The same people show up at every protest, get arrested and let go by every city they visit by liberal judges. A phone call from Washington, a hint of a under cover arrangement, and a get out of jail free card.
Dozens if not hundreds of arrests, and they just walk.
Why? The Feds get more information from them running around loose than they would if they were in jail.
Liberal judges? Hardly. You know what gets those people out of jail? Two things. First, cost. You know what it costs to arrest hundreds of people and then put them through trial? Thousands of dollars each resulting in millions that was no doubt not budgeted at the beginning of the fiscal year. Second, conservative cops. They're not equipped to arrest hundreds of people, don't have the resources, and simply cannot do it while maintaining policy. So, they don't care about maintaining policy. Who cares if they spend a few hours more than legally allowed before being uncuffed, allowed to go to the bathroom, or fed? Who cares if they get pushed around a bit? This all makes for a legal case that can't really stand or be more of a headache if it did go to court anyway. Both sides know it's going to be bag tag and release unless somebody gets caught for doing specific like attacking a cop. Even if they don't go to court, there is often a court case suing the city because of treatment, but that doesn't come out of the cops budget, so they don't care.
Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories.
Yes, but I bet you're cherry picking a few great movies out of two decades, and there are the other 90% of the movies out at the time that had the same issue that you are complaining about current movies having. Do you have any idea of how many Charlie Chan or Tarzan movies alone were made in that time period? In 50 years, somebody else will be describing the great movies of the 00's and 10's while complaining about their current movies.
Besides, he's a Replicant, and they die after four years.
She has no time limit, in my own head canon, he doesn't either. "More human than human is our motto." Why manufacture limited replicants when you can just release pre-programed replicants into the wild with the needed desire and skills to provide for themselves and then produce and train more, new replicants? The Bladerunner world is having issues. Animals are in short supply and so are humans. There are so few humans that they need to encourage them with helper replicants to even move off world. If humans are in that short of supply, why not just cut them out and move out replicants to preform all the jobs? In the long term, they may be all that are left.
No, they're not.
But those who don't know the difference between what Blue Origin is trying to do and what SpaceX is already capable of are idiots.
Ya, Blue Origin is just trying to supply the new engine to the ULA along with man rated personnel module, while SpaceX is doing everything on their own and already has an engine.
They are not a competition for SpaceX since SpaceX does not do suborbital flights.
I think if you search on "blue origin ula", you'll find that the United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin are working on a new orbital engine, the BE-4. They are in competition now as the ULA was so far behind SpaceX that they needed to bring in Blue Origin. It's just that SpaceX is still at least three years ahead of everybody else, although Blue Origin seems to be front loading a lot of their man rating early and are possibly ahead in that regard.
We have had the technology to send people to Mars for decades.
No, we're not quite there yet. We had a huge issues with even landing on Mars till recently. There was too much atmosphere to use a rocket like on the moon, and too little to use a parachute like landing on earth for something large enough to land humans. Even with smaller missions like Curiosity, they had to come up with strange things like "sky cranes" and inflatable landing shells. Neither of which would work for a manned mission. Only with SpaceX's landing rocket technology do we actually have a solution. It might be a solution to the other major landing issue for Mars which is getting multiple landings in the same place. Even for recent probes the possible landing area was measured in kilometers across because we've never had the tech to land where we want with greater accuracy. That's just not going to work if multiple landings are supposed to support each other. For actually moving people across that distance in deep space, we have some science done, but we hardly have the technology yet. Apollo 1 didn't take men to the moon. Mars 1 won't take people to Mars. There are still many iterations left to build and test before we can say we have that technology. Just getting a deep space habitat that won't leak so much atmosphere that it has to be constantly resupplied like the ISS has yet to be worked out. Add in weightlessness, radiation, food and water, etc and there's lots of work left to be done. Decades of work left to be done, even with proper funding, which nobody is getting right now.
I like that Ars didn't even bother to test phone usage (aka talk time or 3G/LTE) in their tests - only performance on WiFi.
Well, they are a computer site. Let them do tests on the computer functions of the small mini-computer people keep in their pockets. Let phone sites judge the other minor niche features like talking on a phone.
How do you rotate the supplies? Food and water go bad after 5 or 10 years. Do you just throw it out? Feed it to animals? Water the lawn?
In my case, it's mostly just my camping supplies. I just restock right after coming back from camping and make sure to have a certain amount. Many also just keep a large pantry of canned and shelf stable food they eat anyway and cycle it constantly through the kitchen. Others do just shell out the money every so often. Not so much depending on how good of such you get. A friend whose family is Mormon and required to have a year's food for the family showed me his stock which was just cans of potted meat products that his dad had bought and had stored in the attic. Nobody would want to eat that when fresh, but they technically had a years worth of food stored.
If you're rich, you do it by helicopter. In the compound, you have all the things to survive and proper rather than wait it out in the middle of an urban center filled with a multitude of unprepared people.
Which is a great way to announce to all the raiders and super mutants where your compound is. If you'r gonna use a helicopter, better to land at the remote horse stables and then ride out to your even remoter compound.
Just give the plan away to everybody why don't you.
In other words, the 1% can afford to spend on 1% odds of disaster.
Hardly. Lots of people have storm shelters and emergency supplies stored away. Most people should. I have at least two weeks food, water, and other supplies stored away just in case in the basement (above and beyond what is normally in the house) just in case of emergency (an earthquake where I live). My family and many friends back in the flyover states have similar, except it's for either tornados or hurricanes. The 1% just have caviar and bowling alleys in theirs.
I imagine that most of this is just preparation they don't expect to ever actually use but accept that there is non-zero chance of a disaster. Natural disasters are pretty much a threat anywhere. For the US, the West coast has earthquakes and volcanos. East coast and gulf have hurricanes. In between, there are tornados. No matter how good your neighborhood is, there is certainly a chance that something could happen to cause it to lose electricity and other utilties for a couple of weeks. Since such a situation will probably be mostly unexpected, it will be easier for those that prepare to hang out for those weeks than to try and leave along with the thousands of others trying to do so. Better yet if you can just wait it out in comfort. I suspect most of these "bunkers" are just really, really nice storm shelters because when you have the money to spend, why not?
If bunkering up for the worst case scenario, you wouldn't just build a bunker. You'd have a hardened bunker to survive the initial disaster, and then have a way to bug out to a compound set up in BFE. If you're rich, you do it by helicopter. In the compound, you have all the things to survive and proper rather than wait it out in the middle of an urban center filled with a multitude of unprepared people.
It seems that Mars can easily trigger much more attention (money, hopes and similar) than the Moon. This is, in my opinion, its only advantage: plainly looking cooler.
I agree. Mars is the highlighted topic of conversation because less than that doesn't really matter to people listening. In my personal idea of how a Mars mission will play out, I do think there will be a return to it as a test bed. However, as a permanent base, we'd probably be better off with a space habitat rather than a moon base.
Off the top of my head because there's no atmosphere which is a convenient way to mine rocket fuel and other needed components without having to transport or actually dig and also means the lack of weathering has left the surface of the moon covered in razor sharp dust that plays hell with everything.
Doesn't matter. First, they don't just need warm bodies, but trained people who can actually do the job. Probably not too many highly trained people with the skills needed on death row. Second, just because they must be prepared to die, doesn't mean they should be expecting to die. Psychologically, it will be hard enough with morale and other issues without sending people on what is expected to be a death sentence. They will be sent on a dangerous mission that will have every bit of aid needed to succeed. Third, people on death row probably aren't the ones you want for a stable group effort based on cooperation and trust.
There is no need to bring them back. That is a nice thing if it can be afforded, but if we would stop concentrating on 100% safety the entire process would be less expensive and there would be no short of volunteers willing to take a reasonable risk instead of guaranteed safety.
No, you're high. The pipe dream is that sending people there without able to come back will make it cheaper. Any attempt to try and get people to Mars will make sure they get there ok, otherwise, it's just not worth going. Once we have all the problems of actually getting there, landing people, letting them do research, the option of coming back will pretty much be a small add on that will cost much less resources and money than attempting any sort of long stay environment for them (for more than the 3-6 months they'd be there anyway).
Push comes to shove there are tens of millions indirectly responsible for the warming effect but then again.. it would only take one Krakatoa to push us back into an ice age.
God bless us all.
Or a nuclear winter. Ever get the fear that this global warming is just the superpowers prepping themselves for survival of a nuclear war?
The U.S. is in a somewhat unique position because it's basicly the only country where climate change denial is not just a fringe position. Everywhere else, Climate change denial is at best some contrarian position for people who are contrarian to about anything.
Consequentially, in a map of where climate change will help or hinder food production, the United States is just about the only area that is supposed to come out ahead with a warmer climate. People here keep blaming religion, but I bet that the real reason is money. Those with money and power feel that they are better positioned with the change in climate, or at least feel that trying to do something about it will harm their position. Oil and coal would be the biggest losers and the people behind them are probably trying to stall to sell as much as they can while quietly diversifying their ownership into other fields.
They might discover lost Greek texts or other works of antiquity
Or much more interesting: Etruscan texts, of which there woefully few. The Estruscan language appears to be unrelated to any other known language, from the very few inscriptions we do have.
If only we could find Caludius' lost works of the Estruscan history and Dictionary.
... Atheism is a religion in the same way that NOT playing football is a sport.
Yes, yes, but we're pretty much just as sick of people telling how superior they are by not liking football as we are as by the people who constantly rant how they love football. Same goes for not stamp collecting and other hobbies.
Slashdot Mirror
3. The solution is to address the misogyny, not to force everything into the 50/50 balance a lot of SJW want
Why can't women be space marines?!?!?!
Because the Emperor made the gene seeds so they only meld with male DNA.
The same people show up at every protest, get arrested and let go by every city they visit by liberal judges. A phone call from Washington, a hint of a under cover arrangement, and a get out of jail free card.
Dozens if not hundreds of arrests, and they just walk.
Why? The Feds get more information from them running around loose than they would if they were in jail.
Liberal judges? Hardly. You know what gets those people out of jail? Two things. First, cost. You know what it costs to arrest hundreds of people and then put them through trial? Thousands of dollars each resulting in millions that was no doubt not budgeted at the beginning of the fiscal year. Second, conservative cops. They're not equipped to arrest hundreds of people, don't have the resources, and simply cannot do it while maintaining policy. So, they don't care about maintaining policy. Who cares if they spend a few hours more than legally allowed before being uncuffed, allowed to go to the bathroom, or fed? Who cares if they get pushed around a bit? This all makes for a legal case that can't really stand or be more of a headache if it did go to court anyway. Both sides know it's going to be bag tag and release unless somebody gets caught for doing specific like attacking a cop. Even if they don't go to court, there is often a court case suing the city because of treatment, but that doesn't come out of the cops budget, so they don't care.
Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories.
Yes, but I bet you're cherry picking a few great movies out of two decades, and there are the other 90% of the movies out at the time that had the same issue that you are complaining about current movies having. Do you have any idea of how many Charlie Chan or Tarzan movies alone were made in that time period? In 50 years, somebody else will be describing the great movies of the 00's and 10's while complaining about their current movies.
These shitty movie directors need to get their egos under control and realise that that kind of movie needs to be 90-100 minutes tops.
Then people will complain that the movies are too short and they aren't getting enough for their money.
Maybe this one will actually follow the story of the Philip K Dick book the first one was supposed to be based on.
Maybe this one will actually follow the K W Jeter screenplay that the first one was supposed to be based on.
Besides, he's a Replicant, and they die after four years.
She has no time limit, in my own head canon, he doesn't either. "More human than human is our motto." Why manufacture limited replicants when you can just release pre-programed replicants into the wild with the needed desire and skills to provide for themselves and then produce and train more, new replicants? The Bladerunner world is having issues. Animals are in short supply and so are humans. There are so few humans that they need to encourage them with helper replicants to even move off world. If humans are in that short of supply, why not just cut them out and move out replicants to preform all the jobs? In the long term, they may be all that are left.
No, they're not. But those who don't know the difference between what Blue Origin is trying to do and what SpaceX is already capable of are idiots.
Ya, Blue Origin is just trying to supply the new engine to the ULA along with man rated personnel module, while SpaceX is doing everything on their own and already has an engine.
They are not a competition for SpaceX since SpaceX does not do suborbital flights.
I think if you search on "blue origin ula", you'll find that the United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin are working on a new orbital engine, the BE-4. They are in competition now as the ULA was so far behind SpaceX that they needed to bring in Blue Origin. It's just that SpaceX is still at least three years ahead of everybody else, although Blue Origin seems to be front loading a lot of their man rating early and are possibly ahead in that regard.
We have had the technology to send people to Mars for decades.
No, we're not quite there yet. We had a huge issues with even landing on Mars till recently. There was too much atmosphere to use a rocket like on the moon, and too little to use a parachute like landing on earth for something large enough to land humans. Even with smaller missions like Curiosity, they had to come up with strange things like "sky cranes" and inflatable landing shells. Neither of which would work for a manned mission. Only with SpaceX's landing rocket technology do we actually have a solution. It might be a solution to the other major landing issue for Mars which is getting multiple landings in the same place. Even for recent probes the possible landing area was measured in kilometers across because we've never had the tech to land where we want with greater accuracy. That's just not going to work if multiple landings are supposed to support each other. For actually moving people across that distance in deep space, we have some science done, but we hardly have the technology yet. Apollo 1 didn't take men to the moon. Mars 1 won't take people to Mars. There are still many iterations left to build and test before we can say we have that technology. Just getting a deep space habitat that won't leak so much atmosphere that it has to be constantly resupplied like the ISS has yet to be worked out. Add in weightlessness, radiation, food and water, etc and there's lots of work left to be done. Decades of work left to be done, even with proper funding, which nobody is getting right now.
The most I've ever spent on a phone was $300... I'm currently replacing cell phones about every 2 years. At that rate, who can afford $600 phones.
People like you that buy a new phone every 4 years.
I like that Ars didn't even bother to test phone usage (aka talk time or 3G/LTE) in their tests - only performance on WiFi.
Well, they are a computer site. Let them do tests on the computer functions of the small mini-computer people keep in their pockets. Let phone sites judge the other minor niche features like talking on a phone.
How do you rotate the supplies? Food and water go bad after 5 or 10 years. Do you just throw it out? Feed it to animals? Water the lawn?
In my case, it's mostly just my camping supplies. I just restock right after coming back from camping and make sure to have a certain amount. Many also just keep a large pantry of canned and shelf stable food they eat anyway and cycle it constantly through the kitchen. Others do just shell out the money every so often. Not so much depending on how good of such you get. A friend whose family is Mormon and required to have a year's food for the family showed me his stock which was just cans of potted meat products that his dad had bought and had stored in the attic. Nobody would want to eat that when fresh, but they technically had a years worth of food stored.
If you're rich, you do it by helicopter. In the compound, you have all the things to survive and proper rather than wait it out in the middle of an urban center filled with a multitude of unprepared people.
Which is a great way to announce to all the raiders and super mutants where your compound is. If you'r gonna use a helicopter, better to land at the remote horse stables and then ride out to your even remoter compound.
Just give the plan away to everybody why don't you.
In other words, the 1% can afford to spend on 1% odds of disaster.
Hardly. Lots of people have storm shelters and emergency supplies stored away. Most people should. I have at least two weeks food, water, and other supplies stored away just in case in the basement (above and beyond what is normally in the house) just in case of emergency (an earthquake where I live). My family and many friends back in the flyover states have similar, except it's for either tornados or hurricanes. The 1% just have caviar and bowling alleys in theirs.
The problem with a conventional yacht is they're fuel pigs.
You really just need the yacht to get to your private island where the real survival compound is located.
What's the point?
I imagine that most of this is just preparation they don't expect to ever actually use but accept that there is non-zero chance of a disaster. Natural disasters are pretty much a threat anywhere. For the US, the West coast has earthquakes and volcanos. East coast and gulf have hurricanes. In between, there are tornados. No matter how good your neighborhood is, there is certainly a chance that something could happen to cause it to lose electricity and other utilties for a couple of weeks. Since such a situation will probably be mostly unexpected, it will be easier for those that prepare to hang out for those weeks than to try and leave along with the thousands of others trying to do so. Better yet if you can just wait it out in comfort. I suspect most of these "bunkers" are just really, really nice storm shelters because when you have the money to spend, why not?
If bunkering up for the worst case scenario, you wouldn't just build a bunker. You'd have a hardened bunker to survive the initial disaster, and then have a way to bug out to a compound set up in BFE. If you're rich, you do it by helicopter. In the compound, you have all the things to survive and proper rather than wait it out in the middle of an urban center filled with a multitude of unprepared people.
It seems that Mars can easily trigger much more attention (money, hopes and similar) than the Moon. This is, in my opinion, its only advantage: plainly looking cooler.
I agree. Mars is the highlighted topic of conversation because less than that doesn't really matter to people listening. In my personal idea of how a Mars mission will play out, I do think there will be a return to it as a test bed. However, as a permanent base, we'd probably be better off with a space habitat rather than a moon base.
Why not the moon?
Off the top of my head because there's no atmosphere which is a convenient way to mine rocket fuel and other needed components without having to transport or actually dig and also means the lack of weathering has left the surface of the moon covered in razor sharp dust that plays hell with everything.
However, Mars is covered in poison.
What is the difference if you are not prepared? Will you fail at it?
Quite possibly. Risk aversion in a situation where risk is needed to survive could spell doom for everybody.
how meany people on death row will take this?
Doesn't matter. First, they don't just need warm bodies, but trained people who can actually do the job. Probably not too many highly trained people with the skills needed on death row. Second, just because they must be prepared to die, doesn't mean they should be expecting to die. Psychologically, it will be hard enough with morale and other issues without sending people on what is expected to be a death sentence. They will be sent on a dangerous mission that will have every bit of aid needed to succeed. Third, people on death row probably aren't the ones you want for a stable group effort based on cooperation and trust.
There is no need to bring them back. That is a nice thing if it can be afforded, but if we would stop concentrating on 100% safety the entire process would be less expensive and there would be no short of volunteers willing to take a reasonable risk instead of guaranteed safety.
No, you're high. The pipe dream is that sending people there without able to come back will make it cheaper. Any attempt to try and get people to Mars will make sure they get there ok, otherwise, it's just not worth going. Once we have all the problems of actually getting there, landing people, letting them do research, the option of coming back will pretty much be a small add on that will cost much less resources and money than attempting any sort of long stay environment for them (for more than the 3-6 months they'd be there anyway).
Push comes to shove there are tens of millions indirectly responsible for the warming effect but then again.. it would only take one Krakatoa to push us back into an ice age.
God bless us all.
Or a nuclear winter. Ever get the fear that this global warming is just the superpowers prepping themselves for survival of a nuclear war?
Population overall of what?
The U.S. is in a somewhat unique position because it's basicly the only country where climate change denial is not just a fringe position. Everywhere else, Climate change denial is at best some contrarian position for people who are contrarian to about anything.
Consequentially, in a map of where climate change will help or hinder food production, the United States is just about the only area that is supposed to come out ahead with a warmer climate. People here keep blaming religion, but I bet that the real reason is money. Those with money and power feel that they are better positioned with the change in climate, or at least feel that trying to do something about it will harm their position. Oil and coal would be the biggest losers and the people behind them are probably trying to stall to sell as much as they can while quietly diversifying their ownership into other fields.
They might discover lost Greek texts or other works of antiquity
Or much more interesting: Etruscan texts, of which there woefully few. The Estruscan language appears to be unrelated to any other known language, from the very few inscriptions we do have.
If only we could find Caludius' lost works of the Estruscan history and Dictionary.
... Atheism is a religion in the same way that NOT playing football is a sport.
Yes, yes, but we're pretty much just as sick of people telling how superior they are by not liking football as we are as by the people who constantly rant how they love football. Same goes for not stamp collecting and other hobbies.