My point was the the orginal poster does have a point. That a single death is very disruptive to space programs.
SpaceX, private corporation
With contracts from NASA, so thats not going to change anything.
Personally I think they will and should stick to unmanned flight. Its a lot cheaper and we can do and learn a lot that way. Once things are in fact reliable manned programs would become a much better idea with a history of successful flights behind you.
The prospect of seeing the earth from orbit beats the risk.
Dam right, yet we don't seem to be allowed to make that decision for ourselves these days.
Yet NASA stops dead in its tracks for years if the shuttle goes boom. And how would they have handeled the PR issues if one of the moon walkers dropped dead on national TV.
The data indicates that even one death in a US based space program is a disaster of enormous proportions requireing a complete halt on all maned operations.
The evidence points to price increases under your model. If you have a chronic illness, why should i charge less that the maximum you can possibly afford. Its not like you can go elsewhere. There is no market force to make my drugs cheaper. I have a patent on it and you pay my price or you go without.
There is a reason why health care and drugs cost more in the US that anywhere else I'm aware of. Its the idea of privatized health care and its doesn't work because your ill health or death cost them nothing. In fact it may save them money.
And by they way, what do the poor and unemployed do? Just lay down and die?
I would like to how you think it could work. A company must prioritize profit. That means they give health insurance to the healthy and cut out the sick, even if it by charging silly amounts to the high at risk. Then when you do get sick what incentive do thay have to pay out? The profits are increased by ignoring you when you need it most.
What incentive do they have to "look" after the old who have little lifetime left to pay premiums?
There are no free market forces that select for efficient health insurance companies. By the time you find out your company is no good no other health insurance company will touch you, because you are now sick and probably in debt since the last company didn't pay out.
Why does the free market fail with telecos and yet It will work with your health. If a teleco cuts off your internet.... Well you can't check facebook anymore. But if a health insurance company cuts off your life support because your not covered for a 2 year car accident coma? Or for cancer treatment? Or heart attacks if you are over 80kg?
My health and the health of the community should not be about a profit margin.
Or perhaps what you mean by fair is you don't want one cent of your money improving someone else health? You know, if they have no money it shouldn't be your problem? Even then health insurance fails, if you not likely to be very sick. A big chuck of your health costs is covering someone else serious misfortune, whats left is going to a CEO back pocket....
I pay only 400 EU for my whole family per year (as an auslander)! Everything is covered for that.
ok not quite everything, it cost me $25 to be my appendicitis removed, which was the 3 night in the hospital.
Personally I can see no case where a free market can ever provide reasonable fair health care. Everyone here is so quick to point out free market failure with respect to internet access, but seems so blind when it comes to health care.
There are quite a few experts who believe NASA was just lucky with the moon shot. Your post brings this out. Also don't forget the open checkbook that space X does not have.
They are taking about UI and usability as if its a solved problem. Its not even close to a solved problem.
A good example is my mum using windows vista. It was more than different enough from XP that she could not use it at all (we got as far as, "this is firefox, now you can use the internet"). I find word imposable to use, it never does anything *i expect* it to do. Then there the whole host of tasks that are not simple to visually represent on a screen.
One of the easiest system i have ever used was a older radar system from a F16 and IANARO (Radar Operator). It had buttons around the side that told you what they did much like ATM machines.
Personally we need a lot more experimental design rather than just blindly sticking to current UI dogma. An example that comes to mind is perhaps the wii.
My Cousin is a construction engineer. He often gets designs that are quite impossible with todays materials from architects. Floors that are too thin and have huge spans without supports etc.
In software usability its not that different. I have often had request by the UI folks that are quite impossible (requiring almost sentient type AI, or well into the NP-hard with large n).
There are few disciplines where proper knowledge of the underlying system would not make the designer better at what they do. Far too often they are deliberately ignorant and unwilling to learn in my experience....
As a NZer this pattern is very common. Steal a million dollars via Fraud, get caught and only have to pay 100K and get to keep all the trusts you set up.
Thats the one of the rubs of airships. They can't go all that high compared to a jetliner without sacrificing huge chunks of lift capacity or using a aerodynamic lifting . So your stuck "below" the weather as it were. Also even at 40,000 feet theres plenty of turbulence as some frequent fliers will tell you.
'The video game industry is about fun and entertainment, and we should have a show that reflects it.'
I can drink to that. It a point that too often missed.
Something starts of small and folks like it. Word gets out that this is a "cool" thing to come to. It gets big. Marketing company/departments see $$. Next thing you know you find yourself paying for the privilege of watching commercials etc. No more fun.
To do a study on mice takes a few years before they are dead/old. For dogs its about 12 years and hence takes much much longer to get any results. Humans would take over 50 years for the same "study". So you need to repeat the experiment a few times, and whoosh there goes a century...
I'll back you up on the distro jumping the gun a bit on KDE 4.0. I thought it was very odd that KDE 3.x was not included on the DVD's (FC 9) as well for a more natural "stable" default with 4.0 listed as a advanced user thing. Personally when i want stability I use slackware/slamd64, but you don't get the latest version of anything, which is the price for stability.
...with a link to arxiv.org, it's like a red flag...
An even redder flag is a link to New Scientist as if its some peer reviewed source. NS references arxiv.org heavily no matter how stupid the claims (aka Zero Point Energy).
And you are sure that it will be spread like that? If its not? And if its MY 1000 sq km rather than yours? This is a bioaccumulat we are talking about.
All this ignoring that it's not all that hard to seal something like this up so no radioactivity escapes.
From the same people that claim the Space shuttle is safe to fly? This is not a RTG, its not even in the same ballpark. If the Rocket has blown up then by definition something unplanned and unexpected has occurred to the *nuclear* rocket.
The FLT barrier does not preclude interstellar travel. Perhaps intergalactic travel, but not interstellar travel.
But you might have to drop "I want to be there NOW!" and adopt a longer term approach to the problem. After all Rome was literary not built in a day or even a generation.
I didn't think of that. I was also thinking that even if Copyrights had more reasonable time limits, GPL and kin code would still get protected, because the latest addition was last week.....
You are putting the interests of individuals before the interests of society at large.
I was under the impression that copyrights expires and places works in the public domain to benefit society at large. When something is in the public domain, the GPL *restrictions* don't apply.
Also anyone else is free to also "exploit" public domain works, and undercut the competition. Isn't that the point of the free market. Its still a level playing field.
If you consider it unethical to let others "exploit" your hard work then the fact that copyright expires eventually must be a serious issue. Perhaps you want to get copyright extended again?
It's unethical to try this stuff on people who still respond to already tested therapy.
Who's ethicists standards are you using? Personally I think its unethical to deny treatment to willing consenting adults. If my aunt was alowed to opt for a treatment she wanted she could still be alive. Instead she had to use know treatment with the known bad side effects and its well documented ineffectiveness for the type of cancer she had.
Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX, private corporation
With contracts from NASA, so thats not going to change anything.
Personally I think they will and should stick to unmanned flight. Its a lot cheaper and we can do and learn a lot that way. Once things are in fact reliable manned programs would become a much better idea with a history of successful flights behind you.
The prospect of seeing the earth from orbit beats the risk.
Dam right, yet we don't seem to be allowed to make that decision for ourselves these days.
Yet NASA stops dead in its tracks for years if the shuttle goes boom. And how would they have handeled the PR issues if one of the moon walkers dropped dead on national TV.
The data indicates that even one death in a US based space program is a disaster of enormous proportions requireing a complete halt on all maned operations.
Imagine if we did that with car crashes?
The evidence points to price increases under your model. If you have a chronic illness, why should i charge less that the maximum you can possibly afford. Its not like you can go elsewhere. There is no market force to make my drugs cheaper. I have a patent on it and you pay my price or you go without.
There is a reason why health care and drugs cost more in the US that anywhere else I'm aware of. Its the idea of privatized health care and its doesn't work because your ill health or death cost them nothing. In fact it may save them money.
And by they way, what do the poor and unemployed do? Just lay down and die?
Perhaps its not covered by there health insurance?
I would like to how you think it could work. A company must prioritize profit. That means they give health insurance to the healthy and cut out the sick, even if it by charging silly amounts to the high at risk. Then when you do get sick what incentive do thay have to pay out? The profits are increased by ignoring you when you need it most.
What incentive do they have to "look" after the old who have little lifetime left to pay premiums?
There are no free market forces that select for efficient health insurance companies. By the time you find out your company is no good no other health insurance company will touch you, because you are now sick and probably in debt since the last company didn't pay out.
Why does the free market fail with telecos and yet It will work with your health. If a teleco cuts off your internet.... Well you can't check facebook anymore. But if a health insurance company cuts off your life support because your not covered for a 2 year car accident coma? Or for cancer treatment? Or heart attacks if you are over 80kg?
My health and the health of the community should not be about a profit margin.
Or perhaps what you mean by fair is you don't want one cent of your money improving someone else health? You know, if they have no money it shouldn't be your problem? Even then health insurance fails, if you not likely to be very sick. A big chuck of your health costs is covering someone else serious misfortune, whats left is going to a CEO back pocket....
I pay only 400 EU for my whole family per year (as an auslander)! Everything is covered for that.
ok not quite everything, it cost me $25 to be my appendicitis removed, which was the 3 night in the hospital.
Personally I can see no case where a free market can ever provide reasonable fair health care. Everyone here is so quick to point out free market failure with respect to internet access, but seems so blind when it comes to health care.
There are quite a few experts who believe NASA was just lucky with the moon shot. Your post brings this out. Also don't forget the open checkbook that space X does not have.
Great point.
They are taking about UI and usability as if its a solved problem. Its not even close to a solved problem.
A good example is my mum using windows vista. It was more than different enough from XP that she could not use it at all (we got as far as, "this is firefox, now you can use the internet"). I find word imposable to use, it never does anything *i expect* it to do. Then there the whole host of tasks that are not simple to visually represent on a screen.
One of the easiest system i have ever used was a older radar system from a F16 and IANARO (Radar Operator). It had buttons around the side that told you what they did much like ATM machines.
Personally we need a lot more experimental design rather than just blindly sticking to current UI dogma. An example that comes to mind is perhaps the wii.
My Cousin is a construction engineer. He often gets designs that are quite impossible with todays materials from architects. Floors that are too thin and have huge spans without supports etc.
In software usability its not that different. I have often had request by the UI folks that are quite impossible (requiring almost sentient type AI, or well into the NP-hard with large n).
There are few disciplines where proper knowledge of the underlying system would not make the designer better at what they do. Far too often they are deliberately ignorant and unwilling to learn in my experience....
Thats worked so well for China after all right?
Lithium ion batteries anyone....
As a NZer this pattern is very common. Steal a million dollars via Fraud, get caught and only have to pay 100K and get to keep all the trusts you set up.
All Americans suck because they don't like EULA!
;)
Just collecting data...
Thats the one of the rubs of airships. They can't go all that high compared to a jetliner without sacrificing huge chunks of lift capacity or using a aerodynamic lifting . So your stuck "below" the weather as it were. Also even at 40,000 feet theres plenty of turbulence as some frequent fliers will tell you.
'The video game industry is about fun and entertainment, and we should have a show that reflects it.'
I can drink to that. It a point that too often missed.
Something starts of small and folks like it. Word gets out that this is a "cool" thing to come to. It gets big. Marketing company/departments see $$. Next thing you know you find yourself paying for the privilege of watching commercials etc. No more fun.
Seems like a common enough death cycle to me.
To do a study on mice takes a few years before they are dead/old. For dogs its about 12 years and hence takes much much longer to get any results. Humans would take over 50 years for the same "study". So you need to repeat the experiment a few times, and whoosh there goes a century...
Remind me what happened to Galileo again? When was that?
I'll back you up on the distro jumping the gun a bit on KDE 4.0. I thought it was very odd that KDE 3.x was not included on the DVD's (FC 9) as well for a more natural "stable" default with 4.0 listed as a advanced user thing. Personally when i want stability I use slackware/slamd64, but you don't get the latest version of anything, which is the price for stability.
...with a link to arxiv.org, it's like a red flag...
An even redder flag is a link to New Scientist as if its some peer reviewed source. NS references arxiv.org heavily no matter how stupid the claims (aka Zero Point Energy).
Not especially, actually.
Load of crap. Do some toxicology and say that.
1000 square Km
And you are sure that it will be spread like that? If its not? And if its MY 1000 sq km rather than yours? This is a bioaccumulat we are talking about.
All this ignoring that it's not all that hard to seal something like this up so no radioactivity escapes.
From the same people that claim the Space shuttle is safe to fly? This is not a RTG, its not even in the same ballpark. If the Rocket has blown up then by definition something unplanned and unexpected has occurred to the *nuclear* rocket.
The FLT barrier does not preclude interstellar travel. Perhaps intergalactic travel, but not interstellar travel.
But you might have to drop "I want to be there NOW!" and adopt a longer term approach to the problem. After all Rome was literary not built in a day or even a generation.
I didn't think of that. I was also thinking that even if Copyrights had more reasonable time limits, GPL and kin code would still get protected, because the latest addition was last week.....
That doesn't make it ethical.
You are putting the interests of individuals before the interests of society at large.
I was under the impression that copyrights expires and places works in the public domain to benefit society at large. When something is in the public domain, the GPL *restrictions* don't apply.
Also anyone else is free to also "exploit" public domain works, and undercut the competition. Isn't that the point of the free market. Its still a level playing field.
If you consider it unethical to let others "exploit" your hard work then the fact that copyright expires eventually must be a serious issue. Perhaps you want to get copyright extended again?
It's unethical to try this stuff on people who still respond to already tested therapy.
Who's ethicists standards are you using? Personally I think its unethical to deny treatment to willing consenting adults. If my aunt was alowed to opt for a treatment she wanted she could still be alive. Instead she had to use know treatment with the known bad side effects and its well documented ineffectiveness for the type of cancer she had.