NVM how many components in Airbuses are US-made... Or how Boeing uses CATIA to design their airplanes - a software which, while not strictly "from Airbus", is certainly in the family.
And in recent news - WTO ruled that Boeing subsidies are also illegal...
Two days ago a friggin' hull rapture happened in a Boeing 737. Also, this year so far: two Boeing aircraft in major incidents including one with lots of fatalities; Airbus: zero incidents. Which doesn't even mean much, just random fluctuations (2010: Boeing 7 crashes, mostly few years old aircraft, two on board fires in which everybody perish - one visible from the ground shortly after takeoff; Airbus 4 crashes, the only very fatal ones - pilot errors & bad weather, engine malfunctions without victims / both airplane manufacturer use the same engine (and many other components) manufacturers anyway; still whole 2010 within random fluctuations and differences expected from relative number of airplanes)
The absolute numbers of airplanes don't change the rates, which are the same within the margin or error for both major manufacturers. And there are almost 4-decade old Airbuses still flying.
People are just quick to see patterns which aren't there. Even more if you want to see what you want to see. Boeing itself says that Airbus airplanes are just as safe as their own.
Data are better though, and they clearly show that airplanes of both major manufacturers come down at about the same rate, with white noise fluctuations (but human minds have a propensity to see patterns which aren't there; more so when they want to see it). Also that human error is the cause of majority of crashes, pilot error being a large part part of those.
Leading us right back to the people forming lynching committees, which need only be convinced a grave crime has taken place.
(that, and some places luckily have or push for extensive freedom to roam; but it's generally funny and telling that you'd destroy your ability to fully enjoy your land just in the hope that others won't be able at all - and in fact just leading to further social tensions, disunion, polarisation, lack of harmony, etc. of course)
Many (maybe most) "heathen polytheisms" have one ubergod, even few faces of one (yeah, like with the Trinity, even if this one is more absurd in insisting that's still monotheism and simply a "mystery" - it's only good, once the faithful get conditioned to accept such stuff early on, everything can be swept under the carpet)
Most polytheistic deities are really on the level of angels or saints.
...start with the focusing of the teaching of the christ...
Except he's wrong!;p But seriously, the christ is also a wolf masquerading as a sheep - "do what I say or suffer eternally"? "My fairly unremarkable, not anywhere near worst death is worth enough to balance out the deaths of 100+ billion homo sapiens sapiens and their 'sins' - largely arbitrary ones, all imposed on humanity by me with full foreknowledge"?
That's something worthy of Demiurge (and probably why gnostics were labelled as heretics early on), deity of dystheism or maltheism, the ultimate sinner and destroyer (two old Usenet posts, hard to say anything better in time it takes to paste them)
Such propaganda is what the Demiurge would definitely desire... (together with branding classic gnostics as heretics; dystheism or maltheism also have it hard)
Crafty. But we can't expect anything less from the ultimate damager and destroyer (two old that-what-we-don't-speak-about posts talking about it much better that I could in short amount of time)
Vatican probably actually sees the Internet as a threat, not just a random scapegoat. It's the latest (and by farthe greatest) in things which dilute their control over masses.
Also - it might be an expression of their current unease about the EU-wide census, and the results of its question about religion. About how Internet is the tool to promote "satanisms" of various kind in answering to that question (one of more charming ones, at my place;p - Google Translate works decently)
Though in fairness, I prefer Vatican to many others... for example, their position in regards to evolution (or consider Mendel, a Catholic monk; generally, their contribution to progress is immense... even if with some temporary hiccups now and then; emphasis in the quote mine):
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth ... the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
"Less government" is the catchphrase of true Americans, didn't you get the memo? (BTW, mentioning the myth of backwards middle ages, created by the next era, doesn't help many arguments)
Yay for Free Speech Cage^H^H^H^HZones! And it's so much easier with export of suffering, also effects of free pursuits of our populations (well, yeah, they need to let some steam after all those worthy pursuits...)
Tell me, how is it that in one important metric of "freedom" (oh how long people fall for this catchphrase...) or "civilian pursuits" - social mobility - the US is at the bottom of developed countries? (together with few others, UK for example; at the top are often derided "nanny states", without much of a military-industrial complex)
It wasn't so much about geo-sync capability, but about what was possible with (re)transmitters of the era and what size of dish on Earth they would still require (compounded by high latitudes)
Early satellite TV systems weren't meant for direct reception by the population. If it works via regional receivers + terrestrial re-transmitters in fairly northerly country, Molniya orbit becomes quite attractive... especially considering how the sats are closer (cube law) and can be more massive (per type of launcher); even deorbiting becomes more viable.
...or you might launch just the expendable observation platform(s - many of them, when using the expendable rocket which lifts X-37B as a payload; best of all: a rocket with Russian-made main engine)
I was hoping Shuttle taught us something (say, with the Hubble - it would be less expensive to have new ones; they are already relatively "mass" produced, as spysats... launched by expendable rockets; or what Zenit sats taught us - the most popular payload of "the most reliable... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world", and close to least expensive one), that we won't relive the dream started in scifi of the ~40s (times of rapid airplane advances no doubt influencing it [1]) on which STS designers and decision-makers were certainly raised. And pushed in scifi ever since; hey, it does look really familiar and reassuring...
About the only sensible thing maybe going for it seems to be testing / ability to maybe do noticeably larger, per delta-V & fuel required [2], lifting inclination changes. Maybe.
1. Like those airplanes from "our" times (can be even done - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy), no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech; vs. what so called reality dictates. Spaceplanes can be seen as analogous to flying boats (not many of those around now); Catalina at best (& hopefully), Spruce Goose at worst. Imagine how much further we could be without STS (a craft obsolete long before its first mission; first automatic orbital rendezvous & docking taking place in the 60s) or Buran (pushed by ignorant Soviet generals as a "counterpart" to nonexistent strategic advantage of STS; engineers wanted to do something very different)
2. Assuming worth the mass budget for an airframe...
It would be also ethereal to millions of (~10km/s average impact speed) pellets filling a number of random "dumb rockets"; material chosen solely on the basis of stealth (if very small sizes weren't enough...) and relatively high density; some types of rock should do fine, many even come ground to gravel / etc. The ultimate shotgun.
The orbit is a perfect asymmetrical warfare battleground, steps towards its militarization are...insane. Any space capable entity can easily largely deny a productive use of Earth orbit to us all (and most importantly to big players being its "adversaries", whose numerous military orbital installations tip the perceived balance of power; such attack is a really good deal as far as small space powers are concerned - their few orbital installations can be easily selectively disabled now by the larger powers); any rocket & satellite could have such payload. And it might take just one to trigger real Kessler Syndrome, we're not that far off already.
The Moon is quite black - it has similar albedo to coal. Visual system recalibrates itself for object vs. background (which in the case of space, will be much "blacker")
Besides, don't you think they try to camouflage spysats already? Still fairly easy to spot. And with X-37B it's not like they even try that much; an expandable sat / mission package barely larger than the payload bay of X-37B - but with identical on-orbit capabilities - would be much harder to spot.
Nonetheless... that suddenly makes such things like this discreet "go to it" an easy way to justify your inter^H^H^Hvasion?;p
Then there's how much of an interference do we need to have a case of general violation of independence (itself going towards "invasion"). Say, how much of it such drilling / mining practices represent? (together with international economic policies / dumping the price of oil; openly (and most likely rightfully) described by your neighbor - who spilled a lot of blood for you recently - as harmful to them... but without much urgency to you)
Always fuzzy...
...most people don't seriously or rigorously plan their drive to work anyway
And they are already guided by machines more and more, not only on a drive to work (and particularly on the "be free!" trips to unfamiliar places). Machines which are often aided by quite centralized systems of road info.
Machine says "turn right" - the mechanism doing the driving, the cog in the middle (aka "human") does what the machine says...
"Empty car" seems to me like it could easily be the first scenario to be routinely automated, on a small scale (very gradually, not "end result")
We now have "auto parking" systems - so there's already no major reason why you shouldn't be able to step out of the car before it parks itself (or step in after it "parks out"). It can even be safer - when you observe from the outside what's going on (holding remote with "abort" / "retry"). Generally bringing more efficient use of parking space, when there's no need to open the doors / the cars could park themselves within 1cm distance (yes, "compatibility" problems vs. cars without such possibility - easily dealt with by human & car readable markings + designated parking places; certainly not more problematic than people locking others out of their cars as it is now)
Or a parking lot in front of some shopping center (very low speeds, centralized system observing every activity on the lot, maybe also designated area & entry lane for such cars)
But I hope we would be more sensible than "everybody sends their own car to do the shopping"
Go to any largely car-free place (quite a few of those), move around it a bit even just on foot or bike. Now try doing it anywhere near as quickly and conveniently (nvm pleasantly) in a place completely hijacked by cars. Then start talking about those creating inconveniences (also...)
And as a matter of fact, places focusing in prevention (not in your straw-man style of course) of crime, disease, accidents, etc. fare quite well with that approach.
Can't wait! (but seriously... imagine how much better parking would become when the cars know where the empty spots are, and when they can easily park themselves in & out without the need to open the doors)
If a society (ultimately govs are their reflection) wants to break away from how cars hijack its cities, then it will do so. Sure, a lot of people were despairing during... every shift in the way of life, in the primary mode of transport - but a) I don't see how the comfort zones of those who were brought up in very different times should be the deciding factor b) the problem takes care of itself in few short decades anyway, humans have limited lifespans.
Also, do you despair for how elevators operate on a "nanny state" basis? After all, they quite universally had a human operator once - yay for "non-nanny"! (but it's generally curious why "EmperorOfCanada" would mind, especially considering such nice indicator of actual (vs. mythical catchwords) "freedom" and "opportunities" as social mobility - in which the US (together with few others, for example also the UK) is at the bottom of developed countries... and in which so called "nanny states" (including Canada) are at the top)
Slashdot Mirror
NVM how many components in Airbuses are US-made... Or how Boeing uses CATIA to design their airplanes - a software which, while not strictly "from Airbus", is certainly in the family.
And in recent news - WTO ruled that Boeing subsidies are also illegal...
Two days ago a friggin' hull rapture happened in a Boeing 737. Also, this year so far: two Boeing aircraft in major incidents including one with lots of fatalities; Airbus: zero incidents. Which doesn't even mean much, just random fluctuations (2010: Boeing 7 crashes, mostly few years old aircraft, two on board fires in which everybody perish - one visible from the ground shortly after takeoff; Airbus 4 crashes, the only very fatal ones - pilot errors & bad weather, engine malfunctions without victims / both airplane manufacturer use the same engine (and many other components) manufacturers anyway; still whole 2010 within random fluctuations and differences expected from relative number of airplanes)
The absolute numbers of airplanes don't change the rates, which are the same within the margin or error for both major manufacturers. And there are almost 4-decade old Airbuses still flying.
People are just quick to see patterns which aren't there. Even more if you want to see what you want to see. Boeing itself says that Airbus airplanes are just as safe as their own.
Data are better though, and they clearly show that airplanes of both major manufacturers come down at about the same rate, with white noise fluctuations (but human minds have a propensity to see patterns which aren't there; more so when they want to see it). Also that human error is the cause of majority of crashes, pilot error being a large part part of those.
"Great"?...
Leading us right back to the people forming lynching committees, which need only be convinced a grave crime has taken place.
(that, and some places luckily have or push for extensive freedom to roam; but it's generally funny and telling that you'd destroy your ability to fully enjoy your land just in the hope that others won't be able at all - and in fact just leading to further social tensions, disunion, polarisation, lack of harmony, etc. of course)
Inspired by your post, I made a quick google search... why, yes, there is quite a bit of Zen Christianity / Christian Zen out there ;p
Many (maybe most) "heathen polytheisms" have one ubergod, even few faces of one (yeah, like with the Trinity, even if this one is more absurd in insisting that's still monotheism and simply a "mystery" - it's only good, once the faithful get conditioned to accept such stuff early on, everything can be swept under the carpet)
Most polytheistic deities are really on the level of angels or saints.
Are you, by chance, a new but still modest messiah, stoned for our sins?
...start with the focusing of the teaching of the christ...
Except he's wrong! ;p But seriously, the christ is also a wolf masquerading as a sheep - "do what I say or suffer eternally"? "My fairly unremarkable, not anywhere near worst death is worth enough to balance out the deaths of 100+ billion homo sapiens sapiens and their 'sins' - largely arbitrary ones, all imposed on humanity by me with full foreknowledge"?
That's something worthy of Demiurge (and probably why gnostics were labelled as heretics early on), deity of dystheism or maltheism, the ultimate sinner and destroyer (two old Usenet posts, hard to say anything better in time it takes to paste them)
Such propaganda is what the Demiurge would definitely desire... (together with branding classic gnostics as heretics; dystheism or maltheism also have it hard)
Crafty. But we can't expect anything less from the ultimate damager and destroyer (two old that-what-we-don't-speak-about posts talking about it much better that I could in short amount of time)
http://kyon.pl/img/11186,religion,atheism,christianity,strip,double_standard,.html
Also - it might be an expression of their current unease about the EU-wide census, and the results of its question about religion. About how Internet is the tool to promote "satanisms" of various kind in answering to that question (one of more charming ones, at my place
Though in fairness, I prefer Vatican to many others... for example, their position in regards to evolution (or consider Mendel, a Catholic monk; generally, their contribution to progress is immense... even if with some temporary hiccups now and then; emphasis in the quote mine):
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
"Less government" is the catchphrase of true Americans, didn't you get the memo? (BTW, mentioning the myth of backwards middle ages, created by the next era, doesn't help many arguments)
Yay for Free Speech Cage^H^H^H^HZones! And it's so much easier with export of suffering, also effects of free pursuits of our populations (well, yeah, they need to let some steam after all those worthy pursuits...)
Tell me, how is it that in one important metric of "freedom" (oh how long people fall for this catchphrase...) or "civilian pursuits" - social mobility - the US is at the bottom of developed countries? (together with few others, UK for example; at the top are often derided "nanny states", without much of a military-industrial complex)
It wasn't so much about geo-sync capability, but about what was possible with (re)transmitters of the era and what size of dish on Earth they would still require (compounded by high latitudes)
Early satellite TV systems weren't meant for direct reception by the population. If it works via regional receivers + terrestrial re-transmitters in fairly northerly country, Molniya orbit becomes quite attractive... especially considering how the sats are closer (cube law) and can be more massive (per type of launcher); even deorbiting becomes more viable.
...or you might launch just the expendable observation platform(s - many of them, when using the expendable rocket which lifts X-37B as a payload; best of all: a rocket with Russian-made main engine)
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world", and close to least expensive one), that we won't relive the dream started in scifi of the ~40s (times of rapid airplane advances no doubt influencing it [1]) on which STS designers and decision-makers were certainly raised. And pushed in scifi ever since; hey, it does look really familiar and reassuring...
I was hoping Shuttle taught us something (say, with the Hubble - it would be less expensive to have new ones; they are already relatively "mass" produced, as spysats... launched by expendable rockets; or what Zenit sats taught us - the most popular payload of "the most reliable
About the only sensible thing maybe going for it seems to be testing / ability to maybe do noticeably larger, per delta-V & fuel required [2], lifting inclination changes. Maybe.
1. Like those airplanes from "our" times (can be even done - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy), no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech; vs. what so called reality dictates. Spaceplanes can be seen as analogous to flying boats (not many of those around now); Catalina at best (& hopefully), Spruce Goose at worst. Imagine how much further we could be without STS (a craft obsolete long before its first mission; first automatic orbital rendezvous & docking taking place in the 60s) or Buran (pushed by ignorant Soviet generals as a "counterpart" to nonexistent strategic advantage of STS; engineers wanted to do something very different)
2. Assuming worth the mass budget for an airframe...
It would be also ethereal to millions of (~10km/s average impact speed) pellets filling a number of random "dumb rockets"; material chosen solely on the basis of stealth (if very small sizes weren't enough...) and relatively high density; some types of rock should do fine, many even come ground to gravel / etc. The ultimate shotgun.
The orbit is a perfect asymmetrical warfare battleground, steps towards its militarization are...insane. Any space capable entity can easily largely deny a productive use of Earth orbit to us all (and most importantly to big players being its "adversaries", whose numerous military orbital installations tip the perceived balance of power; such attack is a really good deal as far as small space powers are concerned - their few orbital installations can be easily selectively disabled now by the larger powers); any rocket & satellite could have such payload. And it might take just one to trigger real Kessler Syndrome, we're not that far off already.
The Moon is quite black - it has similar albedo to coal. Visual system recalibrates itself for object vs. background (which in the case of space, will be much "blacker")
Besides, don't you think they try to camouflage spysats already? Still fairly easy to spot. And with X-37B it's not like they even try that much; an expandable sat / mission package barely larger than the payload bay of X-37B - but with identical on-orbit capabilities - would be much harder to spot.
Nonetheless... that suddenly makes such things like this discreet "go to it" an easy way to justify your inter^H^H^Hvasion? ;p
Then there's how much of an interference do we need to have a case of general violation of independence (itself going towards "invasion"). Say, how much of it such drilling / mining practices represent? (together with international economic policies / dumping the price of oil; openly (and most likely rightfully) described by your neighbor - who spilled a lot of blood for you recently - as harmful to them... but without much urgency to you)
Always fuzzy...
...most people don't seriously or rigorously plan their drive to work anyway
And they are already guided by machines more and more, not only on a drive to work (and particularly on the "be free!" trips to unfamiliar places). Machines which are often aided by quite centralized systems of road info.
Machine says "turn right" - the mechanism doing the driving, the cog in the middle (aka "human") does what the machine says...
"Empty car" seems to me like it could easily be the first scenario to be routinely automated, on a small scale (very gradually, not "end result")
We now have "auto parking" systems - so there's already no major reason why you shouldn't be able to step out of the car before it parks itself (or step in after it "parks out"). It can even be safer - when you observe from the outside what's going on (holding remote with "abort" / "retry"). Generally bringing more efficient use of parking space, when there's no need to open the doors / the cars could park themselves within 1cm distance (yes, "compatibility" problems vs. cars without such possibility - easily dealt with by human & car readable markings + designated parking places; certainly not more problematic than people locking others out of their cars as it is now)
Or a parking lot in front of some shopping center (very low speeds, centralized system observing every activity on the lot, maybe also designated area & entry lane for such cars)
But I hope we would be more sensible than "everybody sends their own car to do the shopping"
Go to any largely car-free place (quite a few of those), move around it a bit even just on foot or bike. Now try doing it anywhere near as quickly and conveniently (nvm pleasantly) in a place completely hijacked by cars. Then start talking about those creating inconveniences (also...)
And as a matter of fact, places focusing in prevention (not in your straw-man style of course) of crime, disease, accidents, etc. fare quite well with that approach.
Can't wait! (but seriously... imagine how much better parking would become when the cars know where the empty spots are, and when they can easily park themselves in & out without the need to open the doors)
If a society (ultimately govs are their reflection) wants to break away from how cars hijack its cities, then it will do so. Sure, a lot of people were despairing during... every shift in the way of life, in the primary mode of transport - but a) I don't see how the comfort zones of those who were brought up in very different times should be the deciding factor b) the problem takes care of itself in few short decades anyway, humans have limited lifespans.
Also, do you despair for how elevators operate on a "nanny state" basis? After all, they quite universally had a human operator once - yay for "non-nanny"! (but it's generally curious why "EmperorOfCanada" would mind, especially considering such nice indicator of actual (vs. mythical catchwords) "freedom" and "opportunities" as social mobility - in which the US (together with few others, for example also the UK) is at the bottom of developed countries... and in which so called "nanny states" (including Canada) are at the top)
Might have so-so of an effect - the tragedy of Onion is how often their stories turn out to be more accurate (in a way) in the long run, etc.