quade

JoePancakes

Capt. John Smith of Jamestown passed a law: "Those who do not work, shall not eat."

That should be made clear from the start, no matter how wealthy the passengers are.

And what happens to the person, who through no fault of his own, becomes sick or injured? Waste of resources? Toss them out the airlock?

billvon

Quote

What if a few of the paying customers decide they don't like whatever work assignments have been given to them? Do the crew members cut off their oxygen supply?

If enough people don't like the work assignments, their oxygen supply will get cut off anyway.

This isn't something that's going to work with the wrong people.

Fine for Generation 0. What happens a few years down the line?

Seriously, I think this is one of the big unanswered questions in the entire Mars colonization thing regardless of whose proposal you read. Nobody seems to want to address how it's going to be governed.

I love Elon Musk's solutions to transporting people to Mars. The man is a genius. However, I can't help wondering how he will deal with what I'm calling the "Jamestown Problems."

From Wikipedia;

Quote

Many in the group were either gentlemen unused to work or their manservants, both equally unaccustomed to the hard labor demanded by the harsh task of carving out a viable colony.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia#Arrival_and_beginning_.281607.E2.80.931609.29

On each ship he'll have 100 paying customers and five crew members. Once the ships arrive on Mars, do the crew members remain "in charge"? What if the 100 paying customers decide they don't want to be under their control? What if a few of the paying customers decide they don't like whatever work assignments have been given to them? Do the crew members cut off their oxygen supply?

Until Mars becomes self-sustaining, does Musk essentially rule the civilization?

TriGirl

Our friends already think we don't back up our assurances.

Unless, of course, it involves kissing the ring of tyrants with horrible records of human rights abuse in the Middle East like KSA or UAE. Then we're just good little mercenaries for blood money.










(And people wonder why terrorists attack the US.)

winsor

As long as said individual was housebroken (or at least paper trained), I'm fine with their lifestyle.

Your words say, yes. However, I think your post says something a little different. I think you're still at least a little conflicted on the subject or you wouldn't have posted at all.

Instead, you went to some small effort to make a post about it. Do you think you're trying to convince us, or yourself?

Comment from Musk via Twitter.

Quote

Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/878334920141135872

Yeah, not a dead center, but still very nice. I think as long as the center of the rocket lands within the circle it still qualifies for their pro rating.

;)

Edited to add: for those who missed it, check out the attached.

Niiice.

Also a high stress landing for the booster. Will be using 3 engines this time.

Oliver brings it every damn time.

So good.

rushmc

. . . and Trump is doing just fine.

Bookmarked for future reference.

ryoder

What I can't understand is why???

On standby, they have Pence who:
- Graduated from law school, and practiced law.
- Served 12 years in the House.
- Served 4 years as a governor.

He has the education and experience which Trump is totally lacking, and he leans heavily to the right. He also shows none the the narcissism/sociopathy/dementia of Trump.

This is nothing particularly new to the Republican party. Take a look back at the 43rd administration. The President was mediocre in education and experience best, yet "likable" to the Republican base, and the VP was considered to be unelectable as President.

So, they run the likable guy, have him take the heat meanwhile there is sort of a better educated/qualified guy sitting at the Naval Observatory getting all sorts of Republican "goodies" done.

Now, I never dreamt of a Cheney Presidency, not at all, but on paper he would have been the better guy except for his obvious unlikability.

Trump does switch this around a little bit, but there is no denying he has a few rabid supporters.

DJL

Navy salts I've talked to have also said that some vessels don't transmit their locations.

Regardless of whether the container ship was transmitting, the Fitz should have seen it coming in a couple of ways, AND shouldn't the Fitz ALWAYS be looking out for threats from small Zodiacs filled with explosives to generic navigational threats?

nolhtairt

at least 400 container ships traverse that corridor every day. I'm not going to speculate on how and why it happened, but it did happen at what, 2:20 AM or so? Wasn't somebody supposed to be manning the ship radar that sees other ships in close proximity? If yes, you'd think evasive maneuvers would have been ordered.

Some heads are gonna roll (not literally).

Not just ships radar, but also the venerable mark-1 eyeball on the forecastle, stern, port, and starboard.

The amount of failure which had to happen for this to occur is astounding.

Can somebody explain to me how a container ship out maneuvers a destroyer to ram it?

Container ships do NOT turn on a dime and the ACX Crystal is roughly five times more massive than the Fitz. It would have taken the container ship maybe 15 minutes to a half hour to make a turn such as described.

Regardless of any conspiracy theories, this was almost certainly avoidable by the Fitz, if only it had.

RonD1120

******I finally got around to looking up Hawkins. What are your thoughts on LoC calibration and the methods used?

Quackery which doesn't hold up to investigation.

http://pathstoknowledge.com/1022/a-critique-of-david-r-hawkins-and-kinesiology/

Have you used the Path to Knowledge often? Do you believe the authors have credibility? The author of the article you cited is anonymous. At least, I did not find his name.

That said, I am not studying David Hawkins for all his works or his political beliefs. I read one book of his because the Holy Spirit put it in my awareness and I found it educational and comforting. It validated some of my professional philosophies.

The question, and my response, only applied to the LoC "calibration" nonsense. And let's be perfectly clear here, it's complete and utter nonsense on the level of reading tea leaves, or bumps on the head, or palm reading.

tonyhays

Quote

""In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says."

Didn't see a link to back that up anywhere in the story....would love to have it.

Just be certain you understand that's not the reporter's issue. He's quoting Pitcavage, a research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

Now, sure, it would have been nice for reporter to have provided a link to the ADL web site and specific research, but at a certain point a reporter can't footnote every word every person says he's quoting in a story. At a certain point, we sort of let the responsibility for the words rest on the person who said them, and my guess is in normal conversations with people you don't provide a link to every statement you make either.

The question really becomes one of trust. Sure, trust, but verify. However, if you're going to do require every phrase every expert utters by linked so you can check it, then what is the actual point of having experts in the first place?

Check the stuff. Sure. I get that.

Requiring a link for every statement? That's maybe going a little overboard. That's like asking your pilot to see he math when he tells you he's bucking a headwind and you're going to be arriving a little late. At some point, you have to take them at their word a little bit.

That said, here's a document written by the ADL a couple of years ago so it's not tainted by the events of the last couple of weeks.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Murder-and-Extremism-in-the-United-States-in-2015-web.pdf

mistercwood

I finally got around to looking up Hawkins. What are your thoughts on LoC calibration and the methods used?

Quackery which doesn't hold up to investigation.

http://pathstoknowledge.com/1022/a-critique-of-david-r-hawkins-and-kinesiology/

RonD1120

Notice how it is you who drift off topic into a religious theme. That is something you have accused me of doing, that is high jacking a thread to talk about Jesus. Note, unless I start a thread on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ or, a scripturally based prophecy, I am always responding to the attacks of other's egos.

I tried to use Shakespeare, you said you weren't familiar.

I was trying to use an example I thought you were familiar with.

You stated you didn't think the intent of an author was important, but rather how the audience interpreted it.

I think I just proved that's not the case.

RonD1120

***
Was Jesus actually resurrected or was that just a metaphor? Can you see why it might make a difference?

Jesus was actually resurrected and it is proven by those who have experienced salvation through His gift of life. If it was a myth, a metaphor, then it is impossible to believe that the original apostles would have gladly been martyred just to perpetuate a lie. Think about that!

If you say this, then you do, in fact, care about the concept of authorial intent.

RonD1120

************In my lifetime the only politicians allegedly linked to murder are the Clintons.

Reagan once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. There you go, Reagan is allegedly linked to murder.

Ipso facto, House of Cards was based on Ronnie and NancyIt does not matter when the original book was written or who the characters are based on. What is of significance is who the show calls to mind when you watch it. In your case it would likely be Prince Charles and Lady Di.
What you're talking about is called, "authorial intent." It's a somewhat controversial subject with creators. Not all people agree with your assessment that it, "does not matter" what the intent of the author is.

In fact, my guess is you don't believe that when it comes to your favorite book.
Hmmm, interesting. I am a Christian counselor, not an English major. I don't think I have ever thought much about arthorial intent.

Was Jesus actually resurrected or was that just a metaphor? Can you see why it might make a difference?

RonD1120

******In my lifetime the only politicians allegedly linked to murder are the Clintons.

Reagan once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. There you go, Reagan is allegedly linked to murder.

Ipso facto, House of Cards was based on Ronnie and Nancy
It does not matter when the original book was written or who the characters are based on. What is of significance is who the show calls to mind when you watch it. In your case it would likely be Prince Charles and Lady Di.

What you're talking about is called, "authorial intent." It's a somewhat controversial subject with creators. Not all people agree with your assessment that it, "does not matter" what the intent of the author is.

In fact, my guess is you don't believe that when it comes to your favorite book.

nolhtairt

He was also sane enough to decide to drive out to Alexandria in March and live out of his car a couple blocks away from the ball park and YMCA, apparently casing the place out. He knew the tradition of the annual ball game.

I guess we have a different definition of "sane."

Just because a person can make a plan of some sort, doesn't mean he's "sane."

Other people who have made plans but were clearly insane might include, Ted Kaczynski.