Why do you think there is a problem here? In a world where you're not punished for employing people, the wealth that the overtime-collecting worker gets would directly or indirectly employ other people.
I'm the cowardly cynic here. I'm the one sitting on my ass telling people it's hopeless. Prove me wrong America that you aren't deserving of my name.
I find interesting how the people who claim to have given up on something give the worst advice. My take is that your dysfunctional view of the world has poisoned your thoughts and your advice as a result is worse than useless. Get a clue.
You operate under the assumption that people who avoid flying would drive instead.
It doesn't have to be a large fraction of the traveling public making that choice in order to increase the overall death rate. And I think the assumption is warranted.
According to [Wikpedia] the amount of road deaths in 2010 was the lowest since 1950, so not so sure about that.
So? That's irrelevant to the claim at hand since road deaths per passenger mile are still much higher than airliner deaths per passenger mile.
Eventually, people will understand that to avoid risks originating from the poorest countries, the final solution is to just eradicate those countries. After all, we don't want them for their population but for their resources. Instead of killing a few and putting a government that follows our orders, eventually we'll be capable (both technologically and socially) to just exterminate everyone in a country and replace them with resource extraction machines.
And why would they "understand" that? Those populations are resources too. And there's no reason to expect the risks from a poor country on the other side of the world to be more considerable either in perception or actuality than the risks from a person down the road.
And once that problem is finally over, instead of the richest country vs the poorer one it will be between cities, and then neighborhoods.
Because?
The only thing stopping the richest from protecting themselves by exterminating everyone else is the shitty quality of the robots.
Because?
While this might make the seed of an interesting science fantasy story, I just see don't a great deal of thought put in here. The obvious one is simply that people are resources too. And a lot of people are rich because they know how to use them.
A second is that the rich aren't notable risk averse. I don't see them engaging in such a ridiculous degree of risk minimization.
Getting old so you can get Alzheimers or other forms of dementia, or simply be a non-productive burden on an "entitlement" society, is good?
When does that occur? According to this book, the incident of dementia increases at great age. Only 5% of people over the age of 65 have clinical dementia. This goes up to almost 50% at age 95. It significantly increases when one gets past the mean lifespan for a person. I suspect that if we had done this study at the beginning of the last century, we'd see that far lower ages would have similar dementia rates (say subtracting twenty years off).
What part of "your claim that they should have started with small vehicles is invalid because they did start with small vehicles"
I don't believe kicking around some designs for small reusable vehicles means what you think it means. The 60s equivalent of power point engineering isn't a start. Building something is a start.
still have the Saturn Ib, it was cancelled years before - the vehicles used for Skylab had been in mothballs for years
So? They could have restarted that. And then develop that small reusable. All for less than has been burned on the Space Shuttle.
Most experts agree that without at least a 10% on year growth civil unrest will become unsustainable.
Then most experts are full of shit. As long as economic growth is significant greater than population growth, there will be an increase in per capita wealth.
The US government will step in to secure our future.
Previous US government steps to secure our future are why the US has so many short term viewpoints in the private sector. If you reward a behavior, such as short term thinking, then it gets worse.
And of course, the obvious solution is for the US government to baby us even more so that we are even less prepared to deal with the future. I'm sure this will turn out well.
I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.
There's several things to note here. First, that chemical attack is thought to have killed several hundred people while no one has died from the current mess in Fukushima aside from a few industrial accidents.
Second, US President Obama needs to save face with Syria. There's no similar need with Fukushima.
Let's see - a loaded question with a false dilemma (there are other choices here) and an ad hominem (scientists who are treated as authorities when they agree with moderate statements of AGW don't suddenly become "non-authorities" when they disagree with moderate statements of AGW). I really honestly am looking for more here than shit arguments that a kid could pull apart.
The Shuttles became "obsolete" as far as the military was concerned with the Challenger accident which demonstrated the unreliability of the Shuttle not so much with the accident itself as with the long period of halting of Shuttle flights.
The shuttle never even launched into the polar orbit used for spy satellites.
This was another victim of the Challenger disaster. Wikipedia says the first polar launch was planned for October 1986 which turned out to be nine months after the Challenger disaster.
The original, ambitious, plan for the Shuttles were to launch about 50 a year - one a week. That's the figure the accounting estimates used to amortize the cost of development and maintenance facilities and personnel. If you assume 50 Shuttle launches a year, then it really does end up being cheaper than conventional rockets. Unfortunately, they ended up averaging a bit over 8 launches a year. At that level they were horrendously more expensive than conventional rockets.
They never had enough payloads to justify 50 launches a week. At a low point for NASA, they even attempted to force all US entities to launch on the Shuttle in order to get the flight rate up. That failed with the legalization of commercial space flight in 1984.
This is yet another symptom of a too large vehicle. If it had been smaller, then a higher flight rate would be more affordable.
Actually, it won't be the disruptive kids who make the sacrifice. If they don't want to be there in the first place, booting them out would be a reward to them, not a sacrifice.
A win-win for everyone? Let's do it then. Call my bluff.
The ones who will have to make a sacrifice are the ones doing the booting - somebody have to take time/effort off caring about only themselves/their kid/the good kids, and instead spend it on removing the bad apples. Somebody has to tell little Billy (and also Billy's parents) that Billy is a deadbeat and we the collective don't want him around us. Somebody has to get their hands dirty to clean up the system.
I suppose that's worth paying them extra for that minor sacrifice. That's a common way we handle people who have to do more than other people.
Alas, the popular rhetoric in the US is any suggestion that good people have to make a sacrifice is an attempt at evil evil socialism, so don't expect things to change.
There's a lot of precedent for the rhetoric.
Here's my take. Yet another destructive socialist experiment has failed. And the failure gets blamed yet again on the people smart enough not to get involved.
So what have you said that is relevant materially to what I said? There have been a lot of vehicles designed over the years to no real consequence. And NASA didn't build and deploy any of these small vehicles.
It's also worth noting that NASA didn't need a "flying pickup" since it still had the Saturn 1B.
it will be the end of the hands-off approach of the US government.
What hands-off approach? The US spends gobs of money and directs plenty of research. It just doesn't do that particularly well even for a government.
And what "first 'command economy'"? Both Russia and Japan predate this and they were able to offer such competition (Japan still does).
I'm also a bit amused by the insistence that this time around directed research will show the folly of relying on "hands-off" research. If directed research were that effective, especially when practiced by the US, then it'd have a better track record.
The dual-use thing came only because the plans were for more Shuttle than NASA could afford by itself. If they had started with a smaller, less ambitious, and of course, less costly Space Shuttle, then they wouldn't have needed DoD money or gotten those DoD strings attached. The DoD in turn could have just developed their own launcher or contract that out to private companies's launch vehicles. They ended up doing both despite the Shuttle.
Isn't that exactly the behavior standardized testing encourages?
Only in a complete vacuum of any other incentives. Some pretty epic stories have been written about what happens when someone thinks something is more important than anything else can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think there is a problem here? In a world where you're not punished for employing people, the wealth that the overtime-collecting worker gets would directly or indirectly employ other people.
And yet the price of food seems to be increasing faster then most anything else.
That's the power of government intervention via farm subsidies.
I'm the cowardly cynic here. I'm the one sitting on my ass telling people it's hopeless. Prove me wrong America that you aren't deserving of my name.
I find interesting how the people who claim to have given up on something give the worst advice. My take is that your dysfunctional view of the world has poisoned your thoughts and your advice as a result is worse than useless. Get a clue.
Many already do live in this society, it's called the USA.
Or any number of countries exhibiting the same symptoms. I still don't understand this urge to dump all the evils of the world on the US.
You operate under the assumption that people who avoid flying would drive instead.
It doesn't have to be a large fraction of the traveling public making that choice in order to increase the overall death rate. And I think the assumption is warranted.
According to [Wikpedia] the amount of road deaths in 2010 was the lowest since 1950, so not so sure about that.
So? That's irrelevant to the claim at hand since road deaths per passenger mile are still much higher than airliner deaths per passenger mile.
Eventually, people will understand that to avoid risks originating from the poorest countries, the final solution is to just eradicate those countries. After all, we don't want them for their population but for their resources. Instead of killing a few and putting a government that follows our orders, eventually we'll be capable (both technologically and socially) to just exterminate everyone in a country and replace them with resource extraction machines.
And why would they "understand" that? Those populations are resources too. And there's no reason to expect the risks from a poor country on the other side of the world to be more considerable either in perception or actuality than the risks from a person down the road.
And once that problem is finally over, instead of the richest country vs the poorer one it will be between cities, and then neighborhoods.
Because?
The only thing stopping the richest from protecting themselves by exterminating everyone else is the shitty quality of the robots.
Because?
While this might make the seed of an interesting science fantasy story, I just see don't a great deal of thought put in here. The obvious one is simply that people are resources too. And a lot of people are rich because they know how to use them.
A second is that the rich aren't notable risk averse. I don't see them engaging in such a ridiculous degree of risk minimization.
Consider the end result
The end result is that you die either way. Since the end result doesn't change, then it's not useful as a means of distinguishing between choices.
and try to somehow stop the water getting in.
No can do. The water is required for a considerable length of time to cool the reactor.
Getting old so you can get Alzheimers or other forms of dementia, or simply be a non-productive burden on an "entitlement" society, is good?
When does that occur? According to this book, the incident of dementia increases at great age. Only 5% of people over the age of 65 have clinical dementia. This goes up to almost 50% at age 95. It significantly increases when one gets past the mean lifespan for a person. I suspect that if we had done this study at the beginning of the last century, we'd see that far lower ages would have similar dementia rates (say subtracting twenty years off).
What part of "your claim that they should have started with small vehicles is invalid because they did start with small vehicles"
I don't believe kicking around some designs for small reusable vehicles means what you think it means. The 60s equivalent of power point engineering isn't a start. Building something is a start.
still have the Saturn Ib, it was cancelled years before - the vehicles used for Skylab had been in mothballs for years
So? They could have restarted that. And then develop that small reusable. All for less than has been burned on the Space Shuttle.
The west has had a good run, but it is time for the next wave.
Ever consider running your own affairs rather than having them run by someone else?
Most experts agree that without at least a 10% on year growth civil unrest will become unsustainable.
Then most experts are full of shit. As long as economic growth is significant greater than population growth, there will be an increase in per capita wealth.
Well, I hope China at least is investing in fusion technology that is expected to work inside of a few human lifetimes.
The US government will step in to secure our future.
Previous US government steps to secure our future are why the US has so many short term viewpoints in the private sector. If you reward a behavior, such as short term thinking, then it gets worse.
And of course, the obvious solution is for the US government to baby us even more so that we are even less prepared to deal with the future. I'm sure this will turn out well.
I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.
There's several things to note here. First, that chemical attack is thought to have killed several hundred people while no one has died from the current mess in Fukushima aside from a few industrial accidents.
Second, US President Obama needs to save face with Syria. There's no similar need with Fukushima.
Society can't handle the costs of current increases to lifetimes.
Fortunately, there are benefits as well to current increases in lifespan. Those benefits are considerable enough to offset the costs.
Let's see - a loaded question with a false dilemma (there are other choices here) and an ad hominem (scientists who are treated as authorities when they agree with moderate statements of AGW don't suddenly become "non-authorities" when they disagree with moderate statements of AGW). I really honestly am looking for more here than shit arguments that a kid could pull apart.
The shuttle never even launched into the polar orbit used for spy satellites.
This was another victim of the Challenger disaster. Wikipedia says the first polar launch was planned for October 1986 which turned out to be nine months after the Challenger disaster.
The original, ambitious, plan for the Shuttles were to launch about 50 a year - one a week. That's the figure the accounting estimates used to amortize the cost of development and maintenance facilities and personnel. If you assume 50 Shuttle launches a year, then it really does end up being cheaper than conventional rockets. Unfortunately, they ended up averaging a bit over 8 launches a year. At that level they were horrendously more expensive than conventional rockets.
They never had enough payloads to justify 50 launches a week. At a low point for NASA, they even attempted to force all US entities to launch on the Shuttle in order to get the flight rate up. That failed with the legalization of commercial space flight in 1984.
This is yet another symptom of a too large vehicle. If it had been smaller, then a higher flight rate would be more affordable.
Actually, it won't be the disruptive kids who make the sacrifice. If they don't want to be there in the first place, booting them out would be a reward to them, not a sacrifice.
A win-win for everyone? Let's do it then. Call my bluff.
The ones who will have to make a sacrifice are the ones doing the booting - somebody have to take time/effort off caring about only themselves/their kid/the good kids, and instead spend it on removing the bad apples. Somebody has to tell little Billy (and also Billy's parents) that Billy is a deadbeat and we the collective don't want him around us. Somebody has to get their hands dirty to clean up the system.
I suppose that's worth paying them extra for that minor sacrifice. That's a common way we handle people who have to do more than other people.
Alas, the popular rhetoric in the US is any suggestion that good people have to make a sacrifice is an attempt at evil evil socialism, so don't expect things to change.
There's a lot of precedent for the rhetoric.
Here's my take. Yet another destructive socialist experiment has failed. And the failure gets blamed yet again on the people smart enough not to get involved.
There is no way we can draw conclusions about their schools and apply them to the USA.
And your reasoning for that is?
So what have you said that is relevant materially to what I said? There have been a lot of vehicles designed over the years to no real consequence. And NASA didn't build and deploy any of these small vehicles.
It's also worth noting that NASA didn't need a "flying pickup" since it still had the Saturn 1B.
it will be the end of the hands-off approach of the US government.
What hands-off approach? The US spends gobs of money and directs plenty of research. It just doesn't do that particularly well even for a government.
And what "first 'command economy'"? Both Russia and Japan predate this and they were able to offer such competition (Japan still does).
I'm also a bit amused by the insistence that this time around directed research will show the folly of relying on "hands-off" research. If directed research were that effective, especially when practiced by the US, then it'd have a better track record.
The dual-use thing came only because the plans were for more Shuttle than NASA could afford by itself. If they had started with a smaller, less ambitious, and of course, less costly Space Shuttle, then they wouldn't have needed DoD money or gotten those DoD strings attached. The DoD in turn could have just developed their own launcher or contract that out to private companies's launch vehicles. They ended up doing both despite the Shuttle.
Isn't that exactly the behavior standardized testing encourages?
Only in a complete vacuum of any other incentives. Some pretty epic stories have been written about what happens when someone thinks something is more important than anything else can be.
I'm current itinerant. I have no real home and hence, no place that I could defend public school - should I ever decide to do so.
Besides there's a simple solution to bad public schools - don't go to them.