They may win as soon as July 22nd, when the Falcon 9 is scheduled to land at Vandenburg AFB. It'll be really interesting to see how 'reusable' the first stage is after the engineers have a chance to inspect it thoroughly.
No one should be left out because there should be no contract. Instead, NASA should be fostering a spot market for launches. They should have a separate bid for each launch: "We want X satellite in Y orbit, and insured for Z dollars." Then give the launch to the lowest bidder. That way each company can work continuously to cut costs and improve services, knowing that if they leapfrog the competition, they can win the next launch, instead of being locked out for years.
For values of 'satellite' that include human-carrying s/c, and exlcude what would colloquially be called 'satellites'. And even if the contract was for a single launch, there would still be a contract, unless you are advocating for handshake deals.
The main safety issue is one of energy density, me thinks. It just isn't very bright to have 50kw (grabbing numbers) in a small device that is sensitive to, say, earthquakes. That is a lot of energy to control during during catastrophic destruction. I think part of the key to the safety issue is to have many smaller flywheels in an array where each flywheel is physically separated, and unlikely to cause a chain reaction.
Another option to examine is the merits of engineering in a fail-safe braking system (e.g. a 50kw electrical load) that could safely take some/most/all of the energy quickly. When a seismometer detects a large enough quake (or vibrations/heat indicating bearing failure), say 3.2 Richter, it hits the "brakes" and begins to turn motion into electricity to power this "braking" load. Wasting the stored energy in such a manner is better than risk of loss of the flywheel itself. This would essentially use the UPS-type design as an emergency braking system for a long-term storage design (for values of long-term approaching 14 hours).
Storing the electricity as motion in a flywheel is 90% efficient. Using a flywheel for time-shifting energy for a small time scale such as overnight is quite practical. An H2 storage system would allow for longer term storage though. I haven't checked into the availability of home scale flywheel power systems yet, but in any case, a geek out to be able to create a cheap flywheel system that they could copy and use in series or parallel, as needed.
The idea here being to eschew state of the art in flywheels in exchange to lower cost and design simplicity. For example you may decide to use a much lower vacuum than a state of the art flywheel commercially available to save money on a vacuum pump.
Err, that is nonsense. Electrical disruption due to storms is the result of specific pinpoint failures, where one incident can take out power for 1,000+ homes. For example, power line goes down due to a pole being taken out by an out-of-control car on icy roads, or the weight of ice on a wire makes it collapse, or a tree is blown over and lands on a substation, or lightening strike, etc.
If everyone's power was generated on their own property, completely decentralized, then any one incident would only take out power to one home. Also, in any powerful storm, some roofs show damage to due to wind, for example, but most do not. If we can build a roof that in most cases will not be damaged by a storm, then we can certainly mount solar panels in such a way that they too will survive. Note that we can in fact build homes that can withstand a cat 5 hurricane with *zero* damage at economical prices (you just have to abandon wood-frame construction).
No, we don't have those temperatures. What we do have is evidence of possible/probable side effects of certain climate conditions, including temperature, from a *very* tiny non-random sampling of geographic locations, that some people like to extrapolate as being representative of the planetary climate as a whole. Contrast this with the quality and quantity of temperature data available from various sources, including satellites over the past few decades.
What about the cost of fuel to cook your meal? The soap and water to clean up (you did use soap, right?)? What about the wear and tear of the appliances, pots, cutting board, etc?
When it comes to physical property, it is *nearly* impossible to use it without degrading it in some way, thereby depriving the owner of that portion of the property. With information like software, music, etc, making and distributing a copy on your dime still allows the creator 100% use of the original (assuming the copying process is non-destructive).
I agree that there are many cases where orthogonal uses may benefit society and have limited negative effects on the property and the property owner. I submit however, that the fact such cooperative possibilities exist doesn't impair the right to exclude other uses on physically scarce property.
That said, I also think we have a reasonable expectation to privacy in our homes, and that expectation isn't dependent on property rights (in the US, see the 4th Amendment). That doesn't apply to your whole argument in general, but it does to your specific example.
A slippery slope is a *logical* fallacy, not a practical fallacy. So while you cannot *prove* that premise A will lead to premise B, in the world of public policy passing a law can indeed increase the chances of passing an even more extreme law in the future, after the public has acclimatized to the new law.
What you mean to say is that a requirement for a criminal justice system is state-sponsored slavery, rape, assault, battery, and murder? This is what happens in our prisons, in varying degrees from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Anyone who supports this system is on the same moral playing field as rapists, murderers, burglars, child molesters, etc. as you are either allowing, or paying for, such crimes to be committed.
There is absolutely no excuse for vengeance. Those who practice it should be held accountable as noted below, like the savage criminals they are.
The only rational response to crime is restitution, and indefinite sequestration when a repeat offense is likely. Note that sequestration doesn't mean "lock in a 5' x 8' cell for 50 years".
Saying that "No system of justice is perfect" is a cop-out, and is no excuse to maintain such a barbaric system of organized crime to benefit people's vengeance. Perfection may be unattainable, but that doesn't mean we have to keep the same crappy system we have now.
This is not really about reducing the number of support troops. This machine will require more mechanics and technicians than the 2-1/2t truck it would replace. This is more about keeping the support troops in the rear areas, where they are safer.
Fewer troops exposed to risk == fewer dead, wounded, or maimed troops.
It is ex post facto, and the constitutional prohibition against it has not, and will not, stop the US government from doing it, except in perhaps the most egregious cases.
The *only* reason to fight a war is to defend individual rights. As soon as we have to sacrifice our individual rights, we are no longer fighting the right enemy.
"People can do many bad things without exercising force - they can cheat, steal, sell deadly products, incite hatered[sic] etc."
You are mistaken. Those things are indeed using force. Stealing is taking someone else's property without their consent, hence by force. Also, selling deadly products isn't wrong in the slightest. Natural gas is a deadly product, chlorine is a deadly product, guns are a deadly product. Used properly, none of these products are bad (even if you have an irrational fear of them).
There is no right to use force except in self-defense, and your assertion of a right to force people to live the way you want them to does not create such a right. I really hate to invoke Godwin's Law, and it isn't my intention to end this debate, but all dictatorships, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, thought they had a right to force people to live the way they wanted them to. Look at how badly this turned out in those real-world cases.
I submit your principle and a civilized society are mutually exclusive.
I would hope you can see the error of your assertion of your "right to use force".
It makes no difference if congress was briefed or not. Neither the president nor congress has the authority to sanction violations of the 4th amendment. *All* US persons are protected by the 4th amendment, regardless of whether they are talking to OBL. If you want to tap a call between a US Person and anyone else, you need a warrant. And the standard for getting that warrant is probable cause.
The *only* reason to bypass the FISA court is because you don't have probable cause required to get a warrant. And the FISA Court is a huge rubber stamp, granting tens of thousands of warrants, and only denying a handful where the govt couldn't establish probable cause.
The govt justifies this by "well, even though we don't have any evidence that says it is likely they committed a crime, we still think they may have committed a crime because of X suspicious act, and we think we are being reasonable." So we are going to bypass the court because they will say "No", and then we can't do it without violating a court order.
A classic example of Asking for Forgiveness instead of Permission, except that they aren't asking for forgiveness--they are asserting that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to US Persons they want to tap but don't have enough proof to establish probable cause.
The administration's admitted wiretapping is more than enough to justify impeachment proceedings, which essentially serves the purpose of a grand jury--making sure we have a reasonable basis to prosecute this crime so we don't prosecute people who are clearly innocent.
Modern nuclear should be a part of our total energy solution, in addition to wind farms, hydroelectric, and solar-thermal engines, plus others. We ought to leave petroleum as a backup-only fuel source. Let's not end our dependence on oil only to replace it with a dependence on nuclear. Lets get some balance in our energy supply.
I submit that for national security and flexibility reasons, that we don't let any single energy source be more than ~25% of our total energy use.
Solar-thermal engines + storage are now able to make up at least 50% of US electric needs, but we should have modern nuclear power as a partial backup (as opposed to mostly using petroleum for backup).
In some cases, H2 can already make a feasible energy storage, and with the inevitable improvements in electrolysis and fuel cells, it will get even better.
Um, I went to basic (ARMY) in January 1990, _pre_ Desert Storm, and we used the term warfighter then.
I went to ODS as well, as a cook (though all I did was drive a deuce and a half 20 hours a day) in a combat unit (HHC 4-37 AR, 1ID). We were at most 2 klicks behind our tanks, and were even ambushed.
As a rule of thumb, anyone in a combat or combat service support unit, regardless of military branch, were referred to as warfighters. This would include cooks in combat units, but not cooks in support units. It would include mechanics (yes, they actually fix tanks while under fire), and MP's (an example of combat service support, as MP's are usually _in front_ of the front lines).
It generally referred to people who a) went looking for a fight, or b)were likely to find a fight, even if they weren't looking for it.
for the missing data. This morning there were like 189 observations, and now there are only 118. Are they throwing out data they don't agree with? Was the data misinterpreted? Did they have problems with metric conversion?
NEODyS says over 200 observations came in in the last five days alone. What's going on here? Anyone from NEO/JPL want to enlighten us?
OK. This thing wasn't even discovered until June 2004, and now all of a sudden we have data from March of 2004?
Yesterday the number of observations was like 169, now there are only 118?
I smell a rat. Or a bug. Or a hack. I want an explanation for the extra/missing data.
Mark
The 1.18B estimate only applies to personal transportation, i.e. your car or truck.
It does not include lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, RVs, dirt bikes, jet skis, go carts, generators, weed whackers, military uses, police departments, the post office, phone company, electric company, plus all other vehicles/equipment _not_ for personal transportation.
Indeed, if you wanted to completely and totally replace all uses of gasoline (who would want to lug around a hydrogen chainsaw all day?), it would require about 938 of these plants.
If you also want to replace all diesel fuel uses, I imagine you would have to double the number of plants.
to provide enough H2 to replace our use of gasoline for personal transportation, according to google (about 1.18B gallons/year).
While there are certainly some risks to mitigate with nuclear power, such an H2 infrastructure could be built in the near future. Once done, the nuclear portion could be replaced by whatever better power source comes next (He3 fusion, perhaps), without requiring any changes to the infrastructure.
Mark
For the record, I am a big "L" libertarian, and there are certain problems, IMO, that every person of good heart, regardless of political or moral persuasion, would like to see solved, such as starvation, abject poverty, etc.
We know that capitalism (not to be confused with coporate welfare here in the US) has proven itself to be the best economic system thus far to help achieve those goals.
For those who say "Linux will not solve the world's problems", I disagree wholeheartedly, and submit the following for your contemplation.
In many areas of human endeavor, the most expensive (either time or money) item is labor. Our current models, at least up until FOSS, were largely based on constantly reinventing the wheel. With FOSS, this is no longer required. You make take it as it is, or extend as required for your purposes. You do not need to invest the labor to always start over from scratch.
IMO, there can be no argument that this has been beneficial in the area of software.
Likewise, the FOSS community, made up out of those of us who have some free time to contribute a labor of love to posterity, could easily be extended to other areas.
FOSS is doing a great job in software, but imagine if it were extended to mechanical design? Build upon existing designs rather than starting from scratch.
What if it were extended to music? To art? To textbooks and other educational items? To literature?
FOSS alone will not solve all of the world's problems, but it is one component that will help do so. It could also be the foundation for many other tools to do so.
I submit that 100 years from now, historians will look back on FOSS as the beginning of a revolution, equal to mercantilism or the industrial revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
They may win as soon as July 22nd, when the Falcon 9 is scheduled to land at Vandenburg AFB. It'll be really interesting to see how 'reusable' the first stage is after the engineers have a chance to inspect it thoroughly.
No one should be left out because there should be no contract. Instead, NASA should be fostering a spot market for launches. They should have a separate bid for each launch: "We want X satellite in Y orbit, and insured for Z dollars." Then give the launch to the lowest bidder. That way each company can work continuously to cut costs and improve services, knowing that if they leapfrog the competition, they can win the next launch, instead of being locked out for years.
For values of 'satellite' that include human-carrying s/c, and exlcude what would colloquially be called 'satellites'. And even if the contract was for a single launch, there would still be a contract, unless you are advocating for handshake deals.
The main safety issue is one of energy density, me thinks. It just isn't very bright to have 50kw (grabbing numbers) in a small device that is sensitive to, say, earthquakes. That is a lot of energy to control during during catastrophic destruction. I think part of the key to the safety issue is to have many smaller flywheels in an array where each flywheel is physically separated, and unlikely to cause a chain reaction.
Another option to examine is the merits of engineering in a fail-safe braking system (e.g. a 50kw electrical load) that could safely take some/most/all of the energy quickly. When a seismometer detects a large enough quake (or vibrations/heat indicating bearing failure), say 3.2 Richter, it hits the "brakes" and begins to turn motion into electricity to power this "braking" load. Wasting the stored energy in such a manner is better than risk of loss of the flywheel itself. This would essentially use the UPS-type design as an emergency braking system for a long-term storage design (for values of long-term approaching 14 hours).
Mark
Storing the electricity as motion in a flywheel is 90% efficient. Using a flywheel for time-shifting energy for a small time scale such as overnight is quite practical. An H2 storage system would allow for longer term storage though. I haven't checked into the availability of home scale flywheel power systems yet, but in any case, a geek out to be able to create a cheap flywheel system that they could copy and use in series or parallel, as needed.
The idea here being to eschew state of the art in flywheels in exchange to lower cost and design simplicity. For example you may decide to use a much lower vacuum than a state of the art flywheel commercially available to save money on a vacuum pump.
Mark
Err, that is nonsense. Electrical disruption due to storms is the result of specific pinpoint failures, where one incident can take out power for 1,000+ homes. For example, power line goes down due to a pole being taken out by an out-of-control car on icy roads, or the weight of ice on a wire makes it collapse, or a tree is blown over and lands on a substation, or lightening strike, etc.
If everyone's power was generated on their own property, completely decentralized, then any one incident would only take out power to one home. Also, in any powerful storm, some roofs show damage to due to wind, for example, but most do not. If we can build a roof that in most cases will not be damaged by a storm, then we can certainly mount solar panels in such a way that they too will survive. Note that we can in fact build homes that can withstand a cat 5 hurricane with *zero* damage at economical prices (you just have to abandon wood-frame construction).
No, we don't have those temperatures. What we do have is evidence of possible/probable side effects of certain climate conditions, including temperature, from a *very* tiny non-random sampling of geographic locations, that some people like to extrapolate as being representative of the planetary climate as a whole. Contrast this with the quality and quantity of temperature data available from various sources, including satellites over the past few decades.
What about the cost of fuel to cook your meal? The soap and water to clean up (you did use soap, right?)? What about the wear and tear of the appliances, pots, cutting board, etc?
When it comes to physical property, it is *nearly* impossible to use it without degrading it in some way, thereby depriving the owner of that portion of the property. With information like software, music, etc, making and distributing a copy on your dime still allows the creator 100% use of the original (assuming the copying process is non-destructive).
I agree that there are many cases where orthogonal uses may benefit society and have limited negative effects on the property and the property owner. I submit however, that the fact such cooperative possibilities exist doesn't impair the right to exclude other uses on physically scarce property.
That said, I also think we have a reasonable expectation to privacy in our homes, and that expectation isn't dependent on property rights (in the US, see the 4th Amendment). That doesn't apply to your whole argument in general, but it does to your specific example.
Mark
A slippery slope is a *logical* fallacy, not a practical fallacy. So while you cannot *prove* that premise A will lead to premise B, in the world of public policy passing a law can indeed increase the chances of passing an even more extreme law in the future, after the public has acclimatized to the new law.
What you mean to say is that a requirement for a criminal justice system is state-sponsored slavery, rape, assault, battery, and murder? This is what happens in our prisons, in varying degrees from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Anyone who supports this system is on the same moral playing field as rapists, murderers, burglars, child molesters, etc. as you are either allowing, or paying for, such crimes to be committed.
There is absolutely no excuse for vengeance. Those who practice it should be held accountable as noted below, like the savage criminals they are.
The only rational response to crime is restitution, and indefinite sequestration when a repeat offense is likely. Note that sequestration doesn't mean "lock in a 5' x 8' cell for 50 years".
Saying that "No system of justice is perfect" is a cop-out, and is no excuse to maintain such a barbaric system of organized crime to benefit people's vengeance. Perfection may be unattainable, but that doesn't mean we have to keep the same crappy system we have now.
This is not really about reducing the number of support troops. This machine will require more mechanics and technicians than the 2-1/2t truck it would replace. This is more about keeping the support troops in the rear areas, where they are safer.
Fewer troops exposed to risk == fewer dead, wounded, or maimed troops.
It is ex post facto, and the constitutional prohibition against it has not, and will not, stop the US government from doing it, except in perhaps the most egregious cases.
The *only* reason to fight a war is to defend individual rights. As soon as we have to sacrifice our individual rights, we are no longer fighting the right enemy.
Mark
"People can do many bad things without exercising force - they can cheat, steal, sell deadly products, incite hatered[sic] etc."
You are mistaken. Those things are indeed using force. Stealing is taking someone else's property without their consent, hence by force. Also, selling deadly products isn't wrong in the slightest. Natural gas is a deadly product, chlorine is a deadly product, guns are a deadly product. Used properly, none of these products are bad (even if you have an irrational fear of them).
There is no right to use force except in self-defense, and your assertion of a right to force people to live the way you want them to does not create such a right. I really hate to invoke Godwin's Law, and it isn't my intention to end this debate, but all dictatorships, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, thought they had a right to force people to live the way they wanted them to. Look at how badly this turned out in those real-world cases.
I submit your principle and a civilized society are mutually exclusive.
I would hope you can see the error of your assertion of your "right to use force".
Mark
It makes no difference if congress was briefed or not. Neither the president nor congress has the authority to sanction violations of the 4th amendment. *All* US persons are protected by the 4th amendment, regardless of whether they are talking to OBL. If you want to tap a call between a US Person and anyone else, you need a warrant. And the standard for getting that warrant is probable cause.
The *only* reason to bypass the FISA court is because you don't have probable cause required to get a warrant. And the FISA Court is a huge rubber stamp, granting tens of thousands of warrants, and only denying a handful where the govt couldn't establish probable cause.
The govt justifies this by "well, even though we don't have any evidence that says it is likely they committed a crime, we still think they may have committed a crime because of X suspicious act, and we think we are being reasonable." So we are going to bypass the court because they will say "No", and then we can't do it without violating a court order.
A classic example of Asking for Forgiveness instead of Permission, except that they aren't asking for forgiveness--they are asserting that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to US Persons they want to tap but don't have enough proof to establish probable cause.
The administration's admitted wiretapping is more than enough to justify impeachment proceedings, which essentially serves the purpose of a grand jury--making sure we have a reasonable basis to prosecute this crime so we don't prosecute people who are clearly innocent.
Modern nuclear should be a part of our total energy solution, in addition to wind farms, hydroelectric, and solar-thermal engines, plus others. We ought to leave petroleum as a backup-only fuel source. Let's not end our dependence on oil only to replace it with a dependence on nuclear. Lets get some balance in our energy supply.
I submit that for national security and flexibility reasons, that we don't let any single energy source be more than ~25% of our total energy use.
Solar-thermal engines + storage are now able to make up at least 50% of US electric needs, but we should have modern nuclear power as a partial backup (as opposed to mostly using petroleum for backup).
In some cases, H2 can already make a feasible energy storage, and with the inevitable improvements in electrolysis and fuel cells, it will get even better.
Um, I went to basic (ARMY) in January 1990, _pre_ Desert Storm, and we used the term warfighter then.
I went to ODS as well, as a cook (though all I did was drive a deuce and a half 20 hours a day) in a combat unit (HHC 4-37 AR, 1ID). We were at most 2 klicks behind our tanks, and were even ambushed.
As a rule of thumb, anyone in a combat or combat service support unit, regardless of military branch, were referred to as warfighters. This would include cooks in combat units, but not cooks in support units. It would include mechanics (yes, they actually fix tanks while under fire), and MP's (an example of combat service support, as MP's are usually _in front_ of the front lines).
It generally referred to people who a) went looking for a fight, or b)were likely to find a fight, even if they weren't looking for it.
Mark
NEODyS says over 200 observations came in in the last five days alone. What's going on here? Anyone from NEO/JPL want to enlighten us?
Also, NEODyS is still showing 1 in 38 odds of impact. Mark
OK. This thing wasn't even discovered until June 2004, and now all of a sudden we have data from March of 2004? Yesterday the number of observations was like 169, now there are only 118? I smell a rat. Or a bug. Or a hack. I want an explanation for the extra/missing data. Mark
The 1.18B estimate only applies to personal transportation, i.e. your car or truck.
It does not include lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, RVs, dirt bikes, jet skis, go carts, generators, weed whackers, military uses, police departments, the post office, phone company, electric company, plus all other vehicles/equipment _not_ for personal transportation.
Indeed, if you wanted to completely and totally replace all uses of gasoline (who would want to lug around a hydrogen chainsaw all day?), it would require about 938 of these plants.
If you also want to replace all diesel fuel uses, I imagine you would have to double the number of plants.
to provide enough H2 to replace our use of gasoline for personal transportation, according to google (about 1.18B gallons/year). While there are certainly some risks to mitigate with nuclear power, such an H2 infrastructure could be built in the near future. Once done, the nuclear portion could be replaced by whatever better power source comes next (He3 fusion, perhaps), without requiring any changes to the infrastructure. Mark
Have you even _read_ the Declaration of Independence?
Taxation isn't even in the top 10 reasons for independence. If memory serves, it's like number 17 before taxes are mentioned.
"No taxation without representation" was just a political rallying cry, much like "Anybody but Clinton|Gore|Bush"
RTFDoI (Read The Fine Declaration of Independence)
Mark
For the record, I am a big "L" libertarian, and there are certain problems, IMO, that every person of good heart, regardless of political or moral persuasion, would like to see solved, such as starvation, abject poverty, etc.
We know that capitalism (not to be confused with coporate welfare here in the US) has proven itself to be the best economic system thus far to help achieve those goals.
For those who say "Linux will not solve the world's problems", I disagree wholeheartedly, and submit the following for your contemplation.
In many areas of human endeavor, the most expensive (either time or money) item is labor. Our current models, at least up until FOSS, were largely based on constantly reinventing the wheel. With FOSS, this is no longer required. You make take it as it is, or extend as required for your purposes. You do not need to invest the labor to always start over from scratch.
IMO, there can be no argument that this has been beneficial in the area of software.
Likewise, the FOSS community, made up out of those of us who have some free time to contribute a labor of love to posterity, could easily be extended to other areas.
FOSS is doing a great job in software, but imagine if it were extended to mechanical design? Build upon existing designs rather than starting from scratch.
What if it were extended to music? To art? To textbooks and other educational items? To literature?
FOSS alone will not solve all of the world's problems, but it is one component that will help do so. It could also be the foundation for many other tools to do so.
I submit that 100 years from now, historians will look back on FOSS as the beginning of a revolution, equal to mercantilism or the industrial revolution.
Mark
I have a simple script to get that working in less than 5 minutes. If you are interested, marktaff AT comcast DOT net