And if you use incandescents during the winter when none of the heat is inefficient, or your state doesn't get much power from coal, your argument kind of falls apart, yet your language generalizes it onto everyone nonetheless.
Depends on where someone's electricity is from, doesn't it? A nuclear or hydroelectric plant driving an incandescent is much cleaner than coal driving a CFL. Not that environmentalists realize that, one look at the word "nucular" and it's caps lock time.
Humans most certainly can perceive 120Hz, and if you can't tell the difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz, you've either never owned a CRT monitor, or have serious disease or injury of your visual system and should seek medical attention.
And what about smaller appliance lights and such? There may not be enough thermal dissipation for a LED solution that provides an equivalent number of lumens, and smaller lighting of any type is generally less efficient. Halogen replacements don't necessarily exist here, either... nor LEDs at all.
In some applications -- cold weather, very intermittent usage, high-vibration environments, over-insulated fixtures -- even the oldschool incandescents are more energy efficient than fluorescents. Sometimes, fluorescents just don't work very well (cold, intermittent use) and sometimes they die early.
Those are a minority of applications, yes... but they do exist. Not everyone uses lighting in the same way.
Those are teabaggers, not even conservatives; Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and even George W Bush all supported the shuttle program. And public education, for that matter.
How can anyone who wants to defund the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) call themselves a member of the party of Reagan? Madness.
But yes, it's quite sad to see regardless. If our educational system is gutted to save a couple of bucks, it doesn't bode well for the future of our country, our economy, or prosperity. And things like moon landings and space shuttles will seem like part of an unbelievable past.
I don't give a damn what political party you're a member of, that's a future every American should fear.
No, the problem is how that audience is *measured*. You might think that the Nielson ratings are a statistically valid cross-section of America. They are not.
Nielson, to their credit, did try to fix this... and were then sued by NewsCorp (owners of Fox) for "discrimination" against minority viewers (because they were over-represented in the sample groups relative to the general population). They settled out of court.
The problem isn't that people don't watch science fiction, the problem is the company measuring who is watching it is not doing so in any way even remotely statistically valid.
The overall effect of this is that the collected data is biased and shows/lineups are built around this. None of the networks want it to change, because they don't want to redo their lineups and entire programming. In the end, TV networks market not to consumers, but advertisers. Advertisers treat Nielson ratings as the word of God, and spend accordingly. There is little incentive for the system to change, as measuring demographics more accurately would reduce revenue.
Dear Allah, do people even study history anymore? Ronald Reagan bombed the hell out of Libya, and they did very nasty things like shoot down a civilian airliner and other assorted acts of terrorism. The West didn't put this guy in power, nor did they like him-- in fact, the West really hated him. The US gets 0.00% of its oil from Libya. And he wasn't a friend and ally to the Eastern Bloc, either. He's just a batshit insane guy who likes having busty Ukrainian nurses follow him around. Not that there's anything wrong with busty Ukrainian nurses following you around...
I sincerely doubt anyone is going to lift a finger either way, which is sort of unfortunate as a lot of people are going to die, but there's probably no preventing that at this stage.
LTC Holmes was under investigation for misconduct -- going AWOL, abusing his position for profit, and surfing the web playing Facebook games instead of working. (a real REMF) Then after this comes to light, he suddenly started raising other allegations.
He's a Forward Support Team Chief from the 71st Theater Information Operations Group. The FST is NOT a "PSY-OPS" (sic) team. The General simply asked him to prepare some background information on people who were visiting-- there's nothing illegal about that, and he should've done his job.
Rolling Stones uses ridiculous language and implications to create the illusion that "PSYOP" are a bunch of Sith who go around using Jedi Mind Powers on the weak-willed to compel them to do their bidding. Here's what they actually do: drive around in Hummer, play loud music, and say really mean things about the Taliban's moms on a loudspeaker.
So exactly what would a PSYOP operation on a congressman entail? A couple tactical speaker monkeys following them around in a Hummer, playing loud music, and insulting their mother. It's not the kind of thing that gets you more funding, eh?
Visually and conceptually, yeah, it looks pretty much identical. But the design and mechanics of it diverged, and it's not at all the case they just copied the whole thing verbatim.
I think it would've been interesting to build a Space Shuttle 2.0, taking into account lessons learned with not only the Shuttle, but the Buran.
The Russians are interested in re-launching its development, so it's even something that could have been a collaborative project, which would benefit both of our space programs.
My bad, you're right. It's indeed 1.7bn, and I can't find a solid source for the cost without the spare components. Even if it were double that, though... the R&D has already been done so it still seems cheap relative to the Orion program cost.
Per-flight cost: the Wikipedia space shuttle article states the incremental per-flight costs are $60m.
Do me a favor, and stay out of public policy planning, or at least keep yourself to the local level. Nothing more than a county. You won't be able to screw things up too bad there.
Yes, hopefully this attitude will not reach a level of office beyond that which you can see Russia from.
Yeah, because NASA is such a huge overall expense, doesn't employ anyone or provide funding to contractors (Keynesian economics, ever hear of them?), and doesn't at all create technologies that have implications in civilian and military life, and numerous commercial applications far in excess of NASA's funding.
Just because you heard it on Rush doesn't mean it's a good idea.
What do you think modern air combat is, WWII style dogfights with machine guns? It's launching missiles at enemy aircraft you can't even see. He with the greatest range, wins.
itym "barely cheaper, possibly far more expensive". The Dragon will cost an estimated 300-400m per launch; the shuttle was 450m/launch. The shuttle could also hold almost twice the number of astronauts and a ton of cargo. The Dragon can't. The Soyuz is a much more cost-effective design than the Dragon, anyway, and one that's been proven to be quite safe. Aside from political reasons, spending money on the Dragon instead of the Soyuz makes little sense.
Orion: 1.5bn per flight, $50bn spent on development before cancellation.
Shuttle: 450m per flight, 1.5bn per shuttle to build
Soyuz seats: $45 million each
SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight
For the amount we wasted on the ostensibly "cheaper" Orion program, with disposable components similar to the Apollo program, we could've built *11* new shuttles. The Shuttle also is far more capable, able to transfer a tremendous amount of cargo (the Orion / Soyuz fit in the cargo bay...) and hold nearly twice the number of astronauts for rescue missions.
The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design. (the SpaceShipOne/SpaceShipTwo are just X-15 / X-20 ripoffs and can only get 10% of the altitude needed to reach the ISS, they don't even count)
The Soyuz seats are probably the most cost-effective and time-tested design, but the Soyuz holds three people max, and in the past, two of those have always been cosmonauts.
The Russians developed a pretty nice shuttle of their own -- the Buran -- though the end of the Soviet Union doomed it.
I'm sorry it doesn't have a warp drive, subspace communicator, artificial gravity, or "inertial dampening" (whatever that is)... but the space shuttle is the most advanced spacecraft ever developed, and a very economical one at that. And we let it die. The canceled Orion program was a failure that was uneconomical, and the amount of money we blew on that could've gotten a lot more shuttle flights, or a great many Soyuz seats.
I hope we maintain good ties to Russia, because as of this June, the only way an American is getting into space -- or to the ISS -- is if they let us. Ironically, it will be on a rocket originally intended to deliver a nuclear warhead as an ICBM to us.
We're still in Afghanistan because the Taliban are still in Afghanistan. You know, those assholes from Pakistan? Regardless of what your opinion on the war is (hell, I think Iraq was a huge mistake) we still have an obligation to finish what we started. Not pull-out halfway through and create further instability and embolden more insurgency. (ie: Fallujah) Once you start a fight you have to commit to finishing it. If you want to just pull out, make the deaths of our soldiers meaningless, let our allies in the Afghan NP and Army get beheaded, and leave the country worse off than when we got there... well, "REMF" comes to mind.
And that might hold up for a hummer, but pretty soon you start running into things that seriously compromise the design for other purposes, like the F-35's VSTOL capabilities which require heavy tradeoffs even for the branches that don't plan on using that capability.
And the "modular" design starts to fall apart for things like weapon systems designed to replace the M16, M4, and M249 all in one go... as it turns out, the heat characteristics and barrel swapping needs of a LMG result in the modular design having very poor endurance, making a more specialized design far more effective.
Vehicles and weapon systems aren't like making programming libraries.
Yes, I'm sure giving the soldiers less air support, armor, and indirect fire assets is exactly what they need. Combined arms, lolwut? If only our Army had less funding, poorer support, less equipment and more infantry zerg... oh wait, we already have that. It's called the Marine Corps. *rimshot*
Incorrect. Average combat distance since, and including, WWII has been 100m. The long-barreled hunting rifle high-caliber mentality has been proven wrong repeatedly, and it took us many years to realize designs such as the StG-44 were the future of firearms. The Germans, British, rest of NATO, and Eastern Bloc realized this all long before we did, but our stubborn insistence that infantry combat was *exactly* like big game hunting held back weapon design by decades. Further, 5.56mm has a further advantage of reliably spalling and fragmenting, which has superior terminal ballistics to larger calibers that were ironically argued to be more deadly, which was not the case at all. That said, direct gas impingement is a terrible idea. But no, a bigger caliber would likely not improve anything for anyone.
Yeah... well, I've known French people IRL and online, and their main complaint regarding the US was the latency and time zone difference. None of them actually lived up to the "snobby French" stereotype. You also use a number of American English cliches and idioms that they never did. Sorry, but the kind of polemic angst you display is something typically entirely American, a product of our lovely partisan media. The only people I've *ever* seen display strong anti-Americanisms are... Americans. Your little rants are more anti-American than Juba the Baghdad Sniper propaganda. And that's saying a lot, cause the Iraqi insurgency ain't too fond of us. There's a good deal of the US with French ancestry, myself included. It would be ridiculous. Sorry. Don't see it. You're about as French as FPS Russia is Russian.
In case you wanted to use Google translate to paste something French-sounding in, allow me to preempt you: Gilles de Rais et de Jeanne D'Arc, héros national. Woah, I'm totally French. Or am I Russian? , , . (You won't find THAT phrase on Google) Point being, what people claim to be, and actually are on the internet are often two entirely different things.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you use incandescents during the winter when none of the heat is inefficient, or your state doesn't get much power from coal, your argument kind of falls apart, yet your language generalizes it onto everyone nonetheless.
Depends on where someone's electricity is from, doesn't it? A nuclear or hydroelectric plant driving an incandescent is much cleaner than coal driving a CFL. Not that environmentalists realize that, one look at the word "nucular" and it's caps lock time.
Humans most certainly can perceive 120Hz, and if you can't tell the difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz, you've either never owned a CRT monitor, or have serious disease or injury of your visual system and should seek medical attention.
And what about smaller appliance lights and such? There may not be enough thermal dissipation for a LED solution that provides an equivalent number of lumens, and smaller lighting of any type is generally less efficient. Halogen replacements don't necessarily exist here, either... nor LEDs at all.
CFLs are better in most situations, but not all.
I think he means in terms of mercury.
In some applications -- cold weather, very intermittent usage, high-vibration environments, over-insulated fixtures -- even the oldschool incandescents are more energy efficient than fluorescents. Sometimes, fluorescents just don't work very well (cold, intermittent use) and sometimes they die early.
Those are a minority of applications, yes... but they do exist. Not everyone uses lighting in the same way.
Those are teabaggers, not even conservatives; Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and even George W Bush all supported the shuttle program. And public education, for that matter.
How can anyone who wants to defund the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) call themselves a member of the party of Reagan? Madness.
But yes, it's quite sad to see regardless. If our educational system is gutted to save a couple of bucks, it doesn't bode well for the future of our country, our economy, or prosperity. And things like moon landings and space shuttles will seem like part of an unbelievable past.
I don't give a damn what political party you're a member of, that's a future every American should fear.
No, the problem is how that audience is *measured*. You might think that the Nielson ratings are a statistically valid cross-section of America. They are not.
Nielson, to their credit, did try to fix this... and were then sued by NewsCorp (owners of Fox) for "discrimination" against minority viewers (because they were over-represented in the sample groups relative to the general population). They settled out of court.
The problem isn't that people don't watch science fiction, the problem is the company measuring who is watching it is not doing so in any way even remotely statistically valid.
The overall effect of this is that the collected data is biased and shows/lineups are built around this. None of the networks want it to change, because they don't want to redo their lineups and entire programming. In the end, TV networks market not to consumers, but advertisers. Advertisers treat Nielson ratings as the word of God, and spend accordingly. There is little incentive for the system to change, as measuring demographics more accurately would reduce revenue.
And that's why you don't get to watch Stargate.
Dear Allah, do people even study history anymore? Ronald Reagan bombed the hell out of Libya, and they did very nasty things like shoot down a civilian airliner and other assorted acts of terrorism. The West didn't put this guy in power, nor did they like him-- in fact, the West really hated him. The US gets 0.00% of its oil from Libya. And he wasn't a friend and ally to the Eastern Bloc, either. He's just a batshit insane guy who likes having busty Ukrainian nurses follow him around. Not that there's anything wrong with busty Ukrainian nurses following you around...
I sincerely doubt anyone is going to lift a finger either way, which is sort of unfortunate as a lot of people are going to die, but there's probably no preventing that at this stage.
LTC Holmes was under investigation for misconduct -- going AWOL, abusing his position for profit, and surfing the web playing Facebook games instead of working. (a real REMF) Then after this comes to light, he suddenly started raising other allegations.
He's a Forward Support Team Chief from the 71st Theater Information Operations Group. The FST is NOT a "PSY-OPS" (sic) team. The General simply asked him to prepare some background information on people who were visiting-- there's nothing illegal about that, and he should've done his job.
Rolling Stones uses ridiculous language and implications to create the illusion that "PSYOP" are a bunch of Sith who go around using Jedi Mind Powers on the weak-willed to compel them to do their bidding. Here's what they actually do: drive around in Hummer, play loud music, and say really mean things about the Taliban's moms on a loudspeaker.
So exactly what would a PSYOP operation on a congressman entail? A couple tactical speaker monkeys following them around in a Hummer, playing loud music, and insulting their mother. It's not the kind of thing that gets you more funding, eh?
Visually and conceptually, yeah, it looks pretty much identical. But the design and mechanics of it diverged, and it's not at all the case they just copied the whole thing verbatim.
I think it would've been interesting to build a Space Shuttle 2.0, taking into account lessons learned with not only the Shuttle, but the Buran.
The Russians are interested in re-launching its development, so it's even something that could have been a collaborative project, which would benefit both of our space programs.
My bad, you're right. It's indeed 1.7bn, and I can't find a solid source for the cost without the spare components. Even if it were double that, though... the R&D has already been done so it still seems cheap relative to the Orion program cost.
Per-flight cost: the Wikipedia space shuttle article states the incremental per-flight costs are $60m.
NASA, however, states the total launch costs are $450m: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
I don't know what the true costs of a Soyuz launch are-- the $45m figure is just what the Russians charge us, btw.
Do me a favor, and stay out of public policy planning, or at least keep yourself to the local level. Nothing more than a county. You won't be able to screw things up too bad there.
Yes, hopefully this attitude will not reach a level of office beyond that which you can see Russia from.
Wow, and I thought I saw a lot of teabagging on XBox Live playing Halo.
Yeah, because NASA is such a huge overall expense, doesn't employ anyone or provide funding to contractors (Keynesian economics, ever hear of them?), and doesn't at all create technologies that have implications in civilian and military life, and numerous commercial applications far in excess of NASA's funding.
Just because you heard it on Rush doesn't mean it's a good idea.
What do you think modern air combat is, WWII style dogfights with machine guns? It's launching missiles at enemy aircraft you can't even see. He with the greatest range, wins.
No, the Orion was canceled. What received funding was something that *may* be based to some unknown extent off the Orion's design.
Lack of Wernher von Braun and Sergei Korolev, perhaps? There's really not been anyone with as strong as an influence in rocketry since.
itym "barely cheaper, possibly far more expensive". The Dragon will cost an estimated 300-400m per launch; the shuttle was 450m/launch. The shuttle could also hold almost twice the number of astronauts and a ton of cargo. The Dragon can't. The Soyuz is a much more cost-effective design than the Dragon, anyway, and one that's been proven to be quite safe. Aside from political reasons, spending money on the Dragon instead of the Soyuz makes little sense.
That's just not true.
Orion: 1.5bn per flight, $50bn spent on development before cancellation.
Shuttle: 450m per flight, 1.5bn per shuttle to build
Soyuz seats: $45 million each
SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight
For the amount we wasted on the ostensibly "cheaper" Orion program, with disposable components similar to the Apollo program, we could've built *11* new shuttles. The Shuttle also is far more capable, able to transfer a tremendous amount of cargo (the Orion / Soyuz fit in the cargo bay...) and hold nearly twice the number of astronauts for rescue missions.
The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design. (the SpaceShipOne/SpaceShipTwo are just X-15 / X-20 ripoffs and can only get 10% of the altitude needed to reach the ISS, they don't even count)
The Soyuz seats are probably the most cost-effective and time-tested design, but the Soyuz holds three people max, and in the past, two of those have always been cosmonauts.
The Russians developed a pretty nice shuttle of their own -- the Buran -- though the end of the Soviet Union doomed it.
I'm sorry it doesn't have a warp drive, subspace communicator, artificial gravity, or "inertial dampening" (whatever that is)... but the space shuttle is the most advanced spacecraft ever developed, and a very economical one at that. And we let it die. The canceled Orion program was a failure that was uneconomical, and the amount of money we blew on that could've gotten a lot more shuttle flights, or a great many Soyuz seats.
I hope we maintain good ties to Russia, because as of this June, the only way an American is getting into space -- or to the ISS -- is if they let us. Ironically, it will be on a rocket originally intended to deliver a nuclear warhead as an ICBM to us.
We're still in Afghanistan because the Taliban are still in Afghanistan. You know, those assholes from Pakistan? Regardless of what your opinion on the war is (hell, I think Iraq was a huge mistake) we still have an obligation to finish what we started. Not pull-out halfway through and create further instability and embolden more insurgency. (ie: Fallujah) Once you start a fight you have to commit to finishing it. If you want to just pull out, make the deaths of our soldiers meaningless, let our allies in the Afghan NP and Army get beheaded, and leave the country worse off than when we got there... well, "REMF" comes to mind.
And that might hold up for a hummer, but pretty soon you start running into things that seriously compromise the design for other purposes, like the F-35's VSTOL capabilities which require heavy tradeoffs even for the branches that don't plan on using that capability.
And the "modular" design starts to fall apart for things like weapon systems designed to replace the M16, M4, and M249 all in one go... as it turns out, the heat characteristics and barrel swapping needs of a LMG result in the modular design having very poor endurance, making a more specialized design far more effective.
Vehicles and weapon systems aren't like making programming libraries.
Yes, I'm sure giving the soldiers less air support, armor, and indirect fire assets is exactly what they need. Combined arms, lolwut? If only our Army had less funding, poorer support, less equipment and more infantry zerg... oh wait, we already have that. It's called the Marine Corps. *rimshot*
Incorrect. Average combat distance since, and including, WWII has been 100m. The long-barreled hunting rifle high-caliber mentality has been proven wrong repeatedly, and it took us many years to realize designs such as the StG-44 were the future of firearms. The Germans, British, rest of NATO, and Eastern Bloc realized this all long before we did, but our stubborn insistence that infantry combat was *exactly* like big game hunting held back weapon design by decades. Further, 5.56mm has a further advantage of reliably spalling and fragmenting, which has superior terminal ballistics to larger calibers that were ironically argued to be more deadly, which was not the case at all. That said, direct gas impingement is a terrible idea. But no, a bigger caliber would likely not improve anything for anyone.
Hah. I guess this thread software can't handle cyrillic unicode.
Yeah... well, I've known French people IRL and online, and their main complaint regarding the US was the latency and time zone difference. None of them actually lived up to the "snobby French" stereotype. You also use a number of American English cliches and idioms that they never did. Sorry, but the kind of polemic angst you display is something typically entirely American, a product of our lovely partisan media. The only people I've *ever* seen display strong anti-Americanisms are ... Americans. Your little rants are more anti-American than Juba the Baghdad Sniper propaganda. And that's saying a lot, cause the Iraqi insurgency ain't too fond of us. There's a good deal of the US with French ancestry, myself included. It would be ridiculous. Sorry. Don't see it. You're about as French as FPS Russia is Russian.
In case you wanted to use Google translate to paste something French-sounding in, allow me to preempt you: Gilles de Rais et de Jeanne D'Arc, héros national. Woah, I'm totally French. Or am I Russian? , , . (You won't find THAT phrase on Google) Point being, what people claim to be, and actually are on the internet are often two entirely different things.