What they both stand for is taking vast sums of money from special interest groups and ignoring the needs of their constituents. That's what makes them both the same. Obviously they're both taking money from different people, very few can afford to back both horses.
Yep, environment, children, economy management, racism. They're all battle cries for big government. Nevermind the fact that Libertarians are in favor of civil lawsuits against companies that poison the environment (assuming that poisoning actually causes any harm, if it doesn't then you have no right to restrict me, animals do not have rights). Children have absolutely no place in society. Don't get me started on that. Most monopolies are granted by governments, in which case the government has a duty to break up that monopoly, and then immediately get the hell out of the way. If the monopoly was gained legitimately and without the aid of coercion (aided by government or not) then the government should butt out. As for racism, it's a strange and complex phenomona.. no-one knows what the best action is to thwart it. Maybe government involvement is necessary. But whatever government involvement is justifiable in society it is not a blank cheque to tyranny.
False. Clearly and absolutely. If I reverse engineer KFC and create a receipe I am free as the wind to publish that receipe, sell it to others or even set up my own chicken selling franchise. Same goes for Coca Cola. On the other hand, if I reverse engineer software I am creating a "derivative work" and their copyright still applies. Patents make it even worse.
We were talking about the US, how can it not be US-centric? There is literally no hope of a third party ever winning in the US. Your choice is Bob or Bob.
Things are getting worse, not better, and they have always been doing so. As for your rant about OS/2, copyright doesn't make sense, it's not supposed to, they can put any restrictions they want on you and if you don't follow it you are breaking the law. Not that this has anything to do with morals and that's what you should have told your patronising friend.
We do believe in laws. We just don't believe in passing laws to restrict freedom. In a nutshell, the Libertarian point of view is: Get out of my way and I'll get out of yours. I should be free to do anything I want, so long as I'm not hindering anyone else from doing the same.
Not that voting for a Libertarian is going to help you. He who has the biggest campaign budget wins the election. If you're not "on the take" you can't possibly beat the people who are. Therefore anyone who is in office is there because they've accepted bribes. End of story.
You infulance politics by talking to your friends and family about the importance of your beliefs. If you belive something and you convice some people, it might not be much but eventually the congressmen start to feel the pressue to take other positions.
What pressure? The fear of losing to the other guy at the next election? That other guy stands for the exact same thing as them. You, as a voter, have essentially two choices: vote for corporate america, or throw your vote away. Because that's what you do when you vote for a minor party or an independant. The system has been gamed, and the only way to beat the game is to change the system. Unfortunately the game is over. You lose.
Jesus, people continue to pirate receipes every day and the law does absolutely nothing about it. It only takes mediocre cooking skills to follow a receipe, which means people who would otherwise need to engage the services of professional chefs are capable of producing meals that are comparable to restaurant quality. No wonder chefs are so poor! If they had some legal protection they could continue to advance the culinary arts without giving up their livelihood. Stop home kitchens now! It's not like software is any more complex than a cooking receipe, and programmers get legal protection for their works.
Peaceful protest no longer works. Violent protest no longer works. A military coup won't work. So what's left? Campaign contributions. The only way to influence politics is with money. Therefore the people who influence politics to get money are the ones who will be able to influence politics the most with money. No, the only way to get out of the copyright mess we are in now is to educate the public. At present they still have the right to choose to use works that are freely licensed over works that are not. When the public stops paying the copyright cartel their political influence will fade and then maybe we'll have a brief chance to get rid of these crazy laws.
It's got nothing to do with materials! We have the materials to build all sorts of tether based space access systems. It's all about where the pork will go. As such, about the only company that has a chance of building anything involving tethers is Boeing with their HASTOL concept.
By your definition nothing is perminate. Therefore it is a pointless word. I prefer to make use of words rather than just grunt and snarl to get my point across. Therefore I will continue using the word perminate to refer to any amount of time that is significantly larger than usual, ok? It's not like you can complain.. it's not like I'm saying 'permanent' is it?
Wrong. They're boosted into a "perminate" parking orbit. These guys do good work and they're one of the few companies making a shot at space services and actually making any money. All spacecraft need balast, it might as well be something people are willing to pay to send up.
Oh wait, no-one actually implements the full standard because it is completely disconnected from reality and outside the scope of the committee that drafted it.
You get to choose what "science" you do. Why not do lunar or asteroid surveying? Using the result of this science to mine is precisely the kind of thing corporations would pay to do. This make the fundamental science valuable and getting industry grants or charging for access to the detailed results of this science is a lot easier all of a sudden.
Let's call it the Cheap Space Access Subsidy Act. We don't need a space elevator or some new technology to get cheap access to space. Sure, these technologies would be a boon but we don't need to get the government involved in their construction, and if we do we probably end up paying 100x as much for it. The only level of involvement that government needs to play in bootstrapping access to space is a subsidy. Sam Dinkin proposes a ten-year, $150-billion federal subsidy. With upcoming American commercial launchers like the Falcon V expected to offer service at $2,600/kg, a $1,500/kg subsidy would at least double the amount of stuff being launched into space up to a limit of ten million kilograms a year. After ten years the industry that has sprung up to offer services to people who want to claim the subsidy will have so much momentum they won't need the subsidy to halve the cost of their service. Ten years after that and we'll see the costs halve again, and so on. Something like a space elevator will become commercially viable when it's the only way to undercut the competition.
Now all we have to do is get some congress criters to endorse it.
Re:Why does there always need to be a justificatio
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Yah. More please. Virgin Galactic? Get up there already. Elon Musk, Steve Bozzos? We're routin' for ya guys, get those payload boosters up to human safety levels and strap on a space ship. John Carmack? Dude, you show so much promise, good luck, and I hope you make it.
Oh, and before anyone replies to this post saying that SpaceShipOne isn't scalable.. who the hell says you have to have a powered ascent to orbit? There are alternatives to rockets.
No-one wants to pay for you to spec out the project and no-one has a spec. So no matter what you produce for them it won't be what they want, or you will be vastly underpaid. There's a certain limit to project size where doing consulting becomes non-profitable. Unless, of course, you can find someone who is willing to pay for you to sit on the phone (cause I doubt you'll be going into their office or meeting in person) and nut out exactly what it is they want.
Bah. If the major companies had been free to make a five seater air-to-orbit single-stage orbital rocket plane and not forced to keep increasing the size of the cargo bay we'd already have a next gen vehicle. NASA fucks up everything because they are forced to bend to the whims of politicians. It's really not hard, you use dumb boosters (or a space elevator!) to lift up cargo. You use advanced winged orbital craft to lift up crew. You don't combine the two. Why? Because re-usable single-stage-to-orbit rocket planes are more reliable and more expensive, making them the perfect tool for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
What they both stand for is taking vast sums of money from special interest groups and ignoring the needs of their constituents. That's what makes them both the same. Obviously they're both taking money from different people, very few can afford to back both horses.
Yep, environment, children, economy management, racism. They're all battle cries for big government. Nevermind the fact that Libertarians are in favor of civil lawsuits against companies that poison the environment (assuming that poisoning actually causes any harm, if it doesn't then you have no right to restrict me, animals do not have rights). Children have absolutely no place in society. Don't get me started on that. Most monopolies are granted by governments, in which case the government has a duty to break up that monopoly, and then immediately get the hell out of the way. If the monopoly was gained legitimately and without the aid of coercion (aided by government or not) then the government should butt out. As for racism, it's a strange and complex phenomona.. no-one knows what the best action is to thwart it. Maybe government involvement is necessary. But whatever government involvement is justifiable in society it is not a blank cheque to tyranny.
False. Clearly and absolutely. If I reverse engineer KFC and create a receipe I am free as the wind to publish that receipe, sell it to others or even set up my own chicken selling franchise. Same goes for Coca Cola. On the other hand, if I reverse engineer software I am creating a "derivative work" and their copyright still applies. Patents make it even worse.
We were talking about the US, how can it not be US-centric? There is literally no hope of a third party ever winning in the US. Your choice is Bob or Bob.
Things are getting worse, not better, and they have always been doing so. As for your rant about OS/2, copyright doesn't make sense, it's not supposed to, they can put any restrictions they want on you and if you don't follow it you are breaking the law. Not that this has anything to do with morals and that's what you should have told your patronising friend.
We do believe in laws. We just don't believe in passing laws to restrict freedom. In a nutshell, the Libertarian point of view is: Get out of my way and I'll get out of yours. I should be free to do anything I want, so long as I'm not hindering anyone else from doing the same.
Not that voting for a Libertarian is going to help you. He who has the biggest campaign budget wins the election. If you're not "on the take" you can't possibly beat the people who are. Therefore anyone who is in office is there because they've accepted bribes. End of story.
Don't worry. When they finally reach a 1.0 milestone you can be sure they'll offer a cafe press CD.
You infulance politics by talking to your friends and family about the importance of your beliefs. If you belive something and you convice some people, it might not be much but eventually the congressmen start to feel the pressue to take other positions.
What pressure? The fear of losing to the other guy at the next election? That other guy stands for the exact same thing as them. You, as a voter, have essentially two choices: vote for corporate america, or throw your vote away. Because that's what you do when you vote for a minor party or an independant. The system has been gamed, and the only way to beat the game is to change the system. Unfortunately the game is over. You lose.
Jesus, people continue to pirate receipes every day and the law does absolutely nothing about it. It only takes mediocre cooking skills to follow a receipe, which means people who would otherwise need to engage the services of professional chefs are capable of producing meals that are comparable to restaurant quality. No wonder chefs are so poor! If they had some legal protection they could continue to advance the culinary arts without giving up their livelihood. Stop home kitchens now! It's not like software is any more complex than a cooking receipe, and programmers get legal protection for their works.
It's popular, unfortunately the developers are anal retentive about IP.. oh, and all the art is proprietory.
Peaceful protest no longer works. Violent protest no longer works. A military coup won't work. So what's left? Campaign contributions. The only way to influence politics is with money. Therefore the people who influence politics to get money are the ones who will be able to influence politics the most with money. No, the only way to get out of the copyright mess we are in now is to educate the public. At present they still have the right to choose to use works that are freely licensed over works that are not. When the public stops paying the copyright cartel their political influence will fade and then maybe we'll have a brief chance to get rid of these crazy laws.
You won't find many Libertarians in favour of Patents or Copyright law. Thanks for villianising us.
It's got nothing to do with materials! We have the materials to build all sorts of tether based space access systems. It's all about where the pork will go. As such, about the only company that has a chance of building anything involving tethers is Boeing with their HASTOL concept.
Because there are limited resources on earth and unlimited resources in space. Isn't it obvious?
By your definition nothing is perminate. Therefore it is a pointless word. I prefer to make use of words rather than just grunt and snarl to get my point across. Therefore I will continue using the word perminate to refer to any amount of time that is significantly larger than usual, ok? It's not like you can complain.. it's not like I'm saying 'permanent' is it?
uhhh, 50 to 100 years is perminate. I suppose you think Copyrights are for "limited time" too.
Wrong. They're boosted into a "perminate" parking orbit. These guys do good work and they're one of the few companies making a shot at space services and actually making any money. All spacecraft need balast, it might as well be something people are willing to pay to send up.
Oh wait, no-one actually implements the full standard because it is completely disconnected from reality and outside the scope of the committee that drafted it.
Let's all hear it for the C89 standard!
That's better.
You get to choose what "science" you do. Why not do lunar or asteroid surveying? Using the result of this science to mine is precisely the kind of thing corporations would pay to do. This make the fundamental science valuable and getting industry grants or charging for access to the detailed results of this science is a lot easier all of a sudden.
Let's call it the Cheap Space Access Subsidy Act. We don't need a space elevator or some new technology to get cheap access to space. Sure, these technologies would be a boon but we don't need to get the government involved in their construction, and if we do we probably end up paying 100x as much for it. The only level of involvement that government needs to play in bootstrapping access to space is a subsidy. Sam Dinkin proposes a ten-year, $150-billion federal subsidy. With upcoming American commercial launchers like the Falcon V expected to offer service at $2,600/kg, a $1,500/kg subsidy would at least double the amount of stuff being launched into space up to a limit of ten million kilograms a year. After ten years the industry that has sprung up to offer services to people who want to claim the subsidy will have so much momentum they won't need the subsidy to halve the cost of their service. Ten years after that and we'll see the costs halve again, and so on. Something like a space elevator will become commercially viable when it's the only way to undercut the competition.
Now all we have to do is get some congress criters to endorse it.
Yah. More please. Virgin Galactic? Get up there already. Elon Musk, Steve Bozzos? We're routin' for ya guys, get those payload boosters up to human safety levels and strap on a space ship. John Carmack? Dude, you show so much promise, good luck, and I hope you make it.
Oh, and before anyone replies to this post saying that SpaceShipOne isn't scalable.. who the hell says you have to have a powered ascent to orbit? There are alternatives to rockets.
No-one wants to pay for you to spec out the project and no-one has a spec. So no matter what you produce for them it won't be what they want, or you will be vastly underpaid. There's a certain limit to project size where doing consulting becomes non-profitable. Unless, of course, you can find someone who is willing to pay for you to sit on the phone (cause I doubt you'll be going into their office or meeting in person) and nut out exactly what it is they want.
Would appear they're getting flamed for not being open source any, not for demanding that they get paid.
Bah. If the major companies had been free to make a five seater air-to-orbit single-stage orbital rocket plane and not forced to keep increasing the size of the cargo bay we'd already have a next gen vehicle. NASA fucks up everything because they are forced to bend to the whims of politicians. It's really not hard, you use dumb boosters (or a space elevator!) to lift up cargo. You use advanced winged orbital craft to lift up crew. You don't combine the two. Why? Because re-usable single-stage-to-orbit rocket planes are more reliable and more expensive, making them the perfect tool for the job.
And I have plans to do it with two chicks at the same time one day, doesn't mean it's gunna happen.