I'm against term limits; I would however, support a bounty.......
I'd prefer we adopted the relevant portions of the Constitution of New Texas.
Setting things up so that harming/killing a "practicing politician" is only a crime to the extent that his public acts didn't deserve such harsh criticism would probably work fairly well....
Using a version control system (CVS [nongnu.org], Subversion [tigris.org], Mercurial [selenic.com], Git [git-scm.com]) makes it very easy to track individual changes and who made them.
Whatever makes you think that any government, anywhere, wants its citizens (or anyone else) to be able to track individual changes and who made them?
(FWIW, am generally against nuclear energy because nuclear waste disposal hasn't been solved).
Actually, the only nuclear waste disposal problems are legal, not technical. The French do just fine with their nuclear waste, since they don't have quite so many people screaming "NOT NEAR MY HOUSE!" as we do.
SSTO with chemical rockets is just plain impossible.
For reference, it was once pointed out in a discussion of the feasibility of SSTO that the upper stage of Saturn, with Apollo removed, is capable of reaching orbit on its own.
In other words, the question is entirely one of economics, not of physical limitations, if a 50 year old rocket design could do a minimal SSTO.
So NASA are helping a young technology company to test a hab design which, if it works, will save NASA money in the long term and increase in-space capability.
And this is a bad thing, because?
Two things: the theme of NASA's announcement was that they were investing in new breakthrough technologies. Fifteen year old tech that NASA was working on in the '90's is hardly "new", much less "breakthrough".
And Bigelow expects to have a full-scale unit in orbit next year or the year after. NASA isn't planning on getting into the game with this exciting new technology till it's been operational for a couple years...
What NASA should be looking at are things that are, well, new. Unproven. Requiring further development. Tried and true not so much. Investing in development of something that's already completed its development doesn't match up with that.
In general, NASA's announcement of its new direction seems to be "we're dredging up a bunch of things that we think will be pretty easy (in one case, because it's already operational) so it looks like we're accomplishing something...."
Instead of blowing money on re-inventing the wheel, except much more expensively...
Lighweight, inflatable mission module...
It seems to me I've heard something similar...Bungalow? Bigelow? Something like that...they've already had subscale testbeds in orbit for a couple or four years...
Oh, and Bigelow's design is based on something done for NASA back in the '90's, I think.
In other words, this is hardly ground-breaking new technology, but a rehashing of tech NASA was ordered to drop back when it turned out to cost too much for development.
Even worse, NASA is actually forbidden by law to do any development work on it still. Though it's okay if they buy one from Bigelow....
Yes, you can charge China and India a carbon tax. It would be collected as a tariff on imports
Contrary to popular rumours, import tariffs aren't actually paid by the nations that the tariffs are charged against. They're paid by the citizens of the nation charging the tariffs (us, in this case).
And while charging Americans more to buy Chinese goods might, in fact, encourage us not to use Chinese goods, it's more likely that they'd just encourage the smuggling of Chinese goods to the USA via countries with carbon taxes and easily bribable customs officials....
There are more automobile-related fatalities in the USA (42,600 in 2004) than firearms-related fatalities (So, actually, motor vehicles are rather more dangerous than guns...
Anything else isn't worth doing at all, and therefore we should just do nothing until that solution is found...
Pretty much.
As I understand the science, if global emissions aren't capped (actually, reduced to near zero - even the Kyoto/Copenhagen reductions are meaningless), then the temperature will continue to increase indefinitely. A partial solution, at best, delays the inevitable slightly.
So, why bother implementing a partial solution that will cripple our industry?
A sane society would tax things like gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, etc., highly enough to discourage its profligate consumption and apply the funds to develop practical implementations of an array of alternative renewable energy sources (fusion, solar, biofuels, etc.).
If I had a reason to suspect that that's what we'd do with a carbon tax, I'd be all for it.
Alas, past history suggests that we'd use the money gained to fund some congresscritter's favorite boondoggle instead.
Oh, and do we plan to impose a carbon tax on India and China? Not sure I see much point in crippling our industry unless they do the same, since we won't be solving global warming by any action that's not worldwide....
The agreement in question has no validity until both parties sign it. The fact that the Brits signed it is meaningless until and unless the USA also signs it.
Note, by the way, that the Brits may voluntarily follow the agreement, even without the USA becoming a party to the agreement, but that's neither expected nor required.
You probably assume that dumb people know they are dumb..
No, but you have to explain things to dumb people.
With smart people, there's not so much annoying explanation required, since they (in general) think they're smarter than you, and see angles that you've overlooked....
So you mean that it's equally easy (in average) to con somebody with IQ 90 and somebody with IQ 140? Sure, somebody with IQ 140 or higher can be conned and I'm sure there's anecdotally evidence for that, but that doesn't mean it's equally easy to con smart(er) people.
Probably easier to con a smart person than a dumb one. Just convince the smart guy that he's conning you, and he's ripe for plucking....
Look, 10 million brits want the conservatives to rule. But over 15 million agree that they don't want that. If they don't want it badly enough, they are allowed to form a coalition to prevent it.
Note that your statement applies equally well to Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties, in that while some people want each Party to rule, a large majority doesn't want that particular Party to rule....
Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.
Oddly enough, when I compare US Military spending in 1980 to current spending, I note that military spending has increased at a lower rate than inflation for the last 30 years ($303 billion in 1980, $685 billion now, inflation 1980-2009 averaged 3.2% per year (totalling 157% over that period)).
Slashdot Mirror
According to SpaceX, the launch windows will open at 11:00 EDT (10 CDT for those of us in NOLA), which is 1500 UTC.
I sincerely hope your post was meant as a joke, but if not...
Removing the top 10 km of the entire lunar surface represents around 10^16 tons of material.
It also represents less than 2% of the total lunar mass.
In other words "large changes" isn't even in the timezone of what we're talking about....
Actually, that was from 1965. And had nothing to do with Pintos catching fire when someone rammed into them....
I prefer to think of them a "free enterprise IDs" - the best kind, really....
To all intents and purposes, that's what that big-ass concrete pyramid was that they tried first thing.
Alas, it didn't work quite the way it was planned, and iced up.
Which pretty much blows a hole in the "single file" concept, since you'd need to include the Perl installations, and update same from time to time.
I'd prefer we adopted the relevant portions of the Constitution of New Texas.
Setting things up so that harming/killing a "practicing politician" is only a crime to the extent that his public acts didn't deserve such harsh criticism would probably work fairly well....
Whatever makes you think that any government, anywhere, wants its citizens (or anyone else) to be able to track individual changes and who made them?
Actually, the only nuclear waste disposal problems are legal, not technical. The French do just fine with their nuclear waste, since they don't have quite so many people screaming "NOT NEAR MY HOUSE!" as we do.
For reference, it was once pointed out in a discussion of the feasibility of SSTO that the upper stage of Saturn, with Apollo removed, is capable of reaching orbit on its own.
In other words, the question is entirely one of economics, not of physical limitations, if a 50 year old rocket design could do a minimal SSTO.
Two things: the theme of NASA's announcement was that they were investing in new breakthrough technologies. Fifteen year old tech that NASA was working on in the '90's is hardly "new", much less "breakthrough".
And Bigelow expects to have a full-scale unit in orbit next year or the year after. NASA isn't planning on getting into the game with this exciting new technology till it's been operational for a couple years...
What NASA should be looking at are things that are, well, new. Unproven. Requiring further development. Tried and true not so much. Investing in development of something that's already completed its development doesn't match up with that.
In general, NASA's announcement of its new direction seems to be "we're dredging up a bunch of things that we think will be pretty easy (in one case, because it's already operational) so it looks like we're accomplishing something...."
Lighweight, inflatable mission module...
It seems to me I've heard something similar...Bungalow? Bigelow? Something like that...they've already had subscale testbeds in orbit for a couple or four years...
Oh, and Bigelow's design is based on something done for NASA back in the '90's, I think.
In other words, this is hardly ground-breaking new technology, but a rehashing of tech NASA was ordered to drop back when it turned out to cost too much for development.
Even worse, NASA is actually forbidden by law to do any development work on it still. Though it's okay if they buy one from Bigelow....
Contrary to popular rumours, import tariffs aren't actually paid by the nations that the tariffs are charged against. They're paid by the citizens of the nation charging the tariffs (us, in this case).
And while charging Americans more to buy Chinese goods might, in fact, encourage us not to use Chinese goods, it's more likely that they'd just encourage the smuggling of Chinese goods to the USA via countries with carbon taxes and easily bribable customs officials....
"Eluding". definition:
1. Evading or escaping from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill
2. Escaping the understanding or grasp of
"Alluding", definition:
Making an indirect reference
Yes, I'm a spelling nazi today....
A quick googling suggests the number of guns is closer to 275 million than 200 million.
The 200 million number is more than ten years old, and there have been a lot of guns sold in the last decade.
There are more guns than people in the USA.
Their are fewer cars than people in the USA.
There are more automobile-related fatalities in the USA (42,600 in 2004) than firearms-related fatalities (So, actually, motor vehicles are rather more dangerous than guns...
Actually, competitive pistol-shooting is quite popular is some circles. Including the Olympic Games.
Pretty much.
As I understand the science, if global emissions aren't capped (actually, reduced to near zero - even the Kyoto/Copenhagen reductions are meaningless), then the temperature will continue to increase indefinitely. A partial solution, at best, delays the inevitable slightly.
So, why bother implementing a partial solution that will cripple our industry?
If I had a reason to suspect that that's what we'd do with a carbon tax, I'd be all for it.
Alas, past history suggests that we'd use the money gained to fund some congresscritter's favorite boondoggle instead.
Oh, and do we plan to impose a carbon tax on India and China? Not sure I see much point in crippling our industry unless they do the same, since we won't be solving global warming by any action that's not worldwide....
No, it's not.
The agreement in question has no validity until both parties sign it. The fact that the Brits signed it is meaningless until and unless the USA also signs it.
Note, by the way, that the Brits may voluntarily follow the agreement, even without the USA becoming a party to the agreement, but that's neither expected nor required.
No, but you have to explain things to dumb people.
With smart people, there's not so much annoying explanation required, since they (in general) think they're smarter than you, and see angles that you've overlooked....
Probably easier to con a smart person than a dumb one. Just convince the smart guy that he's conning you, and he's ripe for plucking....
Note that your statement applies equally well to Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties, in that while some people want each Party to rule, a large majority doesn't want that particular Party to rule....
I've always been fascinated by the notion that the parsec is somehow a more universal measurement than the light-year.
Both are based on Earth's orbit, after all.
The light year uses the period.
The parsec uses the diameter, coupled with the purely arbitrary base 60 conventions of the ancient Babylonians .
Oddly enough, when I compare US Military spending in 1980 to current spending, I note that military spending has increased at a lower rate than inflation for the last 30 years ($303 billion in 1980, $685 billion now, inflation 1980-2009 averaged 3.2% per year (totalling 157% over that period)).