Ok, she is not so stupid as to think she has an actual chance, just like many of the other contenders. So I am wondering, why does someone like her DO this? Status? Getting to be in the public eye? Bordom? Demonstration wealth by wasting it and impressing the neighbors?
What do these 'no chance' candidates get for all the time and energy they put into these runs?
Even if she had been a successful CEO, CEOs have about as much knowledge of 'how the economy works' as web developers have about semiconductor design. She knows how to use the economy, but how it works or how to build an efficient one is a completely different skillset.
Or for that matter, anyone who manages to become the CEO of a major company like HP. You gotta have ego to get there, and after that, by our social standards, the person IS better than most people so to many the self image is justified. Well, unless one is a woman, then 'she has a big ego!'
Actually, I would describe the US Navy as being pretty crackpot heavy. ONR houses a rather.. ahm.. special.. community of researchers who go down all sorts of off the wall paths.
It depends. Prior art might invalidate it, or they might have a section in the patent referencing the earlier material and how they build off of it. Either way, the process of finding out is expensive.
No argument there. I am not against the projects in any way, I am just a bit skeptical of how people are presenting them in terms of advancing spaceflight.
Though economic stimulation is always a mixed bag since while it does involve a whole watershed of people getting paid, the outcome is inconsumable and is essentially waste. So it produces on spurt of rearranging but then those resources exit the economy, resulting in net shrinkage.
Not to say countless other endeavors do not do the same thing of course ^_^
"Physics Envy" is a good way of putting it. "hard' sciences are almost trivial by comparison, but tend to get more respect since they can deliver nice simple answers. Must suck to be working on really complex problems and be treated like you are not 'real scientists' by people doing the easy stuff.
A somewhat more expanded question would be, why are these companies developing suborbital rockets in the first place?
They are neat projects, and they have tourist potential, but it sounds like in general these are not designs that can be scaled up to orbital capabilities, and suborbital has fairly limited applications.
It kinda gives the feeling that these projects are 'rich people having fun' as opposed to something that has market or research value.
Having lived in pittsburgh and gotten to talk to people who lived through that exact type of thing happening when the city was under more private control... yeah,.. the problem is that other devil is also known, and it was worse compared to police powers today.
Well, they do happen, but they are not what techno-libertarians picture when they wax eloquent about the coming citizen uprising. They tend to look more like what has been happening in Baltimore and are driven by actual 'impacts your life' lower class people, as opposed to 'minor inconvenience, philosophically unhappy, and would be richer if not for the government and minorities stealing my wealth!' middle class ones
How dare the government stop you from putting your boot on people's necks! It is infringing your freedom to infringe others! It is their own fault for not doing it first after all.
*nods* good project planning will generally borrow or choose elements of both patterns depending on the specific needs of a project. I have worked in places that jump between nearly pure version (and points in between) based off what we are actually doing and the constraints placed upon the project by, well, reality.;
Thing is, if current resources were passed around more evenly, the vast majority of the population would get a large increase in quality of life. A tiny percentage get nearly all the wealth (on a world level, it is something like 2% get 98%), so removing those top leeches would free up a huge amount of resources for everyone else.
Ahm, libertarianism at its core is the desire to have power for themselves and trample others, with the focus being on preventing government from protecting those weaker than themselves.
Well, yes, that is how representation works. Even in an ideal situation, the general public has to choose between supporting one of a number of representative entities who hold direct power. Each of those entities has its own priorities and philosophies, and one generally choose which of them align best with their own interests.
However, in all of those examples, what you are describing are the tools of politics, not the policies. They both tend to agree on how to accumulate power, but not agree on what they want to do with it.
In general if you look at the donor list, they all come from the same strata of society but represent opposing cultures within that strata. Granted, picking either party is a vote for the wealthy controlling the country, but they are still a fairly diverse bunch and you can pick and choose who's goals align with your own.
*nod* one of IBM's classic selling points is they are not an agile shop. If they start using it, there will be less to differentiate themselves from the more common and cheaper alternatives. Big Design Up Front tends to be kinda expensive and constricting, but can be a really good alternative depending on your needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, she is not so stupid as to think she has an actual chance, just like many of the other contenders. So I am wondering, why does someone like her DO this? Status? Getting to be in the public eye? Bordom? Demonstration wealth by wasting it and impressing the neighbors?
What do these 'no chance' candidates get for all the time and energy they put into these runs?
Except for all those reporters they sent to Chicago.
Even if she had been a successful CEO, CEOs have about as much knowledge of 'how the economy works' as web developers have about semiconductor design. She knows how to use the economy, but how it works or how to build an efficient one is a completely different skillset.
Or for that matter, anyone who manages to become the CEO of a major company like HP. You gotta have ego to get there, and after that, by our social standards, the person IS better than most people so to many the self image is justified. Well, unless one is a woman, then 'she has a big ego!'
People who have money tend to feel entitled to it, and have an interest in ensuring others do not rise behind them.
In other words, they are doing the most profitable things
Actually, I would describe the US Navy as being pretty crackpot heavy. ONR houses a rather.. ahm.. special.. community of researchers who go down all sorts of off the wall paths.
The experiment being discussed was done at a NASA lab by NASA people.
It depends. Prior art might invalidate it, or they might have a section in the patent referencing the earlier material and how they build off of it. Either way, the process of finding out is expensive.
No argument there. I am not against the projects in any way, I am just a bit skeptical of how people are presenting them in terms of advancing spaceflight.
Though economic stimulation is always a mixed bag since while it does involve a whole watershed of people getting paid, the outcome is inconsumable and is essentially waste. So it produces on spurt of rearranging but then those resources exit the economy, resulting in net shrinkage.
Not to say countless other endeavors do not do the same thing of course ^_^
"Physics Envy" is a good way of putting it. "hard' sciences are almost trivial by comparison, but tend to get more respect since they can deliver nice simple answers. Must suck to be working on really complex problems and be treated like you are not 'real scientists' by people doing the easy stuff.
A somewhat more expanded question would be, why are these companies developing suborbital rockets in the first place?
They are neat projects, and they have tourist potential, but it sounds like in general these are not designs that can be scaled up to orbital capabilities, and suborbital has fairly limited applications.
It kinda gives the feeling that these projects are 'rich people having fun' as opposed to something that has market or research value.
Without government, the powerful still get all those 'special benefits', only there is even less way to stop them.
Having lived in pittsburgh and gotten to talk to people who lived through that exact type of thing happening when the city was under more private control... yeah,.. the problem is that other devil is also known, and it was worse compared to police powers today.
Well, they do happen, but they are not what techno-libertarians picture when they wax eloquent about the coming citizen uprising. They tend to look more like what has been happening in Baltimore and are driven by actual 'impacts your life' lower class people, as opposed to 'minor inconvenience, philosophically unhappy, and would be richer if not for the government and minorities stealing my wealth!' middle class ones
*nod* BTC is generally a bad solution, but it is better than worse ones.
How dare the government stop you from putting your boot on people's necks! It is infringing your freedom to infringe others! It is their own fault for not doing it first after all.
*nods* good project planning will generally borrow or choose elements of both patterns depending on the specific needs of a project. I have worked in places that jump between nearly pure version (and points in between) based off what we are actually doing and the constraints placed upon the project by, well, reality.;
Thing is, if current resources were passed around more evenly, the vast majority of the population would get a large increase in quality of life. A tiny percentage get nearly all the wealth (on a world level, it is something like 2% get 98%), so removing those top leeches would free up a huge amount of resources for everyone else.
Ahm, libertarianism at its core is the desire to have power for themselves and trample others, with the focus being on preventing government from protecting those weaker than themselves.
Well, yes, that is how representation works. Even in an ideal situation, the general public has to choose between supporting one of a number of representative entities who hold direct power. Each of those entities has its own priorities and philosophies, and one generally choose which of them align best with their own interests.
However, in all of those examples, what you are describing are the tools of politics, not the policies. They both tend to agree on how to accumulate power, but not agree on what they want to do with it.
In general if you look at the donor list, they all come from the same strata of society but represent opposing cultures within that strata. Granted, picking either party is a vote for the wealthy controlling the country, but they are still a fairly diverse bunch and you can pick and choose who's goals align with your own.
*nod* one of IBM's classic selling points is they are not an agile shop. If they start using it, there will be less to differentiate themselves from the more common and cheaper alternatives. Big Design Up Front tends to be kinda expensive and constricting, but can be a really good alternative depending on your needs.
Maybe the transition is taking longer than they thought?