So then you freely admit that your proposal will not fulfil the same goals as the current approach? Perhaps that's why employers need the government to legislate it for them. You're looking at retail when most money changes hands between businesses, and that works better when businesses keep the same hours.
Regardless of which side of the gun argument one may support, we should all agree on one thing.
The second amendment, as written, ensures that government cannot limit the right of private citizens to possess nuclear warheads. This is undesirable. In the spirit of rule of law, we should repeal this amendment and replace it with one that does not have such undesirable outcomes (as opposed to the much more convenient approach we've opted for instead: merely ignoring it).
Id love to see a constitutional convention in my lifetime and a few new amendments.
Then I hope you've been supporting WOLF PAC. They're working towards holding a constitutional convention to get money out of politics. Two states have passed their bill so far.
Eventually Virgin Galactic's space planes will deliver tourist's to Bigelow's habitats. They can't go that high YET, thus the testing of new engines...testing that lead to this tragedy.
The only two vehicles that will be going to Bigelow's habitats (according to Bigelow) will be SpaceX's Dragon on Falcon 9 and Boeing's CST-100 on ULA's Atlas V.
New engines might help Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo "go that high" (that's not really the issue here) and maybe even "go that fast" (orbital velocity would be required to actually dock with a Bigelow habitat as opposed to merely watching it go flying by). New engines will not help their SpaceShipTwo survive atmospheric re-entry at orbital speeds.
SpaceShipTwo's claim to fame is the "feathering" mechanism (which is what seems to have been the culprit in this tragedy) which allows for a safe and easy way of handling re-entry at suborbital speeds. That's why this analogy isn't entirely helpful. We remember the Hierapolis sawmill because it incorporated a novel mechanism which ended up being instrumental in future cars. SpaceShipTwo's novel mechanism will not be instrumental in future orbital launch vehicles.
That being said, what they're doing is awesome. Anything that increases our access to space, even suborbital space, has the potential to advance the state of the art of spaceflight. Maybe all we get out of Virgin Galactic is a vetting of their thrill-ride business model. Even if that's the case, it's still a step in the right direction.
Offtopic: Slashdotters in Tulsa! I was out there earlier this year for a friend's wedding. Late night, my girlfriend and I started heading towards that late-night hot dog place on the east end of town (I think). We never made it, as she got freaked out by the number of roaches swarming the sidewalks. Anyway, you know what hot dog place I'm talking about? Is it any good? Should I be mad at myself for not making it there?
Is this legal? My girlfriend and I would stand to financially benefit from filing jointly, but we aren't legally married. I thought we had to be legally married to file our taxes as "married". Do you have any more information on this issue?
Really? Because my father is currently employed by the State of New Mexico to help get Spaceport America ready.
Cool. My father is currently employed by the Glassmakers Union to go around town breaking windows. He helps create jobs too.
I support any/all efforts to increase access to space, including Virgin Galactic's thrill ride. However, to spin Dick Branson's efforts as valuable because he's creating jobs, well, I question the logic there. We don't need jobs for the sake of jobs.
The independents are tolerated because the problem of independent candidates having any chance at winning was resolved by George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis (in a rare show of bipartisanship) in 1987.
Firstly to get the equipment out to this asteroid efficiently you are going to need nuclear rockets.
Why? Isn't it true that we've launched probes well beyond the asteroid belt without nuclear rockets? Is there a reason why we couldn't get this "equipment" out to this asteroid efficiently using a solar sail, VASIMR, or even a conventional ion thruster (all of which could be launched from Earth using a large chemical rocket)? I mean, shit, if you want to maximize efficiency, we'd launch something using pulsed nuclear propulsion, but is there a reason we can't accept lower levels of efficiency?
Then you are going to need to mine water to use as reaction mass to move the rock - again with nuclear rockets.
Is there a reason the aforementioned methods of propulsion cease to be viable when an asteroid is part of the payload? Or chemical rockets if high thrust is desired?
The most efficient method isn't electrolysis its just to make the water very hot and it cracks all by itself - the details get a bit more involved and complicated.
You haven't convinced me that your "more involved and complicated" approach is superior in the context of in situ resource exploitation, as I'd imagine reliability and maintenance concerns to override efficiency considerations.
Hydrogen is the ideal reaction mass fuel for nuclear rockets.
Also for chemical rockets, particularly with a convenient supply of oxidizer available. You seem hung up on nuclear rockets.
For larger objects nuclear rockets become to weak, so we switch to pulse nuclear propulsion aka Project Orion. For even larger objects we might use the even more powerful Super Orion instead...
How do you propose this is done? I mean, in the context of the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (and potentially the Outer Space Treaty as well). Also, why do you feel that my suggestion of using established conventional technology to demonstrate the feasibility of asteroid mining is a display of "ignorance" when your own suggestion rests largely upon theoretical processes which have yet to be demonstrated to be viable?
BTW Your already out of date on the other materials, 3D printing and other techniques are already being developed for doing this now.
My what?
There are four basic main areas - high temperature materials for building smelters, metals for various, silicon materials for building solar panels, and materials for fuels. A fifth is developing organics for making plastics and resins, etc. As for t being fantasy, I expect to see working test beds on the Moon in about ten years.
That's cool, but again, I don't see how appealing to shit that doesn't exist yet really strengthens the case that mining asteroids is more than just something we can look forward to in some indefinite future.
The main impediments to nuclear tech in space and to a human future in space in general are not technical they are actually the nuclear over-regulators and the UN.. Most UN treaties are not worth the paper they are written on anyway.
Oh, I see. Your ideas, even if the theory ends up being proven out, can't actually be implemented. How practically useful.
I'm asking what the actual restriction is. Is pointing a smartphone at the screen (without actually recording anything) a violation of their policy or not?
The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report is making an erroneous assumption that wealth is spread evenly in the US. Which it is not.
The statistic that I quoted from the report didn't make any claims about how wealth is distributed. It merely divided the total wealth by the total population, which yielded a figure for wealth per person that corresponds to how much wealth each person would have if wealth were distributed equally. Let's call this number the average wealth per person. It doesn't imply that any given person actually has this level of wealth, let alone that all people do.
No, that's just what the government-mandated plans cost, now, as produced by the regulators in the liberal-monoculture government of this state, where rates are set by the government. Yes, my coverage changed... it's worse. We can't use the two best local hospitals, and we can no longer use our doctor of 20 years. We do have primo coverage, though, for maternity-related matters that we can't possibly use. So, yeah, significant change in coverage: triple the monthly cost and quadruple the deductable for a big drop in what we get out of it.
So where is the money going? You're paying more, and getting less. This means that the insurance company is making more. However, the ACA caps their profits at roughly the levels they were at. Executive compensation in the health insurance industry hasn't increased markedly (it's been quite obscene since well before the ACA). So where is the money going? Are you suggesting that the new maternity-related coverage is what's driving up your costs so much? How would that make sense, considering the relatively low cost of maternity-related procedures (as far as inpatient procedures go)?
The second were the $150/month genuine catastrophic plans. Insured pays $150/month, and in exchange the obligation of paying the first $10K of the bill, the insurance company might actually cover the remaining $90K. (Also, the insurance company might be able to bargain the hospital down from $100K to $20K, so even if they refuse to cover it, the insured isn't bankrupt.) These are gone, and that kinda sucks.
Are these plans outlawed by the ACA, like the first set of plans you describe? Or have insurers merely stopped offering them of their own volition? I'm genuinely asking, as I don't know. I haven't heard of any limitations on deductibles imposed by the ACA.
What ACA proponents don't get is that YES, premiums *DO* have to rise, markedly, and that as long as insurance companies remain middlemen, everyone is going to pay $10K. Because that's your actual actuarial risk including the middlemen's 50% cut.
If premiums do have to rise (because of the ACA), why? What are the increasing costs? Most arguments I've heard boil down to "my premiums went up, my coverage went down", but something's not adding up. The ACA has capped insurers' profits (to what extent this is effective remains to be seen), so I'm comfortable assuming that the alleged difference in cost isn't simply being pocketed. So where is it going? I can't answer that. The conclusion this brings me to is that either premiums are not going up, or coverage is not going down.
You say Google Glass may contain medical devices, and as such should be protected by the ADA. If you tell someone to take off their Google Glass (w/ presecription lenses), you're discriminating against those with disabilities. Now, what if someone with a legitimate leg injury comes to the theater using a massive dildo as a cane. Can't turn them away either? What about if I glue prescription lenses to my dick and my girlfriend holds it in front of her eyes, using the whole apparatus instead of ordinary eyeglasses. Can't turn that away either? I mean, surely there's a line that gets drawn at some point. IANAL, but I'd imagine stuff like this ends up before a judge at some point. And to my dismay, judges have quite a bit of leeway in their interpretation of laws.
I may be able to see your point if they just arbitrarily picked you out of a crowd, but if they went through the trouble of placing signs up at the entrance informing you of their restrictions then I'll have to side with them.
By having the sign out front saying no recording devices
Are they enforcing this restriction consistently? Are they allowing people to bring other recording devices, like smartphones, into the theater?
What exactly is the restriction?
If it's "no recording devices", then they're enforcing it selectively and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording the movie", then they're enforcing it prematurely/incorrectly and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no glassholes", then that's rather arbitrary and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording devices aimed at the movie regardless of whether or not they are recording", then I suppose it remains to be seen what they'd do about someone sitting there with their phone aimed at the movie (but not recording).
I've worked as a freelance software developer with clients in the finance industry, but I would never say freelanced in finance. I freelanced in software development. I thought you meant that you freelanced in banking, not IT. In which case I pictured you spending weekends sitting at the door to your gold-filled vault, ala Scrooge McDuck, offering to loan your cash out to strangers at interest.
Slashdot Mirror
So then you freely admit that your proposal will not fulfil the same goals as the current approach? Perhaps that's why employers need the government to legislate it for them. You're looking at retail when most money changes hands between businesses, and that works better when businesses keep the same hours.
Regardless of which side of the gun argument one may support, we should all agree on one thing.
The second amendment, as written, ensures that government cannot limit the right of private citizens to possess nuclear warheads. This is undesirable. In the spirit of rule of law, we should repeal this amendment and replace it with one that does not have such undesirable outcomes (as opposed to the much more convenient approach we've opted for instead: merely ignoring it).
Id love to see a constitutional convention in my lifetime and a few new amendments.
Then I hope you've been supporting WOLF PAC. They're working towards holding a constitutional convention to get money out of politics. Two states have passed their bill so far.
Eventually Virgin Galactic's space planes will deliver tourist's to Bigelow's habitats. They can't go that high YET, thus the testing of new engines...testing that lead to this tragedy.
The only two vehicles that will be going to Bigelow's habitats (according to Bigelow) will be SpaceX's Dragon on Falcon 9 and Boeing's CST-100 on ULA's Atlas V.
New engines might help Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo "go that high" (that's not really the issue here) and maybe even "go that fast" (orbital velocity would be required to actually dock with a Bigelow habitat as opposed to merely watching it go flying by). New engines will not help their SpaceShipTwo survive atmospheric re-entry at orbital speeds.
SpaceShipTwo's claim to fame is the "feathering" mechanism (which is what seems to have been the culprit in this tragedy) which allows for a safe and easy way of handling re-entry at suborbital speeds. That's why this analogy isn't entirely helpful. We remember the Hierapolis sawmill because it incorporated a novel mechanism which ended up being instrumental in future cars. SpaceShipTwo's novel mechanism will not be instrumental in future orbital launch vehicles.
That being said, what they're doing is awesome. Anything that increases our access to space, even suborbital space, has the potential to advance the state of the art of spaceflight. Maybe all we get out of Virgin Galactic is a vetting of their thrill-ride business model. Even if that's the case, it's still a step in the right direction.
Offtopic: Slashdotters in Tulsa! I was out there earlier this year for a friend's wedding. Late night, my girlfriend and I started heading towards that late-night hot dog place on the east end of town (I think). We never made it, as she got freaked out by the number of roaches swarming the sidewalks. Anyway, you know what hot dog place I'm talking about? Is it any good? Should I be mad at myself for not making it there?
How do these emplyers impose their new work hours on other employers (as well as consumers) though?
Long story short, If you're voting (D) or (R) You're the problem.
Amen, brother.
(In a nontheistic sort of way.)
or filling taxes as "married".
Is this legal? My girlfriend and I would stand to financially benefit from filing jointly, but we aren't legally married. I thought we had to be legally married to file our taxes as "married". Do you have any more information on this issue?
Really? Where is this? It sounds fun, and I've been looking for a quirky getaway like this for the springtime.
Really? Because my father is currently employed by the State of New Mexico to help get Spaceport America ready.
Cool. My father is currently employed by the Glassmakers Union to go around town breaking windows. He helps create jobs too.
I support any/all efforts to increase access to space, including Virgin Galactic's thrill ride. However, to spin Dick Branson's efforts as valuable because he's creating jobs, well, I question the logic there. We don't need jobs for the sake of jobs.
The republicrats are going to hold on to both the Senate and the House for the forseeable future. That is the real tragedy here.
Sorry for the apparent misunderstanding, but I was merely quoting John Goodman's character "Walter Sobchak" from the film The Big Lebowski (1998).
The independents are tolerated because the problem of independent candidates having any chance at winning was resolved by George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis (in a rare show of bipartisanship) in 1987.
Oh please, dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
I'm staying, I'm finishing my coffee. Enjoying my coffee.
Slow down sparky. The First Amendment doesn't have the "In order to maintain a well regulated militia"-type clause.
Neither does the Second Amendment. Reading comprehension fail.
Firstly to get the equipment out to this asteroid efficiently you are going to need nuclear rockets.
Why? Isn't it true that we've launched probes well beyond the asteroid belt without nuclear rockets? Is there a reason why we couldn't get this "equipment" out to this asteroid efficiently using a solar sail, VASIMR, or even a conventional ion thruster (all of which could be launched from Earth using a large chemical rocket)? I mean, shit, if you want to maximize efficiency, we'd launch something using pulsed nuclear propulsion, but is there a reason we can't accept lower levels of efficiency?
Then you are going to need to mine water to use as reaction mass to move the rock - again with nuclear rockets.
Is there a reason the aforementioned methods of propulsion cease to be viable when an asteroid is part of the payload? Or chemical rockets if high thrust is desired?
The most efficient method isn't electrolysis its just to make the water very hot and it cracks all by itself - the details get a bit more involved and complicated.
You haven't convinced me that your "more involved and complicated" approach is superior in the context of in situ resource exploitation, as I'd imagine reliability and maintenance concerns to override efficiency considerations.
Hydrogen is the ideal reaction mass fuel for nuclear rockets.
Also for chemical rockets, particularly with a convenient supply of oxidizer available. You seem hung up on nuclear rockets.
For larger objects nuclear rockets become to weak, so we switch to pulse nuclear propulsion aka Project Orion. For even larger objects we might use the even more powerful Super Orion instead...
How do you propose this is done? I mean, in the context of the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (and potentially the Outer Space Treaty as well). Also, why do you feel that my suggestion of using established conventional technology to demonstrate the feasibility of asteroid mining is a display of "ignorance" when your own suggestion rests largely upon theoretical processes which have yet to be demonstrated to be viable?
BTW Your already out of date on the other materials, 3D printing and other techniques are already being developed for doing this now.
My what?
There are four basic main areas - high temperature materials for building smelters, metals for various, silicon materials for building solar panels, and materials for fuels. A fifth is developing organics for making plastics and resins, etc. As for t being fantasy, I expect to see working test beds on the Moon in about ten years.
That's cool, but again, I don't see how appealing to shit that doesn't exist yet really strengthens the case that mining asteroids is more than just something we can look forward to in some indefinite future.
The main impediments to nuclear tech in space and to a human future in space in general are not technical they are actually the nuclear over-regulators and the UN.. Most UN treaties are not worth the paper they are written on anyway.
Oh, I see. Your ideas, even if the theory ends up being proven out, can't actually be implemented. How practically useful.
I'm asking what the actual restriction is. Is pointing a smartphone at the screen (without actually recording anything) a violation of their policy or not?
The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report is making an erroneous assumption that wealth is spread evenly in the US. Which it is not.
The statistic that I quoted from the report didn't make any claims about how wealth is distributed. It merely divided the total wealth by the total population, which yielded a figure for wealth per person that corresponds to how much wealth each person would have if wealth were distributed equally. Let's call this number the average wealth per person. It doesn't imply that any given person actually has this level of wealth, let alone that all people do.
I question your intelligence.
No, that's just what the government-mandated plans cost, now, as produced by the regulators in the liberal-monoculture government of this state, where rates are set by the government. Yes, my coverage changed ... it's worse. We can't use the two best local hospitals, and we can no longer use our doctor of 20 years. We do have primo coverage, though, for maternity-related matters that we can't possibly use. So, yeah, significant change in coverage: triple the monthly cost and quadruple the deductable for a big drop in what we get out of it.
So where is the money going? You're paying more, and getting less. This means that the insurance company is making more. However, the ACA caps their profits at roughly the levels they were at. Executive compensation in the health insurance industry hasn't increased markedly (it's been quite obscene since well before the ACA). So where is the money going? Are you suggesting that the new maternity-related coverage is what's driving up your costs so much? How would that make sense, considering the relatively low cost of maternity-related procedures (as far as inpatient procedures go)?
Indeed, on second read, the sarcasm is apparent. I feel especially stupid.
I'm upset and I don't own a Google Glass or know anyone who does.
The second were the $150/month genuine catastrophic plans. Insured pays $150/month, and in exchange the obligation of paying the first $10K of the bill, the insurance company might actually cover the remaining $90K. (Also, the insurance company might be able to bargain the hospital down from $100K to $20K, so even if they refuse to cover it, the insured isn't bankrupt.) These are gone, and that kinda sucks.
Are these plans outlawed by the ACA, like the first set of plans you describe? Or have insurers merely stopped offering them of their own volition? I'm genuinely asking, as I don't know. I haven't heard of any limitations on deductibles imposed by the ACA.
What ACA proponents don't get is that YES, premiums *DO* have to rise, markedly, and that as long as insurance companies remain middlemen, everyone is going to pay $10K. Because that's your actual actuarial risk including the middlemen's 50% cut.
If premiums do have to rise (because of the ACA), why? What are the increasing costs? Most arguments I've heard boil down to "my premiums went up, my coverage went down", but something's not adding up. The ACA has capped insurers' profits (to what extent this is effective remains to be seen), so I'm comfortable assuming that the alleged difference in cost isn't simply being pocketed. So where is it going? I can't answer that. The conclusion this brings me to is that either premiums are not going up, or coverage is not going down.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute.
You say Google Glass may contain medical devices, and as such should be protected by the ADA. If you tell someone to take off their Google Glass (w/ presecription lenses), you're discriminating against those with disabilities. Now, what if someone with a legitimate leg injury comes to the theater using a massive dildo as a cane. Can't turn them away either? What about if I glue prescription lenses to my dick and my girlfriend holds it in front of her eyes, using the whole apparatus instead of ordinary eyeglasses. Can't turn that away either? I mean, surely there's a line that gets drawn at some point. IANAL, but I'd imagine stuff like this ends up before a judge at some point. And to my dismay, judges have quite a bit of leeway in their interpretation of laws.
I may be able to see your point if they just arbitrarily picked you out of a crowd, but if they went through the trouble of placing signs up at the entrance informing you of their restrictions then I'll have to side with them.
By having the sign out front saying no recording devices
Are they enforcing this restriction consistently? Are they allowing people to bring other recording devices, like smartphones, into the theater?
What exactly is the restriction?
If it's "no recording devices", then they're enforcing it selectively and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording the movie", then they're enforcing it prematurely/incorrectly and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no glassholes", then that's rather arbitrary and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording devices aimed at the movie regardless of whether or not they are recording", then I suppose it remains to be seen what they'd do about someone sitting there with their phone aimed at the movie (but not recording).
I've worked as a freelance software developer with clients in the finance industry, but I would never say freelanced in finance. I freelanced in software development. I thought you meant that you freelanced in banking, not IT. In which case I pictured you spending weekends sitting at the door to your gold-filled vault, ala Scrooge McDuck, offering to loan your cash out to strangers at interest.