Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count.
There are other forms of political expression, besides voting. If no one on the ballot represents me, then my voice will not count whether I vote or not.
One could make the same argument about Bush...
Definitely. Do you think I'm a Republican or something? (Hint: Republicans vote.)
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress.
Yes, the same argument can be made for Congress too. Therefore, I propose that people in Congress vote their conscience, rather than trying to slavishly adhere to a non-existent electoral mandate, based on who won the other offices.
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't.
You do realize that there are other forms of political expression available besides voting, right? Many people who do not vote are rather vocal about their reasons, especially if you ask them...
The Concorde program was way too expensive to actually pay for itself, though - it required huge government subsidies.
So, if this startup can really build something with 30% greater fuel efficiency, much cheaper ticket prices, and that actually turns a profit (on development and operations) in the process, that will be a great leap forward in the technology.
On top of that, they're also claiming that it will be substantially quieter (although that might just be because it's smaller) and a little bit faster (which makes it that much harder to achieve good fuel efficiency).
Standard high-bypass turbofans are very fuel efficient (effective specific impulse 6000s - 9000s) - but they don't work at all at Mach 2+.
This design must be using either low-bypass turbofans (3000s-4500s), or turbojets (about 2000s - 3000s). If they need afterburners to maintain cruise (as most supersonic designs do), that will reduce fuel efficiency even further (1600s - 2500s).
The longer trans-Pacific routes are already at the limits of what a subsonic high-bypass plane can do while carrying a large payload, so don't expect any supersonic transport to be able to compete there, with engines that are 2-4x less fuel efficient.
(Note for anyone tempted to rebut with quotes about the Concorde engine's "high efficiency": that's thermodynamic efficiency, not practical fuel efficiency. The relationship between the two is complicated for jet engines.)
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
I believe you're right that UBI cannot end well, but I do wonder what the alternatives are if automation really takes off.
I suppose that everyone could eventually be employed in the entertainment (in the broadest possible sense of the word) industry in some fashion, but I'm sure that such a total focus on emotional and intellectual hedonism wouldn't turn out all that much better than the physical hedonism you're concerned about.
Based on this (not conjecture), my experience is that giving many people an allowance gives them one less reason to stay off drink and drugs.
I'm pretty sure that if you did a poll, you would find that support for UBI is strongly correlated with support for the blanket legalization of mind-altering drugs, and vice-versa.
Randomness is an elegant explanation for the properties of QM, taken in isolation, but the sum of human knowledge, as a whole, points in a very different direction.
We know that the physical is not all that there is, because there are many things which have no physical substance to them, and yet exist and play a major role in our day-to-day lives.
How is it that our words have meaning, and that we can perceive it? How is it that you are experiencing this conversation?
A mere sack of chemicals might indeed respond to the stimulation of the ears by stimulating the muscles of the mouth to produce complex sounds with complex mathematical correlations between the two. But, I'm not just a Chinese room; I am a living, thinking, feeling being who experiences life in a way that physics knows nothing about.
I cannot prove (to myself) that you are not just a sophisticated simulation of a human being, but I know that I am the real thing and have an immaterial soul:
"I think, therefore I am."
This is proof positive that physical law (as it is understood today) is an incomplete description of reality: we know that there is something more; the question is, what?
The mystery deepens when we take a step back and ask the question, "How can I know, or prove, anything?"
In order to reason, we must first assume that the fundamental laws of logic are valid, and that we have the faculties required to apply them with some accuracy. But, this appears to be an unfounded assumption: where did it come from? Why do we trust logic so much that it makes us angry when others are illogical?
People will often respond to this, "They've always worked for me in the past." This is circular reasoning, though - how did you conclude that they worked for you in the past? How do you know that the future will resemble the past? By the laws of logic.
Mankind's innate grasp and love of logic are a precious gift from our creator:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..." Romans 2:14-15
God has written His law upon the hearts of all men and women, and a prominent feature of that law is this: "You shall not bear false witness." (To understand and obey this law necessitates some grasp of logic; otherwise "false" becomes meaningless.)
It is because of this universal law written upon our hearts, that you expect your opponent in a debate to be affected by your use (or abuse) of logic. You expect others to be ashamed when they are illogical or lie; if this were not so debate and rational argument would be a pointless exercise in all contexts.
We cannot ultimately know anything by ourselves, because no finite logical system can ever be proven to be correct, consistent, and complete by itself. An infinite regress is required, according to the likes of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
And yet, mankind does know things: you know that it is wrong to lie. (Otherwise, why are you arguing with me?) This seed of innate knowledge - upon which all other human knowledge must rest - is itself given to us by the eternal, infinite, transcendent God of the Christian Bible who is all-wise, all-knowing, and unchanging.
But we are naturally inclined to deny this, because the same innate knowledge exposes our corrupt and sinful condition:
We know that it is wrong to lie, but we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to be quick to anger or hatred and seek revenge, but sometimes we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to commit adultery or other acts of sexu
Democracy, by attempting to average together the will of the people, practically guarantees a bad outcome. Other systems leave at least the possibility that someone with better intentions and more wisdom than average will rise to the top.
Regardless, my main point was simply that people should seek truth and goodness directly, rather than deliberately trying to be a "centrist". "Extremist" should not be a dirty word, because truth is extreme: 2 + 2 is exactly 4. No more, and no less.
The real problem is not top-down, but bottom-up. As such, the solution must be bottom-up, as well.
So why are you posting here rather than fighting a guerilla war to stop this super-Holocaust?
If I fought, you would call me a murderer and a terrorist. Since I don't fight, you call me a hypocrite.
I do not fight, because in this present age, my Lord has commissioned His Church as ambassadors of peace, not soldiers of vengeance. He set this example for us on the night He was betrayed by Judas:
"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Matthew 26:51-54
He came in peace, in order that He might give His life for the forgiveness and conversion of rebellious men.
But, one day soon His gracious terms of surrender will expire, and He will return in war to avenge all of the innocent blood shed by the rebellious nations of the Earth:
"Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength?
I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth." Isaiah 63:1-6
The Earth is like a city under seige, surrounded by an army of overwhelming power and numbers. Don't mistake God's long-suffering offer of peace for weakness.
But at least you don't have to worry about anyone "cheapening their blood" any worse than you already do, since that's simply not possible.
This is nothing but vacuous bile. I am pleading for their lives; you have called them "worthless [...] clubs".
So are you claiming that drug abuse and sexual perversion have resulted in an orderly society?
Our society is not orderly; you have simply redefined order and chaos to suite your lusts. America's sins are not hidden from God.
Which is unfortunate, since in fact they don't need your approval. And now that the world has seen that, it won't forget.
Of course the world doesn't need my approval - it needs God's. The world has learned that it "doesn't need" His approval many times before.
"They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.
For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.
This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah." Psalm 49:6-13
America has shed rivers of blood throughout living memory. Look at the mess the nation has made in the Middle East for a prominent example of the military's role in this.
Even worse, America has slaughtered over 50,000,000 unwanted babies in the past few decades, often in the most brutal fashions imaginable. They have justified this to themselves by declaring the victims to be sub-human, exactly as the Nazis did with many of their victims. (Please don't cheapen their blood by quoting Godwin's Law to me.)
orderly
Countless souls have been ruined by drug abuse and wanton sexual perversion.
Just a couple of months ago, a crowd of about a thousand men celebrated the New Year by going on a rampage in Germany, committing numerous acts of violence and sexual assault against whoever they could get their hands on in a few hours. They were Muslim invaders (welcomed by the government in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism), but similar things have been done by citizens of the West at many rock concerts over the years.
The glorification of the very real culture of murderous, drug-dealing, racketeering, pimping gangs in America's inner cities is a popular theme in the media. There are many neighbourhoods in European cities where the police fear to tread, because of Islamist insurrection.
good places to live on the planet. The rest of the world agrees, and in fact both the US and Europe complain about the seemingly endless rivers of immigrants voting with their feet about where they'd rather live.
People want to move here because of:
1) MONEY. The fact that the West is rich is no proof of moral superiority, though.
2) The freedom to do and say whatever they want. This is not a good thing though, because "people in general are stupid and evil". Children who are never told "No!" grow up to be spoiled brats. Nations that reject self-control shed rivers of blood, and become servants of Evil, exporting their corruption to other parts of the world.
3) They think the West is safer. In reality, the West simply murders different groups of people than many others places do. Indeed, many of those fleeing to the West are fleeing from the wars, merciless dictators, and out-of-control drug abuse that the West imposes by force upon the rest of the world!
I don't know if the West is ultimately worse than the rest of the world - but we certainly have nothing to boast about. Most of our happy statistics are simply achieved by not counting the victims, or by moving the goal posts - calling evil good, or skirting around the really important issues.
Except even in the ones that claim to hold that value... fail
No matter what people claim to believe, you never have to look too hard to find hypocrites. That doesn't change the fact that the rates of divorce, pregnancy outside of wedlock, and - worst of all - murder of unwanted babies have sky-rocketed since the "sexual revolution".
they're right. It's how you impact others that matters.
This is an utterly nonsensical statement. It's not even possible to be "right" in any meaningful sense of the word, unless "right" and "wrong" are true and meaningful concepts.
As to "how you impact others" - how can this "matter" in the absence of an absolute standard of good and evil? YOU are the hypocrite here, having the audacity to judge others for the "crime" of believing in judgement.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and bright in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20-21
The very concept that it is wrong to lie, or be hypocritical, is borrowed by your kind from God's moral law; you cannot justify such a standard from your own twisted, self-contradictory beliefs.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them." Romans 1:18-32
Repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ; He can set you free from the empty lusts that have deceived you and enslaved you. He willingly shed His blood to save some of the very same people who mocked Him and tormented Him while He died on the cross - people like you. Three days later He rose from the grave - not as a zombie, as some blasphemously claim, but ALIVE.
"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for that food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you. For God the Father sealed Him." John 6:27
Nations with Free Speech are uniquely resistant to some forms of destructive propaganda, because ridiculous ideas can be exposed to the light of criticism.
To some, yes - but not to all!
There are many ideas which are objectively evil and destructive, and yet (when marketed by skilled artists of one sort or another) appeal so powerfully to common lusts that no amount of mere criticism will dissuade people from participating.
For example, unrestrained sexual promiscuity spreads all kinds of horrible venereal diseases, which would be largely absent in a society that committed to stable marriages, instead. (Actually, it has even worse consequences; I point to the issue of disease simply because it is not controversial.) Most everyone knows this intellectually, but the sensual music, pornographic imagery, and egotistical religious ideas which have saturated our society have fuelled massive epidemics like AIDS, anyway.
There are some very influential religious groups active in Western society which openly teach that good and evil, right and wrong are all just an illusion, a lie holding humanity back from achieving its full potential. Many of them even go so far as to advocate the deliberate pursuit of evil, supposedly as a means of expressing their "freedom" from morality and conscience.
In America, at least, most of those now living have been inundated with this subversive philosophy by the music and movie industries since they were small children. This may be done openly, as by Marilyn Manson (a self-professed Satanist) or more subtly, as in Hollywood's frequent Gnostic propaganda films like Pleasantville. Either way, though, the effects are real and have radically changed American beliefs, morals, and attitudes in just a few decades.
To suppose that there is no connection between such massive, wilful propaganda efforts and the on-going social disintegration of America is extremely foolish. Indeed, the vanguard of the media itself has, from time to time, publicly mocked those who believe its self-serving lies downplaying its destructive influence.
Perhaps. However, people in general (whether the system is democratic or not) are also easily led and manipulated by the propaganda and indoctrination of the same kind of people who "fight their way to the top" in dictatorships.
Democracies are uniquely vulnerable to destructive propaganda, because our strong protections for freedom of expression leave even the best government powerless to defend the culture from corruption, no matter how sickeningly evil the invading message.
In both America and most of Europe, there is a (literally) insanely high tolerance for the open preaching of murder, suicide, rebellion, sexual perversion, and even deliberate worship of Evil. The Paris terror attacks are one recent (relatively minor) example of the consequences of this brain-falling-out open-mindedness, but there are many others that are just as bad which have taken a deeper root.
I am not attempting to suggest that QM, alone, proves that there is a God. I do believe that it can be proven - to any reasonable standard - that there is a God, but doing so requires discussing a much wider range of even-more-off-topic issues.
As to the many worlds hypothesis - I agree that it is mathematically consistent with QM, but claiming that it is actually true is not reasonable. Justifying this claim on my part calls for the same long, off-topic discussion as proving that there is a God (and we all know it).
My points above were simply that:
1) QM does not require randomness.
2) The reason that scientists often make it sound like it does, is because this best suits their deistic/atheistic world view, as it is furthest from the truth.
I expect anyone who does a modicum of research into QM to agree with me about #1.
I offer #2 as an explanation for the confusion over #1, but don't expect anyone to agree with me without first having a long discussion about the larger moral, philosophical, and scientific context for these issues.
This is off topic, and not a defence of anything that Einstein said, but...
"God does not play at dice"
Contrary to what most lay-people believe, quantum mechanics (QM) in no way requires that there be any random element to physics, or the universe in general.
What leads people to claim QM is "random", is the fact that QM cannot be consistent with all of the following popular beliefs simultaneously:
1) All physical laws are fully deterministic (non-random).
2) All macro phenomena (with the possible exception of man's free will) are merely emergent consequences of basic physical law; the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
3) The future cannot be known by any means, other than predicting it by extrapolating from the present state of the physical universe.
4) If man has free will (in the strongest sense of that term), then any aspect of the future which depends upon his choices cannot be predicted with certainty before hand.
5) If there is a God, His approach to running the universe is basically hands-off: He established physical law, started things in motion, and then stood back to watch and see what would happen.
Most physicists have chosen to reconcile QM with their belief system by dropping #1. This is philosophically galling to people like Einstein, because it implies that science will never be able to completely describe or predict the behaviour of the universe. (Of course, there are many non-QM reasons that humanity's knowledge must remain incomplete, as well; for example, Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)
Ultimately QM is really just a statistical description of how sub-atomic particles behave; it does not answer the question of why they behave that way. Unless it leads to a prediction which can be tested experimentally, interpreting the significance of these statistics is the domain of philosophy, not science. Even among secular scientists, many different interpretations have been proposed; the "randomness" type (in all its many variations) is just the most popular at the moment.
The pretence (when communicating with the general public) that QM requires randomness is because the science community is predominantly deistic or atheistic, and thus uncomfortable with the grander cosmic order that is implied by any deterministic interpretation. Go too far down that road, and you might begin to suspect that there is a grand Organizer...
In contrast, the Bible plainly denies #2, #3, #4, and #5. Physical laws are not self-enforcing, but are, rather, enforced by God who is all-knowing, eternal (outside of time), and enjoys a perfect attention to detail - including the hearts of men and women.
"For all things were created by Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17
"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our LORD, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." Psalms 147:4-5
"For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Hebrews 4:12-13
Mathematically, QM is fully consistent with either randomness, or with a hands-on God who knows the future because he controls it. Most modern scientists simply pretend that randomness is the only possible ex
nominate a politically-centrist judge whose judicial qualifications are impeccable.
My summary of Western politics:
Party A: 2 + 2 = 6
Party B: No! 2 + 2 = 38
Centrists: The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Let's not be extremists about this. A reasonable compromise: 2 + 2 = 22
Democracy is stupid, because people in general are stupid and evil. Allowing not just the system as a whole, but even your own beliefs to be determined by the nonsensical average of a divided majority is even stupider.
Servo is being written to be provably memory correct and thread safe.
While I think it is true that Rust is a major step forward in this area, Servo is emphatically not "provably correct" - it just encapsulates the unverified stuff in "unsafe" blocks. Yes, this matters in practice: the first Ariane 5 rocket launch failed catastrophically because Ada's default protection against numerical overflow had been manually disabled in a critical piece of code.
Also, since the "proof" system (the Rust language standard and compiler) has not itself been proven correct, even "safe" code is not "proven" to really be safe. Yes, this matters in practice: for years, the Java standard library (among many others) contained a "formally verified" sorting algorithm that would fail due to integer overflow, because the formal verification had been performed without giving consideration to overflow.
No one in the world today has the tools necessary to prove any program correct on real non-trivial hardware, because the execution environment is too complex and buggy to model fully and correctly. Formal "proofs" are, in practice, just another means of finding some problems that were missed by other methods of quality assurance.
Of course they're taking business from other players - but that's not the question. The question is if they're making new business that otherwise wouldn't be there. Thusfar, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.
But, the potential is there in the future if they can keep bringing down costs, as they're hoping.
Again, economics 101 - they have already brought costs down across the industry, and the burden is on you to prove that demand for satellite launch services is completely inelastic in this price range. Otherwise, the OP's claim of "more space junk" cannot be reasonably rejected.
If it were anyone else, I would be a bit skeptical...
My main point was that JoshuaZ is correct that "The technical problems with this are immense." That doesn't mean it could never, ever work - but it does mean that this statement is completely wrong: "There's no reason electric planes can't also have twice the performance, and a quarter of the range of planes, now."
There are good reasons it can't be done with current technology (for large, high speed planes like Musk was talking about). If this changes, it will be because of one or more major technical breakthroughs.
Tripling battery density would make it viable on shorter flights, perhaps even cost effective.
Even if you succeed in solving the recharging problem, there is simply no significant advantage to using pure-battery power, to make up for the massive disadvantages. (Hybrid systems like the Terrafugia TF-X could make sense, though.)
If you want an alternative to fossil fuels for full-sized passenger and cargo planes, synthetic fuels are a far more sensible direction to explore.
Math (or research?) fail. What I wrote squares 100% with that:
New York to London is 5570 km. This is one third of a 777-200LR's max range, BUT that was the goal I set for "a miraculous all-electric plane that was 100% battery by weight".
If a physically impossible 100% battery plane can't go even a third of the range, then a realistic 50% battery plane certainly cannot go a quarter of the range.
As to the 600 mph part (approximately the normal cruise speed of a jet liner) - the OP said "twice the performance" and the article suggests a supersonic battery-powered airplane, which would require even more power just to break the sound barrier.
Arianespace and United Launch Alliance have both basically announced that they're replacing their current launch vehicles specifically to be more competitive with SpaceX (although perhaps not in so many words). Clearly, SpaceX is having a real impact.
It may not be a world-changing impact, but all the OP said was, "more space junk!" Even the Kessler syndrome allusion is not that unreasonable, considering that some people think we may have already crossed the point of no return.
Slashdot Mirror
The counterpoint to your statistics is "I am fine with either candidate, so I simply will not voice an opinion by voting."
Great! Then those people should be fine with whatever Congress decides to do - even if Congress decides not to approve Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
You don't get to lend voice to those that don't speak, the same as I don't.
I'm not "lending a voice" - I am a voice. I don't vote (for the office of President, at least), and yet here I am speaking.
It's almost as though voting were not the only possible form of political expression... But of course that's just crazy talk.
Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count.
There are other forms of political expression, besides voting. If no one on the ballot represents me, then my voice will not count whether I vote or not.
One could make the same argument about Bush...
Definitely. Do you think I'm a Republican or something? (Hint: Republicans vote.)
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress.
Yes, the same argument can be made for Congress too. Therefore, I propose that people in Congress vote their conscience, rather than trying to slavishly adhere to a non-existent electoral mandate, based on who won the other offices.
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't.
You do realize that there are other forms of political expression available besides voting, right? Many people who do not vote are rather vocal about their reasons, especially if you ask them...
The Concorde program was way too expensive to actually pay for itself, though - it required huge government subsidies.
So, if this startup can really build something with 30% greater fuel efficiency, much cheaper ticket prices, and that actually turns a profit (on development and operations) in the process, that will be a great leap forward in the technology.
On top of that, they're also claiming that it will be substantially quieter (although that might just be because it's smaller) and a little bit faster (which makes it that much harder to achieve good fuel efficiency).
Yes. Range is a big problem.
Standard high-bypass turbofans are very fuel efficient (effective specific impulse 6000s - 9000s) - but they don't work at all at Mach 2+.
This design must be using either low-bypass turbofans (3000s-4500s), or turbojets (about 2000s - 3000s). If they need afterburners to maintain cruise (as most supersonic designs do), that will reduce fuel efficiency even further (1600s - 2500s).
The longer trans-Pacific routes are already at the limits of what a subsonic high-bypass plane can do while carrying a large payload, so don't expect any supersonic transport to be able to compete there, with engines that are 2-4x less fuel efficient.
(Note for anyone tempted to rebut with quotes about the Concorde engine's "high efficiency": that's thermodynamic efficiency, not practical fuel efficiency. The relationship between the two is complicated for jet engines.)
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
I believe you're right that UBI cannot end well, but I do wonder what the alternatives are if automation really takes off.
I suppose that everyone could eventually be employed in the entertainment (in the broadest possible sense of the word) industry in some fashion, but I'm sure that such a total focus on emotional and intellectual hedonism wouldn't turn out all that much better than the physical hedonism you're concerned about.
Based on this (not conjecture), my experience is that giving many people an allowance gives them one less reason to stay off drink and drugs.
I'm pretty sure that if you did a poll, you would find that support for UBI is strongly correlated with support for the blanket legalization of mind-altering drugs, and vice-versa.
Randomness is an elegant explanation for the properties of QM, taken in isolation, but the sum of human knowledge, as a whole, points in a very different direction.
We know that the physical is not all that there is, because there are many things which have no physical substance to them, and yet exist and play a major role in our day-to-day lives.
How is it that our words have meaning, and that we can perceive it? How is it that you are experiencing this conversation?
A mere sack of chemicals might indeed respond to the stimulation of the ears by stimulating the muscles of the mouth to produce complex sounds with complex mathematical correlations between the two. But, I'm not just a Chinese room; I am a living, thinking, feeling being who experiences life in a way that physics knows nothing about.
I cannot prove (to myself) that you are not just a sophisticated simulation of a human being, but I know that I am the real thing and have an immaterial soul:
"I think, therefore I am."
This is proof positive that physical law (as it is understood today) is an incomplete description of reality: we know that there is something more; the question is, what?
The mystery deepens when we take a step back and ask the question, "How can I know, or prove, anything?"
In order to reason, we must first assume that the fundamental laws of logic are valid, and that we have the faculties required to apply them with some accuracy. But, this appears to be an unfounded assumption: where did it come from? Why do we trust logic so much that it makes us angry when others are illogical?
People will often respond to this, "They've always worked for me in the past." This is circular reasoning, though - how did you conclude that they worked for you in the past? How do you know that the future will resemble the past? By the laws of logic.
Mankind's innate grasp and love of logic are a precious gift from our creator:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..." Romans 2:14-15
God has written His law upon the hearts of all men and women, and a prominent feature of that law is this: "You shall not bear false witness." (To understand and obey this law necessitates some grasp of logic; otherwise "false" becomes meaningless.)
It is because of this universal law written upon our hearts, that you expect your opponent in a debate to be affected by your use (or abuse) of logic. You expect others to be ashamed when they are illogical or lie; if this were not so debate and rational argument would be a pointless exercise in all contexts.
We cannot ultimately know anything by ourselves, because no finite logical system can ever be proven to be correct, consistent, and complete by itself. An infinite regress is required, according to the likes of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
And yet, mankind does know things: you know that it is wrong to lie. (Otherwise, why are you arguing with me?) This seed of innate knowledge - upon which all other human knowledge must rest - is itself given to us by the eternal, infinite, transcendent God of the Christian Bible who is all-wise, all-knowing, and unchanging.
But we are naturally inclined to deny this, because the same innate knowledge exposes our corrupt and sinful condition:
We know that it is wrong to lie, but we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to be quick to anger or hatred and seek revenge, but sometimes we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to commit adultery or other acts of sexu
I almost agree with you - except for one thing.
Democracy, by attempting to average together the will of the people, practically guarantees a bad outcome. Other systems leave at least the possibility that someone with better intentions and more wisdom than average will rise to the top.
Regardless, my main point was simply that people should seek truth and goodness directly, rather than deliberately trying to be a "centrist". "Extremist" should not be a dirty word, because truth is extreme: 2 + 2 is exactly 4. No more, and no less.
The real problem is not top-down, but bottom-up. As such, the solution must be bottom-up, as well.
So why are you posting here rather than fighting a guerilla war to stop this super-Holocaust?
If I fought, you would call me a murderer and a terrorist. Since I don't fight, you call me a hypocrite.
I do not fight, because in this present age, my Lord has commissioned His Church as ambassadors of peace, not soldiers of vengeance. He set this example for us on the night He was betrayed by Judas:
"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Matthew 26:51-54
He came in peace, in order that He might give His life for the forgiveness and conversion of rebellious men.
But, one day soon His gracious terms of surrender will expire, and He will return in war to avenge all of the innocent blood shed by the rebellious nations of the Earth:
"Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength?
I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth." Isaiah 63:1-6
The Earth is like a city under seige, surrounded by an army of overwhelming power and numbers. Don't mistake God's long-suffering offer of peace for weakness.
But at least you don't have to worry about anyone "cheapening their blood" any worse than you already do, since that's simply not possible.
This is nothing but vacuous bile. I am pleading for their lives; you have called them "worthless [...] clubs".
So are you claiming that drug abuse and sexual perversion have resulted in an orderly society?
Our society is not orderly; you have simply redefined order and chaos to suite your lusts. America's sins are not hidden from God.
Which is unfortunate, since in fact they don't need your approval. And now that the world has seen that, it won't forget.
Of course the world doesn't need my approval - it needs God's. The world has learned that it "doesn't need" His approval many times before.
"They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.
For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.
This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah." Psalm 49:6-13
Your kind fought, and did all
peaceful
America has shed rivers of blood throughout living memory. Look at the mess the nation has made in the Middle East for a prominent example of the military's role in this.
Even worse, America has slaughtered over 50,000,000 unwanted babies in the past few decades, often in the most brutal fashions imaginable. They have justified this to themselves by declaring the victims to be sub-human, exactly as the Nazis did with many of their victims. (Please don't cheapen their blood by quoting Godwin's Law to me.)
orderly
Countless souls have been ruined by drug abuse and wanton sexual perversion.
Just a couple of months ago, a crowd of about a thousand men celebrated the New Year by going on a rampage in Germany, committing numerous acts of violence and sexual assault against whoever they could get their hands on in a few hours. They were Muslim invaders (welcomed by the government in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism), but similar things have been done by citizens of the West at many rock concerts over the years.
The glorification of the very real culture of murderous, drug-dealing, racketeering, pimping gangs in America's inner cities is a popular theme in the media. There are many neighbourhoods in European cities where the police fear to tread, because of Islamist insurrection.
good places to live on the planet. The rest of the world agrees, and in fact both the US and Europe complain about the seemingly endless rivers of immigrants voting with their feet about where they'd rather live.
People want to move here because of:
1) MONEY. The fact that the West is rich is no proof of moral superiority, though.
2) The freedom to do and say whatever they want. This is not a good thing though, because "people in general are stupid and evil". Children who are never told "No!" grow up to be spoiled brats. Nations that reject self-control shed rivers of blood, and become servants of Evil, exporting their corruption to other parts of the world.
3) They think the West is safer. In reality, the West simply murders different groups of people than many others places do. Indeed, many of those fleeing to the West are fleeing from the wars, merciless dictators, and out-of-control drug abuse that the West imposes by force upon the rest of the world!
I don't know if the West is ultimately worse than the rest of the world - but we certainly have nothing to boast about. Most of our happy statistics are simply achieved by not counting the victims, or by moving the goal posts - calling evil good, or skirting around the really important issues.
Except even in the ones that claim to hold that value... fail
No matter what people claim to believe, you never have to look too hard to find hypocrites. That doesn't change the fact that the rates of divorce, pregnancy outside of wedlock, and - worst of all - murder of unwanted babies have sky-rocketed since the "sexual revolution".
they're right. It's how you impact others that matters.
This is an utterly nonsensical statement. It's not even possible to be "right" in any meaningful sense of the word, unless "right" and "wrong" are true and meaningful concepts.
As to "how you impact others" - how can this "matter" in the absence of an absolute standard of good and evil? YOU are the hypocrite here, having the audacity to judge others for the "crime" of believing in judgement.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and bright in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20-21
The very concept that it is wrong to lie, or be hypocritical, is borrowed by your kind from God's moral law; you cannot justify such a standard from your own twisted, self-contradictory beliefs.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them." Romans 1:18-32
Repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ; He can set you free from the empty lusts that have deceived you and enslaved you. He willingly shed His blood to save some of the very same people who mocked Him and tormented Him while He died on the cross - people like you. Three days later He rose from the grave - not as a zombie, as some blasphemously claim, but ALIVE.
"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for that food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you. For God the Father sealed Him." John 6:27
Not only that, but also just because someone is informed, doesn't mean they actually want what's best for the country.
Give it time. They'll go back and fix those inconsistencies soon; they just need to sear America's collective conscience a little more first.
Nations with Free Speech are uniquely resistant to some forms of destructive propaganda, because ridiculous ideas can be exposed to the light of criticism.
To some, yes - but not to all!
There are many ideas which are objectively evil and destructive, and yet (when marketed by skilled artists of one sort or another) appeal so powerfully to common lusts that no amount of mere criticism will dissuade people from participating.
For example, unrestrained sexual promiscuity spreads all kinds of horrible venereal diseases, which would be largely absent in a society that committed to stable marriages, instead. (Actually, it has even worse consequences; I point to the issue of disease simply because it is not controversial.) Most everyone knows this intellectually, but the sensual music, pornographic imagery, and egotistical religious ideas which have saturated our society have fuelled massive epidemics like AIDS, anyway.
There are some very influential religious groups active in Western society which openly teach that good and evil, right and wrong are all just an illusion, a lie holding humanity back from achieving its full potential. Many of them even go so far as to advocate the deliberate pursuit of evil, supposedly as a means of expressing their "freedom" from morality and conscience.
In America, at least, most of those now living have been inundated with this subversive philosophy by the music and movie industries since they were small children. This may be done openly, as by Marilyn Manson (a self-professed Satanist) or more subtly, as in Hollywood's frequent Gnostic propaganda films like Pleasantville. Either way, though, the effects are real and have radically changed American beliefs, morals, and attitudes in just a few decades.
To suppose that there is no connection between such massive, wilful propaganda efforts and the on-going social disintegration of America is extremely foolish. Indeed, the vanguard of the media itself has, from time to time, publicly mocked those who believe its self-serving lies downplaying its destructive influence.
Perhaps. However, people in general (whether the system is democratic or not) are also easily led and manipulated by the propaganda and indoctrination of the same kind of people who "fight their way to the top" in dictatorships.
Democracies are uniquely vulnerable to destructive propaganda, because our strong protections for freedom of expression leave even the best government powerless to defend the culture from corruption, no matter how sickeningly evil the invading message.
In both America and most of Europe, there is a (literally) insanely high tolerance for the open preaching of murder, suicide, rebellion, sexual perversion, and even deliberate worship of Evil. The Paris terror attacks are one recent (relatively minor) example of the consequences of this brain-falling-out open-mindedness, but there are many others that are just as bad which have taken a deeper root.
No, that is covered in the link I offered: " many different interpretations have been proposed ".
I am not attempting to suggest that QM, alone, proves that there is a God. I do believe that it can be proven - to any reasonable standard - that there is a God, but doing so requires discussing a much wider range of even-more-off-topic issues.
As to the many worlds hypothesis - I agree that it is mathematically consistent with QM, but claiming that it is actually true is not reasonable. Justifying this claim on my part calls for the same long, off-topic discussion as proving that there is a God (and we all know it).
My points above were simply that:
1) QM does not require randomness.
2) The reason that scientists often make it sound like it does, is because this best suits their deistic/atheistic world view, as it is furthest from the truth.
I expect anyone who does a modicum of research into QM to agree with me about #1.
I offer #2 as an explanation for the confusion over #1, but don't expect anyone to agree with me without first having a long discussion about the larger moral, philosophical, and scientific context for these issues.
This is off topic, and not a defence of anything that Einstein said, but...
"God does not play at dice"
Contrary to what most lay-people believe, quantum mechanics (QM) in no way requires that there be any random element to physics, or the universe in general.
What leads people to claim QM is "random", is the fact that QM cannot be consistent with all of the following popular beliefs simultaneously:
1) All physical laws are fully deterministic (non-random).
2) All macro phenomena (with the possible exception of man's free will) are merely emergent consequences of basic physical law; the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
3) The future cannot be known by any means, other than predicting it by extrapolating from the present state of the physical universe.
4) If man has free will (in the strongest sense of that term), then any aspect of the future which depends upon his choices cannot be predicted with certainty before hand.
5) If there is a God, His approach to running the universe is basically hands-off: He established physical law, started things in motion, and then stood back to watch and see what would happen.
Most physicists have chosen to reconcile QM with their belief system by dropping #1. This is philosophically galling to people like Einstein, because it implies that science will never be able to completely describe or predict the behaviour of the universe. (Of course, there are many non-QM reasons that humanity's knowledge must remain incomplete, as well; for example, Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)
Ultimately QM is really just a statistical description of how sub-atomic particles behave; it does not answer the question of why they behave that way. Unless it leads to a prediction which can be tested experimentally, interpreting the significance of these statistics is the domain of philosophy, not science. Even among secular scientists, many different interpretations have been proposed; the "randomness" type (in all its many variations) is just the most popular at the moment.
The pretence (when communicating with the general public) that QM requires randomness is because the science community is predominantly deistic or atheistic, and thus uncomfortable with the grander cosmic order that is implied by any deterministic interpretation. Go too far down that road, and you might begin to suspect that there is a grand Organizer...
In contrast, the Bible plainly denies #2, #3, #4, and #5. Physical laws are not self-enforcing, but are, rather, enforced by God who is all-knowing, eternal (outside of time), and enjoys a perfect attention to detail - including the hearts of men and women.
"For all things were created by Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17
"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our LORD, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." Psalms 147:4-5
"For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Hebrews 4:12-13
Mathematically, QM is fully consistent with either randomness, or with a hands-on God who knows the future because he controls it. Most modern scientists simply pretend that randomness is the only possible ex
nominate a politically-centrist judge whose judicial qualifications are impeccable.
My summary of Western politics:
Party A: 2 + 2 = 6
Party B: No! 2 + 2 = 38
Centrists: The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Let's not be extremists about this. A reasonable compromise: 2 + 2 = 22
Democracy is stupid, because people in general are stupid and evil. Allowing not just the system as a whole, but even your own beliefs to be determined by the nonsensical average of a divided majority is even stupider.
Servo is being written to be provably memory correct and thread safe.
While I think it is true that Rust is a major step forward in this area, Servo is emphatically not "provably correct" - it just encapsulates the unverified stuff in "unsafe" blocks. Yes, this matters in practice: the first Ariane 5 rocket launch failed catastrophically because Ada's default protection against numerical overflow had been manually disabled in a critical piece of code.
Also, since the "proof" system (the Rust language standard and compiler) has not itself been proven correct, even "safe" code is not "proven" to really be safe. Yes, this matters in practice: for years, the Java standard library (among many others) contained a "formally verified" sorting algorithm that would fail due to integer overflow, because the formal verification had been performed without giving consideration to overflow.
No one in the world today has the tools necessary to prove any program correct on real non-trivial hardware, because the execution environment is too complex and buggy to model fully and correctly. Formal "proofs" are, in practice, just another means of finding some problems that were missed by other methods of quality assurance.
Of course they're taking business from other players - but that's not the question. The question is if they're making new business that otherwise wouldn't be there. Thusfar, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.
But, the potential is there in the future if they can keep bringing down costs, as they're hoping.
Again, economics 101 - they have already brought costs down across the industry, and the burden is on you to prove that demand for satellite launch services is completely inelastic in this price range. Otherwise, the OP's claim of "more space junk" cannot be reasonably rejected.
If it were anyone else, I would be a bit skeptical...
My main point was that JoshuaZ is correct that "The technical problems with this are immense." That doesn't mean it could never, ever work - but it does mean that this statement is completely wrong: "There's no reason electric planes can't also have twice the performance, and a quarter of the range of planes, now."
There are good reasons it can't be done with current technology (for large, high speed planes like Musk was talking about). If this changes, it will be because of one or more major technical breakthroughs.
Tripling battery density would make it viable on shorter flights, perhaps even cost effective.
No, it wouldn't. Recharging will be very expensive and hard to do safely.
Even if you succeed in solving the recharging problem, there is simply no significant advantage to using pure-battery power, to make up for the massive disadvantages. (Hybrid systems like the Terrafugia TF-X could make sense, though.)
If you want an alternative to fossil fuels for full-sized passenger and cargo planes, synthetic fuels are a far more sensible direction to explore.
He said:
and a quarter of the range of planes
You said:
600 mph across the Atlantic Ocean
Reading comprehension fail.
Math (or research?) fail. What I wrote squares 100% with that:
New York to London is 5570 km. This is one third of a 777-200LR's max range, BUT that was the goal I set for "a miraculous all-electric plane that was 100% battery by weight".
If a physically impossible 100% battery plane can't go even a third of the range, then a realistic 50% battery plane certainly cannot go a quarter of the range.
As to the 600 mph part (approximately the normal cruise speed of a jet liner) - the OP said "twice the performance" and the article suggests a supersonic battery-powered airplane, which would require even more power just to break the sound barrier.
Arianespace and United Launch Alliance have both basically announced that they're replacing their current launch vehicles specifically to be more competitive with SpaceX (although perhaps not in so many words). Clearly, SpaceX is having a real impact.
It may not be a world-changing impact, but all the OP said was, "more space junk!" Even the Kessler syndrome allusion is not that unreasonable, considering that some people think we may have already crossed the point of no return.
(particularly if you consider ISIS a state actor, rather than a marauding horde)
Why not both?