What will Google do next? How about "Google Linux". They've already got a killer reputation among the/. crowd, they're innovating thinkers, they have the industry by the ears, and they have money to blow.
By your definition, everything publicly funded is "coercive". The president's salary is "coercive". The financial aid for college students is "coercive". Unemployment benefits are "coercive".
The public is not forced to finance any specific project. This is not a case of taxation without representation. Congressmen and the President are your voice for how your money should be spent.
Each member of society, however, cannot be given a choice as to exactly what their individual sum of money will be used for. Such a system would be simply unworkable.
As for NASA, I doubt SpaceShipOne could have gotten off the ground with the funding it received without the huge amount of government-sponsored research behind it. One of NASA's primary roles is as an incubator project for the still-fledgling aerospace industry. You and I finance the groundwork science and engineering that must be done before industry can profitably take it up. But once it is, if successful, the industry in our country enjoys a significant advantage over others, increasing market share, profit margins, employment opportunities, and the general economy.
And a good economy benefits us all. And, again, if successful, more than reimburses you for the paltry sum you paid to finance it.
So you don't think there should be a NASA? Why not? It advances the state of science, it promotes exploration and commerce in space, and it provides a focal point for science education.
If NASA was abolished (or made fully private), I think you would find that the amount each individual would save in taxes because of it would be negligible.
No, NASA's busy trying to figure out how to reorganize itself to fit the new space proposal. The SpaceShipOne launch was very warmly received. We're all in the same boat with the same destination here, people.
You know, I'm a big anti-Bush and pro-Kerry supporter, but this guy's got a point. If Kerry campaigns on a platform to get rid of the new "space race", I may have to rethink my stand. This is one thing I thank Bush for (although it's not a set deal that Gore wouldn't have done it if he were in the same situation).
Althought it's interesting to note that the fact they missed the conversion isn't the fatal mistake. It's that they failed to heed the continuing degradation of the flight path for months on its way to Mars.
Had they noticed (or bothered to do something about) the continuing errors in the trajectory, they could have easily corrected for the conversion factor.
In this sense, it was somewhat of a precursor to Columbia.
Well by George, he's right. Here's the relevant portion of USC 17 Sect. 106:
...the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted
work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending; [etc.]
These people have shared thousands upon thousands of songs. If you take the retail value of those songs and add them all together, I'm sure it would be a substantial sum.
They can't sue people outside of the US. They're the Recording Industry Association of America. They have no jurisdiction or anything outside of the US. If Sony wanted to sue a Chinese file-sharer, they would have to go through the Recording Industry Association of China (or whatever).
Well, they're not driving me, or the people I know, away. I still buy CDs because I like CDs. I wouldn't buy copyright-protected ones, but that's a different story.
CDs give me the music I want, in a format I can put to good use, at a (usually) affordable price. I wouldn't go buy a CD from no-name-angelic-indie-label if I didn't like the music they were producing.
Well, if I were a stockholder in a company that owned a particular product, and a competing company was illegally building their own product on top of mine, I would damn well expect my company to sue the other.
In that case, suing is the way civil disputes are settled. That's what it's there for.
Of course, in the case of SCO, it looks like they're making up the whole premise, which wouldn't get my support at all.
Well, I buy used because I'm a poor college student. I have way too much bandwidth than I can put to good use, so I could download if I wanted to. But I don't.
" In the air, though, there is no phase change at really high speeds (unless you're going on the order of Mach 25 or so), so all you get for your trouble is more drag."
Sorry, but I don't think this is true. A conic/cylindrical body flying through the air will get massive amounts of drag around Mach 1, but this will drop off significantly until around Mach 4-5, and stay at the same level above that.
Maybe on land, but with a 250km range, this thing isn't meant to be anywhere near the enemy. Unless they were doing straight pot-shots at the shore or something...
Slashdot Mirror
What will Google do next? How about "Google Linux". They've already got a killer reputation among the /. crowd, they're innovating thinkers, they have the industry by the ears, and they have money to blow.
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
By your definition, everything publicly funded is "coercive". The president's salary is "coercive". The financial aid for college students is "coercive". Unemployment benefits are "coercive".
The public is not forced to finance any specific project. This is not a case of taxation without representation. Congressmen and the President are your voice for how your money should be spent.
Each member of society, however, cannot be given a choice as to exactly what their individual sum of money will be used for. Such a system would be simply unworkable.
As for NASA, I doubt SpaceShipOne could have gotten off the ground with the funding it received without the huge amount of government-sponsored research behind it. One of NASA's primary roles is as an incubator project for the still-fledgling aerospace industry. You and I finance the groundwork science and engineering that must be done before industry can profitably take it up. But once it is, if successful, the industry in our country enjoys a significant advantage over others, increasing market share, profit margins, employment opportunities, and the general economy.
And a good economy benefits us all. And, again, if successful, more than reimburses you for the paltry sum you paid to finance it.
Is there a viable alternative?
So you don't think there should be a NASA? Why not? It advances the state of science, it promotes exploration and commerce in space, and it provides a focal point for science education.
If NASA was abolished (or made fully private), I think you would find that the amount each individual would save in taxes because of it would be negligible.
No, NASA's busy trying to figure out how to reorganize itself to fit the new space proposal. The SpaceShipOne launch was very warmly received. We're all in the same boat with the same destination here, people.
You're not paying more in your taxes to fund these prizes. The prize money is being diverted from their existing (nearly static) budget.
Now, if you don't like how NASA is spending its money, complain to your Congressman.
I was under the impression that the USPS was run as a corporation with a government-mandated monopoly and proper restrictions (like AmTrak).
You know, I'm a big anti-Bush and pro-Kerry supporter, but this guy's got a point. If Kerry campaigns on a platform to get rid of the new "space race", I may have to rethink my stand. This is one thing I thank Bush for (although it's not a set deal that Gore wouldn't have done it if he were in the same situation).
Althought it's interesting to note that the fact they missed the conversion isn't the fatal mistake. It's that they failed to heed the continuing degradation of the flight path for months on its way to Mars.
Had they noticed (or bothered to do something about) the continuing errors in the trajectory, they could have easily corrected for the conversion factor.
In this sense, it was somewhat of a precursor to Columbia.
Is this a real government tax? Or just a plan worked out between the RIAA and the disc makers?
Suing copyright infringers is legal terrorism? That's a new one.
Well, and Freenet.
These people have shared thousands upon thousands of songs. If you take the retail value of those songs and add them all together, I'm sure it would be a substantial sum.
They can't sue people outside of the US. They're the Recording Industry Association of America. They have no jurisdiction or anything outside of the US. If Sony wanted to sue a Chinese file-sharer, they would have to go through the Recording Industry Association of China (or whatever).
Yeah, what's the difference between "music" CD-Rs and regular CD-Rs? And they're taxed in the US?
Well, they're not driving me, or the people I know, away. I still buy CDs because I like CDs. I wouldn't buy copyright-protected ones, but that's a different story.
CDs give me the music I want, in a format I can put to good use, at a (usually) affordable price. I wouldn't go buy a CD from no-name-angelic-indie-label if I didn't like the music they were producing.
Well, if I were a stockholder in a company that owned a particular product, and a competing company was illegally building their own product on top of mine, I would damn well expect my company to sue the other.
In that case, suing is the way civil disputes are settled. That's what it's there for.
Of course, in the case of SCO, it looks like they're making up the whole premise, which wouldn't get my support at all.
Well, I buy used because I'm a poor college student. I have way too much bandwidth than I can put to good use, so I could download if I wanted to. But I don't.
Looks like it's around 40-50% at the moment.
Ah, of course. I was looking at wave drag. Thanks.
I can't read the PDF, but another poster mentioned that it said something about GPS navigation and maneuvering in the bullet.
Don't know how that would work, but that's what it said.
" In the air, though, there is no phase change at really high speeds (unless you're going on the order of Mach 25 or so), so all you get for your trouble is more drag."
Sorry, but I don't think this is true. A conic/cylindrical body flying through the air will get massive amounts of drag around Mach 1, but this will drop off significantly until around Mach 4-5, and stay at the same level above that.
Maybe on land, but with a 250km range, this thing isn't meant to be anywhere near the enemy. Unless they were doing straight pot-shots at the shore or something...
Alright, alright, I digress :-)
By the way, how does the Constitution violate the DMCA?