Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.
What were you expecting, petrified Martian grits?
There isn't much that is substantive to discuss at this point. It looks exciting, but it is all very inconclusive. The paper from TFA is just a thought experiment by somebody in a field unrelated to Mars exploration, describing what features that look the same on Earth would be caused by. The difference in gravity alone makes it an absurdity to take it as science, though it is a great exercise and valuable brainstorming.
I read a whole book on that experiment, and the long and short of it is that it was inconclusive, there are known non-organic circumstances that could be responsible, and the follow-up experiments were cut because budgets were cut and it was heavy, and most of the scientists on the teams were skeptical.
There has always been a minority at NASA making those claims in the open. I think it is clear that it is not something "obvious" that NASA "didn't want to admit," but something that some smart people passionately believe, and the majority of their equally smart peers believe is inconclusive.
Jumping more quickly to a conclusion isn't more science-y, even if you're really excited by the preliminary data and certain interpretations.
Why would Mars need to be flat to be attached to the ceiling? It could be an embedded sphere. Spherical lights are easier to construct, and would cause no obvious impediment to the rotation of the sky.
In my community we have Direct Democracy and the community can change the taxi regulations by direct vote. Your wild assumption and slander against all taxis and all taxi regulations is absurd. We have good taxi rules, and each of the (many) rules are there for real reasons based on real history. Most of the rules are ones that customers requested in the past, and a few are ones that the taxi companies all agreed on.
Unregulated monopoly? Aren't they illegal, or was that only in the '30s?
No, neither. Monopolies are (and were) only barred from leveraging their position to harm competition, or customers. If they just keep operating normally after they become a monopoly, and don't "pull anything," then there is no problem.
Interesting thing about the US. We really do force the construction trades to be licensed, bonded, insured. Buildings are designed by real engineers, according to known material and design standards. And when there is a major earthquake... a few up to dozens of dead.
When "MOST of the world" has an earthquake... dozens of thousands are dead.
And people without auto shop paperwork have no service history, their vehicle has less resale value (if well taken care of, since they can't prove it was) and they won't know when major parts were replaced. Also, if you get ripped off... tough luck. You can't even prove what work was done, much less if it was the same work that you paid for. And it is a known fact that there are lots of dishonest people everywhere in the world who will, in fact, rip you off.
Yes, it is done. It is a known thing. It also is known to achieve demonstrably worse results. And it isn't actually cheaper, it is just lower quality.
Give the state a dictionary, and highlight the definitions of the words "capitalism" and "liberty." We are adults. We shouldn't need to be 'licensed' just to charge someone for a ride.
Sorry kiddo, I've read my Adam Smith. You might be interested to know that "Capitalism" is the system where the government creates a level playing field for entrants to an industry... by regulating it so that everything operates according to known, predictable rules.
What you're advocating is called "feudalism," where everybody just does what they want, meaning that whoever has the most money forces everybody else out of business through whatever unfair practices are available.
As for Liberty, over thousands of years nobody has really been able to agree what it means, so just looking in a dictionary isn't going to do much good. You may or may not receive a top shelf explanation of the various philosophical meanings of the highly abstract concept, but it is guaranteed to be too high level to be of use here. What about the Liberty of the taxi operator who is complying with the community standards and expectations, but being forced out of his livelihood by a company spiteful of the community's right to have local rules and a level playing field?
At the time of the SST battle between the three (US, Europe and USSR), Boeing was most certainly subsonic only - all of their successful supersonic aircraft products come from the merger with McDonnell Douglas, not original Boeing in-house.
They really did bumble with the 2707 - first a design with swing wings, which were all the rage then, but massively heavy, and then switching to progressively simpler designs until they end up with something looking very similar to the other two offerings...
I stand by what I said. Google it. Hint: civilian airliners are a small part of the airplane business.
News flash: almost all airlines are subsidized by governments, even the ones listed as not being. The entire industry is heavily supported, it is not some Ayn Rand libertarian free market Utopia. It is a strategic industry.
The same is true for all the aerospace manufacturers.
No, this one doesn't require tacks in the shoe and such stress inducements to beat it, you only have to practice good posture. So after a few years it might very well drop below 50/50.
Now we need to make it compulsory for all politicians to use these when discussing their political manifestos to get in power...
So, let me get this straight... it isn't bad enough most politicians are already sociopaths, you want to actually institute a formal litmus test that is inaccurate, but favors sociopaths?
Even in the movie they give an answer to that; to continually teach the futility of fighting, and to continually punish the districts for past rebellion by forcing them to hand over young people to die fighting in a vapid, pointless struggle.
The story apparently seeks to establish that these methods do not teach the desired lessons, but instead, teaches people that the leaders are evil, and that compliance doesn't protect or save them, and that their Hope is to resist evil, even at a high cost.
My goodness, if that was hard, don't read any adult fiction, your head will explode.
Because they had the people already. Why does any dictator not just slaughter the people, and rule empty land unopposed? There are a wide variety of interlocking reasons. It is absolutely realistic that they would seek to maintain and oppress the "districts," and lock them in lower class jobs, even if those jobs didn't need to be done.
Why does North Korea have prison cities? Why did the Soviet Union banish people to Siberia instead of just executing them? There are lots and lots of reasons available to argue over.
The less realistic sci-fi is where they assume everything has a simple, plausible order that can be understood by mechanical analogy and basic engineering, or that societies can be well-run by applying small-business principles.
It's pointed to in the summary and was not missed - there were not enough people in a hurry to sustain Concorde flights
Wikipedia sites other, different reasons. Specifically, the decline of the airline industry after 9/11, combined with uncertainty because of the crash, and the withdrawal of maintenance support by the manufacturer. Sir Richard Branson was trying to pay lots of good money to buy them and continue operating, but it was that last one, lack of maintenance support, that foiled him; not any speculation about how much of a hurry people were in.
Branson would be operating them today, but for the withdrawal of maintenance support and that is just a historical fact. So there was business interest, with real cash money offers, to keep it going, and there was never any failure to sell tickets that would imply lack of interest; regardless of if interest was based on being in a hurry, or just the appeal of a premium service.
By "unfeasible" you mean, what? Because you can't mean what it says in the dictionary. We have the benefit of hind-sight; we know that regardless of if it "made" or "lost" money, the Concord was able to acquire and maintain operating capital, and they never had trouble selling tickets.
Unfeasible doesn't mean, "well it was good enough to keep it running, but I think it was a mistake."
Most people don't have $15000 to spend on a vacation. And those that do are possibly not just choosing it based on utilitarian questions of time savings. It may be that sub-orbital flights will have a great view, and be worth $15k to many people just for that. Especially if they're flying to a $50k vacation, or if they have 7 figure income and a business meeting in Asia.
If the Concorde was able to sell tickets and operate for 30 years, then hindsight should guarantee us that is was feasible. When the government pays you subsidies to operate a service, they pay it in real money that you can actually spend.
How many times more does it cost to buy and operate a private gulfstream or learjet compared to buying an economy airline ticket? I'm just assuming it is more than ten times. I'm not going to calculate the break-even point on a $50m jet with a capacity of less than 20 passengers.
If it only costs ten times more for the premium option, they'll be able to keep a large fleet of those things in the air and at 100% capacity. It will be over twice as fast. And it will probably have its own "spaceport" terminal with accelerated security, and workers trained to keep their hands off the VIPs, so the service level might be comparable to private jet.
You've got some missing historical knowledge there. It was so loud it would actually damage tomatoes on the vine. (true story)
And it wasn't "banned" in the US, it was just required to operate at regular speeds.
Also.. Boeing has a large number of supersonic aircraft. Google it.;) They're actually quite good at it, not some bumblers who couldn't get a prototype. It turns out, the market for them isn't really with airliners, because... well, because tomatoes.
I'm hoping for a bungie sling with a cannon on the end, swung from the side of the space elevator. And for landing, a net attached to a pole that rotates around the space elevator. Then you can use regenerative braking and recover some electricity during the landing.
It may be that if the "working people" subsidize it or not will be based entirely on if the rich people demand it and express a willingness to buy the tickets at some rate that is higher than regular airfare but below the operating cost of the service.
Lots of successful models of aircraft are operated at a loss based on subsidies. That tells you nothing about the success of the aircraft as a product. Note that in those cases, the aircraft manufacturer is still getting full price for what they built. The aircraft aren't even the subject there, the airline is. And you admit that you are aware that airlines run at a loss based on subsidies. So it is a known thing, even to you. That tells us, even if it is not "profitable," somebody might buy the aircraft, and find a way to operate it, and even receive a paycheck for doing so. I guess that means we will be getting sub-orbital flights!:P or at least that the objection is off-topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.
What were you expecting, petrified Martian grits?
There isn't much that is substantive to discuss at this point. It looks exciting, but it is all very inconclusive. The paper from TFA is just a thought experiment by somebody in a field unrelated to Mars exploration, describing what features that look the same on Earth would be caused by. The difference in gravity alone makes it an absurdity to take it as science, though it is a great exercise and valuable brainstorming.
I read a whole book on that experiment, and the long and short of it is that it was inconclusive, there are known non-organic circumstances that could be responsible, and the follow-up experiments were cut because budgets were cut and it was heavy, and most of the scientists on the teams were skeptical.
There has always been a minority at NASA making those claims in the open. I think it is clear that it is not something "obvious" that NASA "didn't want to admit," but something that some smart people passionately believe, and the majority of their equally smart peers believe is inconclusive.
Jumping more quickly to a conclusion isn't more science-y, even if you're really excited by the preliminary data and certain interpretations.
Why would Mars need to be flat to be attached to the ceiling? It could be an embedded sphere. Spherical lights are easier to construct, and would cause no obvious impediment to the rotation of the sky.
Actually, Boeing builds this stuff already for another customer than you mentioned, and generally they only build a few at a time. Clue up, please.
In any case, there are lots of upstart aerospace companies these days, it isn't just Boeing and Airbus in the world. (and it never was, either)
Maybe you could find a website, like one for nerds, where they would mention these other aerospace companies once in awhile?
In my community we have Direct Democracy and the community can change the taxi regulations by direct vote. Your wild assumption and slander against all taxis and all taxi regulations is absurd. We have good taxi rules, and each of the (many) rules are there for real reasons based on real history. Most of the rules are ones that customers requested in the past, and a few are ones that the taxi companies all agreed on.
Unregulated monopoly? Aren't they illegal, or was that only in the '30s?
No, neither. Monopolies are (and were) only barred from leveraging their position to harm competition, or customers. If they just keep operating normally after they become a monopoly, and don't "pull anything," then there is no problem.
Interesting thing about the US. We really do force the construction trades to be licensed, bonded, insured. Buildings are designed by real engineers, according to known material and design standards. And when there is a major earthquake... a few up to dozens of dead.
When "MOST of the world" has an earthquake... dozens of thousands are dead.
And people without auto shop paperwork have no service history, their vehicle has less resale value (if well taken care of, since they can't prove it was) and they won't know when major parts were replaced. Also, if you get ripped off... tough luck. You can't even prove what work was done, much less if it was the same work that you paid for. And it is a known fact that there are lots of dishonest people everywhere in the world who will, in fact, rip you off.
Yes, it is done. It is a known thing. It also is known to achieve demonstrably worse results. And it isn't actually cheaper, it is just lower quality.
Why can't a taxi driver refuse a fare?
For obvious, known reasons.
Everybody knows you know, so why do you pretend you do not? Is it some sort of code?
Give the state a dictionary, and highlight the definitions of the words "capitalism" and "liberty." We are adults. We shouldn't need to be 'licensed' just to charge someone for a ride.
Sorry kiddo, I've read my Adam Smith. You might be interested to know that "Capitalism" is the system where the government creates a level playing field for entrants to an industry... by regulating it so that everything operates according to known, predictable rules.
What you're advocating is called "feudalism," where everybody just does what they want, meaning that whoever has the most money forces everybody else out of business through whatever unfair practices are available.
As for Liberty, over thousands of years nobody has really been able to agree what it means, so just looking in a dictionary isn't going to do much good. You may or may not receive a top shelf explanation of the various philosophical meanings of the highly abstract concept, but it is guaranteed to be too high level to be of use here. What about the Liberty of the taxi operator who is complying with the community standards and expectations, but being forced out of his livelihood by a company spiteful of the community's right to have local rules and a level playing field?
At the time of the SST battle between the three (US, Europe and USSR), Boeing was most certainly subsonic only - all of their successful supersonic aircraft products come from the merger with McDonnell Douglas, not original Boeing in-house.
They really did bumble with the 2707 - first a design with swing wings, which were all the rage then, but massively heavy, and then switching to progressively simpler designs until they end up with something looking very similar to the other two offerings...
I stand by what I said. Google it. Hint: civilian airliners are a small part of the airplane business.
Newsflash: the 1% have more money to waste than ever. If somebody builds it and 1% of the 1% buy tickets, it just made a bazillion dollars
News flash: almost all airlines are subsidized by governments, even the ones listed as not being. The entire industry is heavily supported, it is not some Ayn Rand libertarian free market Utopia. It is a strategic industry.
The same is true for all the aerospace manufacturers.
I prefer to let Sir Branson speak to what he wanted, which he has done publicly and at length. He has a known and strong record in aerospace.
No, this one doesn't require tacks in the shoe and such stress inducements to beat it, you only have to practice good posture. So after a few years it might very well drop below 50/50.
Now we need to make it compulsory for all politicians to use these when discussing their political manifestos to get in power...
So, let me get this straight... it isn't bad enough most politicians are already sociopaths, you want to actually institute a formal litmus test that is inaccurate, but favors sociopaths?
Even in the movie they give an answer to that; to continually teach the futility of fighting, and to continually punish the districts for past rebellion by forcing them to hand over young people to die fighting in a vapid, pointless struggle.
The story apparently seeks to establish that these methods do not teach the desired lessons, but instead, teaches people that the leaders are evil, and that compliance doesn't protect or save them, and that their Hope is to resist evil, even at a high cost.
My goodness, if that was hard, don't read any adult fiction, your head will explode.
Because they had the people already. Why does any dictator not just slaughter the people, and rule empty land unopposed? There are a wide variety of interlocking reasons. It is absolutely realistic that they would seek to maintain and oppress the "districts," and lock them in lower class jobs, even if those jobs didn't need to be done.
Why does North Korea have prison cities? Why did the Soviet Union banish people to Siberia instead of just executing them? There are lots and lots of reasons available to argue over.
The less realistic sci-fi is where they assume everything has a simple, plausible order that can be understood by mechanical analogy and basic engineering, or that societies can be well-run by applying small-business principles.
It's pointed to in the summary and was not missed - there were not enough people in a hurry to sustain Concorde flights
Wikipedia sites other, different reasons. Specifically, the decline of the airline industry after 9/11, combined with uncertainty because of the crash, and the withdrawal of maintenance support by the manufacturer. Sir Richard Branson was trying to pay lots of good money to buy them and continue operating, but it was that last one, lack of maintenance support, that foiled him; not any speculation about how much of a hurry people were in.
Branson would be operating them today, but for the withdrawal of maintenance support and that is just a historical fact. So there was business interest, with real cash money offers, to keep it going, and there was never any failure to sell tickets that would imply lack of interest; regardless of if interest was based on being in a hurry, or just the appeal of a premium service.
By "unfeasible" you mean, what? Because you can't mean what it says in the dictionary. We have the benefit of hind-sight; we know that regardless of if it "made" or "lost" money, the Concord was able to acquire and maintain operating capital, and they never had trouble selling tickets.
Unfeasible doesn't mean, "well it was good enough to keep it running, but I think it was a mistake."
Most people don't have $15000 to spend on a vacation. And those that do are possibly not just choosing it based on utilitarian questions of time savings. It may be that sub-orbital flights will have a great view, and be worth $15k to many people just for that. Especially if they're flying to a $50k vacation, or if they have 7 figure income and a business meeting in Asia.
If the Concorde was able to sell tickets and operate for 30 years, then hindsight should guarantee us that is was feasible. When the government pays you subsidies to operate a service, they pay it in real money that you can actually spend.
How many times more does it cost to buy and operate a private gulfstream or learjet compared to buying an economy airline ticket? I'm just assuming it is more than ten times. I'm not going to calculate the break-even point on a $50m jet with a capacity of less than 20 passengers.
If it only costs ten times more for the premium option, they'll be able to keep a large fleet of those things in the air and at 100% capacity. It will be over twice as fast. And it will probably have its own "spaceport" terminal with accelerated security, and workers trained to keep their hands off the VIPs, so the service level might be comparable to private jet.
If saving fuel was the top priority, everyone would travel by bus and boat.
Or horse, or foot. ;)
You've got some missing historical knowledge there. It was so loud it would actually damage tomatoes on the vine. (true story)
And it wasn't "banned" in the US, it was just required to operate at regular speeds.
Also.. Boeing has a large number of supersonic aircraft. Google it. ;) They're actually quite good at it, not some bumblers who couldn't get a prototype. It turns out, the market for them isn't really with airliners, because... well, because tomatoes.
I'm hoping for a bungie sling with a cannon on the end, swung from the side of the space elevator. And for landing, a net attached to a pole that rotates around the space elevator. Then you can use regenerative braking and recover some electricity during the landing.
It may be that if the "working people" subsidize it or not will be based entirely on if the rich people demand it and express a willingness to buy the tickets at some rate that is higher than regular airfare but below the operating cost of the service.
Lots of successful models of aircraft are operated at a loss based on subsidies. That tells you nothing about the success of the aircraft as a product. Note that in those cases, the aircraft manufacturer is still getting full price for what they built. The aircraft aren't even the subject there, the airline is. And you admit that you are aware that airlines run at a loss based on subsidies. So it is a known thing, even to you. That tells us, even if it is not "profitable," somebody might buy the aircraft, and find a way to operate it, and even receive a paycheck for doing so. I guess that means we will be getting sub-orbital flights! :P or at least that the objection is off-topic.