Area54

I'm not American. Is that an oblique reference to Trump? Edit: If it's not, it ought to be.

We are so far from the OP that I suppose a further diversion does not matter. Excessive wealth may get us to Mars via Elon Musk and Space-X, much sooner than via conventional government approaches. For me, that scores points for excessive wealth. Separately, I trust those questioning excessive wealth are distinguishing between those who create wealth and those who merely manipulate it, the latter including some of the world's largest wankers bankers.

FFS, read what I wrote. I was describing the situation with Sir Laurence. That's why I used the personal pronoun his in the clause " Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills." I was neither excluding nor including a similar effect with other actors. I am sure there are actors whose humility enables the expression of their masterful skills, but I was not discussing them. I was discussing that sub-set of actors and humans in general whose achievements are predicated, to a greater or lesser extent, upon their arrogance. As such my questioned post was relevant. End of. Post as many responses on this as you wish. There shall be no sequitur from me!

People did not like the arrogance of Olivier. Most people were probably completely unaware of it. Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills as an actor. The same applies to the other examples I gave and the millions I didn't. One could make a sound argument that nothing much gets achieved without a liberal dose of arrogance. That makes my playing of the arrogance card completely on topic. Any perception that it is not is due either to my lack of skills in writing, or your lack of skills in reading, or some combination of the two. My natural humility, which I arrogantly assert is humbler than most, leads me to suspect the first.

Au contraire. Laurence Olivier brought pleasure to many who saw him on stage, or screen. His arrogance was an essential part of his character. Without it the peformances would have been lacking and the pleasure would have been rest. So to for each of those named and countless more besides. That being the case arrogance is to be applauded in certain circumstances. All of which is rather irrelvant to my counter to the original point from String Junky whose perception of arrogance is, I suspect, due far more to my mediocre attempt to describe a charming, dynamic individual who enriched the lives of his employees and made a significant contribution to an entire industry. If arrogance was his motivator then all I can say is we need a damn sight more arrogant people out there.

Perhaps. And I would not disagree that Andy Murray is arrogant. Mohamed Ali was doubtless arrogant. Winston Churchill was certainly arrogant. I understand that Sir Laurence Olivier was arrogant. On this basis I would say that there is something to be said for arrogance. He created wealth, introducing novel engineering solutions that extended the versatility of exisitng equipment.

Perhaps. But his original company generated employment for many people and provided massive cost savings for clients using his products. I knew many of the people who worked there and it was clearly an exciting and rewarding work environment. His approach, as far as I can discern it, is no different from an athete seeking to set a new personal best. If his case is sad then I think everyone who strives towards a goal is arguably equally sad.

That's a tough one to swallow! This link is for a plethora of vidoes showing, or purporting to show, examples of intelligence in octopuses (octopods,octopi, take your pick).

It may not always be true, but it is likely true of some, for one reason or another. I know - in the most remote acquaintanceship sense - a chap who is worth a couple of hundred million pounds, largely from the sale of the company that he built from scratch. The last I heard he was now working on ways to become a billionaire. Not because he needed the money, but because he thought it would be an amusing challenge.

You think?

Yes indeed. Sorry about that. I did dispatch it, but it seemed to get sidetracked and last time I saw it some idiot had sent it out towards Mars.

Well, obviously it isn't, but I wanted to attract maximum readership to make a statement and then a request. I think I have failed to deliver on promised answers on a number of threads, none of which can I now track down. (Old age and that sort of thing.) This is an apology to anyone and everyone who had been promised a response of some kind which did not come. If you are one of those people and would have appreciated that response please send me a pm with details and this time I shall respond. (Please note, although my memory is poor, I know with certainty that I didn't promise any of you money, so don't go down that route. :)) I don't actually think it likely anyone will have been nonplussed by my failure to respond, but now, apology and request in place, my conscience is clear.

Members are more likely to participate in the survey if you state its topic and purpose. And approximate duration. I realise that this may well be explained on the link, but many people are averse to clicking links without a "heads up" on whats at the other end.

Forum rules and general etiquette would lead us to expect that you have some comments to make or point to discuss that does not require members to view a video. So?

And in that regard it is no different form the grandmasters it is playing.

I suspect that this is the only reply that will have a chance of being understood by the Opening Poster. Thank you for getting it right. +1

Here are two distinct thoughts: 1. As Phi has already suggested there is merit in being brief. In general, people do not want long explanations. Aim for brevity and let them ask for more detail when and if they require it. 2. If you want to be good at anything then you need to practice. Then practice some more. Suggestion: go to this BBC Science News site and practice writing summaries of the news articles you find there. Read each one several times before you attempt the summary.

Vak, no one likes to think they have made a fool of themselves in public. The good news is that you have not. No one knows who you really are. The name, Vak, contains no significant clues. For all I know you are my next door neighbour, or live in a city on the other side of the planet. You are completely anonymous. So there is no need to stress. Apprently you posted some foolish things. If those are deleted the fact that you thought them and posted them still remains. Deleting the posts does not change that. Use this experience as a positive opportunity.

Ah, so you are not Eastern Orthodox?

Should we really have moved onto this topic beofre agreeing on how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?

Thank you for the clarification although it creates further puzzlement. As far as I am aware the data in the link you provided is for a resuable Falcon Heavy and the price ($90m) takes account of the reduced payload capacity. Consequently my figure of $1.4 million/t is valid. I would aslo dispute your statement that "we can only guess at the price". Space-X have provided a specific price on that link. No guessing is required. Next point of confusion. (My apologies for not following your argument properly.) Your propellant mining appears to be in relation to the moon, so what is the relevance of placing payload in LEO? Again, I look forward to your clarification.

In recent decades I've viewed truth as a colloquial expression, useful for conversations where the participants share common backgrounds and worldviews, but out of place in a serious conversation in science or philosophy. I prefer a world characterised by shades of reality and perception.

This may be the source of part of your confusion. We may be "hurtling through space" at 300-400km/sec relative to something, though I'm not sure what (and even less concerned as to what it might be). We are orbiting the sun at around 30km/s, relative to the sun. We are following the sun around the galaxy at about 220 km/s, relative to the centre of the galaxy. We are moving with the rest of the galaxy towards Andromeda at 110km/s, relative to Andromeda. All velocities are relative. I'll leave it to those better qualified address the heart of your misunderstanding. It's so wrong I'm not sure where I could begin.

I am somewhat confused by your post. Perhaps you can help me remove that confusion, one point at a time. Let's start with paragraph 1. The link specifies $90m to LEO with Falcon Heavy with a load of 63.8t. That's ~$1.4m/t, not $2.3 The only way I can see that you got ~$150 million for 63.8t was to add the charge for the Falcon 9 to that for the Falcon Heavy. If you did that, why? If not, how did you come by your $150 million figure? Why did you desrcibe the Falcon Heavy as the Falcon Heavy expendable? The whole point of the Space-X rockets is that they are reusable. I look forward to your clarificatrion.

Dogged determination?