The knowledge of the practical problems (and their workaround/solutions) has NOT been disseminated, and thus, pretty much everyone has to learn from scratch. Extraterrestrial probe building is still very much a Deep Magic field, with only a select few organizations (mostly NASA, but ESA too) having the experience to do it well. And they're not sharing.
NASA at least has been sharing. But that's the sort of knowledge that either gets buried in a forty year old NASA journal or never put to paper in the first place because nobody thought it was important enough to do so.
Can the deployment be successful if the object deployed failed the majority of its mission objectives?
Of course. It depends on the relative importance of those mission objectives and whether they were considered necessary for success or not. Out of curiosity, what makes you think it failed the majority of its mission objectives?
You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process.
I don't know any such thing. You don't either.
Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair.
Elections in the regions in question are a good indication that there are considerably less such people than claimed by the polls. Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?
My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population. If it really was 40-45% as claimed by the Gallop poll and others, then the US would look a lot different than it actually does.
1 lolnope for claiming that string theory is "higher math" - it's fucking wankery without rigor and without testing.
Lack of rigor just means there will be a lot of drama when the day of reckoning comes. It doesn't preclude something from being higher math. And "testing" is completely irrelevant to most higher math.
I guess I walked into that. Accusations of racism are after all the new witch hunt. But I don't believe that Rand Paul actually has expressed open disdain for those amendments.
OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time".
Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.
If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.
When it comes to corruption, Dems are a lot more trustworthy than Republicans.
I don't know. The Republicans tend to stay bought when you bribe them. I get the impression it's the flakier progressive types who turn on you after they get what they want. Classic examples are John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon. JFK turned on the Mob after he got elected while Nixon didn't. That made Nixon more trustworthy in corruption than Kennedy.
I mean, we are talking about the party who wants to default on our debts and is okay with that.
Which is a non sequitur. Just because someone allegedly wants to default on debts (here, meaning a short delay in loan payments possibly happening as a result of their actions), doesn't at all imply a thing about their trustworthiness in any sort of endeavor.
Aye, but then again you post to places not here, don't you, duckie!
No, I pointed to two spots in this thread which illustrated my case. And my use of "here" is meant to refer to refer to arguments in this thread.
Yes, they say that we shouldn't change our habits instead. Which means the same thing, darling, doesn't it?
Of course, it doesn't. When you make an argument, then the content of the argument is what gives it meaning. Sure, consider the biases of the people making the arguments. But don't be foolish enough to substitute your imaging of their biases for their actual arguments.
Only one whining about shit weather is you, dear.
Nope. I quoted the AC in question who originally used that term. And I quoted it in my previous post so that your very concern was addressed then.
"Climate != average weather either. "
Ah, so climate is something completely different, then, hmm?
Yes. For example, consider the average temperature of Earth for the last 4.5 billion years. What climate does that represent? It's a mix of a variety of radically different climates on Earth, from a water poor, methane rich atmosphere (from before the Earth accumulated most of its current water) to today's nitrogen/oxygen mix. The geology of Earth changed radically from just after the formation of the Moon (thought to be by an impact of a Mars-sized object with Earth) and today's plate tectonics. And the Sun has changed significantly in solar output over that time too.
But this shows that you've never let cluelessness get in the way of proclamations against those who actually know stuff because your politics disagrees with the required actions that are a consequence of adapting to the new information.
Slashdot seems to have way too many people projecting their psychological problems on others. I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post. Your last reply was completely off base and irrational.
It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints. Kind of how voting often works, especially in the US.
If we had those - inflation adjusted obviously - income tax rates of the 50's, I wonder how the financial collapse of '08 have panned out.
The same. 50 to 1 leverage doesn't change because of income tax rates. Neither does the Fed's easy credit policy change. That's the two big factors right there.
Nonsense, that argument only works when it's khallow doubting the work of climate scientists!
How come I only hear from whiny ACs on climate change? I have other reprehensible views too! Maybe blood clots happen more often in the climate change portion of the brain.
If you are buying openly traded stocks, then for the most part, you aren't putting money into a business.
Sure, you could look at it that way. But why would you? The original investment was predicated on the assumption that the investors could sell their investment to someone else. Also, any future stock offerings only have value because someone is willing to buy the stock.
Slashdot Mirror
When your "higher math" claims to describe the Universe
That's a physics problem. The math of string theory is completely independent of that claim.
The knowledge of the practical problems (and their workaround/solutions) has NOT been disseminated, and thus, pretty much everyone has to learn from scratch. Extraterrestrial probe building is still very much a Deep Magic field, with only a select few organizations (mostly NASA, but ESA too) having the experience to do it well. And they're not sharing.
NASA at least has been sharing. But that's the sort of knowledge that either gets buried in a forty year old NASA journal or never put to paper in the first place because nobody thought it was important enough to do so.
Can the deployment be successful if the object deployed failed the majority of its mission objectives?
Of course. It depends on the relative importance of those mission objectives and whether they were considered necessary for success or not. Out of curiosity, what makes you think it failed the majority of its mission objectives?
That's a weak cop-out.
Doesn't matter. It's good enough.
You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process.
I don't know any such thing. You don't either.
Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair.
Elections in the regions in question are a good indication that there are considerably less such people than claimed by the polls. Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?
My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population. If it really was 40-45% as claimed by the Gallop poll and others, then the US would look a lot different than it actually does.
1 lolnope for claiming that string theory is "higher math" - it's fucking wankery without rigor and without testing.
Lack of rigor just means there will be a lot of drama when the day of reckoning comes. It doesn't preclude something from being higher math. And "testing" is completely irrelevant to most higher math.
I guess I walked into that. Accusations of racism are after all the new witch hunt. But I don't believe that Rand Paul actually has expressed open disdain for those amendments.
Tell you what. Next time we're on topic and you're willing to post under a nym other than AC, I'll be willing to discuss this.
OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time".
Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.
If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.
When it comes to corruption, Dems are a lot more trustworthy than Republicans.
I don't know. The Republicans tend to stay bought when you bribe them. I get the impression it's the flakier progressive types who turn on you after they get what they want. Classic examples are John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon. JFK turned on the Mob after he got elected while Nixon didn't. That made Nixon more trustworthy in corruption than Kennedy.
I mean, we are talking about the party who wants to default on our debts and is okay with that.
Which is a non sequitur. Just because someone allegedly wants to default on debts (here, meaning a short delay in loan payments possibly happening as a result of their actions), doesn't at all imply a thing about their trustworthiness in any sort of endeavor.
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.
Like what?
Aye, but then again you post to places not here, don't you, duckie!
No, I pointed to two spots in this thread which illustrated my case. And my use of "here" is meant to refer to refer to arguments in this thread.
Yes, they say that we shouldn't change our habits instead. Which means the same thing, darling, doesn't it?
Of course, it doesn't. When you make an argument, then the content of the argument is what gives it meaning. Sure, consider the biases of the people making the arguments. But don't be foolish enough to substitute your imaging of their biases for their actual arguments.
Only one whining about shit weather is you, dear.
Nope. I quoted the AC in question who originally used that term. And I quoted it in my previous post so that your very concern was addressed then.
"Climate != average weather either. "
Ah, so climate is something completely different, then, hmm?
Yes. For example, consider the average temperature of Earth for the last 4.5 billion years. What climate does that represent? It's a mix of a variety of radically different climates on Earth, from a water poor, methane rich atmosphere (from before the Earth accumulated most of its current water) to today's nitrogen/oxygen mix. The geology of Earth changed radically from just after the formation of the Moon (thought to be by an impact of a Mars-sized object with Earth) and today's plate tectonics. And the Sun has changed significantly in solar output over that time too.
But this shows that you've never let cluelessness get in the way of proclamations against those who actually know stuff because your politics disagrees with the required actions that are a consequence of adapting to the new information.
Slashdot seems to have way too many people projecting their psychological problems on others. I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post. Your last reply was completely off base and irrational.
But so what?
It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints. Kind of how voting often works, especially in the US.
If we had those - inflation adjusted obviously - income tax rates of the 50's, I wonder how the financial collapse of '08 have panned out.
The same. 50 to 1 leverage doesn't change because of income tax rates. Neither does the Fed's easy credit policy change. That's the two big factors right there.
Plus, it also creates a financial incentive for government to encourage such behavior.
He can also get audience participation with his cell phone call. That ought to show the listener(s) on the other end, just how pro he is.
Ok, once again. Why does it need to be a law? You've just mentioned some reasons why it's unpleasant and that a lot of people don't like the behavior.
Or Congo Free State.
While it doesn't make any distinction between anywhere on the spectrum
Yep. That's my point.
After we put in pervasive sensor networks into every aspect of human life, it will be clear who dealt it.
It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ?
I guess when you are too helpless to do anything, you do need a congresscritter to hold your hand and wipe your ass.
No, it would rock.
That's about as binary a choice as is possible on the subject
Which makes it unsuitable for interrogating about beliefs that aren't similarly binary such as the example you gave.
Nonsense, that argument only works when it's khallow doubting the work of climate scientists!
How come I only hear from whiny ACs on climate change? I have other reprehensible views too! Maybe blood clots happen more often in the climate change portion of the brain.
The fact that you chose to pick your source from this organisation
No such fact exists in this case. I have on rare occasion referred to Fox News stories, but this wasn't one of those cases.
If you are buying openly traded stocks, then for the most part, you aren't putting money into a business.
Sure, you could look at it that way. But why would you? The original investment was predicated on the assumption that the investors could sell their investment to someone else. Also, any future stock offerings only have value because someone is willing to buy the stock.
I see no problem with my interpretation.