Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:White Werhner von Braun may be many things... (Score 1) 55

by DerekLyons (#47579349) Attached to: Was America's Top Rocketeer a Communist Spy? The FBI Thought So

Imagine if Skylab had stayed in orbit and been used as the basis of an ISS 20 years earlier.

I don't think the substances that would allow me to imagine that are actually legal.

Seriously, by the time of the third occupancy crew Skylab was badly worn out on top of the damage caused by the loss of the heat shield. It would have been much more of a liability due to the amount of work required to resupply and refit it.

Comment: Re:Bottom line (Score 1) 6

by smitty_one_each (#47578435) Attached to: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right?

A pass for, or to do, what exactly?

Um, to. . .occupy the. . .(wait for it). . .Resolute Desk.

He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?

So then are you done calling for impeachment?

As I was explaining to my dad during the daily call on the way home, the way politics works, you don't bring anything to a vote unless you know what the outcome will be. While, in a absolute sense, I don't doubt that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Contrary to some less than informed opinion, "high crimes and misdemeanors"--the legal standard for impeachment--refers not to indictable criminal offenses but to profound breaches of the public trust by high-ranking officials. Once the standard is understood, it becomes easy to see that the president and his underlings have committed numerous, readily provable impeachable offenses. Yet, even if a president commits a hundred high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is a non-starter unless the public is convinced that the president should be removed from power. The real question is political: Are his lawlessness and unfitness so thoroughgoing that we can no longer trust him with the awesome power of the chief executive?

Thus, November can be reviewed as a No-Talent Rodeo Clown Referendum: the same fickle electorate that returned Pres'ent Obama to the White House could just as easily. . .somehow expect the spineless GOP to locate some vertebrae, given power, I guess. Not holding my breath. I'm not sure, at that point, what difference impeachment is supposed to make, other than giving your girl the ultimate Race Card play.

I couldn't get the article to load

Google cache?

Comment: Re:And no one will go to jail (Score 1) 214

By this logic, a kid with paper and pencil passing notes secretly could be an organization of war and if he passed a secret note to a politicians, he would be levying war with his methods and tools of war. Why don't you try to stretch it a bit more and shoe horn something really silly into it.

Comment: Re:And no one will go to jail (Score 1) 214

Well, that and lying would require you knowing what you said was not the truth at the time you said it.

Incorrect facts is not lying. Your friend who thinks the game starts at 8pm only to find it was 7:30pm did not lie, he got his facts wrong. Now if you said that knowing the correct time, it would be a lie. Here it seems that the facts were corrected as soon as he was aware of it. I do not see lying coming from him (his staff and employees on the other hand).

Comment: Re:When will we... (Score 3, Insightful) 214

I do not exactly see how an all powerful and intrusive spying regime is less government.

This story is the epitome of big government through and through. But not, the small government politicians do not seem to want to cut this down just like the big government politicians. Your argument seems frivolous on it's head.

They have it, and you helped them remove the things that prevented them from getting it before.

I know not RTFA is a badge of honor here, but you could at least have read the article summery. No one removed anything legally. Employees ignored a separation of limits or a firewall as the summery put it and even knowing they were not supposed to, they did anyways. No politician or political ideology allowed or helped in this. If anything, it would be the leading from behind and phoning it in that our leadership in government seems to be doing any more.

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 156

Not as simple as saying that 'everyone' is all people. What is 'all people'? All Chinese residents? All people on this planet? All people that are paying taxes and who will actually be force to pay for this, or is it maybe all consumers of the goods that will have higher prices on them (and likely fewer choices of products) due to these 'heavy restrictions'?

Does 'everyone' include those, who are still in poverty in China (plenty more people are still very poor) and who want to move up in class but who will be prevented if prices for everything go up due to all the new regulations, licensing, taxes and generally growth of government that 'heavy restrictions' assumes?

It's not as simple as saying 'continue reducing pollution in the air'. In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

Free market capitalism works towards improving the standard of living of the market participants, but a poor economy cannot fix pollution, only a wealthy economy can and you do not make an economy into a wealthy one with 'heavy restrictions'.

Poor economies do not let people even to get their heads up, never mind thinking about such rich problems as not burning coal but instead going nuclear. Interestingly enough, while China is burning plenty of coal (so does USA) but China is building up nuclear power plant capacity and USA is not.

China will fix its pollution by following free market capitalist principles of searching for cheaper sources of energy and nuclear will be the cheapest source.

"Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs." - how living a life of poverty, does not count as a cost to a society? I say it does. A life of poverty doesn't help you with medical costs and habitat costs either.

Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?

- nothing is free, people are paying for the energy, food, water and all other products that they consume and the prices that they pay reflect the economy they are in. By adding 'heavy restrictions' to the economy you are not helping to fix anything, you are ensuring that the economy will be poorer than it could otherwise and thus preventing the fixes, not promoting them.

Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.

- it is not ironic at all, USA is destroying its economy with all the government and destruction of individual freedoms and China allows individual freedoms and mostly free market capitalism to work its way towards prosperity, which is crucial to having pollution free environment.

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 156

It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions.

- take a look at what you wrote. This sentence is self-contradictory and at best you just didn't understand it.

It would be 'cheaper for everyone' to 'fix pollution' by putting 'heavy restrictions'.

Ok, who is 'everyone', what does it mean to 'fix pollution' and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?

This guy put together a 'low cost solution for everyone' who wants to 'fix pollution' and he didn't force any 'heavy restrictions' on anybody either. So anybody who is actually worried about the pollution can now pay for it to be fixed for themselves.

Now, of-course this doesn't fix overall pollution, but it is a distributed method of fixing pollution locally on a voluntary basis that is provided by free market capitalism (private property ownership and operation without government interference).

As a society progresses from pre-industrial (China before 1970s) to industrial (the last 40 years) its residents become wealthier and more affluent and as they become wealthier and more affluent they can now afford to start thinking about their environment and the best way to fix environment is to allow free market enterprise to market the fixes straight to the public, which then will decide whether it wants to pay anything at all (or more or less) for any such fixes, be it fixes on large scale or small distributed local fixes like this one.

To put 'heavy restrictions on emissions' means to restrict wealth generation in the country that was able to move 350,000,000 people out of poverty over the last 40 years (while the rest of the globe has been moving hundreds of millions into poverty by destroying individual freedom and thus destroying capitalism, destroying the free market).

China will be fine, it will fix its environmental problems and it will do so without advice from the economic failures that scold it here.

User Journal

Journal: Nobots: now in paperback 1

Journal by mcgrew

It annoys the hell out of me that my books are so damned expensive, which is why I wanted Mars, Ho! to be 100,000 words. I'd hoped that possibly Baen might publish it so it would be, oddly, far cheaper. I can buy a copy of Andy Wier's excellent novel The Martian from Barnes and Noble or Amazon for less than I can get a copy of my own Paxil Diaries from my printer, and Wier's book is a lot longer.

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.