If you need a reminder who the FAA is: they keep the planes from falling out of the sky.
Funny... As an aircraft owner, I normally think of the FAA as the people that are trying to keep me grounded. Anyone that has had to deal with the FAA (or any government agency) will affirm this fact.
Giving to one, takes away from another. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.
What freedoms do you think this limits...Ask those who work for ISPs and like to put food on their table, and don't want to work for (either directly or indirectly) for the government.
The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.
If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever. Vote for those who promise to do nothing.
Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.
Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.
The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.
If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever.
Re:It's funny that you should say that.
on
Pro C#
·
· Score: 1
Then it's off to the 2nd edition for another round of proof reading by the consumer.
Funny... It kind of sounds like some of the applications that people write. I know quite a few developers and product guys that believe in TIPs (Test In Production)
If you want to see bad product placement...just watch The Island.
As for good product placement, you should not be able to even detect it. It should blend in, as if it was completely natural for the person to climb into a Lexus, pull into a McDonald's and order a LARGE COKE.
This mission MUST go on else we will fail as scientists.
The mission should be reviewed, or we fail as economists.
Marginally speaking, if we are able to get better results per dollar spent from other projects, then we should abandon the sunk costs of this project. The opportunity costs of doing this mission over another particular mission must be studied. Too often, we become attached to an idea and we sink good money after bad, when a more effective and responsible solution stares us in the face.
Of course, one could argue that the benefit in robotics would justify the costs. I just don't see how you can justify repairing 20-something year old technology, when you could replace it with newer tech, at almost the same price.
The logical error in the statement of tax the rich more and thus eliminate the deficit is debunked with the Laffer Curve.
You on the other hand are applying a static tax proceed calculation model. By applying your logic, a 100% tax rate would result in the most optimal tax income; 50% would result in 50% of optimum; 25% would result in 25% of the optimum; &c.
This is obviously not the case, because at some point, the marginal benefit of one's labor or capital is exceeded by the opportunity cost. It is perhaps the simplest example of microeconomics. Profit is what motivates effort and investment, and when the cost exceeds the benefits, an individual will not make such effort or investment.
I am not saying that an increase of 3% in the marginal rate will eliminate the incentive for such effort, but rather that such an increase reduces the benefit. That reduction does eliminate the incentive for marginal players within the economy. These players on the razor edge of business survival are pushed out of the market. These marginal players are most likely the middle class individual that is trying to make a go at a small business. When they are pushed out of the market, the opportunities for jobs are eliminated, and the taxable income that they generate is either reduced or eliminated.
"Might" is quite an interesting word. In the context you have used it; it means nothing. I "might" win the lotto if I play it, but I likely will not.
I few % ponts (sic) won't effect them too much and it just might help the economy.
I have one question for you. How is it that taxing anyone is going to improve the economy? If you are going to make statements like that, please back them up.
What you seem to not understand is that anyone can be taxed at the highest tax rate, all you have to do is start a small business (e.g. some independent consultants, small software shops, &c.) or cash out some stock to pay for school for your kids.
Their businesses shouldn't be affected. Why are these 2 things confused so often. Taxing individual and taxing businesses are not the same thing.
As far as taxing businesses, you should understand that higher taxes on individuals do lead to increased costs on businesses, and these increased costs are directly transferred to the consumer in the form of higher cost of goods sold. And that is not even taking into account situations such as Sub-S Corporations, &c.
As I remember, those in the Tupolev Design Bureau we so afraid of not following Stalin's orders to the letter, that they copied everything from the nameplates and serial numbers. Tupolev wanted to make several enhancements to the design, but did not dare in the first version of the Tu-4, for fear of being sent to Siberia. (or the grave)
In fact after looking into it, 14 US 91.319(a)(2) also would present an issue for the compensation issue. (I assume they are operating under an experimental certificate) If they were to give rides for free (and the craft was deemed safe under 14 US 91.319(b)) they could operate inside of part 91.
On a side note, if the rides are free, let me be the first to sign up.
IANAL but... I think the closest applicable set of regulations would be within FAR (US Title 14) Part 135 and 91. If the service was provided under either part, the regulations are not extreme, and as I see it, could be construed to allow a part 135 or part 91 operator (with a commercial certificate and currency requirements) to provide the service with minimal hoops. As I see it, the most difficult parts would be the clearance to climb through the Class A airspace between 18,000 and 60,000 ft, the waiver to exceed the speed of sound, and the request for a NOTAM to clear the area for a space flight.
I was at Wright Patterson AFB the other day, in the Presidential hangar (part of the Air Force Museum, so named because they have all of the old Air Force One aircraft). They have an X-15 there and some other astounding stuff. Don't miss if you get to Dayton. The X-15 there had a window cover on one side to protect the window from being abraded during "re-entry". They would open that side if the other side became too cloudy to look through. SS1 doesn't have any caps over its windows.
The X-15 at WPAFB was the craft used to do the High speed testing. The cover was a special mod to provide a window to see out of after the high-speed part of the flight. To protect the craft during the 6.7 Mach flight, there was a coating sprayed on the body of the X-15. As it burnt off, it would cloud the view of the pilot, Air Force Major Robert White in this case. The high-speed flight actually made the craft unairworthy, due to the limited help the coating actually had, and therefore it was the last flight for that X-15. The SS1 will be traveling much slower and will not require such protection, eliminating any problem with the visibility.
Re:Stop looking for "programming" jobs
on
Exporting Myself?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Amen to this..... In fact it reminds me of a joke I once heard on/.
A Mathematician, a Biologist, and a Statician are watching people going in and coming out of the building on the other side of the street. First they see two people going in - after awhile three people come out.
The Biologist concludes, "They're mating!"
The Statician says, "No, no, no - The measurement wasn't accurate."
The Mathematician says, "If someone else goes in, it'll be empty."
Slashdot Mirror
*Windows Vista requirements* ..... 1 ..... 1
..... 1
Arms
Legs
I think you forgot...
Soul
If you need a reminder who the FAA is: they keep the planes from falling out of the sky.
Funny... As an aircraft owner, I normally think of the FAA as the people that are trying to keep me grounded. Anyone that has had to deal with the FAA (or any government agency) will affirm this fact.
When will then be now?
Soon.
Giving to one, takes away from another. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.
What freedoms do you think this limits...Ask those who work for ISPs and like to put food on their table, and don't want to work for (either directly or indirectly) for the government.
The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.
If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever. Vote for those who promise to do nothing.
Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.
Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.
The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.
If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever.
Then it's off to the 2nd edition for another round of proof reading by the consumer.
Funny... It kind of sounds like some of the applications that people write. I know quite a few developers and product guys that believe in TIPs (Test In Production)
How about "Obliteration of Self"
If you want to see bad product placement...just watch The Island.
As for good product placement, you should not be able to even detect it. It should blend in, as if it was completely natural for the person to climb into a Lexus, pull into a McDonald's and order a LARGE COKE.
This mission MUST go on else we will fail as scientists.
The mission should be reviewed, or we fail as economists.
Marginally speaking, if we are able to get better results per dollar spent from other projects, then we should abandon the sunk costs of this project. The opportunity costs of doing this mission over another particular mission must be studied. Too often, we become attached to an idea and we sink good money after bad, when a more effective and responsible solution stares us in the face.
Of course, one could argue that the benefit in robotics would justify the costs. I just don't see how you can justify repairing 20-something year old technology, when you could replace it with newer tech, at almost the same price.
The logical error in the statement of tax the rich more and thus eliminate the deficit is debunked with the Laffer Curve.
You on the other hand are applying a static tax proceed calculation model. By applying your logic, a 100% tax rate would result in the most optimal tax income; 50% would result in 50% of optimum; 25% would result in 25% of the optimum; &c.
This is obviously not the case, because at some point, the marginal benefit of one's labor or capital is exceeded by the opportunity cost. It is perhaps the simplest example of microeconomics. Profit is what motivates effort and investment, and when the cost exceeds the benefits, an individual will not make such effort or investment.
I am not saying that an increase of 3% in the marginal rate will eliminate the incentive for such effort, but rather that such an increase reduces the benefit. That reduction does eliminate the incentive for marginal players within the economy. These players on the razor edge of business survival are pushed out of the market. These marginal players are most likely the middle class individual that is trying to make a go at a small business. When they are pushed out of the market, the opportunities for jobs are eliminated, and the taxable income that they generate is either reduced or eliminated.
"Might" is quite an interesting word. In the context you have used it; it means nothing. I "might" win the lotto if I play it, but I likely will not.
I few % ponts (sic) won't effect them too much and it just might help the economy.
I have one question for you. How is it that taxing anyone is going to improve the economy? If you are going to make statements like that, please back them up.
What you seem to not understand is that anyone can be taxed at the highest tax rate, all you have to do is start a small business (e.g. some independent consultants, small software shops, &c.) or cash out some stock to pay for school for your kids.
Their businesses shouldn't be affected. Why are these 2 things confused so often. Taxing individual and taxing businesses are not the same thing.
As far as taxing businesses, you should understand that higher taxes on individuals do lead to increased costs on businesses, and these increased costs are directly transferred to the consumer in the form of higher cost of goods sold. And that is not even taking into account situations such as Sub-S Corporations, &c.
And I thought I had a bad day at work.
As I remember, those in the Tupolev Design Bureau we so afraid of not following Stalin's orders to the letter, that they copied everything from the nameplates and serial numbers. Tupolev wanted to make several enhancements to the design, but did not dare in the first version of the Tu-4, for fear of being sent to Siberia. (or the grave)
What do you think orbit is?
In fact after looking into it, 14 US 91.319(a)(2) also would present an issue for the compensation issue. (I assume they are operating under an experimental certificate) If they were to give rides for free (and the craft was deemed safe under 14 US 91.319(b)) they could operate inside of part 91.
On a side note, if the rides are free, let me be the first to sign up.
IANAL but... I think the closest applicable set of regulations would be within FAR (US Title 14) Part 135 and 91. If the service was provided under either part, the regulations are not extreme, and as I see it, could be construed to allow a part 135 or part 91 operator (with a commercial certificate and currency requirements) to provide the service with minimal hoops. As I see it, the most difficult parts would be the clearance to climb through the Class A airspace between 18,000 and 60,000 ft, the waiver to exceed the speed of sound, and the request for a NOTAM to clear the area for a space flight.
I stand corrected. Damn if my memmory has gone in my old age.
I was at Wright Patterson AFB the other day, in the Presidential hangar (part of the Air Force Museum, so named because they have all of the old Air Force One aircraft). They have an X-15 there and some other astounding stuff. Don't miss if you get to Dayton. The X-15 there had a window cover on one side to protect the window from being abraded during "re-entry". They would open that side if the other side became too cloudy to look through. SS1 doesn't have any caps over its windows.
The X-15 at WPAFB was the craft used to do the High speed testing. The cover was a special mod to provide a window to see out of after the high-speed part of the flight. To protect the craft during the 6.7 Mach flight, there was a coating sprayed on the body of the X-15. As it burnt off, it would cloud the view of the pilot, Air Force Major Robert White in this case. The high-speed flight actually made the craft unairworthy, due to the limited help the coating actually had, and therefore it was the last flight for that X-15. The SS1 will be traveling much slower and will not require such protection, eliminating any problem with the visibility.
Edge of space is actually 100Km or ~62.5 Stat. Miles.
Oh...you forgot surfing Slashdot
Amen to this..... In fact it reminds me of a joke I once heard on /.
A Mathematician, a Biologist, and a Statician are watching people going in and coming out of the building on the other side of the street. First they see two people going in - after awhile three people come out.
The Biologist concludes, "They're mating!"
The Statician says, "No, no, no - The measurement wasn't accurate."
The Mathematician says, "If someone else goes in, it'll be empty."
I have to buy my entire movie collection again
Buy..... Again?!?!?!?.....
Oh great! There goes the price of Pepto-Bismol. (Yes, it contains the metal Bismuth).
Oh the irony...
I think you miss the point...
I was referring to the fact that the outside region of the universe would have to travel at speeds in excess of c (speed of light)
At least you didn't get a membership to the "Jelly of the Month Club"