This thread started with claims of misogyny and fanboyism. Quite insulting and aggressive. An AC made a comment whose point was "a good movie will do well. SJW shitting on fans doesn't help". Was equally insulting and aggressive. (What exactly are you expecting from an AC? ) GP defends claims of misogyny with "Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977." With an aggressive "No, no, really...tell us how that's affected you.". I don't care if Captain Marvel was a women in 1977. I don't care if it has affected me. That doesn't make me interested in watching the movie that is being defended by insults (OP) and aggression (GP). Two are throwing shit and a third says "You should like this and believe this shit because I defend shit!". No thanks.
You read this thread and think only the AC is aggressive and insulting? Everyone is a critic.
Nearly every thread in this topic has insults of incel or misogyny or SJW blah blah blah. I got to the end of reading most comments and decided to reply to this one because I can.
simply asks how it honestly affects them to inspire such a hostile reaction,
Quite the loaded portrayal. Why would you give such a hostile reaction when I simple asked when you will stop cheating on your wife. Or when you will you stop murdering children.
What is the misogyny? Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men? This is the problem with pushing so hard on ideology that you disregard reality.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter. Would have been great. I would have agreed. No issue.
But no, you had to go with "facts are misogyny" because some reason in this day and age it's sexist to state a simple physiological verifiable fact about humans. There is a reason why trans women in sports is an issue now. Because idiots like you think ideology trumps reality. Fallon Fox gives her opponents a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round because of the benefits of growing up male. We had sex segregated sports for a reason.
Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.
Don't care. Not affected. Not interested. Just like others on RT.:)
I have developed a warning sense of media I won't like based on the way people "defend" it. If defenders shit on others or are aggressive against those who have criticisms. I move along.
Thanks for the warning. Moving along. Good luck with your movie.
Should we tax the shit out of tobacco and otherwise discourage it? Science says yes.
Not it doesn't. It says that tobacco is addictive and unhealthy. What we as citizens do with that information is politics. Science cannot answer the questions of politics and for very good reason (it reduces humans and citizens to factors of an experiment). Science can only help inform your decisions it cannot make them.
policy should be determined by science.
This is already the case in most cases. For example, the EPA has to have a scientific basis for any regulation they want (which Obama decided was too much of a burden and ignored). That is not the same as scientists using their position to push politics. For example, the Dickey Amendment. If you as a scientist can't keep your personal politics and position out of your research then you have no business doing said research.
I (and most people) are worried about global warming.. CO2 emissions are a problem.
Great. That doesn't tell you a solution that will solve the problem. Should we tax everyone until there are riots on the streets? Should we nationalize energy and bankrupt the economy like Venezuela? Should we kill off 2/3 of the human population to lower emissions? Should we outlaw all carbon emitting technologies? As far as science is concerned these "solutions" are equivalent because they attempt to get the same goal. An experiment to test on "reducing CO2". Humans are reduced to mere numbers and cogs to be factored and reduced to get an appropriate outcome. Scientists are human and are corruptible just the same as anyone else with power and therefore are not absolved of the reality of political power and decision making without appropriate checks and balances of political power.
Science is, simply put, how we learn things as a species.
Science is incapable of certain things. Like making choices for us. Science is a tool and like all tools are useful for their intended purpose but can be abused and corrupted.
Arguing that science shouldn't be a part of politics is essentially saying that we should use no facts or knowledge in support of public policies. Is that really what you want?
I never said don't use facts or knowledge that is your own straw-man misrepresentation of my position.
I never said what was allowed or not. That's on you. I said what I don't like. I also said that the job of a scientist isn't to push politics. Do you like scientists that push for more fossil fuels because global warming is a lie and carbon dioxide good? Are they allowed to? Is it good science? If the only difference is that you agree with one position and not the other then that says more about you than me.
We don't teach older models of the atom once Bohr's came along
We teach the process of how our understanding of the atom has changed over time and why. Science is not a regurgitation of facts. Science is more of a process and teaching it means that we start from the earliest understanding of something and move through the current understanding while exploring why and how our understand has changed. Students relive that process that took years and centuries down to minutes and hours. That would include Borh's model and explaining what it got right in that time and why it is wrong now.
Anyone can regurgitate what others have told them and that is not science. A majority regurgitating the same thing doesn't make it true.
As an aside, a levee isn't a good idea for a lake flooding. Lakes are fed by rivers and irrigation that are usually heavily controlled by the Feds and local water authorities. I just happened to experience a lake and river flooding recently. For decades local water authorities wanted an additional reservoir to address flooding for heavy snow pack years (was even planned back in the 30/40's but war). Not only would a reservoir help the flooding issue by holding flood water, it would also help local business and farmers with additional water storage (water is gold to farmers). A levee would have been a huge waste of money that would have been a sunk cost. Those years of high risk flooding are rare and if a levee would have been built I would have been a monumental waste of time and money with zero return. An additional reservoir, has low cost of maintenance and would contribute to the local economy.
What would be the appropriate response from the lawmakers ?
Validate the claim. Get realistic probabilities of floods foretasted against known and understood weather patterns. Do a cost benefit analysis on possible solutions. What if the problem was because of mismanagement at a water reservoir? It's better to address the mismanagement instead of undertaking a huge building project that doesn't solve the actual problem that could be solved with simple correction at a specific facility.
some scientists claim that we need to build a higher levee around a lake to reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding.
The scientists made a mistake. What has been studied? The rates of risk, how to reduce risk, flooding in general, this specific lake and local patterns that change flood patterns? What?
The appropriate statement to lawmakers should be something like: "Studying X and because of Y there are increased chances of flooding in lake by Z % if Y continues to affect X. Our recommendation: because solving X is too hard because A we recommend B. If B cannot be done C and D would help by E%". Each letter should have independent studies (note multiple) verifying each claim.
When I hear "Scientists claim X solution." I hear: a patron of the Big X pushing an agenda. They may not be and they may be correct but I don't know that and lawmakers should be skeptical whenever someone comes selling a bridge.
I don't like hearing about political solutions from scientists. That isn't their job and that isn't part of science.
>you ignored my fact that complex economic realities should be taken into account,
Economic realities do not excuse a fundamentally unfair tax dedication that primarily benefits the wealthy. The point in SALT is that you can vote with your feet and they are easier to change than federal law. CA choosing to have higher SALT isn't a valid excuse, regardless of what federal law benefits other states, for CAnians to pay less federal taxes.
What's not so nice is for it to get more federal aid AND to tax proportionally lower.
I see. So every state must be exactly the same and averages must be applied to individuals. It doesn't matter if a state can afford those taxes you want them to pay in SALT (raising taxes doesn't always raise revenues) or not. It doesn't matter that individually you pay less federal taxes. What matters is that you want to stick it to poorer states because you chose to have higher SALT. You're an ass hole.
Which then leads to people like you attempting to re-cast the reaction to the insults as some sort of larger-scale political discussion,
Maybe you need to reread the thread. I said it was my opinion that SALT deductions on federal taxes are inherently unfair. People choosing to have higher SALT is not a good reason to pay less federal taxes than someone that lives in a state with lower SALT. Federal law should be applied equally and it should not be different because states have different laws.
The whole "donor state" is a dumb excuse for those benefiting on paying less while claiming they have the moral high ground because they live in the same state as Bill Gates or Bezos and chose to have higher taxes. "Those other states should just tax more like where I live to pay for services I pay for in SALT even though I pay less federal taxes than someone else because I chose higher state taxes.".
Do you ever apply an average to an individual? Because the "donor state" excuse is exactly that. "Well the average here means it's ok for the individual to be treated different".
What about the states that have lower taxes and do have the government services to help and are middle of road of federal receiver? Only a few states are net contributors and that leaves a large swathe of citizens paying more federal taxes because CA and NY tax their citizens more. That is inherently unfair.
Raising taxes doesn't always raise revenues. People have more control over SALT. Those welfare services were originally supposed to be paid for by the states and local communities and not the federal government. You are using the "at least we're not those people" more than me. If we moved Federal welfare to the states my guess would be those states would try and develop their own solution.
Let me make sure I understand the full situation. Rich states, that campaign for more federal welfare, are upset that poor states campaign for less federal welfare and contribute less.
Is your contention that poor states are poor? Or that they believe in a different role for the government? Or should the poor states be grateful that the rich states can force their "help" on the poor states whilst individually paying less because of SALT deductions?
You are making quite a few assumptions and simplify it as "low tax bad high tax good" when in reality it isn't that simple. Are you upset about welfare like medicare or medicaid? Or are upset about federal grants? Or army bases and national labs? There are many ways federal dollars go back to a state be specific on what you don't like.
those high tax states are donor states for your leeching
Nice language. Do you always hate the poor and underclass or just the ones that you can't see? I hate to break this to you but not every state has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, or Wallstreet. Nor does every state have the number of millionaires to pay for all the government services you are asking for. Alabama, for example one of the top "receivers" of federal dollars, is ranked 41st for number of millionaires with the 6th highest poverty rate in the nation. Who exactly should Alabama tax? CA can afford those services that you are bemoaning Alabama as "leeching" because the Feds force it?
You are conflating two things when you start talking about state tax contributions vs individual tax burdens. You are taking an average and forcing an individual to pay more because of an average. That isn't a good recipe for fair tax codes. If it was, then it is perfectly acceptable to have Amazon pay nothing. You are saying that someone in Alabama making the same as someone in CA should pay more because Alabama is poor and can't afford what CA affords. You're an ass hole.
I think that people that make the same amount of money should have to pay the same federal taxes regardless where they live. I think that is unfair just like it is unfair Amazon paying 0 federal taxes.
I can vote with my feet for a high tax state or not. I cannot vote with my feet with the federal government. If you want high taxes then pay higher taxes but don't force me to pay more because of a loop hole.
Because of the SALT deduction cap. Mainly those in CA and NY. This tax cut actually raised the taxes on wealthy people because of this.
IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.
> standard of living for the average Chinese > makes capitalistic reforms to keep economy alive.
So, If China didn't adopt those capitalistic reforms their economy wouldn't stay alive and the standard of living for the average Chinese would be lower... Got it. Thanks.
Capitalism has done more to help people out of poverty in the world than any other system of economics. It's not perfect but it is a lot better than centralizing command of the economy in hopes that those in control are not idiots and/or malevolent. More resources go to Bezos because he is successful in managing those resources.
Quite the goal you have there it'd be a shame it if were unachievable for basically anything. Can we make a craft that can keep us safe in space indefinitely, no matter which parts fail? No.
What you're saying is no humans anywhere except on earth on land. Submarines can't stay underwater indefinitely, no matter which parts fail. Gotta scrap those dangerous hunks of junk. Too risky.
The appropriate question is what level of risk are we comfortable with. Is it more dangerous that walking in a mine field? Then not a good idea. Is it safer than driving a car today? I hope we can do better than that. Driving is dangerous!
Good gravy son. I never made the argument that "since one thing is possible, all things are possible". You keep making an argument "do it on earth first". It has been done. The challenges of a Venetian floating "thing" isn't the floating in the atmosphere. A probe, today, is possible (assuming good orbit). A manned probe isn't possible today but is possible with some work. That's from NASA. If you notice, most of the technical challenges are just getting to Venus which is all problems in space (going really far and really fast). The other issue is the composition of the atmosphere. Those are challenges but not impossible challenges.
lol, ooo back at the city thing again I see. Let's clear things up a bit since you had an aneurysm with a gotcha because I typed: "to get a craft in Venus' atmosphere (call it a city, a probe, a station, w/e) ". IOW, I don't care what you call it and the difference between the three are size and function. When does a probe become a station? When does a station become a colony? When does a colony become a city? I don't know and don't care.
A probe = possible now. A manned craft = possible but would need some work. A colony/city/ whatever = conceptually probable.
Ok? Ok. So yes, it is a fact that putting a probe in Venus (she's a whore) is doable today (assuming time of month).
I want YOU
I'm flattered. I took a balloon ride with legos and a blow up doll of Antonio Banderas. Clearly I am taken. Clearly taken with a floating city. Check and mate.
Build a small container that imitates Venus and put a "craft" in there and see how far you get. You can't even do that ON EARTH.
It has been done on Earth. It was even proposed to be done on Titan. Why is Venus any different?
Why do you need a container that imitates Venus? Why is that your hill you choose to die on? If that Titan mission was chosen (it still might happen in the 2020s) by NASA/ESA, would they have needed a "container that imitates Titan" to satisfy your arbitrary test?
you guys always say "there is nothing stopping us".... . I guess the "other people" who are actually working on space exploration are too lazy or something.
Maybe if you finished my quote you would understand that there is something that is stopping us but I said it wasn't technological. "Do we want to and is it worth the money. Just like other missions in space.".
What should NASA do? Is it worth it over other programs that they could do? That Titan mission sounds cool but obviously other things took priority. There are a lot of ideas and the thing that turn ideas into reality is convincing people that said idea is good. Are other plans better than Venus? I said I don't know. How is that a space nutter response?
Zeppelins can carry tons of material. What is a "miniature levitating city" and why would that be a measure of success? I guess you could try a model train set and have it run around a few model sky scrapers with lego people. It's miniature and light/small enough to meet your arbitrary requirement. Maybe even smaller than lego city people!
I am going on a limb to say that the challenges to get a craft in Venus' atmosphere (call it a city, a probe, a station, w/e) isn't technological right now. It's more of a question; do we want to and is it worth the money. Just like other missions in space.
What did ESA know about comets before sending Philae? What container did they need to test the harpoon and thrusters to land (soft bounce)? Did they need to test the entire probe in a "container simulating comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko"? Or did they take some educated guesses test those components against what they thought and knew and hoped for the best?
Can we get stuff to Venus? Yes. Can we create crafts that use lifting gases for lift? Yes. Can we create a craft that uses lifting gases to explore and study Venus' atmosphere? Yes. Can we figure out how much weight can be carried by a lifting gas craft from the probes we could send? Yes. Is there anything technological stopping us from doing the above? No. Do we want to? I don't know. Sounds better than Mars partly because I heard Mars is a dick.
Slashdot Mirror
This thread started with claims of misogyny and fanboyism. Quite insulting and aggressive.
An AC made a comment whose point was "a good movie will do well. SJW shitting on fans doesn't help". Was equally insulting and aggressive. (What exactly are you expecting from an AC? )
GP defends claims of misogyny with "Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977." With an aggressive "No, no, really...tell us how that's affected you.".
I don't care if Captain Marvel was a women in 1977. I don't care if it has affected me. That doesn't make me interested in watching the movie that is being defended by insults (OP) and aggression (GP). Two are throwing shit and a third says "You should like this and believe this shit because I defend shit!". No thanks.
You read this thread and think only the AC is aggressive and insulting? Everyone is a critic.
Nearly every thread in this topic has insults of incel or misogyny or SJW blah blah blah. I got to the end of reading most comments and decided to reply to this one because I can.
simply asks how it honestly affects them to inspire such a hostile reaction,
Quite the loaded portrayal. Why would you give such a hostile reaction when I simple asked when you will stop cheating on your wife. Or when you will you stop murdering children.
Stunning.
Stunning and brave. Meatbag.
sound like a misogynist
What is the misogyny? Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men? This is the problem with pushing so hard on ideology that you disregard reality.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter. Would have been great. I would have agreed. No issue.
But no, you had to go with "facts are misogyny" because some reason in this day and age it's sexist to state a simple physiological verifiable fact about humans. There is a reason why trans women in sports is an issue now. Because idiots like you think ideology trumps reality. Fallon Fox gives her opponents a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round because of the benefits of growing up male. We had sex segregated sports for a reason.
Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.
Don't care. Not affected. Not interested. Just like others on RT. :)
I have developed a warning sense of media I won't like based on the way people "defend" it. If defenders shit on others or are aggressive against those who have criticisms. I move along.
Thanks for the warning. Moving along. Good luck with your movie.
Should we tax the shit out of tobacco and otherwise discourage it? Science says yes.
Not it doesn't. It says that tobacco is addictive and unhealthy. What we as citizens do with that information is politics. Science cannot answer the questions of politics and for very good reason (it reduces humans and citizens to factors of an experiment). Science can only help inform your decisions it cannot make them.
policy should be determined by science.
This is already the case in most cases. For example, the EPA has to have a scientific basis for any regulation they want (which Obama decided was too much of a burden and ignored). That is not the same as scientists using their position to push politics. For example, the Dickey Amendment. If you as a scientist can't keep your personal politics and position out of your research then you have no business doing said research.
I (and most people) are worried about global warming .. CO2 emissions are a problem.
Great. That doesn't tell you a solution that will solve the problem. Should we tax everyone until there are riots on the streets? Should we nationalize energy and bankrupt the economy like Venezuela? Should we kill off 2/3 of the human population to lower emissions? Should we outlaw all carbon emitting technologies? As far as science is concerned these "solutions" are equivalent because they attempt to get the same goal. An experiment to test on "reducing CO2". Humans are reduced to mere numbers and cogs to be factored and reduced to get an appropriate outcome. Scientists are human and are corruptible just the same as anyone else with power and therefore are not absolved of the reality of political power and decision making without appropriate checks and balances of political power.
Science is, simply put, how we learn things as a species.
Science is incapable of certain things. Like making choices for us. Science is a tool and like all tools are useful for their intended purpose but can be abused and corrupted.
Arguing that science shouldn't be a part of politics is essentially saying that we should use no facts or knowledge in support of public policies. Is that really what you want?
I never said don't use facts or knowledge that is your own straw-man misrepresentation of my position.
I never said what was allowed or not. That's on you. I said what I don't like. I also said that the job of a scientist isn't to push politics. Do you like scientists that push for more fossil fuels because global warming is a lie and carbon dioxide good? Are they allowed to? Is it good science? If the only difference is that you agree with one position and not the other then that says more about you than me.
We don't teach older models of the atom once Bohr's came along
We teach the process of how our understanding of the atom has changed over time and why. Science is not a regurgitation of facts. Science is more of a process and teaching it means that we start from the earliest understanding of something and move through the current understanding while exploring why and how our understand has changed. Students relive that process that took years and centuries down to minutes and hours. That would include Borh's model and explaining what it got right in that time and why it is wrong now.
Anyone can regurgitate what others have told them and that is not science. A majority regurgitating the same thing doesn't make it true.
As an aside, a levee isn't a good idea for a lake flooding. Lakes are fed by rivers and irrigation that are usually heavily controlled by the Feds and local water authorities. I just happened to experience a lake and river flooding recently. For decades local water authorities wanted an additional reservoir to address flooding for heavy snow pack years (was even planned back in the 30/40's but war). Not only would a reservoir help the flooding issue by holding flood water, it would also help local business and farmers with additional water storage (water is gold to farmers). A levee would have been a huge waste of money that would have been a sunk cost. Those years of high risk flooding are rare and if a levee would have been built I would have been a monumental waste of time and money with zero return. An additional reservoir, has low cost of maintenance and would contribute to the local economy.
What would be the appropriate response from the lawmakers ?
Validate the claim. Get realistic probabilities of floods foretasted against known and understood weather patterns. Do a cost benefit analysis on possible solutions. What if the problem was because of mismanagement at a water reservoir? It's better to address the mismanagement instead of undertaking a huge building project that doesn't solve the actual problem that could be solved with simple correction at a specific facility.
some scientists claim that we need to build a higher levee around a lake to reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding.
The scientists made a mistake. What has been studied? The rates of risk, how to reduce risk, flooding in general, this specific lake and local patterns that change flood patterns? What?
The appropriate statement to lawmakers should be something like: "Studying X and because of Y there are increased chances of flooding in lake by Z % if Y continues to affect X. Our recommendation: because solving X is too hard because A we recommend B. If B cannot be done C and D would help by E%". Each letter should have independent studies (note multiple) verifying each claim.
When I hear "Scientists claim X solution." I hear: a patron of the Big X pushing an agenda. They may not be and they may be correct but I don't know that and lawmakers should be skeptical whenever someone comes selling a bridge.
I don't like hearing about political solutions from scientists. That isn't their job and that isn't part of science.
No, I'm Dave! Open the door.
>you ignored my fact that complex economic realities should be taken into account,
Economic realities do not excuse a fundamentally unfair tax dedication that primarily benefits the wealthy. The point in SALT is that you can vote with your feet and they are easier to change than federal law. CA choosing to have higher SALT isn't a valid excuse, regardless of what federal law benefits other states, for CAnians to pay less federal taxes.
What's not so nice is for it to get more federal aid AND to tax proportionally lower.
I see. So every state must be exactly the same and averages must be applied to individuals. It doesn't matter if a state can afford those taxes you want them to pay in SALT (raising taxes doesn't always raise revenues) or not. It doesn't matter that individually you pay less federal taxes. What matters is that you want to stick it to poorer states because you chose to have higher SALT. You're an ass hole.
Which then leads to people like you attempting to re-cast the reaction to the insults as some sort of larger-scale political discussion,
Maybe you need to reread the thread. I said it was my opinion that SALT deductions on federal taxes are inherently unfair. People choosing to have higher SALT is not a good reason to pay less federal taxes than someone that lives in a state with lower SALT. Federal law should be applied equally and it should not be different because states have different laws.
The whole "donor state" is a dumb excuse for those benefiting on paying less while claiming they have the moral high ground because they live in the same state as Bill Gates or Bezos and chose to have higher taxes. "Those other states should just tax more like where I live to pay for services I pay for in SALT even though I pay less federal taxes than someone else because I chose higher state taxes.".
Do you ever apply an average to an individual? Because the "donor state" excuse is exactly that. "Well the average here means it's ok for the individual to be treated different".
What about the states that have lower taxes and do have the government services to help and are middle of road of federal receiver? Only a few states are net contributors and that leaves a large swathe of citizens paying more federal taxes because CA and NY tax their citizens more. That is inherently unfair.
Raising taxes doesn't always raise revenues. People have more control over SALT. Those welfare services were originally supposed to be paid for by the states and local communities and not the federal government. You are using the "at least we're not those people" more than me. If we moved Federal welfare to the states my guess would be those states would try and develop their own solution.
Let me make sure I understand the full situation. Rich states, that campaign for more federal welfare, are upset that poor states campaign for less federal welfare and contribute less.
Is your contention that poor states are poor? Or that they believe in a different role for the government? Or should the poor states be grateful that the rich states can force their "help" on the poor states whilst individually paying less because of SALT deductions?
You are making quite a few assumptions and simplify it as "low tax bad high tax good" when in reality it isn't that simple. Are you upset about welfare like medicare or medicaid? Or are upset about federal grants? Or army bases and national labs? There are many ways federal dollars go back to a state be specific on what you don't like.
those high tax states are donor states for your leeching
Nice language. Do you always hate the poor and underclass or just the ones that you can't see? I hate to break this to you but not every state has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, or Wallstreet. Nor does every state have the number of millionaires to pay for all the government services you are asking for. Alabama, for example one of the top "receivers" of federal dollars, is ranked 41st for number of millionaires with the 6th highest poverty rate in the nation. Who exactly should Alabama tax? CA can afford those services that you are bemoaning Alabama as "leeching" because the Feds force it?
You are conflating two things when you start talking about state tax contributions vs individual tax burdens. You are taking an average and forcing an individual to pay more because of an average. That isn't a good recipe for fair tax codes. If it was, then it is perfectly acceptable to have Amazon pay nothing. You are saying that someone in Alabama making the same as someone in CA should pay more because Alabama is poor and can't afford what CA affords. You're an ass hole.
I think that people that make the same amount of money should have to pay the same federal taxes regardless where they live. I think that is unfair just like it is unfair Amazon paying 0 federal taxes.
I can vote with my feet for a high tax state or not. I cannot vote with my feet with the federal government. If you want high taxes then pay higher taxes but don't force me to pay more because of a loop hole.
Because of the SALT deduction cap. Mainly those in CA and NY. This tax cut actually raised the taxes on wealthy people because of this.
IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.
> standard of living for the average Chinese
> makes capitalistic reforms to keep economy alive.
So, If China didn't adopt those capitalistic reforms their economy wouldn't stay alive and the standard of living for the average Chinese would be lower... Got it. Thanks.
Capitalism has done more to help people out of poverty in the world than any other system of economics. It's not perfect but it is a lot better than centralizing command of the economy in hopes that those in control are not idiots and/or malevolent. More resources go to Bezos because he is successful in managing those resources.
Quite the goal you have there it'd be a shame it if were unachievable for basically anything. Can we make a craft that can keep us safe in space indefinitely, no matter which parts fail? No.
What you're saying is no humans anywhere except on earth on land. Submarines can't stay underwater indefinitely, no matter which parts fail. Gotta scrap those dangerous hunks of junk. Too risky.
The appropriate question is what level of risk are we comfortable with. Is it more dangerous that walking in a mine field? Then not a good idea. Is it safer than driving a car today? I hope we can do better than that. Driving is dangerous!
lol, you are a broken record.
I am not sure what you are even arguing except with yourself. Did you forget about my Antonio Banderas blowup doll?
Good gravy son. I never made the argument that "since one thing is possible, all things are possible". You keep making an argument "do it on earth first". It has been done. The challenges of a Venetian floating "thing" isn't the floating in the atmosphere. A probe, today, is possible (assuming good orbit). A manned probe isn't possible today but is possible with some work. That's from NASA. If you notice, most of the technical challenges are just getting to Venus which is all problems in space (going really far and really fast). The other issue is the composition of the atmosphere. Those are challenges but not impossible challenges.
Is that before or after she beats her aides.
lol, ooo back at the city thing again I see. Let's clear things up a bit since you had an aneurysm with a gotcha because I typed: "to get a craft in Venus' atmosphere (call it a city, a probe, a station, w/e) ". IOW, I don't care what you call it and the difference between the three are size and function. When does a probe become a station? When does a station become a colony? When does a colony become a city? I don't know and don't care.
A probe = possible now.
A manned craft = possible but would need some work.
A colony/city/ whatever = conceptually probable.
Ok? Ok. So yes, it is a fact that putting a probe in Venus (she's a whore) is doable today (assuming time of month).
I want YOU
I'm flattered. I took a balloon ride with legos and a blow up doll of Antonio Banderas. Clearly I am taken. Clearly taken with a floating city. Check and mate.
Build a small container that imitates Venus and put a "craft" in there and see how far you get. You can't even do that ON EARTH.
It has been done on Earth. It was even proposed to be done on Titan. Why is Venus any different?
Why do you need a container that imitates Venus? Why is that your hill you choose to die on? If that Titan mission was chosen (it still might happen in the 2020s) by NASA/ESA, would they have needed a "container that imitates Titan" to satisfy your arbitrary test?
you guys always say "there is nothing stopping us". ... . I guess the "other people" who are actually working on space exploration are too lazy or something.
Maybe if you finished my quote you would understand that there is something that is stopping us but I said it wasn't technological. "Do we want to and is it worth the money. Just like other missions in space.".
What should NASA do? Is it worth it over other programs that they could do? That Titan mission sounds cool but obviously other things took priority. There are a lot of ideas and the thing that turn ideas into reality is convincing people that said idea is good. Are other plans better than Venus? I said I don't know. How is that a space nutter response?
Zeppelins can carry tons of material. What is a "miniature levitating city" and why would that be a measure of success? I guess you could try a model train set and have it run around a few model sky scrapers with lego people. It's miniature and light/small enough to meet your arbitrary requirement. Maybe even smaller than lego city people!
I am going on a limb to say that the challenges to get a craft in Venus' atmosphere (call it a city, a probe, a station, w/e) isn't technological right now. It's more of a question; do we want to and is it worth the money. Just like other missions in space.
What did ESA know about comets before sending Philae? What container did they need to test the harpoon and thrusters to land (soft bounce)? Did they need to test the entire probe in a "container simulating comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko"? Or did they take some educated guesses test those components against what they thought and knew and hoped for the best?
Can we get stuff to Venus? Yes.
Can we create crafts that use lifting gases for lift? Yes.
Can we create a craft that uses lifting gases to explore and study Venus' atmosphere? Yes.
Can we figure out how much weight can be carried by a lifting gas craft from the probes we could send? Yes.
Is there anything technological stopping us from doing the above? No.
Do we want to? I don't know. Sounds better than Mars partly because I heard Mars is a dick.
Using a lifting gas to fly around stuff in the atmosphere. You mean a zeppelin? Congrats we did that 100 years ago.