Slashdot Mirror
71 Percent of U.S. See Humans On Mars By 2033
astroengine writes "In a recent poll funded by the non-profit Explore Mars, 71% of respondents agreed that the U.S. will send a human to Mars within the next two decades. Unfortunately, on average, the sample of 1,101 people surveyed thought the U.S. government allocated 2.4% of the federal budget to NASA — in reality it's only 0.5%. With this in mind, 75% of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed that NASA's budget should be increased to explore Mars through manned and robotic means."
99% Percent of U.S. See Flying Cars by 1985.
Two things man is exceptionally good at with great consistency; overestimating his progress in the future and underestimating the resilience of nature.
Damn Martians. It's payback time.
76% of the U.S. population believes an invisible guy in the sky watching them all the time too.
Unlikely doesn't get more likely just because you got the majority to believe it...
Just wondering? It's a long flight with a lot of exposure.
And 57% of respondents agree by 2053 we will be flying around the galaxy in faster-than-light spaceships. You know, like the Millennium Falcon. They saw it in a movie. And most of those believe Obama is a Secret Muslim Nigerian. What are we trying to prove here?
Developing a new high speed rail network - London to Birmingham..
"Construction along the line is due to start in 2017 and be completed by 2025. The first train services will run between London and Birmingham from 2026." https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/developing-a-new-high-speed-rail-network
Add in the delays and 2033 looks possible! - Would you believe England used to rule 3/4 of the planet?
74% of respondents expected to see no humans on Earth by 2032.
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
The team at http://mars-one.com/en/ plan to send 4 people to mars late 2022 and they will arrive in 2023. That is a decade ahead of the poll.
We're not going to get there by slashing NASA's budget. A joint collaberation between China Russia and the ESA will probably do it first.
Poll sponsored by Boeing and Mars exploration group finds public opinion agrees with their own wishes. Here is essential information on how polls work, courtesy of "Yes, Prime Minister": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The medieval explorers usually had a fairly good idea that if they found new land there would at least be something to eat, wood to fix the boat and if they were lucky someone to trade with. And failing that there was always fish in the sea to eat plus they didn't have to take their own air.
So humans go to mars - carrying everything. And do what? Sure, exploring is fun for a while but theres notalot to see and then what? Current rocket technologies are woefully inadequate - far worse in comparison to a sailing ship on the ocean - for any sort of exchange of people or goods from earth to mars. So other than doing some scientific research which in 20 years will probably be able to be done just as well by robot - whats the point until we develop faster space drives?
Do you think this poll is stupid?:
Yes [x]
No [ ]
And in other news, 100% of Humans agreed that this Poll was stupid.
The poll was taken by one person, but I just scaled it up to the entire human race because why the hell not? All glory to the statistics toad.
Statistics doesn't work that way. Not even remotely.
1000 people barely even represent an entire region, never mind a damn country, especially if it is one local group of people in the same area!
Not to mention the types of people who typically take polls in the first place!
I am sick of these stupid polls that do this. STOP IT, STOP RUINING MATHS. GO AWAY. GO TO MARS!
Oh this means something! Woohoo! 70% probably see us merging wit some sort of unprovable god being as well weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Given that Mars's Gravity is roughly 39% that of the earth a manned mission seems unlikely unless great improvements are made in rocket efficiency. Unless they intend it to be a one way mission in which case can I volunteer Piers Morgan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Translates to "71% of humans wish humans could be on Mars by 2033"
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
What those 77% of people fail to realize is that we can no longer organize ourselves well enough to accomplish this sort of task. NASA, as an institution, long ago stopped being about technical successes and exploration. During my years working with NASA, I discovered that a NASA manager's career success is measured solely by the number of people they manage and the size of the budget they control. Not by how many successful missions they achieved, not by the technology breakthroughs they fostered, and not by any other rational measure beyond their org chart success.
So we have no government agency capable of focusing on such a complicated goal as landing humans on Mars. They immediately get distracted with project management issues and politics. If private industry were to try and undertake this effort, there would have to be some financial incentive for our largest private spacefaring corporations to try and cooperate, since none have the resources alone to achieve the goal within 20 years. And the only model they have for organizing themselves is NASA today. No one still working in the industry knows how NASA of the 1960's worked, and society has changed to the point that the technical people required for such an effort are no longer motivated to make the selfless sacrifices needed to achieve such a goal. All the good engineers left aerospace for the Dot.Com world in the '90s. Those remaining few are motivated by commercial and personal financial success, and that requires a much shorter planning and gratification cycle than 20 years.
Sorry, we won't be going to Mars. We're a bunch of greedy, self-absorbed, small-minded apes that have reached the pinnacle of our organizational skills at the bottom of our gravity well.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
98.6% believe in an invisible force that causes objects to fall to earth when released.
You may as well be on the Moon for all the good it does. Mars may be a great goal on some scientific agenda however we have the Moon and it's much closer. The only thing however that comes to mind in both cases for colonies or even some manned outpost is what would you do with it? Yes, there's the scientific exploration aspects of it but as World History would point out, Explorers were in search of riches, trade routes or room to expand. The technical hurdles would certainly mean more expansion in terms of possibly new technologies that we can use here on Earth, new material science, new electronics or new discoveries on Physics. Other than that, I would submit that the Moon or Mars don't really represent much other than commercial mining opportunities. In order to have the remotest chance of being economically feasible, this would mean that there would have to be some new or unknown mineral lurking out there, or something so rare here on Earth that the astronomical (pun intended) costs to retrieve and process would make sense. Now, if it were purely for expansion would could always find a planet like Pandora and just send in the Military to fight blue giant cat people or if you're of the Star Trek genre, then you could find Orion Slave Girls and bring them back for fun and profit!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
First of all, the U.S. will be sending (uniformed) humans to Africa, Middle East, and such places. There are wars to be fought there, forget about space exploration.
And then, what's on Mars? For what reason would any country "send humans" to Mars specifically?
Finally, as a species we are clearly intellectually and consequently technologically unable to become what they call "space-faring".
On the bright side, at any second of any day we might be contacted by aliens who will be generous and kind to share their knowledge with us. Like in a movie.
Yeah I think that's our best bet for a bright future.
71% of respondents agreed that the US will send a human to Mars within the next two decades.
The other 29 percent know we don't have a launch platform capable of getting us there.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
if any humans get to mars by 2033 they wont be american, theyll be chinese.
Unfortunately, the Mars Landing will never take off under the combined weight of tea baggers, so no reason to party yet.
Just like that 2012 Gallup survey of US citizens, the one that found 46% of American respondents believe an invisible superhero who lives in the sky created humans in their present form.
Forgive me if I consider US citizens something of an unreliable group when it comes to science.
During the past 540 million years, there have been five major events which killed over 50% of life on Earth. Do you think humanity will survive the next mass extinction? What if a supernova goes off some hundred light years away, an asteroid heads towards Earth, a global pandemic breaks out, or a third world war erupts? If we make it our long-term goal to establish a permanent colony on Mars, at least we'll have a backup of humanity in case disaster should strike.
I also believe that we'll benefit from developing the technology to settle on another planet. For instance, you mentioned faster space drives; if we don't continue to explore space, where will the motivation and funding for heavy propulsion research come from? If we settle on Mars, can't we use similar technology to populate more arid regions on Earth? If we eventually manage to terraform Mars, wouldn't that revolutionize agriculture on Earth too? And I bet such an expedition will be accompanied by thousands of minor breakthroughs in materials technology, medicine, etc. that we don't yet know how will benefit us.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=step-into-the-twilight-zone-can-earthlings-adjust-to-a-longer-day-on-mars
How many of those surveyed believe humans never landed on the moon?
If other polls are to believed, there's more than likely some overlap between the two!
... if that's the same 71% that believe in a deity that gives a damn about every little thing you pray for, or the 71% who don't believe in evolution, or the 71% who think arming everyone in the country with semi-automatic weapons somehow makes things safer.
I am a big proponent of NASA. I would like to see the budget increased. I would do it with cuts in the military and corporate subsidies (particular to oil companies).
Then next time a stupid survey asks "would you like to increase spending" I really wish there were a follow-up question "what would you give up to see this happen."
Heck, I give 110% at my job and SO SHOULD THE BUDGET!
The Chinese will be the first humans on Mars, but that's okay because we are paying for it. Just hit that WalMart up again - the brothers need another oxygen tank.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Jumping the gun is not necessarily the best way to get things done.
The most oft-discussed and visible triumphs of manned space have been by necessity "get there, plant the flag and get out."
But the ultimate goal should be not just to visit space or establish some dangerous and isolated outposts there (though there is no shortage of volunteers!)...it should be to move into space in a series of self-sustaining stages.
This means we first need to build a space colony here on Earth, and decide on some practical steps to take that will achieve the ultimate goal. And each step should be of immediate practical and commercial value.
I would like to call attention to Marshall Savage's amazing project and book, The Millennial Project. another synopsis and at Amazon. Some have picked fun at Savage's priorities, but frankly until this book/project arrived on the scene there had been nothing like it.
In that plan, terraforming Mars is step 6 of 8. In this scenario we are not just landing on Mars to establish an outpost... at that stage we have already perfected the technology for habitats in space. If our focus is on 'the next logical (small) step' instead of some ultimate goal and devote our complete effort to these steps, by 2033 we could be moving outward in all directions... instead of just one.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
We don't even have a manned space program. We could not put someone into orbit, let alone the moon or mars.
And in the 60's we though by the 70's we'd be living on the moon
Clearly this doesn't hold a lot of valor.
In ten years manned spaceflight with be over. Quite likely for more than an hundred years if not more.
It has no sense to make this travel to mars with our olds technologies. If we do it like the moon program, it will be a one shot project.
What we must do ?
Create a space ship powerfull enough to travel on the solar system in few weeks, a one like the Enterprise (of course, smaller without warp technology ;>) that can handle ALL exploration projects in our solar sytem.
We need a spaceship that can visit the moon of Saturn, mars, Jupiter, Enceladus, Europ, Titan, Io
Means first we have to invent a completely different propulsion method if we’re sending humans, because 300 days is too long, dangerous and inefficient.
Antimatter is the most dense fuel we could possibly use, and now it is the way to go.
....as long as we're allowed to continue to spend money we don't have, why not?
Of course, I suspect that when you ask the question differently, you're going to get a very different response:
"Assuming that whatever % of budget goes to NASA comes directly out of services you receive, what % of budget should NASA get?"
-Styopa
OK, anyone up for raising the money for a flight to Mars as a Kickstarter?
OK i'll be in my late fifties by then but Id go, Give me a one way ticket some e books to read and Id start work on a colony for others to come latter. Might miss WOW and what ever expansion it is on by then but 15 to 20 minute lag isn't that bad....Cough BT cough
Do they need to be alive when they reach mars?
Yet more proof that the US is the dumping ground of the world's mental asylums.
I see three reasons for so much interest in sending man to Mars:
Romantic - With ice, wind storms and ancient flood plains, it is easy to fantasize that Mars is a virgin territory ready for colonizing, by the first country or company with the balls to do it.
Political - Now that the incredibly wasteful, self serving Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs have imploded, politicians are looking for some other long term trillion dollar boondoggle to keep their constituencies happy and to justify the taxes we pay.
Scientific - there may be remains of early attempts at organic life on Mars, long gone from Earth. These traces could be possible Rosetta stones, to help us to better understand how life works on Earth. I suspect that this understanding will be essential, for the long term survival of homo sapiens on Earth.
The facts however are: .... whose next? Iran, Venezuela, North Korea ?
Mars is hardly more hospitable than the Moon - with no foreseeable military, industrial, commercial or tourist value whatsoever..
Man in space programs are primarily military aggression by other means, but I admit preferable to starting small wars here and there. Oops, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Sending men on one way trips to Mars, would irreversibly contaminate and destroy whatever we might learn about early life on Mars. At least we have the moons of Saturn as a backup.
I do believe however that space WILL be colonized and industrialized, but not by us, but by our ever more capable machines and robots.
I am also sure that people will also go, as extra baggage, probably to low gravity playgrounds and retirement homes in lunar caverns. I expect DisneyMoon in Orlundo Gardens will be very fancy and profitable.
Tim
Any possible scenario for a lunar (or Martian settlement) involves eminent loss of life and hardship, especially at the outset when our learning curve begins. One of the difficulties an American expedition would encounter is the high price placed on each American life. The Chinese might have an edge here, and could perhaps design equipment and housing without the quintuple safety redundancies that have made NASA projects so time consuming and expensive. Backslash is onto something though...nothing would fire up the US government's interest in off-earth exploration faster than a threat to national security.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
but just don't see them on planet Earth anymore by that time.
71% of U.S. are idiots that tend to strongly believe in fantasy scenarios that fail to materialize. In an almost religious manner of circular self-fulfilling logic, these people blame the fact that these fantasies do not materialize on non-believers who are labeled obstructionists, old and, most damning of all, Republicans.
Well if SpaceX can get the reusable Falcon working, 2033 is about right for a Mars landing powered by cheap commercial space transportation.
But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Multiple variant linear regression analysis is inclusion-free on the order of flawless a life changing asteroid impact with our rather inhabitable little rock will occur. Whether it is an extinction event or merely teleports us back to the Stone Age is irrelevant with regard to the loss of all human technology and scientific progress. A robotic presence during exploration is invaluable. Robotic slaves at the off-planet human settlement will be handy like a pocket on a shirt. Without a human presence, well, there goes our entire legacy.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I, for one, can't believe that people will ever be able humans on Mars. Heck, I can't even see people on airlines flying at a measly altitude of 35,000 feet! Sheesh.
I'm sure most of them certainly would allocate more money to NASA. Ask them though if they're support a tax increase in order to bolster NASA's budget. Almost all would drop their support in a heartbeat.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-tax and I PERSONALLY would have no issue with paying a little more if I knew it'd go to NASA. I'm just saying that most people probably wouldn't. Most operate under the impression that the government just has all this free money to send where it wants with no clue that those resources and funds have to actually come from somewhere.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
But NASA can't. If we do get to Mars in that time frame, it will be the Chinese or, more likely, one of the New Space companies like SpaceX.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
In your comment I detect touching faith in American government’s care for American lives and security. But let’s not go as far as China is search of expendable human beings to be sent to Mars. Let’s scoop up those south Asian families that have been dying in their dozens, and in their sleep, in American drone strikes. I think they would prefer a trip to Mars anyway.
Hmmm...assuming that national pride is going to be a motivator ("no way in hell..." is how you actually phrased it) then we can restate the problem in terms of preserving national pride. When you look at the problem from that perspective, it becomes a matter of *preventing* the Chinese from getting to Mars before the US does. In order to prevent the Chinese from getting to Mars, the US will have to be able to project their national will on the Chinese, and the way one nation projects its will on another nation is by force. This force is applied by military and economic might. Finding funding for military might (at least in the US) has been pretty much independent of political or economic issues. Defense budgets routinely survive presidential and congressional elections, and are less affected by economic slumps. (Not untouched by, but certainly don't suffer as much as other government programs do.) So -- in a bucket, beating the Chinese to Mars becomes a matter of delaying the Chinese long enough for the US to get there first. Overt or covert military ops, industrial espionage and economic warfare to sabotage the Chinese Mars effort become plausible when you look at the problem this way. I'm not saying I want it to happen this way, or that it will happen this way, but it is a plausible scenario that is fairly independent of politics and economics in the US. It only requires that the US be more concerned about national pride than the consequences of using military or economic force. As events have showed us over the past dozen years, the US seems to be more than willing to go to war (on multiple fronts, if necessary, and at a severe cost to their economy) when their national pride has been damaged, so I would conclude that some kind of action by the US to prevent the Chinese from reaching Mars first has a probability approaching unity of occurring.
Do you guys know the Mars Direct Program? It was developed by Rober Zubrin. The point of the program is that we are technically able to go to Mars. We were it 15 years ago en today we still are. We can do it relatively cheap (20 billion) and without need of in-orbit build spaceships. I recommend reading The Case for Mars by Rober Zubrin. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
Once they launch in 2033 they will be able to visit the Mars one colony: http://mars-one.com
They plan on sending people on a one way trip to Mars by 2023..
The resource that is lacking is WILL.
Call it "political will" ... "moral fortitude" ... whatever. Once the tech is available, the only thing preventing any group from making a large project like this happen is the will to do it. Which is precisely why we probably WILL have a Mars mission (manned) by 2033 ... but it WILL NOT be the government doing it.
Private enterprise has the will, the stated goal, is gathering the money, and refining the tech. Elon Musk is not the only one, either.
People routinely OVERestimate how difficult this will be once the will is in-place.
(Note: having the will to "do it" includes the acceptance of the RISK involved. Kinda like Everest climbers and cave divers.)
See you space cowboy
"They thought the budget allocated 2.4% instead of .5%"
Okay...so? No one knows what the actual percentages are that the government allocates to organizations. In general, people will have an idea of what something should be, but to ask them on the spot how much NASA or any organization gets allocated is a pointless question. Doesn't prove someone's stupid, doesn't prove someone doesn't care.
Also, everyone wants everything to get funded more. Unfortunately, there are limited resources. People thinking NASA should get more money is not the same thing as them saying "take 2% from healthcare and move it to NASA".
71% of respondents agreed that the US will send a human to Mars within the next two decades.
So 71% of the respondents think they can predict the future.
That's simply a measurement of the stupidity of the respondents.
A 71% stupidity rate sounds about right to me.
If you ask people 'do you like generally non-controversial policy X', they will support it in droves. The public's ability to understand how much things cost, how much they are willing to pay, and how they should prioritize their concerns is a completely different matter. I couldn't find it in three minutes of searching, but Pew had a poll a couple of years back where the only category the US respondants could agree on is cutting foreign aid to cut the defecit, which is only because the budget doesn't have a line item for 'waste and abuse' which seems to be how most people think we will get most of the way to making debt payments. When it comes to public policy, most voters seem to be deluded, but we are particularly gifted in the land of the free.
I believe Space X or some other private corporation will get there by that time.
The US Government is a mess financially and politicians per say have no vision.
What will drive a race is that the Chinese, Russians & Indians will be aiming there and will be companies like Space X that will target Mars.
My two cents.
Another big difference though is that, precisely because of the greater transportation times, a Mars base would be designed to be far more self-sufficient than the ISS. Consider that the ISS is a sealed can that must get all it's replacement supplies from Earth, while a Mars base will have ready access to essentially unlimited quantities of water (assuming it's built near the icecap or other source), carbon dioxide, and sand. Assuming the sand is non-toxic all you need is some big, tough, transparent bags and probably some mineral supplements and a bit of insulation from the ground beneath you to create bubble greenhouses and grow all the food and oxygen you could want. At that point all you need from Earth is replacements for things that break and perhaps mineral supplements for anything that gets leeched out of your ecosystem and you can't find locally - from Biosphere 2 though I believe the biggest problem on that front was carbon, and with unlimited CO2 delivered to your doorstep that's not really an issue.
Couple that with the fact that almost every serious Mars-base proposal involves them making their own fuel from water for the eventual return trip and you don't really need massive ongoing support - a care package of non-renewables every now and then and they should be golden, and once you've got such a package in orbit getting it to Mars is only a small additional expense unless you need to get it there quickly for some reason.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A Mars exploration advocacy group conducted a poll, and they claim that most people agree with them. There is absolutely no reason to believe in the validity of this poll--even if Explore Mars intended to get honest results, there are too many ways for bias to creep in.
Doormats?
Cheaper than electrostatic repulsion.
...get your ass to Mars.
Or we could land 71% of a person on Mars, today!
Actually some in the USA were accustomed to seeing flying cars as early as 1979. But most of our attention was drawn to the possibility that Daisy Duke might explode out of her jeans.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
That's why, "All efforts were made to ensure a representative sample of the U.S. population 18 years and older given normal standards of statistical sampling."
If you had to qualify by proving some level of intelligence or technical background or even basic education in the sciences, you'd be less likely to give answers that support the goals of the clients, Boeing and Explore Mars, Inc.
TFA article went on to mention that the average survey respondent overstimated the percentage of the U.S. federal budget by 500%.
But take heart! None of the survey questions asked who would pay for it, what budgetary trade-offs they consider acceptable or whether their fear of WMD played any part in their belief system. And all this took place before the Pope resigned from his position as God's representative hear on Earth.
Our space program is going backwards. About the only salvation we have is the Chinese trying to land on the moon and inflaming nationalism.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I remember the 60's: I believe now that they were the peak of western (if not human) civilization this time around. We have fallen farther as a culture than you young folks can imagine since then, and it was our culture that landed on the moon. Given the will, money and technology can be managed; I see no sign now of the sustained will needed for a Mars trip. The only place to even look nowadays is maybe China, and while they don't have popular elections all the time they're still not stable over the time frame involved.
The one way paradigm lowers the cost and difficulty tremendously, but I doubt any government will go for it and I just don't see a commercial enterprise making the first trip; once their people land (assuming they could still return from Mars orbit), the company is locked into supporting a colony. Given the current legal climate, the astronauts would face more danger from bankruptcies and lawsuits back home than living on Mars.
The fundamental problem is energy. Our civilization may yet fail for lack of it and there is little prospect of that changing. Virtually all fusion research is going into tokamaks, a dead end at best; fossil fuel has unmanageable supply and pollution problems; renewables and fission have serious (at our level) scale problems. We've also have no way to use energy efficiently for space travel: getting people to the surface of Mars with chemical propellants amounts to admitting that we're making a one shot attempt to look at a few rocks and say we did it; putting (enough) nuclear power in orbit is politically impossible, especially for the US.
I fear it is already too late for a moon base; the cost and difficulty of the ISS makes a Lagrange point station look pretty unlikely. An asteroid mission, even a close one, relies on gear we haven't built yet and which changes every election. Unless a major breakthrough happens soon, I'm giving no thought to Mars.
25 % of Americans consume fast food every day
20% of meals are eaten in the car
88 percent of young Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, 75 percent couldn't locate Iran or Israel, and 63 percent couldn't identify Iraq
More Than 40 Percent of Americans Believe the Rapture Is Coming
That 71% think we have an extra trillion dollars or two to go to Mars for no useful or compelling purpose is no great surprise. Depressing? Disconcerting? Tragic? Sure, but not surprising.
Monkeys
Taxpayers want it until they realize who is paying for it.
0.5% is too high.
More Monkeys
71% of Americans don't pay attention to past events (History)
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
Challenger showed that NASA was incapable of safely operating manned spaceflight programs.
Columbia showed that NASA was incapable of changing for the better.
This survey was obviously multiple choice and therefore tainted.
Ensure that politicians, lawyers, iPhone users and telephone sanitizers will be the first inhabitants.
According to Back to the Future 2, we will have flying cars in 2 years as well.:)
Actually I just see dead people.
Realistic chance of finding life on Europa in the liquid ocean beneath the surface and can be done robotically using current technology.
Because they will send astronauts there ... by prayer.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
So, if there are 300million people in the us and a mars program would cost 20-100 billion, then that would be ~1000$ per person, sound like such a good idea now? (I guess its not too bad, that's only ~50$ a year.)
So, what do the other 130 or so space shuttle missions show? Was it some amazing luck that they didn't crash or blow up?
Did you read the reports of the Accident Investigation Boards?
When else are we going to get a chance at terra forming a planet that may be possible as practice? We might need that knowledge. Hell I'd go witha group for free. Just have enough members of the opposite sex for everyone (or whatever ...) and keep the booze flowing.
Not to mention just cool to even try?
Tell them they're dreaming!!!
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
You want pig ignorance? You should try southern Europe sometime. I'm specifically referring to Greece and southern Italy, those people know NOTHING. Centuries of non-development, poor goatherders and fishermen has begat .... yet more non-development, poor goatherders and fishermen, but these ones are in debt. I'm not saying that they're not nice people or that there isn't amazing culture in those countries as a whole, it's just that they know dick about shit. Believe me, north Americans are well educated by comparison.