I've got to disagree. Weight is a major issue and if you can get 5% more payload at the same vehicle hardware weight, you will be money ahead in the commercial realm and have extra performance margins all around. Extra performance margin usually means a safer more fault tolerant system which is a huge advantage for manned flights. It also means you can add weight to the vehicle to make it safer, carry more stores or even an extra seat or two. Having weight margin can be a very good thing.
Now, I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good idea to fuel the rocket after the people are on board, I'm only saying there are benefits to Space-X's approach to go with the added risks. It's up to the rocket scientists to figure out if the risks can be managed in a way that makes it worth it. Personally, I don't know if they are or not and I figure our two opinions do not matter.
BTW, the 10% number is something I pulled out of thin air for illustrative purposes. I have no idea if the number is 1% or 30% or more only that it's not insignificant or Space-X wouldn't bother with it. If you get a chance, I'd love to know what the actual numbers are, I just don't have time to look them up myself.
Risks need to be managed or avoided in rocket science.
Gene Kranz has some insights into this, having lived though Apollo as flight director of multiple missions. https://www.reddit.com/r/Space... Rocket science is a dangerous business, people WILL die. At issue is an analysis of the risks, mitigation strategies for the identified risks and the acceptance of the remaining risks that cannot be controlled.
Where I share your concern with Space-X's process, the question is really for the rocket scientists to argue over and not a PR campaign. Is this an acceptable risk? Can it be effectively managed in the processes and procedures used to fuel the rocket and are the remaining risks acceptable? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm just an engineer, so I'll let the rocket scientists hash this one out.
Actually the volume of propellants is significantly reduced when they are cooled, on the order of 10% or better. Where this adds weight for propellant, it lessens the vehicle's weight because it can be built smaller and lighter. It may not sound like much, but adding 10% more fuel can mean quite a bit of payload increase to orbit.
The question is if this increase in fuel capacity is worth the added risk? I don't know, that's what the rocket scientists are discussing.
The LiIon battery is basically a little hand grenade waiting to go off. We are packing so much energy into such small spaces that there is always a risk of releasing that energy unexpectedly. The problem is you never really know when this release might happen. Through careful manufacturing and quality control we can make such events fairly rare, but the risk will remain.
The biggest issue is we are pushing the boundaries for size and weight at a given storage capacity, making the manufacturing tolerances extremely tight and hard to maintain.
Then... There is the mishandling and abuse problem for LiIon batteries. It's almost a sure bet that abusing one of these things, by bending it, puncturing it or otherwise using it out of it's designed environmental conditions can easily set one off. And it seems that repair facilities are where this risk is greatest. If you do such work, best be prepared for this eventuality and have procedures to deal with it. Apparently Apple is doing just that.
I agree, One thing to add.. My CFI told me that very flight start and ends VFR, even if it's IFR in between the two ends. He's right, unless you are flying CAT3 approaches.
but that is very, very rare to have the ground equipment in operation, the aircraft equipment certified, a pilot who is current with CAT3 and weather necessary to use it. And then, you may land, but good luck with the taxi to the gate with RVR's that low.
How did this kind of thing get dealt with before the government took over the responsibility? We had nearly 200 years of history before this where folks got educated w/o government help.
Also, I often wonder how many folks are dissuaded from charitable giving because the government became the safety net? After all, I pay my taxes to the government to deal with this kind of thing, why should I get my hands dirty actually getting personally involved? I think that the government taking responsibility has made it seem less necessary for the haves to help the have not's, then the forcible collection of taxes to pay for it just re-enforces this.
Finally, charity has gone out of style. It's not expected behavior anymore, not covered favorably or taught as a social responsibility anymore. In fact, we attack the rich for being rich, why would they want to chance getting pilloried in the press by calling attention to themselves?
Is X-Plane 11 with native VR support the best Virtual Reality Flight Simulator of 2017? Today I'm trying out the advanced X-Plane 11 VR Flight Sim on HTC Vive, flying a realistic Cessna 172 Skyhawk airplane in central Chicago. Is this the best VR Flight Simulator? Let's find out!
The visuals are just part of the problem. The issue is that as you approach the landing, you enter the "ground effect" which changes how the aircraft handles and as you approach the ground the visual picture is ever more important. Both of these conspire to make the flare (pulling back just before touch down to make it gentle) hard to judge in a simulator. It doesn't look or feel the same. It's hard to model the aircraft movement and hard to render the visual details close enough to make it seem real to me.
I know it's hard to understand if you've not flown, but there is a feel that's missing.
Also, my VR experience tells me that while it's able to immerse you with visual detail and sound, the head movement has a noticeable lag. Maybe it was the system I was using? But that lag would be intolerable on short final and while it's immersive, it's not accurate enough for learning how to land the real thing. It might be good enough to get you though flying a pattern, but as you turn base to final it's going to quickly loose the real feel.
There is the human factor as well. While using a simulator, there is no fear of death or injury. When you are actually flying, then the gravity (no pun attended) of the situation is in play. A muscle memory action in a simulator becomes a deliberate action in real life. Where shaking from turbulence or g-forces from the flight will affect you in ways that actual real life practice is needed.
Good simulators can be quite realistic and you can find yourself actually forgetting you are in a simulator. My Dad worked at a major airline's pilot training center, repairing their simulators which had full motion and very high fidelity even for the 70's. I can tell you that from personal experience, it can be almost as stressful and immersive as the real thing. There are things they simply cannot do all that well, but the pilots who are at this level have enough stick and rudder skills already from thousands of hours in the real thing.
But full motion simulators are beyond the reach of most hobbyists flying video games. And sitting in your office chair is a pretty poor teacher of the stick and rudder skills. I can teach you procedures and operation of the equipment, but it cannot teach you the finer points of how to fly a real airplane. For that, you need to get an instructor and a real airplane and put in some real flight time.
Yup, it's called "P-Factor" and you have to stand on the rudder peddle to keep the ball in the middle at high power and high angles of attack.
I agree, this kind of thing is "seat of the pants" stuff that you just have to do without thinking. Uncoordinated flight is something that is really hard to simulate the forces on your butt for, but good pilots just feel and correct. It's like keeping a car in the middle of the lane when driving, you just do it, you don't have to think about it. That takes air time in a real aircraft with a CFI yelling at you to keep the ball in the middle. I found that an actual spin, when I did it wrong, was quite instructive when I got sloppy practicing departure stalls. Scared the heck out of me when it snapped over but after that I understood what it felt like and found it easier to just do it without thinking.
Of course they are useful to non-pilots for training, real pilots train in simulators
Yes, (some) real pilots train in simulators. The article however is about video games - which are to those simulators like a skateboard is to a F1 racer. Still useful for some things, but not even remotely the same thing.
I trained using a video game, as a private pilot going for my IFR rating. So Yes, real pilots train in video games, I did. I will note that my "procedure training" was NOT logged as simulator time in my log book, but I used it as a study aid. I punched up my local airport and setup to fly the various approaches as a learning tool. I flew every approach I could in the possible exam area as preparation for the check ride too. This repetition fixed the process, frequencies to tune, headings to fly in my head. It was of great help to be familiar with all possible approaches the examiner could ask me to fly.
I also did a lot of partial panel flying in the video game, though I found that to be much less valuable w/o having the motion. It was helpful for compass only flying, where the DG and artificial horizon was out of service, but I found partial panel flying proficiency really required air time.
Of course they are useful to non-pilots for training, real pilots train in simulators, especially for practicing the dangerous or simply procedural things. I learned how to fly various IFR approaches, going though the procedures at home instead of paying for flying hours in real aircraft. Saved me a bundle.
However, they do not train you on what it really looks, sounds and feels like when you fly. There is a lot of information you need when flying that comes from the seat of your pants and though the windscreen that is really hard to simulate at reasonable cost at home. Also, it's really hard to accurately simulate the visuals during approach and landing, especially when you get into the ground effect just before touch down. It's just not the same.
EpiPens are not already generic because every time you change the delivery mechanism, you restart the patent timer. Yeah, they made a minor change to the mechanism to keep it patentable. How that prevents competitors from using the old mechanism is beyond me.
Then, wouldn't the previous delivery system come out of patent and generic manufacturers be enabled to make them? There has got to be more to this.
The issue with the Florida recounts in my mind was two fold.
First, the act of counting them, altered the ballots, ever so slightly, when done mechanically. Looking for holes in cards and the problem of missing chads, hanging chads and dimpled chads was insanity. Yes, it was a very stupid system and we should take that as a cautionary tale to not build another system with similar problems.
Second, it was legally pointless to count, recount, manually count and recount these ballots as long as they did. Once the legal process had already run it's course and the election had been legally certified by Florida's secretary of state and presented to congress. It was a done deal, regardless of what the count ended up being or how many times they counted the results after that.
So I would add one additional requirement for ballot handling which goes something like this. "Once the election is certified and all possible legal avenues have been exhausted in the determination of the winners, the ballots will be securely stored for no less than 1 year and no more than 2, unless they are material evidence in an active criminal investigation.
This is also the first thing that the FDA has done right in the last decade. It's a small step in the right direction anyway. Still doesn't restore my trust in the organization though. Getting rid of GRAS would go a long way to healing a lot of open wounds.
I'm not advocating you trust the FDA, but I wonder why you think getting rid of GARS would be a good idea?
Generally speaking (pun intended) GARS may not have been subject to the rigor of other additives, but they DO have significant amounts of research, study and actual use history that indicates they are indeed safe for use. So which substances on the GARS list do you object to? Whey? Helium? Nitrogen? Maybe Citric Acid or Nitrous Oxide? Something else?
Also, the "leisure class" is largely non-existent. Nearly EVERY one of the uber-rich folks out there have worked for their money and earned it. Who? Bill Gates, Elion Musk, The Koch brothers, George Soros, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump are just a few of the names that come to mind. None of these folks inherited much of what they currently own, but worked for it.
Bill Gates - Father was a prominent attorney
Elon Musk - Father was an electromechanical engineer
Koch Brothers - Father was in the oil refining business, founded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
George Soros - Father was a well-to-do lawyer
Jeff Bezos - (step) Father was an engineer
Donald Trump - Father was a real estate developer, with a company worth around $300 million at his death (which was being run by Donald)
Notice anything? None of the people you mentioned came from a working-class background (with the possible exceptions of Bezos and Musk), they all had significant resources at their disposal. It's a lot easier to get an education or take a risk starting a new company if you can rely on your parents to bail you out if you fail. Contrast this with someone who's family goes hungry if they fail and it's not hard to see why the already privileged people are the ones that become ultra-wealthy.
Did YOU notice anything?
ALL in that list took modest sums and IMPROVED their lot by working at it. They are not the "leisure class" as some like to call them, but workers who earned most of their money.
My point is that we don't have very many uber-rich folks who didn't earn the majority of it by working for a living. Or as Larry Elder says "Hard work wins!" Which is the reason capitalism works, while socialism doesn't. IF you work hard, you *can* earn more and improve your lifestyle, it's up to you.
Then there is the conceptual problem that folks have about wealth, that it's a fixed sized pie, and because somebody else has more, it leaves less for me. This is incorrect. Wealth is increased though work and being productive, or decreased when people don't work but just consume. The pie can grow, so you can get more pie if you choose to work and generate wealth. You needn't fear that your taking deprives others of their pie, if you earn it. But, if you don't work, the pie is being consumed and wealth is decreasing for everybody.
Don't believe me? See Venezuela for what happens when you just give stuff away. Eventually the wealth pie is gone and everybody has nothing, except for the people in power, who hold all the resources for themselves.
Let's just call it bad lab quality control techniques and leave it at that.... Maybe they made a mistake? Yea, I don' think so either.
Look, if you know enough about what you are doing to actually write the paper and get it published, you *should* know enough to actually be SURE your extraordinary claims are true and that you have the necessary data to back that claim up. Maybe I'm just too honest, but I'm not in a hurry to fake test results and draw international attention to my fraud....
I seem to remember several years ago researchers in Fairbanks, Alaska had already achieved room temperature superconductivity. The trick was to turn of central heating as I recall...
LOL.. I think even -80F would be a revolution for Physics, but I like the joke.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
Then you never would have had a single government program to begin with, if the largess of the leisure class was up to the task. This is why believing in the Easter Bunny as a grown-assed man is more respectable than believing in libertarian dogma.
Well, let's just go full communist then. Why not? IF the rich cannot be trusted to use their wealth wisely and you believe that this is a fundamentally unfair situation that they have more than most, Let's just go take their wealth and make things fair..
Also, the "leisure class" is largely non-existent. Nearly EVERY one of the uber-rich folks out there have worked for their money and earned it. Who? Bill Gates, Elion Musk, The Koch brothers, George Soros, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump are just a few of the names that come to mind. None of these folks inherited much of what they currently own, but worked for it.
Ah... The socialist pull is strong with this one.. Shall we just go full communist then so you can just take all the rich have and give it to others? After all, your rhetoric is basically that.
I don't mind taxes for the provision of services like law enforcement, fire, roads and other public infrastructure, but I do generally object to taking money from one person just to give it to another in an effort to "even out" wealth or provide services to people for free. There are a few exceptions to this rule, basically those who are in temporary need or in unchangeable situations that prevent them from supporting themselves, but if you can, you work to eat, the government doesn't feed you, house you, clothe you or pay for your college.
Didn't say there where already issues here, only that having a physical ballot doesn't solve all of the issues with vote count integrity.
You still have to have to get an honest count. This requires a secure means of maintaining the physical ballots so they cannot be altered (or added to or subtracted from) AND you need a way to count them, preferably multiple different ways. I remember the Al Gore Florida recounts, we don't need that mess again.
Great, now when the Republics clean house during the midterms, no one can complain that the election was "hacked". Everyone can finally be happy and content with the results.
It doesn't matter who wins, half the country will be incensed about the results... Assuming the last election was any indicator of what we are in for come November.
Remember, snapshot and full database rollbacks with query/row match for discrepencies in volatile precincts and counties are key for db comparisons. Random audits.
Even then, the issue is counting votes and then securing from alteration the materials upon which the votes are recorded so they can be counted again and again when desired.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got to disagree. Weight is a major issue and if you can get 5% more payload at the same vehicle hardware weight, you will be money ahead in the commercial realm and have extra performance margins all around. Extra performance margin usually means a safer more fault tolerant system which is a huge advantage for manned flights. It also means you can add weight to the vehicle to make it safer, carry more stores or even an extra seat or two. Having weight margin can be a very good thing.
Now, I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good idea to fuel the rocket after the people are on board, I'm only saying there are benefits to Space-X's approach to go with the added risks. It's up to the rocket scientists to figure out if the risks can be managed in a way that makes it worth it. Personally, I don't know if they are or not and I figure our two opinions do not matter.
BTW, the 10% number is something I pulled out of thin air for illustrative purposes. I have no idea if the number is 1% or 30% or more only that it's not insignificant or Space-X wouldn't bother with it. If you get a chance, I'd love to know what the actual numbers are, I just don't have time to look them up myself.
Risks need to be managed or avoided in rocket science.
Gene Kranz has some insights into this, having lived though Apollo as flight director of multiple missions. https://www.reddit.com/r/Space... Rocket science is a dangerous business, people WILL die. At issue is an analysis of the risks, mitigation strategies for the identified risks and the acceptance of the remaining risks that cannot be controlled.
Where I share your concern with Space-X's process, the question is really for the rocket scientists to argue over and not a PR campaign. Is this an acceptable risk? Can it be effectively managed in the processes and procedures used to fuel the rocket and are the remaining risks acceptable? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm just an engineer, so I'll let the rocket scientists hash this one out.
Actually the volume of propellants is significantly reduced when they are cooled, on the order of 10% or better. Where this adds weight for propellant, it lessens the vehicle's weight because it can be built smaller and lighter. It may not sound like much, but adding 10% more fuel can mean quite a bit of payload increase to orbit.
The question is if this increase in fuel capacity is worth the added risk? I don't know, that's what the rocket scientists are discussing.
The LiIon battery is basically a little hand grenade waiting to go off. We are packing so much energy into such small spaces that there is always a risk of releasing that energy unexpectedly. The problem is you never really know when this release might happen. Through careful manufacturing and quality control we can make such events fairly rare, but the risk will remain.
The biggest issue is we are pushing the boundaries for size and weight at a given storage capacity, making the manufacturing tolerances extremely tight and hard to maintain.
Then... There is the mishandling and abuse problem for LiIon batteries. It's almost a sure bet that abusing one of these things, by bending it, puncturing it or otherwise using it out of it's designed environmental conditions can easily set one off. And it seems that repair facilities are where this risk is greatest. If you do such work, best be prepared for this eventuality and have procedures to deal with it. Apparently Apple is doing just that.
I agree, One thing to add.. My CFI told me that very flight start and ends VFR, even if it's IFR in between the two ends. He's right, unless you are flying CAT3 approaches.
but that is very, very rare to have the ground equipment in operation, the aircraft equipment certified, a pilot who is current with CAT3 and weather necessary to use it. And then, you may land, but good luck with the taxi to the gate with RVR's that low.
Consider this..
How did this kind of thing get dealt with before the government took over the responsibility? We had nearly 200 years of history before this where folks got educated w/o government help.
Also, I often wonder how many folks are dissuaded from charitable giving because the government became the safety net? After all, I pay my taxes to the government to deal with this kind of thing, why should I get my hands dirty actually getting personally involved? I think that the government taking responsibility has made it seem less necessary for the haves to help the have not's, then the forcible collection of taxes to pay for it just re-enforces this.
Finally, charity has gone out of style. It's not expected behavior anymore, not covered favorably or taught as a social responsibility anymore. In fact, we attack the rich for being rich, why would they want to chance getting pilloried in the press by calling attention to themselves?
Just a few thoughts for you to consider..
Seems VR would alleviate your concerns about visuals: X-Plane 11 VR Gameplay
Is X-Plane 11 with native VR support the best Virtual Reality Flight Simulator of 2017? Today I'm trying out the advanced X-Plane 11 VR Flight Sim on HTC Vive, flying a realistic Cessna 172 Skyhawk airplane in central Chicago. Is this the best VR Flight Simulator? Let's find out!
The visuals are just part of the problem. The issue is that as you approach the landing, you enter the "ground effect" which changes how the aircraft handles and as you approach the ground the visual picture is ever more important. Both of these conspire to make the flare (pulling back just before touch down to make it gentle) hard to judge in a simulator. It doesn't look or feel the same. It's hard to model the aircraft movement and hard to render the visual details close enough to make it seem real to me.
I know it's hard to understand if you've not flown, but there is a feel that's missing.
Also, my VR experience tells me that while it's able to immerse you with visual detail and sound, the head movement has a noticeable lag. Maybe it was the system I was using? But that lag would be intolerable on short final and while it's immersive, it's not accurate enough for learning how to land the real thing. It might be good enough to get you though flying a pattern, but as you turn base to final it's going to quickly loose the real feel.
There is the human factor as well. While using a simulator, there is no fear of death or injury. When you are actually flying, then the gravity (no pun attended) of the situation is in play. A muscle memory action in a simulator becomes a deliberate action in real life. Where shaking from turbulence or g-forces from the flight will affect you in ways that actual real life practice is needed.
Good simulators can be quite realistic and you can find yourself actually forgetting you are in a simulator. My Dad worked at a major airline's pilot training center, repairing their simulators which had full motion and very high fidelity even for the 70's. I can tell you that from personal experience, it can be almost as stressful and immersive as the real thing. There are things they simply cannot do all that well, but the pilots who are at this level have enough stick and rudder skills already from thousands of hours in the real thing.
But full motion simulators are beyond the reach of most hobbyists flying video games. And sitting in your office chair is a pretty poor teacher of the stick and rudder skills. I can teach you procedures and operation of the equipment, but it cannot teach you the finer points of how to fly a real airplane. For that, you need to get an instructor and a real airplane and put in some real flight time.
Yup, it's called "P-Factor" and you have to stand on the rudder peddle to keep the ball in the middle at high power and high angles of attack.
I agree, this kind of thing is "seat of the pants" stuff that you just have to do without thinking. Uncoordinated flight is something that is really hard to simulate the forces on your butt for, but good pilots just feel and correct. It's like keeping a car in the middle of the lane when driving, you just do it, you don't have to think about it. That takes air time in a real aircraft with a CFI yelling at you to keep the ball in the middle. I found that an actual spin, when I did it wrong, was quite instructive when I got sloppy practicing departure stalls. Scared the heck out of me when it snapped over but after that I understood what it felt like and found it easier to just do it without thinking.
Yes, (some) real pilots train in simulators. The article however is about video games - which are to those simulators like a skateboard is to a F1 racer. Still useful for some things, but not even remotely the same thing.
I trained using a video game, as a private pilot going for my IFR rating. So Yes, real pilots train in video games, I did. I will note that my "procedure training" was NOT logged as simulator time in my log book, but I used it as a study aid. I punched up my local airport and setup to fly the various approaches as a learning tool. I flew every approach I could in the possible exam area as preparation for the check ride too. This repetition fixed the process, frequencies to tune, headings to fly in my head. It was of great help to be familiar with all possible approaches the examiner could ask me to fly.
I also did a lot of partial panel flying in the video game, though I found that to be much less valuable w/o having the motion. It was helpful for compass only flying, where the DG and artificial horizon was out of service, but I found partial panel flying proficiency really required air time.
Of course they are useful to non-pilots for training, real pilots train in simulators, especially for practicing the dangerous or simply procedural things. I learned how to fly various IFR approaches, going though the procedures at home instead of paying for flying hours in real aircraft. Saved me a bundle.
However, they do not train you on what it really looks, sounds and feels like when you fly. There is a lot of information you need when flying that comes from the seat of your pants and though the windscreen that is really hard to simulate at reasonable cost at home. Also, it's really hard to accurately simulate the visuals during approach and landing, especially when you get into the ground effect just before touch down. It's just not the same.
EpiPens are not already generic because every time you change the delivery mechanism, you restart the patent timer. Yeah, they made a minor change to the mechanism to keep it patentable. How that prevents competitors from using the old mechanism is beyond me.
Then, wouldn't the previous delivery system come out of patent and generic manufacturers be enabled to make them? There has got to be more to this.
Why do they charge $600 for an EpiPen? Because they CAN!
Only because they are the only ones supplying them. I say we encourage generic makers to enter the market and fix that issue.
The issue with the Florida recounts in my mind was two fold.
First, the act of counting them, altered the ballots, ever so slightly, when done mechanically. Looking for holes in cards and the problem of missing chads, hanging chads and dimpled chads was insanity. Yes, it was a very stupid system and we should take that as a cautionary tale to not build another system with similar problems.
Second, it was legally pointless to count, recount, manually count and recount these ballots as long as they did. Once the legal process had already run it's course and the election had been legally certified by Florida's secretary of state and presented to congress. It was a done deal, regardless of what the count ended up being or how many times they counted the results after that.
So I would add one additional requirement for ballot handling which goes something like this. "Once the election is certified and all possible legal avenues have been exhausted in the determination of the winners, the ballots will be securely stored for no less than 1 year and no more than 2, unless they are material evidence in an active criminal investigation.
This is also the first thing that the FDA has done right in the last decade. It's a small step in the right direction anyway. Still doesn't restore my trust in the organization though. Getting rid of GRAS would go a long way to healing a lot of open wounds.
I'm not advocating you trust the FDA, but I wonder why you think getting rid of GARS would be a good idea?
Generally speaking (pun intended) GARS may not have been subject to the rigor of other additives, but they DO have significant amounts of research, study and actual use history that indicates they are indeed safe for use. So which substances on the GARS list do you object to? Whey? Helium? Nitrogen? Maybe Citric Acid or Nitrous Oxide? Something else?
Why do you object to these specific things?
Generic of course.
I'm just curious, why are Epi Pens not already generic?
Then observe the value of competition... The market works, if you let it.
The researchers either jumped the gun or faked the results.
I think they jumped the shark...AND the gun... AND faked their results.
Also, the "leisure class" is largely non-existent. Nearly EVERY one of the uber-rich folks out there have worked for their money and earned it. Who? Bill Gates, Elion Musk, The Koch brothers, George Soros, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump are just a few of the names that come to mind. None of these folks inherited much of what they currently own, but worked for it.
Bill Gates - Father was a prominent attorney Elon Musk - Father was an electromechanical engineer Koch Brothers - Father was in the oil refining business, founded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... George Soros - Father was a well-to-do lawyer Jeff Bezos - (step) Father was an engineer Donald Trump - Father was a real estate developer, with a company worth around $300 million at his death (which was being run by Donald)
Notice anything? None of the people you mentioned came from a working-class background (with the possible exceptions of Bezos and Musk), they all had significant resources at their disposal. It's a lot easier to get an education or take a risk starting a new company if you can rely on your parents to bail you out if you fail. Contrast this with someone who's family goes hungry if they fail and it's not hard to see why the already privileged people are the ones that become ultra-wealthy.
Did YOU notice anything?
ALL in that list took modest sums and IMPROVED their lot by working at it. They are not the "leisure class" as some like to call them, but workers who earned most of their money.
My point is that we don't have very many uber-rich folks who didn't earn the majority of it by working for a living. Or as Larry Elder says "Hard work wins!" Which is the reason capitalism works, while socialism doesn't. IF you work hard, you *can* earn more and improve your lifestyle, it's up to you.
Then there is the conceptual problem that folks have about wealth, that it's a fixed sized pie, and because somebody else has more, it leaves less for me. This is incorrect. Wealth is increased though work and being productive, or decreased when people don't work but just consume. The pie can grow, so you can get more pie if you choose to work and generate wealth. You needn't fear that your taking deprives others of their pie, if you earn it. But, if you don't work, the pie is being consumed and wealth is decreasing for everybody.
Don't believe me? See Venezuela for what happens when you just give stuff away. Eventually the wealth pie is gone and everybody has nothing, except for the people in power, who hold all the resources for themselves.
Let's just call it bad lab quality control techniques and leave it at that.... Maybe they made a mistake? Yea, I don' think so either.
Look, if you know enough about what you are doing to actually write the paper and get it published, you *should* know enough to actually be SURE your extraordinary claims are true and that you have the necessary data to back that claim up. Maybe I'm just too honest, but I'm not in a hurry to fake test results and draw international attention to my fraud....
I seem to remember several years ago researchers in Fairbanks, Alaska had already achieved room temperature superconductivity. The trick was to turn of central heating as I recall...
LOL.. I think even -80F would be a revolution for Physics, but I like the joke.
Then you never would have had a single government program to begin with, if the largess of the leisure class was up to the task. This is why believing in the Easter Bunny as a grown-assed man is more respectable than believing in libertarian dogma.
Well, let's just go full communist then. Why not? IF the rich cannot be trusted to use their wealth wisely and you believe that this is a fundamentally unfair situation that they have more than most, Let's just go take their wealth and make things fair..
Also, the "leisure class" is largely non-existent. Nearly EVERY one of the uber-rich folks out there have worked for their money and earned it. Who? Bill Gates, Elion Musk, The Koch brothers, George Soros, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump are just a few of the names that come to mind. None of these folks inherited much of what they currently own, but worked for it.
Ah... The socialist pull is strong with this one.. Shall we just go full communist then so you can just take all the rich have and give it to others? After all, your rhetoric is basically that.
I don't mind taxes for the provision of services like law enforcement, fire, roads and other public infrastructure, but I do generally object to taking money from one person just to give it to another in an effort to "even out" wealth or provide services to people for free. There are a few exceptions to this rule, basically those who are in temporary need or in unchangeable situations that prevent them from supporting themselves, but if you can, you work to eat, the government doesn't feed you, house you, clothe you or pay for your college.
Didn't say there where already issues here, only that having a physical ballot doesn't solve all of the issues with vote count integrity.
You still have to have to get an honest count. This requires a secure means of maintaining the physical ballots so they cannot be altered (or added to or subtracted from) AND you need a way to count them, preferably multiple different ways. I remember the Al Gore Florida recounts, we don't need that mess again.
Great, now when the Republics clean house during the midterms, no one can complain that the election was "hacked". Everyone can finally be happy and content with the results.
It doesn't matter who wins, half the country will be incensed about the results... Assuming the last election was any indicator of what we are in for come November.
Anything less won't work.
Remember, snapshot and full database rollbacks with query/row match for discrepencies in volatile precincts and counties are key for db comparisons. Random audits.
Even then, the issue is counting votes and then securing from alteration the materials upon which the votes are recorded so they can be counted again and again when desired.