The problem lies in the size of the Altair lander that NASA wants to use not just for simple landing but long duration stays.
I don't know what that has to do with using the same vehicle, DIRECT, for a bunch of different tasks, manned and unmanned space flights or low earth versus high altitude orbits versus outer space flights meant to do different things.
Sending people to do a machines job so others can live out Buck Rogers fantasies is an appropriate task for COMMERCIAL space outfits.
Building machines to do man's jobs take meaning away from men.
There must be a meeting of the ways between strictly unmanned flights and manned flights. Personally I'd let commercial businesses or other entities offer manned and unmanned space flights.
Learning about space is an appropriate use for robots,
Not all learning can be done remotely. Nor is that the only reason to go into space. So long as they pay their full costs I have no problem with Bigelow builds an inflatable hotel in earth orbit or Virgin Galactic offers to fare passengers to Hilton's moon hotel, or mine workers to the mining camps and bring back products.
Satellite retrieval is very impressive, but almost never used
Without a returnable space shuttle, what about all the space junk? As I see it one is needed to clean space so it does not become too dangerous to launch rockets, and people, into space.
"So, my suggestion for a libertarian alternative to the EFCA is simply this:"
"Any employer (company) that refuses to allow its employees to unionize, should be disallowed the charter of incorporation and its consequent benefits."
Yeap, that's so evil, standing up for the rights of employees to unionize. Oh, but wasn't your object to libertarians was that they didn't support unions?
There is paying for things and then there is incentives. There is a STRONG difference.
If your "It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then.5B for the next 3 years" isn't paying for things then what is it? Where is that money they are allocating coming from?
We need a several other place for private space to go to besides NASA and DOD. We need to get Bigelow started.
Which is what I said.
The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.
But you are still suggesting using taxpayer money. Tax funding got us to where we are now, and I don't think any more is needed as long as government doesn't get in the way. Private businesses should be allowed provide their own launches and services but without the government handouts.
Someday, you'll be hurt by the policies you advocate. Will you be such an ardent advocate of the rich then?
I am not rich now, but I want to start my own business. And I don't want government telling me how much I have to pay employees or that I have to provide health insurance, or anything else. The only thing government should have to do with it is to uphold contracts and prosecute me if I harm others.
And I already am harmed by policies you advocate, as are you whether you acknowledge it or not.
Socialist fuckwads like you won't pass up an opportunity to insult libertarians when you don't know what they stand for. You are the one being dishonest.
No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:
* Minimum wage
Minimum wages reduces demand for employees. I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.
Progressive income taxes
Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Taxing capital gains as income
If worked right I support this, if not I don't. The devil is in the details. Otherwise I do not support income taxes. What I, and you, work to earn should not be taxed.
Strong unions for collective bargaining
Strong collective bargaining yes, strong unions though is a big no no. If I do not want to be a member of a union or have union dues taken from my paycheck I should not have to live with either one yet still have my job. In other words no closed shops, which some unions push for. Twenty two states have right to work laws, which I support, that are supposed to prevent this.
Laws against unlawful termination
What? Laws make things unlawful, if there are no laws it not illegal.
Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws
Thus reducing demand for employees, see above. Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions. Look at China and India for examples. Because of relatively free trade, though there still is government interference, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to the recession both nations saw booming middle and upper classes rise up. Real wages in both nations increased. They both went from relative backwater economies to being major economic powerhouses. In competition with each other they now offer other nations assistance.
Now I'm not saying there should be no laws or regulations, the less there is the better, but the ones there are need to be smarter and if necessary reformed or eliminated.
These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?
Oh but do they? If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily? I don't think so. A few years ago there were riots by the youth when government proposed making it easier for employers to fire employees. I know I would not want to hire someone if I can't fire them because they cost me more than they make for me. It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able to easily fire a bad employee as well as get rid of them when they aren't needed.
And starting my own business is something I want to do. My sister already did, with friends of hers she started an accounting firm which now employees others.
Yes I do and so do other libertarians. Collective bargaining is part of free assembly which they support. Ah, I see you say as much but then you mouth off diatribes against libertarians.
I see those GBU-28 you link to were "specifically developed for US Military use in Operation Desert Storm". I opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq. The "illegal" part, besides stressing it being illegal, means to show just how bad I think it was. Now I would have supported rolling all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War, but this tyme Iraq was no threat to the US, no WMDs have been found, and had nothing to do with 911. Actually I opposed the US support for Saddam during the 1980s, when Saddam was using those WMDs. When it was brought to the world's attention Saddam was using WMDs both Reagan and Bush Sr argued against sanctions against military aid to Iraq. Testifying before congress Bush said sanctions would harm US trade. Donald Rumsfeld even shaked hands with Saddam and patted him on the back. When people dissented from aiding Iraq, Rumsfeld liked them to Nazi Appeasers. Imagine that, those who wanted to stop Saddam being compared to NAZI appeasers and not the other way around, wanting to stop human rights violations.
There is no choice when there's a great power asymmetry between labor and capital. Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.
It's fuckwads like you, or would trolls be more appropriate, that twist things who are unreasonable.
Looking at that page, I see one problem right away, it combines 2 roles in 1 launcher. If it is used to put people in space but doesn't carry a full load of cargo or it carries a full load but with no crew then there's waste. And what are the chances each launch with have a full load and a crew?
The whole 'man-rating' concept is really bogus: the shuttle couldn't be called 'man-rated' in any real sense when it kills its crew one flight in fifty.
Only those who would be on board can make the decision on whether something is "man rated". And a number of astronauts have answered "Yes" even after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Some 15 years later they were still saying "yes" after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. As Morgan Freeman's character in "Chain Reaction" says in testimony before a congress subcommittee death is a price some are willing to make for human progress.
those kind of changes hardly register when compared to NASA's record of spending billions of dollars and several years to achieve... nothing.
NASA achieved nothing? After Russia was the first nation to put an object into orbit with the Sputnik program in 1957, because of JFK the US was the first nation to land a person on the moon with the Apollo 11 launch on 16 July 1969.
I wouldn't call those, or the Space Shuttle, nothing but NASA hasn't done much since then.
I'm willing to be convinced that NASA really _need_ a huge, expensive launcher of their own, but I've seen no evidence so far that it will prove cheaper than buying launches elsewhere.
I'm sitting on the fence as to whether a heavy launch vehicle is needed, but if so then instead of the US designing and building new ones either the US Saturn V or Russian Energia can be used.
It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then.5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer
It is the wrong question. As for your post I'd ask if congress should pay for it, with tax payer money? And the answer is "NO!!!" Before this statement of yours you gave the right answer. Bigelow, Richard Branson, and other space entrepreneurs should be able to keep their money so they can invest in space programs.
Or a launch loop, which is a practical alternative to a space elevator
The wiki article does not say launch loops are practical, but it does include a Difficulties of launch loops as well as "Competing and similar designs" section.
All the same, thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of launch loops before, at least that I can recall.
Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.
Agreed. But this should be done anyway. By no means am I religious but I do believe in turning weapons into plows. Even more, I believe workers should be able to keep the money they work to earn and not have some government bureaucrat or politician demand people give it to them. Especially at the point of a gun.
At least government military weapons. Now the government and politicians better keep their grubby hands off privately owned blades, firearms, and other weapons.
BS! It was less than $100. No where near your $500.
You didn't look hard enough, then
Ya, Using your own link, I configured the Alienware laptop with similar specs to the 17" MacBook Pro and it came out costing $3,269. Try it yourself configure the Alienware with these specs:
Seeing that ca.dell I thought so. Now let's see what Yahoo! says about the Canadian and US conversion:
Currencies Center, Canadian $3,269 = US $3001. That is more than US$100 more than the 17" MBP So my stance still is valid.
Or are you honestly telling me that you bought a 24" external monitor that cost $800?
I said nothing about an external monitor. Since you brought it up though I've been looking at getting the 24" HP LP2475w. It uses H-IPS panels which are the recommended panel for photographers and other graphic artists. The HP LP2475w itself is recommended by photographers.
Even if you had to wait 6 months to see a cheque (Dell usually issues credits/cheques within 3-6 weeks, btw), you're still coming out ahead.
From the numbers above I come out behind not ahead.
Unless you actually *want* to spend a boatload more cash than you need to in order to get a pretty apple logo on the back of your LCD.
Pigeonholing them with other terms such as hacktivist and whatnot seems too dismissive to me
I won't pigeonhole anyone with "hacktivist". Cracker yes, but not hacktivist. At least hacktivists have a political ideology they feel is right. I can respect a hacktivist but not a cracker.
On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?
That's why I posted that. If you look through the post for this article, that was the only post I made on the subject until my replies to you and the other replier hours after I made the original post. I've done the same other tymes articles came up that had a negative connotation to "hacker". I've done the same for the improper use of "polygamy" as well. Polygamy is not what the Mormons did and various break-off sects now practice along with some Muslims. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. What those sects and Muslims, where a man can have more than one wife, practice is polygyny. It's opposite, where a woman can have more than one spouse is polyandry.
To me much like medical doctors, hackers do no harm. Here I'm going back to the Tech Model Railroad ClubWoz and the others who created personal computers.
I suppose you could say I'm biased, but as you say yourself there's not a universally agreed definition of what a hacker is. Up until the early '80s that is what "hacker" meant. The first recorded use of "hacker" as someone who was bad, mischievous, or otherwise caused harm was in 1984 I believe. In his 1984 book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" Steven Levy doesn't use "hacker" as a negative. As mentioned here the original use of "hack" was as inelegant kludges so a hacker would be one who used inelegant kludges.
It is always safe to hire and employ a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. Maybe a cracker, hackivist, or script kiddie but not a hacker.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem lies in the size of the Altair lander that NASA wants to use not just for simple landing but long duration stays.
I don't know what that has to do with using the same vehicle, DIRECT, for a bunch of different tasks, manned and unmanned space flights or low earth versus high altitude orbits versus outer space flights meant to do different things.
Falcon
Sending people to do a machines job so others can live out Buck Rogers fantasies is an appropriate task for COMMERCIAL space outfits.
Building machines to do man's jobs take meaning away from men.
There must be a meeting of the ways between strictly unmanned flights and manned flights. Personally I'd let commercial businesses or other entities offer manned and unmanned space flights.
Learning about space is an appropriate use for robots,
Not all learning can be done remotely. Nor is that the only reason to go into space. So long as they pay their full costs I have no problem with Bigelow builds an inflatable hotel in earth orbit or Virgin Galactic offers to fare passengers to Hilton's moon hotel, or mine workers to the mining camps and bring back products.
Falcon
Satellite retrieval is very impressive, but almost never used
Without a returnable space shuttle, what about all the space junk? As I see it one is needed to clean space so it does not become too dangerous to launch rockets, and people, into space.
Falcon
We're just doing the necessary political push-ups to bury NASA's manned space flight capability.
And what's wrong with businesses running manned space flights?
Ares I-X has a launch date and is being erected right now
Ah but the wiki article on the Ares I-X says this about it:
Two out of four stages are dummies. There is no working model and while that's not a failure it's not a success either.
Falcon
Well, good for you, but your fellow Libertarians don't seem to be fond of the idea.
From the article you provide:
"So, my suggestion for a libertarian alternative to the EFCA is simply this:"
"Any employer (company) that refuses to allow its employees to unionize, should be disallowed the charter of incorporation and its consequent benefits."
Yeap, that's so evil, standing up for the rights of employees to unionize. Oh, but wasn't your object to libertarians was that they didn't support unions?
Falcon
There is paying for things and then there is incentives. There is a STRONG difference.
If your "It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years" isn't paying for things then what is it? Where is that money they are allocating coming from?
We need a several other place for private space to go to besides NASA and DOD. We need to get Bigelow started.
Which is what I said.
The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.
But you are still suggesting using taxpayer money. Tax funding got us to where we are now, and I don't think any more is needed as long as government doesn't get in the way. Private businesses should be allowed provide their own launches and services but without the government handouts.
Someday, you'll be hurt by the policies you advocate. Will you be such an ardent advocate of the rich then?
I am not rich now, but I want to start my own business. And I don't want government telling me how much I have to pay employees or that I have to provide health insurance, or anything else. The only thing government should have to do with it is to uphold contracts and prosecute me if I harm others.
And I already am harmed by policies you advocate, as are you whether you acknowledge it or not.
Falcon
Another socialist fuckwad? Can you prove communists kept trains running on tyme?
The rest of this diatribe isn't worth responding to.
Falcon
Socialist fuckwads like you won't pass up an opportunity to insult libertarians when you don't know what they stand for. You are the one being dishonest.
Falcon
No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:
* Minimum wage
Minimum wages reduces demand for employees. I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.
Progressive income taxes
Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Taxing capital gains as income
If worked right I support this, if not I don't. The devil is in the details. Otherwise I do not support income taxes. What I, and you, work to earn should not be taxed.
Strong unions for collective bargaining
Strong collective bargaining yes, strong unions though is a big no no. If I do not want to be a member of a union or have union dues taken from my paycheck I should not have to live with either one yet still have my job. In other words no closed shops, which some unions push for. Twenty two states have right to work laws, which I support, that are supposed to prevent this.
Laws against unlawful termination
What? Laws make things unlawful, if there are no laws it not illegal.
Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws
Thus reducing demand for employees, see above. Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions. Look at China and India for examples. Because of relatively free trade, though there still is government interference, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to the recession both nations saw booming middle and upper classes rise up. Real wages in both nations increased. They both went from relative backwater economies to being major economic powerhouses. In competition with each other they now offer other nations assistance.
Now I'm not saying there should be no laws or regulations, the less there is the better, but the ones there are need to be smarter and if necessary reformed or eliminated.
These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?
Oh but do they? If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily? I don't think so. A few years ago there were riots by the youth when government proposed making it easier for employers to fire employees. I know I would not want to hire someone if I can't fire them because they cost me more than they make for me. It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able to easily fire a bad employee as well as get rid of them when they aren't needed.
And starting my own business is something I want to do. My sister already did, with friends of hers she started an accounting firm which now employees others.
Falcon
So do you support collective bargaining or not?
Yes I do and so do other libertarians. Collective bargaining is part of free assembly which they support. Ah, I see you say as much but then you mouth off diatribes against libertarians.
Falcon
I do believe in turning weapons into plows.
Yes, a GBU-28M would make a hell-of-a plow... :-)
I see those GBU-28 you link to were "specifically developed for US Military use in Operation Desert Storm". I opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq. The "illegal" part, besides stressing it being illegal, means to show just how bad I think it was. Now I would have supported rolling all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War, but this tyme Iraq was no threat to the US, no WMDs have been found, and had nothing to do with 911. Actually I opposed the US support for Saddam during the 1980s, when Saddam was using those WMDs. When it was brought to the world's attention Saddam was using WMDs both Reagan and Bush Sr argued against sanctions against military aid to Iraq. Testifying before congress Bush said sanctions would harm US trade. Donald Rumsfeld even shaked hands with Saddam and patted him on the back. When people dissented from aiding Iraq, Rumsfeld liked them to Nazi Appeasers. Imagine that, those who wanted to stop Saddam being compared to NAZI appeasers and not the other way around, wanting to stop human rights violations.
Falcon
There is no choice when there's a great power asymmetry between labor and capital. Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.
It's fuckwads like you, or would trolls be more appropriate, that twist things who are unreasonable.
Falcon
More socialist claptrap. Or communist.
Falcon
http://www.directlauncher.com/
Looking at that page, I see one problem right away, it combines 2 roles in 1 launcher. If it is used to put people in space but doesn't carry a full load of cargo or it carries a full load but with no crew then there's waste. And what are the chances each launch with have a full load and a crew?
Falcon
The whole 'man-rating' concept is really bogus: the shuttle couldn't be called 'man-rated' in any real sense when it kills its crew one flight in fifty.
Only those who would be on board can make the decision on whether something is "man rated". And a number of astronauts have answered "Yes" even after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Some 15 years later they were still saying "yes" after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. As Morgan Freeman's character in "Chain Reaction" says in testimony before a congress subcommittee death is a price some are willing to make for human progress.
those kind of changes hardly register when compared to NASA's record of spending billions of dollars and several years to achieve... nothing.
NASA achieved nothing? After Russia was the first nation to put an object into orbit with the Sputnik program in 1957, because of JFK the US was the first nation to land a person on the moon with the Apollo 11 launch on 16 July 1969.
I wouldn't call those, or the Space Shuttle, nothing but NASA hasn't done much since then.
I'm willing to be convinced that NASA really _need_ a huge, expensive launcher of their own, but I've seen no evidence so far that it will prove cheaper than buying launches elsewhere.
I'm sitting on the fence as to whether a heavy launch vehicle is needed, but if so then instead of the US designing and building new ones either the US Saturn V or Russian Energia can be used.
Falcon
It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer
It is the wrong question. As for your post I'd ask if congress should pay for it, with tax payer money? And the answer is "NO!!!" Before this statement of yours you gave the right answer. Bigelow, Richard Branson, and other space entrepreneurs should be able to keep their money so they can invest in space programs.
Falcon
Or a launch loop, which is a practical alternative to a space elevator
The wiki article does not say launch loops are practical, but it does include a Difficulties of launch loops as well as "Competing and similar designs" section.
All the same, thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of launch loops before, at least that I can recall.
Falcon
Yes.
Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.
Agreed. But this should be done anyway. By no means am I religious but I do believe in turning weapons into plows. Even more, I believe workers should be able to keep the money they work to earn and not have some government bureaucrat or politician demand people give it to them. Especially at the point of a gun.
At least government military weapons. Now the government and politicians better keep their grubby hands off privately owned blades, firearms, and other weapons.
Falcon
BS! It was less than $100. No where near your $500.
You didn't look hard enough, then
Ya, Using your own link, I configured the Alienware laptop with similar specs to the 17" MacBook Pro and it came out costing $3,269. Try it yourself configure the Alienware with these specs:
Alienware M17x
Canadian dollars.
Seeing that ca.dell I thought so. Now let's see what Yahoo! says about the Canadian and US conversion:
Currencies Center, Canadian $3,269 = US $3001. That is more than US$100 more than the 17" MBP So my stance still is valid.
Or are you honestly telling me that you bought a 24" external monitor that cost $800?
I said nothing about an external monitor. Since you brought it up though I've been looking at getting the 24" HP LP2475w. It uses H-IPS panels which are the recommended panel for photographers and other graphic artists. The HP LP2475w itself is recommended by photographers.
Even if you had to wait 6 months to see a cheque (Dell usually issues credits/cheques within 3-6 weeks, btw), you're still coming out ahead.
From the numbers above I come out behind not ahead.
Unless you actually *want* to spend a boatload more cash than you need to in order to get a pretty apple logo on the back of your LCD.
Now you're trolling.
Falcon
Pigeonholing them with other terms such as hacktivist and whatnot seems too dismissive to me
I won't pigeonhole anyone with "hacktivist". Cracker yes, but not hacktivist. At least hacktivists have a political ideology they feel is right. I can respect a hacktivist but not a cracker.
Well there is one cracker I can respect, a Florida cracker
. Falcon
Macs ARE more expensive than PCs, it's really just that simple.
Being on diability and not having worked in more than 10 years, I am cost conscious. I got my Mac in part because it was cheaper.
Falcon
On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?
That's why I posted that. If you look through the post for this article, that was the only post I made on the subject until my replies to you and the other replier hours after I made the original post. I've done the same other tymes articles came up that had a negative connotation to "hacker". I've done the same for the improper use of "polygamy" as well. Polygamy is not what the Mormons did and various break-off sects now practice along with some Muslims. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. What those sects and Muslims, where a man can have more than one wife, practice is polygyny. It's opposite, where a woman can have more than one spouse is polyandry.
Falcon
To me much like medical doctors, hackers do no harm. Here I'm going back to the Tech Model Railroad ClubWoz and the others who created personal computers.
I suppose you could say I'm biased, but as you say yourself there's not a universally agreed definition of what a hacker is. Up until the early '80s that is what "hacker" meant. The first recorded use of "hacker" as someone who was bad, mischievous, or otherwise caused harm was in 1984 I believe. In his 1984 book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" Steven Levy doesn't use "hacker" as a negative. As mentioned here the original use of "hack" was as inelegant kludges so a hacker would be one who used inelegant kludges.
Falcon
When it is safe to have a hacker on your IT staff
It is always safe to hire and employ a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. Maybe a cracker, hackivist, or script kiddie but not a hacker.
Falcon