If you want to know what your ideal market would look like, look at the 19th century. Unfettered capitalism is human suffering and wage slavery, and that is a historical fact.
But it doesn't matter either way. Either the market created this problem through being unable to truly represent the value of things through prices (which would make on of its most dearly held tenets wrong or at least overstated), or the market would never have supplied bad loans without government interference, which knocks down another pillar of capitalist thought because a market in itself would not be able to elevate the standard of living of its poorest members (something that is claimed it will do, frequently, to justify why we allow the governments we do).
The whole principle of the thing is in trouble, and that isn't a fringe opinion anymore. Lots of people are starting to ask questions that would've been unthinkable only a year or two ago. Why else would Bush have to go on TV and actually state 'democratic capitalism is the best thing EVAR'?
Well, that puts to rest any arguments that it was the fault of 'big government' meddling with the almighty market. Maybe its time to reassess a few things.
Perhaps because goodhart's law applies to prices as well as other economic measures. Using a price to represent the risks associated with a package of loans was doomed to failure from the start.
We are not genetic automata is what I meant. Our lives and our minds are not set in stone at the moment of fertilisation. Such thinking, linking a persons character to their heritage, is very dangerous indeed.
Free will either a) exists or b) does not exist but because we can't predict the future of the universe from its present state it might as well exist.
Philosophies that contain a concept of inevitability are, in my humble opinion, designed to close your mind. As soon as any line of thought hits 'it cant be changed' it just stops. Thought-stopping memes are cultish.
Britain is not a typical European democracy, it is an effective two party system. The nearest thing to a viable third party (The Liberal Democrats) have their seat count kept low by our system of first-past-the-post (rather than proportional representation, the norm in mainland European countries that gives them their multiparty elections).
Leveling anti-European criticisms at Britain is stupid because of how politically aligned to the US we are. IMHO my country would be vastly improved by independence from America.
This is not a small thing. Being able to, ahem, deliver on cue is considered a talent in the porn industry, and being able to do so in a 6 minute window, with the sudden loss of gravity reducing the amount of blood gettting down there, could be hard. Multiple takes are not an option.
Even if I used the mass which Falcon 1 is *theoreticlaly* capable of launching, Dnepr is still more economical.
You claim some kind of intellectual victory despite just being a little bitch. You think that somehow not swearing gives you supremacy over someone who has numbers on his side. You are wrong.
It isn't "silly" - I am well aware of that compression isn't the only component of the thing - it is simply the best explanation for most people. The phenomenon you describe is such a tiny factor in the heating of a spacecraft re-entering the Earths atmosphere that it is pointless even mentioning it to someone who isn't specifically interesting in fluid dynamics.
As it happens, I am sufficiently interested in fluid dynamics, but when correcting the common fallacy that "friction" causes spacecraft to heat up on re-entry I don't think it matters that much.
Anyone who thinks 'layabouts' are the chief cause of British economic woes reveals their far right political orientation. Benefit fraud costs the taxpayer about 200 times less than corporate fraud, and the vast majority of social funding goes on pensions not unemployment benefits.
I've said it before and I will say it again: The UK is the weak link. All manned programmes in Europe have received enough backing from France and Germany that they would've succeeded if we had the vision to chip in our share.
The Italians, developing their new Vega launch vehicle, are demonstrating more aerospace competence than we are - and no offence meant to Italians but that is shameful for a country that considers itself the economic success story of the continent.
I blame Thatcher. Her restructuring of the economy to make it based almost solely on finance has a) created this damned economic mess we are in now and b) left us severally lacking in high tech fields such as aerospace. In the 1970s we cooperated with France on aerospace projects such as Concorde and the ill-fated Europa rocket, but now we can only cooperate with them as a very junior partner on things such as the new Airbus.
Its a disposable cargo carrier. There are plans to allow it to return to Earth in one piece, which are hopefully going to lead to the development of a manned version of it as proposed by the Germans.
Friction is a force between two solid surfaces. There is no friction involved in fiery atmospheric re-entry.
The heating is caused by compression. When an object travels at supersonic speeds, it pushes air ahead of it faster than the air in front of that air can get out of the way. This compresses it and thus heats it.
Logical and correct, although supersonic heating has nothing to do with friction.
Something moving through air pushes that air out of the way. At subsonic speeds (i.e. below the maximum speed the air as a fluid can move) this carries heat away from the aircraft. At supersonic speeds, the air simply cannot get out of the way quick enough, so piles up against the fuselage. This compression (not friction) creates heat.
If you think clustering problems are related in some way to individual engine failures, you are even more of a retard than you falsely believe me to be.
They haven't done better. They have produced a more costly, less reliable version of established Soviet/Russian launchers and have given themselves far too much of a pat on the back for it.
The Chinese have spent about 20 times what Musk has (going on what my opponents say) and have come out with more than 20 times the value in terms of their results. You can't even compare three man capsules and spacewalks to launching microsatellites on the same playing field.
He hasn't changed the economics of launching. Dnepr is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 1, and Proton is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 9 - and his price estimates for the latter are an optimistic assessment based on the laughable premise that a guy who didn't know how much thrust his engine would produce in actual flight can somehow get a cluster of 9 engines flying right on the first shot.
China is a developing nation with a space programme that will, when the Shuttle retires, eclipse that of the most powerful nation on Earth. Musk is a billionaire with a useless toy. Totally different situations.
Number three wasn't stage seperation timing. It was how long the engine would continue to produce thrust. Even as a sceptic I stared slack jawed at the screen when I read this. How the fuck did they let that get through?
These pricks you are cheerleading for have about as much quality control as a Chinese dairy farm, which is why they didn't know how much thrust their own damn engine produce before it was slamming their stages together. Check your facts before you call someone and idiot next time you cocksucker.
Slashdot Mirror
This has already been refuted by someone else: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=991171&cid=25324879
If you want to know what your ideal market would look like, look at the 19th century. Unfettered capitalism is human suffering and wage slavery, and that is a historical fact.
That has already been refuted above: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=991171&cid=25324879
But it doesn't matter either way. Either the market created this problem through being unable to truly represent the value of things through prices (which would make on of its most dearly held tenets wrong or at least overstated), or the market would never have supplied bad loans without government interference, which knocks down another pillar of capitalist thought because a market in itself would not be able to elevate the standard of living of its poorest members (something that is claimed it will do, frequently, to justify why we allow the governments we do).
The whole principle of the thing is in trouble, and that isn't a fringe opinion anymore. Lots of people are starting to ask questions that would've been unthinkable only a year or two ago. Why else would Bush have to go on TV and actually state 'democratic capitalism is the best thing EVAR'?
Well, that puts to rest any arguments that it was the fault of 'big government' meddling with the almighty market. Maybe its time to reassess a few things.
Perhaps because goodhart's law applies to prices as well as other economic measures. Using a price to represent the risks associated with a package of loans was doomed to failure from the start.
We are not genetic automata is what I meant. Our lives and our minds are not set in stone at the moment of fertilisation. Such thinking, linking a persons character to their heritage, is very dangerous indeed.
Free will either a) exists or b) does not exist but because we can't predict the future of the universe from its present state it might as well exist.
Philosophies that contain a concept of inevitability are, in my humble opinion, designed to close your mind. As soon as any line of thought hits 'it cant be changed' it just stops. Thought-stopping memes are cultish.
Yes. In the UK we do everything in an orderly and polite manner. Including slide into fascism.
Britain is not a typical European democracy, it is an effective two party system. The nearest thing to a viable third party (The Liberal Democrats) have their seat count kept low by our system of first-past-the-post (rather than proportional representation, the norm in mainland European countries that gives them their multiparty elections).
Leveling anti-European criticisms at Britain is stupid because of how politically aligned to the US we are. IMHO my country would be vastly improved by independence from America.
Cultures yes, genetics no. We are not automata
This is not a small thing. Being able to, ahem, deliver on cue is considered a talent in the porn industry, and being able to do so in a 6 minute window, with the sudden loss of gravity reducing the amount of blood gettting down there, could be hard. Multiple takes are not an option.
Even if I used the mass which Falcon 1 is *theoreticlaly* capable of launching, Dnepr is still more economical.
You claim some kind of intellectual victory despite just being a little bitch. You think that somehow not swearing gives you supremacy over someone who has numbers on his side. You are wrong.
It isn't "silly" - I am well aware of that compression isn't the only component of the thing - it is simply the best explanation for most people. The phenomenon you describe is such a tiny factor in the heating of a spacecraft re-entering the Earths atmosphere that it is pointless even mentioning it to someone who isn't specifically interesting in fluid dynamics.
As it happens, I am sufficiently interested in fluid dynamics, but when correcting the common fallacy that "friction" causes spacecraft to heat up on re-entry I don't think it matters that much.
Anyone who thinks 'layabouts' are the chief cause of British economic woes reveals their far right political orientation. Benefit fraud costs the taxpayer about 200 times less than corporate fraud, and the vast majority of social funding goes on pensions not unemployment benefits.
I've said it before and I will say it again: The UK is the weak link. All manned programmes in Europe have received enough backing from France and Germany that they would've succeeded if we had the vision to chip in our share.
The Italians, developing their new Vega launch vehicle, are demonstrating more aerospace competence than we are - and no offence meant to Italians but that is shameful for a country that considers itself the economic success story of the continent.
I blame Thatcher. Her restructuring of the economy to make it based almost solely on finance has a) created this damned economic mess we are in now and b) left us severally lacking in high tech fields such as aerospace. In the 1970s we cooperated with France on aerospace projects such as Concorde and the ill-fated Europa rocket, but now we can only cooperate with them as a very junior partner on things such as the new Airbus.
Its a disposable cargo carrier. There are plans to allow it to return to Earth in one piece, which are hopefully going to lead to the development of a manned version of it as proposed by the Germans.
Friction is a force between two solid surfaces. There is no friction involved in fiery atmospheric re-entry.
The heating is caused by compression. When an object travels at supersonic speeds, it pushes air ahead of it faster than the air in front of that air can get out of the way. This compresses it and thus heats it.
Logical and correct, although supersonic heating has nothing to do with friction.
Something moving through air pushes that air out of the way. At subsonic speeds (i.e. below the maximum speed the air as a fluid can move) this carries heat away from the aircraft. At supersonic speeds, the air simply cannot get out of the way quick enough, so piles up against the fuselage. This compression (not friction) creates heat.
Fucking pathetic.
If you think clustering problems are related in some way to individual engine failures, you are even more of a retard than you falsely believe me to be.
They had the Merlin engine firing on a stand and flight 3 still fucked up, didn't it? Don't pretend to understand such things.
They haven't done better. They have produced a more costly, less reliable version of established Soviet/Russian launchers and have given themselves far too much of a pat on the back for it.
The Chinese have spent about 20 times what Musk has (going on what my opponents say) and have come out with more than 20 times the value in terms of their results. You can't even compare three man capsules and spacewalks to launching microsatellites on the same playing field.
He hasn't changed the economics of launching. Dnepr is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 1, and Proton is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 9 - and his price estimates for the latter are an optimistic assessment based on the laughable premise that a guy who didn't know how much thrust his engine would produce in actual flight can somehow get a cluster of 9 engines flying right on the first shot.
China is a developing nation with a space programme that will, when the Shuttle retires, eclipse that of the most powerful nation on Earth. Musk is a billionaire with a useless toy. Totally different situations.
If they just replicate the procedures of the past flight the thing WILL blow up. Clustering is not a trivial problem at all.
If you think having a go at people for being corporate fanboys is equivalent to racism, then you really are lost.
Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.
Space being classified? Not really.
Energy crisis? You aren't one of these Helium-3 retards are you?
Number three wasn't stage seperation timing. It was how long the engine would continue to produce thrust. Even as a sceptic I stared slack jawed at the screen when I read this. How the fuck did they let that get through?
These pricks you are cheerleading for have about as much quality control as a Chinese dairy farm, which is why they didn't know how much thrust their own damn engine produce before it was slamming their stages together. Check your facts before you call someone and idiot next time you cocksucker.