I guess you forgot about scurvy, even though I just mentioned it.
Humans did NOT evolve for long ocean journeys with no fresh food.
There is a reason that press gangs existed--no-one in their right minds wanted to be a sailor. It was a death sentence. Any of those sailors would have leapt for the opportunity to trade places with one of those astronauts.
This is quite literally the most hypocritical post I have ever read.
You should probably log in if you are going to criticize someone for posting anonymously. Might also want to think for five seconds before you post your own drivel.
Columbus' voyages were the equivalent of SpaceX. He got FUNDING from the crown. The ships were built and equipped privately, and were crewed by private citizens, not members of the Spanish military. Landing on the Moon I will give you, but I guess you forgot that NASA had a government granted monopoly on space flight until Reagan.
And as for flight, you are insane. Where do you come up with this shit? The government created...what, exactly? They had to...kill the train? You mean by nationalizing trains and running them into the ground like all government sponsored enterprises, while air travel remained free, with plenty of competition, until the government started interfering heavily in the industry, leading it to become the government-sponsered molestation industry it is today?
I would suggest that if anyone needs to take their drivel elsewhere, it is you.
Actually, that is very likely. Simply being intelligent doesn't make you immune to bias, especially in areas outside of your expertise (here an astrophysicist is playing at being an economist). Liberals tend to look down on industry while believing strongly in government.
That is why you don't lift the panels. Rather, you lift the equipment that needs to be built on Earth while sourcing that materials from somewhere off of earth. It's pretty low energy to get to geostationary from the moon. A captured asteroid would be even better. I wonder if it would be easy to make ultra-pure silicon in space?
Uhh, that's a tautology there, friend. If someone found a way to buck a declining trend, then everyone else is indeed fucked up, because they are declining while the other guy is succeeding. If they want to succeed, then they would probably have a better chance by looking at the people who are succeeding and emulate them.
At least here in North Texas, there has been a bit of a drive-in revival. Some guy built several of them, and they are really quite nice. So nice, in fact, that any time I want to see a movie, I go to the drive in rather than a regular theater. Their tickets are cheaper, at $6 per person, you always get a double feature (even sometimes one of the movies is garbage), and the snack bar has really good food for the same price you would pay at any other restaurant. Of course, you can bring your own food and drink as well.
Any drive ins that are struggling are likely mismanaged. They need to look at what the successful ones are doing and mimic them. So long as there aren't competing theaters in smaller towns, they should do just fine.
Self sacrifice for one's children is not altruism. That is, in fact, rational self interest. A person has a rational self interest to pass their genes on.
But...she wasn't. Rational self interest is what she advocated. That meant cooperating most of the time. It DIDN'T mean giving things away to people who didn't earn them, and who would squander what they were given.
People really ought to, you know, READ some Rand before they criticize what she said.
No, it's the result of currency debasement, which acts as a stealth tax on everyone with dollars (think employers).
If debasement stopped and the US raised taxes to make up the difference, there would be a revolt overnight. That is how bad the problem is.
Money isn't wealth. It's a piece of paper. Goods and services are wealth. Debasement disproportionately sends money to the government first, then the banks that have grown up around it (the proverbial 1%), who now get claims on goods they didn't earn. They didn't make anything that others can consume. They didn't help others to create anything for others to consume. Thus they take goods out of the economy, leaving everyone else poorer.
Modern economics attempts to baffle with bullshit in order to prevent people from seeing how simple it all really is. If they could see, then they would understand that there is no basis in reason for the existence of a central bank, and they would cry out against debasement, rather than for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Same as any president in our lifetime.
ANYTHING is better than a Republocrat.
Keep doing what you have always done, you will get what you always got.
Ron Paul was/is different. If you can't see that, then you are blind, and a useful slave.
That's great, except that all of our phone calls are still being recorded. This is something the Stasi could only DREAM of.
Wow, so one thing is funded by government, and the government gets credit for EVERY SINGLE THING that ever came into being afterwards?
The mental contortions of the statist never cease to amaze me.
lol, why would they sail across the oceans when they could just use the power of the pyramids to teleport back and forth?
I guess you forgot about scurvy, even though I just mentioned it.
Humans did NOT evolve for long ocean journeys with no fresh food.
There is a reason that press gangs existed--no-one in their right minds wanted to be a sailor. It was a death sentence. Any of those sailors would have leapt for the opportunity to trade places with one of those astronauts.
The US doesn't declare wars, and hasn't since Korea.
Well, except on concepts. But it loses all of those.
The Polynesians didn't see much wrong with that.
Also, you are forgetting scurvy. Space travel is a LOT less dangerous than sea travel was during the age of sail.
"Besides, we've been crossing the Atlantic for thousands of years."
Yes, you clearly know your stuff. Everyone should pay attention to your ideas, which aren't crazy or stupid in the least.
This is quite literally the most hypocritical post I have ever read.
You should probably log in if you are going to criticize someone for posting anonymously. Might also want to think for five seconds before you post your own drivel.
Columbus' voyages were the equivalent of SpaceX. He got FUNDING from the crown. The ships were built and equipped privately, and were crewed by private citizens, not members of the Spanish military. Landing on the Moon I will give you, but I guess you forgot that NASA had a government granted monopoly on space flight until Reagan.
And as for flight, you are insane. Where do you come up with this shit? The government created...what, exactly? They had to...kill the train? You mean by nationalizing trains and running them into the ground like all government sponsored enterprises, while air travel remained free, with plenty of competition, until the government started interfering heavily in the industry, leading it to become the government-sponsered molestation industry it is today?
I would suggest that if anyone needs to take their drivel elsewhere, it is you.
Actually, that is very likely. Simply being intelligent doesn't make you immune to bias, especially in areas outside of your expertise (here an astrophysicist is playing at being an economist). Liberals tend to look down on industry while believing strongly in government.
But...that's cost effective, when the only means of travel between towns costs $2000 a pound.
That is why you don't lift the panels. Rather, you lift the equipment that needs to be built on Earth while sourcing that materials from somewhere off of earth. It's pretty low energy to get to geostationary from the moon. A captured asteroid would be even better. I wonder if it would be easy to make ultra-pure silicon in space?
No, I think it would have been the same comment ten years ago, as that is a reference to the solar power station you can build in SimCity.
Uhh, that's a tautology there, friend. If someone found a way to buck a declining trend, then everyone else is indeed fucked up, because they are declining while the other guy is succeeding. If they want to succeed, then they would probably have a better chance by looking at the people who are succeeding and emulate them.
At least here in North Texas, there has been a bit of a drive-in revival. Some guy built several of them, and they are really quite nice. So nice, in fact, that any time I want to see a movie, I go to the drive in rather than a regular theater. Their tickets are cheaper, at $6 per person, you always get a double feature (even sometimes one of the movies is garbage), and the snack bar has really good food for the same price you would pay at any other restaurant. Of course, you can bring your own food and drink as well.
Any drive ins that are struggling are likely mismanaged. They need to look at what the successful ones are doing and mimic them. So long as there aren't competing theaters in smaller towns, they should do just fine.
Self sacrifice for one's children is not altruism. That is, in fact, rational self interest. A person has a rational self interest to pass their genes on.
Delicious ad hominem.
You are correct, giving away other people's money is not altruism. But people who want to do that sure like to think it is.
But...she wasn't. Rational self interest is what she advocated. That meant cooperating most of the time. It DIDN'T mean giving things away to people who didn't earn them, and who would squander what they were given.
People really ought to, you know, READ some Rand before they criticize what she said.
They murder their dogs, and break their arms. Or maybe snap their spines with their jackboots.
No. This was written by men locked in the basement of the ivory tower who have only the vaguest conception of the outside world.
Remember, it has to be a TBTF bank. They will still prosecute smaller banks.
No, it's the result of currency debasement, which acts as a stealth tax on everyone with dollars (think employers).
If debasement stopped and the US raised taxes to make up the difference, there would be a revolt overnight. That is how bad the problem is.
Money isn't wealth. It's a piece of paper. Goods and services are wealth. Debasement disproportionately sends money to the government first, then the banks that have grown up around it (the proverbial 1%), who now get claims on goods they didn't earn. They didn't make anything that others can consume. They didn't help others to create anything for others to consume. Thus they take goods out of the economy, leaving everyone else poorer.
Modern economics attempts to baffle with bullshit in order to prevent people from seeing how simple it all really is. If they could see, then they would understand that there is no basis in reason for the existence of a central bank, and they would cry out against debasement, rather than for it.