Im afraid you are wrong. Here is how to describe the situation is statistical terms:
Probability of failure with a single drive: 1 in 1000
Probalitity of failure with ten drives: equals the probability of drive 1 failing or drive 2 failing or drive 3 failing or drive 4 failing or drive 5 failing or drive 6 failing or drive 7 failing or drive 8 failing or drive 9 failing or drive 10 failing.
The easier way to solve that equation is to reverse it - it equals the probabiblity of drive 1 not failing and drive 2 not failing and drive 3 not failing and drive 4 not failing and drive 5 not failing and drive 6 not failing and drive 7 not failing and drive 8 not failing and drive 9 not failing and drive 10 not failing. (Think about it, in order for the raid 0 to stay up, all the drives have to be good - calculate that probability).
Mathematically, this is 0.999^10, or 0.99. So the failure rate fell from 1/1000 to about 1/100, just as you would expect.
They are not Nazis. They are using technology that hasn't changed since the Nazi's developed it. (And hasn't changed a lot since Goddard)
Further hint: What was the first country to send humans to the moon? The Germans, of course. It was a race between our Germans and Russia's Germans, but the Germans won!
You're an idiot then. Pictures were released, and those of us in the community have seen them. I'm pretty sure the local news carried them - just look around!
The accident did not involve a vehicle at all - just some engine parts. There was no rocket anywhere near the test area - I don't think that particular rocket even exists yet (this was an engine flow test for SS2, which as far as I know has not yet been built).
Show me where Armadillo Aerospace uses anything that was developed in the last 60 years by Nasa. They are completely open about their development efforts - they use no recent technology, and none developed by Nasa.
The best thing you could say is that the very early work done in the 60s by Naca (Nasa's predecessor) led to books being written that Carmack and others read. That's pretty much it. Nasa hasn't done any real space research for decades - at least nothing that would apply to a low budget operation. They are solving different problems.
Oh, and by the way, asking for sites about the non-existance of something is a little strange...
And more to the point, there was exactly one "test" flight of the space shuttle. It was carrying live humans, and expensive cargo. It practiced no abort procedures. It did not attempt to explore the flight envelope.
When you are testing a spacecraft, you should ride it all the way to the red line - just to make sure that the red line is in the right place. Every abort should be flown.
The space shuttle was never tested. It was flown as close to optimal as possible every time - it was considered "too expensive to test".
This is not really true. Most of the stuff Nasa has done to make things work is unavailable to the new companies - either it is proprietary or obscenely expensive.
The stuff the new companies are using is more from Goddard or the Nazis - but they didn't spend billions either.
The true test for whether you should believe something or not is the question, "Is it useful?"
Does belief in the God hypothesis have an effect? Yes, it does - many people believe that it does, and feel better because of it. You may not, but that does not change what others feel.
That is why even an untestable (and personally, I believe that "God" is testable anyway) hypothesis can be useful. If believing in something brings positive things, then why are you getting so up tight about it? It also says why the "I can't prove that you exist" theory is not worth believing - it bestows no positive effects or predictions.
Sometimes believing in something you can't prove is a good idea.
(I also personally think that intelligent design as a theory is kind of lacking - but that is besides the point.)
Because only an employee of that industry could possibly see saving Americans trillions of dollars while providing better care as a bad thing.
Oh really? So were are those trillions of dollars "saved" by Americans going to come from, the tooth fairy? You are either going to raise taxes - which means that those same Americans now have to pay more (because governments are always less efficient than any other organization) - or you are going to take the money away from someone, in this case doctors (because insurance companies do not make a large enough percentage of the transactions, so removing them does not introduce a savings - and besides, your just replacing an insurance company [with at least some reason to be efficient] with the government [no reason to be efficient]).
So what happens when you take money away from doctors? People stop being doctors, of course. So, essentially, you are recommending that instead of people who have enough common sense to buy health insurance getting medical care that no one will get medical care. Brilliant!
People really need to think through the ramifications of their plans. Especially politicians. If the government takes over health care, either it will cost taxpayers more or it will decline in quality - there are no other options.
This is true as long as we are all on Earth. After we get into space, both on space stations and other planets, it will take more than one nutcase at least.
Still, the point I was making is that saying that she has a snowball's chance in hell is a whole lot different from approximately 40% chance.
True, true. I was merely pointing out that her chances of being president look better than they are - because there is basically a 50-50 chance after the primaries. Before the primaries, the GOP probabilities are split many ways while she dominates the DP probabilities.
I'll put in my two cents - though to be honest, I don't see her as a world-ending president by any stretch.
The first I ever heard of her, she was going to overhaul the US medical system. Which seemed a bad idea at the time, especially considering that she was not an elected official. Then when you saw what she came up with, it was unbelievable how bad it was. Never followed through on it, of course - I'm sure she realized it was bad too. But not exactly a good intro.
What you seem to be missing in your analysis is the probabilities in the primaries. You see, the probability of winning the general election (Ppres) = the probability of you winning the primary (Ppri) * the probability of you winning the general given the primary win(Pgen). Assume Hillary has a 60% chance of winning the primary (that seems about right with the number on that site). She has a 37% chance of winning the general. So if Ppres=37%, and Ppri=60% then Pgen is 61%.
The coresponding numbers for Giuliani are: Ppres=20%, Ppri=35%, so Pgen is 57%. So basically the differnce is in the noise. Hillary is a shoo-in for the Democrat party nomination. But she is even odds for the presidency itself. (To me, that really says something - that even after the Bush presidency, the Democrats do not have more than even chances of winning the general election. Isn't anyone halfway decent running?)
That is, of course, the problem. Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the other ones.
Personally, I think we (as both a race and the US in particular) are doing fairly well. I must admit that I would prefer natural resources to be owned by the public and administered by the government in their behalf (such as selling oil to the oil well operators, etc.). But that just isn't going to happen, and the system in place works for the most part.
Honestly, the problem is not with the economic system - as a basically mathematical system that has been beaten into submission as I see it - the real problem is the judicial system. For the most part, it works. (Most cases are petty theft by nobodies - and the system works fairly well there.) But as soon as someone famous is involved, justice goes out the window. If the defendant/plaintif/prosecutor is rich/famous/etc, they win or lose based on their aplication of their fame.
My current pet theory for the judicial system is first that all lawyers would work for only the government. So everyone gets a public defender - even in civil suits. Second, their is always a lawsuit to recover the costs of the trial from the loser. The bar can be set pretty high to actually win a recovery of costs, but people should know that if they sue indescriminately or commit an obvious crime and then go to trial anyway they will have to pay.
You have runaway feedback loops where those with money have more power to influence the market
This is, in fact, a single statement that describes the reason for the success of capitalism. If you know how to create value/money/wealth, you are given more power so that you can create even more - the idea being that a percentage will flow back to society, at the very least when you die.
If you start with lots of power for some reason, but are unable to use that power effectiviely to create more value/weath/whatever, then capitalism removes that power from you by one of two effects: first, inflation or everyone else getting richer except you; second, you unwise investments fail and the money is taken directly by those who are better at creating value.
And if you are someone who beleives in "zero sum" economics, how on Earth did the economy get so much bigger? Why are we worried about having more cars than our neighbors, while our ancestors worried about more (or enough) food?
The military "being" of any political bent is a very scary idea.
That is precisely my point - and why I think that this trial needs to happen. People in the NSA and the military, etc. need to know that if they do not follow orders, they better be able to explain why to a court.
Being taken to trial does not mean you are guilty - it means society needs to know if you are guilty!
As for the military, I am from a military family - but we are not lawyers. I'm sure that what you say about rights is true, but the reality is that in the military you will be punished if you exercise the wrong free speech, and that is a good thing.
Presumably that will be his defense. I don't see where you explain why he shouldn't be tried so we can discover if his defense is plausible...
And more to the point, the legallity of the situation was not clear to lawyers, judges, etc that spent their lives in this stuff. I don't see how he can claim special knowlege. But if he can, then he will be aquitted - and the annoyance of the trial is the price he will have paid to help defend the United States.
Well, specifically I was thinking of free speech - they all give that one up.
Like I say, my primary problem is that he was motivated by politics, not security concerns. If he can show that he was not trying to influence elections or policies, but was instead trying to increase national security, then he should be tried and aquitted. But no matter what, he should be tried. Yes, it sucks, but sometimes people have to put their lives and livelihood on the line to defend democracy. Perhaps he was doing that, but perhaps not. We need to figure it out, and the best way to do that is a trial.
If I was in the position of having to leak classified information to prevent a catastrophe, I would expect a trial.
If I may point out something, what really happens in the US election system is that after the parties nominate their candidate, it is too late to get someone good. At that point you just have to choose the lessor of two evils. The real time to get involved is in the primaries - at that point, your vote can make a real difference because you can vote for anyone that wants the job.
Although Douglas Adams was right - anyone that wants the job should be automatically disqualified...
Obviously, you have never had to get government authorization of anything before...
Sorry, this form has to be filed in sub basement C of the special intelligence branch, next to the sign "beware of the leopard". No, I don't know where that is either, it secret, don't you know! Click.
I understand that you probably think that anyone outing Bush on something is good, but...
This is my problem with his outing of a highly classified program - he did it because his personal politics said the program was bad. Let's be clear - he violated national security and put lives at increased risk because of his personal politics. He works in the NSA - he has given up his constitutional rights (he signed that paperwork).
What if the military did this? The military is predominately Republican. Are you sure you want this precedent set? The next time the military disagrees with an order by Hillary they can ignore it? If she goes too far on her anti-Republican agenda they should put her under house arrest?
Even if we just limit it to the NSA, what if they start "leaking" inconvinient facts about all the senators of only one party?
There is a reason for the national security laws, and there is a reason why the constitutional rights cannot apply to armed forces personnel. And it is a darn good reason!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, my bad.
But how could I pass up an opportunity to say the Germans joke?
Im afraid you are wrong. Here is how to describe the situation is statistical terms:
Probability of failure with a single drive: 1 in 1000
Probalitity of failure with ten drives: equals the probability of drive 1 failing or drive 2 failing or drive 3 failing or drive 4 failing or drive 5 failing or drive 6 failing or drive 7 failing or drive 8 failing or drive 9 failing or drive 10 failing.
The easier way to solve that equation is to reverse it - it equals the probabiblity of drive 1 not failing and drive 2 not failing and drive 3 not failing and drive 4 not failing and drive 5 not failing and drive 6 not failing and drive 7 not failing and drive 8 not failing and drive 9 not failing and drive 10 not failing. (Think about it, in order for the raid 0 to stay up, all the drives have to be good - calculate that probability).
Mathematically, this is 0.999^10, or 0.99. So the failure rate fell from 1/1000 to about 1/100, just as you would expect.
Um - did you read what I posted?
They are not Nazis. They are using technology that hasn't changed since the Nazi's developed it. (And hasn't changed a lot since Goddard)
Further hint: What was the first country to send humans to the moon? The Germans, of course. It was a race between our Germans and Russia's Germans, but the Germans won!
You're an idiot then. Pictures were released, and those of us in the community have seen them. I'm pretty sure the local news carried them - just look around!
The accident did not involve a vehicle at all - just some engine parts. There was no rocket anywhere near the test area - I don't think that particular rocket even exists yet (this was an engine flow test for SS2, which as far as I know has not yet been built).
Show me where Armadillo Aerospace uses anything that was developed in the last 60 years by Nasa. They are completely open about their development efforts - they use no recent technology, and none developed by Nasa.
The best thing you could say is that the very early work done in the 60s by Naca (Nasa's predecessor) led to books being written that Carmack and others read. That's pretty much it. Nasa hasn't done any real space research for decades - at least nothing that would apply to a low budget operation. They are solving different problems.
Oh, and by the way, asking for sites about the non-existance of something is a little strange...
And more to the point, there was exactly one "test" flight of the space shuttle. It was carrying live humans, and expensive cargo. It practiced no abort procedures. It did not attempt to explore the flight envelope.
When you are testing a spacecraft, you should ride it all the way to the red line - just to make sure that the red line is in the right place. Every abort should be flown.
The space shuttle was never tested. It was flown as close to optimal as possible every time - it was considered "too expensive to test".
It was not a part of a rocket, it was a large fuel storage container bolted to a truck. You can see the truck in the pictures.
This is not really true. Most of the stuff Nasa has done to make things work is unavailable to the new companies - either it is proprietary or obscenely expensive.
The stuff the new companies are using is more from Goddard or the Nazis - but they didn't spend billions either.
I see this a lot - and I don't buy it.
The true test for whether you should believe something or not is the question, "Is it useful?"
Does belief in the God hypothesis have an effect? Yes, it does - many people believe that it does, and feel better because of it. You may not, but that does not change what others feel.
That is why even an untestable (and personally, I believe that "God" is testable anyway) hypothesis can be useful. If believing in something brings positive things, then why are you getting so up tight about it? It also says why the "I can't prove that you exist" theory is not worth believing - it bestows no positive effects or predictions.
Sometimes believing in something you can't prove is a good idea.
(I also personally think that intelligent design as a theory is kind of lacking - but that is besides the point.)
Because only an employee of that industry could possibly see saving Americans trillions of dollars while providing better care as a bad thing.
Oh really? So were are those trillions of dollars "saved" by Americans going to come from, the tooth fairy? You are either going to raise taxes - which means that those same Americans now have to pay more (because governments are always less efficient than any other organization) - or you are going to take the money away from someone, in this case doctors (because insurance companies do not make a large enough percentage of the transactions, so removing them does not introduce a savings - and besides, your just replacing an insurance company [with at least some reason to be efficient] with the government [no reason to be efficient]).
So what happens when you take money away from doctors? People stop being doctors, of course. So, essentially, you are recommending that instead of people who have enough common sense to buy health insurance getting medical care that no one will get medical care. Brilliant!
People really need to think through the ramifications of their plans. Especially politicians. If the government takes over health care, either it will cost taxpayers more or it will decline in quality - there are no other options.
This is true as long as we are all on Earth. After we get into space, both on space stations and other planets, it will take more than one nutcase at least.
No thanks, how about if we stop it before it gets that bad?
Still, the point I was making is that saying that she has a snowball's chance in hell is a whole lot different from approximately 40% chance.
True, true. I was merely pointing out that her chances of being president look better than they are - because there is basically a 50-50 chance after the primaries. Before the primaries, the GOP probabilities are split many ways while she dominates the DP probabilities.
I'll put in my two cents - though to be honest, I don't see her as a world-ending president by any stretch.
The first I ever heard of her, she was going to overhaul the US medical system. Which seemed a bad idea at the time, especially considering that she was not an elected official. Then when you saw what she came up with, it was unbelievable how bad it was. Never followed through on it, of course - I'm sure she realized it was bad too. But not exactly a good intro.
What you seem to be missing in your analysis is the probabilities in the primaries. You see, the probability of winning the general election (Ppres) = the probability of you winning the primary (Ppri) * the probability of you winning the general given the primary win(Pgen). Assume Hillary has a 60% chance of winning the primary (that seems about right with the number on that site). She has a 37% chance of winning the general. So if Ppres=37%, and Ppri=60% then Pgen is 61%.
The coresponding numbers for Giuliani are: Ppres=20%, Ppri=35%, so Pgen is 57%. So basically the differnce is in the noise. Hillary is a shoo-in for the Democrat party nomination. But she is even odds for the presidency itself. (To me, that really says something - that even after the Bush presidency, the Democrats do not have more than even chances of winning the general election. Isn't anyone halfway decent running?)
That is, of course, the problem. Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the other ones.
Personally, I think we (as both a race and the US in particular) are doing fairly well. I must admit that I would prefer natural resources to be owned by the public and administered by the government in their behalf (such as selling oil to the oil well operators, etc.). But that just isn't going to happen, and the system in place works for the most part.
Honestly, the problem is not with the economic system - as a basically mathematical system that has been beaten into submission as I see it - the real problem is the judicial system. For the most part, it works. (Most cases are petty theft by nobodies - and the system works fairly well there.) But as soon as someone famous is involved, justice goes out the window. If the defendant/plaintif/prosecutor is rich/famous/etc, they win or lose based on their aplication of their fame.
My current pet theory for the judicial system is first that all lawyers would work for only the government. So everyone gets a public defender - even in civil suits. Second, their is always a lawsuit to recover the costs of the trial from the loser. The bar can be set pretty high to actually win a recovery of costs, but people should know that if they sue indescriminately or commit an obvious crime and then go to trial anyway they will have to pay.
You have runaway feedback loops where those with money have more power to influence the market
This is, in fact, a single statement that describes the reason for the success of capitalism. If you know how to create value/money/wealth, you are given more power so that you can create even more - the idea being that a percentage will flow back to society, at the very least when you die.
If you start with lots of power for some reason, but are unable to use that power effectiviely to create more value/weath/whatever, then capitalism removes that power from you by one of two effects: first, inflation or everyone else getting richer except you; second, you unwise investments fail and the money is taken directly by those who are better at creating value.
And if you are someone who beleives in "zero sum" economics, how on Earth did the economy get so much bigger? Why are we worried about having more cars than our neighbors, while our ancestors worried about more (or enough) food?
The military "being" of any political bent is a very scary idea.
That is precisely my point - and why I think that this trial needs to happen. People in the NSA and the military, etc. need to know that if they do not follow orders, they better be able to explain why to a court.
Being taken to trial does not mean you are guilty - it means society needs to know if you are guilty!
As for the military, I am from a military family - but we are not lawyers. I'm sure that what you say about rights is true, but the reality is that in the military you will be punished if you exercise the wrong free speech, and that is a good thing.
Presumably that will be his defense. I don't see where you explain why he shouldn't be tried so we can discover if his defense is plausible...
And more to the point, the legallity of the situation was not clear to lawyers, judges, etc that spent their lives in this stuff. I don't see how he can claim special knowlege. But if he can, then he will be aquitted - and the annoyance of the trial is the price he will have paid to help defend the United States.
Oh look - a dork!
Just to clarify, the person that leaked Valerie Plame's name should also have had a trial to show whether it was an "accident" or malicious.
Trials are there to detect truth, not to punish people. Where there is a question about legal truth there should be a trial, dork.
Well, specifically I was thinking of free speech - they all give that one up.
Like I say, my primary problem is that he was motivated by politics, not security concerns. If he can show that he was not trying to influence elections or policies, but was instead trying to increase national security, then he should be tried and aquitted. But no matter what, he should be tried. Yes, it sucks, but sometimes people have to put their lives and livelihood on the line to defend democracy. Perhaps he was doing that, but perhaps not. We need to figure it out, and the best way to do that is a trial.
If I was in the position of having to leak classified information to prevent a catastrophe, I would expect a trial.
If I may point out something, what really happens in the US election system is that after the parties nominate their candidate, it is too late to get someone good. At that point you just have to choose the lessor of two evils. The real time to get involved is in the primaries - at that point, your vote can make a real difference because you can vote for anyone that wants the job.
Although Douglas Adams was right - anyone that wants the job should be automatically disqualified...
Obviously, you have never had to get government authorization of anything before...
Sorry, this form has to be filed in sub basement C of the special intelligence branch, next to the sign "beware of the leopard". No, I don't know where that is either, it secret, don't you know! Click.
I understand that you probably think that anyone outing Bush on something is good, but...
This is my problem with his outing of a highly classified program - he did it because his personal politics said the program was bad. Let's be clear - he violated national security and put lives at increased risk because of his personal politics. He works in the NSA - he has given up his constitutional rights (he signed that paperwork).
What if the military did this? The military is predominately Republican. Are you sure you want this precedent set? The next time the military disagrees with an order by Hillary they can ignore it? If she goes too far on her anti-Republican agenda they should put her under house arrest?
Even if we just limit it to the NSA, what if they start "leaking" inconvinient facts about all the senators of only one party?
There is a reason for the national security laws, and there is a reason why the constitutional rights cannot apply to armed forces personnel. And it is a darn good reason!
You can still do multiple planetary boosts before leaving the plane, though.