the wild ass guess that he's a little more familiar with his plan than you are.
SS1 was a prototype, and a technology demonstrator. They didn't make any more Bell X-1's either, you know...
(although they used very similar airframes for a few more aircraft)
I'm pretty sure he was talking about indoor temps of 95 degrees F. 45C is 113 F, which is pretty moderate for the Mojave desert, which frequently exceed 120F (about 50C) for long periods of time.
But, hey, if it makes you feel better, Sydney's pretty hot too.
Looks are subjective, and not nearly as important as good design.
Looks to me like that LCD touch panel where you touch about a half inch in front of the LCD is going to be a very poor design, unless the box is at eye level.
Which would mean you have to look at it all the time, which would be bad, because it's pretty ugly.
It would, however, be trivial to build a rocket of similar or greater launch capabilities, for less money than restarting the Saturn V production lines.
It's a big disposable rocket. Those aren't exactly rocket science anymore. Take a Shuttle tank and booster stack, strap on a couple Shuttle main engines, replace the Orbiter with a payload shroud, and POOF: You've got a launch system that costs little to develop, and it slightly outperforms the Saturn V.
I think it's very easy to go from "My perceptions are more rational than most others'" to "My perceptions are Rational". I prefer to remain skeptical of my own adherence to Reality. I work hard to question what I see and interpret, and make sure that it is in fact an accurate representation of What's Happening.
I really think we're talking about the same thing. I just have a different mental stance, if you will.
Oh, good! I'm delighted to understand you're not a Randroid. They are the most frustrating debating partners, after "scientific" Creationists.
We agree completely: Perception is the filter through which we apprehend reality. As we improve perception, our models become better. In your context, there IS a One True Way, but in my context, that One True Way may as well not exist because we (humans) cannot apprehend it. Of course, as wise and sentient beings, we must always strive to more closely apprehend Reality.
You have a different mental model of "The Unknown" than I do. That's cool, as long as you don't think that your model of The Unknown is any more rational than anybody else's. That's a fallacy of perception many unwise folks seem to glom on to.
" but I try to find objective answers to questions"
"Because the Bible says so" is not an objective answer. It might be true for you, and it might comfort you, but it is disingenuous for you to make arguments from authority, and then say you are trying to be objective.
Look, I do not begrudge you your faith. I understand faith. What I don't like is cross-pollinating faith with rationality. Faith is, by its very nature, not rational. Questions you answer by appeal to faith are not argue-able. That's fine...I don't think faith SHOULD be rational.
I do, however, think the Law should be rational. I hope you continue to believe as you do, and walk with God as you do. However, we will have an argument if and when you decide you want your walk with God given the force of law. That is Evil.
"Eternal perspective"? Wow. What a comforting thing it must be to think you have access to the Wisdom of the Ages.
"I know he struggled with morals most of his life." And, what, if he were to just go ahead and be heterosexual the way God intended him to be, he would no longer have to struggle with morals?
We're all the same. We all have the same struggles. Who we love, romantically, does not change that.
You: The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin.
Me: The Bible says lots of things are sins. More to the point, the Catholic Church (who wrote the Bible as we now know it) says that a WHOLE lot of things are sins. That's not important. What's important is that Jesus broke bread with sinners. We can do no less.
You: And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God.
Me: Which people? Abraham? The Diet of Wyrms? King James? There are lots of cooks in this kitchen.
You: Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired?
Me: It is hard to understand how God would want some things that are said in the Bible.
You: But who decides which parts don't matter?
Me: I do. And I answer for my own judgement.
You: And how do they decide?
Me: Study and prayer.
You: And on whose authority?
Me: God's authority, proxied to me as a rational, sentient, thinking being made in His image. If God didn't want me to make my own judgements about what is right and what is wrong, He should have not given me the capacity to do so.
You: You're cutting your own legs out from under you!
Me: Only if you assume I argue from the authority of Scripture. I do not. I do not believe Scripture has any authority. It has value, it contains Truth, and it helps me understand Man's relationship with God.
You: It just doesn't make any sense.
Me: Yes, it's very hard to understand. It's hard to be responsible for my own decisions. It would be so seductively easy to just Do What I'm Told.
But I won't. I refuse. I think it's a perversion of my moral duty to simply Do What I'm Told if I don't think it's Right.
You: It's completely inconsistent.
Me: Let's don't get hung up on Biblical inconsistencies. If you do that, I'm going to ask you to tell me which of the two contradictory Creation stories in Genesis is True.
Hint: I think they're both true. I think both of them read remarkably well as a way to explain to a nomadic sheep herder the basics of cosmology. I do NOT think that they are a recipe for How to Create The Universe.
Why on EARTH do shared showers present an "insurmountable" problem? Are you suggesting that homosexuals are sex-crazed maniacs who cannot resist screwing any naked person of the same gender they see?
Do you REALLY think there are no homosexuals in the military?
How does practicing homosexuality hurt the people involved in the practice?
You seem to be a good-hearted person. It's so difficult for me to understand how you can have compassion for everybody who has the same sexual preferences as you do.
Disclaimer: I am an avowed heterosexual. I'm a boy who likes tha girls.
Whoops, you tripped my Objectivist filter. Your perceptions are incomplete, Grasshopper. Until you realize that, then anybody who believes in things outside our perceptions WILL seem irrational.
"However, if you subscribe to the entirety of those teachines, how could you not view dissenters as wrong or misguided?"
Nonsense. Dissenters are dissenters. They believe differently than I do. They are percieving different things than I am. Neither of our understandings are complete (although, if we're paying attention, they can both be Accurate and Correct). There is not One True Way. Hint: That means Ayn Rand was also wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Couple of very satisfied users too, bucko. Astroturfers get paid. I just like my iPod.
"I think it's a little stupid to retire it to the museum."
I think you've got a lot of sand to second guess one of the best aircraft designers ever to punch a hole in the sky. Note: that's not a compliment.
You're entitled to your opinion. You'll forgive me for giving his a little more weight.
It's not my place to explain why they decided what they did. It's not my space ship. I proceed from the assumption that, since Burt Rutan has a highly successful track record of small-production run aircraft, he knows better than I do how to develop his concept.
I know more about aeronautical engineering than your average joe on the street. If I'm reluctant to armchair quarterback this guy, doesn't that say something?
His design worked. He's moving on to the next design. This is the sort of thing NASA would do well to look at.
Previous poster's word, not mine.
Well gosh, jd, I guess dumb ol' Burt Rutan disagrees with you.
It is his space ship. Who the hell are you to tell him what to do with it?
" Historical value isn't necessarily the most important consideration"
OK. Build your own spaceship, and you can do whatever you want with it.
"Why not try out One's legs a bit more"
Because the owner and the designer agree that that's not what they want to do. Any other questions?
What else would you like them to do with this proven design? The designer obviously feels like the aircraft did what it needed to do, and I'm willing to make the wild ass guess that he's a little more familiar with his plan than you are.
SS1 was a prototype, and a technology demonstrator. They didn't make any more Bell X-1's either, you know...
(although they used very similar airframes for a few more aircraft)
Microsoft owned a small amount of non-voting stock, which I believe they sold at a tidy profit.
So, no, in no meaningful way does MS own a portion of Apple.
Sounds like somebody could use a big ol' hug. C'mere, big guy.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about indoor temps of 95 degrees F. 45C is 113 F, which is pretty moderate for the Mojave desert, which frequently exceed 120F (about 50C) for long periods of time.
But, hey, if it makes you feel better, Sydney's pretty hot too.
Looks are subjective, and not nearly as important as good design.
Looks to me like that LCD touch panel where you touch about a half inch in front of the LCD is going to be a very poor design, unless the box is at eye level.
Which would mean you have to look at it all the time, which would be bad, because it's pretty ugly.
It would, however, be trivial to build a rocket of similar or greater launch capabilities, for less money than restarting the Saturn V production lines.
It's a big disposable rocket. Those aren't exactly rocket science anymore. Take a Shuttle tank and booster stack, strap on a couple Shuttle main engines, replace the Orbiter with a payload shroud, and POOF: You've got a launch system that costs little to develop, and it slightly outperforms the Saturn V.
Why they don't do that, I'll never understand.
Not to your knowledge, anyhow. That mission requirement came from the Air Force, and I suspect they wouldn't tell anybody about it if they'd done it.
"There would be a lot fewer fatalities if everyone just slowed down."
Really? Care to substantiate that?
I think it's very easy to go from "My perceptions are more rational than most others'" to "My perceptions are Rational". I prefer to remain skeptical of my own adherence to Reality. I work hard to question what I see and interpret, and make sure that it is in fact an accurate representation of What's Happening.
I really think we're talking about the same thing. I just have a different mental stance, if you will.
Oh, good! I'm delighted to understand you're not a Randroid. They are the most frustrating debating partners, after "scientific" Creationists.
We agree completely: Perception is the filter through which we apprehend reality. As we improve perception, our models become better. In your context, there IS a One True Way, but in my context, that One True Way may as well not exist because we (humans) cannot apprehend it. Of course, as wise and sentient beings, we must always strive to more closely apprehend Reality.
You have a different mental model of "The Unknown" than I do. That's cool, as long as you don't think that your model of The Unknown is any more rational than anybody else's. That's a fallacy of perception many unwise folks seem to glom on to.
" but I try to find objective answers to questions"
"Because the Bible says so" is not an objective answer. It might be true for you, and it might comfort you, but it is disingenuous for you to make arguments from authority, and then say you are trying to be objective.
Look, I do not begrudge you your faith. I understand faith. What I don't like is cross-pollinating faith with rationality. Faith is, by its very nature, not rational. Questions you answer by appeal to faith are not argue-able. That's fine...I don't think faith SHOULD be rational.
I do, however, think the Law should be rational. I hope you continue to believe as you do, and walk with God as you do. However, we will have an argument if and when you decide you want your walk with God given the force of law. That is Evil.
"Eternal perspective"? Wow. What a comforting thing it must be to think you have access to the Wisdom of the Ages.
"I know he struggled with morals most of his life." And, what, if he were to just go ahead and be heterosexual the way God intended him to be, he would no longer have to struggle with morals?
We're all the same. We all have the same struggles. Who we love, romantically, does not change that.
There are at least as many decent males in technology as there are females.
The uber-dorks annoy me too.
In more detail.
You: The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin.
Me: The Bible says lots of things are sins. More to the point, the Catholic Church (who wrote the Bible as we now know it) says that a WHOLE lot of things are sins. That's not important. What's important is that Jesus broke bread with sinners. We can do no less.
You: And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God.
Me: Which people? Abraham? The Diet of Wyrms? King James? There are lots of cooks in this kitchen.
You: Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired?
Me: It is hard to understand how God would want some things that are said in the Bible.
You: But who decides which parts don't matter?
Me: I do. And I answer for my own judgement.
You: And how do they decide?
Me: Study and prayer.
You: And on whose authority?
Me: God's authority, proxied to me as a rational, sentient, thinking being made in His image. If God didn't want me to make my own judgements about what is right and what is wrong, He should have not given me the capacity to do so.
You: You're cutting your own legs out from under you!
Me: Only if you assume I argue from the authority of Scripture. I do not. I do not believe Scripture has any authority. It has value, it contains Truth, and it helps me understand Man's relationship with God.
You: It just doesn't make any sense.
Me: Yes, it's very hard to understand. It's hard to be responsible for my own decisions. It would be so seductively easy to just Do What I'm Told.
But I won't. I refuse. I think it's a perversion of my moral duty to simply Do What I'm Told if I don't think it's Right.
You: It's completely inconsistent.
Me: Let's don't get hung up on Biblical inconsistencies. If you do that, I'm going to ask you to tell me which of the two contradictory Creation stories in Genesis is True.
Hint: I think they're both true. I think both of them read remarkably well as a way to explain to a nomadic sheep herder the basics of cosmology. I do NOT think that they are a recipe for How to Create The Universe.
Why on EARTH do shared showers present an "insurmountable" problem? Are you suggesting that homosexuals are sex-crazed maniacs who cannot resist screwing any naked person of the same gender they see?
Do you REALLY think there are no homosexuals in the military?
How does practicing homosexuality hurt the people involved in the practice?
You seem to be a good-hearted person. It's so difficult for me to understand how you can have compassion for everybody who has the same sexual preferences as you do.
Disclaimer: I am an avowed heterosexual. I'm a boy who likes tha girls.
Whoops, you tripped my Objectivist filter. Your perceptions are incomplete, Grasshopper. Until you realize that, then anybody who believes in things outside our perceptions WILL seem irrational.
"However, if you subscribe to the entirety of those teachines, how could you not view dissenters as wrong or misguided?"
Nonsense. Dissenters are dissenters. They believe differently than I do. They are percieving different things than I am. Neither of our understandings are complete (although, if we're paying attention, they can both be Accurate and Correct). There is not One True Way. Hint: That means Ayn Rand was also wrong.
No, they said "Buy a Dell" because it's PC Magazine, and their building would catch on fire before recommending a Mac.
Then it needs to be more than pretty to be well designed.
How does homosexuality hurt anybody? Until that question is answered, ostracizing homosexuals is Evil.