No. Neanderthals did have red hair, and did inhabit the same regions where modern ginger people come from - but it is already established that the gene which gives them red hair is completely different from the one that causes red hair in humans.
The above post is not at all offtopic, its a valid question.
You mean the company that can get 40% of the small rockets it has launched into orbit, 50 years after state space agencies had similar capability? Or the launcher built for the USAF, paid for with government money, and kept on a tight leash? Or the company that launches space balloons on other peoples rockets? Give me a break.
The fact that you think moving from a single engine per stage small rocket like Falcon 1 to a heavy lift, cluster powered rocket like Falcon 9 is just 'the next stage in the game' betrays your abject ignorance of the subject. SpaceX have not demonstrated reliability with one engine, let alone 9.
Ares 1-X has no capability to LEO at all as it is a sub-orbital rocket, like the first Saturn I flight. Furthermore, you place the start of the Saturn I design (beyond 'we need a dedicated launcher') about a year too early. So don't presume to lecture me on facts.
The Ares team has a number of advantages over the Saturn team:
1. The first stage of Ares 1-X is already in service as the Shuttle SRB
2. The second stage engine of Ares 1 (which isn't even ready for use as such yet) is a tried and tested design
3. Computer technology has come along astronomically since then; the Saturn team didn't even have access to microprocessors.
The inescapable fact is, that the Ares development next to the Saturn development shows serious structural problems in NASA, and perhaps in the science and engineering culture of the US as a whole (which NASA is almost indisputably at the forefront of).
You have one or two facts, rather than an in-depth knowledge, and you have fitted them into a narrative you find pleasing (US still no. 1! Woo!) and think this makes you intelligent. You are wrong, what you are displaying here is cargo-cult rocket science. You've seen how smart people post and you are trying to imitate it.
Giving a (very small) amount of government money to scientists and engineers is waste. Giving a huge portion of pretty much every western nations budget to their respective banks, who fucked up, just so those banks can reward themselves with bonuses is waste. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude, and this has been repeatedly pointed out as a fatal flaw in your 'cant afford it' argument - but you have simply covered your ears and carried on spouting pure molten wrongness.
THAT is government waste. Spending for NASA has always provided benefits for science and impacted our daily lives. Its a worthy endeavor and something necessary to IMHO spur on the advancement of the human race.
And THAT is why NASA won't get the money that is eagerly shovelled into the pockets of crooked businessmen who would sell their own grandma to a glue factor for a dollar.
The word is 'Kleptocracy' - despite all protestations, modern western governments exist solely to enrich the participants in those governments and their friends/business associates.
Considering the banks here in the UK alone received £1 trillion, the amount spent on a space program is a drop in the ocean and is frankly spent in a far more responsible manner (rather than give greedy sociopathic bankers massive bonuses despite the fact they fucked us all).
Burt Rutan has produced a small, suborbital toy for billionaires. The private sector has been free to get into space for decades, and hasn't done so. But then again, the private sector hasn't delivered a reliable banking system or a method of food distribution that does cause unnecessary deaths, so meh.
SpaceX is yet to really prove themselves as a launch company, let alone Armadillo. You want a low-cost heavy lift launch, you go to Russia and buy a Proton, simple as that.
As a demonstration of US technical prowess, Ares I is pathetic; its got similar capabilities to Saturn I and took much longer to develop. It anything its a demonstration of US decline...
Selling games is strictly self-serving also. Apparently, you think its fantastic for companies to be driven by greed, but the customers should be selfless? Same old shit as the banks - capitalise the profit, socialise the loss.
"Today a game developer decided that he is entitled to 400% more sales than he got."
The fact is, these people made a game and then successfully sold it. There is no evidence presented here that the 80% of people who pirated would've bought the game if they had not got the option of piracy. In fact, the lack of any pirates then buying the game seems to indicate that none of them would've bought the game at all.
So this guy hasn't lost any revenue, not that he has any a priori right to sales anyway. But he is speaking as if pirates had broken into his house and ripped off his jewelry and his laptop.
Its this kind of inflated sense of entitlement displayed by some in the content industry that drove me, someone who works primarily producing content (non-games software in my case) to join the Pirate Party UK.
The 'explicit' inclusion of your version of 'economic freedom' into the broader concept of freedom is exactly what I am talking about.
You have a very dogmatic, simplistic, and one sided view of freedom - in common with all other right-wing libertarians (the term libertarian, by the way, originally referred to left-wing anarchists).
The term 'economic freedom' used to describe markets is inconsistent with terms like 'political freedom' and 'individual freedom - political freedom gives people power of their political situation, individual freedom gives people power over their self, but your 'economic freedom' does not give people control over their economic lives; the majority of the world own nothing and are forced into servitude in order to survive.
Markets have no mechanism to ensure that the resources needed to survive are within reach of the poorest people; this is why 25,000 people die each day through lack of food, in a world that produces enough food for everyone to eat and where the distribution of food is almost universally dictated by your precious 'market'. Most of these people are children. This is your 'economic freedom' and I dispute if it is freedom at all.
Also, please don't construct a strawman argument about the 'leftist' concept of freedom - it just illuminates your ignorance for all to see.
I have not found that, actually. The level of knowledge of the user is less important than the way they ask a question; what annoys experts is not so much stupid people as people who don't realize they are stupid.
Marxist socialism is 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his labour' - but communism is 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. So by this definition, FOSS is plain old communism!
Very true. Their basic premise seem to be that making money (anybody making money) enhances the personal freedom of everyone - and they are very dogmatic about it. Whenever there is a conflict between money-making and individual freedom (which they claim is something that shouldn't happen) they go into full cognitive dissonance mode. They blame the government - reasoning in a circular kind of way that because the government did something around the same time as the subject at hand and because government is bad and markets are wonderful, government must be to blame.
And in the end, their proposed solution for any conflict between money making and freedom will always will come down on the site of money making.
1. Appeals to 'nature', even in all caps, are horseshit. Aside from the fact everything physical is natural by default, even if you meant 'how humans used to be' then you are talking about living in caves aren't you? Houses and processed food certainly aren't 'natural' under your presumed definition.
2. What is defined as property in capitalist legal codes is not the same as what you defend by killing someone - that is territory. Defending something by force depends on your capacity and willingness to use force, whilst legally enshrined property allows a fat old landlord to have land defended from people younger and stronger than him.
3. Markets are natural (seeing as they exist) but they are a human psychological construct. If you think they have any physical existence outside human minds you would have to find their position, mass, velocity etc. The movement of energy through physical systems is not an economy - unlike economics, thermodynamics requires you learn some proper maths.
A contract that is enforced with weapons is called a 'threat'. Whoever has the biggest weapons gets to interpret such a contract however he wants. This is why anarcho-capitalism is basically 'whoever has the most guns wins'
What you fail to take into account is history: prior to government regulation of business and corporate personhood there was an immense amount of inequality, and businesses profited by treating people like shit. The western world was full of workplaces like those you find now in places like Congo and rural China.
Because Kethinov is not the first person to define a 'free market'. Basically I am getting at the fact he is clearly a market fundamentalist, who when presented with any negative consequence of markets, will claim in a convoluted fashion that it isn't the markets that did that, it must be X because markets are perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
Flying cars do exist, but human beings are too fucking dumb to fly them safely, as evidenced by all the racist fucks still walking around.
No. Neanderthals did have red hair, and did inhabit the same regions where modern ginger people come from - but it is already established that the gene which gives them red hair is completely different from the one that causes red hair in humans.
The above post is not at all offtopic, its a valid question.
Tell that to the guys who built the Soviet N-1
You mean the company that can get 40% of the small rockets it has launched into orbit, 50 years after state space agencies had similar capability? Or the launcher built for the USAF, paid for with government money, and kept on a tight leash? Or the company that launches space balloons on other peoples rockets? Give me a break.
The fact that you think moving from a single engine per stage small rocket like Falcon 1 to a heavy lift, cluster powered rocket like Falcon 9 is just 'the next stage in the game' betrays your abject ignorance of the subject. SpaceX have not demonstrated reliability with one engine, let alone 9.
Ares 1-X has no capability to LEO at all as it is a sub-orbital rocket, like the first Saturn I flight. Furthermore, you place the start of the Saturn I design (beyond 'we need a dedicated launcher') about a year too early. So don't presume to lecture me on facts.
The Ares team has a number of advantages over the Saturn team:
1. The first stage of Ares 1-X is already in service as the Shuttle SRB
2. The second stage engine of Ares 1 (which isn't even ready for use as such yet) is a tried and tested design
3. Computer technology has come along astronomically since then; the Saturn team didn't even have access to microprocessors.
The inescapable fact is, that the Ares development next to the Saturn development shows serious structural problems in NASA, and perhaps in the science and engineering culture of the US as a whole (which NASA is almost indisputably at the forefront of).
You have one or two facts, rather than an in-depth knowledge, and you have fitted them into a narrative you find pleasing (US still no. 1! Woo!) and think this makes you intelligent. You are wrong, what you are displaying here is cargo-cult rocket science. You've seen how smart people post and you are trying to imitate it.
Giving a (very small) amount of government money to scientists and engineers is waste. Giving a huge portion of pretty much every western nations budget to their respective banks, who fucked up, just so those banks can reward themselves with bonuses is waste. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude, and this has been repeatedly pointed out as a fatal flaw in your 'cant afford it' argument - but you have simply covered your ears and carried on spouting pure molten wrongness.
And THAT is why NASA won't get the money that is eagerly shovelled into the pockets of crooked businessmen who would sell their own grandma to a glue factor for a dollar.
The word is 'Kleptocracy' - despite all protestations, modern western governments exist solely to enrich the participants in those governments and their friends/business associates.
Considering the banks here in the UK alone received £1 trillion, the amount spent on a space program is a drop in the ocean and is frankly spent in a far more responsible manner (rather than give greedy sociopathic bankers massive bonuses despite the fact they fucked us all).
Burt Rutan has produced a small, suborbital toy for billionaires. The private sector has been free to get into space for decades, and hasn't done so. But then again, the private sector hasn't delivered a reliable banking system or a method of food distribution that does cause unnecessary deaths, so meh.
SpaceX is yet to really prove themselves as a launch company, let alone Armadillo. You want a low-cost heavy lift launch, you go to Russia and buy a Proton, simple as that.
As a demonstration of US technical prowess, Ares I is pathetic; its got similar capabilities to Saturn I and took much longer to develop. It anything its a demonstration of US decline...
Surely NASA shouldn't be showing favouritism to Apple in this way, by only releasing the app on one platform?
Selling games is strictly self-serving also. Apparently, you think its fantastic for companies to be driven by greed, but the customers should be selfless? Same old shit as the banks - capitalise the profit, socialise the loss.
I make my point with logic, you do so with swearing. Whose the 'kid' here?
"Today a game developer decided that he is entitled to 400% more sales than he got."
The fact is, these people made a game and then successfully sold it. There is no evidence presented here that the 80% of people who pirated would've bought the game if they had not got the option of piracy. In fact, the lack of any pirates then buying the game seems to indicate that none of them would've bought the game at all.
So this guy hasn't lost any revenue, not that he has any a priori right to sales anyway. But he is speaking as if pirates had broken into his house and ripped off his jewelry and his laptop.
Its this kind of inflated sense of entitlement displayed by some in the content industry that drove me, someone who works primarily producing content (non-games software in my case) to join the Pirate Party UK.
The 'explicit' inclusion of your version of 'economic freedom' into the broader concept of freedom is exactly what I am talking about.
You have a very dogmatic, simplistic, and one sided view of freedom - in common with all other right-wing libertarians (the term libertarian, by the way, originally referred to left-wing anarchists).
The term 'economic freedom' used to describe markets is inconsistent with terms like 'political freedom' and 'individual freedom - political freedom gives people power of their political situation, individual freedom gives people power over their self, but your 'economic freedom' does not give people control over their economic lives; the majority of the world own nothing and are forced into servitude in order to survive.
Markets have no mechanism to ensure that the resources needed to survive are within reach of the poorest people; this is why 25,000 people die each day through lack of food, in a world that produces enough food for everyone to eat and where the distribution of food is almost universally dictated by your precious 'market'. Most of these people are children. This is your 'economic freedom' and I dispute if it is freedom at all.
Also, please don't construct a strawman argument about the 'leftist' concept of freedom - it just illuminates your ignorance for all to see.
I have not found that, actually. The level of knowledge of the user is less important than the way they ask a question; what annoys experts is not so much stupid people as people who don't realize they are stupid.
Marxist socialism is 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his labour' - but communism is 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. So by this definition, FOSS is plain old communism!
Very true. Their basic premise seem to be that making money (anybody making money) enhances the personal freedom of everyone - and they are very dogmatic about it. Whenever there is a conflict between money-making and individual freedom (which they claim is something that shouldn't happen) they go into full cognitive dissonance mode. They blame the government - reasoning in a circular kind of way that because the government did something around the same time as the subject at hand and because government is bad and markets are wonderful, government must be to blame.
And in the end, their proposed solution for any conflict between money making and freedom will always will come down on the site of money making.
Sloppy reasoning.
1. Appeals to 'nature', even in all caps, are horseshit. Aside from the fact everything physical is natural by default, even if you meant 'how humans used to be' then you are talking about living in caves aren't you? Houses and processed food certainly aren't 'natural' under your presumed definition.
2. What is defined as property in capitalist legal codes is not the same as what you defend by killing someone - that is territory. Defending something by force depends on your capacity and willingness to use force, whilst legally enshrined property allows a fat old landlord to have land defended from people younger and stronger than him.
3. Markets are natural (seeing as they exist) but they are a human psychological construct. If you think they have any physical existence outside human minds you would have to find their position, mass, velocity etc. The movement of energy through physical systems is not an economy - unlike economics, thermodynamics requires you learn some proper maths.
You call those things fallacies but you don't show why. They are not fallacies just because they are inconvenient for your ideology
A contract that is enforced with weapons is called a 'threat'. Whoever has the biggest weapons gets to interpret such a contract however he wants. This is why anarcho-capitalism is basically 'whoever has the most guns wins'
What you fail to take into account is history: prior to government regulation of business and corporate personhood there was an immense amount of inequality, and businesses profited by treating people like shit. The western world was full of workplaces like those you find now in places like Congo and rural China.
Because Kethinov is not the first person to define a 'free market'. Basically I am getting at the fact he is clearly a market fundamentalist, who when presented with any negative consequence of markets, will claim in a convoluted fashion that it isn't the markets that did that, it must be X because markets are perfect.