Probably more jobs in the muslim terrorist industry....
That is mostly in Mindanao. "Muslim terrorism" has been going on there since the 1500s. Arab traders reach the Philippines a few decades before the Spanish. The "muslim problem" is irrelevant to the lives of most Filipinos, and is only emphasized by the government to get more American anti-terrorism dollars.
Ok, then, can we get ULA on a level playing field with cutting corners?
You are being silly. This was R&D, not a production launch.
Right now ULA is required to do the full engineering work up for every launch, v.s. spaceX not
1. This was not a "launch" 2. It should be up to the market.
ULA provides expensive reliability. SpaceX provides discount access to orbit. If you are launching a 5 billion dollar GSO comsat, you will go with ULA. If you want to dump a van load of cubesats designed by high school science clubs into LEO, you go with SpaceX.
SpaceX will get more reliable much faster than ULA will get cheaper. In ten years, ULA will be out of business.
That’s what happens when you cut corners and half ass things to make things cheaper.
Launch costs need to be cheaper. The trick is to figure out which corners can be cut, and which can not. Engineers learn by trying and failing, and I am sure SpaceX learned some valuable lessons today.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett
Except that you know companies do exactly the same thing.
No they don't. Cable and utility services are natural monopolies, and will be abused if not regulated. But airport parking is NOT a natural monopoly, and in this case the monopoly was imposed by government coercion. That is not "the exact same thing".
Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense. If the government builds a park, everyone pays even if they will never use the park, because they still benefit from rising property values since the park makes their city a nicer place to live. Ubiquitous internet may have a similar effect of raising property values and creating job opportunities.
The important question is: "What does the data say?" Enough cities have municipal internet that there should be data to show whether it is a good idea, and whether it leads to growth and property value appreciation.
The issue (which a lot on the right gloss over and ignore-note that I am not necessarily calling you right wing)
I did not vote for Trump, and I oppose pretty much everything he stands for. I am not defending Trump at all, I am defending the Constitution and the principle of freedom of expression. It is sad that so many people feel that is "right wing".
That is a silly argument. Should we have censored Watergate reporting because it only hurt one side? Should Woodward and Bernstein have been required to wait until they had some counterbalancing dirt on the Democrats?
The Constitution says "no law" abridging free speech. It doesn't make an exception for "unbalanced" speech, nor does it make an exception for censorship of foreigners.
Supporters claim the strength of Bitcoin is the fact it's not under control of government, then those same supporters say it needs to be regulated by government.
No they don't. I know plenty of bitcoin advocates, and none of them want government regulation. How would "government regulation" even work? Most bitcoins are mined in China, so the only plausible regulation would have to be done by the Chinese government. How many people are calling for that?
I would rather have foreign government propaganda than have American government censorship.
Let's not forget that the major influence of the Russians on the American presidential election was their leaking of Hillary's collusion with the DNC... which was the truth.
Sure, Hillary might have won if the DNC collusion had remained secret... but she also might have won if she had been more ethical and there had been no dirt to leak.
You will use a LOT more energy to move a human through the air (especially in something that hovers) than to roll them along a paved surface.
But you aren't moving the same weight. A typical car car weighs 4000 lbs, seats four, and carries one. Also, most cars use inefficient ICEs, and will continue to do so for a long time. The air-ubers are electric.
"Energy efficiency" is not really an important metric anyway. People will use this to save time, not money. During rush hour, it can take me two hours or more to travel from San Jose to San Francisco. The energy cost is about $7 (2 gallons of gas), but I would gladly pay $100, maybe more, to get there in 15 minutes.
The first amendment protects you from government censorship where it's not illegal incitement.
The first amendment does not contain the phrase "illegal incitement" or any other qualification. What is says is "no law".
Also, the 1st Amendment only protects you from federal censorship. It is the due process clause in the 5th and 14th amendments that have been used by the courts to prohibit state and local governments from censoring.
The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.
The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.
It's gonna be like when computers decimated junior accountants
When did that happen?
It didn't. Computers eliminated some bookkeeper jobs, but by taking away the drudgery, and allowing accountants to focus on higher level tasks like forecasting and planning, it has has made accountants more valuable that ever.
The same thing will likely happen with SDCs. Driving jobs will fade away, but you don't need to use too much imagination to see all the new business opportunities that will open up with cheap ubiquitous transportation of people, goods, and services.
The depends on the jurisdiction. In America, surreptitious audio recordings are illegal without the consent of at least one party, but hidden cameras often are not.
You also going to vote for higher taxes to subsidize the growth in welfare to sustain farmers when you remove them from the job they know?
Americans pay more than $3.5B per year to support only about 100 sugar farmers. So unless welfare recipients receive more than $35M each, no tax increases will be needed.
Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this.
Also, if you believe in sensible government, you should support this. There are few things stupider than corn subsidies, but sugar subsidies are one of them. These sugar farms are totally uneconomical, and would immediately go out of business without government support... and that doesn't even count the billions we spend to destroy the Everglades on their behalf.
The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people.
Not true at all. You can set up a corporation in the Cayman Islands for $200. Assign it copyrights to all your code. Then pay deductible license fees to use it, into a bank in the Cayman Islands. For living expenses, you take out loans from the corporation, which are not taxable income.
The loopholes were designed by the rich to benefit the rich, but there is nothing to prevent normal people from taking advantage of them. You just need to educate yourself, and put in a little effort.
Nope, it is capitalism. ESOPs require the employees to buy or earn their shares. Once vested, they can sell their shares, either on an exchange or back to the company. Not all employees participate, and of those that do ownership is not equally distributed.
In principle, in is no different than any other stock ownership, and you can't get more capitalist than that.
The only real "socialist" component, is that most ESOPs are part of tax deferred retirement plans, so there is some taxpayer funded subsidy upfront. But most retirement savings are subsidized, so that is nothing special.
No merger is the best outcome. More competition is great.
More competitors doesn't always mean more competition.
Verizon is bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined. So is AT&T. Telecom is a capital intensive business, and a combined company may have been better positioned to compete against the "big two".
The result will now likely be Sprint slowly fading away and a weaker T-Mobile mainly focusing on cheap customers willing to sacrifice coverage for lower prices.
No. Bush and Reagan did not like each other. Bush was not part of the White House inner circle, and he had very little influence during Reagan's presidency. In 1988, Reagan gave him a late and lukewarm endorsement as his successor, 20 minutes into a pre-recorded speech focusing mostly on other issues.
I work at a company that is owned by the employees and we are in dire, dire need of a union. The thing is, while employees may have ownership shares held for them in a trust, they have no say in any of the business decisions and the shares of stock function in no way that gives them any votes or power of any kind.
You should tell your managers that they are doing it wrong. Harvard Business School did a study of employee owned companies, and found that they generally outperform competitors, but only if employees participated in decision making and felt involved in setting goals and resolving problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably more jobs in the muslim terrorist industry....
That is mostly in Mindanao. "Muslim terrorism" has been going on there since the 1500s. Arab traders reach the Philippines a few decades before the Spanish. The "muslim problem" is irrelevant to the lives of most Filipinos, and is only emphasized by the government to get more American anti-terrorism dollars.
Ok, then, can we get ULA on a level playing field with cutting corners?
You are being silly. This was R&D, not a production launch.
Right now ULA is required to do the full engineering work up for every launch, v.s. spaceX not
1. This was not a "launch"
2. It should be up to the market.
ULA provides expensive reliability. SpaceX provides discount access to orbit. If you are launching a 5 billion dollar GSO comsat, you will go with ULA. If you want to dump a van load of cubesats designed by high school science clubs into LEO, you go with SpaceX.
SpaceX will get more reliable much faster than ULA will get cheaper. In ten years, ULA will be out of business.
That’s what happens when you cut corners and half ass things to make things cheaper.
Launch costs need to be cheaper. The trick is to figure out which corners can be cut, and which can not. Engineers learn by trying and failing, and I am sure SpaceX learned some valuable lessons today.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett
Except that you know companies do exactly the same thing.
No they don't. Cable and utility services are natural monopolies, and will be abused if not regulated. But airport parking is NOT a natural monopoly, and in this case the monopoly was imposed by government coercion. That is not "the exact same thing".
Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense. If the government builds a park, everyone pays even if they will never use the park, because they still benefit from rising property values since the park makes their city a nicer place to live. Ubiquitous internet may have a similar effect of raising property values and creating job opportunities.
The important question is: "What does the data say?" Enough cities have municipal internet that there should be data to show whether it is a good idea, and whether it leads to growth and property value appreciation.
The issue (which a lot on the right gloss over and ignore-note that I am not necessarily calling you right wing)
I did not vote for Trump, and I oppose pretty much everything he stands for. I am not defending Trump at all, I am defending the Constitution and the principle of freedom of expression. It is sad that so many people feel that is "right wing".
That is a silly argument. Should we have censored Watergate reporting because it only hurt one side? Should Woodward and Bernstein have been required to wait until they had some counterbalancing dirt on the Democrats?
The Constitution says "no law" abridging free speech. It doesn't make an exception for "unbalanced" speech, nor does it make an exception for censorship of foreigners.
Supporters claim the strength of Bitcoin is the fact it's not under control of government, then those same supporters say it needs to be regulated by government.
No they don't. I know plenty of bitcoin advocates, and none of them want government regulation. How would "government regulation" even work? Most bitcoins are mined in China, so the only plausible regulation would have to be done by the Chinese government. How many people are calling for that?
I would rather have foreign government propaganda than have American government censorship.
Let's not forget that the major influence of the Russians on the American presidential election was their leaking of Hillary's collusion with the DNC ... which was the truth.
Sure, Hillary might have won if the DNC collusion had remained secret ... but she also might have won if she had been more ethical and there had been no dirt to leak.
Also if they need a pilot ...
There will be no pilot. That is clearly stated in TFA and in the summary.
If they need a human pilot, then there no way Uber could price it low enough to make it viable.
You will use a LOT more energy to move a human through the air (especially in something that hovers) than to roll them along a paved surface.
But you aren't moving the same weight. A typical car car weighs 4000 lbs, seats four, and carries one. Also, most cars use inefficient ICEs, and will continue to do so for a long time. The air-ubers are electric.
"Energy efficiency" is not really an important metric anyway. People will use this to save time, not money. During rush hour, it can take me two hours or more to travel from San Jose to San Francisco. The energy cost is about $7 (2 gallons of gas), but I would gladly pay $100, maybe more, to get there in 15 minutes.
The first amendment protects you from government censorship where it's not illegal incitement.
The first amendment does not contain the phrase "illegal incitement" or any other qualification. What is says is "no law".
Also, the 1st Amendment only protects you from federal censorship. It is the due process clause in the 5th and 14th amendments that have been used by the courts to prohibit state and local governments from censoring.
The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.
The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.
It's gonna be like when computers decimated junior accountants
When did that happen?
It didn't. Computers eliminated some bookkeeper jobs, but by taking away the drudgery, and allowing accountants to focus on higher level tasks like forecasting and planning, it has has made accountants more valuable that ever.
The same thing will likely happen with SDCs. Driving jobs will fade away, but you don't need to use too much imagination to see all the new business opportunities that will open up with cheap ubiquitous transportation of people, goods, and services.
Snow is a showstopper right now.
Tesla Autopilot works in the snow. Why would Waymo be different?
And what to do in a skid is a huge issue.
Baloney. Computers deal with skids way better than humans.
Don't be a dumbass; that's already illegal.
The depends on the jurisdiction. In America, surreptitious audio recordings are illegal without the consent of at least one party, but hidden cameras often are not.
You also going to vote for higher taxes to subsidize the growth in welfare to sustain farmers when you remove them from the job they know?
Americans pay more than $3.5B per year to support only about 100 sugar farmers. So unless welfare recipients receive more than $35M each, no tax increases will be needed.
Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this.
Also, if you believe in sensible government, you should support this. There are few things stupider than corn subsidies, but sugar subsidies are one of them. These sugar farms are totally uneconomical, and would immediately go out of business without government support ... and that doesn't even count the billions we spend to destroy the Everglades on their behalf.
Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything
VATs are not tariffs. Chinese companies pay VAT on products sold in China, but not on exports. American companies pay income tax on all their sales.
China taxes consumption. America taxes production. So they build, we buy. This is a major reason why we have massive deficits and debts.
Corporate income taxes should be abolished and replaced with a VAT and a border adjustment tax.
The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people.
Not true at all. You can set up a corporation in the Cayman Islands for $200. Assign it copyrights to all your code. Then pay deductible license fees to use it, into a bank in the Cayman Islands. For living expenses, you take out loans from the corporation, which are not taxable income.
The loopholes were designed by the rich to benefit the rich, but there is nothing to prevent normal people from taking advantage of them. You just need to educate yourself, and put in a little effort.
That's socialism
Nope, it is capitalism. ESOPs require the employees to buy or earn their shares. Once vested, they can sell their shares, either on an exchange or back to the company. Not all employees participate, and of those that do ownership is not equally distributed.
In principle, in is no different than any other stock ownership, and you can't get more capitalist than that.
The only real "socialist" component, is that most ESOPs are part of tax deferred retirement plans, so there is some taxpayer funded subsidy upfront. But most retirement savings are subsidized, so that is nothing special.
It used to be news when software beat humans at yet another game. Now it is news when we find a game that humans can still win.
No merger is the best outcome. More competition is great.
More competitors doesn't always mean more competition.
Verizon is bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined. So is AT&T. Telecom is a capital intensive business, and a combined company may have been better positioned to compete against the "big two".
The result will now likely be Sprint slowly fading away and a weaker T-Mobile mainly focusing on cheap customers willing to sacrifice coverage for lower prices.
Disclaimer: I am a cheap T-Mobile customer.
Things were pretty well run by Bush after that.
No. Bush and Reagan did not like each other. Bush was not part of the White House inner circle, and he had very little influence during Reagan's presidency. In 1988, Reagan gave him a late and lukewarm endorsement as his successor, 20 minutes into a pre-recorded speech focusing mostly on other issues.
Focus on digging up dirt on billionaires with the goal of getting acquired and shutdown by the billionaires.
Peter Thiel didn't acquire Gawker. He funded lawsuits against them and drove them into bankruptcy.
He spent $10M to inflict $140M in damages.
I work at a company that is owned by the employees and we are in dire, dire need of a union. The thing is, while employees may have ownership shares held for them in a trust, they have no say in any of the business decisions and the shares of stock function in no way that gives them any votes or power of any kind.
You should tell your managers that they are doing it wrong. Harvard Business School did a study of employee owned companies, and found that they generally outperform competitors, but only if employees participated in decision making and felt involved in setting goals and resolving problems.