Ok, but how much (percentage appreciated) do you believe TFS to be true?
TFS could be as far from reality as Lefists think that Donald Trump is (I think he's crazy like a fox in knowing how to push the buttons of disaffected voters -- which doesn't mean I support him or think that he's be anything but a disaster), or it could be 100% correct (ROFLMAO).
That still doesn't negate the fact that it's the prudent and reasonable duty of every government to try and foresee any sort of societal trouble (at home and abroad).
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
It is the point, because change for the sake of change is usually Really Bad.
I always vote third party now, whether I agree with the candidate or not. Dismantling the two party duopoly is a more important... Unfortunately the electoral system is such that even if one or both major U.S. parties were to fail, they would only be replaced by others until a new two-party equilibrium emerged
Since duopoly is inherent in First Past The Post voting, why do you then also believe that voting third party will break the duopoly?
so that you could put a spin on things "Elon sells failure".
Go back and find where I wrote that.
All I said was that SpaceX needs to focus on getting the important (i.e., money making, so that you continue to have the resources to do the far-sighted stuff) part reliable before shifting engineering resources to Mars.
Mine has even dropped support for analog signal over cable.... I now need a device for each TV
So did mine. And I don't (explicitly) pay a dime for it (but that's probably because I'm on their lowest tier service, which they discounted away just so I'd stay a TV customer).
just like the company that buys the launch services, and the company that insures both parties.
(You'd think that a company that's insured against rocket failure wouldn't bleat about SpaceX owing them a free flight, but that's a completely different topic.)
four and a half good reasons why that is a bad idea
In your desperate attempt to insult me, you confuse "type" with "manufacturer".
In this case, if I were a retailer of t-shirts, and had poor experiences with product from (in this example) Spectra USA -- lots of customer returns for fading dyes and ripped seams, I wouldn't forswear black t-shirts. I'd forswear black t-shirts from Spectra USA. How you can confuse "type" with "manufacturer" is beyond me.
Why does any company exist at a certain point in time?
Because: 1) of the founder's vision? 2) there are enough sales to keep the doors open and the employees paid? 3) idiot VCs pour money into unicorns with no viable business plan?
Only one of those types of company is going to survive.
If a company has a $50million satellite and they don't do their due diligence about the company they hire to launch it then shame on the them.
Have you and the company you work for ever been on the receiving end of a due diligence examination? I have, and it permanently jaded me towards the value of due diligence.
There is always a risk of failure when you put something on a rocket. Anyone who promises they can do it with 100% reliability is either lying or delusional.
Sigh.
Being prudent with other people's money is nowhere near equivalent to promising 100% reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually for GCR water and fuel make better shielding.
How thick a layer of water?
The generating equipment does
But requires energy.
It's all a balancing act that I don't think humans will solve until/if they master really compact fusion generators.
Because you need a hell of a lot thinner lead shield than mangetosphere.
Ok, but how much (percentage appreciated) do you believe TFS to be true?
TFS could be as far from reality as Lefists think that Donald Trump is (I think he's crazy like a fox in knowing how to push the buttons of disaffected voters -- which doesn't mean I support him or think that he's be anything but a disaster), or it could be 100% correct (ROFLMAO).
That still doesn't negate the fact that it's the prudent and reasonable duty of every government to try and foresee any sort of societal trouble (at home and abroad).
Sounds like our government is starting to fear the citizens and wants to know as early as possible
OR... it's the prudent and reasonable duty of every government to try and foresee any sort of societal trouble (at home and abroad).
Assumes that you can -- in fact -- rapidly prevent societal upheavals with anything but force, which still leaves the root cause unresolved.
Besides, he's a Replicant, and they die after four years.
10% of voters accelerated the destruction of the country. Thank you very much, fools.
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
It is the point, because change for the sake of change is usually Really Bad.
I always vote third party now, whether I agree with the candidate or not. Dismantling the two party duopoly is a more important ... Unfortunately the electoral system is such that even if one or both major U.S. parties were to fail, they would only be replaced by others until a new two-party equilibrium emerged
Since duopoly is inherent in First Past The Post voting, why do you then also believe that voting third party will break the duopoly?
And many believe that vinegar disintegrates chemtrails.
so that you could put a spin on things "Elon sells failure".
Go back and find where I wrote that.
All I said was that SpaceX needs to focus on getting the important (i.e., money making, so that you continue to have the resources to do the far-sighted stuff) part reliable before shifting engineering resources to Mars.
Only a moron would jump the conclusion that it meant that all the development failures have to be marketed
The same can be said about people who try every desperate measure to defend Musk and SpaceX.
Mine has even dropped support for analog signal over cable. ... I now need a device for each TV
So did mine. And I don't (explicitly) pay a dime for it (but that's probably because I'm on their lowest tier service, which they discounted away just so I'd stay a TV customer).
just like the company that buys the launch services, and the company that insures both parties.
(You'd think that a company that's insured against rocket failure wouldn't bleat about SpaceX owing them a free flight, but that's a completely different topic.)
four and a half good reasons why that is a bad idea
In your desperate attempt to insult me, you confuse "type" with "manufacturer".
In this case, if I were a retailer of t-shirts, and had poor experiences with product from (in this example) Spectra USA -- lots of customer returns for fading dyes and ripped seams, I wouldn't forswear black t-shirts. I'd forswear black t-shirts from Spectra USA. How you can confuse "type" with "manufacturer" is beyond me.
Then why did you use *that* analogy?
No, and neither is Elon's company you moron.
Then you shouldn't have used that analogy.
I had a similar thought, that these horrible amounts of pollution aren't doing a damned thing to reduce the net birth rate.
This won't end well.
I bet he never thought of that.
Given his obsession with Mars, I wouldn't be surprised.
Why does any company exist at a certain point in time?
Because:
1) of the founder's vision?
2) there are enough sales to keep the doors open and the employees paid?
3) idiot VCs pour money into unicorns with no viable business plan?
Only one of those types of company is going to survive.
If a company has a $50million satellite and they don't do their due diligence about the company they hire to launch it then shame on the them.
Have you and the company you work for ever been on the receiving end of a due diligence examination? I have, and it permanently jaded me towards the value of due diligence.
The company who build the rocket has an obligation to disclose any known or reasonably foreseeable risks.
You've got a low enough /. ID number to be fully aware of the fact that salesmen and corporate executives lie on a distressingly regular basis.
There is always a risk of failure when you put something on a rocket. Anyone who promises they can do it with 100% reliability is either lying or delusional.
Sigh.
Being prudent with other people's money is nowhere near equivalent to promising 100% reliability.
To equate the the two is delusional.
if one isn't blowing some of them up then they probably aren't trying to push any technological or economic boundaries.
You don't push technological or economic boundaries with other people's $50M satellites.