Slashdot Mirror
NASA to Reconsider Hubble Decision
blamanj writes "It's not dead yet. With cries of opposition coming in from all quarters, NASA has decided to review its earlier decision. Adm. Hal Gehman, chairman of the board that investigated the Columbia shuttle breakup last year, will 'review the (Hubble) matter and offer his unique perspective,' NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said"
.... "Try previewing your posts before you hit submit!"
Polluting the Internet since 2003...
http://percep
Gosh, if you were only able to keep it at wanting to save the Hubble, but no, you have to go and look like an idiot.
According to your logic, Saddam was very effective in his space program. Much more than 21 dead, huh? Perhaps his plan was to stack the bodies as a space elevator? He was just getting the foundation finished.
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Its crazy how successful the US is while still keeping human life in such a high esteem. We are not going to throw away human lives simpley because we have a dream. We will take a measured amount of risk.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
dude, a lot more than 500 PEOPLE died over there... you just don't hear a daily report from CNN on how many civilians your country killed on a daily basis.
Wait, non US'ians aren't people? oh... ah, never mind then.
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
The point of the poster you replied to was that (and I sense you agree) some things are worth risking your life for. All you seem to differ on is what those things are. I personally would rather risk my life to get mankind into space than I would risk it to get GWB a second term.
But that's just me.
-- MarkusQ
And yet us "US'ians" still kill less civilians in Iraq than Saddam did. We should be seen as heros for that fact alone!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
Hindsight says was were wrong about the state of the Iraqi weapons programs, not that we were lied to. That would be like me saying its going to be sunny tommorrow, when infact it might be rainy. Our intelligence reports were less than accurate that we presumed them to be. And looking at the history, I do not blame our intelligence either when you look at the chain of events.
A. Saddam has bio and chem weapons. This is a simple fact known since Iran - Iraq war.
B. Saddam kicked out inspectors from country and stops complying with UN.
C. ???
D. Saddam claims he doesn't have bio and chem weapons in Jan 2003 facing an impending war and can easily stop the war by explaining where the bio and chem weapons are or were destroyed.
Looking at that list seems to point that Saddam had the weapons. Now it is possible that they were moved out of country, though we tried to stop that before the war.
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
So, is 300,000 dead Iraqis a matter of concern to you? Is 500+ US lives worth 300,000 Iraqi graves? Saddam had more of a body count that we could even try for short of intentionally targetting civilians. Lets do some simple math now.
US did nothing for 10 years: 300,000 known deaths
US invades: ~500 US deaths after 1 year
No invasion: 30,000 deaths a year on average
Invasion: less than 30,000 average (I do not know the numbers for non-US folks, but I am sure that the number comes in less than 30,000).
Who values lives again?
Now, Bush happens to also present some ideas for getting us into space and also a permanent settlement on the moon and beyond on mars. How do you feel about that? Should we not actually try this, or should we only work on satalite tellescopes? Or because Bush presented the idea should we scrap it?
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
So in order to save you, I must kill you...
Really smart way of winning the public trust.
So in order to stop a wholesale slaughter, we should wait until a 'bloodless' war is possible? One the one hand, inaction will get thousands killed. On the other, action will cause a few hundres of deaths. You're telling me the former is better? It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. May as well go with the one that hurts you the least.
You think radical change in politics happens without blood being spilled? We at least put our own lives on the line as well as those of civilians. The US made all possible attempts to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. That's more than the opposition was offering.
Let me know when wars can be fought where only the 'right people' get hurt.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin