All this policy would require would be that the REAL cost of fossil fuels be paid.
The problem is - there is no 'real' cost to be levied. The 'real' costs so beloved of the greens isn't determined by accounting - they are instead a collection of wishful thinking, assumptions, biases, and a general desire to punish anyone who uses fossil fuels.
The GP didn't suggest pricing pollution credits by fiat, but by actual cost to mitigate.
Which assumes we know the actual cost to mitigate. We don't.
It's named after the Pfaff (pronounced "faff" with a long 'a') family who settled in the area in the late 1700's, it's a German name.
If you zoom out, you'll note the street I used as an example is in NC, not PA. (The area that is now Winston-Salem/Forsyth County was settled by Germans who migrated from Pennsylvania though.)
Having actually made maps (assisting my father who did it for a living), my U$.02:
If it were a driveway, why would the city/county have given it a name?
Because somebody stuck it on a map (who shouldn't have) and a functionary or bureaucrat gave it a name because streets must have names. Or, the street was platted and named sometime in the misty past but never actually built (as a public street). Or the street was originally a track between fields or forest blocks, and given a name for convenience - but when the area was converted to housing the streets platted then didn't actually follow those old roads, which were quietly forgotten except for this tiny stub. Or nearby is the rest of the road, but for whatever reason a segment of it was skipped when they actually built out the roads. Or the area was replatted and someone forgot to erase this little segment of a road that was never actually built because its route disappeared in the replatting. Etc... Etc...
All of these things do happen.
Take a look at this map for example. "Bunting Lane" has been on these maps since they started appearing online in the mid 90's. "Bunting Lane" doesn't exist, at least as of two years ago when I last got a chance to actually look. (I lived on one of those roads in high school, and was out visiting a friend in the area and checking out our old neighborhoods.)
Those are low-resolution photos of someone's driveway. Fume all your want, the outside of your house is not legally private. You may get upset by me standing on a public road and gawking at it for the whole day, but there is not anything you can do about that
The difference is that if I see a stranger in my neighborhood hanging about, I'm going to remember it. If something happens shortly after that in the neighborhood, I'm going to give the cops a description of the stranger and (if I saw it) a description of his automobile (and if he's acting really strange and I see the car, I'll note the license number). I don't go out of my way to watch, but I do pay attention coming in and out of the neighborhood, when I go out to check my mail or water my plants etc...
But about someone 'casing the joint' via Street View, I can do nothing. And that bothers me. (But unlike the stereotypical Slashdotter living in his parent's basement, I actually own a house and care about my neighbors.)
I've seen pictures of forum member's houses where you can see things a would be thief would love to get their hands on just because they had their garage door open at the time google drove bye.
Indeed. A thief could StreetView up my street and note the houses that have RV's - then drive up it on a Saturday and note absent RV's. Guess which houses are very likely to have owners that aren't at home?
Google has the option of removing the pictures... it is a courtesy. They are doing this as a service to the public with (IMHO) no ill will. So just ask for your pics to be removed and move on... really who would have found the pictures before they made all this stink?
You (and the parent, and the grandparent) are missing the point, the road in question is on private property - Google's van should never have been on that road in the first place. Google offering to remove the pictures is akin to a burglar freely offering to return stolen goods.
If NASA followed von Braun's strategy, by now we would have a permanent moon base already. Instead NASA went for a big-bang project
Um, no. NASA was ordered to do the big bang project by the Kennedy and subsequent Administrations. NASA originally planned to go to the moon possibly sometime in the 70's, maybe.
after initial success, scaled it down very quickly
Um, no. Of the landing sequence NASA planned (through Apollo 20), two flights (what would have been 15 and 19) were cut in 1967 and the the third (what would have been 17) in early 1969 - before any landings had occurred.
There are no gaps in the as-flown sequence because NASA renumbered the remaining missions. The cuts occurred as long lead items were being procured and before any serious mission planning was done.
and abandoned everything for a flawed plan and left us with a shuttle which would truck stuff to nowhere.
Um, no. When asked for a post-Apollo roadmap and budget, despite the steep budget cuts of 1967-69, NASA asked for the whole [expensive] ball of wax - a Shuttle, a Station, and serious seed money for a permanent lunar base and a Mars expedition. When the Administration made it clear to NASA just how limited their budget was going to be, they made the only natural choice - to ask for funding for the first step of Von Braun Vision, a shuttle. (The grandparent has the shuttle-station order reversed.) NASA has remained hopeful essentially ever since that the blank check years would return - a misbegotten pipe dream that continually badly warped NASA planning.
It surprises many people to learn that the basic contracts for the Shuttle were signed on July 21, 1969 - while Apollo 11 was on the moon, the death warrant for the Apollo program had already been signed (Saturn V production having been capped two years previously by Congress) and its successor was being born.
Yeah. Never mind the fact that asteroids are typically tumbling, don't come equipped with docking system, and don't provide a nice homing beacon and control assistance.
It seems like all Hollywood does these days is re-cover movies they've already made (which were generally adaptations of books in the first place).
Where have you been for the last 75 years? This isn't new, or news, or insightful. Hollywood has been doing the repeat/remake/exploit thing since about the time the third movie was filmed there.
More optimistically, I hope that their algorithms could predict the 4 or 5 "wild"- fires in Southern California which are all started mysteriously(on the same day) "in season."
The algorithms aren't designed to predict disasters, but to manage the response to disasters in progress. (Which isn't actually very easy.)
At least Half (if not all) of the military's equipment has VERY explicit instructions written on it, to the point that if you had not been trained in its use, you could pick it up on the battlefield and make it work in a few minutes.
Exactly none of the equipment I worked with or saw while I was in the Navy had such instructions. Hell, explicit instructions on how to operate my fire control system would have covered the entire exterior of the submarine as well as one moored outboard of us.
Take the AT-4 for example, if you follow the attached link and click on detailed instructions, you will see what is printed on the launch tube. In the other photos, you can see the instructions, but you can not make out the words.
There isn't a link that says detailed instructions - there is a link title 'operating instructions' however.
That being said, those instructions are good enough to get something headed downrange and maybe hit a target... which is a hell of a lot better than nothing, but not equal to the potential performance of a trained soldier. For example, the 'instructions' don't tell you how to adjust and use the sights. Nor does the 'instructions' cover important safety precautions like 'make sure nobody is behind you for a considerable distance', etc... etc...
the thirty second warning is little better than "duck and cover" if it cannot be communicated effectively.
Except that "duck and cover" can be fairly useful, and it is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Insofar as earthquakes go, thirty seconds warning could get me out out of this room, filled with bookcases and other missile hazards, and into a small hallway that's nothing but doorways (and thus extremely strong and safer in a quake).
Yeah, tell a bunch of hackers to make up a new OS as good as anything commercial and it'll never happen. Or it just might and they'll cal it Linux. Give them something to do, and I have a reasonable expectation that they could accomplish it, even if big and distributed.
ROTFLMAO. You honestly think an OS is the equivalent of the projects the OP listed? All I can say is you are seriously deluded.
If anything your 'explanation' demonstrates how little you understand the problem domain of collecting the required statistics (the census is far more than mere counting) across a large population spread across and enormous amount of land. Even if you do restrict it to just counting - comparing a few random counties still doesn't cut the mustard due to the incredible variability between US counties.
Etc... etc...
"Lame ass uniformed handwaving" != "an explanation of how it could be done cheaper".
Well -they were afraid when they detonated the first above ground nuke as well -thought they might torch the atmosphere, but they did it anyway
No, they didn't just do it 'anyway'. They sat a panel of physicists down and analyzed the situation and determined that it couldn't happen. I've seen a copy of their report floating around on the web, but cannot locate it at the moment.
Ah, yes. And the Air Force and NASA are never wrong are they? After all, NASA declared the Shuttle an operational vehicle. And to replace the expensive Shuttle the Air Force built one of the only two launchers we've ever built that were more expensive than the Shuttle.
Of course, you omit the fact the one of the two Bigelow orbiters has had problems - problems Bigelow hasn't discussed much in public. You are also ignorant of the fact that scaling up is not exactly simple. Etc... etc...
Or do you only listen to facts and spin and shit you've made up completely without understanding what you talking about when they agree with your biases?
From speaking with Jeff over the years and from numerous public comments. And I shouldn't have to point out that the EZ-Rocket is a technology demonstrator and that the Rocket Racer is being built under contract. Yes, Xerus/Lynx has been discussed vague terms over the years - but as either a demonstrator or something they'd be willing to build with someone else footing the bill like the Racer. *Not* as a production item being built on spec.
Slashdotters in general aren't familiar with the ins-and-outs of the alt.space industry, so they can be forgiven for having missed the biggest part of this story...
XCOR in the past has publicly and repeatedly maintained that they had no desire whatsoever to be in the vehicle business. They wanted to be in the systems and components business. This announcement is a major change in strategic direction - and hints that possibly all is not well inside the alt.space industry.
What I am waiting to see is Virgin to decide to talk to Bigelow.
Unlikely to happen - as the investment in an orbital craft will be an order of magnitude or larger than that required for the suborbital one. Not to mention the fact that Virgin tends to follow loudly (making you think they are leading) rather than actually leading.
What I am waiting to see is Virgin to decide to talk to Bigelow. In fact, I would be surprised if he has not talked to both Spacex AND bigelow.
Why? SpaceX has neither booster nor capsule. Bigelow doesn't have anything to really show. Booster, capsule, orbiting hotel - all vaporware or just barely this side of it. (Yeah, yeah - there's been low fidelity demo's of the first and the last on that list. But demos aren't operational. They're barely prototypes.)
Huh? Are you saying that the Four Pests Campaign and the Three Gorges dam project didn't actually happen? Or that modern history doesn't support the assertion that the Chinese have an appalling environmental record?
Nope. I'm merely objecting to a wordy and pointless method of saying what he did.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is - there is no 'real' cost to be levied. The 'real' costs so beloved of the greens isn't determined by accounting - they are instead a collection of wishful thinking, assumptions, biases, and a general desire to punish anyone who uses fossil fuels.
Which assumes we know the actual cost to mitigate. We don't.
An Incredibles sequel is noticeable by it's absence. :(
It's named after the Pfaff (pronounced "faff" with a long 'a') family who settled in the area in the late 1700's, it's a German name.
If you zoom out, you'll note the street I used as an example is in NC, not PA. (The area that is now Winston-Salem/Forsyth County was settled by Germans who migrated from Pennsylvania though.)
Because somebody stuck it on a map (who shouldn't have) and a functionary or bureaucrat gave it a name because streets must have names. Or, the street was platted and named sometime in the misty past but never actually built (as a public street). Or the street was originally a track between fields or forest blocks, and given a name for convenience - but when the area was converted to housing the streets platted then didn't actually follow those old roads, which were quietly forgotten except for this tiny stub. Or nearby is the rest of the road, but for whatever reason a segment of it was skipped when they actually built out the roads. Or the area was replatted and someone forgot to erase this little segment of a road that was never actually built because its route disappeared in the replatting. Etc... Etc...
All of these things do happen.
Take a look at this map for example. "Bunting Lane" has been on these maps since they started appearing online in the mid 90's. "Bunting Lane" doesn't exist, at least as of two years ago when I last got a chance to actually look. (I lived on one of those roads in high school, and was out visiting a friend in the area and checking out our old neighborhoods.)
The difference is that if I see a stranger in my neighborhood hanging about, I'm going to remember it. If something happens shortly after that in the neighborhood, I'm going to give the cops a description of the stranger and (if I saw it) a description of his automobile (and if he's acting really strange and I see the car, I'll note the license number). I don't go out of my way to watch, but I do pay attention coming in and out of the neighborhood, when I go out to check my mail or water my plants etc...
But about someone 'casing the joint' via Street View, I can do nothing. And that bothers me. (But unlike the stereotypical Slashdotter living in his parent's basement, I actually own a house and care about my neighbors.)
Indeed. A thief could StreetView up my street and note the houses that have RV's - then drive up it on a Saturday and note absent RV's. Guess which houses are very likely to have owners that aren't at home?
You (and the parent, and the grandparent) are missing the point, the road in question is on private property - Google's van should never have been on that road in the first place. Google offering to remove the pictures is akin to a burglar freely offering to return stolen goods.
Um, no. NASA was ordered to do the big bang project by the Kennedy and subsequent Administrations. NASA originally planned to go to the moon possibly sometime in the 70's, maybe.
Um, no. Of the landing sequence NASA planned (through Apollo 20), two flights (what would have been 15 and 19) were cut in 1967 and the the third (what would have been 17) in early 1969 - before any landings had occurred.
There are no gaps in the as-flown sequence because NASA renumbered the remaining missions. The cuts occurred as long lead items were being procured and before any serious mission planning was done.
Um, no. When asked for a post-Apollo roadmap and budget, despite the steep budget cuts of 1967-69, NASA asked for the whole [expensive] ball of wax - a Shuttle, a Station, and serious seed money for a permanent lunar base and a Mars expedition. When the Administration made it clear to NASA just how limited their budget was going to be, they made the only natural choice - to ask for funding for the first step of Von Braun Vision, a shuttle. (The grandparent has the shuttle-station order reversed.) NASA has remained hopeful essentially ever since that the blank check years would return - a misbegotten pipe dream that continually badly warped NASA planning.
It surprises many people to learn that the basic contracts for the Shuttle were signed on July 21, 1969 - while Apollo 11 was on the moon, the death warrant for the Apollo program had already been signed (Saturn V production having been capped two years previously by Congress) and its successor was being born.
Yeah. Never mind the fact that asteroids are typically tumbling, don't come equipped with docking system, and don't provide a nice homing beacon and control assistance.
Oh, I know that. I was just trying to break the news of how ignorant the OP was gently.
Where have you been for the last 75 years? This isn't new, or news, or insightful. Hollywood has been doing the repeat/remake/exploit thing since about the time the third movie was filmed there.
The algorithms aren't designed to predict disasters, but to manage the response to disasters in progress. (Which isn't actually very easy.)
Fishy? Not really - as it's astoundingly close to the actual name of the command.
Exactly none of the equipment I worked with or saw while I was in the Navy had such instructions. Hell, explicit instructions on how to operate my fire control system would have covered the entire exterior of the submarine as well as one moored outboard of us.
There isn't a link that says detailed instructions - there is a link title 'operating instructions' however.
That being said, those instructions are good enough to get something headed downrange and maybe hit a target... which is a hell of a lot better than nothing, but not equal to the potential performance of a trained soldier. For example, the 'instructions' don't tell you how to adjust and use the sights. Nor does the 'instructions' cover important safety precautions like 'make sure nobody is behind you for a considerable distance', etc... etc...
As realistic and practical as any other replacement for chemical rockets... That is to say, neither realistic or practical.
Except that "duck and cover" can be fairly useful, and it is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Insofar as earthquakes go, thirty seconds warning could get me out out of this room, filled with bookcases and other missile hazards, and into a small hallway that's nothing but doorways (and thus extremely strong and safer in a quake).
ROTFLMAO. You honestly think an OS is the equivalent of the projects the OP listed? All I can say is you are seriously deluded.
If anything your 'explanation' demonstrates how little you understand the problem domain of collecting the required statistics (the census is far more than mere counting) across a large population spread across and enormous amount of land. Even if you do restrict it to just counting - comparing a few random counties still doesn't cut the mustard due to the incredible variability between US counties.
Etc... etc...
"Lame ass uniformed handwaving" != "an explanation of how it could be done cheaper".
No, they didn't just do it 'anyway'. They sat a panel of physicists down and analyzed the situation and determined that it couldn't happen. I've seen a copy of their report floating around on the web, but cannot locate it at the moment.
Ah, yes. And the Air Force and NASA are never wrong are they? After all, NASA declared the Shuttle an operational vehicle. And to replace the expensive Shuttle the Air Force built one of the only two launchers we've ever built that were more expensive than the Shuttle.
Of course, you omit the fact the one of the two Bigelow orbiters has had problems - problems Bigelow hasn't discussed much in public. You are also ignorant of the fact that scaling up is not exactly simple. Etc... etc...
Or do you only listen to facts and spin and shit you've made up completely without understanding what you talking about when they agree with your biases?
From speaking with Jeff over the years and from numerous public comments. And I shouldn't have to point out that the EZ-Rocket is a technology demonstrator and that the Rocket Racer is being built under contract. Yes, Xerus/Lynx has been discussed vague terms over the years - but as either a demonstrator or something they'd be willing to build with someone else footing the bill like the Racer. *Not* as a production item being built on spec.
Whether I have or have not done those things, or whether I or do not give him credit, doesn't change their nature one bit.
Slashdotters in general aren't familiar with the ins-and-outs of the alt.space industry, so they can be forgiven for having missed the biggest part of this story...
XCOR in the past has publicly and repeatedly maintained that they had no desire whatsoever to be in the vehicle business. They wanted to be in the systems and components business. This announcement is a major change in strategic direction - and hints that possibly all is not well inside the alt.space industry.
Unlikely to happen - as the investment in an orbital craft will be an order of magnitude or larger than that required for the suborbital one. Not to mention the fact that Virgin tends to follow loudly (making you think they are leading) rather than actually leading.
Why? SpaceX has neither booster nor capsule. Bigelow doesn't have anything to really show. Booster, capsule, orbiting hotel - all vaporware or just barely this side of it. (Yeah, yeah - there's been low fidelity demo's of the first and the last on that list. But demos aren't operational. They're barely prototypes.)
Nope. I'm merely objecting to a wordy and pointless method of saying what he did.