The same reason that kings and queens bankrolled adventurers to go to the New World: The promise of incredible riches. Control is still nebulous. Vast wealth? You can hold that in your hand, and it's a great way to hoodwink power junkies into handing over your freedom. Just show them the wealth that's out there and tell them you'll bring it back for them.
Well, some resources are already being depleted rapidly. The Earth may not be too happy with many more people on it. It's more a question of catastrophes that could put us back in the stone age, such as meteors or super-volcanoes. Global warming be damned, there are still other disasters that could happen. If it's going to take hundreds of years of research to get off the planet, then haven't a moment to lose, have we?
I'm not advocating population control, I'm advocating spreading humanity amongst the stars.
I agree with an earlier poster though, subscribing to sci-fi as a religion could also be quite dangerous. If humanity *actually* advances on Earth it could be quite good to stay and focus on Earth. If we just keep depleting resources and over-consuming, we could be in for an incredibly rude shock in the next 50 years or so as resources begin to literally run out, such as rare earth metals.
Obligatory comment about competition in returning to space, etc.
I'm really interested to see what the general populace's response will be when other nations start going into space, landing on the moon, etc. versus what the U.S. space program will be doing at that time.
Can anyone chime in with NASA's current timetables? Could there be public outcry for more NASA funding, or will there just be a media campaign to make our space program *sound* relevant?
No, they've just been muddled in too much media, corporate, and military asshattery.
The solution to moving humanity forward is to move off our planet. Every year we delay is one more that brings us closer to extinction. We have LOTS of resources now. Wasting them on empire-building to grasp fruitlessly at political gains, at least to me, seems obscene. Spend a fraction of that money on research and we could leap so far ahead of the rest of the world that the economy would boom once again.
The only thing booming now are bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, it's pretty much serving the stockholders and corporate overlords.
In a few hundred years, you're right. We might not have the resources left to get off this rock, or it will be a damn sight harder.
This is a very sad day.
Also, all that knowledge and expertise will be lost.
I see this as a loss for humanity, and I am deeply saddened by it.
P.S. To the guy above about paying down debt? That's idiocy. The tiny drop in the bucket that is NASA is nothing compared to the other costs that could/should be cut to ACTUALLY pay down debt. It's like saying "I'll stop paying my $50/month for health insurance at work so I can pay off $10,000 of credit card debt!" It may seem responsible, but taken in the larger context it may not make so much sense.
I understand your point point of view and respect it. However, I have a habit of taking a more traditionally eastern point of view with some things like this. One might argue that one's mind is the most important pastime or tool, and having "settings" as a sort of canvas on which to paint a clearer path to a clearer mind may offer more importance than having ideas pumped in without the need for thought.
Yes, I can say that just my mind, a blank room, and NASA TV would be quite enjoyable sometimes(with a pillow to sit on, if you please). I may even turn the TV off just to be still.
NASA TV has been around for a long time, longer than the "new" formats of TV you mention. Although they may not care, as you said, sometimes a hands-off approach is more important and allows the recipient to drive their mind and own their thoughts.
Again, mine is just one point of view, and I also respect your utilitarian pragmatism, however I have met successful, happy people who fall all along this spectrum of thought and urge mere consideration of other points of view in light of that.
I've been watching NASA TV on and off since about 2000. I find the long silences to be Zen-like and relaxing. I can put it on as background in the evening, or while getting work done. Although the mission control screens and drives to recovery sites may be a bit tedious, there is something uniquely majestic about some of the long silences, especially the shots of space. It's the same way I like much of my music. Just because many people are used to action every 5 seconds in the media they consume doesn't mean that long bouts of calm punctuated with occasional fanfare is bad.
Further to that point, it's more like real life. Media just edits out the boring parts of daily existence and puts up the interesting ones to entertain us. What's wrong with consuming something more realistic for a change? That used to be why I put the weather channel on when I wanted to relax. Now it's so wham-bam-OMG-STAY-INDOORS! that I can scarcely stand it for five minutes.
In short, I advocate for a more relaxed media experience, but your mileage may vary.
Although the "weight" method of stratifying gamers is absurd, what's wrong with separating people by age group or other metrics? For once we could have servers the way we have threads here: If you don't royally piss people off and you actively contribute to the gaming experience, you get "karma" and get to play with other people who have the same goals of enjoying the game, instead of fragbagging and teamkilling or whatever they do these days.
I'm all for it. If you want to behave like an ass and ruin people's fun and stats, then you can play on an unregulated server with all the other cockwhirlers.
I'm willing to bet that deficit under Bush doesn't count the war. Also, we're looking ahead, here, so it's not entirely fair. If that deficit is made up with increases in taxes or or cuts, it may not be a deficit.
So what you're saying is that if we tried hard enough, not only would we have a potential bomb the size of Glenn Beck's ego on our hands, but we'd be giving it "nuclear fallout" when it goes off as well?
IF this thing will eventually blow (spewing movie credits all over the northern hemisphere, some might say), is there a way to stop it from happening? Can the volcano be "tapped" to allow the molten rock to ooze out and relieve some of the pressure? Can underground formations be "cracked" with explosives to, perhaps, add additional room underground for all this hot rock?
While we all go on about climate change, this is something that (from what I understand) could pretty much wipe out North America, and may go off without warning (any help here? I'm not a geologist).
Also, there's the practical matter of actually bringing about change.
It's all well and good if one rationally points out a dangerous trend or a social ill, but if nothing ever changes then it's a waste. It's like saying "I should have sold to cash before the market crash last year". That's great, but it doesn't do any practical good. At some point theory and supposition needs to give way to practical action, so at what point is it better to just get things done rather than waiting for what might be a disaster in the future, then saying "I told you so!"
My girlfriend and I do enjoy some bad movies, we attend B-Fest each year, and have a collection. We tried to watch about 15 minutes of the beginning of the holiday special, and we were in such awe of the massive idiocy of the acting, the script, the entire idea, that we were in complete agreement with the xkcd comic about this.
The kid that's doing this is about to commit social suicide. This special isn't just bad, it makes me want to hurt myself it's so bad.
Agreed. However, in a media-soaked world where only whargarbl and appeals to emotion seem to work, what else is going to get people to change? Certainly not the scientific data, campaigns, and rational appeals by scientists and environmental advocates over the last 30-40 years.
"You can disagree with style and opinions"? Ok. I disagree with both the style (sloppy) and opinions (that's all they are, not facts) of that entire article. I chuckled at it the entire way through and was not sure how serious the writer of it was. I have no idea who Kara Swisher is, and given what I've just read I don't care to anymore. She seems to want ad revenue and readers through appeals to emotion and wild opinions, not through integrity and facts.
If Kara Swisher is so highly respected in the hallowed halls of journalism then I can start to see why journalism is dying.
Beyond that, who cares if she's questioned by someone? Isn't the whole point of discourse (which you seem to want to crush) to point out what people say and do, rather what their reputation is? It allows the little and the big from every walk of life to comment, smart or not, about a subject.
I hope that "Don't question what she says, she's well respected!" isn't what is supposed to pass for discourse.
Here's one: Rush Limbaugh has been covering politics for decades! He's respected by millions for his opinion! Don't question him!
Can we move beyond (Thunderdome?) such immature notions and start exchanging facts instead? I'll bet we would all be a little better for the facts and for the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion. Of course, I'm not sure there are a lot of facts on this Google thing, mostly speculation about the future, so perhaps I've just shot down my own point there.
Why are we trying to make computers sound just like orchestras?
That seems, to me, to be the whole "problem", and it's one that we're creating. By comparing the present with the past we're creating needless conflict.
Computers can create some really complex, incredibly beautiful music. Machines can do things that no human orchestra is ever likely to be able to recreate.
Human instruments (please leave off the skin flute jokes:) ) can also be beautiful, but have different sets of inputs.
Unless one's stated goal is to make a computer sound and act just like a trumpet, I don't see what the big deal is. Why don't we just accept that each instrument has fundamentally different strengths and then move on efrom there?
To the GP: Why couldn't a wii-mote and other inputs be incredibly beautiful? You have people who play the theremin professionally to great results, and that's just a metal stick. Why couldn't a wiimote, more complicated than a theremin, which can have plugins or even pedals like an electric guitar (another incredibly tough instrument to play with grace and elan) produce worthwhile sonic results also?
Does it seem small to automatically assume an object is relegated to second fiddle, so to speak, because it is considered a toy? It seems to me that every other instrument currently considered "proper" was once merely a toy as well.
If we want music to continue to evolve, we should get rid of the pretentious idea that orchestral/traditional instruments are the only thing worth hearing.
Sorry if this comes across as harsh, I just have had too many run-ins with overly pretentious classical musician nutbags. Just trying to add to the conversation.
Except gift tax is different, and you could be hit with about a 70% tax on it if it's done incorrectly. "Big deal, just pay the tax?" "Duh?"
Do you do this professionally like I do? I just want to be sure we're on the same playing field here.
Giving it to a friend is, again, a gift in the eyes of the IRS. They WILL see it, and they WILL tax it. You can't just get rid of your money and expect them to turn a blind eye if you're breaking the law.
Gambling at a casino is a patronage. You are paying for entertainment.
The IRS will help in fraud cases, I believe, and running up a debt you know you can't repay is fraud. I'm not certain if the IRS will help other companies come after those assets to collect on debt that a dead person ran up (I am not a CPA yet) but it wouldn't surprise me.
I posit that it's not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It's commoditization and impersonalization of processes, and a short attention span.
I spend a fair amount of time doing rigorous intellectual work. People do not get to see much of the work that goes into this, only a pretty end product with a couple bells and whistles. If they were more aware of what went into this process perhaps they would value it more.
I see this as a main problem. It's not that we don't value intelligence, it's that we ONLY value it in quick little bites. Clever, witty smart people who can give us a one-liners are much more popular than the steadfast thinker. A 30 second ad creates a legion of fans for buying buy something while a powerful documentary brings only a small crowd.
I used to speak very very quickly, and was told by some to slow down. Seeing the value of measuring myself I slowed down. I started thinking things through and talking more slowly. You know what? I find more and more people who lose interest almost immediately if I stop for more than a couple seconds during a conversation, or pause to formulate thoughts and communicate precisely what I mean.
I say it's attention span that has bottomed out.
Realistically, though? There is some anti-intellectualism. I just don't think it's the whole problem.
So, before Katrina did you know all about the levees? Is that one of those tourist hotspots that everybody goes to see?
Usually when I visit, live in, or know someone who moves to a city, the last thing on their mind is whether the fundamental infrastructure of the city could collapse and kill everybody. Usually they just want to get their shit moved and get to their new job or open their business.
Anyone who knows anything about civil engineers that build these? They take on the responsibility for those structures. Since it was built by a government agency, designed to make the area habitable and protect people, not ONLY should the government be keeping track of it (that's one thing we pay taxes for! People ARE being responsible, they're paying for that service!) but so should the engineers who built it, because they're legally liable in the first place.
Let's put it another way: I hire a financial advisor. I have extensive discussions with him and do my part ensure that he/she is competent. I talk to others who work with them and am told that they have a great reputation. Now, since I haev a family to feed and a life to live, I leave my assets with the fellow, who checks in with me regularly and ASSURES me, since I AM PAYING HIM TOO, that my assets are well invested and everything is moving along fine. That person is DOING THEIR JOB.
Suddenly, the market crashes. OH NOZ! I call my advisor and he tells me that all my money had ACTUALLY been invested in PINE NEEDLE FUTURES! "PINE NEEDLE FUTURES!?!?!" I scream over the phone, "You told me it was well diversified for my goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance!" I proceed to sue the living daylights out of this person and, you know what? Chances are I would win. I was told one thing, that everything was ok given my scenario. The reality of the situation was completely false. The PROFESSIONAL WHO TOLD ME THAT took what is effectively an oath by getting certain certifications (series 66 and 7 most likely) that legally binds them to fiduciary responsibility.
So, what you seem to be advocating is that everyone in New Orleans become a Certified Professional Engineer, geologist, inspector and/or obtain other necessary knowledge to understand whether they are safe or not. Tell you what: It's THE JOB of the government and the Army Corps of Engineers NOT to lie to people when they say "Everything is in good order."
It's called Society, and it only works on that basis of trust, otherwise we'd still be individually foraging for nuts, berries, and small game. When that trust is breached there are consequences.
We can each have different limits of personal responsibility, but the one you advocate feels a little bit over the line, especially for such an undereducated populace like that in New Orleans.
Perhaps this is a way to use a carrot, rather than a stick, to get China to give up some of some of its Rare Earth Metals for at least scientific research purposes.
Think about it: China gives easy access to their yttrium-bound rare earths (no one else has these, they're not radioactive when they come out of the ground) while America gives up some technology and in return we can continue research.
However, the prospect of the Last Frontier getting outsourced to China seems almost hilarious if it weren't so depressing. I realize teaming up with other nations is supposed to be good, but I just don't see how any real good can come of this. China will take all it can get and leave us with sloppy seconds, there's just no two ways about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason that kings and queens bankrolled adventurers to go to the New World: The promise of incredible riches.
Control is still nebulous. Vast wealth? You can hold that in your hand, and it's a great way to hoodwink power junkies into handing over your freedom. Just show them the wealth that's out there and tell them you'll bring it back for them.
Well, some resources are already being depleted rapidly. The Earth may not be too happy with many more people on it.
It's more a question of catastrophes that could put us back in the stone age, such as meteors or super-volcanoes.
Global warming be damned, there are still other disasters that could happen. If it's going to take hundreds of years of research to get off the planet, then haven't a moment to lose, have we?
I'm not advocating population control, I'm advocating spreading humanity amongst the stars.
I agree with an earlier poster though, subscribing to sci-fi as a religion could also be quite dangerous. If humanity *actually* advances on Earth it could be quite good to stay and focus on Earth. If we just keep depleting resources and over-consuming, we could be in for an incredibly rude shock in the next 50 years or so as resources begin to literally run out, such as rare earth metals.
Obligatory comment about competition in returning to space, etc.
I'm really interested to see what the general populace's response will be when other nations start going into space, landing on the moon, etc. versus what the U.S. space program will be doing at that time.
Can anyone chime in with NASA's current timetables? Could there be public outcry for more NASA funding, or will there just be a media campaign to make our space program *sound* relevant?
No, they've just been muddled in too much media, corporate, and military asshattery.
The solution to moving humanity forward is to move off our planet. Every year we delay is one more that brings us closer to extinction. We have LOTS of resources now. Wasting them on empire-building to grasp fruitlessly at political gains, at least to me, seems obscene. Spend a fraction of that money on research and we could leap so far ahead of the rest of the world that the economy would boom once again.
The only thing booming now are bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, it's pretty much serving the stockholders and corporate overlords.
In a few hundred years, you're right. We might not have the resources left to get off this rock, or it will be a damn sight harder.
This is a very sad day.
Also, all that knowledge and expertise will be lost.
I see this as a loss for humanity, and I am deeply saddened by it.
P.S. To the guy above about paying down debt? That's idiocy. The tiny drop in the bucket that is NASA is nothing compared to the other costs that could/should be cut to ACTUALLY pay down debt. It's like saying "I'll stop paying my $50/month for health insurance at work so I can pay off $10,000 of credit card debt!" It may seem responsible, but taken in the larger context it may not make so much sense.
I understand your point point of view and respect it. However, I have a habit of taking a more traditionally eastern point of view with some things like this. One might argue that one's mind is the most important pastime or tool, and having "settings" as a sort of canvas on which to paint a clearer path to a clearer mind may offer more importance than having ideas pumped in without the need for thought.
Yes, I can say that just my mind, a blank room, and NASA TV would be quite enjoyable sometimes(with a pillow to sit on, if you please). I may even turn the TV off just to be still.
NASA TV has been around for a long time, longer than the "new" formats of TV you mention. Although they may not care, as you said, sometimes a hands-off approach is more important and allows the recipient to drive their mind and own their thoughts.
Again, mine is just one point of view, and I also respect your utilitarian pragmatism, however I have met successful, happy people who fall all along this spectrum of thought and urge mere consideration of other points of view in light of that.
I've been watching NASA TV on and off since about 2000. I find the long silences to be Zen-like and relaxing. I can put it on as background in the evening, or while getting work done. Although the mission control screens and drives to recovery sites may be a bit tedious, there is something uniquely majestic about some of the long silences, especially the shots of space. It's the same way I like much of my music. Just because many people are used to action every 5 seconds in the media they consume doesn't mean that long bouts of calm punctuated with occasional fanfare is bad.
Further to that point, it's more like real life. Media just edits out the boring parts of daily existence and puts up the interesting ones to entertain us. What's wrong with consuming something more realistic for a change? That used to be why I put the weather channel on when I wanted to relax. Now it's so wham-bam-OMG-STAY-INDOORS! that I can scarcely stand it for five minutes.
In short, I advocate for a more relaxed media experience, but your mileage may vary.
Although the "weight" method of stratifying gamers is absurd, what's wrong with separating people by age group or other metrics? For once we could have servers the way we have threads here: If you don't royally piss people off and you actively contribute to the gaming experience, you get "karma" and get to play with other people who have the same goals of enjoying the game, instead of fragbagging and teamkilling or whatever they do these days.
I'm all for it. If you want to behave like an ass and ruin people's fun and stats, then you can play on an unregulated server with all the other cockwhirlers.
I'm willing to bet that deficit under Bush doesn't count the war. Also, we're looking ahead, here, so it's not entirely fair. If that deficit is made up with increases in taxes or or cuts, it may not be a deficit.
Aren't statistics fun?
So what you're saying is that if we tried hard enough, not only would we have a potential bomb the size of Glenn Beck's ego on our hands, but we'd be giving it "nuclear fallout" when it goes off as well?
IF this thing will eventually blow (spewing movie credits all over the northern hemisphere, some might say), is there a way to stop it from happening? Can the volcano be "tapped" to allow the molten rock to ooze out and relieve some of the pressure? Can underground formations be "cracked" with explosives to, perhaps, add additional room underground for all this hot rock?
While we all go on about climate change, this is something that (from what I understand) could pretty much wipe out North America, and may go off without warning (any help here? I'm not a geologist).
Also, there's the practical matter of actually bringing about change. It's all well and good if one rationally points out a dangerous trend or a social ill, but if nothing ever changes then it's a waste. It's like saying "I should have sold to cash before the market crash last year". That's great, but it doesn't do any practical good. At some point theory and supposition needs to give way to practical action, so at what point is it better to just get things done rather than waiting for what might be a disaster in the future, then saying "I told you so!"
good point. I know there's a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere but I'm not authorized to extract it without government approval.
Objective badness? Are you kidding me?
My girlfriend and I do enjoy some bad movies, we attend B-Fest each year, and have a collection. We tried to watch about 15 minutes of the beginning of the holiday special, and we were in such awe of the massive idiocy of the acting, the script, the entire idea, that we were in complete agreement with the xkcd comic about this.
The kid that's doing this is about to commit social suicide. This special isn't just bad, it makes me want to hurt myself it's so bad.
Agreed. However, in a media-soaked world where only whargarbl and appeals to emotion seem to work, what else is going to get people to change? Certainly not the scientific data, campaigns, and rational appeals by scientists and environmental advocates over the last 30-40 years.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/05/outrageous-beliefs/>
"...there's also a lack of male nurses and lawyers, and nobody seems too fussed."
The former because men don't look worthy of screwing in short white skirts.
The latter because to them everybody is worth screwing.
Wait, hold the show.
"You can disagree with style and opinions"? Ok. I disagree with both the style (sloppy) and opinions (that's all they are, not facts) of that entire article. I chuckled at it the entire way through and was not sure how serious the writer of it was. I have no idea who Kara Swisher is, and given what I've just read I don't care to anymore. She seems to want ad revenue and readers through appeals to emotion and wild opinions, not through integrity and facts.
If Kara Swisher is so highly respected in the hallowed halls of journalism then I can start to see why journalism is dying.
Beyond that, who cares if she's questioned by someone? Isn't the whole point of discourse (which you seem to want to crush) to point out what people say and do, rather what their reputation is? It allows the little and the big from every walk of life to comment, smart or not, about a subject.
I hope that "Don't question what she says, she's well respected!" isn't what is supposed to pass for discourse.
Here's one: Rush Limbaugh has been covering politics for decades! He's respected by millions for his opinion! Don't question him!
Can we move beyond (Thunderdome?) such immature notions and start exchanging facts instead? I'll bet we would all be a little better for the facts and for the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion. Of course, I'm not sure there are a lot of facts on this Google thing, mostly speculation about the future, so perhaps I've just shot down my own point there.
To the Parent and GP:
Why are we trying to make computers sound just like orchestras?
That seems, to me, to be the whole "problem", and it's one that we're creating. By comparing the present with the past we're creating needless conflict.
Computers can create some really complex, incredibly beautiful music. Machines can do things that no human orchestra is ever likely to be able to recreate.
Human instruments (please leave off the skin flute jokes :) ) can also be beautiful, but have different sets of inputs.
Unless one's stated goal is to make a computer sound and act just like a trumpet, I don't see what the big deal is. Why don't we just accept that each instrument has fundamentally different strengths and then move on efrom there?
To the GP: Why couldn't a wii-mote and other inputs be incredibly beautiful? You have people who play the theremin professionally to great results, and that's just a metal stick. Why couldn't a wiimote, more complicated than a theremin, which can have plugins or even pedals like an electric guitar (another incredibly tough instrument to play with grace and elan) produce worthwhile sonic results also?
Does it seem small to automatically assume an object is relegated to second fiddle, so to speak, because it is considered a toy? It seems to me that every other instrument currently considered "proper" was once merely a toy as well.
If we want music to continue to evolve, we should get rid of the pretentious idea that orchestral/traditional instruments are the only thing worth hearing.
Sorry if this comes across as harsh, I just have had too many run-ins with overly pretentious classical musician nutbags. Just trying to add to the conversation.
Except gift tax is different, and you could be hit with about a 70% tax on it if it's done incorrectly.
"Big deal, just pay the tax?" "Duh?"
Do you do this professionally like I do? I just want to be sure we're on the same playing field here.
Giving it to a friend is, again, a gift in the eyes of the IRS. They WILL see it, and they WILL tax it. You can't just get rid of your money and expect them to turn a blind eye if you're breaking the law.
Gambling at a casino is a patronage. You are paying for entertainment.
Gifting limits.
The IRS will help in fraud cases, I believe, and running up a debt you know you can't repay is fraud. I'm not certain if the IRS will help other companies come after those assets to collect on debt that a dead person ran up (I am not a CPA yet) but it wouldn't surprise me.
Better be damn sure of death, though.
Yeah, except when the IRS looks at the estate and sees where all that went they're going to come back to those friends and family to take it all back.
It just isn't that easy.
I posit that it's not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It's commoditization and impersonalization of processes, and a short attention span.
I spend a fair amount of time doing rigorous intellectual work. People do not get to see much of the work that goes into this, only a pretty end product with a couple bells and whistles. If they were more aware of what went into this process perhaps they would value it more.
I see this as a main problem. It's not that we don't value intelligence, it's that we ONLY value it in quick little bites. Clever, witty smart people who can give us a one-liners are much more popular than the steadfast thinker. A 30 second ad creates a legion of fans for buying buy something while a powerful documentary brings only a small crowd.
I used to speak very very quickly, and was told by some to slow down. Seeing the value of measuring myself I slowed down. I started thinking things through and talking more slowly. You know what? I find more and more people who lose interest almost immediately if I stop for more than a couple seconds during a conversation, or pause to formulate thoughts and communicate precisely what I mean.
I say it's attention span that has bottomed out.
Realistically, though? There is some anti-intellectualism. I just don't think it's the whole problem.
So, before Katrina did you know all about the levees?
Is that one of those tourist hotspots that everybody goes to see?
Usually when I visit, live in, or know someone who moves to a city, the last thing on their mind is whether the fundamental infrastructure of the city could collapse and kill everybody. Usually they just want to get their shit moved and get to their new job or open their business.
Anyone who knows anything about civil engineers that build these? They take on the responsibility for those structures. Since it was built by a government agency, designed to make the area habitable and protect people, not ONLY should the government be keeping track of it (that's one thing we pay taxes for! People ARE being responsible, they're paying for that service!) but so should the engineers who built it, because they're legally liable in the first place.
Let's put it another way: I hire a financial advisor. I have extensive discussions with him and do my part ensure that he/she is competent. I talk to others who work with them and am told that they have a great reputation. Now, since I haev a family to feed and a life to live, I leave my assets with the fellow, who checks in with me regularly and ASSURES me, since I AM PAYING HIM TOO, that my assets are well invested and everything is moving along fine. That person is DOING THEIR JOB.
Suddenly, the market crashes. OH NOZ! I call my advisor and he tells me that all my money had ACTUALLY been invested in PINE NEEDLE FUTURES! "PINE NEEDLE FUTURES!?!?!" I scream over the phone, "You told me it was well diversified for my goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance!" I proceed to sue the living daylights out of this person and, you know what? Chances are I would win. I was told one thing, that everything was ok given my scenario. The reality of the situation was completely false. The PROFESSIONAL WHO TOLD ME THAT took what is effectively an oath by getting certain certifications (series 66 and 7 most likely) that legally binds them to fiduciary responsibility.
So, what you seem to be advocating is that everyone in New Orleans become a Certified Professional Engineer, geologist, inspector and/or obtain other necessary knowledge to understand whether they are safe or not. Tell you what: It's THE JOB of the government and the Army Corps of Engineers NOT to lie to people when they say "Everything is in good order."
It's called Society, and it only works on that basis of trust, otherwise we'd still be individually foraging for nuts, berries, and small game. When that trust is breached there are consequences.
We can each have different limits of personal responsibility, but the one you advocate feels a little bit over the line, especially for such an undereducated populace like that in New Orleans.
Val Kilmer seen running around MIT hollering with joy.
Perhaps this is a way to use a carrot, rather than a stick, to get China to give up some of some of its Rare Earth Metals for at least scientific research purposes.
Think about it: China gives easy access to their yttrium-bound rare earths (no one else has these, they're not radioactive when they come out of the ground) while America gives up some technology and in return we can continue research.
However, the prospect of the Last Frontier getting outsourced to China seems almost hilarious if it weren't so depressing. I realize teaming up with other nations is supposed to be good, but I just don't see how any real good can come of this. China will take all it can get and leave us with sloppy seconds, there's just no two ways about it.