Re: Of course it was going to hit the boat!
Did Kerbal Space Program teach him nothing? If your center of thrust is not in-line with your center of mass, you are not going to space today!
He should've used TWO outboard rocket motors.
406 posts • joined 13 Feb 2010
I'm just picturing Mr. Orloff being all "Well done! Extra credit. And another thing good scientists do is repair their equipment, and own their mistakes. All of you will stay back after school."
And then after the groans of "awwwhhh." When you arrive, Mr. Orloff is dressed in handyman gear with toolboxes and tools set out, and then continues the lesson, "and another thing a lead researcher must be is responsible for the occurrences in his laboratory, even if he did not personally have hands on what went wrong. So come here, I'm going to show you how we repair a broken window!"
"Hideously expensive" is the same as "nonexistent" if you can't pay. And don't think your wait times are anything less than typical here, either - your injury, whilst assuredly gruesome and most likely painful, was not life-threatening, nor was there any serious risk of permanent harm arising.
Or do you prefer a system wherein someone with a boo-boo can jump the queue in front of someone who is going to lose their digits/limbs/life if they don't see a doctor RIGHT GODDAMN NOW, because boo-boo has Ca$hMoney and the seriously injured person does not?
I don't think we've properly seen mob justice yet.
Mob justice looks rather like a lynching. What we're seeing now is largely furious people demonstrating in numbers and fury not seen since the '60s, and businesses and officials panicking because they realize how close they ARE to mob justice.
Because, as you say, the systems that are supposed to replace mob justice have proven to be broken; moreover, now they're shitting themselves dry because an awful lot of the protestors ARE NOT THEMSELVES BLACK.
This is, quite literally, the bougie nightmare scenario. Racism in the US was engineered as a response to classism; see, way back in the days before it was even the U.S., there were an awful lot of very poor whites in America; very often indentured labor. Effectively slaves in the old-timey Roman sense. When not toiling, they spent their time associating with people of similar social station to themselves; freed blacks who had often bought themselves (and in some cases, themselves owned black slaves!) and even the black slaves and occasionally the more adventuresome and gregarious natives.
And that terrified the shit out of the property owners, because they realized that they were vastly, VASTLY outnumbered if all of those poor whites and the enslaved blacks joined in solidarity and rose up. So they started treating the whites better, the blacks worse, and said "hey, at least you're not a *slave!*"
And that worked. The racial divide was, while I won't say always there, massively exacerbated as a means of controlling the lower-classes. If the divide was small, the property-owners drove a wedge into it, then hammered that wedge with a sledgehammer.
> It's a poor use of a 3D printer. A steel rule die in a clicker press can bang out orders of magnitudes more face shields in an hour than a 3d printer can in a day.
Thing is most folks don't have steel rule dies or clicker presses.
Sometimes you make do with what you have, and what you have is way more technical and complicated than the machines you really need to make the widget you need, but you don't have those machines, you have the 3d printer. And it's doubtful that you can use the 3d printer to make those machines, and even if you can, it will certainly take ages and probably involve a few failures.
> IMHO, if there's something useful that Trump's lot could do with their subversion of the legal system, it would be suspending liability exposure for companies doing something positive for healthcare worker protection.
And then come 2035, we have massive waves of healthcare workers or patients who were front lines in 2020 and survived the Covids dropping dead because companies excited at being freed from liability exposure turned massive stockpiles of turbo-toxo-carcinogens they were hiding from the regulators and trying to dupe a third-world country into taking into face masks and ventilators.
Also, if you're pulling the Bang Seat handle, it's presumed that either hostile ordnance is incoming at mach 10 or something and your countermeasures have failed; or that hostile fire has shot the plane up so badly it is going to commence unplanned rapid lithobraking in very short order; or else that some kind of mechanical fault so severe that unplanned rapid lithobraking will commence in short order regardless of incoming fire or not.
In that case, it's triage medicine: do you want to be fucked-up for the rest of a hopefully long life, or do you want to be perfectly healthy for the rest of a life measured meaningfully in seconds? They tend to err on the side of unassing the plane with as much swiftness as is literally humanly survivable.
I hope to hell those aircrew got a memorial and/or posthumous honors - the highest not relating to active combat. They risked and ultimately lost their lives protecting the civilian population they swore an oath to protect - whatever oath it was.
That's dedication, duty and service. Nobody could have faulted them for choosing differently, but they did.
> If everyone did that in such situations (and including kidnappings) the crimes would be far less common.
By the same logic, a bulletproof solution to hostage-taking as any kind of tactic at all would be a policy of killing everyone, hostages included.
For some reason, people get notoriously pissy if you slaughter their kinfolk as the sacrificial lambs to ensure that would-be hostage-takers know that you don't fuck around and have an explicit policy of ensuring a 100% kill ratio of hostage-takers at any cost.
> But, this is the situation that exists; the private sector has delivered a rocket that can take off, and most of it can then land again and be reused. Unless NASA can duplicate this tech they can't get within orders of magnitude of the cost effectiveness.
IF that's the case, then what needs to happen is as follows:
Eminent Domain is invoked, SpaceX is forcibly transferred from its private investors to the government, and appropriate compensation is forcibly transferred from the government to its private investors. All SpaceX documentation, technologies, and facilities get a NASA makeover, probably with a nod to the leaps it made as SpaceX by, I dunno, calling it the NASA-X branch.
NASA-X is thereafter remodeled as a government-owned corporation, operating exactly as before; only instead of THE ALMIGHTY SHAREHOLDERS it's the United States Federal Government that owns it, and instead of DIVIDENDS and STOCK PRICE, the focus is on providing as-cheap-and-effective launch capability as possible for "benefit of mankind" projects, and reasonably-priced launch services to the private sector - just like the USPS SHOULD be operating, if not for that absurd and "we don't want the gubmint option competing with the private option" financial overburden placed on the USPS alone to make it uncompetitive with DHL/Poop Truck/etc.
If it starts fucking up, the GAO comes in and launches a discovery mission: if it's the result of mis-manglement, the axe comes down on the manglers, new management is hired. If prevailing conditions simply are not generating profit, you grit your teeth, suck it up, and subsidize the lean times from the fat times and the government purse.
We are, effectively, caught in a socio-economic trap that prevents us from Getting Shit Done anymore.
I reckon a massive part of the problem is pork: "for the greater good of humanity/the United States" does not get votes, "for the sake of keeping The Plant open" does. So everyone wants a rider, everyone wants a slice of the pie.
Another massive part of the problem is typical inefficiencies: Peter-Principled manglement, predictable-but-unaccounted-for cost overruns, endless TPS reports, etc, etc, etc.
And then ANOTHER massive part of the problem is the well-intentioned pavement machine on the road to hell: someone comes along, screams "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!" and axes entire projects just when they're starting to actually show some progress and might deliver a workable rocketry program, albeit overbudget and behind schedule, because they're mistakenly applying the "don't chase a sunk cost fallacy" principle to a real-world problem in which the cost IS in fact sunk, cannot be unsank, but even an overbudget and overdue project which will actually provide you with a launch capability is better than NOT HAVING ONE AT ALL.
But before anybody starts wanking the "private sector solution," may I remind you that every time mass transit has been nationalized in the UK, it's ended in an utter disaster. Businesses have the requirement to fellate the almighty shareholders, which requirement perverts EVERYTHING, from burying scientific research that doesn't give the right answers, to mistreating bottom-line workers, to manglement fudging numbers and taking ridiculous and big-picture-counterproductive actions in the name of preserving THEIR bonus.
Now project that forward to space travel: without something like strict regulations preventing it, businesses will be free to leverage their space assets in ways that stifle competition. Once they've escaped the government reach, they'll set up feudal fiefdoms, start up all the old indenture malarkey, prevent access to space except on their terms - basically all the dystopian bullshit. And if the governments just throw up their hands and let the private sector do all the launching, who's going to hold them to account? You can't very well enforce laws on a company based in space if they're the ones who determine who goes to space and they can just say "we're not carrying your lawmen up to enforce laws against us no matter how much money you dangle."
So yes, by all means, let's rush to excoriate the dumbfucks responsible for constantly letting programs get overbudget, off-track, and then axing them, but let's not rush to beat the SpaceX marching beat, unless you really fancy seeing CEO-for-life Musk ruling over a Moon and Mars monopoly wherein your pointy-haired boss decides that because you got sick they're going to cut your hours - not your working hours, your fresh oxygen hours.
That practice needs to be stopped: no more "we're paying the regulator a large sum of money to make the charges go away."
It needs to be "you're guilty unless a jury says otherwise. You can own up to it and pay a lot, or fight it to the mat and lose your damn shirts."
Expungement isn't really expungement though. Google a guy's name and the first result will inevitably be what they were convicted of. That the sentence was later overturned will be somewhere near the bottom of page 1 after all the mirror stories, and that someone else was later sent up the nick for having provided false evidence that saw the first guy done in wrongly will be on page 5.
I.E. it'll never get seen. And no, "right to be forgotten" is not an answer, as stopping a prospective employer from using a VPN to do their googling from a U.S. IP is impossible.
What *would* help, perhaps, is an official document the wrongly convicted person may produce attached to their C.V., containing the details of the allegation against them which was expunged and a threat of official penalties if the invalid accusation is used to deny them employment. Maybe.
Far better would be something like the U.S. witness protection program where their more-or-less real details are attached to a fake name which they use to apply for whatever; and once they've gotten the job, if any, their real name comes out, along with the details of why it was attached to falsely prejudicial news that likely would have resulted in their C.V. being binned summarily, and a warning stern enough to turn an H.R. Drone's face ashen if they're subsequently dismissed for their officially-sanctioned part in applying under a false identity.
That is, in fact, why Afghanistan was invaded in early 2002 - The Taliban were not Al Qaeda, but they were very chummy with Al Qaeda, permitted Al Qaeda to train and organize from their territory, and refused to round them all up and hand them over (the ones whom they didn't shoot dead in the doing, anyway), when we said "hey, this NGO based in your territory kind of did something that requires a retaliation in blood, would you kindly hand them over so we can see justice done?"
The Taliban, then in essentially-absolute control of Afghanistan, said "come and get them!"
And here we are today.
If a nation-state is supporting the bad acts of attackers, even nontraditional attackers, then they are culpable accomplices. If they're unwittingly protecting them simply by virtue of the nontraditional attackers being based in their territory but not taking action against the nation-state which the nation-state would notice or take issue with, then said nation-state is not culpable; however, if they refuse to put an end to it themselves, then they become culpable accomplices.
And a major, targeted attack at the NHS - even if made without knowing or *caring* who the target is, *even if it was a fire-and-forget virus that trawled the internet attacking opportunistically* - is the sort of thing that does qualify as an attack upon a nation. Just because Big Ben doesn't collapse doesn't mean it isn't a massive material attack with devastating, potentially life-threatening consequences.
Is a military response justified? Yes. Would it be prudent and wise to look into other means first, such as actually following the trail to wherever it ends and then furnishing the nation in which those scumbags are sheltering with an extradition request? Absolutely, of course it is. If they refuse, then what options are on the table?
Well, the first option, of course, should be economic sanctions; look, these brotherlovers attacked our healthcare system, we're not going to take that lying down. We're going to freeze all assets any of your citizens may have in any bank we can get ahold of - and since we invoked Article Five, that means all of NATO is doing likewise.
Wouldn't it really, really be in your better interests to hand over Hoodie McHackerman and his pals to serve nice long prison sentences?
"I say old chap," says Operator 1 to Operator 2, 3, and 4, "could we have a word?"
"We're listening," says Operator 2, "but it would be dishonorable not to remind you that we remain competitors."
"Quite right, and I wouldn't have it any other way," Operator 1 says, adding, "quite frankly I look forward to the day you stumble and fail and I get to buy the sorry carcasses of your operations and enjoy an unequaled monopoly not enjoyed since the days of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Long Live the Queen!"
"The Queen!" Thunder Operators 2, 3 and 4; which was one irrelevant.
"Now would you kindly get to the point," acidly adds Operator 4.
"Of course, good sir, of course. You know... Roaming charges. That whole pesky EU made us put a stop to them, but now with Brexit, we're not beholden to their laws."
"Indeed," notes Operator 3, eyebrow arched. "What of it? Simple market theory says that if any of us reintroduce roaming charges, the rest of us, who do not, shall get all of our customers, of course."
"Of course," concedes Operator 1. "But at the same time, roaming charges... They WERE rather profitable for us, were they not?"
"They were," agrees Operator 3.
"So, what you're proposing is that if any ONE of us bring back roaming charges, the other three eat his lunch... But if ALL of us bring back roaming charges, we ALL stand to make a mint," notes Operator 2.
"Quite so old man," Operator 1 says, with a snap of his fingers, "quite so!"
"By Jove, you're on to something there," says Operator 4, dusting off the old roaming charges. "If all of us reintroduce roaming charges, well, the hoi polloi - they're jolly well stuck with it. We all stand to make another bloody fortune. I say, if we all agree... I'm in."
"Exactly! Nobody loses out," thunders Operator 1.
"Well, except the poor," notes Operator 3.
A beat passes. All four Operators rise, thrust their right fists into the air, and, quoting Mel Brooks' History of the World Pt. 1, thunder "FUCK THE POOR!"
"Very good," Operator 1 ends the collusion meeting, imitating the Roman Speaker of the Senate from aforesaid work.
> This was only rectified some years later when a new chaplain was appointed. His wife was a properly trained Librarian & Archivist who took stock of the situation and beat up the headmaster to spend some money.
I PRESUME that it isn't the case, but I have this hilarious image in my head of a vicar's bespectacled twig wife taking a cane to the headmaster until he agrees to crowbar open the purse strings and let her hire some help to (literally) sort-out the appalling situation in the library.
The solution to that isn't death panels or a death algorithm. It's an algorithm that intelligently raises the tax rate or shuffles some dosh from one service to another.
Remember: the AI crunches the numbers, WE set the priorities on how we act on that data.
"Mrs. Marjorie Smythe-Snow is in and out of hospital twenty-four times a year. She's 101 years old and can, on her good days, tell you about every war and global crisis she's lived through. The algorithm says she's going to cost a lot more if she keeps on ticking. What do?"
"Obviously we remand this drain on society to hospice care!"
"... No. In fact, so no that you're fired, security, get this clown out of here. No, what we do is raise about... punching in some numbers here... One cent in tax for a month should cover it, or we can short the city of Dover's cleaning supply budget."
Unions don't lean left, they sprint left.
That doesn't mean they robutt do the RIGHT THING, even if that does mean standing up for an unwoke reptile. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something good for someone who is awful.
Something about not agreeing with what a person has to say but fighting to the death to defend their right to say it.
In hindsight, that line was crossed years and years ago when the BOfH and PFY used "hermaphrodite" as a hateful and derogatory term, but they stopped using it quietly and had the wisdom to not Streisand themselves by removing it, nor to draw attention to it by apologizing.
But yes, this was another line, and it really should not have been crossed this way. Jokes about a boring beancounter applying maximally-anal boring beancountery tactics to the ennui of workaday life? That can work. Joking about beancountery suicide, not funny.
Pretty sure the local whatever society for the prevention of cruelty to animals would have you burnt at that stake for nailing a buck to your desk.
I mean, unless it's dead, of course, but I think your coworkers will then be the ones lining up to light you up like Savonarola, without any white-robed guy to murmur a comforting "Resquiescat en Pace" and put you out of your misery before the flames can torment you too much.
... I mean, unless it's dead and taxidermied, in which case... Uh, go you?
You know, as much as I hate rich greedy corporate raiders and most lawyers and especially rich greedy corporate lawyer-raiders, am I the only one who thinks two decades for a financial crime that arguably has no real victim (nobody is actually in the poorhouse because this guy cheated at stocks,) is beyond excessive compared to, I dunno, affray occasioning a person permanent disability, or corporate misdeeds that cost people their health and livelihoods?
There's some pretty big problems with letting your farms go fallow.
Allow me to talk about the greatest human endeavor to date: the Apollo Space Program.
The speech which resulted in its commission was given in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy of the United States, who promised to deliver the goal of "landing a man on the Moon by the end of this decade and returning him safely to Earth."
That feat was finally realized in time in the year 1969, when a man named Neal Armstrong became the first human being to set his boots into the lunar regolith and return safely to the planet Earth.
Three men getting there and back, one of whom never set foot on the moon, was the culmination of the direct work of some 400,000 human beings, who were indirectly supported by a literally incalculable number of persons; the spouses and children and family and friends who supported them in times of untold stress, the old drinking buddy who listened to their old war stories of college or Korea or even WWII, the grocer who sold them food, the mechanic who fixed their cars, the autoworker who built their cars, the miners who gathered the ore that became the metals that made their cars, the farmers who fed them.
We cannot replicate that feat. Here, in my homeland of the United States of America, which for all its crippling flaws and egregious moral bankruptcies recently, I dare to say REMAINS the greatest and strongest of nations of this world, WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE HAVE DONE BEFORE.
We cannot DO it, because generations of idiots allowed spaceflight to languish. They were allowed to DARE to utter the words "well, what do WE get out of it?" and slash funding to space, so they could embark on continual disastrous military misadventures, making morally absurd alliances in the name of stopping the spread of the notion that, you know what, maybe letting poor people die starving and sick in the gutter ISN'T a good thing, and just to line their own fucking pockets. And, I suppose, a few of them might GENUINELY have swallowed the flavor-aid and believed wholesale that they were pursuing a moral good in and of ITSELF in reducing the size and scope of government.
And because of that, we cannot do it. We DID it! We sure as shit did it, and if you don't believe us we can blast the moon with fucking LASERS to reflect off shiny things the astronauts that we sent to the moon left behind to prove it!
But we cannot do it again, because they allowed the doors to shutter; they permitted that expertise to wander off, to go seek "other opportunities." It's not just that NASA itself is underfunded; all of the companies who made parts that went into the Saturn V have lost that institutional knowledge as well.
Mark my words: the country that DARES to utter the words "cost-benefit analysis" in terms of something is setting themselves up to fail at that thing when they realize that, having kicked out the legs, that thing collapsed. Now, some might argue, that's of no consequence if that thing is spaceflight; you don't need spaceflight to survive! Well, firstly, bollocks to that, but this argument isn't about that, it's about your suggestion of scrapping the farms.
A country that cannot feed itself will become a client state to the one that CAN. You let the farmers go out of work, some stubborn holdouts will remain until the foreclosures happened. Their kids won't; they'll seek other jobs, or they'll die homeless or something. Within a generation or two, there will be nobody left who has any fucking idea how to farm, and suddenly you're going to be paying massive fees for those food imports when, say, something hits the place you were dining off of and they jack the prices up because of simple Supply & Demand. Or, worse, they realize they have leverage over you and use the food prices to SQUEEZE.
Our fuckthunder idiots in congress kicked NASA's leg out from under it, and as a result we cannot send a man back to the moon.
Don't repeat that fucking mistake only with your agriculture sector, or you're going to wind up enslaved to the people who didn't.
"The US must be loving brexit because it leaves Europe weaker as a competitor and Britain as hanging fruit ripe for the picking and with no real economic strength to resist."
As a USAlien: Not in the slightest. Frankly the idea terrifies me. We were looking to y'all to be the sane voice of reason and now y'all done gone and looked at us shitting the bed, chugged a pint of ex-lax and said "hold my lager and watch this."
I got as far as "But even if we do, the Brexit fetishists are too thick to realise that we will be back in the EU within a few years."
I'm afraid THAT'S likely just wishful thinking.
It was the work of a generation of Britons, of Scotsmen and Welshmen and Irishmen alike, to get the UK INTO the single market, a rather herculean effort that Charles DeGaulle fought tooth and nail to prevent.
And now you pull this shit?
Like HELL they're letting you back in. Not without some kind of literally hands-and-knees begging and some serious and HARD sureties that you won't pull another Brexit clusterfuck the next time a populist idiot with a slogan appealing to the lowest common denominate comes along.
And even then I expect it'll take at least another generation.
But hey, maybe I can offer an alternative here.
See, over here, we're having a spot of bother with OUR OWN blonde maniac, and frankly our entire political system has completely fucking logjammed with some spanners thrown in the works. You're not QUITE so bad off, but I contend that's because you're running on a more-recently-patched version of a different early version of democracy than we are.
So, how's this sound: We get back together. Scrap both the Constitution of the United States of America AND the unwritten "constitution" of the UK and start over. We'd have to retain HM the Queen of course, but I think with the economy output of the U.S. any complaints about the cost of upkeeping a figurehead monarchy would just get drown in what we've paid for fraudulent scar lotion for soldiers here without barely even noticing. We can summon the finest legal and political science minds from Edinburgh to Los Angeles and they can descend upon Philadelphia to hammer out a new one, taking advantage of all the laws and history and experiments that have succeeded or failed in the last 250-some years. (We'll install air conditioning this time.)
There might be SOME small hitches, like the right to keep and bear arms and the right to speak your mind openly without the force of law being applied to you, even if what you say is the WORST kind of drek, being sticking points, but I'm sure we can work past it all. Besides, y'all already know there's more guns in the country than in the city; farmers and farmer's mums are all strapped up to the nines, right? Not so different.
Waddya say? We can jettison two gigantic screeching orange birds with one stone and have a doover together?
Yes, because you're an internet tough guy who'd like to hint that he'd like really horrible things to happen to people.
Yes, scammers are scum of the earth and cause untold amounts of suffering, and yes, this one is a genuinely remorseless MFer.
However, that does NOT excuse immediately leaping to behaving like a wrathful barbarian. What WOULD you like to do to him, huh? Have him drawn and quartered, watch as he screams and yelps and begs for mercy, listen as his limbs distend and rip out of their sockets and finally from his body altogether with a wet, nasty, ripping sound?
Or maybe you'd like to get Viking on him, have him strung up spread-eagled vertically, cut open his back, break his ribs and extract them followed by extracting his lungs and place them on his shoulders, to see how long it takes him to die?
Go on, tough guy! Tell us what you'd REALLY like to see happen to this wanker!
Here's what I'D like to see happen to him:
1] Every cent he stole from everybody paid back in full;
2] Every cent of court costs and public official's time that investigating and prosecuting the case took paid back in full;
3] The maximum $250,000 fine assessed;
4] Incarceration until such time as a psychiatrist deems that he has grasped and internalized the pain and suffering that his fraudulent actions cause, that he empathizes with those persons, and shall not recidivism again.
Simple. It's a bitter pill that a lot of people don't like to swallow.
You will simply have to provide meaningful lifestyles for persons who contribute less than those lifestyles cost to the whole economically.
Get over the "he who shall not work shall not eat" thing, and get over the "I earned mine, why should HE get to have any for doing nothing" mentalities. Let the robots churn faster than ever, and use the fruits of their automated labor to subsidize human life.
Downvote brigadiers in force today, but you're quite right.
The freedom of speech means that the GOVERNMENT cannot tell you what to/to not say, not that you enjoy legal protections from the consequences of saying things that others find to be bollockry beyond the normal protections of law prohibiting certain actions against others.
The freedom of speech means you cannot be jailed for expressing the view that all members of a given race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation/profession are bad/wrong/unclean/deserve to die; nor does it protect you from retaliation from those groups in and of itself. It would not be lawful for such a person to brutally rearrange your face with a tire iron in response; it does not protect you from them organizing many others to have you shunned and heckled and exposed for the thundering fuckstick you are.
Heat can indirectly lead to increased carbon dioxide levels; heat is a factor playing into wildfires, which tend to burn off a lot of plants, which, perhaps unsurprisingly, is a process which releases CO2 into the air.
Fighting those fires, of course, and preventing them in the first place is a matter of reinforcing a pressure cooker; you delay the inevitable (if global heat levels are still rising, which they are thanks to all the coal we're still burning for asinine reasons,) but make it so much worse when it finally exceeds your ability to kick the can down the road.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020