Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Satellite Programs in Jeopardy of Collapse
smooth wombat writes "A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, headed by Richard Anthens, has warned that 'the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget.' The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate. A delay in launching a replacement satellite or the disabling of a current satellite without a replacement could mean that data necessary to monitor or predict an upcoming event would be severely restricted. For its part NASA says that tight budgets force it to cut funding for all but the most vital programs. 'We simply cannot afford all of the missions that our scientific constituencies would like us to sponsor,' NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee February 16."
The least successful war in U.S. history is probably going to be the costliest too.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Has anyone raised the point that the current NASA director may actually have some very smart advisors? Six months ago NASA was doing the worst possible thing (economically) but the best for short-term job-security: kowtowing to Congress and saying "Oh yes great leaders we will do more with less." Now, someone had the bright idea, and the balls, to stick it to Congress, and announce cancellation after cancellation -- which doesn't mean the programs will actually *be* cancelled. This could all be a massive game of chicken, in which NASA releases press release after press release hitting constituency after constituency until 51% of congress has people set to be directly harmed by the cuts (lost jobs, lost revenue from satellite services, etc), and actually hands over the cash to save the programs. The director will piss off his bosses and may lose his job, but he'll save his organization.
Not calling you a liar but can you back up your assertions with some sources? The reason I ask is another 5 point poster has already posted details and appear to be completly opposite to what you are saying.
So now I'll have to subscribe to some monopoly to get a tornado warning?
I guess it's better to let the private sector take on vital services like this. I'm going to start a wellfare company, a police business, and a judicial corporation. Maybe I could get some pointers from the petrolium, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries about how to be fair, too...
Well, privatizing every one of these things has some precedent, don't they? So it's not impossible to imagine, at least for some people, that these activities be done entirely by the private sector.
(1) Tornado warnings: there are private weather companies. In fact I'd say that tornado warnings if anything a stronger case for privatization than, say hurricane warnings, as the damage area for tornoadoes is localized, although the risk area is large.
(2) Welfare. At one point time this was the province of private charity, and some would like to be again.
(3) Police. It's called a private security firm. Think also gated communities.
(4) Judicial. It's called mediation. It's not a 100% replacement of course.
This may seem far out, but I've certainly met highly intelligent people who strongly believe that government withdrawal from these areas would be a good thing.
Now, as a liberal my philosophy is that the government should engage broadly in these areas, leaving scope for private enterprise to address market segment needs. So, the government should warn people of tornadoes. But if certain enterprises need greater lead time or higher geographic precision than the public as a whole nees, that's a business opportunity. Likewise, let the state provide care for pregnant drug addicted teens, and the private sector provide care for pregnant drug addicted teens from wealthy families. Let the public sector provide police, but private firms provide 7x24 on-premises monitoring.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because your government chose to bomb and invade Irak, killing tens of thousands of people, reducing the country's infrastructures to a state which is worse than during Saddam reign ?
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Where in the fuck did you get the idea that I was happy about that? I am mad as hell that we went there to begin with, dummy. It's not my government. I didn't vote for them. I held my nose and voted for the other guys. So did most of the people in my state and my part of the country.
The Iraqi people don't want us there, no matter how many right-wing cheerleaders post pictures of smiling children. If they did, they'd police themselves and settle the fuck down. After the shrine was blown up the other week, there were Iraqi police running around killing Sunnis. There are Shiite death squads (mostly police and army) who've been operating pretty much out in the open for at least a year.
This is not a civilized place, and the people are not ready for democracy. They don't want it. We can't force it on them. We fucked up. We've wasted money and lives. If the islamic world cared about anything besides hating the West, they'd step in and help Iraq help itself.
The US military does not train peacekeepers! They're trained to bring as much death and destruction to an area as they have to in order to achieve a strategic goal. When the military gets involved, people die. I wish our fucking cowboy-in-chief understood that, or cared. Maybe if most of our government officials hadn't gotten deferments in the last big war (oh, sorry, "police action"), they'd understand that.
For the record, lefties annoy me as much as right-wingers. They're two sides of the same (stupid) coin. People don't fucking think for themselves anymore.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
PNAC is the Project for a New American Century. They are hawks, think-tanks and move in the shadows normally, but because they have the ear of your current president, they have become bold and don't shy away from the light so much presently. Their manifesto is a cause for concern, whether you are american or not. PNAC argued for invading Iraq two years before 9/11. No wonder the sales of tin-foil hats have shot up.
Okay, so cutting military spending by 90% immediately is not feasible. But cutting military spending so that you have a defence, not an offence, is well feasible, and will save tons of cash. Wars of conquest, as presently in Iraq, are expensive and sap the strength not only of the forces, but also of the people in the conquering nation. It also generates more enemies than is annihilated in the conquest.
As for 'islamic terrorism', while terror can never be excused - no matter who wields it, the individual or the mightiest nation on the planet - the motives behind the actions can be understood. The individual that has lost everything, that sees all they know come under threat by a might they can never compete against, sometimes take action in a way that couch-potatoes watching SuperBowl might never comprehend. Making the ultimate sacrifice to try and gain the freedom of your peers - it was not too many generations ago that a civil war took place in USA, where people made that type sacrifice for exactly the same reasons.
Lastly, any economy, no matter how diverse, can - and will - fall on hard times. Being heavily in debt, with most of that debt owned by a single entity, and being refused credit is a position where ones courage, attitude and honour comes under scrutiny. Time will tell how that test is passed.
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.