Again, being a stupid fucking ideologue makes you useless to any conversation.
Reagan ballooned the deficit. Bush Sr tried to change course, but was held back by stupid fucking idiot conservative ideologues. Bush Jr was a complete fucking moron, and his tax cuts did nothing but funnel more money to the wealthiest people in the country. IF Bush Jr.s tax breaks would have helped, there wouldn't have been recession in 2007 because we'd have more fucking jobs than the entire rest of the world. They didn't, and we didn't. Stupid fucking ideologues can't fucking look at reality and see what's happening.
Bush had a choice... a 5.7 trillion dollar projected surplus which could have been used to pay down and off the national debt, OR be a fucking idiot and squander that and keep the national debt. Fucking stupid ass republicans ARE the reason we have a national debt.... THEY chose it.
Stupid fucking idiots usually make the argument that it was Clinton had nothing to do with the good, that it was all the republicans who helped the economy then... those same people are too fucking stupid to answer the question on if that were the case, why is it the whole thing went to shit as soon as a republican was in the white house again.
The day Obama took office, there was a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit projected for that year. The follow year even higher... that year being Bush's last budget. Bush kept the "deficit" low, but pushed the national debt up a huge amount by intentionally lying to everyone. He kept the wars off budget, as well as homeland security spending. Now, the deficit is falling, fairly dramatically, again. It took a democrat to come in and fix the complete fuck up that is republican policy.
And honestly, coming from someone defending Bush... the Bush who ignored a security briefing in the month before 9/11 about an impending attack, and who later would say he didn't consider Bin Laden a priority.... i'd say you trying to drop Bush's stupidity onto Clinton is just fucking childish. Then again, childish bullshit is about all republicans are good for. And for the record... 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
Here's the whole fucking point though, because you don't seem to have enough of a fucking brain to understand: USPS is in crisis BECAUSE OF a republican bill where they have to fund retirement out 75 years in advance. No one, anywhere, other than a fucking idiot republican, would think that's sound money management. If not for THAT BILL, that fucking stupid ass republican bill, USPS would be posting a profit.
Except it would take a fucking idiot not to remember that Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a projected surplus of 5.7 trillion over the 2001-2011 period, then the fucktard republicans in Bush and his merry band of theives pissed that away in short order, turning what could have been a national debt of ZERO into a national debt of 11.5 trillion at the end of his last budget, with trillion plus deficits for the next ten years, and miring us in the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
Democrats want to live up to the responsibility of pay for the government we have, and the services it provides. Republicans want to run up the debt by giving the wealthiest more money, at the expense of the poor, while putting all the cost onto future generations. The largest expansion of government since Medicare/Medicaid = Department of Homeland Security under Bush.... put on the federal credit card.
Are you truly as fucking stupid as your post makes you out to be? The problem with this country is stupid fucking ideologues that have their heads so far up their ass they can't even remember what reality looked like; also known as republican politician and their fanbois.
The better suggestion would be to quit letting those in government who know nothing, and who's only goal is to disrupt everything the government is doing in an effort to destroy the federal government, from fucking up the USPS. If it weren't for republicans passing that fucked up bill requiring USPS to pre-fund retirement 75 years out, the USPS would be making a profit.
...of course, and even better suggestion would be to treat those idiot trying to destroy the federal government as treasonous traitors and insurgents.
You need to go read the actual constitution as a whole then.
It doesn't guarantee people freedoms so much as limits government.
Unfortunately, we've pushed the limits for the last 200 years to the point of ridiculousness.
I agree... you (the AC) need to go read the constitution, because clearly you haven't.
The Constitution was written to empower the federal government. It lays out broad premises for goals the federal government is supposed to work towards, then defines specific powers the different branches of the federal government has, then gives it an almost blank check to do those things. Then there's the Bill of Rights.
Ignoring EVERYTHING in the Constitution and Bill of Rights except the 10th amendment is just fucking stupid.
....the Air Force is caught in a quandary. Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?"
And here i thought their quandary was wondering: if, when, and for how many trillions of dollars it was going to be for the F-35 to be anything more than a theft of taxpayer money by the MIC.
Beings as they do it cheaper and more efficiently than UPS, FedEx, or DSL ever could, i'd suggest the idiotic fuckingly stupid argument that the government should be doing it to be idiotic fuckingly stupid... especially given that neither UPS, FedEx or DSL want to take over mail delivery BECAUSE it's not as profitable as they would want it to be.
Tell you what... next time you go to mail a letter, leave the entire outside of the envelope blank. That way it won't matter if they take a picture of it or not. My other advice would be... don't expect it to be delivered.
It made sense in 1789, it makes sense now... just because you seem to have fallen for the anti-United States bullshit that the government is always the problem doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
It always amazes me that people make the silly comment that solar power doesn't work when the sun goes down. I mean, seriously... these type of facilities have been in the movies for what...15-20 years now, and there's been working plants since 1984.
We have a federal government the way we do, based on the constitution, because the whole strong states rights/ weak federal government confederacy thing was an abject failure. It's too bad people don't bother to read history before using thee stupid talking points.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No, it's a right of the people. Here's another little thing that the anti-United States people seem to miss:
at the very end of Article 1, section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So this whole stupid fucking notion of EXPLICITLY written in the constitution crap is just a bullshit line used by people who've never read the constitution, told to people apparently too damn stupid to read the constitution. You want the original intent of the country? That's easy:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No. What you're trying to say is it's only marriage if it conforms to what you say it is, and nothing else... and prior to it being exactly what you want it to be, it wasn't marriage. That is a bullshit argument.
Some years ago there was a fucked in the head christian group that conned/lied it's way into government grants to cure recidivism in parolees. The went before congress and boasted that their program had a 100% success rate for inmates who completed the course. Their program consisted of doing prison classes, religious worshiping, and their conversion to Christianity bullshit. So how did they get that 100% success rate? Easy. The final step of their program was to not commit another crime ever. Therefor, if someone was paroled and later committed a crime, they obviously never completed the course.
Your argument is the same kind of bullshit. Marriage was 700 wives and 300 concubines long before it was 1 man 1 woman; it wasn't "something else," it was marriage.... and probably a whole lot of fun until the in-laws came around.
As often noted by rabid conservative anti-government ideologues wanting to make points through a ludicrous idiotic adulteration of logic: "You choose to remain within the physical area that the government controls, therefor it's your choice.... you can leave anytime you want."
Again, out of context. He was not advocating a rebellion every 20 years.
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed.
Taken out of context, any phrase can be made to mean anything, but as the old adage goes... if you have to deceive to make your point, your point was not worth making.
Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that this should occur every 20 years or so, so as to keep Federal power in check and keep politicians in fear of We the People.
No.
Jefferson's quote that is very, very often used out of context to make silly (and wildly incorrect) points, was in a letter as an answer to the question of what he thought about the deaths during Shay's Rebellion. His opinion was that, reoccurring over time, is the propensity for people who because they're ignorant and uninformed, to "rise up" in rebellion. It is the nature of society, and the nature of the failure of people to stay informed.
When it happens (which he said he wouldn't be surprised to have happen every 20 years, given the normal sequence of events happening in Europe), it was the governments role to pacify (kill) those who needed, and pardon the rest.... because their rebellion is based on ignorance. He was perfectly fine with those "rebels" being killed, because that's the governments role in a rebellion.
He never promoted the idea that rebellion should happen, only that it was inevitable in society, especially when many seemed unwilling to stay informed.
On the notion that this was meant (or that anything was, including the 2nd Amendment... like many people incorrectly say), to keep government fearful of the people.... it wasn't. People were not afraid of the government; they had a say in it's workings. As seen repeatedly in Europe, the risk came from the military overthrowing the government. That is why we started with a militia that was only to be called up in cases of insurrection or invasion, and were barred constitutionally from having a standing army for any length over two years without a direct consent from congress. This was notable (prior to being included later in the Constitution) at Valley Forge where the Continental Congress refused to continue funding the military. The only reason it lists having a navy was to protect our trade routes, and as forewarning to any enemy action (even they couldn't justify ignoring what they thought to be the inevitable invasions, a la Europe). People weren't afraid of the government, they were afraid of the military.
But isn't that the point.... climate scientists throughout the world have been trying to explain. They haven't told people that they're too stupid... it's the people who WANT to remain stupid who refuse to listen to the explanations, refuse to learn the basic science to understand the explanation, then whine like a little bitches that the bad scientists are calling them stupid.
Remain fucking stupid if you want, but don't blame people who actually have a job to do because they won't hold your hand and teach you things that YOU should take responsibility for and learn; and if you do intentionally remain fucking stupid, don't presume that your uneducated stupid fucking opinion means a damn thing.
Knowledge is power; whining like a little bitch because you're too stupid and lazy to learn, isn't.
There's a lot of variable to the equation, and yes, size is one of them. On smaller objects, it's not necessarily the most important; a 30m rock pile wouldn't even hit ground, a 30m iron, high speed, steep entrance... it's going to make a very nasty dent in whatever it hits...a car, a backyard, a city...
OT: We, and 97% of all the doctors out there agree that you have a sickness. It's so complicated we would never be able to help another person if we explained it completely to every person who's never had any medical training who wants to have it all explained, therefor we say "you have a problem, lets see if we can come up with something to help it out."
Patient: No, i know i've never had any medical training, and i'm scared of doing anything cause Billy-Bo-Bob and his wife/daughter Mary-Beth-Bob said it wun't nothing, so you're wrong because they all got them a 10th grade edukation. I don't want to actually have to take initiative and go learn to read so i can have a chance to understand it.
OT: If we don't try to come up with a solution, you may die.
To be fair, the object that hit Chicxulub posed no risk for any of it's near Earth passes either.... until it did.
While this object is fairly small, it passed about 1/4 of the distance to the moon from us. If we were intelligent, we'll keep track of it so we can plot to see if it will ever hit us; if we blindly think it poses no risk, it may slap us in the face in the future.
As for NASA stating that it posed no risk in passing us that close, i can both understand the humor in their statement, as well as them feeling the need to after the complete and utter bullshit hysteria that anything more than a gnat farting 10 miles away causes in some of the truly idiotic of our species (see: all the lame ass, end of the world bullshit ever contrived by mental midgets, or the con-men taking advantage of the mental midgets).
If we were to figure out what women thought, the universe would collapse in on itself, then reinvent itself into something even more bizarre than what it is now, with an entirely new set of physical laws...and women with even different thinking patterns.
The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 of the Royal Society:
If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.
—John Michell[4]
In 1796, mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde (it was removed from later editions).[5][6] Such "dark stars" were largely ignored in the nineteenth century, since it was not understood how a massless wave such as light could be influenced by gravity.[7]
In other equally shocking news, Rome was not built in a day.
Having a realistic approach to something is usually far better than being hysterical. Hollywood is a far stretch from reality; it probably shouldn't be considered current technology just because it shows up in a movie.
A better choice in the whole matter would be to invest in the ability to see these smaller objects while we still have time to allow us to deploy technology that actually exists, or evacuate the impact area. Investing into some technology to deflect them in shorter time spans would also be a good thing, however, it's not going to be "profitable," so private corporations are not going to be doing it, and with the current "anti-common good" sentiment pervasive in a certain segment of our society, government won't be investing in it anytime soon... probably until something impacts the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, being a stupid fucking ideologue makes you useless to any conversation.
Reagan ballooned the deficit. Bush Sr tried to change course, but was held back by stupid fucking idiot conservative ideologues. Bush Jr was a complete fucking moron, and his tax cuts did nothing but funnel more money to the wealthiest people in the country. IF Bush Jr.s tax breaks would have helped, there wouldn't have been recession in 2007 because we'd have more fucking jobs than the entire rest of the world. They didn't, and we didn't. Stupid fucking ideologues can't fucking look at reality and see what's happening.
Bush had a choice... a 5.7 trillion dollar projected surplus which could have been used to pay down and off the national debt, OR be a fucking idiot and squander that and keep the national debt. Fucking stupid ass republicans ARE the reason we have a national debt.... THEY chose it.
Stupid fucking idiots usually make the argument that it was Clinton had nothing to do with the good, that it was all the republicans who helped the economy then... those same people are too fucking stupid to answer the question on if that were the case, why is it the whole thing went to shit as soon as a republican was in the white house again.
The day Obama took office, there was a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit projected for that year. The follow year even higher... that year being Bush's last budget. Bush kept the "deficit" low, but pushed the national debt up a huge amount by intentionally lying to everyone. He kept the wars off budget, as well as homeland security spending. Now, the deficit is falling, fairly dramatically, again. It took a democrat to come in and fix the complete fuck up that is republican policy.
And honestly, coming from someone defending Bush... the Bush who ignored a security briefing in the month before 9/11 about an impending attack, and who later would say he didn't consider Bin Laden a priority.... i'd say you trying to drop Bush's stupidity onto Clinton is just fucking childish. Then again, childish bullshit is about all republicans are good for. And for the record... 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
Here's the whole fucking point though, because you don't seem to have enough of a fucking brain to understand: USPS is in crisis BECAUSE OF a republican bill where they have to fund retirement out 75 years in advance. No one, anywhere, other than a fucking idiot republican, would think that's sound money management. If not for THAT BILL, that fucking stupid ass republican bill, USPS would be posting a profit.
Quit being a useless fucking idiotic ideologue.
Except it would take a fucking idiot not to remember that Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a projected surplus of 5.7 trillion over the 2001-2011 period, then the fucktard republicans in Bush and his merry band of theives pissed that away in short order, turning what could have been a national debt of ZERO into a national debt of 11.5 trillion at the end of his last budget, with trillion plus deficits for the next ten years, and miring us in the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
Democrats want to live up to the responsibility of pay for the government we have, and the services it provides. Republicans want to run up the debt by giving the wealthiest more money, at the expense of the poor, while putting all the cost onto future generations. The largest expansion of government since Medicare/Medicaid = Department of Homeland Security under Bush.... put on the federal credit card.
Are you truly as fucking stupid as your post makes you out to be? The problem with this country is stupid fucking ideologues that have their heads so far up their ass they can't even remember what reality looked like; also known as republican politician and their fanbois.
The better suggestion would be to quit letting those in government who know nothing, and who's only goal is to disrupt everything the government is doing in an effort to destroy the federal government, from fucking up the USPS. If it weren't for republicans passing that fucked up bill requiring USPS to pre-fund retirement 75 years out, the USPS would be making a profit.
...of course, and even better suggestion would be to treat those idiot trying to destroy the federal government as treasonous traitors and insurgents.
....but invoking the Norse god of strength.
Magni, son of Thor, was the Norse god of strength... not Thor. Magni was stronger at 3 nights old, then Thor was in his prime.
You need to go read the actual constitution as a whole then.
It doesn't guarantee people freedoms so much as limits government.
Unfortunately, we've pushed the limits for the last 200 years to the point of ridiculousness.
I agree... you (the AC) need to go read the constitution, because clearly you haven't.
The Constitution was written to empower the federal government. It lays out broad premises for goals the federal government is supposed to work towards, then defines specific powers the different branches of the federal government has, then gives it an almost blank check to do those things. Then there's the Bill of Rights.
Ignoring EVERYTHING in the Constitution and Bill of Rights except the 10th amendment is just fucking stupid.
....the Air Force is caught in a quandary. Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?"
And here i thought their quandary was wondering: if, when, and for how many trillions of dollars it was going to be for the F-35 to be anything more than a theft of taxpayer money by the MIC.
What makes you think they use flashes? I heard they use magic pixie farts.
Caveat: what i heard is just as accurate as your touch of paranoia.
Beings as they do it cheaper and more efficiently than UPS, FedEx, or DSL ever could, i'd suggest the idiotic fuckingly stupid argument that the government should be doing it to be idiotic fuckingly stupid... especially given that neither UPS, FedEx or DSL want to take over mail delivery BECAUSE it's not as profitable as they would want it to be.
Tell you what... next time you go to mail a letter, leave the entire outside of the envelope blank. That way it won't matter if they take a picture of it or not. My other advice would be... don't expect it to be delivered.
It made sense in 1789, it makes sense now... just because you seem to have fallen for the anti-United States bullshit that the government is always the problem doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
... the silliest statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
It always amazes me that people make the silly comment that solar power doesn't work when the sun goes down. I mean, seriously... these type of facilities have been in the movies for what...15-20 years now, and there's been working plants since 1984.
Wait.... clouds block sun? Hmm... lizard poisons Spock.. Spoc...NO, there are no CLOUDS!
....try the idea of two mother-in-laws. Now we know what Marlon Brando was really talking about.
We have a federal government the way we do, based on the constitution, because the whole strong states rights/ weak federal government confederacy thing was an abject failure. It's too bad people don't bother to read history before using thee stupid talking points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No, it's a right of the people. Here's another little thing that the anti-United States people seem to miss:
at the very end of Article 1, section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So this whole stupid fucking notion of EXPLICITLY written in the constitution crap is just a bullshit line used by people who've never read the constitution, told to people apparently too damn stupid to read the constitution. You want the original intent of the country? That's easy:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No. What you're trying to say is it's only marriage if it conforms to what you say it is, and nothing else... and prior to it being exactly what you want it to be, it wasn't marriage. That is a bullshit argument.
Some years ago there was a fucked in the head christian group that conned/lied it's way into government grants to cure recidivism in parolees. The went before congress and boasted that their program had a 100% success rate for inmates who completed the course. Their program consisted of doing prison classes, religious worshiping, and their conversion to Christianity bullshit. So how did they get that 100% success rate? Easy. The final step of their program was to not commit another crime ever. Therefor, if someone was paroled and later committed a crime, they obviously never completed the course.
Your argument is the same kind of bullshit. Marriage was 700 wives and 300 concubines long before it was 1 man 1 woman; it wasn't "something else," it was marriage.... and probably a whole lot of fun until the in-laws came around.
You are incorrect.
As often noted by rabid conservative anti-government ideologues wanting to make points through a ludicrous idiotic adulteration of logic: "You choose to remain within the physical area that the government controls, therefor it's your choice.... you can leave anytime you want."
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed.
Taken out of context, any phrase can be made to mean anything, but as the old adage goes... if you have to deceive to make your point, your point was not worth making.
Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that this should occur every 20 years or so, so as to keep Federal power in check and keep politicians in fear of We the People.
No.
Jefferson's quote that is very, very often used out of context to make silly (and wildly incorrect) points, was in a letter as an answer to the question of what he thought about the deaths during Shay's Rebellion. His opinion was that, reoccurring over time, is the propensity for people who because they're ignorant and uninformed, to "rise up" in rebellion. It is the nature of society, and the nature of the failure of people to stay informed.
When it happens (which he said he wouldn't be surprised to have happen every 20 years, given the normal sequence of events happening in Europe), it was the governments role to pacify (kill) those who needed, and pardon the rest.... because their rebellion is based on ignorance. He was perfectly fine with those "rebels" being killed, because that's the governments role in a rebellion.
He never promoted the idea that rebellion should happen, only that it was inevitable in society, especially when many seemed unwilling to stay informed.
On the notion that this was meant (or that anything was, including the 2nd Amendment... like many people incorrectly say), to keep government fearful of the people.... it wasn't. People were not afraid of the government; they had a say in it's workings. As seen repeatedly in Europe, the risk came from the military overthrowing the government. That is why we started with a militia that was only to be called up in cases of insurrection or invasion, and were barred constitutionally from having a standing army for any length over two years without a direct consent from congress. This was notable (prior to being included later in the Constitution) at Valley Forge where the Continental Congress refused to continue funding the military. The only reason it lists having a navy was to protect our trade routes, and as forewarning to any enemy action (even they couldn't justify ignoring what they thought to be the inevitable invasions, a la Europe). People weren't afraid of the government, they were afraid of the military.
But isn't that the point.... climate scientists throughout the world have been trying to explain. They haven't told people that they're too stupid... it's the people who WANT to remain stupid who refuse to listen to the explanations, refuse to learn the basic science to understand the explanation, then whine like a little bitches that the bad scientists are calling them stupid.
Remain fucking stupid if you want, but don't blame people who actually have a job to do because they won't hold your hand and teach you things that YOU should take responsibility for and learn; and if you do intentionally remain fucking stupid, don't presume that your uneducated stupid fucking opinion means a damn thing.
Knowledge is power; whining like a little bitch because you're too stupid and lazy to learn, isn't.
There's a lot of variable to the equation, and yes, size is one of them. On smaller objects, it's not necessarily the most important; a 30m rock pile wouldn't even hit ground, a 30m iron, high speed, steep entrance... it's going to make a very nasty dent in whatever it hits...a car, a backyard, a city...
That's kinda why they track these things... to find out if it does. One day of tracking isn't usually enough to know it's orbit well enough to tell.
Actually, it'd be more along these lines:
....time passes....
OT: We, and 97% of all the doctors out there agree that you have a sickness. It's so complicated we would never be able to help another person if we explained it completely to every person who's never had any medical training who wants to have it all explained, therefor we say "you have a problem, lets see if we can come up with something to help it out."
Patient: No, i know i've never had any medical training, and i'm scared of doing anything cause Billy-Bo-Bob and his wife/daughter Mary-Beth-Bob said it wun't nothing, so you're wrong because they all got them a 10th grade edukation. I don't want to actually have to take initiative and go learn to read so i can have a chance to understand it.
OT: If we don't try to come up with a solution, you may die.
Patient: You don't know nothing.
Patient: - - - dies - - -
To be fair, the object that hit Chicxulub posed no risk for any of it's near Earth passes either.... until it did.
While this object is fairly small, it passed about 1/4 of the distance to the moon from us. If we were intelligent, we'll keep track of it so we can plot to see if it will ever hit us; if we blindly think it poses no risk, it may slap us in the face in the future.
As for NASA stating that it posed no risk in passing us that close, i can both understand the humor in their statement, as well as them feeling the need to after the complete and utter bullshit hysteria that anything more than a gnat farting 10 miles away causes in some of the truly idiotic of our species (see: all the lame ass, end of the world bullshit ever contrived by mental midgets, or the con-men taking advantage of the mental midgets).
If we were to figure out what women thought, the universe would collapse in on itself, then reinvent itself into something even more bizarre than what it is now, with an entirely new set of physical laws...and women with even different thinking patterns.
Why do you hate this universe so much!!!!!
The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 of the Royal Society:
If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. —John Michell[4]
In 1796, mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde (it was removed from later editions).[5][6] Such "dark stars" were largely ignored in the nineteenth century, since it was not understood how a massless wave such as light could be influenced by gravity.[7]
In other equally shocking news, Rome was not built in a day.
...and maybe Bruce Willis will be available.....
Having a realistic approach to something is usually far better than being hysterical. Hollywood is a far stretch from reality; it probably shouldn't be considered current technology just because it shows up in a movie.
A better choice in the whole matter would be to invest in the ability to see these smaller objects while we still have time to allow us to deploy technology that actually exists, or evacuate the impact area. Investing into some technology to deflect them in shorter time spans would also be a good thing, however, it's not going to be "profitable," so private corporations are not going to be doing it, and with the current "anti-common good" sentiment pervasive in a certain segment of our society, government won't be investing in it anytime soon... probably until something impacts the US.