Don't want to troll, but for me it is very obvious that laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. At least not for a long time.
Milton & Co. dream of a state which provides only border protection and eventually domestic protection of property. So... the world should get a bit more anarchic because everyone gets more freedom and all will be happy. This sounds like Marx, the other way around, sorry. Let's assume we live in such a world. The anarchy would be unstable. Some people will try to suppress other people, it will (even if only sometimes) work, they will get power and it will probably evolve into a country with several landlord's having their own dictatorships. You can believe in laissez faire if you are really believing that after you redistributed the wealth equally to all the people, they will behave like good ones and everything will stay in balance. In balance. So you have to assume that there is a stable point. Hard to believe. Rather, you will end up, maybe a few hundreds years later, with people requesting a democracy, with a state, with a police, with healthcare etc.pp. These civilisatory things were not forced on you by an evil government ruled by cynic leaders. They were "forced" on you by people some hundred years ago. It seems to me that these "capitalist freedom fighters" often only value the freedom they get when they can do with their money what they want. But money means power. If you have much more money than others, you have much more power. Is that democratic?
One point that has not been discussed here is the correctness of the ISP's IP logs... How Do they ensure that? I mean... my ISP could easily fake the log (or could be forced to fake it by some men in black suits...) and then I would have a BIG problem... couldn't they?
Hey, there is a relatively clear law in germany for that. Or, better, a principle in the constitution. It's called "Wehrhafte Demokratie" (well-fortified democracy).
The idea is, that it should (and is) be forbidden to speak against the principles of free speech and democracy, because they are the very ground you base your speech on. So if you praise hitler's dictatorship here, you will be punished for working against democracy. I think it works well here and I also think it's not hurting freedom of speech too much. Freedom is *NOT* absolute, even if some posts here suggest such a thing.
Yes, and this it is probably wrong to listen to such arguments, because they want to sell it also to the *local* customers. Why should they therefore go out of europe? There are many, many consumers in europe.
Ok, declaring the photons temperature as the temperature of the body they were radiated from, it makes sense.
But I think photons have a mass centre. Photons have energy, so they have mass. Yes, their m0 is 0.
Consider a short pulse of laser light. In the middle of the pulse, there is the center of the photons mass. And, photons can attract other photons by their pure fly-mass. IMO, there is an astronomical effect (which I forgot) that relies on exactly this.
Speaking also as an european, I think it's just the same old problem: Selfishness leading to an overall loss in quality of life for nearly everyone (except a few who are lucky). Some people do not choose to get social/health insurance because they think they'll never get ill or they are paying some percents of their income for nothing. They want to get something for their money. I've heard of many cases where people tried to betray their liability insurances, and they felt completely right... ("I'm putting all this money there and I want to get something back. So I wrote them I "lost" my camera... etc. pp.) I don't want to sound arrogant, but many apparently do not catch the meaning of an *insurance*. Sadly, a majority of people even here in europe seems to think that way. I think health/social insurance should be one of the few things required by law. IMHO, this is no freedom issue. It leads to overall better quality of life. It obviously doesn't work to let everyone "decide" if one wants an insurance or not. Because you have the "option" not to get an insurance, wages will level off so that it is hard for working class families to pay for an insurance.
Free market is good if one *has* a choice. Competition should end where it affects the very being.
He speaks of the "Temperature of the Photons" is same same, so no thrust because of 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If I'm right with my thermodynamics knowledge, the temperature of the photons would be their *unordered* move (that is, relative to their mass centre). And this is nearly zero.
Yes, and if there are enough "ion airplanes" flying in the air, the worlds gets a massive ozone problem. Not too less ozone, no, too much.
Have you ever played with HV? Then you should know that the generated ions recombine with oxigen and nitrogen to form NOx (nitrogen oxide, toxic) and O3 (ozone, highly toxic). E.g. your laser printer generates that stuff.
Yes and enough statistics could indeed lead to a big interferometry telescope, other than the post above suggests? I mean, if some photons with a slight time difference (1nns) get onto two CCDs in two different parts of the world and they are only read at a rate of 10Hz, there should be information in the jitter of signal that could be used to reconstruct timing by collecting enough data. Or is that impossible? I'm not making a statement here, rather asking people in this business these questions.
> What about the two dozen or so nuclear submarines rotting away on the ocean floor? Nobody seems to have a problem with them.
In europe, quite a few care about russian nuclear submarines. At least they are saying it;) The cassini probe has probably been more attacked because people see the direct link to the air they breathe.
Off topic: Nevertheless, the highly radioactive reactors in the submarines are a problem. But there are many, many problems to solve... And e.g. unsecured nuclear weapons are concerning me more than submarine reactors.
> 7% increase in NASA's budget for the next 10 years 7% increase once and that 10 years long or every year a 7% increase, for ten years? That makes a *BIG* difference. Does anyone want to let NASA's budget grow exponentially?
The problem with RTGs is that they have to be send into space. And they contain a fair amount of highly radioactive plutonium. (Not Pu-239 with a halftime of several thousands of years, but Pu-238 with a halftime of several decades - very poisonous, and obviously more active because of it's shorter halflife)
You don't really want to let them reenter the atmosphere and cover your city with radioactive dust. That is a problem. Maybe one can place the radioactive stuff into (nearly) unbreakable shells. Nasa et al. are already doing it, but a small risk remains.
Earth swing-bys are another reason of concern.
Before the launch of the Cassini mission, several groups tried to stop it - also because it had an earth-swingby on it's schedule. Fortunately, all went ok.
The other thing are the nuclear reactors they are planning to put on deep space missions. IMHO, they are muss less dangerous. Why? Sounds silly? No. They have to be made critical and before that, they are far from being as radioactive as RTGs.
I once visited a science reactor and a staff member told me that they transport the *fresh* fuel rods by hand, only wearing gloves to protect themselves from the U-235 alpha emitter/fuel. Of course several men at once are doing it, they are probaly very heavy:)
The burned rods are the stuff that is so dangerous. You could not even stand by them for more than a few seconds without being killed by their radiation.
Of course space agencies should only issue the "start the reactor"-command to a space probe if it is impossible that it gets on a collision course with earth. That would be the case if it e.g. is in orbit around saturn/jupiter.
is dead since more than a year. It was a cool concept. And it has the advantage that is *only* a VM, not a whole bunch of services, libraries, protocol definitions etc. pp.
Just imagine it: The gcc compiling bytecode, FAST, for every platform in every gcc input language. Wonderful:)
> OBzzzt. Wrong. US laws do not necessarily end at the boarders of the USA. Admitted. But if your rocket is working properly, where is the harm to the US it could require compensation for?
> Actually, the FAA approval is reasonably difficult for rocket launches.
Yes, probably true, but do you really want to change that? It's another issue if would be only possible for government organizations to get FAA approval.
> Oh yeah, and America/FAA takes responsibility for American citizens launching from anywhere in the world, and you have to jump through exactly the same hoops no matter what. (Some of the paperwork is easier to satisfy depending on where you are launching from though.)
This would be only true if the US governs the particular state you are talking about (and then it's US territory). Maybe that an american citizen, who launched without approval from another country would get into court after he/she reenters the US. Hard to believe.
Uhoh. "Idiot..." An example: Wouldn't you consider a spill of litres of petrol onto the ground of your garage as *dangerous*? This is not a weapon, of course. But it is still dangerous. It doesn't contain stuff that is designed to explode. But you consider tons of plutonium, ready to get critical, as harmless?!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't want to troll, but for me it is very obvious that laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. At least not for a long time.
Milton & Co. dream of a state which provides only border protection and eventually domestic protection of property.
So... the world should get a bit more anarchic because everyone gets more freedom and all will be happy. This sounds like Marx, the other way around, sorry.
Let's assume we live in such a world.
The anarchy would be unstable. Some people will try to suppress other people, it will (even if only sometimes) work, they will get power and it will probably evolve into a country with several landlord's having their own dictatorships.
You can believe in laissez faire if you are really believing that after you redistributed the wealth equally to all the people, they will behave like good ones and everything will stay in balance.
In balance. So you have to assume that there is a stable point. Hard to believe. Rather, you will end up, maybe a few hundreds years later, with people requesting a democracy, with a state, with a police, with healthcare etc.pp.
These civilisatory things were not forced on you by an evil government ruled by cynic leaders. They were "forced" on you by people some hundred years ago.
It seems to me that these "capitalist freedom fighters" often only value the freedom they get when they can do with their money what they want. But money means power. If you have much more money than others, you have much more power. Is that democratic?
One point that has not been discussed here is the correctness of the ISP's IP logs...
How Do they ensure that?
I mean... my ISP could easily fake the log (or could be forced to fake it by some men in black suits...) and then I would have a BIG problem... couldn't they?
Hey, there is a relatively clear law in germany for that. Or, better, a principle in the constitution. It's called "Wehrhafte Demokratie" (well-fortified democracy).
The idea is, that it should (and is) be forbidden to speak against the principles of free speech and democracy, because they are the very ground you base your speech on. So if you praise hitler's dictatorship here, you will be punished for working against democracy.
I think it works well here and I also think it's not hurting freedom of speech too much.
Freedom is *NOT* absolute, even if some posts here suggest such a thing.
Freedom ends where the Freedom of others begins.
Yes, and this it is probably wrong to listen to such arguments, because they want to sell it also to the *local* customers. Why should they therefore go out of europe?
There are many, many consumers in europe.
Well, that's your opinion. I have mine. I think it's worthless to discuss this issue further :)
Correction: The laser pulse has probably multiple photons.
Ok, declaring the photons temperature as the temperature of the body they were radiated from, it makes sense.
But I think photons have a mass centre. Photons have energy, so they have mass. Yes, their m0 is 0.
Consider a short pulse of laser light. In the middle of the pulse, there is the center of the photons mass.
And, photons can attract other photons by their pure fly-mass. IMO, there is an astronomical effect (which I forgot) that relies on exactly this.
Oh yeah. Declaring others as idiots. Well, you must have a clue!
Speaking also as an european,
I think it's just the same old problem:
Selfishness leading to an overall loss in quality of life for nearly everyone (except a few who are lucky).
Some people do not choose to get social/health insurance because they think they'll never get ill or they are paying some percents of their income for
nothing. They want to get something for their money. I've heard of many cases where people tried to betray their liability insurances, and they felt completely right... ("I'm putting all this money there and I want to get something back. So I wrote them I "lost" my camera... etc. pp.)
I don't want to sound arrogant, but many apparently do not catch the meaning of an *insurance*.
Sadly, a majority of people even here in europe seems to think that way.
I think health/social insurance should be one of the few things required by law. IMHO, this is no freedom issue. It leads to overall better quality of life.
It obviously doesn't work to let everyone "decide" if one wants an insurance or not. Because you have the "option" not to get an insurance, wages will level off so that it is hard for working class families to pay for an insurance.
Free market is good if one *has* a choice. Competition should end where it affects the very being.
You are copying the same text over and over again. For what?
Well, there is another very interesting project going on:
d el /M2P2/
;)
http://www.geophys.washington.edu/Space/SpaceMo
You may also call it a solar sail
He speaks of the "Temperature of the Photons" is same same, so no thrust because of 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If I'm right with my thermodynamics knowledge, the temperature of the photons would be their *unordered* move (that is, relative to their mass centre). And this is nearly zero.
Your are right,
testosterone *IS* bullstuff.
Yes, and if there are enough "ion airplanes" flying in the air, the worlds gets a massive ozone problem.
Not too less ozone, no, too much.
Have you ever played with HV? Then you should know that the generated ions recombine with oxigen and nitrogen to form NOx (nitrogen oxide, toxic) and O3 (ozone, highly toxic). E.g. your laser printer generates that stuff.
Yes and enough statistics could indeed lead to a big interferometry telescope, other than the post above suggests?
I mean, if some photons with a slight time difference (1nns) get onto two CCDs in two different parts of the world and they are only read at a rate of 10Hz, there should be information in the jitter of signal that could be used to reconstruct timing by collecting enough data. Or is that impossible?
I'm not making a statement here, rather asking people in this business these questions.
> What about the two dozen or so nuclear submarines rotting away on the ocean floor? Nobody seems to have a problem with them.
;)
In europe, quite a few care about russian nuclear submarines. At least they are saying it
The cassini probe has probably been more attacked because people see the direct link to the air they breathe.
Off topic: Nevertheless, the highly radioactive reactors in the submarines are a problem. But there are many, many problems to solve...
And e.g. unsecured nuclear weapons are concerning me more than submarine reactors.
> 7% increase in NASA's budget for the next 10 years
7% increase once and that 10 years long or
every year a 7% increase, for ten years?
That makes a *BIG* difference. Does anyone want to let NASA's budget grow exponentially?
The problem with RTGs is that they have to be send into space. And they contain a fair amount of highly radioactive plutonium. (Not Pu-239 with a halftime of several thousands of years, but Pu-238 with a halftime of several decades - very poisonous, and obviously more active because of it's shorter halflife)
:)
You don't really want to let them reenter the atmosphere and cover your city with radioactive dust. That is a problem. Maybe one can place the radioactive stuff into (nearly) unbreakable shells. Nasa et al. are already doing it, but a small risk remains.
Earth swing-bys are another reason of concern.
Before the launch of the Cassini mission, several groups tried to stop it - also because it had an earth-swingby on it's schedule. Fortunately, all went ok.
The other thing are the nuclear reactors they are planning to put on deep space missions. IMHO, they are muss less dangerous. Why? Sounds silly?
No. They have to be made critical and before that, they are far from being as radioactive as RTGs.
I once visited a science reactor and a staff member told me that they transport the *fresh* fuel rods by hand, only wearing gloves to protect themselves from the U-235 alpha emitter/fuel.
Of course several men at once are doing it, they are probaly very heavy
The burned rods are the stuff that is so dangerous. You could not even stand by them for more than a few seconds without being killed by their radiation.
Of course space agencies should only issue the "start the reactor"-command to a space probe if it is impossible that it gets on a collision course with earth. That would be the case if it e.g. is in orbit around saturn/jupiter.
Umm, what's about the VAT, how are you getting around it? ;)
It's seems very bad that the development of the
:)
Internet Virtual Machine,
http://http://ivm.sourceforge.net/
is dead since more than a year. It was a cool concept. And it has the advantage that is *only* a VM, not a whole bunch of services, libraries, protocol definitions etc. pp.
Just imagine it: The gcc compiling bytecode, FAST, for every platform in every gcc input language. Wonderful
Yes, and that is nearly the same for C++.
> User two's screen: "I (as in "self") want (as in "desire") some GNU\Pizza"
Emm, the backslash is unix style?
> OBzzzt. Wrong. US laws do not necessarily end at the boarders of the USA.
Admitted. But if your rocket is working properly, where is the harm to the US it could require compensation for?
> Actually, the FAA approval is reasonably difficult for rocket launches.
Yes, probably true, but do you really want to change that? It's another issue if would be only possible for government organizations to get FAA approval.
> Oh yeah, and America/FAA takes responsibility for American citizens launching from anywhere in the world, and you have to jump through exactly the same hoops no matter what. (Some of the paperwork is easier to satisfy depending on where you are launching from though.)
This would be only true if the US governs the particular state you are talking about (and then it's US territory). Maybe that an american citizen, who launched without approval from another country would get into court after he/she reenters the US. Hard to believe.
Uhoh. "Idiot..."
An example: Wouldn't you consider a spill of litres of petrol onto the ground of your garage as *dangerous*?
This is not a weapon, of course. But it is still dangerous. It doesn't contain stuff that is designed to explode.
But you consider tons of plutonium, ready to get critical, as harmless?!