Drugs, polygamy, gambling, legal age prostitution, etc., could all be arguably classified under victim-less crimes.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that. So might a friend whose father consistently gambled away most of his take home pay. There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
The question is whether the government has the right to use force (i.e. the police busting into your house with a SWAT team and shooting your dog) to prevent a person from doing an act that harms nobody but themselves or another fully consenting and knowledgeable adult.
That presumes the adult in question is consenting and knowledgeable. There's a reason why the lottery is often called 'a tax on people bad at math".
It is actually quite easy to find people who are rather knowledgeable about both.
From your lack of knowledge about the history of science and bigotry and ignorance about religion... I'd say you're incapable of recognizing people who are experts in either.
A lot of scientists working on the V-1 and V-2 campaigns would later expand human capabilities into space... that didn't mean that their ideologies at the time were right. Likewise, because a Reverend could use evidence to come to the correct conclusion that dinosaurs were more like birds doesn't present one shred of evidence to me that Christianity is right, let alone reconcilable with science.
This strawman, among the many you present, compels me to reply. Your blinders seem to prevent you from realizing that nobody is trying to persuade you that their philosophies and beliefs were or are 'right'.
I know I'll be modded down by the religious right just like during the questions part but this was a huge disappointment and quite depressing. Dr. Robert Baker appears to cling to a handful of incidences where intelligent people made some progress in the field of paleontology and somehow that alleviates all the other problems organized religions have presented to science. I wonder which part of Augustine's and Edward Hitchcock's work lead to their scientific contributions? It seems you think it was reading religious texts and allowing God to work through them? Not actually excavations, logical thinking and their daring to challenge the status quo?
I'm not from the religious right - but if *I* had mod points today... I'd mod you down. Why? Because you seem grimly determined to sustain an anti-religious bias based on your preconceived notions and without regards for any evidence that those notions might not coincide with reality. Yes, in some times and some places (even here and now) there are those who would suppress scientific inquiry - but pretending that those represent all times and all places doesn't mark you as intelligent.... Starting with your accusations of invisible enemies, and running thorough the sophistry and strawmen you mistakenly believe to be 'reasonable' questions, the evidence is abundant that you're as closed minded and bigoted as you mistakenly believe all religions are.
Wake me up when they start building something. Until then, it's PR.
Or at least when they start talking about something other than the ECLSS and trajectory design. There's a whole host of issues that weren't covered in Tito's paper...
That being said, Paragon's name was already linked with Mars One's when the project was first announced a couple of weeks back, so this is either actually just PR or bad reporting on SpaceRef's part.
sure, the guys who 'liked' a dozen pages for disney musicals might have higher chances of turning out to be gay, but what about the handful who just really like musicals?
That's why you don't measure on just one factor - there's no proof that they do, and every reason to believe otherwise.
The highest intelligence indicator were the people who never joined facebook and want nothing to do with it.
Three quarters of the Mensa members I know use Facebook. I know a lot of *very* smart and intelligent people, and the vast majority of them are on Facebook too.
Seriously Slashdot, get the fuck over yourself - this ignorant bias against anyone who uses Facebook doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a jackass.
When you're talking about the stock market, yeah, it does simply 'evaporate like water'. Market value is a collective hallucination, not a checking account.
The mere fact that they issued 3 times as many tickets as there are people in the town is an indication that something is wrong here.
Only if you labor under the mistaken notion that nobody traverses a road unless they're a local resident. The first main road I come to when leaving my house carries almost as many cars per day as reside in my town - which should come as no surprise since it's a major commuter route for a nearby city *and* the major access route for the county's largest employer *and* a significant shopping destination. (The road that covers the other half of the city carries even more...)
Like when you make a legal right turn on red, and stop again to make sure it's clear...
What part of "don't stop across or past the line" is so hard to understand? If you're not sure it's clear then don't pull out in the first place. That's the whole point of the lines - so you stop a safe distance back, and when you start moving the people behind you can reasonably expect you to keep moving.
.You missed the part where the judge said it was unconstitutionally difficult to challenge the fine.
That's true, but irrelevant to the issue of following the law. Don't break the law, and you'll never need to challenge a ticket or worry about whose mercy you are at.
vThen please explain the 85 newspaper articles from the time which all agree that Whitehead flew many times in 1901/1902.
Since when are newspapers absolutely reliable and unimpeachable sources? Newspapers trumpeted the discovery of N-rays and the Cardiff Giant too. No, then as now, the media prints and repeats all manner of daft and dodgy material. This goes double when they had no reliable manner of fact checking third party accounts. Sex, celebrity, scandal, and sensationalism sells, now, then, and likely forever...
There's a book floating about that tells the tale of Titanic from contemporary newspaper accounts, and it's sobering how wrong so many of them of were.
It's only now that the records have been digitised is it so easy to find them.
Which is what makes me suspicious as hell... you'd think something so widely anticipated as powered, heavier than air flight would have much more widely reported. You'd also suspect that (as happened with the Wright Brothers), when it was widely reported - anywhere from dozens to hundreds of copycats would emerge relatively quickly. The newspapers would then, as they did after the Wright Brothers, report on those as well.
What you wouldn't expect if for it to vanish without a ripple.
To disprove those you'd have to be the conspiracy theorist!
They can't be conclusively disproved, no. But only a conspiracy theorist would accept that as 'proof', as they can't conclusively be proven either. That leaves the researcher to turn to other materials - materials noticeably absent in this case. This is why the supporters of this notion had to resort to photo manipulation and 'analysis' of a degree that would make even "Face on Mars" and "We Never Went to the Moon" nutters blush.
There's only something like six shareholders* to explain it to... and really only two of them matter. So, it's not a big deal to explain this 'so small it's lost in the noise' amount of money.
* The GOOG you can buy publicly is second class stock with no ownership, voting, or dividend rights. The first class stock is publicly held in theory, but in reality it's split between Brin and Page and a handful of early investors with Brin and Page owning the bulk of it.
And "falling back" in autumn usually happened just before Halloween. Lots of kids walking the roads in the dark were getting hit by cars due to this, especially in the beginning.
Cite?
Get rid of DST, it was meant as an energy saving idea during the energy crisis of the 1970's, and never really accomplished its intended goal.
First off: They have 2 car models: the first was the Tesla Roadster (which was based on a Lotus Elise) which was a testbed for their engineering. The Model S is designed from the ground up as an electric car.
First off, they only have one car model in production - so it's the only car that counts for future income.
Currently they're only using about 20% of their manufacturing plant to build the Model S and plan to expand it for faster production of a lower priced car.
But since that lower priced car isn't in production - it's one of the unhatched eggs I spoke of.
That will also take huge capital costs, but the success of the Model S should reassure outside investors who passed on Tesla the first time around.
Since outside investors aren't under discussion - who cares?
Could you be any more fanboy and less conversant with reality?
As usual, the truth is buried deep in the summary, and even deeper in the article.
Tesla is not paying off the loan early - they're *intending* to pay off the loan early because they *expect* to generate "sufficient cash and profits" to do so.
So far they've (with great effort) managed to get one model into production - but it's selling at a price such that their planned delivery rate cannot possibly generate enough cash. They've got some sidelines, but as above, the production rate is almost certainly insufficient to generate enough cash. Even taken together, the two aren't likely enough.
The Apollo 11 LLR is protected by NASA regulations, but the other sites are not.
All Apollo sites are protected by NASA regulations.
I (and numerous others) have made the point to NASA that having a rover come within meters of a retroreflector could cause problems, but I am not sure it has percolated into the contest teams.
The contest organizers long ago disavowed the goal of visiting a lunar landing site.
Wow... Not only an apple to... God knows what, as "apples to oranges comparison" doesn't even begin to describe the blithering idiocy and ignorance of your reply.
In the first place, a highway is a route connecting two destinations (which these 'ports' do not). Further, the Interstate Highway system was (originally) built for military purposes - commercial use was a distant secondary consideration. (Though it later came to dominate as the highway system became a pork barrel.)
In the second place, yes, there were that many people (and plenty of goods) moving between the states. They moved via land on railroads and existing roads. They moved via water on canals, rivers, lakes, and coastwise shipping. They were even starting to move by air...
I must see too much SF because this seems intuitively too easy.
You're correct.
500m and HD video is an hdpro in a transparent sphere with springs. The landing itself will make it move more than 500m. I rationally know that sending a 300g mass to the moon isn't trivial, but it does look easy.
By the time you add in enough batteries and the necessary radio equipment - you're looking at considerably more than 300g... and trying to bounce that weight (in earth equivalent) the length of a football field. (Your springs *alone* are going to weight several kg...)
But your scheme won't meet the intent of the rules anyhow.
Im not sure the footprints will be visible after all this time
Yes, they will. There's no wind or water on the moon, so the only erosion processes are thermal expansion/contraction and impacts... both of which are very slooooow processes.
landing nearby and getting close enough to capture some video would (in my opinion) revive public interest in space.
No, it won't. The original landings weren't enough to get people interested in space... so video of the sites won't either.
Slashdot Mirror
Let them find a way to fund it themselves. The Hollywood Stock Exchange has been doing just fine for over a decade on ad revenue.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that. So might a friend whose father consistently gambled away most of his take home pay. There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
That presumes the adult in question is consenting and knowledgeable. There's a reason why the lottery is often called 'a tax on people bad at math".
From your lack of knowledge about the history of science and bigotry and ignorance about religion... I'd say you're incapable of recognizing people who are experts in either.
This strawman, among the many you present, compels me to reply. Your blinders seem to prevent you from realizing that nobody is trying to persuade you that their philosophies and beliefs were or are 'right'.
I'm not from the religious right - but if *I* had mod points today... I'd mod you down. Why? Because you seem grimly determined to sustain an anti-religious bias based on your preconceived notions and without regards for any evidence that those notions might not coincide with reality. Yes, in some times and some places (even here and now) there are those who would suppress scientific inquiry - but pretending that those represent all times and all places doesn't mark you as intelligent.... Starting with your accusations of invisible enemies, and running thorough the sophistry and strawmen you mistakenly believe to be 'reasonable' questions, the evidence is abundant that you're as closed minded and bigoted as you mistakenly believe all religions are.
You presume it was rationally designed and planned for that role in the first place.
Or at least when they start talking about something other than the ECLSS and trajectory design. There's a whole host of issues that weren't covered in Tito's paper...
That being said, Paragon's name was already linked with Mars One's when the project was first announced a couple of weeks back, so this is either actually just PR or bad reporting on SpaceRef's part.
That's why you don't measure on just one factor - there's no proof that they do, and every reason to believe otherwise.
ROTFLMAO.
Or maybe people should stop making lame, ignorant, 'jokes' that are anything but funny. Or sarcastic. Or ironic.
Don't blame other people for your own fuckup.
Three quarters of the Mensa members I know use Facebook. I know a lot of *very* smart and intelligent people, and the vast majority of them are on Facebook too.
Seriously Slashdot, get the fuck over yourself - this ignorant bias against anyone who uses Facebook doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a jackass.
No. But you did just reveal deep ignorance and unfounded bias.
When you're talking about the stock market, yeah, it does simply 'evaporate like water'. Market value is a collective hallucination, not a checking account.
Only if you labor under the mistaken notion that nobody traverses a road unless they're a local resident. The first main road I come to when leaving my house carries almost as many cars per day as reside in my town - which should come as no surprise since it's a major commuter route for a nearby city *and* the major access route for the county's largest employer *and* a significant shopping destination. (The road that covers the other half of the city carries even more...)
What part of "don't stop across or past the line" is so hard to understand? If you're not sure it's clear then don't pull out in the first place. That's the whole point of the lines - so you stop a safe distance back, and when you start moving the people behind you can reasonably expect you to keep moving.
That's true, but irrelevant to the issue of following the law. Don't break the law, and you'll never need to challenge a ticket or worry about whose mercy you are at.
Since when are newspapers absolutely reliable and unimpeachable sources? Newspapers trumpeted the discovery of N-rays and the Cardiff Giant too. No, then as now, the media prints and repeats all manner of daft and dodgy material. This goes double when they had no reliable manner of fact checking third party accounts. Sex, celebrity, scandal, and sensationalism sells, now, then, and likely forever...
There's a book floating about that tells the tale of Titanic from contemporary newspaper accounts, and it's sobering how wrong so many of them of were.
Which is what makes me suspicious as hell... you'd think something so widely anticipated as powered, heavier than air flight would have much more widely reported. You'd also suspect that (as happened with the Wright Brothers), when it was widely reported - anywhere from dozens to hundreds of copycats would emerge relatively quickly. The newspapers would then, as they did after the Wright Brothers, report on those as well.
What you wouldn't expect if for it to vanish without a ripple.
They can't be conclusively disproved, no. But only a conspiracy theorist would accept that as 'proof', as they can't conclusively be proven either. That leaves the researcher to turn to other materials - materials noticeably absent in this case. This is why the supporters of this notion had to resort to photo manipulation and 'analysis' of a degree that would make even "Face on Mars" and "We Never Went to the Moon" nutters blush.
There's only something like six shareholders* to explain it to... and really only two of them matter. So, it's not a big deal to explain this 'so small it's lost in the noise' amount of money.
* The GOOG you can buy publicly is second class stock with no ownership, voting, or dividend rights. The first class stock is publicly held in theory, but in reality it's split between Brin and Page and a handful of early investors with Brin and Page owning the bulk of it.
Cite?
Um, no. DST started in 1966.
Reading TFA and googling the machine mentioned, yes it's a 3D printer.
First off, they only have one car model in production - so it's the only car that counts for future income.
But since that lower priced car isn't in production - it's one of the unhatched eggs I spoke of.
Since outside investors aren't under discussion - who cares?
Could you be any more fanboy and less conversant with reality?
As usual, the truth is buried deep in the summary, and even deeper in the article.
Tesla is not paying off the loan early - they're *intending* to pay off the loan early because they *expect* to generate "sufficient cash and profits" to do so.
So far they've (with great effort) managed to get one model into production - but it's selling at a price such that their planned delivery rate cannot possibly generate enough cash. They've got some sidelines, but as above, the production rate is almost certainly insufficient to generate enough cash. Even taken together, the two aren't likely enough.
Let's wait for the chickens to hatch shall we?
All Apollo sites are protected by NASA regulations.
The contest organizers long ago disavowed the goal of visiting a lunar landing site.
Wow... Not only an apple to... God knows what, as "apples to oranges comparison" doesn't even begin to describe the blithering idiocy and ignorance of your reply.
In the first place, a highway is a route connecting two destinations (which these 'ports' do not). Further, the Interstate Highway system was (originally) built for military purposes - commercial use was a distant secondary consideration. (Though it later came to dominate as the highway system became a pork barrel.)
In the second place, yes, there were that many people (and plenty of goods) moving between the states. They moved via land on railroads and existing roads. They moved via water on canals, rivers, lakes, and coastwise shipping. They were even starting to move by air...
You're correct.
By the time you add in enough batteries and the necessary radio equipment - you're looking at considerably more than 300g... and trying to bounce that weight (in earth equivalent) the length of a football field. (Your springs *alone* are going to weight several kg...)
But your scheme won't meet the intent of the rules anyhow.
Yes, they will. There's no wind or water on the moon, so the only erosion processes are thermal expansion/contraction and impacts... both of which are very slooooow processes.
No, it won't. The original landings weren't enough to get people interested in space... so video of the sites won't either.
The contest (Google Lunar X Prize) has actually being underway since 2007... and nobody is particularly close.