Apparently they dropped debate, argument and formal logic at his though: the GP's point, while valid, strengthen's the OPs actual argument considerably.
If the idea that somebody would make animations of cartoon characters having sex makes James Bridle question his believes about the Internet... about time?
These things are not really surprising. If someone trusts some automatic filter Google installed on YouTube to shelter their kids, they should probably be in remedial Internet 101 in the seat next to Bridle.
Another reader responded to you. Since I'm the OP, let me reiterate. Your quote is from a court, which renders opinions about what is legally required. Patriotism and civic duty are not limited to legal requirement. Many would in fact define patriotism as starting where basic legal responsibility ends: if you are contributing to your country (time, money, whatever) over and above the minimum to which you are legally compelled, you are acting patriotically.
It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:
"Taxes are the lifeblood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted to escape the payment of his just share of the burden of contributing thereto." - Arthur Vanderbilt
"Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized." - Albert Bushnell Hart
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” - John F. Kennedy
Sure. It's not like Sputnik led to multiply redundant global communications coverage, global positioning, exploration missions (usually multiple) sent to every planet and some asteroids and comets, continuous space surveillance of the sun, multiple space telescopes covering most of the EM spectrum, global nuclear test and missile launch surveillance, continuous global multispectral weather monitoring, and global mapping (frequently refreshed) coverage in multiband visual, radar, ladar, gravity and many other modalities. And Tang.
The difference is that current science requires a bit of pretty featureless mass energy to kick the whole thing off, then makes consistent, testable predictions from that point on, allowing us to build things like bridges, vaccines and stupid smartphone apps.
Genesis requires an omnipotent creator and doesn't really have any particular consistent explanatory, predictive, or even practical use beyond scaring children.
What do you think happened before every corner store had an electronic terminal? Credit cards still existed. You put all your cash, credit slips and cheques in a bag and hotfooted them over to the bank. Someone at the bank looked through them, reconciled the accounts, and gave you a (paper) statement telling you if any of the cheques bounced. If someone blew their limit on their card, that's between them and their CC company.
Yeah, cash is pretty handy when there's no power. It's not the only option.
It's quite funny to see these dire stories about what happens when you lose power. As if credit cards and cheques didn't exist before electronic banking terminals in every store.
Yes. The statement in the AMA was silly. Musk dignified it with a humorous response.
The raptor engines are supposed to throttle to 20%, and elsewhere in the AMA Musk discussed a 1.3 minimum TWR for landing. They've cut the per-engine thrust down to 1.5 MN, but want to have two engines running for redundancy, so still 3 MN max. Which gives you around 285 tonnes (I think). Dry mass of the ship is 85 tonnes, So you'd want to aim to land with at least 200 tonnes of fuel and cargo, fuel being enough to take off again and return to Earth. I don't think Musk is planning on bothering to land on the moon with less than a significant cargo to establish infrastructure there.
If you did have to come in light, SpaceX has gotten pretty good at the hoverslam. Or you could turn off one of your redundant engines.
I read through the AMA. Musk answered all of the top level questions in significant detail. He did add a quip here and there. For example his comment about chickening out, which was followed up by a couple of paragraphs about the difficulty of deep throttling engines and the benefits of having multiple engines for failure tolerance.
The only exception I noticed was when some nerd said "you can't land on the moon with a 3 MN engine" and Musk said "yes you can - Bob the Builder." Seems fair to me.
I come from a small town with somewhat unreliable power. All the merchants know that if the power goes out, you can take a credit card impression (with some carbon paper and a hard object to rub it, if necessary) and write down the transaction. Some even have cash registers that you can hand crank if necessary. You can also write out a cheque with a pen and any scrap of paper.
I find it hard to believe that in the US, which is thirty years late to the chip and PIN party, you can't use an impression in emergencies.
What's a Mogwai? The first few pages of Google say it's a Scottish rock band.
That's an option. Short of banning it entirely, have a license to buy cigarettes. If you get caught littering you lose your license, but you can apply again in six months. Applications require submission of 100 cigarette butts.
I see very few bottle caps around. None at all on city streets, and very rarely in parks. People in the park who have caps take them along, or throw them away. Yet the very same people think nothing of tossing a cigarette butt on the ground.
Yes, there's a certain threshold, but it doesn't have to be particularly frequent, so long as the fine hurts enough. If you have a 0.001% chance of getting caught and the fine is $50, who cares? If you have a 0.01% chance of getting caught and the fine is $5000... somebody you know is going to have gotten stomped. And that's going to make you think twice.
There was a news story about a guy tossing a lit cigarette out of his car in an area that's had a lot of bad forest fires. A cop saw him and threw the book: a multi-thousand dollar fine. Then the guy got roasted in the national media after complaining. Want to bet he doesn't chuck butts out his window anymore?
I agree with ramping up enforcement, and fines. Make the fines pay for the extra enforcement. When the problem goes away, you can reduce things again.
Yes, aside from the humanitarian issues, if we could get all the smokers to do it in isolation, it would be a pretty big net gain for society. Most places are pretty well toward that goal now, except for the littering issue.
"I'm so courteous I don't understand why non-smokers think I'm disgusting. Yes, I throw burning litter on the ground, but it would be mildly inconvenient for me to carry it with me and dispose if it properly."
One outside my grandmother's house when I was a kid learned to make a sound like a car alarm. It took me a while to figure out it was a crow. I'm pretty sure it did it purely for the enjoyment of watching the local BMW owner go running out to check his car.
I did the research on that for an assignment in undergrad. At the time (and taxes haven't gone down since then), the average smoker in Canada paid quite a bit more in taxes than they took out in public health care for their lung cancer and emphysema. Smoking costs a truly unreasonable amount when you add up a lifetime of it, and smokers tend to die fairly quickly, young enough that they haven't cost much in health care or pensions as elderly people.
Quit whining about people trying to help you. More restrictions on smoking mean its easier for ex-smokers to stay that way, and for current smokers to quit. You picked up a deadly addiction from some evil corporations. A bunch of people fought really hard to make what those corps did to you as illegal as they could. That's why smoking "wasn't cool" for the generation after you. The "hate" is peer pressure, harnessed and used for good.
Perhaps you were quitting smoking when it was still permissible to smoke in public places like bars. I have friends who did that. They say the hardest time to resist their addiction was when they were in a room filled with people smoking. You don't have to face that now.
That's a good example. The vast majority of people (here at least) drive at the highest speed that the cops will ignore. A small number drive faster, and get fined. Seems like the fines work for the majority.
Sounds good to me. Win all around. Butt doesn't get thrown in the first place, entertainment for all the non-smokers, and the smokers get their risk of death reduced a bit.
There are lots of other options. Carry your own ashtray with a lid. I've even seen nice leather cases that do that duty. They're stylish and everything.
Smokers are and have always been irresponsible and entitled regarding their habit. Many of them still deny the problems with second hand smoke and think it's terribly unfair that they can't just smoke anywhere they want.
I very occasionally enjoy a cigar. I definitely do not chuck it on the ground when I'm done. I dispose of it responsibly, like an adult, not like a smoker.
Nah, random reinforcement actually works better. You catch one chucking a butt, you fine them. Yes, you miss 99% of the times. But you make the one time hurt enough, and they stop doing it.
When I was a kid people tossed all kinds of litter. You'd be driving along and see McDonalds cups go flying out car windows pretty routinely. Now? Very rarely.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they dropped debate, argument and formal logic at his though: the GP's point, while valid, strengthen's the OPs actual argument considerably.
If the idea that somebody would make animations of cartoon characters having sex makes James Bridle question his believes about the Internet... about time?
These things are not really surprising. If someone trusts some automatic filter Google installed on YouTube to shelter their kids, they should probably be in remedial Internet 101 in the seat next to Bridle.
Another reader responded to you. Since I'm the OP, let me reiterate. Your quote is from a court, which renders opinions about what is legally required. Patriotism and civic duty are not limited to legal requirement. Many would in fact define patriotism as starting where basic legal responsibility ends: if you are contributing to your country (time, money, whatever) over and above the minimum to which you are legally compelled, you are acting patriotically.
It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:
"Taxes are the lifeblood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted to escape the payment of his just share of the burden of contributing thereto." - Arthur Vanderbilt
"Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized." - Albert Bushnell Hart
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” - John F. Kennedy
Not doing the right thing unless compelled is pretty much the definition of irresponsibility.
Sure. It's not like Sputnik led to multiply redundant global communications coverage, global positioning, exploration missions (usually multiple) sent to every planet and some asteroids and comets, continuous space surveillance of the sun, multiple space telescopes covering most of the EM spectrum, global nuclear test and missile launch surveillance, continuous global multispectral weather monitoring, and global mapping (frequently refreshed) coverage in multiband visual, radar, ladar, gravity and many other modalities. And Tang.
Pity about that stalled progress.
* Maybe not that last one.
The difference is that current science requires a bit of pretty featureless mass energy to kick the whole thing off, then makes consistent, testable predictions from that point on, allowing us to build things like bridges, vaccines and stupid smartphone apps.
Genesis requires an omnipotent creator and doesn't really have any particular consistent explanatory, predictive, or even practical use beyond scaring children.
Only the numbers are required. The impression is just a convenient way to get them on paper.
Technically you don't need the actual impression. You can write down the numbers. It's a bit of a pain for the merchant is all.
What do you think happened before every corner store had an electronic terminal? Credit cards still existed. You put all your cash, credit slips and cheques in a bag and hotfooted them over to the bank. Someone at the bank looked through them, reconciled the accounts, and gave you a (paper) statement telling you if any of the cheques bounced. If someone blew their limit on their card, that's between them and their CC company.
Yeah, cash is pretty handy when there's no power. It's not the only option.
It's quite funny to see these dire stories about what happens when you lose power. As if credit cards and cheques didn't exist before electronic banking terminals in every store.
Yes. The statement in the AMA was silly. Musk dignified it with a humorous response.
The raptor engines are supposed to throttle to 20%, and elsewhere in the AMA Musk discussed a 1.3 minimum TWR for landing. They've cut the per-engine thrust down to 1.5 MN, but want to have two engines running for redundancy, so still 3 MN max. Which gives you around 285 tonnes (I think). Dry mass of the ship is 85 tonnes, So you'd want to aim to land with at least 200 tonnes of fuel and cargo, fuel being enough to take off again and return to Earth. I don't think Musk is planning on bothering to land on the moon with less than a significant cargo to establish infrastructure there.
If you did have to come in light, SpaceX has gotten pretty good at the hoverslam. Or you could turn off one of your redundant engines.
I read through the AMA. Musk answered all of the top level questions in significant detail. He did add a quip here and there. For example his comment about chickening out, which was followed up by a couple of paragraphs about the difficulty of deep throttling engines and the benefits of having multiple engines for failure tolerance.
The only exception I noticed was when some nerd said "you can't land on the moon with a 3 MN engine" and Musk said "yes you can - Bob the Builder." Seems fair to me.
I come from a small town with somewhat unreliable power. All the merchants know that if the power goes out, you can take a credit card impression (with some carbon paper and a hard object to rub it, if necessary) and write down the transaction. Some even have cash registers that you can hand crank if necessary. You can also write out a cheque with a pen and any scrap of paper.
I find it hard to believe that in the US, which is thirty years late to the chip and PIN party, you can't use an impression in emergencies.
What's a Mogwai? The first few pages of Google say it's a Scottish rock band.
That's an option. Short of banning it entirely, have a license to buy cigarettes. If you get caught littering you lose your license, but you can apply again in six months. Applications require submission of 100 cigarette butts.
I see very few bottle caps around. None at all on city streets, and very rarely in parks. People in the park who have caps take them along, or throw them away. Yet the very same people think nothing of tossing a cigarette butt on the ground.
Yes, there's a certain threshold, but it doesn't have to be particularly frequent, so long as the fine hurts enough. If you have a 0.001% chance of getting caught and the fine is $50, who cares? If you have a 0.01% chance of getting caught and the fine is $5000... somebody you know is going to have gotten stomped. And that's going to make you think twice.
There was a news story about a guy tossing a lit cigarette out of his car in an area that's had a lot of bad forest fires. A cop saw him and threw the book: a multi-thousand dollar fine. Then the guy got roasted in the national media after complaining. Want to bet he doesn't chuck butts out his window anymore?
I agree with ramping up enforcement, and fines. Make the fines pay for the extra enforcement. When the problem goes away, you can reduce things again.
Yes, aside from the humanitarian issues, if we could get all the smokers to do it in isolation, it would be a pretty big net gain for society. Most places are pretty well toward that goal now, except for the littering issue.
The humanitarian issue is pretty big though.
Yup.
"I'm so courteous I don't understand why non-smokers think I'm disgusting. Yes, I throw burning litter on the ground, but it would be mildly inconvenient for me to carry it with me and dispose if it properly."
One outside my grandmother's house when I was a kid learned to make a sound like a car alarm. It took me a while to figure out it was a crow. I'm pretty sure it did it purely for the enjoyment of watching the local BMW owner go running out to check his car.
I did the research on that for an assignment in undergrad. At the time (and taxes haven't gone down since then), the average smoker in Canada paid quite a bit more in taxes than they took out in public health care for their lung cancer and emphysema. Smoking costs a truly unreasonable amount when you add up a lifetime of it, and smokers tend to die fairly quickly, young enough that they haven't cost much in health care or pensions as elderly people.
Quit whining about people trying to help you. More restrictions on smoking mean its easier for ex-smokers to stay that way, and for current smokers to quit. You picked up a deadly addiction from some evil corporations. A bunch of people fought really hard to make what those corps did to you as illegal as they could. That's why smoking "wasn't cool" for the generation after you. The "hate" is peer pressure, harnessed and used for good.
Perhaps you were quitting smoking when it was still permissible to smoke in public places like bars. I have friends who did that. They say the hardest time to resist their addiction was when they were in a room filled with people smoking. You don't have to face that now.
That's a good example. The vast majority of people (here at least) drive at the highest speed that the cops will ignore. A small number drive faster, and get fined. Seems like the fines work for the majority.
Smokers hate that idea, and are numerous enough to be a fairly large voting and lobbying bloc.
Sounds good to me. Win all around. Butt doesn't get thrown in the first place, entertainment for all the non-smokers, and the smokers get their risk of death reduced a bit.
There are lots of other options. Carry your own ashtray with a lid. I've even seen nice leather cases that do that duty. They're stylish and everything.
Smokers are and have always been irresponsible and entitled regarding their habit. Many of them still deny the problems with second hand smoke and think it's terribly unfair that they can't just smoke anywhere they want.
I very occasionally enjoy a cigar. I definitely do not chuck it on the ground when I'm done. I dispose of it responsibly, like an adult, not like a smoker.
Nah, random reinforcement actually works better. You catch one chucking a butt, you fine them. Yes, you miss 99% of the times. But you make the one time hurt enough, and they stop doing it.
When I was a kid people tossed all kinds of litter. You'd be driving along and see McDonalds cups go flying out car windows pretty routinely. Now? Very rarely.