#571
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:37:42 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: That's nice, but that doesn't mean that money is being allocated *now*. Actually it does. How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task? It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in. It worked for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them. Do you know the names of the Lindbergh backers? How about where they lived? Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick" wrote: How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task? It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in. Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task show that actual money *is being allocated*, as opposed to *could be allocated*,to accomplish that task? Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name names, then you're *assuming* that money is being spent. It worked for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them. That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money *is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who. That means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error. He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence. |
#574
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:19 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: It worked for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them. That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money *is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who. That means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error. He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence. rolling eyes... |
#575
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:19 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote: "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick" wrote: How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task? It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in. Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task show that actual money *is being allocated*, as opposed to *could be allocated*,to accomplish that task? The funding of attempts to win the prize show that funding has been allocated. It's not allocated by Act of Congress but by people dipping into their own pockets (eliminating the middlemen of the IRS and responsible agency). Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name names, then you're *assuming* that money is being spent. No, that's not true. If there's someone putting up a prize, I can name that person knowing that person is spending non-prize money. If there's someone trying to win the prize I can name them with certainty knowing that they're spending non-prize money. It worked for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them. That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money *is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who. Raymond Orteig and Henry Kremer spent money to foster aviation improvements by putting up their respective prizes. Putting a prize up, even if no one wins it, isn't free. It's also not an investment, because the only returns are giving away the prize or not. Either way, the cost isn't returned. If there is a prize, that is prima facie evidence that money is being spent to foster improvement. That means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error. He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence. I'm not interested in the sandbox squabbles around here, so this is just so much nonsense to me. I attempt to ignore the testosterone-based rivalries and cliques as much as possible. The following points are true: people spend money to put up prizes to foster improvements and other people raise and spend money to try to win those prizes (while, we hope, producing the desired improvements). You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your erroneous statements. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or |
#576
|
|||
|
|||
"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in message ... The funding of attempts to win the prize show that funding has been allocated. How can you *know* that funding has been allocated to win a prize *without* also knowing the name of the organization receiving the funding? Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name names, then you're *assuming* that money is being spent. No, that's not true. If there's someone putting up a prize, I can name that person knowing that person is spending non-prize money. But *that person* is not *expending* current funds on the process of winning the prize, so that still doesn't answer the question. If there's someone trying to win the prize I can name them with certainty knowing that they're spending non-prize money. Which *still doesn't answer the question*, which I'll rephrase- how does the act of putting up prize money *itself* prove that *other people* are expending funds in order to win the prize? It *doesn't*- putting up a prize does not in any way prove that anyone is spending money in order to win that prize. Rand was trying to say that it does. The only way to prove that money is being spent to *win* the prize is to have a representative of an organization that is actually spending money in order to win the prize publically state it is doing so. Raymond Orteig and Henry Kremer spent money to foster aviation improvements by putting up their respective prizes. By putting up that money, those specific funds, what improvements were created *with that specific money*? None- other people had to spend other money to make those improvements. If there is a prize, that is prima facie evidence that money is being spent to foster improvement. Unless, of course, nobody is interested in the prize. The following points are true: people spend money to put up prizes to foster improvements But the money put up for the prize is not itself spent on the improvements themselves. You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your erroneous statements. You've tried to, but haven't yet succeeded. You and Rand both missed something, which is surprising for you: *putting up prize money itself does not produce any improvements*, since no improvements are made unless someone is interested in the prize. In short, a prize *in and of itself* does not lead to improvements, contrary to what Rand may say. |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote: sn Just whose examples should I have included to be less selective, Derek? Lockheed Martin, perhaps? When have they ever built a manned spacecraft? Boeing? Which manned spacecraft were designed and built there? http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...tion/overview/ |
#578
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 27 May 2005 14:01:15 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your erroneous statements. You've tried to, but haven't yet succeeded. You and Rand both missed something, which is surprising for you: *putting up prize money itself does not produce any improvements*, since no improvements are made unless someone is interested in the prize. In short, a prize *in and of itself* does not lead to improvements, contrary to what Rand may say. We've said what we've said. It's a free country, of course, and you're welcome to persist in your delusions despite that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|