#1) I don't think slave owner's opinions of what's horrible and what's not is something I really give a shit about...they're not exactly role models when it comes to ethical behavior.

#2) The tactic of "keeping everyone striving to gain wealth forgetting everything but yourself", isn't really relevant to what I said, or even the general thrust of what I said, is it? At least I don't see how it has anything to do with the efficiency of specialization...

#3) I quite like the idea of labor-owned corporations. I think it makes far more sense than "capital-owned corporations". The only reason capitalists have such an unbalanced stranglehold on the economy, is that money is more liquid than labor...thus it's easier to bribe the legislators into passing laws that benefit the wealthy.

It is like asking do you need Coke and Pepsi. If there is enough money and interest and both provide meaningful difference for those investors...then yes. There are many instances where a design parity is possible, where both science and commercial interest are being served. This isn't always the case, but the fact that they are working together means they can steal from each other when applicable. Here's hoping to a 2 planet species in our lifetime.

That abort system has to be the most interesting bit of rocketry engineering and execution I have seen, ever. Reminds me of how odd thrust vectoring looks in planes.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by Jinx:
slight typo in the title there bro. Et not Est :

I had a great English teacher who taught these poems excellently. I always found "Disabled" especially haunting and sad.

Thanks for the typo check! I am a sis not a bro by the way ; What I find the saddest thing is Wilfred Owen's demise, what horrible timing! Although it seemed he didn't really want to live through the guilt anyway, but so sad this life of war and killing was thrust upon him as so many others. Makes me sick!

np sis

Thank you guys for all that information...

That stuff is incredibly fascinating.

That gravity is weak is someting my brain just wont grasp...



Just one more thing.. if the earths gravity is not infinite, than a rocket with infinte fuel, but low thrust, would eventually leave the planet???

"At high speeds this precooler cools the hot, ram compressed air leading to an unusually high pressure ratio within the engine. The compressed air is subsequently fed into the rocket combustion chamber where it is ignited with stored liquid hydrogen. The high pressure ratio allows the engine to continue to provide high thrust at very high speeds and altitudes. The low temperature of the air permits light alloy construction to be employed which gives a very lightweight engine — essential for reaching orbit." —WikiPedia

In reply to this comment by Jinx:
slight typo in the title there bro. Et not Est :

I had a great English teacher who taught these poems excellently. I always found "Disabled" especially haunting and sad.

Thanks for the typo check! I am a sis not a bro by the way What I find the saddest thing is Wilfred Owen's demise, what horrible timing! Although it seemed he didn't really want to live through the guilt anyway, but so sad this life of war and killing was thrust upon him as so many others. Makes me sick!

I haven't listened to it, I find I live a happier life not caring about politics. I made this little blurb about it the other day, hope you don't mind me quote bombing myself!


Politics = Arguing about how to split up a finite pie

Economics = figures out how big the pie is

Science = Figures out how to make pies bigger, much bigger and more delicious

Engineers = Figures out how to actually make the pies

Hard to have the latter without the former, but the latter have increased your quality of life much more recently. Spend more time arguing about science and engineering and less about economics and politics...you will be happier, I guarantee it!

Oversimplified, perhaps (see also: yes), but the thrust of it is mostly true I believe

>> ^spoco2:

He did not explain things particularly well.
He said it was a pre-cooler, it showed that it could cool air from +1000C down to -150C in 1/100 sec which is pretty amazing. And he said that this was cooling air going into the engine down to that temp...
However he never explained the problem this was solving. What temperature is air usually going into the engine? Why does it need to be cold? What happens if you don't cool it?
Just a poorly written piece, did not lay out Problem->Solution very well at all.
By the sounds of it, it's pretty amazing tech, just wish this were better at explaining it.


my guess would be cold air is denser, which means the engine can produce more thrust and is therefore more efficient. Just a hunch.

I believe this topic is about downvoting and the purposes behind it.

I'm making my point and @shinyblurry is helping me prove it. The main thrust of zappa's post is about downvoting for ideological reasons and shiny is wrapping himself in the idea that he's "picked on" because sifters hate religion.

This is an untrue statement. regardless of the topic, people downvote you if you make a comment that's full of shit.

Shiny's own post makes the claim that he perceived that this site was full of anti-christian videos. I'd argue that this is yet another fallacy and probably just him projecting his own insecurities. Sure there are people here that are very anti-religion. But I'd argue that most people just want to call out the bullshit when they see it. I've argued on a few occasions that religion is not inherently good or bad, it's what you do with it that is good or bad.

I get that the sift wants to bring in a more diverse group, but make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. If you're just trying to be diverse for diversity's sake. Then it's already a failed venture. Because bringing in "token" groups just so you can cloak yourself in the veil of diversity has not played out well over the years in various venues and basically insults the people in those token groups because you're not bringing them in because they have something valid to say or because they can debate and communicate their viewpoints well, you're bringing them in just to fulfill a demographic.

We've had plenty of sifts where religious people DO have valid and thoughtful things to say that contribute to debate and discourse. Pick just about any topic and you'll find a sift both pro and con for it.

Doesn't matter if you're religious, atheist, liberal, conservative, X, Y, or Z. If you make shitty arguments that don't hold up, regardless of topic, you're going to get called out...period. This is the nature of the internet. As @Boise_Lib alluded to earlier, we've all been downvoted at some point and probably for good reason. Logic and reason doesn't discriminate

>> ^BoneRemake:

At least demand money or such from Zappa if you are going to rob his thread. Shiny has the right idea, take it elsewhere.

No. I'm not going to study theology to help you make your case. Where you show you don't understand science or logic, I try and explain it to you. You are the self-proclaimed god expert in the room, and the one who wants us all to believe what you're saying, so when I ask you a fair question about Yahweh, I expect you to either give me an answer, admit you can't explain it, or accept that your original assertion is false.

"Why did God do X" isn't the right question because it relies on the assumption that God exists and in fact did X. A better question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that a god who does X, Y, and Z exists?"

So yes, you gave me a lot to work with in the sense that you wrote a lot, but the way you write makes it very hard to make connected arguments if I have to come back and ask you for clarifications and detail on your fantastic assertions, and you reply either defensively or with more vague and fantastic assertions. Surely you can put yourself in my shoes and anticipate my questions at least a little bit. Unlike most here, I'm actually trying to understand your point of view, so it's worth using words that I'm more likely to accept.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

*dead

I needed to learn how to properly hip thrust, I forget almost every day.

You would have a hard time getting me into a plane that can't accelerate at a 30 deg angle. If thrust is much less than weight, in my humble opinion, that's a glider with delusions of grandeur.

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
*promote thrusting


Thank you for your Thrust ;

I am so happy to see that we were able to thrust it into your sifted folder! :


I'm excited to see you happily thrusting it into my private folder! Oh my!

Haha!!! I'm glad you're enjoying it too!

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
*promote thrusting


Thank you for your Thrust ;

I am so happy to see that we were able to thrust it into your sifted folder!

*promote thrusting