There's no point in pushing for an electronic voting machine when optical machines are superior, because they leave a paper trail. Granted higher costs in managing paper ballots are unavoidable, but I prefer that to an electronically rigged election.
Just curious, why do you think so many gummint officials want Snowden dead since only "conspiracy theorists" believe the NSA actually spies on every American citizen?
It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns.
Bullshit. The US rejected a neocon warmonger in 2008, an investment banker in 2012, and the Democrats decided to run a candidate that essentially promised to be the handmaiden of both (among her many other problems). Given a choice of steadily boiling to death, or going full dumbass with a low possibility of a better life, the significant portion of America decided the latter.
The American public would have re-elected Obama for a third term over Trump, if the CotUS had allowed it.
We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level.
Ah yes, so one day we can aspire for the American educational system work as well as VA funded hospital care.
It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.
While I can generally agree with that notion, economic management by the US federal gov't has not gotten to the point where it can equitably redistribute funds to every US citizen. (Thank God.)
Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something
Its not the Commerce Clause that's the problem. (The Commerce Clause is inevitable the moment commercial transactions cross state boundaries.) The problem is the Wickard vs Filburn SCotUS decision, which basically decided the Federal gov't could regulate commerce within the state (violating state sovereignty).
To be pedantic, until recently, watches were useful timepieces. But now everyone carries a cell phone; no one needs to carry a watch to tell time. Watches are now jewelry, and pretty pointless to buy unless you're putting $1K around your wrist.
So we should laud GM instead, for designing and implementing a working electric car, and then shelve it because it didn't make enough money for them? FU h8r.
I'd argue that Pinkerton was too small and not international enough to replace the OSS, State department, or the American war manufacturing industry by the 1940's. Given the great job the Pentagon and State department did during and after the war, I don't think Pinkerton could have even matched that level of vision, on a consultant basis (but I respect the conjecture).
The Shuttle program was a huge waste of money to operate, and its operating existence was solely to blast into orbit components of the ISS (another space program white elephant), and the occasional repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. It was an engineering marvel of the 1970's, and arguably necessary for engineering research, but a total waste of taxpayer's money once it was kept in operation past the Challenger disaster.
However, this sort of statement worries me a lot, especially in the context of the recent AMOS-6 disaster where they lost a rocket on the ground and destroyed the satellite
This happens frequently in the satellite industry. That's why there's rocket payload insurance. There's nothing worth worrying about.
No, it is not if you have to get the construction materials from Earth! Think of the hideous expense of maintaining a Moon base, along with the 3 day wait moving material back and forth using chemical rockets. You could construct a "space factory" in LEO, be under the "protection" of the Earth's magnetosphere, and not require a 3 day wait.
A moon base although not great for colonization can make a good rest stop for deep space travel.
In what way? If you need to send back your mined cargo, you're sending it to Earth, not the Moon. When you want your human miners to return, they're returning to the Earth, not the Moon. If there is some need for a rescue out in deep space, the space company can just put a cargo pod in orbit with machines, fuel, & consumables to be sent to the asteroid, or for the space miners to go to the pod. You don't need a Moonbase to do that. It costs lots of money to make a permanent Moonbase. There also needs to be an economic justification for a Moonbase. You guys are crippled by what you think you know from 1950's science fiction, which believes you need a Moonbase OR a "stepping stone" in order to explore space. You're not looking at the actual engineering facts OR the economics of space exploration.
Lunar colonization makes much more sense as a starting point than Martian colonization,
No, it doesn't. And it won't, until there is something to commercialize on it.
The biggest piece of ignorance which favors Lunar colonization over Mars is the notion that there is a greater energy expense to go to Mars than the Moon. The overwhelming expense comes from leaving the earth. Once in GEO, there is little difference in the amount of thrust needed to go to the Moon or go to Mars. The other flawed notion is that once there is a functioning moonbase, that its easier to resupply or rescue humans from a crisis. It costs money to make available transport back from the Moon, and no space program wants to blow that kind of money for redundant space vehicles. All so a human can stick their thumb up their ass admiring the view, running almost the same kind of experiments which can be done in LEO.
Even if an effort was made to make longterm life sustainable on the Moon, we don't know if there is enough recoverable water on the Moon to make it cost effective to defray the cost of going someplace beyond Earth orbit. To put it as an analogy, instead of sending explorers from Europe to colonize the New World, you want to send them to the Azores or Iceland first, even thought its already been done and there already human settlements, just to somehow improve the possibility of a more successful return of the explorers from the New World.
Moon colonization is a waste of time. Money would be better spent utilizing robot probes along the Moon's surface, merely to investigate if there is something worth mining on it.
His rocket is roughly tied for the worst reliability in the modern launch business, far far behind the leaders like Ariane 5 and Atlas V.
...and his launches are quite more cheaper than those aerospace corporations.
Space-X has to change its entire culture to close the reliability gap with the leaders like ULA and ArianeSpace. They have been riding on a cowboy culture,
And who's going to change ULA & ArianeSpace's culture of pricing rocket services exclusively to nations and multinational megacorporations? Yup, its gonna be companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
For one, this is a proposal to the Apache foundation to take it onto. There is no indication that Oracle has any say in it.
That is a naive statement.
Oracle owns Sun's intellectual property, which includes Java and Netbeans. Netbeans was under some form of Sun license (GPLish?) before Sun was bought out by Oracle. For the Apache foundation to adopt Netbeans, Netbeans code would have to be forked out of Oracle's repository.
"Hostile takeover" is an invalid term when referred to forking. The question is whether Oracle will challenge the fork. Even if Oracle could lose in court over whether Netbeans "could" fork, it takes money to defend oneself in court. Many of Apache's projects are subsidized by Oracle.
There's almost no way any of Sun's intellectual property can be "taken" from Oracle. They just pissed away hundreds(?) of millions of dollars in court against Google over whether Google could use java(tm) in its android products. Before trial even started, that action forced Google to move from dalvik to the ART VM.
So between Oracle threatening to sue Apache foundation, or even threatening to defund Apache foundation, I believe its really unlikely this forking will proceed without the blessing or indifference of Oracle.
I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one.
What is ridiculous is your lack of facility with the written English language. I'd be quite upset if 80% of existing homes were under the thrall of an HOA.
TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.
Communism is your neighbor forcing you to fork over fees, and then ordering you as to what you can or cannot do on your property or they'll seize it. It sounds like you're the one being sensitive about criticism for your fascist/pinko lifestyle choices.
Yeah, this whole bill thing confuses me. Perhaps I shifted here from another multiverse, but from where I came from, any licensed amateur radio operator can put whatever antenna on their property, and when the HOA or town attorney brought you to local court, you flash your amateur license, cite CFR 47 part 97 and The Telecommunications act of 1996, point out that your federally licensed antenna has jurisdiction over the local courts. And then the local court bends over, because they will always lose in federal court.
This bill sounds like the HOA can still deny the antenna, and will limit antennas to registered ARES hams.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no point in pushing for an electronic voting machine when optical machines are superior, because they leave a paper trail. Granted higher costs in managing paper ballots are unavoidable, but I prefer that to an electronically rigged election.
Just curious, why do you think so many gummint officials want Snowden dead since only "conspiracy theorists" believe the NSA actually spies on every American citizen?
I bet Obama would have won by a wider margin.
Stupid sheep consumer.
It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns.
Bullshit. The US rejected a neocon warmonger in 2008, an investment banker in 2012, and the Democrats decided to run a candidate that essentially promised to be the handmaiden of both (among her many other problems). Given a choice of steadily boiling to death, or going full dumbass with a low possibility of a better life, the significant portion of America decided the latter.
The American public would have re-elected Obama for a third term over Trump, if the CotUS had allowed it.
We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level.
Ah yes, so one day we can aspire for the American educational system work as well as VA funded hospital care.
It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.
While I can generally agree with that notion, economic management by the US federal gov't has not gotten to the point where it can equitably redistribute funds to every US citizen. (Thank God.)
Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something
Its not the Commerce Clause that's the problem. (The Commerce Clause is inevitable the moment commercial transactions cross state boundaries.) The problem is the Wickard vs Filburn SCotUS decision, which basically decided the Federal gov't could regulate commerce within the state (violating state sovereignty).
Does anyone want to reminisce about the days of AOL chat rooms?
No, because AOL was for lusers.
Why not go full geek? Run it as a fidonet node, and see if there's a way to digitally transmit packets to another ham operator.
To be pedantic, until recently, watches were useful timepieces. But now everyone carries a cell phone; no one needs to carry a watch to tell time. Watches are now jewelry, and pretty pointless to buy unless you're putting $1K around your wrist.
I don't get the strategy. If the product is crappy, why would people change their minds about its crappiness with a rebranding?
Can't be. Anonymous Coward demonstrates their domination of the title.
Does anyone give a shit what an anonymous coward thinks? Duh......
So we should laud GM instead, for designing and implementing a working electric car, and then shelve it because it didn't make enough money for them? FU h8r.
I'd argue that Pinkerton was too small and not international enough to replace the OSS, State department, or the American war manufacturing industry by the 1940's. Given the great job the Pentagon and State department did during and after the war, I don't think Pinkerton could have even matched that level of vision, on a consultant basis (but I respect the conjecture).
The Shuttle program was a huge waste of money to operate, and its operating existence was solely to blast into orbit components of the ISS (another space program white elephant), and the occasional repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. It was an engineering marvel of the 1970's, and arguably necessary for engineering research, but a total waste of taxpayer's money once it was kept in operation past the Challenger disaster.
However, this sort of statement worries me a lot, especially in the context of the recent AMOS-6 disaster where they lost a rocket on the ground and destroyed the satellite
This happens frequently in the satellite industry. That's why there's rocket payload insurance. There's nothing worth worrying about.
No, it is not if you have to get the construction materials from Earth! Think of the hideous expense of maintaining a Moon base, along with the 3 day wait moving material back and forth using chemical rockets. You could construct a "space factory" in LEO, be under the "protection" of the Earth's magnetosphere, and not require a 3 day wait.
A moon base although not great for colonization can make a good rest stop for deep space travel.
In what way? If you need to send back your mined cargo, you're sending it to Earth, not the Moon. When you want your human miners to return, they're returning to the Earth, not the Moon. If there is some need for a rescue out in deep space, the space company can just put a cargo pod in orbit with machines, fuel, & consumables to be sent to the asteroid, or for the space miners to go to the pod. You don't need a Moonbase to do that. It costs lots of money to make a permanent Moonbase. There also needs to be an economic justification for a Moonbase. You guys are crippled by what you think you know from 1950's science fiction, which believes you need a Moonbase OR a "stepping stone" in order to explore space. You're not looking at the actual engineering facts OR the economics of space exploration.
Lunar colonization makes much more sense as a starting point than Martian colonization,
No, it doesn't. And it won't, until there is something to commercialize on it.
The biggest piece of ignorance which favors Lunar colonization over Mars is the notion that there is a greater energy expense to go to Mars than the Moon. The overwhelming expense comes from leaving the earth. Once in GEO, there is little difference in the amount of thrust needed to go to the Moon or go to Mars. The other flawed notion is that once there is a functioning moonbase, that its easier to resupply or rescue humans from a crisis. It costs money to make available transport back from the Moon, and no space program wants to blow that kind of money for redundant space vehicles. All so a human can stick their thumb up their ass admiring the view, running almost the same kind of experiments which can be done in LEO.
Even if an effort was made to make longterm life sustainable on the Moon, we don't know if there is enough recoverable water on the Moon to make it cost effective to defray the cost of going someplace beyond Earth orbit. To put it as an analogy, instead of sending explorers from Europe to colonize the New World, you want to send them to the Azores or Iceland first, even thought its already been done and there already human settlements, just to somehow improve the possibility of a more successful return of the explorers from the New World.
Moon colonization is a waste of time. Money would be better spent utilizing robot probes along the Moon's surface, merely to investigate if there is something worth mining on it.
His rocket is roughly tied for the worst reliability in the modern launch business, far far behind the leaders like Ariane 5 and Atlas V.
...and his launches are quite more cheaper than those aerospace corporations.
Space-X has to change its entire culture to close the reliability gap with the leaders like ULA and ArianeSpace. They have been riding on a cowboy culture,
And who's going to change ULA & ArianeSpace's culture of pricing rocket services exclusively to nations and multinational megacorporations? Yup, its gonna be companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
For one, this is a proposal to the Apache foundation to take it onto. There is no indication that Oracle has any say in it.
That is a naive statement.
Oracle owns Sun's intellectual property, which includes Java and Netbeans. Netbeans was under some form of Sun license (GPLish?) before Sun was bought out by Oracle. For the Apache foundation to adopt Netbeans, Netbeans code would have to be forked out of Oracle's repository.
"Hostile takeover" is an invalid term when referred to forking. The question is whether Oracle will challenge the fork. Even if Oracle could lose in court over whether Netbeans "could" fork, it takes money to defend oneself in court. Many of Apache's projects are subsidized by Oracle.
There's almost no way any of Sun's intellectual property can be "taken" from Oracle. They just pissed away hundreds(?) of millions of dollars in court against Google over whether Google could use java(tm) in its android products. Before trial even started, that action forced Google to move from dalvik to the ART VM.
So between Oracle threatening to sue Apache foundation, or even threatening to defund Apache foundation, I believe its really unlikely this forking will proceed without the blessing or indifference of Oracle.
Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime.
Of course the PotUS can pardon him without Snowden having a conviction. Nixon wasn't even charged with a crime before Ford pardoned him.
I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one.
What is ridiculous is your lack of facility with the written English language. I'd be quite upset if 80% of existing homes were under the thrall of an HOA.
TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.
Communism is your neighbor forcing you to fork over fees, and then ordering you as to what you can or cannot do on your property or they'll seize it. It sounds like you're the one being sensitive about criticism for your fascist/pinko lifestyle choices.
Yeah, this whole bill thing confuses me. Perhaps I shifted here from another multiverse, but from where I came from, any licensed amateur radio operator can put whatever antenna on their property, and when the HOA or town attorney brought you to local court, you flash your amateur license, cite CFR 47 part 97 and The Telecommunications act of 1996, point out that your federally licensed antenna has jurisdiction over the local courts. And then the local court bends over, because they will always lose in federal court.
This bill sounds like the HOA can still deny the antenna, and will limit antennas to registered ARES hams.