Some rockets are launched this way. The Delta IV is built on a launch pad and the entire building rolls out of the way for launch.
The old Titan IV was similar.
Also during Apollo there was a temporary access structure that was as big as the rocket called the Mobile Service Structure that was moved around with the crawlers.
The problem with your post is that the government by definition gets to force you do things you don't want to do or prevent you from doing things you want to do. So if I don't think the government (TSA) should be in charge of airline security it's not like I get to bypass the TSA when I go on a plane. I therefore try to vote for the person that thinks we should get the government out of airline security.
If we follow your advice we would only have people in office that think government can do no wrong in any aspect of controlling our lives. What if you just want to be left alone for the most part and just have them protect your life, liberty, and property?
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty times when you are doing a preliminary design or a prototype where all you do is model the parts in CAD and have a machinist make them with standard tolerances. Then when you find problems with fits and interferences you modify the parts to make them work and never follow up with good documentation. This will only work for a one of kind stand alone product. Because you have no guarantee the next one you build will work the same way. This also only works with a small design team that can keep the whole project in their heads at one time.
Once you add interfaces and different groups working design and analysis and different subsystems you need real documentation of the interfaces otherwise you will waste lots of time and money getting things to work together.
I'm a mechanical engineer. Our "code" is models and drawings. These are what represent the real world objects in our designs. But you don't just deliver a set of drawings as a product. You have Analysis Reports, Design Manuals, Operation Manuals, Maintenance Manuals, Parts Lists, Concept of Operations, and about 20 other documents that describe the system you built. Sometimes a good engineer can pick up the drawing package and figure out how the thing works. But if you really want to understand the design you have to read the other products. If those products don't exist you end up reverse engineering from the design.
Go on Craig's List and look up drafting tables. I have an old one in which the height and angle of the top is fully adjustable. It's all counterbalanced with springs so it's easy to move. The tops can be easily replaced so you can customize the size.
I think you are intentionally missing the point. Specialization is very important. The question is who gets to determine if a risk is acceptable? You think that people are so dumb that other people get to use force to prevent them from doing things that can harm them. Even if that means sentencing them to a painful death. It's for their own good after all.
Let's go back to my original post about central planning. You cannot have central planners determine a one size fits all risk/reward level. So whatever they pick is going to be wrong.
In your case you prefer the FDA be ultra conservative and not allow any drugs with any harmful effects. That is an emotional and not a logical answer. You fail to acknowledge that by being so risk adverse you are sentencing many people to die because they cannot try potentially life saving drugs because you seem it too risky. If you were honest you would say that you would rather many people die untreated than allow them to try drugs that have not been proved safe or effective.
I, on the other hand, acknowledge that if you let people own their own body and put in it what they want that people could be harmed or killed based on their own actions. I think letting people do their own risk analysis is more humane.
The pharmaceutical company should have the following responsibility. They should list the masses of the compounds that are in a drug with a certain percent error. If they sell a drug that falls out of that specification they should be held liable.
The effects of drugs and chemicals on people varies way too much to hold them responsible for effects. Heck some people can't tolerate sugar or peanuts.
The FDA would still have an important role testing drugs and drug combinations. But instead of approving or prohibiting drugs they would just publish the information and let people and doctors make their own call.
The problem is you are forcing your values onto another person. What if someone prefers to work 96 hours a week? What if their goal is to save money for something like college. They want to put one year of working 12 hours a day 6 days a week. You think you have the right to say you can't work that much? Go home and sit on the couch and watch TV because that is what I like to do?
You are wrong again. The important thing to YOU (and me as well) is to follow the scientific evidence. But there are people to whom this isn't important at all. Take herbal and eastern medicines. Some people value what they see as thousands of years of tradition more than scientific evidence. It's not your life. And if you attempt to force them to live by your standards don't expect them to be happy.
Actually I would not consider any medical journal a central planner. Your use of authority is confusing matters because it has several meanings. One is that of government which is coercion and the other is a powerful influence which is voluntary.
I think medical journals are an excellent example of how free people can work together. They peer review studies and keep attempting to refine knowledge. The FDA is the central planner in the US. It decides what drugs you are and are not allowed to sell. This is where the problem comes in.
You may say that most people will play a numbers game. But in that statement you acknowledge some people won't. And by having a central planner make those decisions you are making those people's lives worse by THEIR definition.
Let's take your drug idea. Here are a list of questions no central authority can answer: Is the rigor that is applied today is too strict or not strict enough? What is the optimal amount of rigor to benefit the most people? What conditions can be permitted to try riskier drugs with possible benefits? Is it more beneficial to have a long life or shorter more active one?
The problem is all of the answer to these questions depend on the individual. All things in life have risks and rewards and costs and benefits associated with them. Each individual makes a decision based on their own subjective value of these. To youit may not seem informed but it's not your life. No central plans can satisfy all individuals. You may see some positives like keeping harmful drugs off the market but there are some people who would prefer to try those drugs because they evaluate the risk diffent than you.
These "reforms" fail because they are running into the same problem that all central planners run into. There is no objective way to assign value. It's impossible. Value is completely subjective and is based on human choice. There is no way to create a test, flow chart, matrix, or anything else to figure out if a teacher is doing a good job with a particular student.
It's would be like having a board whose job it is to determine where you should have dinner and how much you should pay and how much tip the server should get. It is impossible and everyone restaurant, server, and customer would all be unhappy in such a situation.
I realize that having people be free to chose and pay for their own school isn't going to happen in my life. But at least if people understand the problem they can make a rational decision. One can argue that having inefficient schools that cannot do a good job is preferable to having parents choose where and how to educate their children with the means they have. At least that's being honest. But pretending there is some way to centrally plan schools to make everyone happy is illogical.
I've use some real basic equipment to do all grain brews. Just a 5 gallon water cooler and hot water PVC pipe. I put the grain in the cooler and add hot 170 F water to end up with a 155 F mash. Let it sit for an hour or so then drain off the wort until it isn't cloudy. Then put the cloudy wort back though the grains to filter. Then sparge with 150 F water.
Your don't professional extraction but grain is pretty cheap and the flavor is great.
I am a Mechanical Engineer but I also have a CS degree. It was interesting in school to see how software engineering being a relatively new field is struggling with what other engineering fields have had to deal with for a long time.
Staffing a project is not a linear function. A project with twice the complexity doesn't take twice as many people. It may take 4 times as many because now you have to coordinate those people. This requires project managers and system engineers. This begs the question what is the right project size for a team?
I've been on small teams that have done amazing things in limited time because we were all in one room without distractions. I've also been on large projects that have gone nowhere because nobody knew what to do.
Very occasionally I've been on a large project with a good manager that can break the project down into subsystems with clear requirements small enough for a small team to handle. The manager handles the conflicts with interfaces between these subsystems but otherwise stays out of the way. This is the type of manager I like to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a pretty good slope up the pad. But the CT has leveling hydraulics to keep the pad surface level.
Some rockets are launched this way. The Delta IV is built on a launch pad and the entire building rolls out of the way for launch.
The old Titan IV was similar.
Also during Apollo there was a temporary access structure that was as big as the rocket called the Mobile Service Structure that was moved around with the crawlers.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.savethelut.org/photos/Apollo%252011%2520LUT%2520and%2520SS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LUT_Group/links/LUT_Photo_Scans_001010527570/&h=2391&w=3021&sz=1203&tbnid=nFgUFKgMOtkbmM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=114&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dapollo%2Bservice%2Bstructure%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=apollo+service+structure&usg=__gD1s6DxMp1cFJnWTpJ8ajQ9Kk1o=&docid=T1q00Ujf8pRAwM&sa=X&ei=BIZKUPaFBIL-9QSiwIHADA&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAw&dur=437
The problem with your post is that the government by definition gets to force you do things you don't want to do or prevent you from doing things you want to do. So if I don't think the government (TSA) should be in charge of airline security it's not like I get to bypass the TSA when I go on a plane. I therefore try to vote for the person that thinks we should get the government out of airline security.
If we follow your advice we would only have people in office that think government can do no wrong in any aspect of controlling our lives. What if you just want to be left alone for the most part and just have them protect your life, liberty, and property?
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty times when you are doing a preliminary design or a prototype where all you do is model the parts in CAD and have a machinist make them with standard tolerances. Then when you find problems with fits and interferences you modify the parts to make them work and never follow up with good documentation. This will only work for a one of kind stand alone product. Because you have no guarantee the next one you build will work the same way. This also only works with a small design team that can keep the whole project in their heads at one time.
Once you add interfaces and different groups working design and analysis and different subsystems you need real documentation of the interfaces otherwise you will waste lots of time and money getting things to work together.
I'm a mechanical engineer. Our "code" is models and drawings. These are what represent the real world objects in our designs. But you don't just deliver a set of drawings as a product. You have Analysis Reports, Design Manuals, Operation Manuals, Maintenance Manuals, Parts Lists, Concept of Operations, and about 20 other documents that describe the system you built. Sometimes a good engineer can pick up the drawing package and figure out how the thing works. But if you really want to understand the design you have to read the other products. If those products don't exist you end up reverse engineering from the design.
Great job
Go on Craig's List and look up drafting tables. I have an old one in which the height and angle of the top is fully adjustable. It's all counterbalanced with springs so it's easy to move. The tops can be easily replaced so you can customize the size.
I think you are intentionally missing the point. Specialization is very important. The question is who gets to determine if a risk is acceptable? You think that people are so dumb that other people get to use force to prevent them from doing things that can harm them. Even if that means sentencing them to a painful death. It's for their own good after all.
Let's go back to my original post about central planning. You cannot have central planners determine a one size fits all risk/reward level. So whatever they pick is going to be wrong.
In your case you prefer the FDA be ultra conservative and not allow any drugs with any harmful effects. That is an emotional and not a logical answer. You fail to acknowledge that by being so risk adverse you are sentencing many people to die because they cannot try potentially life saving drugs because you seem it too risky. If you were honest you would say that you would rather many people die untreated than allow them to try drugs that have not been proved safe or effective.
I, on the other hand, acknowledge that if you let people own their own body and put in it what they want that people could be harmed or killed based on their own actions. I think letting people do their own risk analysis is more humane.
IMHO here is the way it should work.
The pharmaceutical company should have the following responsibility. They should list the masses of the compounds that are in a drug with a certain percent error. If they sell a drug that falls out of that specification they should be held liable.
The effects of drugs and chemicals on people varies way too much to hold them responsible for effects. Heck some people can't tolerate sugar or peanuts.
The FDA would still have an important role testing drugs and drug combinations. But instead of approving or prohibiting drugs they would just publish the information and let people and doctors make their own call.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24281
The problem is you are forcing your values onto another person. What if someone prefers to work 96 hours a week? What if their goal is to save money for something like college. They want to put one year of working 12 hours a day 6 days a week. You think you have the right to say you can't work that much? Go home and sit on the couch and watch TV because that is what I like to do?
Germany is wealthy because it's filled with Germans.
You are wrong again. The important thing to YOU (and me as well) is to follow the scientific evidence. But there are people to whom this isn't important at all. Take herbal and eastern medicines. Some people value what they see as thousands of years of tradition more than scientific evidence. It's not your life. And if you attempt to force them to live by your standards don't expect them to be happy.
Actually I would not consider any medical journal a central planner. Your use of authority is confusing matters because it has several meanings. One is that of government which is coercion and the other is a powerful influence which is voluntary.
I think medical journals are an excellent example of how free people can work together. They peer review studies and keep attempting to refine knowledge. The FDA is the central planner in the US. It decides what drugs you are and are not allowed to sell. This is where the problem comes in.
You may say that most people will play a numbers game. But in that statement you acknowledge some people won't. And by having a central planner make those decisions you are making those people's lives worse by THEIR definition.
Let's take your drug idea. Here are a list of questions no central authority can answer:
Is the rigor that is applied today is too strict or not strict enough?
What is the optimal amount of rigor to benefit the most people?
What conditions can be permitted to try riskier drugs with possible benefits?
Is it more beneficial to have a long life or shorter more active one?
The problem is all of the answer to these questions depend on the individual. All things in life have risks and rewards and costs and benefits associated with them. Each individual makes a decision based on their own subjective value of these. To youit may not seem informed but it's not your life. No central plans can satisfy all individuals. You may see some positives like keeping harmful drugs off the market but there are some people who would prefer to try those drugs because they evaluate the risk diffent than you.
These "reforms" fail because they are running into the same problem that all central planners run into. There is no objective way to assign value. It's impossible. Value is completely subjective and is based on human choice. There is no way to create a test, flow chart, matrix, or anything else to figure out if a teacher is doing a good job with a particular student.
It's would be like having a board whose job it is to determine where you should have dinner and how much you should pay and how much tip the server should get. It is impossible and everyone restaurant, server, and customer would all be unhappy in such a situation.
I realize that having people be free to chose and pay for their own school isn't going to happen in my life. But at least if people understand the problem they can make a rational decision. One can argue that having inefficient schools that cannot do a good job is preferable to having parents choose where and how to educate their children with the means they have. At least that's being honest. But pretending there is some way to centrally plan schools to make everyone happy is illogical.
Welcome to the exponential function. Debt doubles roughly every 8 years or so.
Sorry. Use this.
http://gravitationalandspacebiology.org/index.php/journal/article/download/2/2
In fact just Google NASA Plant Growth Chamber
http://archive.org/details/KSC-04PD-1312
I've use some real basic equipment to do all grain brews. Just a 5 gallon water cooler and hot water PVC pipe. I put the grain in the cooler and add hot 170 F water to end up with a 155 F mash. Let it sit for an hour or so then drain off the wort until it isn't cloudy. Then put the cloudy wort back though the grains to filter. Then sparge with 150 F water.
Your don't professional extraction but grain is pretty cheap and the flavor is great.
All of the extract and pellets make this a real beginners brew. They should really step up to all grain brewing. Much better flavor.
Your post was one of the few times a grammar nazi actually taught me something rather than catching a mistake.
Thank you.
I am a Mechanical Engineer but I also have a CS degree. It was interesting in school to see how software engineering being a relatively new field is struggling with what other engineering fields have had to deal with for a long time.
Staffing a project is not a linear function. A project with twice the complexity doesn't take twice as many people. It may take 4 times as many because now you have to coordinate those people. This requires project managers and system engineers. This begs the question what is the right project size for a team?
I've been on small teams that have done amazing things in limited time because we were all in one room without distractions. I've also been on large projects that have gone nowhere because nobody knew what to do.
Very occasionally I've been on a large project with a good manager that can break the project down into subsystems with clear requirements small enough for a small team to handle. The manager handles the conflicts with interfaces between these subsystems but otherwise stays out of the way. This is the type of manager I like to work with.
This planet is getting so fat we are going to need radiation suspenders.