You are not logged in.
Well, like I've said, I like an NTR SSTO approach better, but I think that air-launch is a good approach, because you don't need the immense infrastructure, and it saves money on equipment. Besides, its basically completely reusable.
Ok, capitalism is evil. 20 million died in the Soviet Union in the name of socialism, but capitalism is evil. Under the guise of socialism, Hitler killed 12 million people in death camps, but capitalism is evil. Under a socialist-type system, China has had a brutal dictatorship, but capitalism is evil.
Countries who have switched to capitalism have enjoyed greater prosperity. As China has switched to capitalism, its economy has boomed, and the country has enjoyed more freedoms. As Ghana switched to capitalism, it too enjoyed an economic boom. Russia is now a large recipient of foreign investment, cracked out of its socialist shell, and is becoming a world economic power once more as the capitalist economy stabilizes.
Damn, I love freedom of choice!
The highest living conditions in the world are in America, but capitalism is evil.
The "norm" as you put is the majority, And the majority of Americans are fat. So overweight is your norm.
And I didn't call you ignorant but maybe where you live and your age group. Maybe there isnt a high percentage of overweightness. Maybe you caught on to the fact being fat is bad. Which very few Americans understand or care about. I don't know which.
Again, being an American, I can actually speak with fact on my side. You can't. I've given statistics to prove my points, which you avoid.
Americans over the past 50 years haven't even had the ability to consider Socialism never mind adopt it. I feel sorry that you live/lived in such an oppressed soceity/
Oppressed? I'm in one of the most free societies in the world! I can say whatever I want about the government, choose whatever occupation I want, and socialize with who I want. I didn't know that this fit the definition of "oppressed."
what if you stored the H2 as water and used the reactor to split the water into hydrogen in-flight?
1. USA does not make more than the EU combined. It only just barely makes more than Germany. And Germany plus just the UK make a good bit more than USA.
Well, this is rather funny. Here are some statistics for you, cold hard facts:
Germany- GDP: $1.81 trillion
UK: GDP: $1.252 trillion
USA: $9.937 trillion
The closest country is China, with $4.42 trillion, Japan is third with $2.9 trillion, and Germany is fourth.
So, obviously Germany and the UK don't come close. Together, they are roughly 25% of the American GDP. The rest of the EU is a fraction of what Germany is. So, yes, America outproduces the EU.
2. Isnt the US population only aroun 260Million.
3. You haven't met many Americans if you most are average weight. Though I guess the US aveage weight is higher than the European Average weight.
2. It's around 280-300 million.
3. And you call us ignorant. I live in America, so I've seen quite a few more Americans than you. Most are at or below average weight. In fact, anorexia is a problem among teens. There are a fair share of overweight or obese people, but they are not the norm. Get your facts straight.
I'm not going to bother trying to reverse Caltech's indoctrination. It honestly scares me.
I hope we don't continue in your ignorant bliss. Look over the Pacific. China will catch up within 50 years.
Competition is good. Hegemony is bad.
So why don't we go after the real threats? Why not China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, and all the other countries who have more dangerous weapons?
Hell, all of these countries have violated resolutions, Russia perhaps most of all. And then, who's punishing us for our violation of resolutions? Oh, wait, we're exempt. That's right.
The presence of the American military is sufficient "threat of force" to support diplomacy. Reagan and the freeing of the Iranian hostages is a perfect example. Reagan didn't have to use the military, but the Iranians knew that he had this tool, so they released them. You don't need to use your military for it to be effective.
When you commit yourself to an alternative before exploring all options, you decrease the effectiveness of not only all the other options, but the chosen alternative as well. This is what Bush has done.
No, I read a book by him for English-"The Sea" or something. A young sailor falls in love with a his boss's daughter, and they go to some abandoned artillery tower to bond. I forget most of it, though.
Phobos: was that the one who committed Samurai suicide as a signal to Japan to return to the "old ways" after WW2?
So the American identity should die? We have grown as a melting pot, not as a place where the ladder is kicked behind the first waves of immigrants...to end this would be to destroy what America is.
The problem is that Bush was committed to war in Novermber. Whether or not you choose to deny it, he had no intention of going to the UN. Only when the foreign nations made such an issue, did he make a ploy of doing so. Before there were any results, he deployed troops. Never did he negotiate for any other solution- he had Powell repeat the case for war over and over.
You liked to point out how Clinton had the chance to remove bin Laden, but chose to throw missles at Afghanistan. Bush could have gotten Saddam removed, but he has chosen war instead. There is no need for war. We have made Iraq a martyr for Islamic fundamentalists, who will use it to get sympathy for their attacks. And many nations will say, "you know what, they're right! Those Americans took their wars to the Muslim world, and ignored North Korea."
We are only going after Iraq because it's an easy target. Why aren't we going after North Korea? Because there can be far worse consequences.
I like some of what Bush has done, but his foreign relations are less than good (from not knowing Musharraf's name during his campaign to ignoring the UN, his obvious 'diplomatic route' only being a new way to preach his war). And he still hasn't accepted the Kyoto treaty. Fuel cells are 10 years off, he doesn't have to fear them. So sure, throw a billion dollars at them, which pales in comparison to what we have spent in Iraq, and get political support for them, while not suffering any consequences!
This whole "US might use nuclear weapons" was overblown by the media, who needed a story. We've always considered this option, but it has always been a risk vs. reward equation. This is no different.
Well, there is also the interplanetary "hybrid" option, NTP (NERVA type) and NEP (ion drive) spacecraft, that are capable of high thrust for liftoff, and interplanetary cruise, which allows higher isp. This gets you thrust when you need it, and saves you fuel outside of the atmosphere (a lot of fuel).
First Powell goes to the UN like it's CSI on national television, and plays Mr. Show And Tell, while actually showing nothing, and providing no substence (the agreed upon resolution wasn't shown to be violated, except for very minor things like lack of complete disclosure- but those things take time in any case).
Um, Iraq said it has anthrax to try to buy their way out of a war...if they volunteer that, what are they hiding? We've found several warheads that are in material breach. What are we not seeing? The high level stuff would be well hidden-this is their soft stuff.. Come on, Josh, don't ignore the real evidence that Powell presented, just because you don't want to go to war!
No, no. Blix said that he wants more time, and Iraq is in breach. And why wouldn't he want more time? It's his job!
Water is necessary, but CO2 is needed to form an atmosphere-so CO2 is necessary for terraformation.
In fact, even if you had oodles and oodles of water, you may still need CO2 to get Mars warm enough to get it as liquid.
According to the newest articles, both polar caps are almost completely water, with very little CO2.
One guy harbored by a country can cause chaos and damage. Should we really be cutting back our military as hostility increases?
There was my quote. Where do you see Saddam or Iraq?
There's this guy named Osama.
If that's how you want to define sector, fine, but this still attests to the new options in product capabilities that competition makes possible. A PC can perform almost all the functions of a Mac (technically, I think it can), yet Apple exists.
Why?
Because to cater to the market, they have made Macs into products that differ from PCs in terms of services, appearance, applications, and so on. To compete, they have focused on different applications than a PC. This allows them to cater to their own target market. PC companies have a different target market-their focus is more on the public. Yet it shows how a "monopoly" like Windows can be subject to competition (direct, or indirect).
A monopoly can be a good thing in the long run. It forces smaller companies to be more shrewd, and provide a better product, service, cost, etc. This mix doesn't guarantee they will be successful-but if the company doesn't offer something better they won't break the monopoly. This can create some very clever, innovative businesspeople.
A threat doesn't have to be from a nation. Turn on NBC, Josh. One guy harbored by a country can cause chaos and damage. Should we really be cutting back our military as hostility increases?
Um, they're the same sector. PCs and Macs are in almost direct competition. You don't see someone saying "I'm a Tablet user!" You see them saying "I'm a Mac user" or "I'm a PC user."
PCs and Macs run the same programs-not just e-mail, but Internet, word processing, almost everything down to the OS. The only difference is in the hardware setup and resource management.
In fact, your own statements attest to this. One is a "cheap" version, one is "simple." They're the same product, but they are designed to appeal to different people. I can easily substitute a Mac for my PC, or vice versa, and get all the same applications done. I can't do that with a "custom e-mail machine."
I can do the same basic things with a PC as with a Mac. Thus, they aren't all that different.
But then, is it really competition, or merely a new service sector?
Isn't that the whole point of competition? To provide new, better, cheaper/more efficient prodcuts?
Germany vs. Russia. hmmm.
Japan vs. US. hmmm.
US vs. Britain. hmmm.
But all the competition has to do is find a niche to be successful. Why hasn't Apple gone out of business? Or Linux? Or Pepsi? Or any other number of companies that continue in spite of "monopolistic" control of markets?