Yes I am familiar with that and heard that argument before. It does provide some other functions that can negate some of the proof of work. But it is also subject to proof of work to a lesser degree but that means it will also hit some equilibrium. Will that outweigh the benefits it provides and this be ultimately viable and more important, environmentally viable? With my experience in it, I am dubious.
Worse, it's value is based on the work it requires to grow/maintain it. And that work is based on how much electricity/world resources it uses. Aka. Bad for the environment. And if you were to make say a new crypto currency that used far less processing power, that would be less work and thus have little value.
In other words, you can't fix the crypto currency problem of massive energy usage without destroying the value of it. When Bitcoin does die, it will have emitted millions of tons of green house gases while providing very few real services/transactions.
It was not completely ignored. Modeling is so unpredictable with these kinds of uneven forces that no engineer could predict with certainty one way or another. There was no danger to people and concrete is not some particularly hard material to clean up. All the debris was contained within the blast zone they designated. One piece hit a vehicle that was within that zone but no people were in that zone by design.
Considering this test and most conventional rocket launchers ultimately result in the majority of the space craft lost to the ocean by design, some concrete has pretty much zero ecological issues. It was within the blast zone so was not a safety issue either.
The main takeaway is that this was outside of the expected parameters. As such it is looked at closely. As it should be. It is not some catastrophic event in any way no more so than rockets that have blown up on the pad. Of which has happened many times for NASA.
That launch was designed to be a full destructive test from the get go. Had they separated properly, it would have been a near perfect test. Truthfully the biggest concern was that the self destruct was delayed for slightly longer than expected. The next flight will also be a full destructive test as well. Nothing wrong with that.
They could have but only if you were willing to have higher bills. These companies are not showing profits and real higher than average. Ultimately we need to pay for it.
BTW, using tax dollars is now free money either. That comes from somewhere so either our tax rates increase or some services are cut.
Ok. You know that is a complete lie when you say carpet bombing. But I suppose that is ok to lie. Are you a republican in that your fine with their lies?
It is pretty much technically impossible. Using the phone data plan alone will negate it. I am not against it either in theory but not possible in practice.
Social Media is little overused. Email is social media in reality.
I suspect he pays a significant amount of taxes that could easily pay for the entire faa program then some. Not a big fan of his but from that point a view alone, pretty sure he is covering the cost by a factor.
I think the occurrence is somewhat more. While some smaller dogs may be aggressive and are aggressive, they also tend to learn rapidly they do not have the size to be aggressive. Thus that trait becomes less common overall.
I do alot of work and give a fair amount of donations to a animal rescue facility that fits thru about 400 dogs per year. Pit bulls have without question been the most likely to be aggressive out of all the dogs that file thru. We get many other aggressive dogs but the pits are the only ones that stand out.
This may be due to their strength or due to the above average likelihood of them being raised in aggressive environments. There are also nice pits but regardless I am completely against breeding them and more so, there is no logical argument to be made breed them.
Only every other system has been far worse for the environment. The main reason capitalism has been bad is because it created some much general wealth that people have too much money to be responsible.
Warren Buffett is not directing resources from his position in one company to enrich himself in another company that he may have large personal holdings. That is one of the few ways shareholders can get around the safety of a corporation and sue a director.
More to the point, the board of directors are going to be extremely interested in the actions of Buffett if they think he is trying to enrich himself at the cost to their company.
Yes I sit on three board of directors. I can assure you that the CEO or CFO or any other high level board members are not making decisions because they have interests in other entries. In fact as a board member, your job and pretty much your only job is to ensure those making decisions are doing it in the interest of the company they represent. If there are any conflicts of interest, we take an extremely close look at that. If a CEO or even a board member did not disclose some conflict, particular in financial matters, that would be one of the few ways to be removed. More so, that is one of the few ways shareholders could pierce the corporate envelope and sue a CEO or sitting board members for that matter.
You are grasping at straws if you think the exact same shareholders work both sides in any but a few outlier cases. This is goofy logic that people who are not in management think how companies run.
It doesn't. It is a bit of a silly argument and not a factor in any real degree. There are valid arguments for work from home but this is not one of them. Quite the opposite actually.
Not a believer but can not prove there is no god so not sure why that would disqualify someone from respect. I could be wrong. Just don't think so and pretty sure if there is one, it is not like any God currently imagined by man.
Truthfully I think I would have less respect for someone who can not have an open mind.
Yes I am familiar with that and heard that argument before. It does provide some other functions that can negate some of the proof of work. But it is also subject to proof of work to a lesser degree but that means it will also hit some equilibrium. Will that outweigh the benefits it provides and this be ultimately viable and more important, environmentally viable? With my experience in it, I am dubious.