Three launches and three failures is expected when developing a new rocket (look at the falcon 1). There's a point where you have to try to launch a rocket, even though it probably won't go well. That's the nature of the beast. It's only a matter of time before they have a working rocket.
A hotter climate means more rainfall, not less. As long as you have dams and reservoirs in place for irrigation, there won't be any fresh water shortage. And we should have built them yesterday, as millions have already starved or drowned due to inadequate irrigation and flood control.
Many countries produce half of their electrical power by some other means. But transportation is almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels. And heat is often provided by directly burning fossil fuels.
Here is my gripe with that: all of modern civilization is built on fossil fuels. Unless those power sources are replaced with something else, any effort you make to limit their use will have a direct impact on human populations around the world. So when people argue for dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, they are in effect arguing that we should take steps that we know will cause suffering on a large scale because it may prevent uncertain suffering in the future. I say it may prevent it because we don't know if efforts to reduce emissions would happen quickly enough to have an effect, or if it's already too late. And I say that the future suffering is uncertain because we don't know exactly what the effects will be.
I can't see pulling the trigger on a "solution" that will definitely devastate the world's economy, when other solutions will be available in the near future. Solar panels are now less than $1 / watt, and they will be even cheaper in the next few years. Wind power is already incredibly cheap. Moreover, I can't see why we are so insistent on a solution that probably won't actually solve the problems of increased flooding and water shortages decreased snowpack. We already know that large scale civil engineering projects will solve those problems, and that we should be investing I'm them already to address cycles of poverty and famine that already exist in poorer countries.
They are greenhouse gasses, but they could never contribute to global warming in a material way. They aren't persistent, and we'd never be able to produce enough of them to have an effect.
Microsoft has changed their act as of late. They are making better products, and spending less time bullying everyone around. But you can't honestly expect their reputation to be clean overnight, they've got two decades of bad behavior that people need to forget about.
Besides that, their name is old fashioned, and it reminds people of the man from back in the day when we all still hated the man. It's you fathers company. No one today can love a tech company that has more than two syllables in it's name. "Microsoft" isn't even relevant anymore. Who even know's what a microcomputer is? And who makes acronyms by attaching the front of words together? They might as well be called spam.
He would be in jail already. And they might be trying him for first degree murder to boot. Of course, he probably knew not to wait around for that to happen.
Please explain to me how you can be intolerant of a bigot, but claim to be tolerant in general. Bear in mind that refusal to tolerate intolerance does meet the definition intolerance, so you definitely need to elaborate beyond simply restating the parent's (logically fallacious) argument.
Their "editorial policy" is that their employees can't express their opinions on other websites when the management finds them harmful of objectionable? That's censorship. It runs contrary to the principle of free expression, which most news organizations claim to uphold.
It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:
"Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"
There are many ways to silence someone. Fear and intimidation is one of them, and it's a big deal to lose your job. And it is more than a ltiile hypocritical for a news orginization that champions free speech and enjoys first ammendment protections not to extend those same types of privileges to people working for them.
It seemed to me that you were saying it's ok to silence this man because he is intolerant. Someone else's bad behavior, whatever it is, does not justify bad behavior on your part. None of us should be totally ok with a man losing his job over an opinion he holds. So no, intolerance of intolerance is not, in itself, ok. Just the same way you claim this man is wrong for speaking his (intolerant) mind, you are wrong to say he should be silenced.
Murdering a murderer isn't the same as murder itself. Stealing from a thief isn't theft. Creating on your cheating wife isn't cheating. A sarcastic response to an intellectually dishonest comment isn't sarcasm.
Black is white, up is down, and east is west, but you and people who agree with you on this still don't know what you're talking about. Either you believe in being tolerant, or you don't. Believing that intolerance is wrong, except when it applies to intolerance is a dangerous kind of doublethink. Someone who is intellectually honest with himself will know that if you believe it's ok to be intolerant of one thing, it may be ok to be intolerant of another.
The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.
Any kind of huge large vehicle would be an eyesore as it just doesn't fit in.
Have you ever been to Las Vegas?
People trying to claim a spaceship is on par with the pyramids, Eiffel tower or other things are letting their fandom get in the way of reality.
No one's saying this would be the next great pyramid (excepting your attempt to present such a claim as a straw man). Of course the two objects would be similar in scale. But people said the Eiffel tower would be an eyesore when it was built, and the people of Paris have not found it to be so. What I'm saying is that this story has repeated itself over time, and none of the things people have said were going to be eyesores have actually turned out that way.
Doubtless an ancient ancestor of yours objected to the building of the great pyramids claiming it would be an eyesore as well. And let's not forget all those idiots complaining about windmills. You aren't objectively looking at the situation, you are simply looking at a strange new idea and rejecting it because it doesn't fit with your existing world view.
Slashdot Mirror
You want the greatest specific impulse possible, so an ion engine is the best option.
New Horizins is on it's way there now. The article seems to contradict the summary and the headline.
Actually, this is plausible. They did build one a while back, and this would be a good opportunity to test a "boost phase" interception system.
Three launches and three failures is expected when developing a new rocket (look at the falcon 1). There's a point where you have to try to launch a rocket, even though it probably won't go well. That's the nature of the beast. It's only a matter of time before they have a working rocket.
A hotter climate means more rainfall, not less. As long as you have dams and reservoirs in place for irrigation, there won't be any fresh water shortage. And we should have built them yesterday, as millions have already starved or drowned due to inadequate irrigation and flood control.
Many countries produce half of their electrical power by some other means. But transportation is almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels. And heat is often provided by directly burning fossil fuels.
Literally now literally means "figuratively."
Here is my gripe with that: all of modern civilization is built on fossil fuels. Unless those power sources are replaced with something else, any effort you make to limit their use will have a direct impact on human populations around the world. So when people argue for dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, they are in effect arguing that we should take steps that we know will cause suffering on a large scale because it may prevent uncertain suffering in the future. I say it may prevent it because we don't know if efforts to reduce emissions would happen quickly enough to have an effect, or if it's already too late. And I say that the future suffering is uncertain because we don't know exactly what the effects will be.
I can't see pulling the trigger on a "solution" that will definitely devastate the world's economy, when other solutions will be available in the near future. Solar panels are now less than $1 / watt, and they will be even cheaper in the next few years. Wind power is already incredibly cheap. Moreover, I can't see why we are so insistent on a solution that probably won't actually solve the problems of increased flooding and water shortages decreased snowpack. We already know that large scale civil engineering projects will solve those problems, and that we should be investing I'm them already to address cycles of poverty and famine that already exist in poorer countries.
They are greenhouse gasses, but they could never contribute to global warming in a material way. They aren't persistent, and we'd never be able to produce enough of them to have an effect.
This is so wrong, I'm not even going to get into it.
CFCs don't make the planet warmer. They deplete the Ozone layer.
Incidentally, the Titanic was carrying more lifeboats than the regulations required at the time.
Microsoft has changed their act as of late. They are making better products, and spending less time bullying everyone around. But you can't honestly expect their reputation to be clean overnight, they've got two decades of bad behavior that people need to forget about.
Besides that, their name is old fashioned, and it reminds people of the man from back in the day when we all still hated the man. It's you fathers company. No one today can love a tech company that has more than two syllables in it's name. "Microsoft" isn't even relevant anymore. Who even know's what a microcomputer is? And who makes acronyms by attaching the front of words together? They might as well be called spam.
He would be in jail already. And they might be trying him for first degree murder to boot. Of course, he probably knew not to wait around for that to happen.
How about you try the app, then post a review if you like it?
Whatever makes you feel better about endorsing censorship.
Please explain to me how you can be intolerant of a bigot, but claim to be tolerant in general. Bear in mind that refusal to tolerate intolerance does meet the definition intolerance, so you definitely need to elaborate beyond simply restating the parent's (logically fallacious) argument.
Their "editorial policy" is that their employees can't express their opinions on other websites when the management finds them harmful of objectionable? That's censorship. It runs contrary to the principle of free expression, which most news organizations claim to uphold.
Hopefully, this may get Texas' congressmen to abandon their opposition to NASA's commercial space initiatives.
It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:
"Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"
There are many ways to silence someone. Fear and intimidation is one of them, and it's a big deal to lose your job. And it is more than a ltiile hypocritical for a news orginization that champions free speech and enjoys first ammendment protections not to extend those same types of privileges to people working for them.
It seemed to me that you were saying it's ok to silence this man because he is intolerant. Someone else's bad behavior, whatever it is, does not justify bad behavior on your part. None of us should be totally ok with a man losing his job over an opinion he holds. So no, intolerance of intolerance is not, in itself, ok. Just the same way you claim this man is wrong for speaking his (intolerant) mind, you are wrong to say he should be silenced.
Murdering a murderer isn't the same as murder itself. Stealing from a thief isn't theft. Creating on your cheating wife isn't cheating. A sarcastic response to an intellectually dishonest comment isn't sarcasm.
Black is white, up is down, and east is west, but you and people who agree with you on this still don't know what you're talking about. Either you believe in being tolerant, or you don't. Believing that intolerance is wrong, except when it applies to intolerance is a dangerous kind of doublethink. Someone who is intellectually honest with himself will know that if you believe it's ok to be intolerant of one thing, it may be ok to be intolerant of another.
The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.
Have you ever been to Las Vegas?
No one's saying this would be the next great pyramid (excepting your attempt to present such a claim as a straw man). Of course the two objects would be similar in scale. But people said the Eiffel tower would be an eyesore when it was built, and the people of Paris have not found it to be so. What I'm saying is that this story has repeated itself over time, and none of the things people have said were going to be eyesores have actually turned out that way.
Doubtless an ancient ancestor of yours objected to the building of the great pyramids claiming it would be an eyesore as well. And let's not forget all those idiots complaining about windmills. You aren't objectively looking at the situation, you are simply looking at a strange new idea and rejecting it because it doesn't fit with your existing world view.
it's more like 1/2d8