Idealists can run easily run a corporation at a profit. Fools can not
Isn't that what I said?
Fools can not. I've got a Buddhist friend who owns a medium sized bakery business that specifically employs ex-cons, runaways, homeless folks, and so forth. He operates it at a small, reasonable profit
Unless these cons/runaways/etc are living in China, I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
Just admit that you aren't an idealist and you don't care about others; you don't need to put idealists down just because you aren't one.
Quite the contrary - I have a wide variety of idealistic desires. I just do my best not to let them get in the way of reality. It's always a huge mistake to confuse your own view of what "should be" with what is.
You could say the same thing about any Communist nation which has ever existed, and I've heard people make that argument. It's just another example of the No-True-Scotsman fallacy.
(although, to be fair, in the case of China, at present, you're probably right)
Well, maybe if the idealistic fools are on the board of large corporations, that would change
Ah, more idealism:)
If these idealistic fools were on the boards of large corporations, those corporations would shortly find their profit margins disappearing, their stock plummeting, and their shareholders knocking on the door brandishing torches and pitchforks. Idealism can't compete with economics.
With that said, there ARE ways to improve living conditions, over time. We know what they are. We've known it for quite a while. The basics are relatively simple:
1. Provide a stable government which supports individual liberty and encourages entrepreneurship. 2. Provide good-quality basic education to everyone, and make it mandatory for children. 3. Create a reliable system of communication and uncensored information exchange, as well as some form of transportation that is available and affordable for the majority of the population. 4. Last, but certainly not least, make women the legal and social equals of men, with the same rights, benefits, and access to education and communication.
That's pretty much it. Unfortunately, those are not things which we can force on people, and they're certainly not something that corporations can provide. However, it's much easier to just blame those evil "fat-cats" than to actually look at the massive undertaking which would be required in order to achieve global prosperity.
'I know I can choose not to work overtime, but if I don't work overtime then I am stuck with only 770 Chinese yuan (£72.77p) per month in basic wages,' the worker said.
'This is not nearly enough to support a family. My parents are farmers without jobs. They also do not have pensions.
'I also need to worry about getting married, which requires a lot of money. Therefore, I still push myself to continue working in spite of my exhaustion.
Regardless of the working conditions, these people are there because they have needs and desires the same as the rest of us. They work there because there is no other work available, or the work that is available is even worse. That's the state that the majority of the world is in, and it won't be changed by any number of idealistic fools opining about the immorality of large corporations.
Presumably the advantages of turbines only kick in at larger sizes, since you still find piston engines on puddlejumpers.
I think it's more a question of cost. A turbojet powered "puddle-jumper" would weigh less and have more power than it's piston powered equivalent, but would cost significantly more.
With that said, there are some small turboprop-powered aircraft on the market. Here's one example.
P.S. When you say a Lancaster, do you mean the Lancaster? Mod me jealous!
Yeah, there are still a few in museums, but as far as I know there are only two that can still fly - one in Canada and one in the UK. It was a real privilege to take part in servicing such an iconic piece of our history, even if it was just a fuel job. Made me feel all tingly inside:)
FYI, the group which operates the Canadian Lancaster (the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum) does offer flights to the public, but it'll cost you. IIRC, for about $2,000 they'll take you up for an hour or so, and they'll throw in a flight on one of their WW2-era fighters as a bonus. It's pricey, but the proceeds go to maintaining the museum and you get a donation-receipt for a large chunk of it. They also offer flights on other aircraft at much lower prices. If you're in Canada, you might want to check it out.
Re:We need to get our feet wet.
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 1
You just send more robots or remote presence systems. It'll *always* be cheaper than sending an actual person there.
Right. Because spending 5 years building a suitable repair robot and waiting for it to arrive at the target site is peanuts. Lost revenue? Wazzat?
You have the same problem with robotic exploration - you send a probe to Mars that can dig 6 inches. You spend 5 years building it and waiting for it to arrive, only to realize that you actually needed to dig 12 inches. So you spend ANOTHER 5 years building/sending one that can dig down 18 (we want to be proactive this time!) inches... only to figure out that you need one with the ability to analyze the stuff it finds. So you spend ANOTHER.... yeah, you get the point. I know that most people who spend their free time on slashdot probably think that time has no value. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that belief is wrong. If it takes you 15 years to put together a manned mission that can do as much as 100 years worth of robotic exploration, then the mission is worthwhile even if it costs an order of magnitude more. TIME HAS VALUE.
You mean piston-engined planes, as there are planes (and helicopters) powered by "jet-like" engines.
They're not "jet-like", they ARE jet engines. The fact that they have a propeller attached to them instead of a fan is entirely irrelevant.
However, piston-engined planes went out of fashion sometime around 1960, as they are much more maintenance-intensive.
They "went out of fashion" because they simply can't compete with the power output of jet engines. About a year ago I was working at an airshow at an Airforce base, and had the privilege to refuel an old WW2-era Avro Lancaster bomber. The biggest thing that surprised me was just how small it was. I mean, the height and wingspan were close to the modern cargo aircraft being used on that base, but it looked so flimsy. It was so cramped. Out of curiosity, I asked the aircrew what kind of engines the aircraft used. It turns out that all 4 of it's V-12 engines combined have about the same rating as ONE of the engines on the modern cargo planes. In turn, those 4 engines combined put out less power than just one of the engines on a 787.
In other words, if you wanted to power a 787 with those early engines, you'd probably need about 30-40 of them. Some later engines were capable of developing almost 6,000 hp, but even with those you'd need at least 8 (and that's without considering the weight of the engines themselves, which would be significant). That's simply not practical. Part of the problem is, as you pointed out, much higher maintenance costs, but the far bigger problem is the design difficulties associated with such an aircraft. There's only so much room on a wing for engines, especially when they've got props on them. If we didn't have jet engines we wouldn't be able to build aircraft anywhere near the size of the ones we have. The biggest piston-powered aircraft ever built was the Convair XC-99, powered by 6 engines and capable of carrying around 45 tons. Medium-size transport aircraft these days can carry close to 40 tons, while the biggest jet-powered aircraft (An-225) is capable of carrying 250 tons. That should give you some idea about the kind of difference we're talking about.
Gotcha. Yeah, that site is shit, and I have no great desire to read it. On the other hand, sometimes it's useful to read stuff like that, as long as you understand the bias upfront.
As Christopher Hitchens said in a great interview with the SGU (paraphrasing here):
"I don't read the news to find out what's going on in the world. I'd be a fool to do that. I read the news so that when I meet you the next day, I'll know what YOU think you're talking about."
I pretty much agree with that 100%. It's useful to expose yourself even to patent nonsense, just so you'll understand what other people think is going on. It's hard to have a conversation with someone when you have no clue where they're coming from.
Absolutely. I have no problem with bias, as long as it's admitted. I actually prefer UK journalism just for that fact alone, even though I'm not a citizen. For local news I have to depend on our national papers, but for global news I tend to seek out UK papers as much as possible.
Somehow I doubt your girlfriend is $1,000 an hour material. Your cost would probably be more along the line of $14,600, and, with the bulk-discount, could go as low as $7,000. I'd say you're still getting ripped off.
Well, not the strip club part. I don't do those. (I worked in the adult industry, and see the money guys waste on not getting laid and laugh).
Agreed. I only go when it's a "social event" (fairly rare). I still end up dropping loads of dough, but it's more to fit in with/impress the people I'm with rather than any carnal desires. Hell, the last time I went for a "dance" I just gave the girl a bunch of 20's and told her to sit there so we could have a decent conversation. I think the whole industry is rather pointless, but it's obviously a great way to make money.
And now that I've been woman-free for months, I'm almost happier. No crazy-chick headaches. More money in my pocket. And, I have time to mess around with things I want to do. There's no "but sweetie, I wanted you to go shopping for shoes with me." or "can you help me do this." Bah.
I gave up on women years ago, and I've never been happier. When I really feel the need to get laid it's not hard to do, and the rest of the time... you're exactly right - more money, more time, less headaches... I wish I'd figured that out a decade ago:)
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a relationship-advice column, I was just making a joke. But I couldn't resist replying to your comment.
iPad only has a single user and not even a guest account, do you really want to let your kids, friends or random people to use it access all your browser history, photos, emails and such?
My biggest concern isn't kids/friends/etc - as long as there exists the possibility that it could get lost or stolen, I'm going to be fanatical about keeping it free of personal info. Now, if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data, and in that case multiple accounts would make sense. Otherwise, it really doesn't make a difference.
But when they want "unprecedented levels of realism" in a training scenario against real people, why not use real people?
I like your enthusiasm, but most civvies get upset at the idea of being used as live-fire targets. They won't even let us use the prisoners from Gitmo!
Outside of the odd practice with live ammo it doesn't like there's even good reason to simply invent a better non-lethal training weapon.
Ah, I see the confusion. You didn't actually RTFA. No big surprise.
These robots are intended specifically for live-fire training. For everything else, we certainly DO use real people.
Slashdot Mirror
Idealists can run easily run a corporation at a profit. Fools can not
Isn't that what I said?
Fools can not. I've got a Buddhist friend who owns a medium sized bakery business that specifically employs ex-cons, runaways, homeless folks, and so forth. He operates it at a small, reasonable profit
Unless these cons/runaways/etc are living in China, I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
Just admit that you aren't an idealist and you don't care about others; you don't need to put idealists down just because you aren't one.
Quite the contrary - I have a wide variety of idealistic desires. I just do my best not to let them get in the way of reality. It's always a huge mistake to confuse your own view of what "should be" with what is.
its ok for microsoft to employ a sweatshop, because the slaves in there consented to being exploited ...
Yep. Just like it's ok for the UFC to employ gladiators, because the "slaves" there consented to being exploited. Now you're getting it!
Of course, your wording is a bit strange, but I'm sure that with another year of ESL classes you'll be able to speak and write just like a native!
Once again: China is communist in name only.
You could say the same thing about any Communist nation which has ever existed, and I've heard people make that argument. It's just another example of the No-True-Scotsman fallacy.
(although, to be fair, in the case of China, at present, you're probably right)
Well, maybe if the idealistic fools are on the board of large corporations, that would change
Ah, more idealism :)
If these idealistic fools were on the boards of large corporations, those corporations would shortly find their profit margins disappearing, their stock plummeting, and their shareholders knocking on the door brandishing torches and pitchforks. Idealism can't compete with economics.
With that said, there ARE ways to improve living conditions, over time. We know what they are. We've known it for quite a while. The basics are relatively simple:
1. Provide a stable government which supports individual liberty and encourages entrepreneurship.
2. Provide good-quality basic education to everyone, and make it mandatory for children.
3. Create a reliable system of communication and uncensored information exchange, as well as some form of transportation that is available and affordable for the majority of the population.
4. Last, but certainly not least, make women the legal and social equals of men, with the same rights, benefits, and access to education and communication.
That's pretty much it. Unfortunately, those are not things which we can force on people, and they're certainly not something that corporations can provide. However, it's much easier to just blame those evil "fat-cats" than to actually look at the massive undertaking which would be required in order to achieve global prosperity.
+5 insightful. Just read the friggin' article:
'I know I can choose not to work overtime, but if I don't work overtime then I am stuck with only 770 Chinese yuan (£72.77p) per month in basic wages,' the worker said.
'This is not nearly enough to support a family. My parents are farmers without jobs. They also do not have pensions.
'I also need to worry about getting married, which requires a lot of money. Therefore, I still push myself to continue working in spite of my exhaustion.
Regardless of the working conditions, these people are there because they have needs and desires the same as the rest of us. They work there because there is no other work available, or the work that is available is even worse. That's the state that the majority of the world is in, and it won't be changed by any number of idealistic fools opining about the immorality of large corporations.
Presumably the advantages of turbines only kick in at larger sizes, since you still find piston engines on puddlejumpers.
I think it's more a question of cost. A turbojet powered "puddle-jumper" would weigh less and have more power than it's piston powered equivalent, but would cost significantly more.
With that said, there are some small turboprop-powered aircraft on the market. Here's one example.
P.S. When you say a Lancaster, do you mean the Lancaster? Mod me jealous!
Yeah, there are still a few in museums, but as far as I know there are only two that can still fly - one in Canada and one in the UK. It was a real privilege to take part in servicing such an iconic piece of our history, even if it was just a fuel job. Made me feel all tingly inside :)
FYI, the group which operates the Canadian Lancaster (the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum) does offer flights to the public, but it'll cost you. IIRC, for about $2,000 they'll take you up for an hour or so, and they'll throw in a flight on one of their WW2-era fighters as a bonus. It's pricey, but the proceeds go to maintaining the museum and you get a donation-receipt for a large chunk of it. They also offer flights on other aircraft at much lower prices. If you're in Canada, you might want to check it out.
You just send more robots or remote presence systems. It'll *always* be cheaper than sending an actual person there.
Right. Because spending 5 years building a suitable repair robot and waiting for it to arrive at the target site is peanuts. Lost revenue? Wazzat?
You have the same problem with robotic exploration - you send a probe to Mars that can dig 6 inches. You spend 5 years building it and waiting for it to arrive, only to realize that you actually needed to dig 12 inches. So you spend ANOTHER 5 years building/sending one that can dig down 18 (we want to be proactive this time!) inches ... only to figure out that you need one with the ability to analyze the stuff it finds. So you spend ANOTHER .... yeah, you get the point. I know that most people who spend their free time on slashdot probably think that time has no value. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that belief is wrong. If it takes you 15 years to put together a manned mission that can do as much as 100 years worth of robotic exploration, then the mission is worthwhile even if it costs an order of magnitude more. TIME HAS VALUE.
You mean piston-engined planes, as there are planes (and helicopters) powered by "jet-like" engines.
They're not "jet-like", they ARE jet engines. The fact that they have a propeller attached to them instead of a fan is entirely irrelevant.
However, piston-engined planes went out of fashion sometime around 1960, as they are much more maintenance-intensive.
They "went out of fashion" because they simply can't compete with the power output of jet engines. About a year ago I was working at an airshow at an Airforce base, and had the privilege to refuel an old WW2-era Avro Lancaster bomber. The biggest thing that surprised me was just how small it was. I mean, the height and wingspan were close to the modern cargo aircraft being used on that base, but it looked so flimsy. It was so cramped. Out of curiosity, I asked the aircrew what kind of engines the aircraft used. It turns out that all 4 of it's V-12 engines combined have about the same rating as ONE of the engines on the modern cargo planes. In turn, those 4 engines combined put out less power than just one of the engines on a 787.
In other words, if you wanted to power a 787 with those early engines, you'd probably need about 30-40 of them. Some later engines were capable of developing almost 6,000 hp, but even with those you'd need at least 8 (and that's without considering the weight of the engines themselves, which would be significant). That's simply not practical. Part of the problem is, as you pointed out, much higher maintenance costs, but the far bigger problem is the design difficulties associated with such an aircraft. There's only so much room on a wing for engines, especially when they've got props on them. If we didn't have jet engines we wouldn't be able to build aircraft anywhere near the size of the ones we have. The biggest piston-powered aircraft ever built was the Convair XC-99, powered by 6 engines and capable of carrying around 45 tons. Medium-size transport aircraft these days can carry close to 40 tons, while the biggest jet-powered aircraft (An-225) is capable of carrying 250 tons. That should give you some idea about the kind of difference we're talking about.
Who rated this +1 Insightful? WTF?
I dunno. Maybe Deepak Chopra has a slashdot account?
Sheesh, get a room. Nobody wants to know about you and your RealDoll.
Gotcha. Yeah, that site is shit, and I have no great desire to read it. On the other hand, sometimes it's useful to read stuff like that, as long as you understand the bias upfront.
As Christopher Hitchens said in a great interview with the SGU (paraphrasing here):
"I don't read the news to find out what's going on in the world. I'd be a fool to do that. I read the news so that when I meet you the next day, I'll know what YOU think you're talking about."
I pretty much agree with that 100%. It's useful to expose yourself even to patent nonsense, just so you'll understand what other people think is going on. It's hard to have a conversation with someone when you have no clue where they're coming from.
I'm sorry ... were you trying to make some sort of point?
Absolutely. I have no problem with bias, as long as it's admitted. I actually prefer UK journalism just for that fact alone, even though I'm not a citizen. For local news I have to depend on our national papers, but for global news I tend to seek out UK papers as much as possible.
That's true. Given their recent editorial bias, they certainly qualify as a news organization.
That's both the funniest and most insightful thing I've read in weeks.
Somehow I doubt your girlfriend is $1,000 an hour material. Your cost would probably be more along the line of $14,600, and, with the bulk-discount, could go as low as $7,000. I'd say you're still getting ripped off.
Well, not the strip club part. I don't do those. (I worked in the adult industry, and see the money guys waste on not getting laid and laugh).
Agreed. I only go when it's a "social event" (fairly rare). I still end up dropping loads of dough, but it's more to fit in with/impress the people I'm with rather than any carnal desires. Hell, the last time I went for a "dance" I just gave the girl a bunch of 20's and told her to sit there so we could have a decent conversation. I think the whole industry is rather pointless, but it's obviously a great way to make money.
And now that I've been woman-free for months, I'm almost happier. No crazy-chick headaches. More money in my pocket. And, I have time to mess around with things I want to do. There's no "but sweetie, I wanted you to go shopping for shoes with me." or "can you help me do this." Bah.
I gave up on women years ago, and I've never been happier. When I really feel the need to get laid it's not hard to do, and the rest of the time ... you're exactly right - more money, more time, less headaches ... I wish I'd figured that out a decade ago :)
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a relationship-advice column, I was just making a joke. But I couldn't resist replying to your comment.
+5 insightful!
That being said, I never thought I would see people ardently defending paying more for less
Ever been to a strip club? The skinnier the girls, the more you pay!
Come to think of it, dating isn't much different ....
iPad only has a single user and not even a guest account, do you really want to let your kids, friends or random people to use it access all your browser history, photos, emails and such?
My biggest concern isn't kids/friends/etc - as long as there exists the possibility that it could get lost or stolen, I'm going to be fanatical about keeping it free of personal info. Now, if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data, and in that case multiple accounts would make sense. Otherwise, it really doesn't make a difference.
Oh, they're trying to promote the idea of playing movies off a hard drive. Brilliant! Count me in! [/sarcasm]
Why the sarcasm? I've been doing it for years!
But when they want "unprecedented levels of realism" in a training scenario against real people, why not use real people?
I like your enthusiasm, but most civvies get upset at the idea of being used as live-fire targets. They won't even let us use the prisoners from Gitmo!
Outside of the odd practice with live ammo it doesn't like there's even good reason to simply invent a better non-lethal training weapon.
Ah, I see the confusion. You didn't actually RTFA. No big surprise.
These robots are intended specifically for live-fire training. For everything else, we certainly DO use real people.
How utterly ridiculous. Grown men wasting tax payer $ to play real life video games.
Jealousy is an ugly thing ....
To add to what donny said - what does sympathy have to do with it? We were talking about responsibility and cause-and-effect.
So, if the teacher knows they're sexually active, by the letter of the law they would be contributing to the delinquincy of a minor
Good luck proving what the teacher knows!
In other words, as long as you teach all the kids about condoms every year, and not just the ones engaging in illegal underage sex, you're fine.
Then what's the issue? Has anyone suggested otherwise?