Unsurprising, but also irrelevant. Respond to the argument, not the arguer.
No, not irrelevant. Knowing someone's prejudices gives you all sorts of useful warning signs about where to do more research into his arguments.
The only time someone's prejudices aren't a major factor in his arguments are when his conclusions disagree with his basic position. Which happens, from time to time, on both sides of pretty much any issue. But it's not common.
Actually, most of our budget is devoted to the basic stuff, so each dollar added at this point is much more impressive than the money we already spend. The Augustine commission stated that adding $3B/year allows us to do a lot more than we do right now.
And a lot of the Chinese budget is devoted to basic stuff.
It should also be noted that the Augustine Commission's recommended $3 billion per year extra was enough to get Orion/Ares done on schedule, and that's all. It'll take more to do anything interesting.
Its hard to know exactly how much the Chinese are spending, but its estimated at around $1.5B -- not too bad. NASA accounts for approximately half of world-wide civilian space spending, so real international cooperation (not degrading and subordinating other countries programs) has the potential for a lot of development.
So, if we had ALL of the Chinese budget, it wouldn't be enough to get Orion/Ares done on time?
But we won't get that much, since much of their budget is spent on basic stuff too. So, they'll add a small fraction of what we need just to maintain a manned space progrem, assuming we get all the benefit from their discretionary spending. Which we won't....
A laser might deliver a cauterized burn, or blindness if in the right spot.
Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).
Sharing money, technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development.
Considering how much bigger NASA's budget is than China's space program, I'm not really sure where we'll get much, if any advantage from the deal. Yah, China gains a lot, since they get the benefits of our ten times large budget, but if they gave us their entire budget, it'd not be enough extra to get Orion/Ares finished on schedule, much less do anything worthwhile.
Don't think of taxes as being a fine. Think of them as being insurance against being audited.
For the small amount you're paying, you get:
1. Guarantee of no jail time for not paying taxes.
2. No future fines and interest for tax avoidance.
3. No worries about the above.
4. No guilt about tax evasion.
So, basically, taxes aren't a fine, they're a protection racket?
Unfortunately, the theater is full of nutjobs too.
Apparently. I have a hard time imagining why, since this is just another disaster movie. Better special effects, perhaps, but still just a genre disaster movie.
But there's only one thing that is truly infinite in this universe, and that's stupidity.
Just as a foot note, the Mayan's equate the end of their calendar as like December 31st. The calendar just starts over.
Just as a footnote to your footnote, the only character in the movie who relates the end-of-the-world to the Mayans is a complete nutjob (played very well by Woody Harrelson). The rest of the cast is much too busy running and screaming and dying to worry much about the Mayans' prophetic ability.
And that it has a half-life in excess of 10k years?
U-238 half life is 4.47 billion years. Which certainly qualifies as "in excess of 10k years", but leaves me thinking you have a marvelous gift for understatement.
And disposing of moderately radioactive fusion reactors at end-of-life. Mustn't forget that part.
Well, unless we can develop and commercialize aneutronic fusion (eg, hydrogen-boron). 'course, that's a hell of a lot harder, but certainly not impossible (particularly given the lessons that will be learned while mastering sustainable D-T fusion).
From all I've read on the subject, while the hydrogen-boron reaction is aneutronic, some of the intermediate steps can react in ways other than the ideal model of the process might suggest. And some of those reactions produce neutrons. So even H-B won't make for the warm-fuzzy-infinite-power-at-no-cost-with-no-nasty-radiation that seems to be the goal of the fusion-treehugger hybrids.
They're a bit more generous than I'd be in some cases.
As an example, they rate as a "promise kept" "signing the UN Convention on the Disabled". Since it hasn't been approved by the Senate, the "signing" part, while literally true, is completely meaningless - treaties require Senate ratification before they can actually be implemented.
Note, for reference, that Clinton "signed" (actually, Al Gore signed, but who counts, he was working for Clinton at the time) the Kyoto Protocol. And then didn't bother to put it to the Senate, since he knew that they wouldn't ratify it. Net result: one photo op, no treaty.
Personally, I'd have waited till the Senate had ratified it, and the implementing legislation had been passed before I called it a "promise kept".
Since is only looking at pre-mixed drinks; you're free to mix vodka and red bull if you want, and in fact bars are free to mix them for their patrons as well.
What is the point of making it illegal to manufacture drinks containing alcohol and caffeine while allowing me to pour Irish Whiskey into my coffee whenever I like? Or Rum into my Coke? Or....
...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk. The author needs to take high school physics again.
You might want to consider a good orbital mechanics course yourself. If, as an example, I am travelling in an elliptical orbit with apogee at, say, 500 km and perigee at 300km altitude, and I hit a bolt in a circular orbit at 500 km, then I have just run into something that is going FASTER than me.
Which means that I'll speed up slightly, raising the perigee of my orbit.
The assumption that the net is moving slower than whatever it captures is a ludicrously silly one in space, where pretty much everything is moving literally faster than a speeding bullet. It's just a matter of using the right orbit to catch any particular object.
besmirching the good name of out-of-prison murderers
Murderers have a "good name" to besmirch?
The thing I really wonder in this case: if a German newspaper had mentioned their release the day before their release, would that newspaper be liable to recover and destroy all copies of that particular issue of their newspaper after they were released?
Court records, including the names of the parties involved, are sealed all the time in the US, for a variety of reasons. Germany simply has a different set of reasons than the US does.
Of course, this isn't about Court Records, is it? The Wiki articles in question aren't "court records".
The Germans can do what they like about news articles in Germany. Alas, they don't have the power to extend their whims to news article in other countries....
Remember, a complex bill can look very good on the surface, but the Devil truly is in the details
Note that this particular bill doesn't even look terribly good on the surface. Unless by "surface" you mean "title of the bill".
Things this bill is not even intended to do:
1) Lower healthcare costs.
2) Reduce the power of the Health Insurance Industry
3) Reduce prescription drug costs.
Personally, I can't see how this bill actually provides a real benefit to society by making expensive health care more expensive.
Of course, it's pretty clear how it's going to help the Health Insurance industry (all those new customers who are now required by law to buy their product every year, no matter the cost) and the Prescription Drug industry (all those people who won't be buying generic versions of our drugs for seven extra years, because we have legislation now that extends the period when name-brands are protected from generic competition).
Plus of course our Congress and President, who will have plenty of time to get reelected before we actually get any of the "benefits" of this bill.
Tell me, if Congress actually expected this bill to be a great thing, why didn't they write it so it would take effect before the next election cycle, so they could campaign on "See how we brought you cheaper and better healthcare!!"?
Unlike capitalism, which never runs out of other people's money. There always seems to be plenty left in the pot for its endless, inevitable bailouts.
Sorry, the government giving money to a business to keep it from failing comes under "socialism", not under "capitalism". "Capitalism" would have been to let the companies fail.
The neat thing about "capitalism" is that there's actually no way to use capitalism to FORCE someone to give you money.
The government, however, feels no such qualms, and is quite willing to take money from you and me and give it to people it thinks are "deserving". Like Banks, and Insurance companies, for instance.
No if doesn't. This legislation, if passed in its current form, will require all US citizens to have insurance. Period.
Umm, no. What it does is set a fine if you don't have insurance. The fine is considerably less than the cost of insurance.
So, pay $5000+ per year for insurance, or pay $2500 per year in fines? After all, if I ever need expensive healthcare, I can always start paying the $5000 per year then...and stop as soon as the bills are all paid.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, really. And if I were in the demographic this is intended to deal with (people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it), that's the route I'd take.
Some of these insurance companies have virtual monopolies in a market with extremely inelastic demand and they still can't turn a profit?
You do understand that insurance rates are already heavily regulated at the State level, right? Insurance companies can't actually raise rates without getting permission from (read: bribing) the State Insurance Commissioner (or whatever they call him in your State) first.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not irrelevant. Knowing someone's prejudices gives you all sorts of useful warning signs about where to do more research into his arguments.
The only time someone's prejudices aren't a major factor in his arguments are when his conclusions disagree with his basic position. Which happens, from time to time, on both sides of pretty much any issue. But it's not common.
And a lot of the Chinese budget is devoted to basic stuff.
It should also be noted that the Augustine Commission's recommended $3 billion per year extra was enough to get Orion/Ares done on schedule, and that's all. It'll take more to do anything interesting.
So, if we had ALL of the Chinese budget, it wouldn't be enough to get Orion/Ares done on time?
But we won't get that much, since much of their budget is spent on basic stuff too. So, they'll add a small fraction of what we need just to maintain a manned space progrem, assuming we get all the benefit from their discretionary spending. Which we won't....
Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).
Considering how much bigger NASA's budget is than China's space program, I'm not really sure where we'll get much, if any advantage from the deal. Yah, China gains a lot, since they get the benefits of our ten times large budget, but if they gave us their entire budget, it'd not be enough extra to get Orion/Ares finished on schedule, much less do anything worthwhile.
So, basically, taxes aren't a fine, they're a protection racket?
Apollo had one loss-of-crew accident in about 13 flights. That's about 7%.
Shuttle had two loss-of-crew accidents in about 125 flights. That's about 1.6%.
So, what's the basis for believing we'd probably have fewer dead astronauts if we'd stuck to Apollo?
Hate to say this, but you may be the only one in the country who pays use tax.
Personally, the subject has never come up for me, since I never, ever, ever (really, swear to Ceiling Cat) buy anything on the internet....
Apparently. I have a hard time imagining why, since this is just another disaster movie. Better special effects, perhaps, but still just a genre disaster movie.
But there's only one thing that is truly infinite in this universe, and that's stupidity.
Just as a footnote to your footnote, the only character in the movie who relates the end-of-the-world to the Mayans is a complete nutjob (played very well by Woody Harrelson). The rest of the cast is much too busy running and screaming and dying to worry much about the Mayans' prophetic ability.
But...aren't mirrors and turbines made out of things that are mined?
There's no way to exist without using "natural resources". Period. The only question is how much of them you choose to use, and for what benefit....
U-238 half life is 4.47 billion years. Which certainly qualifies as "in excess of 10k years", but leaves me thinking you have a marvelous gift for understatement.
Uranium and thorium (and pretty much every other element with atomic number higher than 26) is a byproduct of supernovae.
Which makes fission "solar power", but not from this particular star...
From all I've read on the subject, while the hydrogen-boron reaction is aneutronic, some of the intermediate steps can react in ways other than the ideal model of the process might suggest. And some of those reactions produce neutrons. So even H-B won't make for the warm-fuzzy-infinite-power-at-no-cost-with-no-nasty-radiation that seems to be the goal of the fusion-treehugger hybrids.
Actually, most of the things you buy on a routine basis are commodities, so obviously a lot of people believe in investing in them.
Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but fusion won't be "free".
Even after we learn how to build one that works, we'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants.
And disposing of moderately radioactive fusion reactors at end-of-life. Mustn't forget that part.
What "military utopia" would that be?
Or are you talking about some other book than "Starship Troopers" by RAH?
What is the point of making it illegal to manufacture drinks containing alcohol and caffeine while allowing me to pour Irish Whiskey into my coffee whenever I like? Or Rum into my Coke? Or....
You might want to consider a good orbital mechanics course yourself. If, as an example, I am travelling in an elliptical orbit with apogee at, say, 500 km and perigee at 300km altitude, and I hit a bolt in a circular orbit at 500 km, then I have just run into something that is going FASTER than me.
Which means that I'll speed up slightly, raising the perigee of my orbit.
The assumption that the net is moving slower than whatever it captures is a ludicrously silly one in space, where pretty much everything is moving literally faster than a speeding bullet. It's just a matter of using the right orbit to catch any particular object.
So a member of an anti-nuke group doesn't approve of someone's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor? Is anyone really surprised by that?
Murderers have a "good name" to besmirch?
The thing I really wonder in this case: if a German newspaper had mentioned their release the day before their release, would that newspaper be liable to recover and destroy all copies of that particular issue of their newspaper after they were released?
Of course, this isn't about Court Records, is it? The Wiki articles in question aren't "court records".
The Germans can do what they like about news articles in Germany. Alas, they don't have the power to extend their whims to news article in other countries....
Note that this particular bill doesn't even look terribly good on the surface. Unless by "surface" you mean "title of the bill".
Things this bill is not even intended to do:
1) Lower healthcare costs.
2) Reduce the power of the Health Insurance Industry
3) Reduce prescription drug costs.
Personally, I can't see how this bill actually provides a real benefit to society by making expensive health care more expensive.
Of course, it's pretty clear how it's going to help the Health Insurance industry (all those new customers who are now required by law to buy their product every year, no matter the cost) and the Prescription Drug industry (all those people who won't be buying generic versions of our drugs for seven extra years, because we have legislation now that extends the period when name-brands are protected from generic competition).
Plus of course our Congress and President, who will have plenty of time to get reelected before we actually get any of the "benefits" of this bill.
Tell me, if Congress actually expected this bill to be a great thing, why didn't they write it so it would take effect before the next election cycle, so they could campaign on "See how we brought you cheaper and better healthcare!!"?
Sorry, the government giving money to a business to keep it from failing comes under "socialism", not under "capitalism". "Capitalism" would have been to let the companies fail.
The neat thing about "capitalism" is that there's actually no way to use capitalism to FORCE someone to give you money.
The government, however, feels no such qualms, and is quite willing to take money from you and me and give it to people it thinks are "deserving". Like Banks, and Insurance companies, for instance.
Umm, no. What it does is set a fine if you don't have insurance. The fine is considerably less than the cost of insurance.
So, pay $5000+ per year for insurance, or pay $2500 per year in fines? After all, if I ever need expensive healthcare, I can always start paying the $5000 per year then...and stop as soon as the bills are all paid.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, really. And if I were in the demographic this is intended to deal with (people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it), that's the route I'd take.
You do understand that insurance rates are already heavily regulated at the State level, right? Insurance companies can't actually raise rates without getting permission from (read: bribing) the State Insurance Commissioner (or whatever they call him in your State) first.