Uh, you don't need to hop on a freighter to cross the Atlantic, there are still scheduled passenger liners plying the Atlantic routes, and a crossing can take as little as three days in decent luxury.
But don't the standard access modifiers (public, protected, private and unmodified) already accomplish that...?
Set your class to public, but your class variables to private and they cant be called by anything other than code in the class itself... if you want to set defaults and sanity check values, you create getters and setters...
Cutting out those first 35,000ft cuts down significantly on the air density, meaning less drag on the booster, meaning less propellant needed etc etc etc.
The fear is that, because of robots and AI, there will not be enough jobs to go around to give most people a living wage, on which a tax can be levied so we can support those without jobs as well.
How is that *any* different to any of the other times civilisation has come across this problem in its several tens of thousands of years on this planet?
All taxation has a downside - many people propose a "wealth tax" as a way to fix most of those issues, but then you run into situations where the "wealth" is virtual and not liquid.
Here in the UK we have a local tax intended to fund local and regional councils - the "council tax", which you get billed for once a year. Its based on your property - the more expensive the property, the larger your tax bill.
The problem is that the tax bands largely haven't changed for more than a couple of decades - meanwhile house prices have risen dramatically in that period of time.
My parents went from paying tax on a £45,000 house in 2000 to paying tax on a £210,000 house in 2015 - but my parents income hadn't changed in that time, and infact due to inflation it had devalued in real terms.
So people say "set lower limits" - ok, where should the limits be?
You could buy your council owned property under "Right to Buy" government schemes in the 1980s for ~ £20,000. Some of those properties in London now touch £1million because of the area of London they are in. Those people don't have the liquidity to pay council tax on a £1million property, they probably still have the mortgage they took out on the £20,000 purchase price!
You can: - work - for an employer, as a director of a company or be self-employed - change jobs without telling the Home Office - do voluntary work - travel abroad and return to the UK - bring family members with you
You can’t:
- get public funds - work as a doctor or dentist in training - work as a professional sportsperson or sports coach
The foreign national is the sole applicant and the holder of the visa, its not restricted to a single employer and the employer has no say in the application.
The *failure* wasnt a fault of the outsourcing - the problematic *recovery* almost certainly is a fault of the outsourcing. His statement doesnt cover both of those...
Its not so much about incompetent staff, its about the loss of institutional knowledge when you outsource.
The company built up a large internal IT team for a reason - the IT problems of an airline are complex and convoluted (airlines often cant actually predict what price your ticket is going to be because of the complexity in the ticketing and fare based systems... and that complexity has snuck in over the 60 years of the boom in commercial aviation).
When you then get rid of that internal IT team, a huge sea of knowledge walks out with it. Yes, you can have them document the system, but no level of documentation makes up for practical experience that allows you to give a gut reaction in a given circumstance.
And thats what happened here. The root cause might not be anyones fault - but the recovery time might have been minutes to hours if the company still had that internal institutional knowledge to run with. They didn't, and the outsourced IT team had to troubleshoot the system from first principles - which can take forever.
Now watch BA switch outsourcing contractors again, citing their failure - and watch the knowledge gained via this incident once again take a walk out of the door.
The requirement to provide the data is part of the government contracts Google has taken on, so yes it is Googles job to do the governments bidding in this case.
That brings up a whole new set of remarks/questions though: The XS-1 is seeking to be an actor in the light satellite market that Electron (for one) is targeting, that Space-X abandoned after a single Falcon-1 commercial launch & that BO won't even look at. It's true that there have been noises about sats being miniaturised and no longer having to be as big to have equivalent performance and that the more pertinent strangle point is being able to launch without having to wait 5 years to find a compatible ride to orbit as a secondary payload without it costing an inordinate amount of money. Thats something the XS-1 adresses quite clearly but the light sat market won't really exist until these inexpensive, "low latency" launchers starts lofting paying customers si it might not be as big a market as they hope.
You are assuming that the XS-1 will be launching commercial payloads - its a DoD DARPA contract, this is going to be a military system, hence no need to wait for a light sat market that may not develop. Its going to be launching military satellites - probably short term communications or ELINT platforms, or even weapons.
SpaceX dropped the Falcon 1 because they got the NASA CRS contract, and the Falcon 1 couldn't do that - they also dropped the Falcon 5 for the same reason, and simply concentrated on the Falcon 9 as their bread and butter lifter for the time being.
Blue Origin aren't looking at *anything* right now, they can be included in these discussions once they orbit something, *anything*:)
But the XS-1... its military, and therefor doesn't need a market.
I think people are looking too hard at the wrong things here to come up with issues.
Look at it this way - the Falcon 1, which admittedly was only planned for around 1,500lb to LEO (and never demonstrated anything above 500lb) was priced at just $8million for a full throwaway vehicle, so we are in the ball park certainly!
The Shuttle lifted 60,000lb to LEO.
The Delta IV lifts 20,000lb to LEO at the lowest end (and it doesnt need strap on boosters for this payload).
The Falcon 9 lifts 50,000lb to LEO (and doesn't need strap on boosters).
The XS-1 is planned to lift just 3,000lb. Which is tiny compared to the three above, and in the ball park for the Falcon 1. And we are a decade on from the Falcon 1...
My point about the Space Shuttles structure is that you can lose a *lot* of the Shuttle when you compare it to something like this - basically the only thing the Shuttle and the XS-1 has in common is that they both have wings and engines.
A second stage which lofts 3,000lb will cost nothing near a second stage which lofts 50,000lb to the same orbit. And it goes without saying that the shroud etc will also cost nothing near that on a Falcon 9, simply because of the difference in size here.
We already know from SpaceX costings that the fuel involved in a launch is a small proportion of the actual launch costs - the bulk of which to date has been the vehicle itself. A throw away second stage for a 3,000lb payload should be doable for $5million.
I have no idea how much it affects the figures, but remember that with *every* launch, the Shuttle was lifting a fuckton load of structure, whether or not that structure supported the payloads mission or not.
Of course I'm talking about the crew compartment and supporting systems. They weighed a *lot*. Add to that the payload bay, which itself was a significant structure.
Think about it this way - each payload bay door on the Shuttle weighed 3/4 of the weight of the payload that the XS-1 is intended to launch.
Get rid of the systems required to keep a crew alive, put the fuel in the payload bay area, and you can cut down the weight of the shuttle fairly dramatically - add to that the fact that you can get a *lot* of weight saving from use of modern materials (the Shuttle was traditional aluminium, you could easily drop a third of that weight by moving to composites).
The IRA was anti-British, but it was also heavily involved in the Roman Catholic-Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland - it killed a lot of people for simply being a member of the wrong branch of the Catholic Church (what people refer to as the Catholic Church in common usage is actually Roman Catholic - pretty much every Protestant church considers itself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic).
Starship Troopers is a major disappointment, but it was intended to be Starship Troopers from Heinlein from very early on - I followed its development, it wasnt shot or even pitched as a different film.
4) The actions were not rape in the UK, where the EAW was enacted
I don't even need to respond to any of your other points, because this claim right here indicates that you know absolutely nothing about the case, you refuse to actually read and understand the rulings as handed down by the proper courts, and basically you look like a fool as a result.
Perhaps you should read the link I posted - its the only one that matters.
Its not BS if its in the court ruling, and its right there in the court ruling, exactly where I say it is - I even give you the relevant portions of the ruling for you to go and read, and yet you still argue completely the opposite.
That, my friend, is the very definition of a bullshit argument.
Basically all of your points can be dismissed by simply reading the court ruling that I linked to in my previous post.
Perhaps you should try that, rather than look like a fucking idiot time and again...
No evidence of rape is required to be supplied, as the case being heard was not the case that was trying that evidence - it was a case that was trying the validity of the arrest warrant and extradition request, and both of those things were found to be valid. This is covered in the court ruling I linked to.
There is no requirement for a *judge* to issue the EAW, none at all - the treaty that covers the EAW is very specific in what it requires, and it basically leaves the validity of the issuing authority up to the issuing country, and the Swedes allow the prosecutor to issue it.
Swedens legal situation regarding why they needed extradition is well established, and discussed in the court ruling I linked to.
And just what, exactly is the "ECHJ"? Do you mean the European Court of Human Rights? I'm not sure how you expect them to rule on a case that has never been petitioned for them to take...
Slashdot Mirror
You really *really* need a better employer then - my last full time job (I'm now self employed) came with 25 days holiday plus public holidays.
And when you take a transatlantic liner, thats part of the holiday. Its an experience in itself - try it some time.
Uh, you don't need to hop on a freighter to cross the Atlantic, there are still scheduled passenger liners plying the Atlantic routes, and a crossing can take as little as three days in decent luxury.
But don't the standard access modifiers (public, protected, private and unmodified) already accomplish that...?
Set your class to public, but your class variables to private and they cant be called by anything other than code in the class itself... if you want to set defaults and sanity check values, you create getters and setters...
Sea level air density is 12.25, while at 30,000ft it is 0.1841.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox....
The X-15 was suborbital though - great for site seeing and tourists, not all that great for anything practical :)
Launching rockets into space from an aircraft is not a new idea, Orbital Sciences have been doing it since 1994 with an old Lockheed Tristar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Density of the atmosphere ...
Cutting out those first 35,000ft cuts down significantly on the air density, meaning less drag on the booster, meaning less propellant needed etc etc etc.
The fear is that, because of robots and AI, there will not be enough jobs to go around to give most people a living wage, on which a tax can be levied so we can support those without jobs as well.
How is that *any* different to any of the other times civilisation has come across this problem in its several tens of thousands of years on this planet?
Import tariffs....
All taxation has a downside - many people propose a "wealth tax" as a way to fix most of those issues, but then you run into situations where the "wealth" is virtual and not liquid.
Here in the UK we have a local tax intended to fund local and regional councils - the "council tax", which you get billed for once a year. Its based on your property - the more expensive the property, the larger your tax bill.
The problem is that the tax bands largely haven't changed for more than a couple of decades - meanwhile house prices have risen dramatically in that period of time.
My parents went from paying tax on a £45,000 house in 2000 to paying tax on a £210,000 house in 2015 - but my parents income hadn't changed in that time, and infact due to inflation it had devalued in real terms.
So people say "set lower limits" - ok, where should the limits be?
You could buy your council owned property under "Right to Buy" government schemes in the 1980s for ~ £20,000. Some of those properties in London now touch £1million because of the area of London they are in. Those people don't have the liquidity to pay council tax on a £1million property, they probably still have the mortgage they took out on the £20,000 purchase price!
They didn't tax Excel, VisiCalc or Lotus 1-2-3 even when they put entire floors of people out of jobs in accounting rooms in larger businesses...
So why should they tax the "robots" being used to automate other jobs?
Gates seemed to be fine when it was his product doing the automation, I don't see whats all that different about this situation.
https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-exce...
The foreign national is the sole applicant and the holder of the visa, its not restricted to a single employer and the employer has no say in the application.
The *failure* wasnt a fault of the outsourcing - the problematic *recovery* almost certainly is a fault of the outsourcing. His statement doesnt cover both of those...
Its not so much about incompetent staff, its about the loss of institutional knowledge when you outsource.
The company built up a large internal IT team for a reason - the IT problems of an airline are complex and convoluted (airlines often cant actually predict what price your ticket is going to be because of the complexity in the ticketing and fare based systems... and that complexity has snuck in over the 60 years of the boom in commercial aviation).
When you then get rid of that internal IT team, a huge sea of knowledge walks out with it. Yes, you can have them document the system, but no level of documentation makes up for practical experience that allows you to give a gut reaction in a given circumstance.
And thats what happened here. The root cause might not be anyones fault - but the recovery time might have been minutes to hours if the company still had that internal institutional knowledge to run with. They didn't, and the outsourced IT team had to troubleshoot the system from first principles - which can take forever.
Now watch BA switch outsourcing contractors again, citing their failure - and watch the knowledge gained via this incident once again take a walk out of the door.
EgyptAir Flight 990.
The requirement to provide the data is part of the government contracts Google has taken on, so yes it is Googles job to do the governments bidding in this case.
That brings up a whole new set of remarks/questions though:
The XS-1 is seeking to be an actor in the light satellite market that Electron (for one) is targeting, that Space-X abandoned after a single Falcon-1 commercial launch & that BO won't even look at. It's true that there have been noises about sats being miniaturised and no longer having to be as big to have equivalent performance and that the more pertinent strangle point is being able to launch without having to wait 5 years to find a compatible ride to orbit as a secondary payload without it costing an inordinate amount of money. Thats something the XS-1 adresses quite clearly but the light sat market won't really exist until these inexpensive, "low latency" launchers starts lofting paying customers si it might not be as big a market as they hope.
You are assuming that the XS-1 will be launching commercial payloads - its a DoD DARPA contract, this is going to be a military system, hence no need to wait for a light sat market that may not develop. Its going to be launching military satellites - probably short term communications or ELINT platforms, or even weapons.
SpaceX dropped the Falcon 1 because they got the NASA CRS contract, and the Falcon 1 couldn't do that - they also dropped the Falcon 5 for the same reason, and simply concentrated on the Falcon 9 as their bread and butter lifter for the time being.
Blue Origin aren't looking at *anything* right now, they can be included in these discussions once they orbit something, *anything* :)
But the XS-1 ... its military, and therefor doesn't need a market.
I think people are looking too hard at the wrong things here to come up with issues.
Look at it this way - the Falcon 1, which admittedly was only planned for around 1,500lb to LEO (and never demonstrated anything above 500lb) was priced at just $8million for a full throwaway vehicle, so we are in the ball park certainly!
The Shuttle lifted 60,000lb to LEO.
The Delta IV lifts 20,000lb to LEO at the lowest end (and it doesnt need strap on boosters for this payload).
The Falcon 9 lifts 50,000lb to LEO (and doesn't need strap on boosters).
The XS-1 is planned to lift just 3,000lb. Which is tiny compared to the three above, and in the ball park for the Falcon 1. And we are a decade on from the Falcon 1...
My point about the Space Shuttles structure is that you can lose a *lot* of the Shuttle when you compare it to something like this - basically the only thing the Shuttle and the XS-1 has in common is that they both have wings and engines.
A second stage which lofts 3,000lb will cost nothing near a second stage which lofts 50,000lb to the same orbit. And it goes without saying that the shroud etc will also cost nothing near that on a Falcon 9, simply because of the difference in size here.
We already know from SpaceX costings that the fuel involved in a launch is a small proportion of the actual launch costs - the bulk of which to date has been the vehicle itself. A throw away second stage for a 3,000lb payload should be doable for $5million.
I have no idea how much it affects the figures, but remember that with *every* launch, the Shuttle was lifting a fuckton load of structure, whether or not that structure supported the payloads mission or not.
Of course I'm talking about the crew compartment and supporting systems. They weighed a *lot*. Add to that the payload bay, which itself was a significant structure.
Think about it this way - each payload bay door on the Shuttle weighed 3/4 of the weight of the payload that the XS-1 is intended to launch.
Get rid of the systems required to keep a crew alive, put the fuel in the payload bay area, and you can cut down the weight of the shuttle fairly dramatically - add to that the fact that you can get a *lot* of weight saving from use of modern materials (the Shuttle was traditional aluminium, you could easily drop a third of that weight by moving to composites).
The IRA was anti-British, but it was also heavily involved in the Roman Catholic-Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland - it killed a lot of people for simply being a member of the wrong branch of the Catholic Church (what people refer to as the Catholic Church in common usage is actually Roman Catholic - pretty much every Protestant church considers itself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic).
Starship Troopers is a major disappointment, but it was intended to be Starship Troopers from Heinlein from very early on - I followed its development, it wasnt shot or even pitched as a different film.
Oh, and by the way, when you cite the High Court fucking Ruling on the case, its not a "cherry picked biased source", its the PRIMARY FUCKING SOURCE.
4) The actions were not rape in the UK, where the EAW was enacted
I don't even need to respond to any of your other points, because this claim right here indicates that you know absolutely nothing about the case, you refuse to actually read and understand the rulings as handed down by the proper courts, and basically you look like a fool as a result.
Perhaps you should read the link I posted - its the only one that matters.
Its not BS if its in the court ruling, and its right there in the court ruling, exactly where I say it is - I even give you the relevant portions of the ruling for you to go and read, and yet you still argue completely the opposite.
That, my friend, is the very definition of a bullshit argument.
I'm sure you have told a lie in your past, does that make you perpetually dishonest and unemployable for your entire life?
What Sweden does with regard to the CIA has nothing to do with the legality of this case.
Basically all of your points can be dismissed by simply reading the court ruling that I linked to in my previous post.
Perhaps you should try that, rather than look like a fucking idiot time and again...
No evidence of rape is required to be supplied, as the case being heard was not the case that was trying that evidence - it was a case that was trying the validity of the arrest warrant and extradition request, and both of those things were found to be valid. This is covered in the court ruling I linked to.
There is no requirement for a *judge* to issue the EAW, none at all - the treaty that covers the EAW is very specific in what it requires, and it basically leaves the validity of the issuing authority up to the issuing country, and the Swedes allow the prosecutor to issue it.
Swedens legal situation regarding why they needed extradition is well established, and discussed in the court ruling I linked to.
And just what, exactly is the "ECHJ"? Do you mean the European Court of Human Rights? I'm not sure how you expect them to rule on a case that has never been petitioned for them to take...