Also when you figure per capita, the US has almost 4 times the population, which makes US sales roughly 2.5 times better.
Umm, no. RTFA. 65,000 in six months in Germany versus 600,000 per week in the USA. Even accounting for population differences, the difference is about 120:1.
I, a lay, would assume that "effective" and "cost effective" are the same, but I may be missing something.
"effective" and "cost effective" aren't the same. A counterexample would be a vaccine that reduced chance of death from one in a million to zero, but cost $100,000 per dose. In that (entirely hypothetical and unrealistic) case, you would prevent 300 deaths in the USA at a cost of $30 trillion. Definitely effective, completely not "cost effective".
I know, I'm a big proponent of that. But tell that idea to the Americans here, that you need gov intervention to do such a thing, and it is immediately discarded as 'intrusive' and 'takes away freedoms'.
Nah, we're used to energy efficiency stickers. What's "intrusive" and "takes away freedom" is the bit where we have to replace our new 58" TV because the law requires a "high-efficiency TV". That way we get to spend more money on the new TV than we'll ever save on electricity.
You assume two redundant communication points: One on mars, and one in L4/5.
But the point is to use only one between Earth and Mars.
There has to be something on Mars that can transmit and receive, so the addition of one in either L4 or L5 is about the minimum you can deal with without communications blackouts.
The point of TFA is to use a complicated powered orbit to do what can be done with a satellite in a free orbit at an L4/L5 point.
The advantage of the complicated powered orbit is that it would reduce communications time, the disadvantage is that it requires reaction mass.
The advantage of an L4/5 relay is that it will stay there for far longer than we'll ever need it (hundreds or thousands of years) without reaction mass, the disadvantage is that it requires a longer delay for Earth-Mars communications.
Personally, I think that the extra time delay isn't worth the hassle of either refueling the relays, or replacing them every few years. Other people may come to different conclusions, of course - it's not like there's only one "right answer"....
But as TorKlingberg points out below, the sun will move between Mars-L4/L5 or L4/L5-Earth.
Doesn't matter. If the sun is between Mars-L4/5 and Earth, then Mars is visible from Earth. Likewise, if the Sun is between Earth-L4/5 and Mars, then Mars is visible from Earth.
The only case where you need these relays is if the Sun is between Mars and Earth (or close enough to a direct line to make a hash of radio communications between Mars and Earth), and in any such case, none of the L4/5 points (either Mars or Earth) will be blocked from either of the two planets.
Well you must not go to the dentist on a regular basis - every dentist i know does a set of X-Rays each year, normally this is a upper and lower set 1-3 exposures each (# of exposures depends on their equipment and if they are looking for something specific)
Bah! Forgot about dental x-rays. Which is pretty amazing, considering I had my most recent set about three weeks ago....
I tend to consider that, dreadful as Stalin's soviet Russia was, and no matter how much help they received, it was mainly its soldiers --along with many others, notably the Britons, who won with their blood.
So, your definition of success in warfare includes getting the crap beat out of you? Interesting. Personally, my definition of success in warfare uses a measurement of how little your guys bleed as opposed to the other fellows.
Note that the USA fought the Japanese and Germans, while at the same time supplying pretty much everyone (including the UK) with everything they could possibly want to fight with (tanks, artillery, ships, planes, fuel, ammo, the works).
We did NOT supply the USSR with most of what they needed. We did, however, supply them with most of the trucks they used. And moderately enormous amounts of other material (millions of tons of stuff were shipped to the USSR).
Today's American people should become aware of this and realize that they never were good at fighting face to face with pretty much anyone
Shiloh. Petersburg. Gettysburg. The Wilderness. To name just a tiny number of examples.
New Orleans. The Alamo. A couple more.
Belleau Wood. Wake. Bastogne. Guadalcanal. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. Chosin Reservoir. A few more.
I can go on with more places you've likely never heard of for a long time. And that's without even counting naval battles, like Flamborough Head, to name one example.
They carried a hefty human toll, though, and should not have been used at all.
They carried a smaller human toll between them than one night of firebombing of Tokyo.
Keep in mind that the terrifying thing about the Bomb wasn't that we used it to wreck a city, but that we could wreck a city with one bomber, rather than the old-fashioned way of sending 1000 bombers.
Note also that Dresden was far more thoroughly ruined without the Bomb....
They create no products and provide no services. I think that's all anyone needs to know about how capitalism supposedly rewards hard work.
Oddly enough, day-trading would probably be non-existent if not for government intervention in the markets in the form of the "limited liability coroporation".
If someone took on the legal liabilities of anything they invested in, they'd not invest without a great deal more thought.
right but over the general population they still aren't typical.
Personally, I don't consider X-Rays all that typical either. I think I've had one in the last 20 years...
it's better for your doctor to keep tabs on your dosages for a time frame - than GE to set a number and let you go over and over without taking that into account.
Realistically, that would require everyone to wear a dosimeter.
Which is not really practical, since people would forget to wear it, or wear their spouse's dosimeter by mistake, or find some novel way to be stupid.
Anything short of a personal dosimeter wouldn't be worthwhile.
If, for example, all that were required was a notation in your record that you'd had a , then the guy who had just blasted you with eight times the lethal dosage because he wasn't paying attention would just enter what he expected to give you, not what he actually gave you.
So if the points between starvation, plagues, and endless manual labor sucked, does that mean that starvation, plagues, and endless manual labor were the high points?
They at least had the virtue of being interesting....
The power used to build a windmill has a cost and this cost is reflected in the price of the windmill (plus wages, profit, etc.) so it is easy to calculate whether or not the windmill pays back the energy cost. If the windmill pays back its cost in the revenue from the power it generates then it is indeed generating more power than was used to build it.
At this point, if you were talking about anything but "green" power, someone would chime in about cost externalities that aren't covered by the cost of making everything, yada, yada.
So I'll do them the favour of doing so: you're not including the externalities like the cost of the pollution produced in the mining, manufacturing and transport parts of this transaction.
Republicans are lax about enforcing laws against corporations.
I take it you missed my point about the Republicans being the ones who first brought anti-trust charges against IBM, then?
Or perhaps you missed the point that the Democrats were ignoring IBM's indiscretions that led up to that first anti-trust charge?
In plainer English - both Parties are equally culpable in not properly enforcing the anti-trust laws, and both Parties are usually pretty happy to take donations from corporations willing to donate rather than face anti-trust charges.
His actions didn't represent those words. Obama's trying, or so I see it.
Actually, Bush's actions did represent those words. Note that he only invaded two countries, instead of, say, all of them. And if we were really all that offended by Sharia Law, there are a lot of countries we missed.
Obama on the other hand, is doing what, exactly, in the way of "trying"? Pulling out of Iraq? That was agreed to by Bush the year before Obama became President.
Reinforcing the troops in Afghanistan? Yah, Obama did do that, but I'm not sure how that is really indicative of him trying to be nicer to Muslims.
Face it, so far what we have from Obama is some speeches and a lot of hope. I've nothing against speeches, but they don't get things done in and of themselves, and hope is a good thing.
Hope just isn't on the list of qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well, if the Constitution proves to be violently outdated in certain aspects it can be changed, right?
Yep. Just get 67 Senators and 289 Represnetatives to agree, and we can start on getting the 38 States to agree. Then it'll be changed.
Note that no-one has actually proposed getting the Constitution amended for that purpose. Instead, they are taking the approach that if they want something, then the Constitution automatically allows it.
exactly. it keep changing, but when i first saw it, the top bar (yes) was labeled 50%, was about, 1/5th the length of the bottom bar (no) , also labeled 50%, and the scale on the bottom read (i kid you not) 49%, 50%, 50%, 51%
Pretty standard method of lying with statistics. You scale the graph so that one side looks vastly larger than the other, even though the two sides are nearly identical. Both sides do it regularly.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no. RTFA. 65,000 in six months in Germany versus 600,000 per week in the USA. Even accounting for population differences, the difference is about 120:1.
"effective" and "cost effective" aren't the same. A counterexample would be a vaccine that reduced chance of death from one in a million to zero, but cost $100,000 per dose. In that (entirely hypothetical and unrealistic) case, you would prevent 300 deaths in the USA at a cost of $30 trillion. Definitely effective, completely not "cost effective".
So, basically, CO is a bit like digitalis, in that it's a deadly poison that has medical uses?
Nah, we're used to energy efficiency stickers. What's "intrusive" and "takes away freedom" is the bit where we have to replace our new 58" TV because the law requires a "high-efficiency TV". That way we get to spend more money on the new TV than we'll ever save on electricity.
Consumer Reports? It's always worked for me.
There has to be something on Mars that can transmit and receive, so the addition of one in either L4 or L5 is about the minimum you can deal with without communications blackouts.
The point of TFA is to use a complicated powered orbit to do what can be done with a satellite in a free orbit at an L4/L5 point.
The advantage of the complicated powered orbit is that it would reduce communications time, the disadvantage is that it requires reaction mass.
The advantage of an L4/5 relay is that it will stay there for far longer than we'll ever need it (hundreds or thousands of years) without reaction mass, the disadvantage is that it requires a longer delay for Earth-Mars communications.
Personally, I think that the extra time delay isn't worth the hassle of either refueling the relays, or replacing them every few years. Other people may come to different conclusions, of course - it's not like there's only one "right answer"....
Doesn't matter. If the sun is between Mars-L4/5 and Earth, then Mars is visible from Earth. Likewise, if the Sun is between Earth-L4/5 and Mars, then Mars is visible from Earth.
The only case where you need these relays is if the Sun is between Mars and Earth (or close enough to a direct line to make a hash of radio communications between Mars and Earth), and in any such case, none of the L4/5 points (either Mars or Earth) will be blocked from either of the two planets.
Bah! Forgot about dental x-rays. Which is pretty amazing, considering I had my most recent set about three weeks ago....
Nah, there were "joint stock ventures" long before there were corporations.
So, your definition of success in warfare includes getting the crap beat out of you? Interesting. Personally, my definition of success in warfare uses a measurement of how little your guys bleed as opposed to the other fellows.
Note that the USA fought the Japanese and Germans, while at the same time supplying pretty much everyone (including the UK) with everything they could possibly want to fight with (tanks, artillery, ships, planes, fuel, ammo, the works).
We did NOT supply the USSR with most of what they needed. We did, however, supply them with most of the trucks they used. And moderately enormous amounts of other material (millions of tons of stuff were shipped to the USSR).
Shiloh. Petersburg. Gettysburg. The Wilderness. To name just a tiny number of examples.
New Orleans. The Alamo. A couple more.
Belleau Wood. Wake. Bastogne. Guadalcanal. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. Chosin Reservoir. A few more.
I can go on with more places you've likely never heard of for a long time. And that's without even counting naval battles, like Flamborough Head, to name one example.
They carried a smaller human toll between them than one night of firebombing of Tokyo.
Keep in mind that the terrifying thing about the Bomb wasn't that we used it to wreck a city, but that we could wreck a city with one bomber, rather than the old-fashioned way of sending 1000 bombers.
Note also that Dresden was far more thoroughly ruined without the Bomb....
Oddly enough, day-trading would probably be non-existent if not for government intervention in the markets in the form of the "limited liability coroporation".
If someone took on the legal liabilities of anything they invested in, they'd not invest without a great deal more thought.
Personally, I don't consider X-Rays all that typical either. I think I've had one in the last 20 years...
Realistically, that would require everyone to wear a dosimeter.
Which is not really practical, since people would forget to wear it, or wear their spouse's dosimeter by mistake, or find some novel way to be stupid.
Anything short of a personal dosimeter wouldn't be worthwhile.
If, for example, all that were required was a notation in your record that you'd had a , then the guy who had just blasted you with eight times the lethal dosage because he wasn't paying attention would just enter what he expected to give you, not what he actually gave you.
For some cancers, they are. I have to have three a year these days.
citation?
Also, a citation listing the continuing pollution of fission plants?
They at least had the virtue of being interesting....
At this point, if you were talking about anything but "green" power, someone would chime in about cost externalities that aren't covered by the cost of making everything, yada, yada.
So I'll do them the favour of doing so: you're not including the externalities like the cost of the pollution produced in the mining, manufacturing and transport parts of this transaction.
I note on the Washington Post article on international reactions that even Hamas thinks the award is premature....
I take it you missed my point about the Republicans being the ones who first brought anti-trust charges against IBM, then?
Or perhaps you missed the point that the Democrats were ignoring IBM's indiscretions that led up to that first anti-trust charge?
In plainer English - both Parties are equally culpable in not properly enforcing the anti-trust laws, and both Parties are usually pretty happy to take donations from corporations willing to donate rather than face anti-trust charges.
I expect you're too young to remember what happened in Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968....
Actually, Bush's actions did represent those words. Note that he only invaded two countries, instead of, say, all of them. And if we were really all that offended by Sharia Law, there are a lot of countries we missed.
Obama on the other hand, is doing what, exactly, in the way of "trying"? Pulling out of Iraq? That was agreed to by Bush the year before Obama became President.
Reinforcing the troops in Afghanistan? Yah, Obama did do that, but I'm not sure how that is really indicative of him trying to be nicer to Muslims.
Face it, so far what we have from Obama is some speeches and a lot of hope. I've nothing against speeches, but they don't get things done in and of themselves, and hope is a good thing.
Hope just isn't on the list of qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yep. Just get 67 Senators and 289 Represnetatives to agree, and we can start on getting the 38 States to agree. Then it'll be changed.
Note that no-one has actually proposed getting the Constitution amended for that purpose. Instead, they are taking the approach that if they want something, then the Constitution automatically allows it.
Pretty standard method of lying with statistics. You scale the graph so that one side looks vastly larger than the other, even though the two sides are nearly identical. Both sides do it regularly.
He was in Congress then? Here I thought he only became a Senator after the 2005 election...
I agree with all of your examples except Gorbachev.
In 1989, he was in the position where he could squash the outbreak of Democracy in in Eastern Europe. He refrained from doing so.
His decision to NOT act as his predecessors had done in similar situations made him worthy of the Peace Prize.