The allegations are of full collusion between NotW and the PI - specifically that although the PI may have gained access to the voicemail, it was News International journalists who deleted messages from it (i.e. tampering with evidence in a murder investigation). Trying to blame some rogue investigator is utter bullshit.
People do not always treat mini-roundabouts as roundabouts. If they are small, and have been placed at a T-junction, people sometimes do not treat them as roundabouts. Please don't try and call me a liar because I have seen this first hand (its a fairly frequent and serious danger cycling around my area).
Just wait until your government figures out they can just paint a big white circle on a junction and call it a 'mini-roundabout' - half the people approaching it treat it as a roundabout, the other half treat it as a junction. Hilarity/death ensues.
According to their website, $1000/kg is the pessimistic end of their estimates (which, as I have stressed, have been verified by outside experts) and the same price is the very optimistic end of SpaceX estimates.
The fear of the Chinese is not their position but their velocity. Their space program is slow, but its got a definite trajectory it has been following, pretty much dead on schedule, since the 1990s.
This is whilst the US government has used all means in its power to hobble their space program, such as making it illegal for US companies to put their satellites on Chinese rockets and tightly controlling the export of critical technology.
Right now they are a few years from overtaking the Russians (who are still largely powered by Soviet momentum) on manned space flight, and then a few years after that they will match ESA for robotic flight. It will be a decade at least before they are nipping at NASA heels. But nobody, apart from some fairly fringe economists predicting economic collapse, doubts they will get there.
The US doesn't have any real goal, at least in space flight. Every president sets a date for Mars so far in the future he will be long out of office before anyone demands to see progress, and then the next guy cancels the clearly unworkable plan he has been left.
Falcon 9, according to current SpaceX numbers on their site, is ~$6000/kg, and Falcon 9 Heavy is over ~$2000/kg. The talk of less than $1000/kg is just that; talk.
All SpaceX has done is shown what a conventional, staged rocket should cost rather than what Boeing et al like to tell NASA it costs. This is useful in itself, but rockets are still fundamentally limited.
Its completed 2 launches and its price is set? Without any subsidy at all from the US government? (Read the article, because some fairly senior astronauts think it does).
The idea that Falcon 9 is inherently cheaper than Skylon is laughable.
Skylon's numbers have been independently analysed. The Falcon 9 estimates are just overhyped numbers to draw in shareholders. US business culture is notorious for its level of hype.
No human has ever lived in space for a single stretch equal to the length of mission to Mars.
There, that one sentence encapsulated just ONE of the many reasons for the ISS. Don't mistake your churlish lack of imagination for a disproof of a concept.
If you hang on a few years, we might have something for you:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html
Its a unique vehicle, not only for running on air breathing rockets (currently being tested; I'm sure slashdot will carry the story when the results are out) but also because the people who want to build it have no intention of operating it - they will sell it freely to any operator. NASA could easily buy a couple and run them from the US.
You've now recognised that the paper you posted does not support your idiotic position, at all, and even if it did, that would not prove anything.
In order to try and salvage some dignity from this complete pwnage, you now try an angle of attack against me - but laughably suggesting that the scientific consensus does not exist, even though you have already acknowledged that it does exist when you made your retarded point about "if 99 people believe X" meaning there is no need for me to prove it to you (although, it wouldn't hurt you to look up the IPCC, retard)
The extent to which you've dug yourself into a hole is a pathetic. Give up now. I am the winner here
Are you going to address the fact that you seem to think you can overturn the consensus by cherry picking one graph, and drawing from it a conclusion the author himself doesn't draw? Or are you going to continue to completely misunderstand the scientific method, just so you don't have to admit how deeply, deeply, wrong you are?
So by cherry-picking ONE graph from a cherry-picked paper, and seeing some 'bigger truth' than the AUTHOR OF THAT PAPER saw fit to put in his conclusion, you honestly believe you have presented evidence which should cause a rational person to reject the scientific consensus?
My god, you are persistent in your complete stupidity aren't you?
Firstly, as your argument flounders, even IF that paper said what you claim it says, it is only one piece of a MUCH LARGER puzzle - the other pieces decisively favoring anthropogenic climate change. One shithead on the internet linking to a paper does not cause a rational person to toss out the scientific consensus.
However, he does not say what you think. He doesn't use the word 'only' - he may only talk about the last decade, but that is because scientific papers tend to have a deliberately narrow focus. You would understand this if you were not a twat.
I've just had a chance to read the paper through. You know, all the way to the conclusion. You know, the bit where he says that the past decade of warming IS anomalous.
What you cite as 'direct scientific evidence' is contradicted by a far larger body of 'direct scientific evidence' that we non-morons call the 'scientific consensus'. So, yes, I dismissed the single paper linked to by an uninformed, anonymous, fucktard on Slashdot in favour of sticking with the mountain of evidence in support of the scientific consensus.
To actually delve into that one, specific, paper, would give your sorry excuse for an argument more credence than it is due.
Seriously? Did you read the paper I linked to? Its far more appropriate to your apparent level of education.
The minority opinion is very, very, rarely right. For every Einstein there are a million or so sad, pathetic pseudo-intellectuals posting on newsgroups and forums who believe they have 'disproved' relativity when even a moderately qualified physicist can show that they have just tragically misunderstood it.
Oh, and 'scientists' have never, ever claimed the Earth is flat. The knowledge and proof that the Earth is round is exceedingly old (the ancient Greeks not only know the Earth was roughly spherical, they also made some pretty accurate calculations of its size). This knowledge predates anything that could be realisitically described as 'science' in the modern sense.
Your abject ignorance of the history of discovery only serves to highlight the absolute stupidity of your argument.
Oh, and anticipating your future attempt to recover from the destruction of your pathetic argument, an insult is not the same as an ad hominem
So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?
Well said - some people think that saying 'no evidence' repeatedly is skepticism. It is not. Rejecting bad ideas is skepticism, but accepting well established ideas (such as anthropogenic climate change) is also part of skepticism.
Lets not give cranks and nuts, raging at proper peer-reviewed science, the dignity that comes with the term 'skeptic'
He didn't have a leg to stand on, if he libelled a company than essentially called bullshit on himself whilst leaving the offending libel visible on the internet (i.e. still being published).
And its not an unreasonable settlement. He didn't have to pay money by the sounds of it, and isn't facing criminal charges. He just has to tweet some stuff. And frankly, its refreshing to see a (apparently justified) retraction be more visible than a smear.
As I understand it, the air speed is determined by a little tube sticking out of the nose of the aircraft. This tube got iced up, they couldn't determine their airspeed, and the crew were not able to keep the plane flying without this information.
But can't a modern plane determine its speed through GPS measurements?
Slashdot Mirror
1. The editor of the paper at the time is now NIs most senior person in the UK.
2. The voicemail messages were deleted by NotW journalists, NOT by the investigator who initially gained access to the voicemail.
Don't try and let NI off the hook for this (even if you are an astroturfer working for them).
Are News International paying you for this?
The allegations are of full collusion between NotW and the PI - specifically that although the PI may have gained access to the voicemail, it was News International journalists who deleted messages from it (i.e. tampering with evidence in a murder investigation). Trying to blame some rogue investigator is utter bullshit.
I am in the UK, retard.
People do not always treat mini-roundabouts as roundabouts. If they are small, and have been placed at a T-junction, people sometimes do not treat them as roundabouts. Please don't try and call me a liar because I have seen this first hand (its a fairly frequent and serious danger cycling around my area).
Just wait until your government figures out they can just paint a big white circle on a junction and call it a 'mini-roundabout' - half the people approaching it treat it as a roundabout, the other half treat it as a junction. Hilarity/death ensues.
According to their website, $1000/kg is the pessimistic end of their estimates (which, as I have stressed, have been verified by outside experts) and the same price is the very optimistic end of SpaceX estimates.
The fear of the Chinese is not their position but their velocity. Their space program is slow, but its got a definite trajectory it has been following, pretty much dead on schedule, since the 1990s.
This is whilst the US government has used all means in its power to hobble their space program, such as making it illegal for US companies to put their satellites on Chinese rockets and tightly controlling the export of critical technology.
Right now they are a few years from overtaking the Russians (who are still largely powered by Soviet momentum) on manned space flight, and then a few years after that they will match ESA for robotic flight. It will be a decade at least before they are nipping at NASA heels. But nobody, apart from some fairly fringe economists predicting economic collapse, doubts they will get there.
The US doesn't have any real goal, at least in space flight. Every president sets a date for Mars so far in the future he will be long out of office before anyone demands to see progress, and then the next guy cancels the clearly unworkable plan he has been left.
Falcon 9, according to current SpaceX numbers on their site, is ~$6000/kg, and Falcon 9 Heavy is over ~$2000/kg. The talk of less than $1000/kg is just that; talk.
All SpaceX has done is shown what a conventional, staged rocket should cost rather than what Boeing et al like to tell NASA it costs. This is useful in itself, but rockets are still fundamentally limited.
Its completed 2 launches and its price is set? Without any subsidy at all from the US government? (Read the article, because some fairly senior astronauts think it does).
The idea that Falcon 9 is inherently cheaper than Skylon is laughable.
Skylon's numbers have been independently analysed. The Falcon 9 estimates are just overhyped numbers to draw in shareholders. US business culture is notorious for its level of hype.
No human has ever lived in space for a single stretch equal to the length of mission to Mars.
There, that one sentence encapsulated just ONE of the many reasons for the ISS. Don't mistake your churlish lack of imagination for a disproof of a concept.
If you hang on a few years, we might have something for you:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html
Its a unique vehicle, not only for running on air breathing rockets (currently being tested; I'm sure slashdot will carry the story when the results are out) but also because the people who want to build it have no intention of operating it - they will sell it freely to any operator. NASA could easily buy a couple and run them from the US.
Are you saying that if a person is poor/black, they can't possibly be interested in space travel?
This is just tragic.
You've now recognised that the paper you posted does not support your idiotic position, at all, and even if it did, that would not prove anything.
In order to try and salvage some dignity from this complete pwnage, you now try an angle of attack against me - but laughably suggesting that the scientific consensus does not exist, even though you have already acknowledged that it does exist when you made your retarded point about "if 99 people believe X" meaning there is no need for me to prove it to you (although, it wouldn't hurt you to look up the IPCC, retard)
The extent to which you've dug yourself into a hole is a pathetic. Give up now. I am the winner here
Are you going to address the fact that you seem to think you can overturn the consensus by cherry picking one graph, and drawing from it a conclusion the author himself doesn't draw? Or are you going to continue to completely misunderstand the scientific method, just so you don't have to admit how deeply, deeply, wrong you are?
So by cherry-picking ONE graph from a cherry-picked paper, and seeing some 'bigger truth' than the AUTHOR OF THAT PAPER saw fit to put in his conclusion, you honestly believe you have presented evidence which should cause a rational person to reject the scientific consensus?
Just how stupid are you?
My god, you are persistent in your complete stupidity aren't you?
Firstly, as your argument flounders, even IF that paper said what you claim it says, it is only one piece of a MUCH LARGER puzzle - the other pieces decisively favoring anthropogenic climate change. One shithead on the internet linking to a paper does not cause a rational person to toss out the scientific consensus.
However, he does not say what you think. He doesn't use the word 'only' - he may only talk about the last decade, but that is because scientific papers tend to have a deliberately narrow focus. You would understand this if you were not a twat.
Addendum for the fuckwit:
I've just had a chance to read the paper through. You know, all the way to the conclusion. You know, the bit where he says that the past decade of warming IS anomalous.
Go get a fucking education, idiot.
Dear retard,
What you cite as 'direct scientific evidence' is contradicted by a far larger body of 'direct scientific evidence' that we non-morons call the 'scientific consensus'. So, yes, I dismissed the single paper linked to by an uninformed, anonymous, fucktard on Slashdot in favour of sticking with the mountain of evidence in support of the scientific consensus.
To actually delve into that one, specific, paper, would give your sorry excuse for an argument more credence than it is due.
Seriously? Did you read the paper I linked to? Its far more appropriate to your apparent level of education.
Fucking idiot.
The minority opinion is very, very, rarely right. For every Einstein there are a million or so sad, pathetic pseudo-intellectuals posting on newsgroups and forums who believe they have 'disproved' relativity when even a moderately qualified physicist can show that they have just tragically misunderstood it.
Oh, and 'scientists' have never, ever claimed the Earth is flat. The knowledge and proof that the Earth is round is exceedingly old (the ancient Greeks not only know the Earth was roughly spherical, they also made some pretty accurate calculations of its size). This knowledge predates anything that could be realisitically described as 'science' in the modern sense.
Your abject ignorance of the history of discovery only serves to highlight the absolute stupidity of your argument.
Oh, and anticipating your future attempt to recover from the destruction of your pathetic argument, an insult is not the same as an ad hominem
So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?
Here is a more appropriate paper for someone like you to read: https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/363/204
Yup, sounds like denialism to me.
Well said - some people think that saying 'no evidence' repeatedly is skepticism. It is not. Rejecting bad ideas is skepticism, but accepting well established ideas (such as anthropogenic climate change) is also part of skepticism.
Lets not give cranks and nuts, raging at proper peer-reviewed science, the dignity that comes with the term 'skeptic'
He didn't have a leg to stand on, if he libelled a company than essentially called bullshit on himself whilst leaving the offending libel visible on the internet (i.e. still being published).
And its not an unreasonable settlement. He didn't have to pay money by the sounds of it, and isn't facing criminal charges. He just has to tweet some stuff. And frankly, its refreshing to see a (apparently justified) retraction be more visible than a smear.
Thats good to know. I wonder if people who haven't bought WoL will be able to play the game on its own, or do you require both?
As I understand it, the air speed is determined by a little tube sticking out of the nose of the aircraft. This tube got iced up, they couldn't determine their airspeed, and the crew were not able to keep the plane flying without this information.
But can't a modern plane determine its speed through GPS measurements?