He will be the FIRST man going supersonic with no engine, just gravity. So thus the hype.
I just wonder why RedBull organisers let the hype begin with doubtful forecasts which should be quite accurate 12h before.
And that they didnt figure out any way to start this fragile baloon in light gusts - like they cant hang it high enough not to drag it on the ground.
I dont know if you know Discoveries' series "Auction Hunters" - where two of Los Angeles's most experienced auction hounds, have let the cameras in on their day job - bidding on abandoned storage containers for the potential treasures that may be within.
Tolerance is a key point in this discussion. There's nothing wrong with your religion, and I won't try to alter your belief, so please don't try to alter mine because it is just that, mine.
Well, it's not like that.
When your religion tolerates things I cant - then you have to enforce or separate.
ie. commies have religion of "zero privacy" which they force on everybody and which is unbearable. It is time to enforce them not to or separate.
It is hard to ignore it when the christians want to decide all the things about your life based on their own religious ideas. I just mention contraception, creationists, circumcision and gay rights here.
And it comes from Bill of Rights which comes from protecting Locke's natural state of man which means protecting property ("life, liberty, and estate") which comes from Thou shall not covet
I live in country with strong 50-years communism (scientificaly based on social progress!) history of rejecting this, therefore 4th Amendment nonapplicable:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
you could expect no privacy, unreasonable searches, and no securing of property from state officials then, and now it is made unoficially with disinterestment from state institutions which was/is on purpose to show one complete dependance from state (or other) authorities.
Let me ask you this: do you think south korea is a good example of atheistic nation?
I dont know South Korea that deeply. But I reckon Far East countries that explicitly broke with Confucius tradition were North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia.
maybe new buyers could broker better deals with car R&D companys... buy up- local hotels and give better rates... work with holiday companys to do comprehenssive pacakges ( i.e 2 day stay... 1 day of bmw m3... golf gti round the ring... day 2 classic 911 )
In case of 'Ring it would be cautious restructioring of current business to get the profits.
In case of half-public investment in Greece it would be reckless pumping of money while everyone gets share at every stage, and failure is meant to be bailed-out.
Nope. You are now just talking out of your arse. What has ALWAYS occured is some ideology that is not based on fact or science has taken over.
Just read some history and learn.
So if you learnt - give me an example of social system based on science that didnt end up with mass persecutions or even genocide.
French revolution? Nazis? Soviets? China soviets? Cambodian soviets? Cubans?
All scientifically based on scientific progress or historical must of classes or races prevailing. Drove to bankruptcy or disaster half the world.
So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.
So in your own words science is nothing more than an ideology that says "the end justifies the goal"? How could human suffering be just esthetics when science can create tools and form laws to prevent human suffering in the first place?
The bigger problem with your post is that you seem to think that one good goal of science is to have big flourishing civilization at all costs. Big is good but suffering is aesthetics?? Where did you get the idea that big flourishing man eating civilizations like aztecan were "succesful" in any scientific sense?
ALL the scientific-based social systems had some kind of justification for victims of "better new world". It ALWAYS occured there are some enemies of "new better world", and their sacrifice was justified.
Religion says all moral comes from religion so without religion you can not have moral. Is that a fact?
Nope.
Moral comes from many sources, but supernatural has stronger anchoring.
btw. micro-level physics - it occured that our world is possible with just one set of initial parameters, lets say, axiology
But I suppose you need something to keep the locals under control while you loot their country.
Well, they have like hundreds of islands within thousands of square kilometers of sea. Imaging that this crisis wont seaze just tomorrow, better they dont have something like somalian piracy in couple of years on waters meant for tourism.
I dont think it is other Europeans looting their country. Europe finance is like a sad race: who drives who to bankruptcy with bailouts for growing liabilities instead of fostering mutual growth.
And don't you find it contradictory at all that while every religion is based on human sacrifice and suffering while you try to make a picture here than science in some ways does not prevent us from eating others while in fact scientific evidence proves that the attribute of not eating other humans is a central key for our survival as a species and a natural result of evolution?
Nope, it isn't.
In fact, science introduced cultural relativism, which began with description of polynesian cultures (it concerned promisquity) and postulated changes in european culture in that manner.
Well, it is quite easy to find examples of succesful tribes man-eating their enemies or even big flourishing civilizations (like Aztecan) that used to make mass sacrifices of humans for centuries. So, scientifically - if it works, there could be only objections of esthetics against. Philosophy managed to legitimize all of it - XX century is full of millions and miliions of examples. It looks like for nowadays the most popular would be "dont get caught red-handed"
Of course, man-eating is reductio ad absurdum to show how floating are quite important concepts if not anchored in some kind of supernatural deity.