Mr. "Space Nutter" above is a remarkably bad authority on this subject since he has for a while made arguments that are near trivial to refute such as hiscontinuedclaim that there is "nothing" in space. One merely needs to note that the Earth, and for that matter everything else in the universe, happens to be in space.
Having said that, he had made some more serious and relevant arguments regarding the economics and commercial viability of space activities. But it's hard to take him seriously with his child-like signature arguments and slogans.
To dismiss something because it doesn't fit our understanding and call it a scam is short sited. And frustrating to people who are curious.
What "something"? There's no evidence or theoretical backing for the claim that the EM drive does anything. It's worth noting here that no one has seen a violation of conservation of momentum. Every such case where someone claims they have observed such turns to be observation error or fraud.
I'm not even sure we can bring in the conservation of momentum as an issue because of how it is claimed to work.
There's no mechanism by which momentum can be transferred from the system to the outside world, but the EM drive needs that in order to work.
I just was disagreeing with the assertion that something is hard merely because it uses infrastructure that was hard to build. One doesn't need infrastructure at the scale of Earth's road systems in order to use it.
What makes the lunar prize hard in this context is that the infrastructure doesn't support the full trip. Rockets get you into space (for a price) and then you need to get from there to the Moon.
No, because as I explained, we didn't make more pie that wasn't there before.
When you said earlier "The fact the pie grows", then you are stating explicitly that there is "more pie" in the game theory sense. Whether it is that way, because we're "making more pie" or because of some other reason doesn't matter. It is by definition a positive sum game at that point.
Envy cause harm in two ways: stealing from others to get what you want ("I want what he has"), and depriving others of what you lack ("if I can't have it, nobody can"). With post scarcity, you don't need to steal as you can just get a copy yourself (and even if you do, the other guy can get a replacement for free or practically free), and you can't deprive anybody of anything, as post-scarcity will provide whatever you want
We already see how that model fails via the mechanism of licensing. Scarcity has been introduced into the copying of bits. Further, it isn't that hard to deprive someone of something. If they don't have unfettered access to the post-scarcity infrastructure (say because you enslaved them or the licensing cost is onerous), then you've introduced some degree of deprivation.
Please do keep arguing between yourselves while the rest of us google for double engine failures to see whether it can happen or not. It's quite amusing to watch idiots argue by assertion.
The brain is a funny thing. Who knew you could google for double engine failures? Who knew!?
Anything that requires a rocket program costing a billion or so and hundreds of people is not "easy".
How about something that requires infrastructure that is in the trillions of dollars and requires millions of people to maintain? Is driving to the supermarket similarly hard?
Building the infrastructure can be astoundingly hard. Using existing infrastructure need not be.
i'm not saying that they aren't useful; they can predict behavior under the limited conditions for which the laws were based
Those "limited conditions" happen to be all of reality. We have yet to observe any sort of phenomena that violates the basic conservation laws. If the EM Drive was a true violation of conservation of momentum, then we would have seen the effect elsewhere first. It's not the first combination of EM and general relativity, for example. Particle colliders would probably see the effect as well.
We may not understand the math for this, but I am surprised some people out there haven't dumped a few thousand dollars into the tech to make it more efficient and powerful.
The math for the EM drive doesn't work because it violates conservation of momentum. There's no lack of understanding here.
Seriously, why on earth does anyone need to travel to another part of the world any faster than a private jet can already do???
Because sometimes really expensive shit needs to be done right now. Putting it off for a half a day or more can cost a lot of money. Maybe your boss needs to sign off in person on a big deal. Maybe you need a one of a kind part delivered to keep a critical system up.
Whether there's enough of that sort of need to support a suborbital travel industry at this time is a big, unanswered question.
No, it isn't. Even if the US system completely blocks your speech from being heard (which it doesn't BTW, as you can read here on Slashdot, which is yet another piece of US media), that's a vast distance from censoring public speech. Even if no one is listening, you don't have to modify your behavior. While under the Chinese system, say the wrong things for too long, even if no one is listening other than the censors, and you'll be punished.
"In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy."
Let's look at the full quote:
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
The term was introduced in the late thirties by European liberal scholars to promote a new form of liberalism after interest in classical liberalism had declined in Europe. In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy. In the sixties, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the following decades, the meaning had shifted. The term neoliberal is now normally associated with laissez-faire economic policies, and is used mainly by those who are critical of legislative market reform.
I highlighted the parts you left out. Please stop wasting my time with such deceptions.
The fact the pie grows does not make the world a positive sum game.
That's pretty much the definition of positive sum game. So I'll continue to disagree.
Growing the pie also takes time and money (i.e R&D). To get those things, you have to compete with everybody else with their own pet projects on the same pie which has yet to be grown.
So what? The resources for R&D are growing as well.
There's no good solution (are you going to make envy, a base human emotion, a thoughtcrime?) without post scarcity (in a post scarcity world, if you're envious of what others have, you can just get a copy yourself, and it wouldn't harm anyone)
The only solution I'm looking for is not to institutionalize envy. And what makes you think that having what everyone can have is good enough to sate envy?
It has to be "disproved" first. I believe the prior poster was in error when he asserted that a plane with one engine wouldn't need to generate any more thrust per engine than a plane with two engines.
Yes, force is sometimes justified. The "circumstances" you're describing are cases where a criminal poses an IMMEDIATE DANGER to those around them. An armed robbery clearly meets that legal standard.
So drone strikes are legal under those circumstances? Speaking as someone who thinks Holder is probably guilty of being an accessory to dozens or hundreds of murders (from the Fast and Furious gun "walking" fubar), the drone thing is a pretty weak accusation to make against Holder given his weaselly statement on it.
You should probably try to understand why entropy is, and why it doesn't apply here.
Feel free to enlighten me.
These plane are design to fly after one engine fails.
This isn't a way to do it. Why design the plane to fly with one engine when you have two engines available? Because one engine might stop working. And where one engine can stop working, two can as well.
As to whether entropy applies here or not, I'll just note that a working engine (or any other machine for that matter) is lower entropy than the non-working states such an engine could be in. So just like any other thermodynamic system, there is a tendency to transition to higher entropy, non-working states.
I'll use your words against you: this doesn't match observation. People throw the label neoliberal around all the time, and few if any of the people who got called neoliberal are actually for laissez faire all the way, including Obama, the subject which started this.
So someone without an understanding of what "neoliberal" means, calls a politician one. The politician as it turns out doesn't have the traits of a neoliberal. Hence, the definition is wrong.
It can't possibly be that the original person simply misapplied a definition?
Where's the internet with the smart people? I'll sneak in there.
As to your continued assertions of what neoliberal and neoconservative mean, look up the wikipedia articles I just linked.
On the other extreme it's the socialist tyrannies. They too don't have much regulations, because there is very little government CAN'T do, or is NOT allowed to do, so you can easily reword the language.
Rules != regulation. And ease of rewording means you end up with plenty of words, as the various sorts of governments I already mentioned, demonstrate.
This is not exclusively a robot problem. I have met humans that are like that. Many of us even vote them into power every four years or so.
My view on this is that humans have evolved with a large set of nearly automatic body communication. One can tell a lot about a person from the way they act, move, and pose. Similar mechanisms exist for human speech as well.
Similarly, it is thought that some capacity for deception evolved in these modes of communication. But the deception takes effort which can be picked up on, sometimes unconsciously.
What is changing as I see it, is that we can build machines or modify living organisms so that they can deceive nearly effortlessly (and as the original poster showed, even by accident) using our normal communication modes, while we can be observed for weakness at a level we can't even perceive.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. "Space Nutter" above is a remarkably bad authority on this subject since he has for a while made arguments that are near trivial to refute such as his continued claim that there is "nothing" in space. One merely needs to note that the Earth, and for that matter everything else in the universe, happens to be in space.
Having said that, he had made some more serious and relevant arguments regarding the economics and commercial viability of space activities. But it's hard to take him seriously with his child-like signature arguments and slogans.
Bankruptcy court is another avenue for handling this sort of thing. And it gets used a lot more frequently and successfully than government fiat.
Better be a pretty small part.
Sounds like any such suborbital transportation system would be moving several tons of payload at a time. It wouldn't have to be that small.
To dismiss something because it doesn't fit our understanding and call it a scam is short sited. And frustrating to people who are curious.
What "something"? There's no evidence or theoretical backing for the claim that the EM drive does anything. It's worth noting here that no one has seen a violation of conservation of momentum. Every such case where someone claims they have observed such turns to be observation error or fraud.
I'm not even sure we can bring in the conservation of momentum as an issue because of how it is claimed to work.
There's no mechanism by which momentum can be transferred from the system to the outside world, but the EM drive needs that in order to work.
I just was disagreeing with the assertion that something is hard merely because it uses infrastructure that was hard to build. One doesn't need infrastructure at the scale of Earth's road systems in order to use it.
What makes the lunar prize hard in this context is that the infrastructure doesn't support the full trip. Rockets get you into space (for a price) and then you need to get from there to the Moon.
There's always underground as well which may have a water environment that Earth bacteria can survive in today.
No, because as I explained, we didn't make more pie that wasn't there before.
When you said earlier "The fact the pie grows", then you are stating explicitly that there is "more pie" in the game theory sense. Whether it is that way, because we're "making more pie" or because of some other reason doesn't matter. It is by definition a positive sum game at that point.
Envy cause harm in two ways: stealing from others to get what you want ("I want what he has"), and depriving others of what you lack ("if I can't have it, nobody can"). With post scarcity, you don't need to steal as you can just get a copy yourself (and even if you do, the other guy can get a replacement for free or practically free), and you can't deprive anybody of anything, as post-scarcity will provide whatever you want
We already see how that model fails via the mechanism of licensing. Scarcity has been introduced into the copying of bits. Further, it isn't that hard to deprive someone of something. If they don't have unfettered access to the post-scarcity infrastructure (say because you enslaved them or the licensing cost is onerous), then you've introduced some degree of deprivation.
Please do keep arguing between yourselves while the rest of us google for double engine failures to see whether it can happen or not. It's quite amusing to watch idiots argue by assertion.
The brain is a funny thing. Who knew you could google for double engine failures? Who knew!?
Anything that requires a rocket program costing a billion or so and hundreds of people is not "easy".
How about something that requires infrastructure that is in the trillions of dollars and requires millions of people to maintain? Is driving to the supermarket similarly hard?
Building the infrastructure can be astoundingly hard. Using existing infrastructure need not be.
i'm not saying that they aren't useful; they can predict behavior under the limited conditions for which the laws were based
Those "limited conditions" happen to be all of reality. We have yet to observe any sort of phenomena that violates the basic conservation laws. If the EM Drive was a true violation of conservation of momentum, then we would have seen the effect elsewhere first. It's not the first combination of EM and general relativity, for example. Particle colliders would probably see the effect as well.
It doesn't violate the conservation of momentum because it is speculated to be an OPEN SYSTEM.
With no mechanism for coupling the EM drive to the rest of the universe. Hence, why it breaks conservation of momentum.
We may not understand the math for this, but I am surprised some people out there haven't dumped a few thousand dollars into the tech to make it more efficient and powerful.
The math for the EM drive doesn't work because it violates conservation of momentum. There's no lack of understanding here.
Seriously, why on earth does anyone need to travel to another part of the world any faster than a private jet can already do???
Because sometimes really expensive shit needs to be done right now. Putting it off for a half a day or more can cost a lot of money. Maybe your boss needs to sign off in person on a big deal. Maybe you need a one of a kind part delivered to keep a critical system up.
Whether there's enough of that sort of need to support a suborbital travel industry at this time is a big, unanswered question.
The effect is the same
No, it isn't. Even if the US system completely blocks your speech from being heard (which it doesn't BTW, as you can read here on Slashdot, which is yet another piece of US media), that's a vast distance from censoring public speech. Even if no one is listening, you don't have to modify your behavior. While under the Chinese system, say the wrong things for too long, even if no one is listening other than the censors, and you'll be punished.
It's probably marketing spam. I believe that does get deleted.
I far prefer the honesty of Chinese censorship to the dishonesty of US "freedom of speech"
Great doublethink there. I wonder what "prefer" means in this context?
The First Amendment is little more than the right to waste your time whining and being ignored so that you don't engage in effective action instead.
The "honesty" of the Chinese government goes beyond just suppressing speech. They suppress "effective action" as well.
I thought that came from being next to Sweden and Russia.
"In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy."
Let's look at the full quote:
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
The term was introduced in the late thirties by European liberal scholars to promote a new form of liberalism after interest in classical liberalism had declined in Europe. In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy. In the sixties, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the following decades, the meaning had shifted. The term neoliberal is now normally associated with laissez-faire economic policies, and is used mainly by those who are critical of legislative market reform.
I highlighted the parts you left out. Please stop wasting my time with such deceptions.
The fact the pie grows does not make the world a positive sum game.
That's pretty much the definition of positive sum game. So I'll continue to disagree.
Growing the pie also takes time and money (i.e R&D). To get those things, you have to compete with everybody else with their own pet projects on the same pie which has yet to be grown.
So what? The resources for R&D are growing as well.
There's no good solution (are you going to make envy, a base human emotion, a thoughtcrime?) without post scarcity (in a post scarcity world, if you're envious of what others have, you can just get a copy yourself, and it wouldn't harm anyone)
The only solution I'm looking for is not to institutionalize envy. And what makes you think that having what everyone can have is good enough to sate envy?
It has to be "disproved" first. I believe the prior poster was in error when he asserted that a plane with one engine wouldn't need to generate any more thrust per engine than a plane with two engines.
Yes, force is sometimes justified. The "circumstances" you're describing are cases where a criminal poses an IMMEDIATE DANGER to those around them. An armed robbery clearly meets that legal standard.
So drone strikes are legal under those circumstances? Speaking as someone who thinks Holder is probably guilty of being an accessory to dozens or hundreds of murders (from the Fast and Furious gun "walking" fubar), the drone thing is a pretty weak accusation to make against Holder given his weaselly statement on it.
You should probably try to understand why entropy is, and why it doesn't apply here.
Feel free to enlighten me.
These plane are design to fly after one engine fails.
This isn't a way to do it. Why design the plane to fly with one engine when you have two engines available? Because one engine might stop working. And where one engine can stop working, two can as well.
As to whether entropy applies here or not, I'll just note that a working engine (or any other machine for that matter) is lower entropy than the non-working states such an engine could be in. So just like any other thermodynamic system, there is a tendency to transition to higher entropy, non-working states.
I'll use your words against you: this doesn't match observation. People throw the label neoliberal around all the time, and few if any of the people who got called neoliberal are actually for laissez faire all the way, including Obama, the subject which started this.
So someone without an understanding of what "neoliberal" means, calls a politician one. The politician as it turns out doesn't have the traits of a neoliberal. Hence, the definition is wrong.
It can't possibly be that the original person simply misapplied a definition?
Where's the internet with the smart people? I'll sneak in there.
As to your continued assertions of what neoliberal and neoconservative mean, look up the wikipedia articles I just linked.
On the other extreme it's the socialist tyrannies. They too don't have much regulations, because there is very little government CAN'T do, or is NOT allowed to do, so you can easily reword the language.
Rules != regulation. And ease of rewording means you end up with plenty of words, as the various sorts of governments I already mentioned, demonstrate.
The engine doesn't feel any more or less stress [...] and it will feel the stress related to that thrust only
And there we go. More thrust because it's the only engine operating and hence, more stress.
This is not exclusively a robot problem. I have met humans that are like that. Many of us even vote them into power every four years or so.
My view on this is that humans have evolved with a large set of nearly automatic body communication. One can tell a lot about a person from the way they act, move, and pose. Similar mechanisms exist for human speech as well.
Similarly, it is thought that some capacity for deception evolved in these modes of communication. But the deception takes effort which can be picked up on, sometimes unconsciously.
What is changing as I see it, is that we can build machines or modify living organisms so that they can deceive nearly effortlessly (and as the original poster showed, even by accident) using our normal communication modes, while we can be observed for weakness at a level we can't even perceive.