There are lots of illnesses that trigger wasting and cause death in those who aren't fat enough before they got sick. Americans could well survive something that would kill most of the rest of the world's population.
You've read the research that says half of all people who get the cold or flu show no signs, right? It's an overreaction of the immune system that you see when people are sick. You get sick but your immune system doesn't overreact.
Be glad you aren't getting sick with measles thanks to the rest of us. Your wimpy immune reaction likely means it would kill you.
Bone loss isn't a problem for a rotating spacecraft. Take along several complete spares, and don't worry about anything failing. We can make buildings that we believe will last at least a few hundred years already, so take 10x or 100x what you need (and design to ensure that there's no single part that can fail and kill a significant percentage of your crew). Radiation is handled via magnetic shielding, well understood as well, just expensive.
The social and psychological aspect of it is legitimately unknown. But the mechanical part would merely be ridiculously expensive, and the price of the mechanical part should fall steadily as we make advances in materials technology. At the rate we're advancing right now, I really do find it unlikely that we couldn't do this affordably in 100 years time. I think the big technical question is whether we'll be able to affordably lift 100 Billion pounds into orbit (mass of about 100 ships, each 5x as large as a modern aircraft carrier). At current costs that would run us ~1 Quadrillion dollars, which would eat up some 70 years worth of the US GDP. Still, if the world were devoted to the task to the exclusion of most else, it still seems just barely accomplishable just with the technology we have now.
CA residents send federal income tax to US Government. US Government sends education funds to other states. Other states costs are reduced by CA residents. This is only one example.
Funny. Even if spacex can bring the launch cost down to $200/lb, an ~100X improvement (ridiculous, I know, they could never get close to that price without building a space elevator, but let's imagine), then the cost of a moon trip would be ~$40000 per visitor (just for the trip), without any profit involved. (And then consider the price of the shelter, food, gambling, and prostitutes on the moon, vs the cost of those same on earth, and you are looking at a package cost of at least $100K). They won't touch vegas' cashflow, not even close, not with the tiny fraction of the population that could afford to go.
I'd love to understand how #1 works. Short of slave labor, how do you enforce that when the costs are going to regularly exceed every contractors' assets?
So if the government exists to provide power to protect property rights, and takes those rights from the economically weak and gives them to the economically strong and calls it eminent domain, it's just doing its job, right?
San Fran doesn't have a problem, they're going to follow the existing rail lines and upgrade them. In some places they'll be tunneling to avoid existing traffic crossings. Not sure what they're planning for LA, but probably similar. There's a significant amount of low-speed rail in LA for shipping.
Yep, kids can handle a tougher HS. I went to one that rendered my first two years at college useless. Sadly, I was only allowed to test out of so much content before they stopped being willing to give me that much credit. But we could clearly shift the learning forward by a couple of years for most people, and get those top people through the (typically most challenging) first year of the phd before they get legal access to alcohol.
Most engineers are not employed by grants, nor are their research efforts funded by grant. Unless you're actually talking about China rather than the US, in which case it's also not grants.
And get it in the form factor that works for you. A lot of people are going to recommend dslrs, but those are quite large, and you can get something like the olympus x1 with a decent sized sensor and still have it fit in a pocket, so that you are much more likely to actually have it with you when you want to take a picture.
The increase in brightness is going to do guess what to the earth? Heat it up. 20% more brightness should be plenty to boil off the oceans. If you're concerned with the actual temperature at the sun, that's irrelevant to us. All (nearly) the energy transfer to the earth is light.
And yes, it was the parent I was responding to who had the thousands of years claim.
My question is what constitutional boundary this is stepping on that is different from the movie rating system. As long as it's all voluntary and not a matter of US law, I can't see the difference between the two.
I don't see the relevance to a corporation's content policy? Do you suggest that the congress can't use its influence to encourage voluntary compliance with the movie rating system either?
If you really want to be depressed: For a 1%er... if getting a solar installation subsidy cost them even an hour of their time talking to their congresscritter, it would be a losing proposition.
It goes back to a belief in control (whether true or not). It's the same reason people fear to fly but not to drive, even though statistically, flying is safer. You can't control whether you die in a plane crash. But you believe you can drive safely (and maybe that's even possible).
You can't control whether or not a nuclear plant gets regulatory approval to be built near you (except through NIMBY efforts), and you can't control whether or not it releases nuclear materials that will affect your life. But you can decide for yourself not to become a solar roofing installer, and reduce your personal risk to zero.
We already have the technology to escape our solar system if we put our minds and money to it (granted at this point it would be ridiculously expensive). But, barring something like civilization collapse, it will only get cheaper and easier. I cannot imagine that it will take us more than 200 years to escape the solar system at this point (even 100 years would surprise me).
I'd be interested in a cite for systems spontaneously decreasing in entropy. I've never heard of that, and it would clearly change the rules of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're trying to spread it deliberately, don't get on a plane, hang out in the airport.
I don't think there's much big pharma involvement in any of the recurring revenue targets you mentioned. That's all umbrella corps like p&g.
Best post in the thread, but I bet 90% of the audience doesn't get it. Hopefully the 10% will be mods.
There are lots of illnesses that trigger wasting and cause death in those who aren't fat enough before they got sick. Americans could well survive something that would kill most of the rest of the world's population.
You've read the research that says half of all people who get the cold or flu show no signs, right? It's an overreaction of the immune system that you see when people are sick. You get sick but your immune system doesn't overreact.
Be glad you aren't getting sick with measles thanks to the rest of us. Your wimpy immune reaction likely means it would kill you.
Bone loss isn't a problem for a rotating spacecraft. Take along several complete spares, and don't worry about anything failing. We can make buildings that we believe will last at least a few hundred years already, so take 10x or 100x what you need (and design to ensure that there's no single part that can fail and kill a significant percentage of your crew). Radiation is handled via magnetic shielding, well understood as well, just expensive.
The social and psychological aspect of it is legitimately unknown. But the mechanical part would merely be ridiculously expensive, and the price of the mechanical part should fall steadily as we make advances in materials technology. At the rate we're advancing right now, I really do find it unlikely that we couldn't do this affordably in 100 years time. I think the big technical question is whether we'll be able to affordably lift 100 Billion pounds into orbit (mass of about 100 ships, each 5x as large as a modern aircraft carrier). At current costs that would run us ~1 Quadrillion dollars, which would eat up some 70 years worth of the US GDP. Still, if the world were devoted to the task to the exclusion of most else, it still seems just barely accomplishable just with the technology we have now.
CA residents send federal income tax to US Government. US Government sends education funds to other states. Other states costs are reduced by CA residents. This is only one example.
Funny. Even if spacex can bring the launch cost down to $200/lb, an ~100X improvement (ridiculous, I know, they could never get close to that price without building a space elevator, but let's imagine), then the cost of a moon trip would be ~$40000 per visitor (just for the trip), without any profit involved. (And then consider the price of the shelter, food, gambling, and prostitutes on the moon, vs the cost of those same on earth, and you are looking at a package cost of at least $100K). They won't touch vegas' cashflow, not even close, not with the tiny fraction of the population that could afford to go.
I'd love to understand how #1 works. Short of slave labor, how do you enforce that when the costs are going to regularly exceed every contractors' assets?
So if the government exists to provide power to protect property rights, and takes those rights from the economically weak and gives them to the economically strong and calls it eminent domain, it's just doing its job, right?
I'm curious what you imagine a space or lunar colony would produce in order to be profitable.
They voted for both. Why should preference be given to one over the other?
Well, in fairness, a lot of those states that are managing their budgets without income taxes are doing so on the backs of CAs federal income taxes.
San Fran doesn't have a problem, they're going to follow the existing rail lines and upgrade them. In some places they'll be tunneling to avoid existing traffic crossings. Not sure what they're planning for LA, but probably similar. There's a significant amount of low-speed rail in LA for shipping.
Yep, kids can handle a tougher HS. I went to one that rendered my first two years at college useless. Sadly, I was only allowed to test out of so much content before they stopped being willing to give me that much credit. But we could clearly shift the learning forward by a couple of years for most people, and get those top people through the (typically most challenging) first year of the phd before they get legal access to alcohol.
Most engineers are not employed by grants, nor are their research efforts funded by grant. Unless you're actually talking about China rather than the US, in which case it's also not grants.
The quantity of available talent might go up, assuming your definition of talent requires some minimum level of actual ability.
And get it in the form factor that works for you. A lot of people are going to recommend dslrs, but those are quite large, and you can get something like the olympus x1 with a decent sized sensor and still have it fit in a pocket, so that you are much more likely to actually have it with you when you want to take a picture.
The increase in brightness is going to do guess what to the earth? Heat it up. 20% more brightness should be plenty to boil off the oceans. If you're concerned with the actual temperature at the sun, that's irrelevant to us. All (nearly) the energy transfer to the earth is light.
And yes, it was the parent I was responding to who had the thousands of years claim.
My question is what constitutional boundary this is stepping on that is different from the movie rating system. As long as it's all voluntary and not a matter of US law, I can't see the difference between the two.
I don't see the relevance to a corporation's content policy? Do you suggest that the congress can't use its influence to encourage voluntary compliance with the movie rating system either?
One can have a debate about either the accuracy of the results, or the interpretation of them.
If you really want to be depressed: For a 1%er ... if getting a solar installation subsidy cost them even an hour of their time talking to their congresscritter, it would be a losing proposition.
It goes back to a belief in control (whether true or not). It's the same reason people fear to fly but not to drive, even though statistically, flying is safer. You can't control whether you die in a plane crash. But you believe you can drive safely (and maybe that's even possible).
You can't control whether or not a nuclear plant gets regulatory approval to be built near you (except through NIMBY efforts), and you can't control whether or not it releases nuclear materials that will affect your life. But you can decide for yourself not to become a solar roofing installer, and reduce your personal risk to zero.
We already have the technology to escape our solar system if we put our minds and money to it (granted at this point it would be ridiculously expensive). But, barring something like civilization collapse, it will only get cheaper and easier. I cannot imagine that it will take us more than 200 years to escape the solar system at this point (even 100 years would surprise me).
I'd be interested in a cite for systems spontaneously decreasing in entropy. I've never heard of that, and it would clearly change the rules of the game.