The far right runs around screaming that there is no climate change, while ignoring the science (real bad).
The far left runs around screaming that climate change is an issue due to science (good), but then ignores all of the solutions (just as bad).
So, how can the far left take advantage of the shale boom? Well, right now, the far right wants keystone pipeline.
If keystone goes in, will it lower or increase emission from tar sands? The answer is NO.
If keystone is blocked, will it lower or increase emissions from tar sands? Again the answer is NO.
Basically, keystone pipeline does not help nor hurt emissions.
So, what CAN happen is that the far left can use it to trade to lower REAL emissions. Transportation accounts for a large chunk of the global emissions, esp. in North America. That is very true for commercial vehicles such as semi-trucks, that burn diesel fuel.
BUT, by trading keystone for subsidies for commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles (suburbans come to mind), that use nat gas at first, and then within 3 years, make it ONLY for Serial Hybrids that use Nat gas. With this trade, it will move large vehicles off diesel and over to nat gas. BUT, within 3 years, the move to serial hybrids allows makers to be using real electric vehicles and being able to switch to say hydrogen fuel cells, or perhaps wireless charging to run these vehicles. With this approach, then the far right gets their keystone, while the far left gets actual emission DOWNWARDS.
throw in ULA's Delta and Atlas as well when looking at quality.
Now, what is making SpaceX very popular are 2 things. The first is that SpaceX's quality is looking pretty good.
BUT, as you say, the price is right. At this time, SpaceX is MUCH cheaper than anybody else out there. And that even includes low quality chinese systems.
BUT, if all goes well come the 19th, and the first stage lands, then by next year, SpaceX could be re-using their first stage. next year.
And being able to knock off 33% would enable SpaceX to even self insure the flights.
Hmmm.
Europe's Ariane 5 has 2 failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
ULA, has Delta IV has 1 partial failure on 28 launches
ULA has Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 51 launches.
And then SpaceX HAS been 100% successful, except for a test sat by orbcomm. But, even they were satisfied with the results. But, if you like, give them 1 partial failure on 13 launches
3 partial failures on 92 launches vs. 2 major failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
I will take the numbers on the Americans, over Europe.
Ok, first Airbus has only managed to hit 7 launches a year MAX.
That is exactly how many SpaceX is doing for 2014.
SpaceX has shown that they continue to increase their launches year after year. OTOH, Airbus has never managed to do more than 7. Period.
Just because Ariane is incapable of doing more than 1 every 2 months, does not mean that SpaceX is that inept. In fact, they continue to show that they not only handle a production schedule, but also development with it as well. That is not something that Europe has mastered.
So, you might not want to bet on SpaceX, however, those in the industry are admitting that SpaceX is not only a threat to all others, but that they will certainly increase their production line well beyond what others can do.
Now, why would Musk compare to the Ariane 5 ECA alone? That vehicle is used to go to GTO, rather than LEO.
Finally, I think that there is a REAL reason why SpaceX is winning massive numbers of flights, while Airbus has decided to stop publishing their launch schedule. Basically, they are pretty wide open, other than for European flights, or those that were schedule prior to last year.
Next year, if spacex continues their launch increase, they will be the leaders. And considering that spacex will be able to cut their prices in half while doubling number of launches, it appears that nobody will catch up for some time.
Actually no. If you look at same time periods, america has a much better record than Europe. However, you are right that over the last 10 years, Europe has had more private launches.
But spacex has been 100% successful with the 13 f9, and is on track to do more than 15 launches next year.
so u can pretend that spacex is not a threat, but the launch world sees it correctly for what it is. More so, come next week.
Charter schools are NOT seperate but equal. The ONLY ones going to those schools would be where parents choose it. In addition, those schools would get the same funding / child that others get. Why is that so bad to send these kids to their own school? How is this any different than my choosing to send my child to a STEM charter school, which we did? It is not ANY different.
And as to the risk, that is a choice that parents make all the time. If they are choosing to not have vaccines, than that is a CHOICE.If they object to the risk, then they need to vaccinate their child and put them in the regular school. What is so hard to understand about that?
There is a REAL reason why more and more Docs are refusing to see kids that are not vaccinated. Basically, they are making it hard on parents who are immature and are not good parents. And yes, anybody that is NOT vaccinating their kids without medical reason, is a piss poor parent.
uh no. You are right that herd immunity would be lost in the charter school. BUT, herd immunity requires about 95-98% immunity. Those who have medical reasons to not take vaccines are about 1-2%. That leaves only 1-2% to play with. Sadly, the amount of ppl that have gone off the deep end is INSANE and therefore we only have less than 90% immune. So, it is not fair to those that have medical issues or those that took the vaccines, but it did not take, to mix in those who CHOOSE to not take vaccines.
If you want your child to have that herd immunity, then they should be taking the vaccine. To insist that your chlid NOT take vaccines because you do not think that they work, or that they will impact your child, or that you have religious reasons, and then want to expose others is just beyond belief and shows that YOU are the one wanting to punish others.
By offering up an alternative of a separate school for those that choose to not vaccinate, it allows ppl to make clear choices.
and what is wrong with sending the small minority of ppl that CHOOSE to not vaccinate to their own charter school? They get the same money / student that others get. The parents get to have more input on the school. For many, if not most, they will want the ability to hold bible study after school. In this way, it can be done.
Hold on.
NOBODY is suggesting that any child that has an allergy to the vaccines not be allowed to interact in society. Hell, nobody is suggesting that even if you choose to not vaccinate a kid that they can not interact with society.
HOWEVER, if somebody CHOOSES to not vaccinate, then they should be kept away from those that have the allergies on a day-to-day basis. IOW, those that the parents choose to not have vaccinated and their is no good medical reason, should go to a separate charter school that would then hold all of the k-12 kids that are not vaccinated. In this way, that parents choices will not harm others that did not make similar choices.
the kid who can not take the vaccine would be protected by herd immunity. Those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate then increase the risk of herd immunity being broken and then not protecting those that can not have it, or who do not have a response to the antigen.
Since it is a CHOICE to not vaccinate, there is nothing wrong ethically with requiring that they go to a different school. And with it being a charter school, they can then have their say on how it runs. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
What IS wrong, is when another person forces their child to have the ability to harm others. Those who can not take it or who do not have a good response, are the ones that must be protected via the herd immunity.
Really? Did your child die? Whooping Cough can and does kill kids. So, it is possible that your child's response was not strong, BUT, it would still protect him.
And as was posted by plover, it is possible that your child had ZERO protection. If so, then it is very important that the rest of the herd be immunized. That is what protects your child.
Aborted fetus are NOT used in vaccines. Good lord. You need to quit reading BS out there. As it is, any stem cell line comes from embryos that are less than 4-5 days old.
That schedule is NOT arbitrary. It was based on need. They start out with the bugs that you are most likely to be exposed to early on. And then it takes several years to go through everything. So, it is already spaced out.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite, but pretty close to accurate.
The far right runs around screaming that there is no climate change, while ignoring the science (real bad).
The far left runs around screaming that climate change is an issue due to science (good), but then ignores all of the solutions (just as bad).
So, how can the far left take advantage of the shale boom? Well, right now, the far right wants keystone pipeline.
If keystone goes in, will it lower or increase emission from tar sands? The answer is NO.
If keystone is blocked, will it lower or increase emissions from tar sands? Again the answer is NO.
Basically, keystone pipeline does not help nor hurt emissions.
So, what CAN happen is that the far left can use it to trade to lower REAL emissions. Transportation accounts for a large chunk of the global emissions, esp. in North America. That is very true for commercial vehicles such as semi-trucks, that burn diesel fuel.
BUT, by trading keystone for subsidies for commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles (suburbans come to mind), that use nat gas at first, and then within 3 years, make it ONLY for Serial Hybrids that use Nat gas. With this trade, it will move large vehicles off diesel and over to nat gas. BUT, within 3 years, the move to serial hybrids allows makers to be using real electric vehicles and being able to switch to say hydrogen fuel cells, or perhaps wireless charging to run these vehicles. With this approach, then the far right gets their keystone, while the far left gets actual emission DOWNWARDS.
throw in ULA's Delta and Atlas as well when looking at quality.
Now, what is making SpaceX very popular are 2 things. The first is that SpaceX's quality is looking pretty good.
BUT, as you say, the price is right. At this time, SpaceX is MUCH cheaper than anybody else out there. And that even includes low quality chinese systems.
BUT, if all goes well come the 19th, and the first stage lands, then by next year, SpaceX could be re-using their first stage. next year.
And being able to knock off 33% would enable SpaceX to even self insure the flights.
Hmmm.
Europe's Ariane 5 has 2 failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
ULA, has Delta IV has 1 partial failure on 28 launches
ULA has Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 51 launches.
And then SpaceX HAS been 100% successful, except for a test sat by orbcomm. But, even they were satisfied with the results. But, if you like, give them 1 partial failure on 13 launches
3 partial failures on 92 launches vs. 2 major failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
I will take the numbers on the Americans, over Europe.
Ok, first Airbus has only managed to hit 7 launches a year MAX.
That is exactly how many SpaceX is doing for 2014.
SpaceX has shown that they continue to increase their launches year after year. OTOH, Airbus has never managed to do more than 7. Period.
Just because Ariane is incapable of doing more than 1 every 2 months, does not mean that SpaceX is that inept. In fact, they continue to show that they not only handle a production schedule, but also development with it as well. That is not something that Europe has mastered.
So, you might not want to bet on SpaceX, however, those in the industry are admitting that SpaceX is not only a threat to all others, but that they will certainly increase their production line well beyond what others can do.
Yeah, got to just love the spell checkers on android.
That IS pretty damn funny.
F9 had a partial failure that was caused because of NASA's requirement that the engines be turned off at a certain altitude.
The Orbcom was basically a test satellite and was not to go into production. So even though the sat did not go into full orbit, it was considered at worst a partial failure. However, Orbcom did not consider it a failure. and that was the ONLY one that could be considered a partial failure.
Now, why would Musk compare to the Ariane 5 ECA alone? That vehicle is used to go to GTO, rather than LEO.
Finally, I think that there is a REAL reason why SpaceX is winning massive numbers of flights, while Airbus has decided to stop publishing their launch schedule. Basically, they are pretty wide open, other than for European flights, or those that were schedule prior to last year.
Ariane 5 has 73 successful out of 77. F9 is 13 out of 13. By end of next year, spacex is expected to be over 30 launches.
That is because the Boeing deal was better within the definition of the contract.
So instead, the French should run their companies like GE, McDonald Douglas, chrysler, Boeing, HP, dell, Compaq, sun, etc?
Exactly right.
Next year, if spacex continues their launch increase, they will be the leaders. And considering that spacex will be able to cut their prices in half while doubling number of launches, it appears that nobody will catch up for some time.
Actually no. If you look at same time periods, america has a much better record than Europe. However, you are right that over the last 10 years, Europe has had more private launches. But spacex has been 100% successful with the 13 f9, and is on track to do more than 15 launches next year.
so u can pretend that spacex is not a threat, but the launch world sees it correctly for what it is. More so, come next week.
Charter schools are NOT seperate but equal. The ONLY ones going to those schools would be where parents choose it. In addition, those schools would get the same funding / child that others get. Why is that so bad to send these kids to their own school? How is this any different than my choosing to send my child to a STEM charter school, which we did? It is not ANY different.
And as to the risk, that is a choice that parents make all the time. If they are choosing to not have vaccines, than that is a CHOICE.If they object to the risk, then they need to vaccinate their child and put them in the regular school. What is so hard to understand about that?
There are plenty of quality AC posts. However, there is no reason why ANY of these posts can not be associated with a login.
There is a REAL reason why more and more Docs are refusing to see kids that are not vaccinated. Basically, they are making it hard on parents who are immature and are not good parents. And yes, anybody that is NOT vaccinating their kids without medical reason, is a piss poor parent.
uh no. You are right that herd immunity would be lost in the charter school. BUT, herd immunity requires about 95-98% immunity. Those who have medical reasons to not take vaccines are about 1-2%. That leaves only 1-2% to play with. Sadly, the amount of ppl that have gone off the deep end is INSANE and therefore we only have less than 90% immune. So, it is not fair to those that have medical issues or those that took the vaccines, but it did not take, to mix in those who CHOOSE to not take vaccines.
If you want your child to have that herd immunity, then they should be taking the vaccine. To insist that your chlid NOT take vaccines because you do not think that they work, or that they will impact your child, or that you have religious reasons, and then want to expose others is just beyond belief and shows that YOU are the one wanting to punish others.
By offering up an alternative of a separate school for those that choose to not vaccinate, it allows ppl to make clear choices.
and what is wrong with sending the small minority of ppl that CHOOSE to not vaccinate to their own charter school? They get the same money / student that others get. The parents get to have more input on the school. For many, if not most, they will want the ability to hold bible study after school. In this way, it can be done.
Considering that the vast majority of kids are vaccinated, it makes far more sense to send those that choose to not vaccinate to their own school.
there is a part of me that thinks that we should skip AC.
Hold on.
NOBODY is suggesting that any child that has an allergy to the vaccines not be allowed to interact in society. Hell, nobody is suggesting that even if you choose to not vaccinate a kid that they can not interact with society.
HOWEVER, if somebody CHOOSES to not vaccinate, then they should be kept away from those that have the allergies on a day-to-day basis. IOW, those that the parents choose to not have vaccinated and their is no good medical reason, should go to a separate charter school that would then hold all of the k-12 kids that are not vaccinated. In this way, that parents choices will not harm others that did not make similar choices.
the kid who can not take the vaccine would be protected by herd immunity. Those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate then increase the risk of herd immunity being broken and then not protecting those that can not have it, or who do not have a response to the antigen.
Since it is a CHOICE to not vaccinate, there is nothing wrong ethically with requiring that they go to a different school. And with it being a charter school, they can then have their say on how it runs. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
What IS wrong, is when another person forces their child to have the ability to harm others. Those who can not take it or who do not have a good response, are the ones that must be protected via the herd immunity.
Really? Did your child die? Whooping Cough can and does kill kids. So, it is possible that your child's response was not strong, BUT, it would still protect him.
And as was posted by plover, it is possible that your child had ZERO protection. If so, then it is very important that the rest of the herd be immunized. That is what protects your child.
Aborted fetus are NOT used in vaccines. Good lord. You need to quit reading BS out there. As it is, any stem cell line comes from embryos that are less than 4-5 days old.
That schedule is NOT arbitrary. It was based on need. They start out with the bugs that you are most likely to be exposed to early on. And then it takes several years to go through everything. So, it is already spaced out.