10 trillion dollars in debt, which has "payed off" large sections of the population to maintain the status quo.
It can't last, though. The country must make a set of radical changes sure to outrage both sides:
stop the GWOT,
slash the military,
"permanently recycle" most lawyers,
be more much more strict about frivolous lawsuits,
eliminate all entitlements, and
kick out all of the Illegals.
(No, I'm not a Randroid. Government must temper capitalism's constant desire to find "the easy way out" while not smothering it's fire. That's never easy, though, since petty dictators are drawn to the bureaucracy like moths to the flame.)
There will be a metric ass-load of unemployed people, and they can work in agriculture, build roads, repair bridges, etc, etc. Think CCC, except it doesn't just have to be government-run. Hungry people (black, white and brown) will have to realize that despite what Advertisers have brainwashed them to believe, they aren't too good to dig ditches, and that Socialism can't save them.
After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, discovering the wheel!!) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)
And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.
It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.
while The West embraces socialism/communism, Asia (specifically China) is embracing capitalism.
I came out of the closet: I'm a Dittohead!!!
Then why did you tell me to fuck off?
After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, ) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)
And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.
It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.
Akin to AGW Deniers, you are an Economic Reality Denier.
The West (meaning Europe and the US) played hard and rough to climb to the top of the heap. Now they've stopped fighting, and the Asia is moving up the hill.
don't realize that "rude colonization" and "rape of the Earth" are the two primary reasons why First World countries exist the way they do, and enjoy the comforts that they do.
Or are you saying that NASA and Big Aero failed in cost-effectively designing the STS?
Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle
What are those false lessons?
A couple of bad lessons (not necessarily related to the Shuttle) are
the irrational obsession with crew safety (space and rockets are dangerous; people are going to die no matter how redundant and thus expensive you make the vehicles), and
putting all your eggs in a few really expensive baskets leaves no money for designing and building better baskets.
They still have to test it. There are certain things that don't get done faster even if you have a zillion engineers working on the problem.
I was, in fact, demonstrating the "Pregnancy Fallacy" to my son just the other day.
While they're on the up-slope of the time-people curve, though, the design and construction will get done sooner, meaning they can start the testing sooner.
It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables.
As opposed to rebuilding and rechecking much of the Shuttle after every launch?
I never said that rockets are simple; I said that they are (a lot) simpler (and therefore cheaper) than the Shuttle.
Otherwise, "we" would have left expendables far behind, in the rush to build more Shuttles, instead of what we are doing, which is (for the foreseeable future) abandoning winged craft.
(Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
OK. Maybe I'm just repeating hype.
So what is? A Nimitz-class carrier? A Seawolf submarine? The Large Hadron Collider?
I.E. the number of launchers isn't all you've pulled out of your ass.
Whether it's 10 or 12 or 5, my point is still the same: it's simpler, cheaper and faster to build lots of semi-expendable vehicles than a few of "the most complex machine ever built".
Accepting, though, the occasional spectacularly flaming loss of life would make any manned space vehicles lots cheaper. Imagine if Spain and England had modern Western attitudes: the government would not have allowed anyone to set to sea in those rickety little tubs.
The pintle injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo Program for the lunar module landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.
It is true, though, that they aren't just rehashed Saturn engines.
This is one of the things we discovered when we added up the costs of using Russian Soyuz and Proton boosters as replacements for the Shuttle. The Shuttle seems more expensive because it swallows money in such huge chunks, other boosters sup more daintily but accomplish much less.
You've neglected the point that it's gob-smackers easier to build a dozen (yes, I just pulled that number out of my ass) expendable rockets than it is to build and maintain a single Shuttle.
I am assuming from this that he has looked over the design details of the Falcon, observed the results of the unit testing of the system, that sort of thing?
Nah. Just a bureaucratically-bloated afraid-to-take-chances Big Aero employee trying to damn with faint praise an upstart competitor.
It is simply a fond(There are a few different, but still..) where you pay x% of your income each month, and then when you retire you get the moeny back with interest. Either as a lump sum, og as a amount each month.
That's called a Defined Contribution Plan. That's what's common now.
The unions, back when American Manufacturing was flush with cash, negotiated Defined Benefit Plans. Most (all?) government unions (being able to suckle from our tax dollar teat) have similar plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of acknowledging reality is not to underestimate the propensity for humans to find a reason to kill each other.
Especially the coming water and strategic mineral shortages and possible AGW-propelled droughts impacting global food production.
India, which is a remarkably stable and vibrant democracy
I don't think it's as vibrant as Westerners and Indian ex-pats would like to believe.
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/07/29/political_violence_and_indias_challenge/5555/
http://samaj.revues.org/index1872.html
and yet here we are
10 trillion dollars in debt, which has "payed off" large sections of the population to maintain the status quo.
It can't last, though. The country must make a set of radical changes sure to outrage both sides:
(No, I'm not a Randroid. Government must temper capitalism's constant desire to find "the easy way out" while not smothering it's fire. That's never easy, though, since petty dictators are drawn to the bureaucracy like moths to the flame.)
There will be a metric ass-load of unemployed people, and they can work in agriculture, build roads, repair bridges, etc, etc. Think CCC, except it doesn't just have to be government-run. Hungry people (black, white and brown) will have to realize that despite what Advertisers have brainwashed them to believe, they aren't too good to dig ditches, and that Socialism can't save them.
that future successful civilizations will have to act the same way
The only reason why it might not happen is because the world is "full", and manners are social lubricant even in international politics.
I wouldn't be surprised if EU-like alliances consolidate their power
Except that the EU is in really bad shape, on one hand a bureaucrat's wet dream, and on the other coming apart because of the PIGS debt crisis.
and the lesson we take from that will be that making friends can help you climb to the top of the heap too.
Very wonderful and noble, but humans too tribal to make that work on a large scale. (I even think the USA is too large to effectively govern.)
_no one will admit_ what those prisoners are being held for
That's nowhere near the same as "we don't know who they are".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees#Sources
BTW, tell me if any of these people were shipped to Guantanamo. The answer, unsurprisingly, is no.
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/IMG_2349.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/118-1867_IMG.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/118-1853_IMG.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/155-5568_IMG.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/IMG_2453.JPG
Argh!!! That'll teach me to forget to preview!
After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, discovering the wheel!!) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)
And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.
It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.
while The West embraces socialism/communism, Asia (specifically China) is embracing capitalism.
I came out of the closet: I'm a Dittohead!!!
Then why did you tell me to fuck off?
After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, ) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)
And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.
It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.
Akin to AGW Deniers, you are an Economic Reality Denier.
The West (meaning Europe and the US) played hard and rough to climb to the top of the heap. Now they've stopped fighting, and the Asia is moving up the hill.
You spent your entire adult life working for a company,
Age 49 is "your entire adult life"? Maybe in 1870.
I think we agree on all the political stuff.
don't realize that "rude colonization" and "rape of the Earth" are the two primary reasons why First World countries exist the way they do, and enjoy the comforts that they do.
But People Eating Tasty Animals will defend the astronauts.
If 'we' hadn't invested so much
There's that "money" thing again.
Or are you saying that NASA and Big Aero failed in cost-effectively designing the STS?
Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle
What are those false lessons?
A couple of bad lessons (not necessarily related to the Shuttle) are
They still have to test it. There are certain things that don't get done faster even if you have a zillion engineers working on the problem.
I was, in fact, demonstrating the "Pregnancy Fallacy" to my son just the other day.
While they're on the up-slope of the time-people curve, though, the design and construction will get done sooner, meaning they can start the testing sooner.
It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables.
As opposed to rebuilding and rechecking much of the Shuttle after every launch?
I never said that rockets are simple; I said that they are (a lot) simpler (and therefore cheaper) than the Shuttle.
Otherwise, "we" would have left expendables far behind, in the rush to build more Shuttles, instead of what we are doing, which is (for the foreseeable future) abandoning winged craft.
(Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
OK. Maybe I'm just repeating hype.
So what is? A Nimitz-class carrier? A Seawolf submarine? The Large Hadron Collider?
I.E. the number of launchers isn't all you've pulled out of your ass.
Whether it's 10 or 12 or 5, my point is still the same: it's simpler, cheaper and faster to build lots of semi-expendable vehicles than a few of "the most complex machine ever built".
Accepting, though, the occasional spectacularly flaming loss of life would make any manned space vehicles lots cheaper. Imagine if Spain and England had modern Western attitudes: the government would not have allowed anyone to set to sea in those rickety little tubs.
If you don't keep that in mind you'll end up with an Arianne 5 first-flight repeat.
[SARCASM]What do you think we are, Europeans??[/SARCASM]
Legal minefield? Actually, by federal law, it's legal to...
It's so much easier, though, to blame the government. Conservatives to it, too, but we are correct in our complaints.
Falcon 9 is 100% new.
Neh, I don't thing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)
It is true, though, that they aren't just rehashed Saturn engines.
It'll be several dozen man years of engineering to do that.
And if there are several dozen engineers working on the problem???
Are you suggesting that SpaceX has more than the $35 billion in assets that Boeing and Lockheed each have?
You're conflating liquid and fixed assets.
This is one of the things we discovered when we added up the costs of using Russian Soyuz and Proton boosters as replacements for the Shuttle. The Shuttle seems more expensive because it swallows money in such huge chunks, other boosters sup more daintily but accomplish much less.
You've neglected the point that it's gob-smackers easier to build a dozen (yes, I just pulled that number out of my ass) expendable rockets than it is to build and maintain a single Shuttle.
I am assuming from this that he has looked over the design details of the Falcon, observed the results of the unit testing of the system, that sort of thing?
Nah. Just a bureaucratically-bloated afraid-to-take-chances Big Aero employee trying to damn with faint praise an upstart competitor.
I think they were referring to stalking around an airport with one.
For Christs sake. Be up-front with the fact that you've packed a weapon, follow the regulations, and they won't hassle you.
This reminds me of all the people who for years bleated, "Oh noes, if I say anything critical of W or Dick Cheney, then They will throw me in Gitmo."
It is simply a fond(There are a few different, but still..) where you pay x% of your income each month, and then when you retire you get the moeny back with interest. Either as a lump sum, og as a amount each month.
That's called a Defined Contribution Plan. That's what's common now.
The unions, back when American Manufacturing was flush with cash, negotiated Defined Benefit Plans. Most (all?) government unions (being able to suckle from our tax dollar teat) have similar plans.
Interesting. I knew that Texas has a problem; didn't know about FL.
Its not known why their populations have recently changed from relatively stable levels to exponential growth, world wide
Aren't the answers obvious:
(Whether or not I'm being completely or partially sarcastic is an exercise for the reader...)
Now, what about the excess deer and alligators?