If you actually look at the SpaceX launch manifest that I linked to, you'll notice that there is a CRS-8 mission scheduled for 2015, which will indeed carry the BEAM module, AS WELL AS A SEPARATE "BIGELOW AEROSPACE" MISSON that is totally distinct from CRS-8 and will likely launch Bigelow's first operational private space station. This "Bigelow Aerospace" mission is not an ISS resupply mission and it will not carry the BEAM module.
muslim/judaism/christianity (pretty much all religions as well?) say people are evil at heart.. that anyone born to this world is of the evil inherent in the world, and the teachings of those religions are a path to free yourself from that evil.
Yes, but is religion effective for that purpose? Is there a study that shows religious people to be less evil than atheists? Or is this just a baseless claim?
the carrot and stick is not an approach or constraint of evil (as any atheist loves to point out) as evil abounds in even those who profess to be religious, but a guarantee of justice professed by all three. hell is not the reason to find salvation, the path to salvation is there for those who would choose it because they prefer it over evil. it's a choice.
So then all three major Abrahamic religions will agree that salvation can be found by anyone who would choose it over evil, not merely by adherents of a certain religion? That seems inconsistent with everything I know about religion.
Thankfully enough, I'm merely a gun owner, not a member of some 'gun community'. I've never heard of Hugh Hewitt, but with a name like that, radio is indeed the right place for him.
Perhaps Hugh Hewitt meant to say automatic, not semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are more useful for for suppressive fire (which has limited need for proper aim) as opposed to destructive fire (which does indeed require proper aim).
In the case of the Koch brothers, it's clear that the public policy they oppose (environmental protection regulations) would have a negative impact on their existing business (heavy industry), since most environmental protection regulations that I've seen impose a significant cost on manufacturing, refining, and other related industries.
In the case of Gore, it's not clear that the public policy he supports (environmental protection regulations) would have a positive impact on his existing business (book writing, speaking tours), since most environmental protection regulations that I've seen neither decrease cost of writing/speaking nor do they increase the audience of people interested in environmental books/talks.
CRS-8 is 3 missions prior to a "Bigelow Aerospace" mission, according to the current SpaceX launch manifest. This mission is scheduled for 2015, not 2016. Do you have any sources to cite for your conflicting information? I can't find any statements from Bigelow one way or the other.
The pricing does look very affordable as far as these things go. I don't have any beef with government-funded projects or the ISS, so I'm just happy to see us building out more space infrastructure. Whether or not private space stations "replace" the ISS, they still make me happy. Today LEO, tomorrow the stars!
Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.
Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.
Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I'm not advocating for a particular side. Therefore, it doesn't bother me that drivers are inconvenienced for the safety of pedestrians, nor does it bother me that pedestrians are put at risk for the convenience of drivers.
What happened is geoskd offered a utilitarian argument in favor of higher speed limits that objectively shows that low speed limits are not optimal. I only chimed in when I saw Noah Haders call him selfish (which is absurd in that geoskd's post didn't identify him as a driver and didn't argue for any personal benefit but for an overall generally optimal outcome) while literally making a subjective and selfish argument himself (he identifies himself as a cyclist and pedestrian and is opposed to higher speed limits due to the effect they would have on him personally).
I merely wanted to highlight the irony of this, not make any sort of claims about speed limits or the utility of traffic lights or crosswalks.
Presumably you were trying to be funny, but a firearm does not compensate for poor aim or otherwise increase a shooter's accuracy by being semi-automatic.
And in case you're one of those people that truly know nothing about firearms, a semi-automatic action is one in which one round is fired for every pull of the trigger with no additional work on the part of a shooter (contrasted against a fully automatic action, which continues to fire subsequent rounds as long as the trigger remains pulled, or one of the several varieties of manual action, which fire one round per trigger pull but require additional work on the part of the shooter beyond merely pulling the trigger).
The phrase comes from a toast written by General John Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, on July 31, 1809. Poor health forced Stark to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington. Instead, he sent his toast by letter: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
Note that this sentiment predates the previous administration by a few years. Freedom from fear is not one of the founding principles of the United States, as should be evident from the sentiment expressed in this quote, which is today the state motto of New Hampshire.
You make two claims. Let me address the second one first.
Campaign contributions. I personally have been supporting groups that seek to get the influence of money out of politics (WOLF-PAC and MAYDAY.us), so I think we can agree that money poses a certain problem for free and fair elections. However, to bring this up in the case of Al Gore is misleading. Al Gore's last day holding elected office was January 20, 2001, over 13 years ago. He conceded loss in the last political race in which he participated on December 13, 2000. It would not have been possible for him to spend any "campaign contributions" since that time. While Gore has been involved with environmental issues since the 1970s, "An Inconvenient Truth" was released in 2006, years after his departure from politics. It's not clear how his championing of environmental causes over the last decade could have resulted in campaign contributions which he somehow profited from.
Your other claim, that he made money from writing a book, is indeed accurate. However, I don't see how that's could be called "peddling global warming". He wrote a book that resonated with a large number of people. He didn't force anyone to buy it. That it was so popular (and profitable) is a direct result of society's interest in the issues he wrote about. Do you also claim that Dostoevsky was "peddling psychology" or that Twain was "peddling humor"?
While I'm no fan of Gore (primarily because I disagree with the solutions he proposes, not because I disagree with the field of climate science), I really don't understand why people single him out for criticism. Yes, he makes money from the books that he writes, but so do many writers. Yes, he makes money from the speaking engagements that he participates in, but so do many speakers. When people hear his message, they criticize him. When people hear Pamela Anderson saying stupid things about animals on behalf of PETA, people don't criticize her, they don't talk about the money that she's being paid. Why the discrepancy?
So I can't help but agree with folks like s.petry when it comes to assuming that people are after money.
FTFY. Al Gore is only as greedy as the rest of us. Also, he hasn't been a politician for well over a decade. But I still don't understand how supporting the environmentalist side is supposed to be more lucrative than supporting the opposition. You honestly think that hippies have more money to spend on the issue than does industry?
The statement I was replying to included the claim:
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming"
Due to the poster's usage of the past tense ("has made"), his claim cannot be explained as Gore "hopes that later laws will be voted on in a way that lands someone a lot of free money, er tax", as future laws and future windfalls wouldn't explain how he made a fortune in the past.
Also, I'm not sure how he would expect to personally be the recipient of free moner, er tax, himself. The chronology issue aside, how does a former vice president benefit from increased tax revenues?
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming"
How? I'm serious. I could use "a fortune" and have no qualms peddling anything. I've been trying to peddle global warming for some time now but I haven't made a single penny from my efforts. How is it that Gore sees such great financial success? He's peddled global warming to me quite a bit, but I don't recall ever giving him any of my money. What's his business model?
Normally I agree with your posts. This time, not so much.
I'm a fan of due process. While it seems like a great idea to shoot home intruders at night, sometimes shit happens and you end up shooting your daughter. It's not always quite this tragic, and sometimes you do end up shooting dead a person that was actually trying to steal a couple bucks from your castle. However, even in those cases, I'd argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Joe Sixpack shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner.
And I say this as the owner of a variety of firearms who keeps one easily accessible for home defense.
One? Are you joking? According to CDC’s WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. That's in addition to ~500-600 unintentional deaths per year.
And you cite this as a counter to the claim that on average one man shoots off his own penis every year? You failed to demonstrate that more than one of these many annual nonfatal injuries involves a penis being shot off. This is on your part a failure of either reading comprehension or critical thinking.
And what, get a discrete GPS navigation device? Next you'll be offering an even better technical solution: ditch the car and get some good walking shoes!
GP provided an objective argument in favor of higher speed limits.
You call him selfish while citing your own subjectivity ("as a frequent pedestrian and bicyclist).
Are you not being the selfish one by specifically calling out your own situation as justification for policies that affect you favorably but others negatively?
The energy in a 4,000lb vehicle moving at 40-60 mph is considerable.
The [kinetic] energy in a 4,000 lb (1814.37 kg) vehicle moving at 40-60 mph (17.8816-26.8224 m/s) is 213,948-481382 ftlbf (290-653 kJ).
This is equivalent to between 69 and 156 g of TNT.
For a sense of perspective, this amount of TNT is roughly the size of a contemporary smartphone (a bit bigger than the iPhone 6 Plus on the high end, a bit smaller than the iPhone 5S on the low end).
Since Dynamite has about 60% more energy density than TNT, this is between a quarter stick and a half stick of Dynamite.
That's how much kinetic energy your small SUV has when moving at highway speeds. You hit the full stick of Dynamite mark at 72.4 mph in your 4,000 lb vehicle.
A car that has a curb weight near 4,000 lbs is the Jaguar XJ (X300).
It took the equivalent of nearly 129 million Jaguar XJ (X300) cars, each crashed into an unyielding obstacle at 72.4 mph, to carve the Panama Canal.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually look at the SpaceX launch manifest that I linked to, you'll notice that there is a CRS-8 mission scheduled for 2015, which will indeed carry the BEAM module, AS WELL AS A SEPARATE "BIGELOW AEROSPACE" MISSON that is totally distinct from CRS-8 and will likely launch Bigelow's first operational private space station. This "Bigelow Aerospace" mission is not an ISS resupply mission and it will not carry the BEAM module.
In your Libertarian utopia, who enforces the Non-Aggression Principle? How are they funded?
muslim/judaism/christianity (pretty much all religions as well?) say people are evil at heart.. that anyone born to this world is of the evil inherent in the world, and the teachings of those religions are a path to free yourself from that evil.
Yes, but is religion effective for that purpose? Is there a study that shows religious people to be less evil than atheists? Or is this just a baseless claim?
the carrot and stick is not an approach or constraint of evil (as any atheist loves to point out) as evil abounds in even those who profess to be religious, but a guarantee of justice professed by all three. hell is not the reason to find salvation, the path to salvation is there for those who would choose it because they prefer it over evil. it's a choice.
So then all three major Abrahamic religions will agree that salvation can be found by anyone who would choose it over evil, not merely by adherents of a certain religion? That seems inconsistent with everything I know about religion.
Did you really just repeat my own link back at me?
You're either an idiot or the world's worst troll.
I was shooting for "They play music, therefore they are", a more complete form of GP's "U2 are".
Thankfully enough, I'm merely a gun owner, not a member of some 'gun community'. I've never heard of Hugh Hewitt, but with a name like that, radio is indeed the right place for him.
Perhaps Hugh Hewitt meant to say automatic, not semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are more useful for for suppressive fire (which has limited need for proper aim) as opposed to destructive fire (which does indeed require proper aim).
In the case of the Koch brothers, it's clear that the public policy they oppose (environmental protection regulations) would have a negative impact on their existing business (heavy industry), since most environmental protection regulations that I've seen impose a significant cost on manufacturing, refining, and other related industries.
In the case of Gore, it's not clear that the public policy he supports (environmental protection regulations) would have a positive impact on his existing business (book writing, speaking tours), since most environmental protection regulations that I've seen neither decrease cost of writing/speaking nor do they increase the audience of people interested in environmental books/talks.
It sounds more insightful in latin: ludit musica ergo sunt.
Yes, U2 are. They exist. Descartes kinda beat you to the punch by a few centuries though.
Also, I don't know latin.
CRS-8 is 3 missions prior to a "Bigelow Aerospace" mission, according to the current SpaceX launch manifest. This mission is scheduled for 2015, not 2016. Do you have any sources to cite for your conflicting information? I can't find any statements from Bigelow one way or the other.
The pricing does look very affordable as far as these things go. I don't have any beef with government-funded projects or the ISS, so I'm just happy to see us building out more space infrastructure. Whether or not private space stations "replace" the ISS, they still make me happy. Today LEO, tomorrow the stars!
Actually, SpaceX already has a Bigelow Aerospace launch on their manifest scheduled for 2015.
Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.
Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.
Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I'm not advocating for a particular side. Therefore, it doesn't bother me that drivers are inconvenienced for the safety of pedestrians, nor does it bother me that pedestrians are put at risk for the convenience of drivers.
What happened is geoskd offered a utilitarian argument in favor of higher speed limits that objectively shows that low speed limits are not optimal. I only chimed in when I saw Noah Haders call him selfish (which is absurd in that geoskd's post didn't identify him as a driver and didn't argue for any personal benefit but for an overall generally optimal outcome) while literally making a subjective and selfish argument himself (he identifies himself as a cyclist and pedestrian and is opposed to higher speed limits due to the effect they would have on him personally).
I merely wanted to highlight the irony of this, not make any sort of claims about speed limits or the utility of traffic lights or crosswalks.
That's why they need semi-automatic weapons.
Presumably you were trying to be funny, but a firearm does not compensate for poor aim or otherwise increase a shooter's accuracy by being semi-automatic.
And in case you're one of those people that truly know nothing about firearms, a semi-automatic action is one in which one round is fired for every pull of the trigger with no additional work on the part of a shooter (contrasted against a fully automatic action, which continues to fire subsequent rounds as long as the trigger remains pulled, or one of the several varieties of manual action, which fire one round per trigger pull but require additional work on the part of the shooter beyond merely pulling the trigger).
Live free or die.
The phrase comes from a toast written by General John Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, on July 31, 1809. Poor health forced Stark to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington. Instead, he sent his toast by letter: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
Note that this sentiment predates the previous administration by a few years. Freedom from fear is not one of the founding principles of the United States, as should be evident from the sentiment expressed in this quote, which is today the state motto of New Hampshire.
Campaign contributions. I personally have been supporting groups that seek to get the influence of money out of politics (WOLF-PAC and MAYDAY.us), so I think we can agree that money poses a certain problem for free and fair elections. However, to bring this up in the case of Al Gore is misleading. Al Gore's last day holding elected office was January 20, 2001, over 13 years ago. He conceded loss in the last political race in which he participated on December 13, 2000. It would not have been possible for him to spend any "campaign contributions" since that time. While Gore has been involved with environmental issues since the 1970s, "An Inconvenient Truth" was released in 2006, years after his departure from politics. It's not clear how his championing of environmental causes over the last decade could have resulted in campaign contributions which he somehow profited from.
Your other claim, that he made money from writing a book, is indeed accurate. However, I don't see how that's could be called "peddling global warming". He wrote a book that resonated with a large number of people. He didn't force anyone to buy it. That it was so popular (and profitable) is a direct result of society's interest in the issues he wrote about. Do you also claim that Dostoevsky was "peddling psychology" or that Twain was "peddling humor"?
While I'm no fan of Gore (primarily because I disagree with the solutions he proposes, not because I disagree with the field of climate science), I really don't understand why people single him out for criticism. Yes, he makes money from the books that he writes, but so do many writers. Yes, he makes money from the speaking engagements that he participates in, but so do many speakers. When people hear his message, they criticize him. When people hear Pamela Anderson saying stupid things about animals on behalf of PETA, people don't criticize her, they don't talk about the money that she's being paid. Why the discrepancy?
So I can't help but agree with folks like s.petry when it comes to assuming that people are after money.
FTFY. Al Gore is only as greedy as the rest of us. Also, he hasn't been a politician for well over a decade. But I still don't understand how supporting the environmentalist side is supposed to be more lucrative than supporting the opposition. You honestly think that hippies have more money to spend on the issue than does industry?
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming"
Due to the poster's usage of the past tense ("has made"), his claim cannot be explained as Gore "hopes that later laws will be voted on in a way that lands someone a lot of free money, er tax", as future laws and future windfalls wouldn't explain how he made a fortune in the past.
Also, I'm not sure how he would expect to personally be the recipient of free moner, er tax, himself. The chronology issue aside, how does a former vice president benefit from increased tax revenues?
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming"
How? I'm serious. I could use "a fortune" and have no qualms peddling anything. I've been trying to peddle global warming for some time now but I haven't made a single penny from my efforts. How is it that Gore sees such great financial success? He's peddled global warming to me quite a bit, but I don't recall ever giving him any of my money. What's his business model?
Of course, but it's not selfish when you argue for your safety over everyone else's convenience. I see how that works.
No one should be upset with dead criminals
Normally I agree with your posts. This time, not so much.
I'm a fan of due process. While it seems like a great idea to shoot home intruders at night, sometimes shit happens and you end up shooting your daughter. It's not always quite this tragic, and sometimes you do end up shooting dead a person that was actually trying to steal a couple bucks from your castle. However, even in those cases, I'd argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Joe Sixpack shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner.
And I say this as the owner of a variety of firearms who keeps one easily accessible for home defense.
The difference of course is that construction and automobiles are a necessary part of life so accept the risks that come with their use.
Some would argue that freedom is also a necessary part of life.
One? Are you joking? According to CDC’s WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. That's in addition to ~500-600 unintentional deaths per year.
And you cite this as a counter to the claim that on average one man shoots off his own penis every year? You failed to demonstrate that more than one of these many annual nonfatal injuries involves a penis being shot off. This is on your part a failure of either reading comprehension or critical thinking.
And what, get a discrete GPS navigation device? Next you'll be offering an even better technical solution: ditch the car and get some good walking shoes!
Pot, kettle.
GP provided an objective argument in favor of higher speed limits.
You call him selfish while citing your own subjectivity ("as a frequent pedestrian and bicyclist).
Are you not being the selfish one by specifically calling out your own situation as justification for policies that affect you favorably but others negatively?
The energy in a 4,000lb vehicle moving at 40-60 mph is considerable.
The [kinetic] energy in a 4,000 lb (1814.37 kg) vehicle moving at 40-60 mph (17.8816-26.8224 m/s) is 213,948-481382 ftlbf (290-653 kJ).
This is equivalent to between 69 and 156 g of TNT.
For a sense of perspective, this amount of TNT is roughly the size of a contemporary smartphone (a bit bigger than the iPhone 6 Plus on the high end, a bit smaller than the iPhone 5S on the low end).
Since Dynamite has about 60% more energy density than TNT, this is between a quarter stick and a half stick of Dynamite.
That's how much kinetic energy your small SUV has when moving at highway speeds. You hit the full stick of Dynamite mark at 72.4 mph in your 4,000 lb vehicle.
A car that has a curb weight near 4,000 lbs is the Jaguar XJ (X300).
It took the equivalent of nearly 129 million Jaguar XJ (X300) cars, each crashed into an unyielding obstacle at 72.4 mph, to carve the Panama Canal.
Mod parent up; GKC is awesome.
And I say that as a devout atheist.