In the long run my bet is that they wont do it for any cheaper than NASA could do it with similar vehicles.
You're already being proven wrong by inches. As to NASA, SpaceX has already shown it can be done while NASA has shown that it isn't even remotely interested in doing cheap space flight. So I'd have to say that while NASA might be able to duplicate SpaceX's prices with the Falcon 9, they haven't and they won't. And i ignore here that NASA isn't allowed any more to launch commercial applications while SpaceX is. That's a big advantage.
An amendment CHANGES the Constitution. It doesn't create a whole new one.
Ok, so you understand me even if you don't approve of my viewpoint and I understand you.
The Constitution is the Constitution, and no one part of it is somehow more important than another just because the words have been there longer. If anything, the newer parts of it could be considered more important, as the newer parts are the result of added learning and experience beyond what we had, collectively as a country, at the time of first drafting.
So order of succession for the presidency or the end of Prohibition is more important because they were changed later than say, due process and the First Amendment? Do tell.
It's not obsolete fear. It's real. Story from yesterday, the Republicans who talks big about sticking to the Constitution, fired a guy for pointing out how far removed current copyright laws are from the Constitution.
What does that have to do with child labor again? It's also worth noting that IP laws were a lot less overbearing back then than they are now. You saw some of the same games, such as patent trolling, but they couldn't go as far back then.
Didn't say it's better. I'm pointing out that those who claim to want to "bring things back to the way they were" (and there's a lot of them) aren't just going to bring the good and leave the bad, even if it's unintentional (but I doubt that's usually the case)
It's an opinion not a point.
One doesn't need to make eight year olds work hard to get a society that isn't falling apart.
Well then you'll need to provide some evidence, but so far it looks to me you've been painting the opposite picture
I already did that. I can link to it, if you have trouble finding it.
You say the problem (of child labor) is gone since 1940, and you say the US is in decline despite the left getting what they want.
Well, the left has been getting what they want for longer than since 1940 in the US (i.e social security was established in 1935, Federal Reserve 1913, the law that eventually broke up Standard Oil was written in 1890, personal income tax was introduced in 1861...)
The further you go back, the less leftist movements there are, but then you see more instances of child labor, be it working in the factories in the Industrial Revolution, or helping on the farm prior to industrialization, or simply working in an "adult's" job, because back in the day it's more acceptable for young people to work (as you're considered an adult at an earlier age)
So what? Are you claiming that if we abandon some parts of current leftist ideology, somehow child labor will come back?
Well, that depends on whether it's still there or not. That is the fundamental problem with private pension plans that can't cover their budget. The companies behind them, can't either cause they spent it already.
Or, if you're referring to Social Security, whether the money is better off helping the people of the US, not getting collected in the first place, or going to rich retirees rather than the people who are currently paying into the program.
Just because those in decent jobs in the US have better benefits than people in other countries, does not make it okay for those in the shittiest jobs to have an atrocious quality of life.
The fact that those workers choose voluntarily to work in the shittiest jobs is what makes it ok.
I've noted something similar. Some employees in the US have better vacation time than some employees in the US. That must mean something is wrong.
I just can't believe that a supposedly "developed" country would have such a policy, on top of things like no real national healthcare.
I just can't believe that someone so fucking stupid is not an American. Come on over. We can't make the US have a sensible national health care policy, should one ever appear, but we can make this right.
How about people could try being compassionate and rational humans instead? It seems to work O.K for non-Americans.
I can't say whether they're more compassionate or not with all that knee-jerk, US-bashing going on. The thought also occurs to me too that just because you say you're more compassionate doesn't actually mean you are. But maybe that's only a problem with Americans.
On the contrary, I see lots of people wanting to return to the "good old days", and by that they usually mean the Gilded Age (prior to 1940). Lots of talk about bringing the country back to the way the Constitution described it and appealing to the Founding Fathers (so they might even want to go back to 300 years ago)
Just because someone wants to bring back some of what worked really well, doesn't mean that they want to bring the parts that were terrible. Why cower over obsolete fears? Makes me wonder who the real conservatives are here.
It's mostly the left who wants to bring people back to post 1940, but with it they want to bring back all the socialism and taxes and kids-going-to-college-and-not-working. So it's neither here nor there.
Just because it's more recent, doesn't mean it's better. For example, the US is in decline despite the left getting most of what they wanted. The weakest links in the EU and the US are similarly failing hard despite being pretty much what the left ordered.
One doesn't need to make eight year olds work hard to get a society that isn't falling apart.
so all ths "dust" will just stay on the ground unless it is disturbed
Which happens quite often, every two weeks due to electrostatic forces and the rising or setting of the Sun. And if you have anything moving around? More dust.
in which case it will drop back down just as fast as a hammer would
There is no arms race. You spend 90% of the worlds military budget and if you devoted half of that to feeding the starving on this planet and not to war you would probably have no enemies either.
And you would be wrong. No "probably" about it. There are two things to remember here. First, war isn't about food. Lack of food can be a trigger for a war, but the underlying cause is simply that someone thinks they can get away with doing or taking something via force.
Second, how is that money going to turn into fed people? The key problem now isn't that we don't have enough food or money spent on food, but rather that corrupt and failed governments are preventing people from getting enough food.
Most of the wars in this world are made in the USA
How did the US make the Second Congo War which is the largest war since the Second World War? There are other big wars like the last stage of the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iran-Iraq war, where the US took sides, but didn't make the war.
The AC replier is right. We didn't fully pay for those bennies. And we voted for or worked for the people who made those extravagant promises which are failing so hard now. At some point, you're going to have to take responsibility for your actions and those of your government.
The lunar light cycle provides a much bigger disadvantage. A huge thermal cycle and 14 days of serious cold (some things stop working when you can't keep them warm). There's also the lunar dust. An asteroid (of the pile of rubble consistency) might actually have some degree of internal movement which reduces the jaggedness of the dust. No such mechanism exists on the Moon.
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.
That's assuming the public allows such a robot to be deployed too. I think purely autonomous space missions are going to be among the first victims of a genuine AI scare. At least on Earth, one can unplug the computer or heat it to the point it ceases to function. When it's on Mars, there's no such controls. And that's going to be scary.
It's not that crazy. Space activities, especially deep space activities, come with some degree of radiation exposure which can lead to cancer and other illnesses down the road. An older person won't be as affected as a younger person because they tend to die of something else first.
Years of opposition isn't that remarkable. I bet any such project will receive said years of opposition no matter where it is or how safe they make it. And then someone can spin it into a death sentence. Sometimes things are just unpopular yet need to be done anyway.
As to the cost of disposing of nuclear waste, this is a cost imposed by the public and the politicians they elected on the nuclear industry. That's the classic definition of an externality right there. So why should the nuclear power industry foot the entire bill themselves when the public also is responsible for the bill?
That sort of thing happens when water appears. It was probably an unusually wet season. I believe it would have happened even if you didn't churn the soil, thought that might have helped considerably as you say through turning up dormant seeds or by increasing water absorption into the soil (desert soil is notorious for being impermeable to water).
Yes, but people like you don't actually see anything wrong with that, do you? You're just pissed off that not everyone is as rabidly fgree market and reactionary as you, and that there is a general feeling even in the US that some things are unacceptable in the name of making more money for rich captialists.
I do see something wrong with child labor at that level (and implied risk), but not with child labor itself. But it hasn't been an issue since 1940 in the US. So unless a lot of people want to return to those days, which I just don't see happening, then what is the point of the fear?
Instead I see a different problem today. People who somehow are grown up, but with little experience of work and how to do it (and sometimes with an unenviable combination of little work experience and staggering debts). One doesn't need to be a tool of rich capitalists to think that creating a group who really doesn't know how to contribute to society via work, will be a bad thing for all of us down the road.
The EU is chock full of these people.
I can understand not wanting to work. I sometimes feel that way myself. But work experience gives you a lot of valuable skills that are useful both for getting resources for the things you need or want as well as just doing work that you want or need. I would consider it at least as important as an education for self-improvement.
You'll have to talk to this man. He sees all, knows all. But at a guess, I imagine he's talking about NGOs like Greenpeace who can't possibly be explained except as blowback from a CIA ops gone wrong.
Or stop running the plants and use something better.
Where's this "something better"? Nuclear power covers the relatively cheap, always on power or "base load" power generation. Renewable power is notorious for not have an analogous base load source aside from geothermal.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "original Constitution." There's only one Constitution, unless you're trying to contrast the Articles of Confederation?
There are numerous amendments. So the Constitution changes with time. Hence, there is no one Constitution.
No, no it wasn't. It was overwhelmingly state-sponsored. And the land grants went far beyond what was required.
No railroad businesses involved, no railroads. Funny how that works out. And how valuable was that land given the absence of railroads? There's a reason the feds were giving it away. They couldn't get rid of it in any other way.
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run my bet is that they wont do it for any cheaper than NASA could do it with similar vehicles.
You're already being proven wrong by inches. As to NASA, SpaceX has already shown it can be done while NASA has shown that it isn't even remotely interested in doing cheap space flight. So I'd have to say that while NASA might be able to duplicate SpaceX's prices with the Falcon 9, they haven't and they won't. And i ignore here that NASA isn't allowed any more to launch commercial applications while SpaceX is. That's a big advantage.
An amendment CHANGES the Constitution. It doesn't create a whole new one.
Ok, so you understand me even if you don't approve of my viewpoint and I understand you.
The Constitution is the Constitution, and no one part of it is somehow more important than another just because the words have been there longer. If anything, the newer parts of it could be considered more important, as the newer parts are the result of added learning and experience beyond what we had, collectively as a country, at the time of first drafting.
So order of succession for the presidency or the end of Prohibition is more important because they were changed later than say, due process and the First Amendment? Do tell.
It's not obsolete fear. It's real. Story from yesterday, the Republicans who talks big about sticking to the Constitution, fired a guy for pointing out how far removed current copyright laws are from the Constitution.
What does that have to do with child labor again? It's also worth noting that IP laws were a lot less overbearing back then than they are now. You saw some of the same games, such as patent trolling, but they couldn't go as far back then.
Didn't say it's better. I'm pointing out that those who claim to want to "bring things back to the way they were" (and there's a lot of them) aren't just going to bring the good and leave the bad, even if it's unintentional (but I doubt that's usually the case)
It's an opinion not a point.
One doesn't need to make eight year olds work hard to get a society that isn't falling apart.
Well then you'll need to provide some evidence, but so far it looks to me you've been painting the opposite picture
I already did that. I can link to it, if you have trouble finding it.
You say the problem (of child labor) is gone since 1940, and you say the US is in decline despite the left getting what they want.
Well, the left has been getting what they want for longer than since 1940 in the US (i.e social security was established in 1935, Federal Reserve 1913, the law that eventually broke up Standard Oil was written in 1890, personal income tax was introduced in 1861...)
The further you go back, the less leftist movements there are, but then you see more instances of child labor, be it working in the factories in the Industrial Revolution, or helping on the farm prior to industrialization, or simply working in an "adult's" job, because back in the day it's more acceptable for young people to work (as you're considered an adult at an earlier age)
So what? Are you claiming that if we abandon some parts of current leftist ideology, somehow child labor will come back?
Like Yucca Mountain should have been? Well, I'd have to say "yes" to that one.
We know where the money is.
Well, that depends on whether it's still there or not. That is the fundamental problem with private pension plans that can't cover their budget. The companies behind them, can't either cause they spent it already.
Or, if you're referring to Social Security, whether the money is better off helping the people of the US, not getting collected in the first place, or going to rich retirees rather than the people who are currently paying into the program.
Just because those in decent jobs in the US have better benefits than people in other countries, does not make it okay for those in the shittiest jobs to have an atrocious quality of life.
The fact that those workers choose voluntarily to work in the shittiest jobs is what makes it ok.
I just can't believe that a supposedly "developed" country would have such a policy, on top of things like no real national healthcare.
I just can't believe that someone so fucking stupid is not an American. Come on over. We can't make the US have a sensible national health care policy, should one ever appear, but we can make this right.
How about people could try being compassionate and rational humans instead? It seems to work O.K for non-Americans.
I can't say whether they're more compassionate or not with all that knee-jerk, US-bashing going on. The thought also occurs to me too that just because you say you're more compassionate doesn't actually mean you are. But maybe that's only a problem with Americans.
On the contrary, I see lots of people wanting to return to the "good old days", and by that they usually mean the Gilded Age (prior to 1940). Lots of talk about bringing the country back to the way the Constitution described it and appealing to the Founding Fathers (so they might even want to go back to 300 years ago)
Just because someone wants to bring back some of what worked really well, doesn't mean that they want to bring the parts that were terrible. Why cower over obsolete fears? Makes me wonder who the real conservatives are here.
It's mostly the left who wants to bring people back to post 1940, but with it they want to bring back all the socialism and taxes and kids-going-to-college-and-not-working. So it's neither here nor there.
Just because it's more recent, doesn't mean it's better. For example, the US is in decline despite the left getting most of what they wanted. The weakest links in the EU and the US are similarly failing hard despite being pretty much what the left ordered.
One doesn't need to make eight year olds work hard to get a society that isn't falling apart.
What we have to do is enforce the agreements.
Can't squeeze blood from a stone.
so all ths "dust" will just stay on the ground unless it is disturbed
Which happens quite often, every two weeks due to electrostatic forces and the rising or setting of the Sun. And if you have anything moving around? More dust.
in which case it will drop back down just as fast as a hammer would
In lunar gravity. And dust bounces.
There is no arms race. You spend 90% of the worlds military budget and if you devoted half of that to feeding the starving on this planet and not to war you would probably have no enemies either.
And you would be wrong. No "probably" about it. There are two things to remember here. First, war isn't about food. Lack of food can be a trigger for a war, but the underlying cause is simply that someone thinks they can get away with doing or taking something via force.
Second, how is that money going to turn into fed people? The key problem now isn't that we don't have enough food or money spent on food, but rather that corrupt and failed governments are preventing people from getting enough food.
Most of the wars in this world are made in the USA
How did the US make the Second Congo War which is the largest war since the Second World War? There are other big wars like the last stage of the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iran-Iraq war, where the US took sides, but didn't make the war.
The AC replier is right. We didn't fully pay for those bennies. And we voted for or worked for the people who made those extravagant promises which are failing so hard now. At some point, you're going to have to take responsibility for your actions and those of your government.
The lunar light cycle provides a much bigger disadvantage. A huge thermal cycle and 14 days of serious cold (some things stop working when you can't keep them warm). There's also the lunar dust. An asteroid (of the pile of rubble consistency) might actually have some degree of internal movement which reduces the jaggedness of the dust. No such mechanism exists on the Moon.
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.
That's assuming the public allows such a robot to be deployed too. I think purely autonomous space missions are going to be among the first victims of a genuine AI scare. At least on Earth, one can unplug the computer or heat it to the point it ceases to function. When it's on Mars, there's no such controls. And that's going to be scary.
It's not that crazy. Space activities, especially deep space activities, come with some degree of radiation exposure which can lead to cancer and other illnesses down the road. An older person won't be as affected as a younger person because they tend to die of something else first.
Years of opposition isn't that remarkable. I bet any such project will receive said years of opposition no matter where it is or how safe they make it. And then someone can spin it into a death sentence. Sometimes things are just unpopular yet need to be done anyway.
I thought the government does everything wrong?
Well, it certainly did with Yucca Mountain.
As to the cost of disposing of nuclear waste, this is a cost imposed by the public and the politicians they elected on the nuclear industry. That's the classic definition of an externality right there. So why should the nuclear power industry foot the entire bill themselves when the public also is responsible for the bill?
That sort of thing happens when water appears. It was probably an unusually wet season. I believe it would have happened even if you didn't churn the soil, thought that might have helped considerably as you say through turning up dormant seeds or by increasing water absorption into the soil (desert soil is notorious for being impermeable to water).
Yes, but people like you don't actually see anything wrong with that, do you? You're just pissed off that not everyone is as rabidly fgree market and reactionary as you, and that there is a general feeling even in the US that some things are unacceptable in the name of making more money for rich captialists.
I do see something wrong with child labor at that level (and implied risk), but not with child labor itself. But it hasn't been an issue since 1940 in the US. So unless a lot of people want to return to those days, which I just don't see happening, then what is the point of the fear?
Instead I see a different problem today. People who somehow are grown up, but with little experience of work and how to do it (and sometimes with an unenviable combination of little work experience and staggering debts). One doesn't need to be a tool of rich capitalists to think that creating a group who really doesn't know how to contribute to society via work, will be a bad thing for all of us down the road.
The EU is chock full of these people.
I can understand not wanting to work. I sometimes feel that way myself. But work experience gives you a lot of valuable skills that are useful both for getting resources for the things you need or want as well as just doing work that you want or need. I would consider it at least as important as an education for self-improvement.
You'll have to talk to this man. He sees all, knows all. But at a guess, I imagine he's talking about NGOs like Greenpeace who can't possibly be explained except as blowback from a CIA ops gone wrong.
Or stop running the plants and use something better.
Where's this "something better"? Nuclear power covers the relatively cheap, always on power or "base load" power generation. Renewable power is notorious for not have an analogous base load source aside from geothermal.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "original Constitution." There's only one Constitution, unless you're trying to contrast the Articles of Confederation?
There are numerous amendments. So the Constitution changes with time. Hence, there is no one Constitution.
No, no it wasn't. It was overwhelmingly state-sponsored. And the land grants went far beyond what was required.
No railroad businesses involved, no railroads. Funny how that works out. And how valuable was that land given the absence of railroads? There's a reason the feds were giving it away. They couldn't get rid of it in any other way.