What fallacy? I'm amused you think "most readers" can spot a nonexistent fallacy. You accuse me of projection... is that what the "most readers" in your head told you to say?
The shuttle was a terrible program. It set the space program back thirty years by cementing in the public mind the idea manned spaceflight must always be far more expensive than the value of any possible benefit.
And the idea Carter is some sort of hero because he was too weak to say "Let's not throw good money after bad..."? Ugh.
Again: Issues press release blaming the film. Tells the Egyptian PM there's "no way" it was the film. Issues press release blaming the film.
There's no way you can construe that as anything other than lying. I guess in theory she could have been lying to the Egyptian PM, but then he would have been able to tell by reading the newspaper.
That's not credible at all. There's no way intelligence assessments changed that much between 10 PM on the 11th when she blamed the film and 14 hours later when she told the Egyptian PM "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film."
Then the next day during a State Dept event to commemorate the end of Ramadan she blamed the film again.
So to recap: Sept 11th Clinton issues statement blaming film. Sept 12th Clinton tells Egyptian PM there's no way it was the film. Sept 13th Clinton issues statement blaming film.
What changes is we have documented evidence she was telling the American people one thing and telling world leaders something else.
I don't understand why she does this kind of thing. If she had told the truth I would have shrugged and said "Meh. Sometimes the other team puts some points on the board. You can't stop every attack." But no, she had to peddle this fantasy that some Egyptian filmmaker caused a spontaneous riot that included mortars and heavy machine guns. It was obviously untrue from the start.
As to why the Republicans didn't bring it up in the hearings - the Benghazi hearings took place in October, and Clinton managed to delay the release of the transcripts until April. Which is the pattern with this despicable woman - delay, delay, delay and then when the damning information comes out she says "This is old news. Why does it matter any more?" Do you remember the Rose Law Firm documents?
When the intel of the time suggested it was probably planned, she should have used the word "probably" or similar for CYA instead of saying "it was planned".
That's... not anything like what she said. She said it was a spontaneous demonstration prompted by a movie nobody had ever heard of. And that was after the career bureaucrats told her it was a planned attack. She lied, and it's a documented lie. As Moynihan said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Beyond that it's always a mistake to compare actual sentences with potential maximum sentences. This guy is unlikely to get anything like 16 years, assuming he's convicted.
The vast majority of launch cargo ends up in either geostationary or low earth orbit. LEO launches are basically done by the time you could refuel them, so no joy there.
You might launch something into LEO, dock with a refueling craft, and then boost into geostationary orbit with your new fuel (that's suggested in the article). But now there are a lot more things that can go wrong, and you haven't really saved all that much money. If you build a rocket with enough fuel you don't need dock with anything - it's already there. Somehow all the refueling infrastructure has to be paid for - the mining operation, the refining, the tankers moving the fuel from the moon into LEO.
I suspect there's a whole lot of optimism is baked into the cost analysis. Based on past experience doing anything in space is damn expensive, and we're talking about a huge, complex project. They're going to have a thousand people in orbit, with all the logistics that implies, and still deliver fuel more cheaply than launching it? I guess if you had enough launches to amortize it all out you could make the numbers work, but I haven't seen a serious proposal on that scale. What could we possibly build that's worth that kind of effort?
You think NASA, with 0.5% of the budget orders more semiconductors than the military (30%+ during the cold war)? Really? Doesn't that seem ridiculous on its face?
It's a drop in the bucket compared to DoD. The original semiconductors were built for ICBMS, not NASA vehicles. And the military knows quite a bit about QA.
This is what I hate about Apollo project boosterism. They've taken credit for things they had nothing to do with at all, like velcro, and also for things that would have happened anyway or for which they only had a small part, like semiconductors.
And even if Mars is contaminated... who cares? If there's any life at all on Mars it's microscopic. If the choice is between exploring Mars with the eye to eventual colonization and leaving it untouched in case some Martian bug is affected, I'm all for exploration.
I can see why hiring someone would be the last resort of an employer, but I don't understand why you wouldn't train the people you hire. If I can't get rid of someone it makes sense to spend a little more to make sure he's as effective as possible.
They don't even have to raise wages enough to tempt people back home - they just have to raise wages enough to stop the bleeding. Most people don't want to move thousands of miles from their family and friends to work in a foreign country where a different language is spoken. Spanish employers don't have to pay as much as employers in Northern European countries, but they have to pay more than they're paying now.
I agree. Employers are trying to have it both ways here. It's reasonable to expect employees to provide their own training if you're paying enough that they'll be attracted to the field and come out ahead in the long run. It's also reasonable to pay less and provide training for your employees.
What businesses are trying to do is get someone else (either the government or the employees themselves) to pay for training without raising wages enough to compensate. "We can't find enough skilled workers" articles are always followed by proposals to relax immigration restrictions, which is the attempt by employers to have their cake and eat it too.
Maybe if they paid a little more skilled Spaniards would stop moving to Germany and there would be more people showing up for interviews.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ten bucks. The idea ten dollars every five years is some kind of unbearable hardship is laughable given what other things cost.
What fallacy? I'm amused you think "most readers" can spot a nonexistent fallacy. You accuse me of projection... is that what the "most readers" in your head told you to say?
A google search doesn't turn up a source. It's an article from 1980 that doesn't appear to be on the WM site.
You might try actually reading the link. It's a reprint from Washington Monthly.
I have no doubt that's true, as you seem unable to reason logically.
The shuttle was a terrible program. It set the space program back thirty years by cementing in the public mind the idea manned spaceflight must always be far more expensive than the value of any possible benefit.
And the idea Carter is some sort of hero because he was too weak to say "Let's not throw good money after bad..."? Ugh.
If anything has been discredited it's the idea we need a manned space program for exploration.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read today.
Again: Issues press release blaming the film. Tells the Egyptian PM there's "no way" it was the film. Issues press release blaming the film.
There's no way you can construe that as anything other than lying. I guess in theory she could have been lying to the Egyptian PM, but then he would have been able to tell by reading the newspaper.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you.
That's not credible at all. There's no way intelligence assessments changed that much between 10 PM on the 11th when she blamed the film and 14 hours later when she told the Egyptian PM "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film."
Then the next day during a State Dept event to commemorate the end of Ramadan she blamed the film again.
So to recap: Sept 11th Clinton issues statement blaming film. Sept 12th Clinton tells Egyptian PM there's no way it was the film. Sept 13th Clinton issues statement blaming film.
It's not just lying. It's bad lying.
Oh, I must have missed it. What was her explanation?
What changes is we have documented evidence she was telling the American people one thing and telling world leaders something else.
I don't understand why she does this kind of thing. If she had told the truth I would have shrugged and said "Meh. Sometimes the other team puts some points on the board. You can't stop every attack." But no, she had to peddle this fantasy that some Egyptian filmmaker caused a spontaneous riot that included mortars and heavy machine guns. It was obviously untrue from the start.
Yes, in fact I do.
As to why the Republicans didn't bring it up in the hearings - the Benghazi hearings took place in October, and Clinton managed to delay the release of the transcripts until April. Which is the pattern with this despicable woman - delay, delay, delay and then when the damning information comes out she says "This is old news. Why does it matter any more?" Do you remember the Rose Law Firm documents?
That's... not anything like what she said. She said it was a spontaneous demonstration prompted by a movie nobody had ever heard of. And that was after the career bureaucrats told her it was a planned attack. She lied, and it's a documented lie. As Moynihan said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Beyond that it's always a mistake to compare actual sentences with potential maximum sentences. This guy is unlikely to get anything like 16 years, assuming he's convicted.
I notice you're very impressed with yourself.
Your second sentence was a fluffy no-information formulation.
The vast majority of launch cargo ends up in either geostationary or low earth orbit. LEO launches are basically done by the time you could refuel them, so no joy there.
You might launch something into LEO, dock with a refueling craft, and then boost into geostationary orbit with your new fuel (that's suggested in the article). But now there are a lot more things that can go wrong, and you haven't really saved all that much money. If you build a rocket with enough fuel you don't need dock with anything - it's already there. Somehow all the refueling infrastructure has to be paid for - the mining operation, the refining, the tankers moving the fuel from the moon into LEO.
I suspect there's a whole lot of optimism is baked into the cost analysis. Based on past experience doing anything in space is damn expensive, and we're talking about a huge, complex project. They're going to have a thousand people in orbit, with all the logistics that implies, and still deliver fuel more cheaply than launching it? I guess if you had enough launches to amortize it all out you could make the numbers work, but I haven't seen a serious proposal on that scale. What could we possibly build that's worth that kind of effort?
You think NASA, with 0.5% of the budget orders more semiconductors than the military (30%+ during the cold war)? Really? Doesn't that seem ridiculous on its face?
It's a drop in the bucket compared to DoD. The original semiconductors were built for ICBMS, not NASA vehicles. And the military knows quite a bit about QA.
This is what I hate about Apollo project boosterism. They've taken credit for things they had nothing to do with at all, like velcro, and also for things that would have happened anyway or for which they only had a small part, like semiconductors.
And even if Mars is contaminated... who cares? If there's any life at all on Mars it's microscopic. If the choice is between exploring Mars with the eye to eventual colonization and leaving it untouched in case some Martian bug is affected, I'm all for exploration.
Yes we would. NASA has almost no impact on semiconductor development. Certainly far less than DoD.
I can see why hiring someone would be the last resort of an employer, but I don't understand why you wouldn't train the people you hire. If I can't get rid of someone it makes sense to spend a little more to make sure he's as effective as possible.
They don't even have to raise wages enough to tempt people back home - they just have to raise wages enough to stop the bleeding. Most people don't want to move thousands of miles from their family and friends to work in a foreign country where a different language is spoken. Spanish employers don't have to pay as much as employers in Northern European countries, but they have to pay more than they're paying now.
I agree. Employers are trying to have it both ways here. It's reasonable to expect employees to provide their own training if you're paying enough that they'll be attracted to the field and come out ahead in the long run. It's also reasonable to pay less and provide training for your employees.
What businesses are trying to do is get someone else (either the government or the employees themselves) to pay for training without raising wages enough to compensate. "We can't find enough skilled workers" articles are always followed by proposals to relax immigration restrictions, which is the attempt by employers to have their cake and eat it too.
Maybe if they paid a little more skilled Spaniards would stop moving to Germany and there would be more people showing up for interviews.