There are pros and cons to living anywhere. Cities have great access to all sorts of good and services but can be expensive. Rural areas are much cheaper but have difficult access. Suburban areas are a compromise.
Why tax those that live in high cost cities to pay to provide services to rural areas. Isn't the cheap cost of living in a rural area a natural subside?
What does a Liberal Arts Degree mean these days? There used to be a traditional Liberal Arts education that included theology, grammar, reasoning, rhetoric, philosophy, arithmetic,logic, geometry, music, astronomy, etc. I could see how taking these as formal courses would help someones critical thinking. But how many people with LA degrees have mastered these?
Most of the things you complain about are due to regulations. An airline would be happy to sell you a ticket for cash. A bank would be happy to open a numbered account. As for rentals of course the owner wants to see evidence you are a trustworthy person.
The difference is people voluntarily give data to these companies where as you are forced to give information to Healthcare.gov. It would be the same as if the IRS was hacked.
I managed to get the full article. They authors do state this is not an entire process but only a way to take glucose from other process and turn it into propane which should be easier to separate from a reactor since it's a gas.
This is a result of artificially low interest rates. Any time you build manufacturing capability you need to do a cost/benefit analysis of how much to automate. I've done this analysis in the past when I worked for an automation house. The main factors are the local cost of labor and the interest rates. In times where interest rates were high (I have lived long enough to see this) and there was high unemployment so people would accept a lower wage it always made sense to hire more people than machines. The reason is a person is productive on an assembly line after a relatively short training period where it takes a while to design, manufacture, test, and install production equipment. The equipment is also a large capital investment and when interest rates are high you can sometimes get a better return just sitting on the cash or not borrowing it in the first place.
When times are good and there is low unemployment and interest rates it makes sense to more fully automate.
If we would let the market set interest rates the pace of automation would be naturally limited.
You are right. The ignorance of many people on the subject of radioactivity is amazing. I don't know why, maybe because nuclear seems magical. But the radiation produced by an isotope is inversely proportional to the half life. People complain about nuclear waste that will be radioactive for a million years. Sure but that stuff is pretty safe because of that long half life it doesn't produce much radiation. It's the short lived isotopes that are really dangerous because of the amount of radiation they put out. Luckily you don't have to keep them long until they decay to safe levels. It's the stuff right in the middle with half lives in the 10-100 year range. They are radioactive enough to be a health concern but also take a long enough time to decay. Of course the type and energy level of the radiation needs to be factored in as well.
This is just my personal experience but I went from eating a heavy refined sugar and carbs to a high fat diet and everything improved with the exception of LDL.
That seems to reinforce my theory on lack of women in STEM. People look at STEM and think this is where the smartest people go. Not entirely true. The people in STEM are smart BUT they are also are not typically social. I don't mean they don't get along with people but that isn't their priority. The work is the priority and working with other people interested in the work is fine.
What the really smart people that are social do are become entrepreneurs, politicians, doctors, and lawyers. Since women will tend to be more social I think that is the reason you don't find as many in STEM. Not only do they have to be smart but not focused on social aspects. Most of the female engineers that I've worked with that actually like engineering tend to act more like a stereotypical engineer. Focus on the work and not on the social aspects. They are nice people but there focus isn't on making you like them but getting the job done.
I don't see it as wrong. This is how all technology gets developed. Early adopters pay for the tech and those that wait get the benefits. You can get the latest phone for several hundred dollars or get one 4 years old for a tiny fraction of that. Same with car tech. Every little standard feature on an econobox started as optional equipment on luxury models.
Most ISPs exist because they negotiated monopolies with local governments. Get rid of these monopolies and let the market work. It's illogical to complain about publicly financed ISPs when the current ones exist because of another form of public subsidy.
What you get with Big Companies is lots of Lawyers. There is more money to be made doing exactly what the contract says then doing the job correct. If you do exactly what you are asked to do in the worst way possible you get paid once to do this and keep getting paid to support and modify.
NASA doesn't build much. The only reason their employees do any engineering at all is so they stay somewhat competent enough to write requirements and evaluate contracts. Most of the money and work has been, is done, and will continue to be done by contractors. Take Apollo. North American made the command and service module and second state, Grumman made the LM. The Saturn V first stage was built by Boeing with Rockedyne Engines. The third stage was built by Douglass, The avionics by IBM.The escape system by Lockheed.
Now since most of the integration work can be done by industry NASA has started to even back out of the integration role. Let the contractors build the whole thing. This doesn't mean NASA doesn't do anything. SpaceX, Orbital, etc uses NASA technology and experts all of the time. The difference is these companies go to NASA to ask for help where in the past the contractor had to pass NASA design reviews which slowed things down and made everything cost more.
I for one like this direciton. Launching rockets is proven technology. It's time for business to figure out how to make it economical. With these savings NASA can spend more on more payloads. If launch costs go down significantly then the spacecraft costs will drop as well. You don't launch a $10M spacecraft when you have to pay $200M for the rocket. But if the rocket costs $10M then you just might. 20 times the missions even if a bunch fail is still quite a bit of science.
Actually nothing is loaded into the payload bay in the VAB. That is just where the stack was built up. The ISS payload were installed in the Payload Changeout Room (PCR) on the Rotating Service Structure (RSS) while the shuttle is actually on the Pad. This allows a later integration for the payloads and allows access to them late in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
You have never really tasted an orange unless you picked it off a tree.
They don't do well in transport. I hated citrus until I moved to Florida.
Right. If there is one thing the federal government is good at is breaking up cartels.
There are pros and cons to living anywhere. Cities have great access to all sorts of good and services but can be expensive. Rural areas are much cheaper but have difficult access. Suburban areas are a compromise.
Why tax those that live in high cost cities to pay to provide services to rural areas. Isn't the cheap cost of living in a rural area a natural subside?
This was my intended meaning of mastered.
mastery
: knowledge and skill that allows you to do, use, or understand something very well
More like mocking those that supposedly follow his teachings and yet froth at the mouth when it comes to bombing foreigners.
What does a Liberal Arts Degree mean these days? There used to be a traditional Liberal Arts education that included theology, grammar, reasoning, rhetoric, philosophy, arithmetic,logic, geometry, music, astronomy, etc. I could see how taking these as formal courses would help someones critical thinking. But how many people with LA degrees have mastered these?
And if you don't pay the penalty?
Most of the things you complain about are due to regulations. An airline would be happy to sell you a ticket for cash. A bank would be happy to open a numbered account. As for rentals of course the owner wants to see evidence you are a trustworthy person.
The difference is people voluntarily give data to these companies where as you are forced to give information to Healthcare.gov. It would be the same as if the IRS was hacked.
Thank you.
I managed to get the full article. They authors do state this is not an entire process but only a way to take glucose from other process and turn it into propane which should be easier to separate from a reactor since it's a gas.
Unless you use plant biomass which takes that carbon from the air. That is why I was trying to find what they used as a feedstock.
Is there a better write-up somewhere? It only says it uses fatty acids. What is the source of these fatty acids?
This is a result of artificially low interest rates. Any time you build manufacturing capability you need to do a cost/benefit analysis of how much to automate. I've done this analysis in the past when I worked for an automation house. The main factors are the local cost of labor and the interest rates. In times where interest rates were high (I have lived long enough to see this) and there was high unemployment so people would accept a lower wage it always made sense to hire more people than machines. The reason is a person is productive on an assembly line after a relatively short training period where it takes a while to design, manufacture, test, and install production equipment. The equipment is also a large capital investment and when interest rates are high you can sometimes get a better return just sitting on the cash or not borrowing it in the first place.
When times are good and there is low unemployment and interest rates it makes sense to more fully automate.
If we would let the market set interest rates the pace of automation would be naturally limited.
You are right. The ignorance of many people on the subject of radioactivity is amazing. I don't know why, maybe because nuclear seems magical. But the radiation produced by an isotope is inversely proportional to the half life. People complain about nuclear waste that will be radioactive for a million years. Sure but that stuff is pretty safe because of that long half life it doesn't produce much radiation. It's the short lived isotopes that are really dangerous because of the amount of radiation they put out. Luckily you don't have to keep them long until they decay to safe levels. It's the stuff right in the middle with half lives in the 10-100 year range. They are radioactive enough to be a health concern but also take a long enough time to decay. Of course the type and energy level of the radiation needs to be factored in as well.
This is just my personal experience but I went from eating a heavy refined sugar and carbs to a high fat diet and everything improved with the exception of LDL.
NASA never wanted to build this rocket. It was forces in them from Congress. Plus NASA doesn't build rockets it overseas other aerospace contractors.
That seems to reinforce my theory on lack of women in STEM. People look at STEM and think this is where the smartest people go. Not entirely true. The people in STEM are smart BUT they are also are not typically social. I don't mean they don't get along with people but that isn't their priority. The work is the priority and working with other people interested in the work is fine.
What the really smart people that are social do are become entrepreneurs, politicians, doctors, and lawyers. Since women will tend to be more social I think that is the reason you don't find as many in STEM. Not only do they have to be smart but not focused on social aspects. Most of the female engineers that I've worked with that actually like engineering tend to act more like a stereotypical engineer. Focus on the work and not on the social aspects. They are nice people but there focus isn't on making you like them but getting the job done.
I don't see it as wrong. This is how all technology gets developed. Early adopters pay for the tech and those that wait get the benefits. You can get the latest phone for several hundred dollars or get one 4 years old for a tiny fraction of that. Same with car tech. Every little standard feature on an econobox started as optional equipment on luxury models.
And I thought my wife and I fighting over the thermostat was bad.
Most ISPs exist because they negotiated monopolies with local governments. Get rid of these monopolies and let the market work. It's illogical to complain about publicly financed ISPs when the current ones exist because of another form of public subsidy.
Where is the push to get men to become primary school teachers? Half of students are male shouldn't the same be true of the teachers?
Same for healthcare. With the exception of doctors most healthcare is dominated by women yet men are a large number of patients.
What you get with Big Companies is lots of Lawyers. There is more money to be made doing exactly what the contract says then doing the job correct. If you do exactly what you are asked to do in the worst way possible you get paid once to do this and keep getting paid to support and modify.
NASA doesn't build much. The only reason their employees do any engineering at all is so they stay somewhat competent enough to write requirements and evaluate contracts. Most of the money and work has been, is done, and will continue to be done by contractors.
Take Apollo. North American made the command and service module and second state, Grumman made the LM. The Saturn V first stage was built by Boeing with Rockedyne Engines. The third stage was built by Douglass, The avionics by IBM.The escape system by Lockheed.
Now since most of the integration work can be done by industry NASA has started to even back out of the integration role. Let the contractors build the whole thing. This doesn't mean NASA doesn't do anything. SpaceX, Orbital, etc uses NASA technology and experts all of the time. The difference is these companies go to NASA to ask for help where in the past the contractor had to pass NASA design reviews which slowed things down and made everything cost more.
I for one like this direciton. Launching rockets is proven technology. It's time for business to figure out how to make it economical. With these savings NASA can spend more on more payloads. If launch costs go down significantly then the spacecraft costs will drop as well. You don't launch a $10M spacecraft when you have to pay $200M for the rocket. But if the rocket costs $10M then you just might. 20 times the missions even if a bunch fail is still quite a bit of science.
There were a few horizontally integrated payloads but those were integrated in the Orbiter Process Facility (OPF) which is basically the hangar.
Actually nothing is loaded into the payload bay in the VAB. That is just where the stack was built up. The ISS payload were installed in the Payload Changeout Room (PCR) on the Rotating Service Structure (RSS) while the shuttle is actually on the Pad. This allows a later integration for the payloads and allows access to them late in the process.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...