noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
OTOH, he does pair programming with Satan. Though I think having one put in the features and the other putting in the bugs is not strictly Agile doctrine.
You really think we could have gone from the 17th century to solar cells... simply by *willing* it to be so?
The obvious rebuttal is that the laws of physics didn't suddenly change in the 17th century to allow us to burn coal. Coal has been around for hundreds of millions of years. But creatures with the knowledge and tools to use coal to power machines have only been around since the 17th century.
Wood, hydro, and yes, solar power would still be available to us with that knowledge.
He linked to an article that shows the energy from the resources you'd get from space resources vs the energy needed to overcome the gravity well.
What's the mass of microwaves again? He proposes going to Titan, constructing a chemical rocket using local materials and returning a little bit of hydrocarbons as chemical energy. We could try things here that aren't that dumb like fissionable materials like uranium and thorium which both have a far better energy per mass, and which can power a far better rocket engine.
Or as I note in my question, we could send the energy as microwaves, that doesn't require any mass for transportation and isn't subject to the rocket equation.
Math is only as useful as the argument it supports.
We're already way passed sending manned flights, we can send probes one way, expendable, lighter, can do more, stand more extremes, have sensors exactly the way we want. Why the fuck would we send people? People in space are a novelty act.
Because people are faster and more effective than these probes you discuss. The problem isn't the sensors, it's the lack of someone on site to make decisions.
Yeh its great showmanship (well until they die), but it would be ridiculous now. Imagine sending people to Mars on a one way mission to die, and the Chinese and Russians sending a probe with a camera to show the world.
Maybe you should leave imagination to people who have it. We could just not do that, right?
He donates to his own foundation to get tax breaks, and then uses that foundation to run for president.
Like Clinton does with the Clinton Library Foundation? Maybe you should look for something that distinguishes between the two candidates rather than ways they are alike?
narcissistic
Another area where Clinton shines just as brightly as Trump.
There's really one course of action here if you don't want to vote for people like Trump or Clinton. Vote third party.
there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.
What is a "best" way? Voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is definitely not it. And any reform of the voting system will require overthrow of one or both of the major parties IMHO because they'll otherwise block any such effort.
It is interesting that the treaty chooses to recognize Obama's signature as ratification even though it isn't. The division of power here is that the President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies them.
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas, which in turn is another reason why rising temperatures are a problem â" they lead to more evaporation. Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age, but nobody is really sure since these exact conditions are somewhat unprecedented.
Not even wrong. You can't get by ever increasing global temperatures to glacial period, which is a considerably lower global temperature than present.
There hasn't been this much CO2 since what, the last big extinction?
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum did indeed have mass extinctions, but of seafloor organisms which we aren't. Land dwelling mammals thrived during the era and diversified.
Just making an observation in passing, and I may be completely wrong, of course, in which case somebody can earn a few, cheap points by correcting me; but over the recent years there has been a number of similar articles about "Chinese Hackers", and the majority view has always appeared to be that this was undoubtedly true.
rtb61 is not the "majority view" and he's been quite consistent in his opinions. I find that once you go from an imaginary viewpoint to a real one, there is a surprising amount of consistency.
Seriously, what is your financial situation today vs 2008? I'm really interested in the details here. I'll provide mine in the same way Trump WILL NOT. Provide details of how you were so oppressed over the last 8 years or shut the fuck up.
Gotcha, didn't I? But to answer your question. Worse off than if Obama wasn't "helping". Weaker job market and higher health insurance costs. But sure, I'm doing better than I was in 2008. But I could be doing better.
In 2008 my gross income was maybe ~130K. Last year it was 450K+. What possible fucking reason do I have to regret the last 8 years? I should love Trump's positions, but I have the extra personal burden of social MORALITY. Gotta admit, Obama was a reasonably socially liberal and pitifully financially conservative President. Based on his own statements Trump would be a horribly socially AND financially REGRESSIVE President.
Ah, the awesome burdens of the virtue signaler. Well, if you ever learn what "social MORALITY" is, you please let us too!
As to your money, do whatever you like with it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Donate it, hoard it, buy a shiny boat, same difference to me. I have yet to care. But what exactly did Obama do to get that money for you?
I probably could have dropped the mike there, but can't... I realize I have been extremely fortunate compared to the average in the last 8 years (I am not in the 1%, but definitely the 2-3%) and have donated significantly to various charities. Have you? We know Trump hasn't, outside of his charity that paid for various lawsuits...
Can't say I'm in the top 2-3%. And I'm not playing the charity game. I loathe this sort of grandstanding as I've indicated before.
I notice here that you are heavily implying that any economic progress, no matter how painfully slow is only due to Obama helping it along. This sort of reasoning ignores that the US could have done absolutely nothing about the latest recession and still see an economic recovery by now. I think it'd be better than present due to an absence of "help" from a certain president, but opportunity cost is invisible.
We were not discussing getting AWAY from politics, but discussing IT intelligently. To be honest/. is in the 90th percentile in that compared to most other social media sites.
Sure, we were, Mr. "I listen to people who just so happen to agree with me". Out of curiosity, how many of those knowledgeable, international, coworking groupthinkers you like to brag about thought Obama was hot stuff in 2008 and not so hot today? There's a problem with listening to ignorant political opinion even when it's sincere. Maybe you could figure out what that problem is.
Also, we don't have the social status thing going on in game play which you do have in an office setting. What's going to happen to the sap who professes that Trump may not be entirely utter crap? How much respect is that coworker going to get from you or the rest of your office?
My view is that listening to the opinion of people who don't understand US politics and who don't share the interests of US citizens, is pretty iffy. When you throw in a groupthink situation like an office or online echo chamber, then it's pointless to try to get relevant opinion.
ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS still think the Sun revolves around the Earth. Same number believes magic and witchcraft is real. One in THREE believes in ESP.
And THREE IN FOUR believe whatever polls tell them. Polling results tell you nothing about whether the poll was accurate, games played with biased polling questions, issues with sample size, or the strength of any beliefs. And if ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS actually believed the Sun revolves around the Earth (for the particularly crackpot claim from your list, which would actually require a radically different viewpoint of the world), you'd think someone other than a pollster would have found them by now.
That's a lot of people who somehow can't be found. In comparison, I've had no problem finding people who would profess some vague and inconsequential belief in magic, ESP, or "something more out there".
Sorry, but you've already been judged guilty of heinous crimes in my courtroom. I built it out of legos by my sofa. I'd upload a picture of the judgment - it's a really good scene, but my Geocities webpage isn't working at the moment.
As to your request, unfortunately, I don't have any ideas or links. But keep in mind that we're speaking of one of the sleaziest business schemes ever developed by man. It's not surprising that they're a protected ecosystem.
And yet quality of life in Norway is higher than in the US wealth is distributed a lot better and crime rates lower, same for Germany, if I can live like a Norwegian I don't care how much taxes I have to pay , why do you?
Norway has massive oil and hydroelectric resources per capita which completely explain its relatively high standards of living. Germany is slowly destroying its future (such as the doubling of electricity and elimination of nuclear power). I wouldn't be so hasty to emulate them.
That's an strongly worded and woefully misdirected effort. If something is unknowable, then it's not worth the brain cells to talk about it. All this talk of hypocrisy is pointless since you haven't shown the earlier poster was inconsistent in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
All I can say is that I copy/pasted from the same column as the original AC a few years earlier.
noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
OTOH, he does pair programming with Satan. Though I think having one put in the features and the other putting in the bugs is not strictly Agile doctrine.
You really think we could have gone from the 17th century to solar cells... simply by *willing* it to be so?
The obvious rebuttal is that the laws of physics didn't suddenly change in the 17th century to allow us to burn coal. Coal has been around for hundreds of millions of years. But creatures with the knowledge and tools to use coal to power machines have only been around since the 17th century.
Wood, hydro, and yes, solar power would still be available to us with that knowledge.
If it's that simple, why did we need to wait until we started burning coal, then oil, to get where we are?
We didn't need to. Don't confuse choosing a path as indicating that one needed to choose that path.
He linked to an article that shows the energy from the resources you'd get from space resources vs the energy needed to overcome the gravity well.
What's the mass of microwaves again? He proposes going to Titan, constructing a chemical rocket using local materials and returning a little bit of hydrocarbons as chemical energy. We could try things here that aren't that dumb like fissionable materials like uranium and thorium which both have a far better energy per mass, and which can power a far better rocket engine.
Or as I note in my question, we could send the energy as microwaves, that doesn't require any mass for transportation and isn't subject to the rocket equation.
Math is only as useful as the argument it supports.
We're already way passed sending manned flights, we can send probes one way, expendable, lighter, can do more, stand more extremes, have sensors exactly the way we want. Why the fuck would we send people? People in space are a novelty act.
Because people are faster and more effective than these probes you discuss. The problem isn't the sensors, it's the lack of someone on site to make decisions.
Yeh its great showmanship (well until they die), but it would be ridiculous now. Imagine sending people to Mars on a one way mission to die, and the Chinese and Russians sending a probe with a camera to show the world.
Maybe you should leave imagination to people who have it. We could just not do that, right?
I don't know about Ken Hansen, but an obvious problem here is that we're moving the wrong way to get a public debate on better voting systems.
He donates to his own foundation to get tax breaks, and then uses that foundation to run for president.
Like Clinton does with the Clinton Library Foundation? Maybe you should look for something that distinguishes between the two candidates rather than ways they are alike?
narcissistic Another area where Clinton shines just as brightly as Trump.
There's really one course of action here if you don't want to vote for people like Trump or Clinton. Vote third party.
One wouldn't expect all containment measures to breach simultaneously.
there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.
What is a "best" way? Voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is definitely not it. And any reform of the voting system will require overthrow of one or both of the major parties IMHO because they'll otherwise block any such effort.
It is interesting that the treaty chooses to recognize Obama's signature as ratification even though it isn't. The division of power here is that the President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies them.
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas, which in turn is another reason why rising temperatures are a problem â" they lead to more evaporation. Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age, but nobody is really sure since these exact conditions are somewhat unprecedented.
Not even wrong. You can't get by ever increasing global temperatures to glacial period, which is a considerably lower global temperature than present.
There hasn't been this much CO2 since what, the last big extinction?
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum did indeed have mass extinctions, but of seafloor organisms which we aren't. Land dwelling mammals thrived during the era and diversified.
Just making an observation in passing, and I may be completely wrong, of course, in which case somebody can earn a few, cheap points by correcting me; but over the recent years there has been a number of similar articles about "Chinese Hackers", and the majority view has always appeared to be that this was undoubtedly true.
rtb61 is not the "majority view" and he's been quite consistent in his opinions. I find that once you go from an imaginary viewpoint to a real one, there is a surprising amount of consistency.
Whatever problem NASA has with bureaucracy and money-wasting, compared to the UN they are like Henry Ford and Jeff Bezos combined.
Yeah better to let the US run things than to actually let other people in the world have a say in anything.
So the people of the world have spoken, and they want bureaucracy and money-wasting? Interesting.
The US will still be near the bottom with a good portion of Europe and maybe Japan doing better.
Is he going to use to keep 100 people confined in a restricted space for 80 days from tearing out each others throats?
Go to Mars? Easy. Live with other people for 12 weeks? That's hard.
This only works on submarines since the sailors all want to go home one day but ad it stands Mars is a one way, survival of the fittest voyage.
So you didn't have to strain yourself to think of an Earth-side example where this worked. I imagine it'll work for a Mars voyage for similar reasons.
Sounds like Musk doesn't want to go the Moon.
Why people?
Because you don't have a colony without people, by definition.
Seriously, what is your financial situation today vs 2008? I'm really interested in the details here. I'll provide mine in the same way Trump WILL NOT. Provide details of how you were so oppressed over the last 8 years or shut the fuck up.
Gotcha, didn't I? But to answer your question. Worse off than if Obama wasn't "helping". Weaker job market and higher health insurance costs. But sure, I'm doing better than I was in 2008. But I could be doing better.
In 2008 my gross income was maybe ~130K. Last year it was 450K+. What possible fucking reason do I have to regret the last 8 years? I should love Trump's positions, but I have the extra personal burden of social MORALITY. Gotta admit, Obama was a reasonably socially liberal and pitifully financially conservative President. Based on his own statements Trump would be a horribly socially AND financially REGRESSIVE President.
Ah, the awesome burdens of the virtue signaler. Well, if you ever learn what "social MORALITY" is, you please let us too!
As to your money, do whatever you like with it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Donate it, hoard it, buy a shiny boat, same difference to me. I have yet to care. But what exactly did Obama do to get that money for you?
I probably could have dropped the mike there, but can't... I realize I have been extremely fortunate compared to the average in the last 8 years (I am not in the 1%, but definitely the 2-3%) and have donated significantly to various charities. Have you? We know Trump hasn't, outside of his charity that paid for various lawsuits...
Can't say I'm in the top 2-3%. And I'm not playing the charity game. I loathe this sort of grandstanding as I've indicated before.
I notice here that you are heavily implying that any economic progress, no matter how painfully slow is only due to Obama helping it along. This sort of reasoning ignores that the US could have done absolutely nothing about the latest recession and still see an economic recovery by now. I think it'd be better than present due to an absence of "help" from a certain president, but opportunity cost is invisible.
We were not discussing getting AWAY from politics, but discussing IT intelligently. To be honest /. is in the 90th percentile in that compared to most other social media sites.
Sure, we were, Mr. "I listen to people who just so happen to agree with me". Out of curiosity, how many of those knowledgeable, international, coworking groupthinkers you like to brag about thought Obama was hot stuff in 2008 and not so hot today? There's a problem with listening to ignorant political opinion even when it's sincere. Maybe you could figure out what that problem is.
Also, we don't have the social status thing going on in game play which you do have in an office setting. What's going to happen to the sap who professes that Trump may not be entirely utter crap? How much respect is that coworker going to get from you or the rest of your office?
My view is that listening to the opinion of people who don't understand US politics and who don't share the interests of US citizens, is pretty iffy. When you throw in a groupthink situation like an office or online echo chamber, then it's pointless to try to get relevant opinion.
ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS still think the Sun revolves around the Earth. Same number believes magic and witchcraft is real. One in THREE believes in ESP.
And THREE IN FOUR believe whatever polls tell them. Polling results tell you nothing about whether the poll was accurate, games played with biased polling questions, issues with sample size, or the strength of any beliefs. And if ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS actually believed the Sun revolves around the Earth (for the particularly crackpot claim from your list, which would actually require a radically different viewpoint of the world), you'd think someone other than a pollster would have found them by now.
That's a lot of people who somehow can't be found. In comparison, I've had no problem finding people who would profess some vague and inconsequential belief in magic, ESP, or "something more out there".
Exactly my point. There's a lot of pretentious grandstanding here. Not a lot of communication. Game playing gets away from that.
Sorry, but you've already been judged guilty of heinous crimes in my courtroom. I built it out of legos by my sofa. I'd upload a picture of the judgment - it's a really good scene, but my Geocities webpage isn't working at the moment.
As to your request, unfortunately, I don't have any ideas or links. But keep in mind that we're speaking of one of the sleaziest business schemes ever developed by man. It's not surprising that they're a protected ecosystem.
And yet quality of life in Norway is higher than in the US wealth is distributed a lot better and crime rates lower, same for Germany, if I can live like a Norwegian I don't care how much taxes I have to pay , why do you?
Norway has massive oil and hydroelectric resources per capita which completely explain its relatively high standards of living. Germany is slowly destroying its future (such as the doubling of electricity and elimination of nuclear power). I wouldn't be so hasty to emulate them.
That's an strongly worded and woefully misdirected effort. If something is unknowable, then it's not worth the brain cells to talk about it. All this talk of hypocrisy is pointless since you haven't shown the earlier poster was inconsistent in any way.