Freedom either is 100% or is not. Freedom at 99.99% is not freedom.
Not at all. You can be more or less free.
I detest all these idiotic absolutist concepts, that divide everything into absolute categories. By eliminating all gradiations, you end up lumping everything together. "In Connecticut you can get a ticket for littering if you drop a cigarette butt on the ground, therefore Connecticut is just as bad as Nazi Germany, they're both authoritarian states."
You are conflating the two definitions of meme. Richard Dawkins coined the term meme to refer to what you just stated... but the newer definition is (and what the posts are talking about) are the more contemporary uses of meme images, generally referred to as "memes"
That's why I call the other one-- typically a picture with a short sarcastic caption-- a photosnark.
"Meme" is a word for the carrying of information, in the concept that information can spread and mutate, in analogy to genes carrying genetic information.
What they're talking about criminalizing is photosnarks.
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate.
The material below the canopy that's decaying is, of course, returning to the atmosphere carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the forest in the first place: net carbon emissions, zero.
Old growth forests are, for the most part, very close to net carbon neutral.
To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the biomass produced has to be sequestered.
The headline and summary makes it sound like it is a large effect. It's not.
The estimate was 25% too low, and "All told, reservoirs used for everything from power to flood control to irrigation account for roughly 1.3 percent of our global carbon footprint, much higher than previous estimates." Wow. We're talking about a 1.3 percent contribution, and the original estimate was off by 25%.
So, the original estimate undercounted greenhouse emissions by a little under half a percent.
Enable AMBER alerts. The AMBER alerts are designed and function explicitly to broaden the search for people harming kids.
That's what they are sold to the public as being.
What they actually are is a big hammer that divorced couples who hate each other can use against each other in custody disputes.
"But the system rarely works as well as that. In a 2008 article in Criminal Justice Review titled “Child Abduction, AMBER Alert, and Crime Control Theater,” Timothy Griffin and Monica K. Miller argued that “AMBER Alert has not achieved and probably cannot achieve the ambitious goals that inspired its creation.” Griffin and Miller examined data from hundreds of AMBER Alerts issued between 2003 and 2006, and dubbed the AMBER Alert system a “theatrical policy” that was largely ineffective in helping save kidnapped children. “In most cases where they were issued, Griffin found, Amber Alerts played no role in the eventual return of abducted children,” the Boston Globe wrote in 2008. “Their successes were generally in child custody fights that didn't pose a risk to the child. And in those rare instances where kidnappers did intend to rape or kill the child, Amber Alerts usually failed to save lives.”...
"...those sorts of kidnappings are very rare. The vast majority of child abductions in this country are committed by relatives or acquaintances—estranged parents and such who usually mean the children no harm. Even though AMBER Alerts are only supposed to be issued in “the most serious child-abduction cases,” they are nevertheless used in domestic cases like these—cases where, Griffin argues, AMBER Alerts might actually serve to escalate an otherwise manageable situation. "
After the alert mechanism was misused in my state for an Amber alert for an incident hundreds of miles away, I turned these alerts off.
Exactly the same here: After I was woken up from sleep at 2AM by an Amber Alert for a child that purportedly missing 200 miles away (who turned out to be with her father) I turned the alerts OFF.
There are also the small matter that due to glaciation there would have been much less plant life, and animal life to either consume or exhale CO into the atmosphere. In addition those same ice sheets also increase the albedo of the planet, reflecting more sunlight than it would have otherwise, which would also have impact not only on temperature but potentially the interaction of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
This is a good part of the criticism of interpreting her correlation. Much of the correlation comes during the retreat of glaciers from the northern hemisphere. But the glaciers have mostly already retreated from the northern hemisphere-- this effect isn't likely to operate.
That said I think it is a no brainer that there is obvious correlation of CO and temperature. Only that it isn't that simple in all but probably the models being built.
The modelers have a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemma. When the models are simple, people snipe "but the models are too simple; they can't be right." And then when the models are more complicated, people snipe "but the models are too complicated; you can't understand all those feedback loops."
Heck the simple fact that there are Billions more mouth breathers on Earth are likely going to impact the CO levels regardless of industrialization and using sequestered carbon sources (oil, coal, wood, etc...).
Respiration turns out to be a pretty trivial source of carbon dioxide.
(Cutting down forests, though, may be more important effect.)
...The issue is, and always has been a political one and convincing less developed countries to not do what the developed countries did to get ahead, which as you can imagine is pretty hard to do.
If the developed countries find ways to maintain a high standard of living with less carbon usage, I think it's likely that the less developed countries will adopt the same approaches.
...It is all well and good for countries to try and limit their production of CO, but ultimately to do so they tank their own economies (and election hopes), for little good when other countries do not follow suit and are not about to.
It has been a right-wing obsession that reducing carbon dioxide emissions must "tank the economy" but I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. We are very very good at resource substitution. Energy is a resource. There is no physical reason we need to burn six tons of carbon per person per year to maintain our standard of living, we just happen to find it convenient to do so.
In the end, it really is a technical problem, and, hard though it is to believe it in this cynical era, we are actually very good at solving technical problems.
Space ex has a failure rate 10 times worse. The FAA needs to step in and force them to take safety seriously.
Failing, as it turns out, is an effective way of trying new things and finding out what works. Painful, but very very effective.
The best thing about SpaceX is that they aren't afraid of failure.
The worst thing that could happen would be if the FAA steps in and no longer allows companies to fail. If you aren't allowed to fail, you're not allowed to innovate. The only way to take the chance of doing new things is by taking the risk of failure.
Or, to use a quote: “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”
Look, we know Juno wasn't designed for this sort of mission and is not well equipped or positioned for it. But if researchers determine that its observations could help pinpoint more details of the plumes...
But they can't. Juno isn't a mission to look at Jupiter's moons, it's not in the right orbit to look at Jupiter's moons, it doesn't have instruments to look at Jupiter's moons. It's designed for looking at Jupiter and Jupiter's plasma and field environment.
Isn't vacuum always cold? I fail to see how it could have a temperature above 0K.
Vacuum in itself has no temperature at all. "No temperature" is not the same as 0 Kelvin.
The temperature of something IN a vacuum is determined by the sources heating it and the infrared radiation outward from it. Initially, water exposed to vacuum will start to boil; the boiling will reduce the temperature (losing the heat of vaporization), and the lower temperature will freeze the water. So, in fact, it will boil and freeze at the same time, resulting in ice particles AND an expanding cloud of water vapor.
...then massive, costly, and punitive CO2 mitigation schemes become pointless and wasteful.
It is a political talking point that doing anything to address the production of CO2 will be "massive, costly, and punitive". Since the response of the fossil fuel industry has been "do everything possible to cast doubt on the fact that a problem even exists, and divert all attention away from realistic thinking about possible ways to address the problem", though, this has never been thought through.
The problem being that a non-existent 'climate crisis' allows governments, politicians, and their bureaucracies unprecedented powers and control that they will never willingly give up.
It is a right wing talking point that if climate change is real, then the only possible way to address it is to give "governments, politicians, and their bureaucracies unprecedented powers and control."
I find it amusing that the right wing's only approach to the problem is to say that if the problem is real we need to give governments more power. It's as if their political philosophies don't have any tools to solve problems other than "give the government more power."
I think you have that backwards. Snyder is saying that the historical record shows that the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide is much HIGHER than the GISS estimates. Gavin Schmidt's comment is, basically, that her data shows correlation, not causation.
I took away from her study that, as far as she could extrapolate from the available data on climate/temperature cycles going back 2 million years, that we were pretty much smack at the point of the two curves one would expect during this point in time, so to speak, on both CO2 and temperature and from that lack of deviation from expected norms then suggesting that humans have had little if any significant effect on global temperature averages
In that case, you are misled by a misinterpretation of her results.
She looked at temperature and carbon dioxide with five thousand year averaging. Five thousand year averaging says absolutely nothing about the effects of industrialization-- we don't even show up in her data. With averaging on five-thousand year bins, you only see effects on time scales that are long compared to five thousand years.
, and that the warming that is occurring and will continue for a long time at pretty much the same average rate is pretty well inevitable given past history with or without human industrialization.
A more accurate statement of that : "The activities of humans over the last 100 years have not had an effect that is yet visible on a graph plotted over million-year time scales."
To which one could accurately add: "yet".
Seeing as how industrialization in it's entirety has failed to have been shown to appreciably affect global temperature changes
..enough to be evident over million-year time scales.
I think you have that backwards. Snyder is saying that the historical record shows that the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide is much HIGHER than the GISS estimates.
Gavin Schmidt's comment is, basically, that her data shows correlation, not causation.
This is completely bizarre. Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition. I'm not sure how he can "agree to go to prison" when he hasn't been charged with a crime. The U.S. doesn't actually let people go to prison just because they want to; they have to be found guilty of a crime.
Assange is wanted in Sweden (although so far he's only wanted for questioning.)
Assange is wanted in Britain-- for jumping bail.
But he's not wanted for a crime in the U.S. He could agree to go to prison in Sweden or Britain-- why doesn't he volunteer to do that?
... Actually, correction. It's quite possible to think in terms of black and white when dealing with law and order.
I think you've nailed it there. It's very easy for the security people to see things in black and white; that anything that gives them more power to stop the bad guys-- and there actually are bad guys here, you know-- has to be good, and anybody who tries to limit that power has to be bad.
Both. The daughter suing her parents over this is absurd but the parents not removing them when it evidently upsets her this much is appalling.
So, what should she do if her parents refuse to remove photos, including her "sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot"?
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
The quoted line was the part to which my statement "There were no people at the site of there rocket" was directly a response. (If I had editing capability, that would have been "the" rocket).
The remainder of my post was commentary on the thread, not specifically on your post to the thread.
What is scary is if Musk has already decided they will resume so quickly even if they have not determined the cause.
Everything SpaceX does is always attributed to Musk. The actual article attributes the quote to Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX.
She was speaking at a conference. Somebody asked when they'd be likely to start flying again, and she gave a best guess. This is not a firm commitment to fly whether or not they have found and fixed the problem, it's just a best guess about how long the process will take.
My personal best guess is that a failure review for a non-manned system takes about six months (after their June 2015 failure launches resumed in December, for example) so I think she is a little optimistic, but she probably would prefer to err on the side of optimism.
There would have been two 'bangs' perceived by people at the site of the rocket,
There were no people at the site of there rocket.
But in any case, no, a rifle bullet wouldn't make a rocket explode. You slashdotters watch too many Hollywood action movies. It might poke a hole in a tank and make propellant gush out, but that wasn't the failure.
Without more details on exactly what happened, it's a little impossible to attribute it to sabotage. What we know is that the site of the explosion wasn't where we would have expected a problem to start, but that's non-informative, since if they expected a failure, they would have fixed that problem; any failure is going to have something unexpected about it.
The subheading says "He says it will fly before the end of the decade". That's four years from now, not ten.
Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines. Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom either is 100% or is not. Freedom at 99.99% is not freedom.
Not at all. You can be more or less free.
I detest all these idiotic absolutist concepts, that divide everything into absolute categories. By eliminating all gradiations, you end up lumping everything together. "In Connecticut you can get a ticket for littering if you drop a cigarette butt on the ground, therefore Connecticut is just as bad as Nazi Germany, they're both authoritarian states."
No. There are shades of difference.
You are conflating the two definitions of meme. Richard Dawkins coined the term meme to refer to what you just stated... but the newer definition is (and what the posts are talking about) are the more contemporary uses of meme images, generally referred to as "memes"
That's why I call the other one-- typically a picture with a short sarcastic caption-- a photosnark.
"Meme" is a word for the carrying of information, in the concept that information can spread and mutate, in analogy to genes carrying genetic information.
What they're talking about criminalizing is photosnarks.
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate.
The material below the canopy that's decaying is, of course, returning to the atmosphere carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the forest in the first place: net carbon emissions, zero.
Old growth forests are, for the most part, very close to net carbon neutral.
To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the biomass produced has to be sequestered.
Windows Hello? But, when do I get my Windows Hello Kitty?
The headline and summary makes it sound like it is a large effect. It's not.
The estimate was 25% too low, and
"All told, reservoirs used for everything from power to flood control to irrigation account for roughly 1.3 percent of our global carbon footprint, much higher than previous estimates."
Wow. We're talking about a 1.3 percent contribution, and the original estimate was off by 25%.
So, the original estimate undercounted greenhouse emissions by a little under half a percent.
Some other sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/whoops-dams-and-reservoirs-release-tons-greenhouse-gases-180960645/?no-ist
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-just-discovered-a-major-new-source-of-carbon-1787222994
Enable AMBER alerts. The AMBER alerts are designed and function explicitly to broaden the search for people harming kids.
That's what they are sold to the public as being.
What they actually are is a big hammer that divorced couples who hate each other can use against each other in custody disputes.
"But the system rarely works as well as that. In a 2008 article in Criminal Justice Review titled “Child Abduction, AMBER Alert, and Crime Control Theater,” Timothy Griffin and Monica K. Miller argued that “AMBER Alert has not achieved and probably cannot achieve the ambitious goals that inspired its creation.” Griffin and Miller examined data from hundreds of AMBER Alerts issued between 2003 and 2006, and dubbed the AMBER Alert system a “theatrical policy” that was largely ineffective in helping save kidnapped children. “In most cases where they were issued, Griffin found, Amber Alerts played no role in the eventual return of abducted children,” the Boston Globe wrote in 2008. “Their successes were generally in child custody fights that didn't pose a risk to the child. And in those rare instances where kidnappers did intend to rape or kill the child, Amber Alerts usually failed to save lives.” ...
"...those sorts of kidnappings are very rare. The vast majority of child abductions in this country are committed by relatives or acquaintances—estranged parents and such who usually mean the children no harm. Even though AMBER Alerts are only supposed to be issued in “the most serious child-abduction cases,” they are nevertheless used in domestic cases like these—cases where, Griffin argues, AMBER Alerts might actually serve to escalate an otherwise manageable situation. "
Reference: http://www.slate.com/blogs/cri...
After the alert mechanism was misused in my state for an Amber alert for an incident hundreds of miles away, I turned these alerts off.
Exactly the same here: After I was woken up from sleep at 2AM by an Amber Alert for a child that purportedly missing 200 miles away (who turned out to be with her father) I turned the alerts OFF.
However, in their favor, the adjustments to the alert system also are going to improve the geographical targetting, so that they will be more narrowly broadcast to just the areas affected:
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...
There are also the small matter that due to glaciation there would have been much less plant life, and animal life to either consume or exhale CO into the atmosphere. In addition those same ice sheets also increase the albedo of the planet, reflecting more sunlight than it would have otherwise, which would also have impact not only on temperature but potentially the interaction of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
This is a good part of the criticism of interpreting her correlation. Much of the correlation comes during the retreat of glaciers from the northern hemisphere. But the glaciers have mostly already retreated from the northern hemisphere-- this effect isn't likely to operate.
That said I think it is a no brainer that there is obvious correlation of CO and temperature. Only that it isn't that simple in all but probably the models being built.
The modelers have a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemma. When the models are simple, people snipe "but the models are too simple; they can't be right." And then when the models are more complicated, people snipe "but the models are too complicated; you can't understand all those feedback loops."
Heck the simple fact that there are Billions more mouth breathers on Earth are likely going to impact the CO levels regardless of industrialization and using sequestered carbon sources (oil, coal, wood, etc...).
Respiration turns out to be a pretty trivial source of carbon dioxide.
(Cutting down forests, though, may be more important effect.)
...The issue is, and always has been a political one and convincing less developed countries to not do what the developed countries did to get ahead, which as you can imagine is pretty hard to do.
If the developed countries find ways to maintain a high standard of living with less carbon usage, I think it's likely that the less developed countries will adopt the same approaches.
...It is all well and good for countries to try and limit their production of CO, but ultimately to do so they tank their own economies (and election hopes), for little good when other countries do not follow suit and are not about to.
It has been a right-wing obsession that reducing carbon dioxide emissions must "tank the economy" but I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. We are very very good at resource substitution. Energy is a resource. There is no physical reason we need to burn six tons of carbon per person per year to maintain our standard of living, we just happen to find it convenient to do so.
In the end, it really is a technical problem, and, hard though it is to believe it in this cynical era, we are actually very good at solving technical problems.
And that's different from NASA/Energia how?
Space ex has a failure rate 10 times worse. The FAA needs to step in and force them to take safety seriously.
Failing, as it turns out, is an effective way of trying new things and finding out what works. Painful, but very very effective.
The best thing about SpaceX is that they aren't afraid of failure.
The worst thing that could happen would be if the FAA steps in and no longer allows companies to fail. If you aren't allowed to fail, you're not allowed to innovate. The only way to take the chance of doing new things is by taking the risk of failure.
Or, to use a quote: “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”
Look, we know Juno wasn't designed for this sort of mission and is not well equipped or positioned for it. But if researchers determine that its observations could help pinpoint more details of the plumes...
But they can't. Juno isn't a mission to look at Jupiter's moons, it's not in the right orbit to look at Jupiter's moons, it doesn't have instruments to look at Jupiter's moons. It's designed for looking at Jupiter and Jupiter's plasma and field environment.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_p...
There's already a mission planned to investigate Europa: Europa clipper.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-rele...
Isn't vacuum always cold? I fail to see how it could have a temperature above 0K.
Vacuum in itself has no temperature at all. "No temperature" is not the same as 0 Kelvin.
The temperature of something IN a vacuum is determined by the sources heating it and the infrared radiation outward from it. Initially, water exposed to vacuum will start to boil; the boiling will reduce the temperature (losing the heat of vaporization), and the lower temperature will freeze the water. So, in fact, it will boil and freeze at the same time, resulting in ice particles AND an expanding cloud of water vapor.
I got cooled to absolute zero, but I'm 0K now.
Cute.
...then massive, costly, and punitive CO2 mitigation schemes become pointless and wasteful.
It is a political talking point that doing anything to address the production of CO2 will be "massive, costly, and punitive". Since the response of the fossil fuel industry has been "do everything possible to cast doubt on the fact that a problem even exists, and divert all attention away from realistic thinking about possible ways to address the problem", though, this has never been thought through.
The problem being that a non-existent 'climate crisis' allows governments, politicians, and their bureaucracies unprecedented powers and control that they will never willingly give up.
It is a right wing talking point that if climate change is real, then the only possible way to address it is to give "governments, politicians, and their bureaucracies unprecedented powers and control."
I find it amusing that the right wing's only approach to the problem is to say that if the problem is real we need to give governments more power. It's as if their political philosophies don't have any tools to solve problems other than "give the government more power."
I think you have that backwards. Snyder is saying that the historical record shows that the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide is much HIGHER than the GISS estimates. Gavin Schmidt's comment is, basically, that her data shows correlation, not causation.
I took away from her study that, as far as she could extrapolate from the available data on climate/temperature cycles going back 2 million years, that we were pretty much smack at the point of the two curves one would expect during this point in time, so to speak, on both CO2 and temperature and from that lack of deviation from expected norms then suggesting that humans have had little if any significant effect on global temperature averages
In that case, you are misled by a misinterpretation of her results.
She looked at temperature and carbon dioxide with five thousand year averaging. Five thousand year averaging says absolutely nothing about the effects of industrialization-- we don't even show up in her data. With averaging on five-thousand year bins, you only see effects on time scales that are long compared to five thousand years.
, and that the warming that is occurring and will continue for a long time at pretty much the same average rate is pretty well inevitable given past history with or without human industrialization.
A more accurate statement of that : "The activities of humans over the last 100 years have not had an effect that is yet visible on a graph plotted over million-year time scales."
To which one could accurately add: "yet".
Seeing as how industrialization in it's entirety has failed to have been shown to appreciably affect global temperature changes
..enough to be evident over million-year time scales.
it would only take one Krakatoa to push us back into an ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa
Krakatoa's eruption did not, in fact, push us into a glaciation, so your assertion is experimentally falsified.
I think you have that backwards. Snyder is saying that the historical record shows that the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide is much HIGHER than the GISS estimates.
Gavin Schmidt's comment is, basically, that her data shows correlation, not causation.
This is completely bizarre. Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition. I'm not sure how he can "agree to go to prison" when he hasn't been charged with a crime. The U.S. doesn't actually let people go to prison just because they want to; they have to be found guilty of a crime.
Assange is wanted in Sweden (although so far he's only wanted for questioning.)
Assange is wanted in Britain-- for jumping bail.
But he's not wanted for a crime in the U.S. He could agree to go to prison in Sweden or Britain-- why doesn't he volunteer to do that?
Uh, nobody else sees this as a series of single point failures queued up to happen?
If the PC is tampered with, it will trigger an alert and erase the PC's encryption key, making the data totally inaccessible."...
Any attempts to trick, bypass, or short the wire mesh will cause the encryption key to be deleted....
... a setting that will wipe or lock down the PC's data if it is moved to another location...
So, if there's a bug in the security program, or in the operating system, or in the sensors, it wipes your data.
... Actually, correction. It's quite possible to think in terms of black and white when dealing with law and order.
I think you've nailed it there. It's very easy for the security people to see things in black and white; that anything that gives them more power to stop the bad guys-- and there actually are bad guys here, you know-- has to be good, and anybody who tries to limit that power has to be bad.
Both. The daughter suing her parents over this is absurd but the parents not removing them when it evidently upsets her this much is appalling.
So, what should she do if her parents refuse to remove photos, including her "sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot"?
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
The quoted line was the part to which my statement "There were no people at the site of there rocket" was directly a response.
(If I had editing capability, that would have been "the" rocket).
The remainder of my post was commentary on the thread, not specifically on your post to the thread.
What is scary is if Musk has already decided they will resume so quickly even if they have not determined the cause.
Everything SpaceX does is always attributed to Musk. The actual article attributes the quote to Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX.
She was speaking at a conference. Somebody asked when they'd be likely to start flying again, and she gave a best guess. This is not a firm commitment to fly whether or not they have found and fixed the problem, it's just a best guess about how long the process will take.
My personal best guess is that a failure review for a non-manned system takes about six months (after their June 2015 failure launches resumed in December, for example) so I think she is a little optimistic, but she probably would prefer to err on the side of optimism.
There would have been two 'bangs' perceived by people at the site of the rocket,
There were no people at the site of there rocket.
But in any case, no, a rifle bullet wouldn't make a rocket explode. You slashdotters watch too many Hollywood action movies. It might poke a hole in a tank and make propellant gush out, but that wasn't the failure.
Without more details on exactly what happened, it's a little impossible to attribute it to sabotage. What we know is that the site of the explosion wasn't where we would have expected a problem to start, but that's non-informative, since if they expected a failure, they would have fixed that problem; any failure is going to have something unexpected about it.
I really enjoyed Eric Drexler's seminal work, "Engines of Creation," even if he was off the mark about timelines and how nanotech would evolve.
His second book, Nanosystems, has a lot more realism in it.
Rushed into service 10 years from now?
The subheading says "He says it will fly before the end of the decade". That's four years from now, not ten.
Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines. Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.