That's a tautology. Republics are defined, in part, by having representatives.
Additionally, republics *are* democratic. They aren't democratic in the sense that every single action taken by the state is put up for a vote, but democratic in the sense that the representatives are elected by the people.
In other words, a republic is a form of democracy. The only reason people (*ALWAYS* from the right-wing, both conservative and libertarian) try to make a distinction between democracy and republic is because they don't actually want the people to have any power. This is the *exact* opposite of democracy, and is not, even, a republic.
Because it allows the *STATES* to have their own armies, just in case they need to defend themselves from external threats, including those from other states or the federal government itself.
It essence, it means the states all have the right to have their national guards and state militias, and that Congress can't revoke that right, in the hopes of avoiding the sort of situation the colonies found themselves in relative to Great Britain.
There is absolutely no way whatsoever the FF's intended it to mean that every American has an inalienable right to own any weapon they want whatsoever without limit.
But I disagree with just about everything else you've said. Creativity and money are not as strongly linked as you seem to think. Second Life allows far more creativity than WoW does. On the other hand, WoW is far more broadly appealing.
Money better measures broad appeal than it measures creativity. In fact, often times creativity is detrimental to income. I really don't know if the person you were replying to is creative or not. He's definitely arrogant, but that doesn't negate his point.
He asked a question that someone who "bought, read, and understood" (you left off the first two) would not ask. It's not an insult to point that out. I didn't call him any names (idiot, moron, etc), and didn't imply that he is too stupid to understand the answer. I just don't think he's done all three of those things I listed.
I think he started down that road, and don't know where he stopped, but I don't believe he has made his way through to the end yet. I think his question was sardonic and based on unfounded cynicism. That's hardly the stuff of insults.
Does this mean I need buy all new $50 USD books to understand this new technology?
What makes you think you'd need to?
If you really did buy, read, and understand those "$50 USD books" (which is doubtful, given your post), you can write programs exactly the same as you do now. If you want to take advantage of garbage collection, you can do so at your own pace, and the included documentation and examples will be more than enough to learn from.
Users will always prefer a native app to going through the necessary hoops of using virtualization or dual-booting. In a way, this is like Classic under OS X. You can do it, but you don't really want to.
If a developer ports to OS X, they will have access to that entire 5% of computer users. If they simply recommend users use the Windows version, they will only have access to the small percentage of that 5% who have bought XP and want the software enough to buy Parallels and use virtualization, or who will go through the process of installing Boot Camp and want to run the software enough to reboot in order to run it.
Sure, there will be cases where the developer will just depend on Parallels or Boot Camp for Mac sales, but in those cases, the company most likely wouldn't have ported anyway.
BTW, I'm not using/recommending Parallels until it can utilize a separate partition on the HDD - a seperate partition could theoretically give you the choice between vitualization and running 'doze directly if you have an app that does direct hardware access like some games.
Parallels devs have stated they are working on this, but I'm not sure it's going to happen since MS has XP check to make sure the hardware hasn't changed too much, and it will be very hard to legally trick XP into believing the VM is the same as the actual hardware.
I'm not referring to restitution, I'm all for that.
That wasn't clear from what you posted initially, but that really was my primary point--that if it's reasonable, the police dept. (and ultimately, the taxpayers) should pay, which didn't seem to be what you were saying initially.
True, but that is terminal and not something that could be done to the PD.
I was countering your claim that the *only* way to punish a company is to fine it. This is just one of the many ways I list that contradict your claim.
Those are requests. If they refuse what does the law back them up with? Fines. Ultimately it all comes down to fines or termination of the corporation.
That's not true whatsoever. They are not requests, they are demands, they are legal rulings. That's not to say the corporation cannot defy the court, but if they do, they will risk taking it to, eventually, the state either backing off, the state using physical force to exact it's ruling, or the state using third-parties to get what they want. That doesn't change the fact that the punishments I list actually are punishments that the state not only can do, but also has done.
You cannot tell a company to fire problematic employees (like could be done with a police department).
I'm not sure the state cannot force a corporation to fire (or otherwise dismiss) an employee. In fact, I can think of several ways they can do it (license revocation, imprisonment of the employee, deportation, enforcement of contractual obligations, etc).
As for the case at hand, I agree with you more-or-less. Dismiss the officer and make things right (probably through restitution) with the people involved, if the police department has acted improperly as it appears. However, even that brings up some potential problems. I don't know anything about Nashua, NH, but if it's a small town, this could decimate the police force. What do you do then? The answer isn't really straightforward, and I think any compromise is going to be less-than-satisfying.
No, the reason you fine companies is because that is the only way to punish it.
That's silly. Can you think of no other way companies have been punished?
Another reason you make them pay--in fact, the primary reason you make them pay when someone sues them--is restitution. It's meant to compensate the plaintiff for whatever damages have been incurred. In the case at hand, being harassed, kicked out of your own home while it's illegally searched, and being arrested under such questionable circumstances, sounds like a reasonable situation to be awarded restitution, in my opinion.
Beyond restitution is punitive damages. That's what you are talking about, and they can be applied on top of restitution as a form of punishment (really, restitution is not really punishment, while punitive damages is), or can be the sole punishment.
In the case at hand, restitution would be just. I can understand not awarding punitive damages, and don't feel strongly either way.
As for there being no other way to punish a company, you can send it's employees to jail, you can dissolve them, you can split them up, you can take their products off of the market, you can demand alterations to their products, and you can limit the sorts of business practices they may engage in. I'm sure my list is not complete.
My non-Mac laptops don't get hot enough to burn my hands.
And neither do properly operating MacBooks/MacBook Pros. There are confirmed reports of ones which significantly overheat, and have been replaced by Apple.
There are two issues here. One is a legitimate product failure, the other is just Mac users finding out that the Intel Core Duo/Solo runs hotter than G3's and G4's.
This is still a annoyance. Plus it's interesting how people who owned previous iBooks, and Powerbooks who never had this problem, now have it with the new MacBooks.
PowerBooks don't come into the picture--none were made of white plastic. But even so, I agree, it's an annoyance. However, if your interest in getting a Mac is so borderline that cleaning the palm rest area once every month or so is a deal-breaker, by all means get whatever you want. But really, it's a pretty lame argument against getting a Mac, especially since it's not even likely you'll be affected by the problem anyway, and even if you are it's easily dealt with.
1. the bottom gets very hot (one person compared it to a vulcano), not suitable for laptop work
All fast Intel notebooks get hot. Apple users are used to the cooler running G3's and G4's. That said, there were a number of units that ran exceptionally hot. Every report I've read where someone with that problem actually tried to have it replaced got a new one.
2. plastic around the screen likes to come off
Never heard this one. As long as you didn't abuse it, I'd expect Apple would replace it.
3. the white MacBooks get "stained" where people rest their hands. These stains cannot be cleaned with any kind of a cleaning agent.
Actually, nail polish remover (non-acetone, non-isopropyl alcohol kind) does the trick. Also, this happens to a small number of people. Perhaps if you just have unlucky skin chemistry?
4. trackpad problems like this one.
Test one out at the Apple Store.
In fact, I suggest looking at all of those issues at the Apple Store. I tested the heat on the MacBooks/MacBook Pros, which are all running full-time on power, and while they were all warm, they were not "OMFG BBQ!" hot.
In the end, pick the computer you think will serve you best. If you do decide to get a MacBook, you're already ahead of the game by being aware of the problems others are having, and can quickly take it to Apple for replacement. I would definitely check out the heat and the trackpad on the display models so at least you'll have reasonable expectations.
I agree the police department should not be fined though, that just hurts the taxpayers.
That's ridiculous. Would you not fine a corporation for breaking the law, because it "would just hurt the customers"? Would you say the Fire Dept. should not go save houses, "because that just hurts the taxpayers"?
Sorry, but the whole point of taxes is to pay for the government. That *includes* paying for the government's fuck-ups. There's no two ways about it.
As you've described it, most Americans are socialists. There are very few Americans who would strip all socialist programs from our country (examples: public schooling, fire departments, depts of transportation, farm subsidies, libraries, anti-pollution laws, car safety laws, etc).
Unfortunately, the far right has been able to control the language, and make us think that the word "socialist" means "communist" or "fascist". That leaves your average, moderately socialist, American with a sense of morality and reason who knows that capitalism must be tempered with socialism, yet can only speak intelligently about capitalism, while any discourse in favor of socialism is hampered and limited to emotional pleas because the rational words are off-limits or misrepresented.
The death knell for any public debate of a socially beneficial program is the question, "but isn't that really socialism?" The honest answer ends the debate right there. The only political acceptable answer is, "no, because..." followed by an attempt to hide the fact that it is socialism, which puts the progressive and liberal proponent at an obvious rhetorical disadvantage. That's why you have no difficulty finding people who will say and believe silly things regarding how DRM is necessary to be able to produce television shows, or how private industry should replace NASA today, when private industry can barely place two people into a short, sub-orbital trip to the closest reaches of space.
What really needs to be made known to every American is that socialism is not a bad thing. It is a necessary part of the Western world. Capitalism is also necessary. It's not an either-or choice. Capitalism for a fluid economy and personal freedom, Socialism to keep Capitalism viable, and promote a healthy society.
If you cannot profit from your work because people upload your tv shows and music to usenet
Hrm.... People currently do upload shows and music to usenet, yet studios are able to make a profit. You're not making any sense here.
then it will not make economic sense to make tv shows any more
That's not true either. Have you heard of PBS or the BBC? While I'm not advocating the elimination of for-profit, private entertainment/media, your assumptions are flawed.
So the money making scheme is. Produce shows. Encrypt with DRM. Profit.
"Encrypt with DRM" is wholly unnecessary in that equation.
they've [NASA] simply become too large and inefficient
They've always been large and inefficient. That's the only way certain things can be accomplished.
and that's exactly what privitisation is best at combating
Almost. Privatization is best at "optimizing for profit", and only that. It just so happens that in a great majority of endeavors, that leads to increased productivity, freedom and quality-of-life.
However, some things do not benefit from privatization. These things tend to be public services, utilities, life-and-death services, very difficult/expensive endeavors with inadequate profit potential, and things that don't get done otherwise. In the case of NASA, we are stuck with "very difficult, expensive, and lack of sufficient profit motive".
That said, properly executed partnerships with private corporations (as is done with the shuttle, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't also the case with Apollo), can let the private sector do what it does best and large governmental organizations do what they do best. The biggest problem with just throwing it out there for the private sector (as it sounds is the case here), is that:
1. The private sector will only do it if they believe there's profit in it. 2. The private sector may fail to provide anything.
The drawback with #1 is that the private sector won't necessarily provide the best vehicle, but the most profitable vehicle. That's not to say that a government agency will necessarily do the best (after all, the Air Force's interests altered the shuttle into a substantially inferior craft). Still, removing the profit motive removes a major potential conflict of interest. Additionally, the profit will have to come from NASA anyway, so what's the difference for NASA to just design the craft and contract out construction anyway?
The potential drawback of #2 is even more severe. A hobbled craft is superior, at least in the short-term, to no craft at all (poorly executed, a hobbled craft could set the space program backwards (as some have claimed the shuttle has done), but at least we've got something to get us into space). What are NASA's plans if the private sector fails to deliver a product (note: the private sector has never delivered a complete orbital human-flight spacecraft, so what makes NASA think they will manage to do so so quickly?)? Do we just bow out of space for the interim? Do we hitchhike aboard Soyuz? Extend the shuttle program? (According to TFA, sadly, it appears that the answer is this is only to go to ISS, so, aside from missions there, we effectively will be bowing out of non-ISS-related human spaceflight for four years. F**K! Someone, please, prove me wrong!)
In my opinion, I'd prefer Congress just fund NASA enough to do what they need to do, so long as it can be done within reason. After all, as I point out above, if the private sector does come up with a solution, NASA will still have to foot the bill anyway. If NASA really thinks this will work, it sounds like excessive faith in the free market. If NASA really knows the high improbability that this will succeed, it sounds more like an attempt to use the private sector as a scapegoat ("no one anticipated[*] the private sector would fail to provide a solution").
[*] Three magical words which seem able to absolve the speaker from any personal responsibility or blame for any disaster or failure.
A two-man sub-orbital vehicle that barely breaches the boundary of space is a far cry from an orbital vehicle capable of carrying an actual crew and/or supplies and stay in orbit for days on end.
Yeah, I read the article expecting some thoughtful insight--perhaps how people still buy toys for themselves, or like to eat at McDonald's or something. What I didn't expect was something so utterly useless. I do hope that the article doesn't really represent what the biology professor was trying to say.
Maturity isn't defined by any specific set of characteristics, it's described by them. By that I mean, you look at something that is mature (finished its final growth stage) and whatever state it's in is what is "mature" for that thing. These days, "maturity" means something different, psychologically, than it (apparently) did 100 years ago (I'm not so sure about this--I can think of many great people from centuries and even millennia ago who were just as "immature" in their maturity as the professor is saying we are today).
To me, one of the fundamentally key ingredients that makes the human mind so powerful is the fact that it doesn't have to "mature", in the sense that it doesn't have to reach a relatively unchanging state during life.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason one can't keep a child-like mind while still being financially responsible and dependable. Like I said, given that the article seems to paint such a seemingly arbitrary view of "maturity", I really do hope it's a case of bad reporting.
What, exactly, is wrong with suing someone? It's a legitimate and often necessary thing to do. There is no "plague" of lawsuits, the way you are trying to present it.
there's a reason tobacco companies have been losing so much money in courts
Yes, they are deliberately killing people. Or put more accurately, but lengthily, they knowingly lied about the medical risks and addictive qualities of cigarettes, portrayed them in advertisements as cool, including marketing that was deliberately designed to appeal to children, and, as if all that wasn't bad enough, they knowingly added ingredients which are very toxic and purposefully formulated cigarettes that are even more addicting than they naturally were!
That said, I think we're going to see a turn around with the generation in college right now, less divorces, less stupidity
Not gonna happen. The reason is that your lament is millennia old. Seriously. There are writings from ancient Greece and Rome that read exactly like the cranky old man of today, who decries the awful state of the youth "these days". If you want the divorce rate to go down, the number one thing you can do is to make it so that the middle class is strong and vibrant, and that people have great financial security and physical health. If you, on the other hand, make it so that both members of the married couple have to work long and hard just to scrape by, how can you possibly be surprised that the stress of daily life will have a detrimental toll on their marriage?
because it seems that more and more young people are sick and tied of the bullshit.
Wishful thinking made by someone who clearly hasn't turned on a television in the last 20 years. Just as it had always been, youth culture will reject the rigid demands of old coots like yourself. Just like always, there will be a segment of the youth who will be very responsible and upstanding. And just like always, life will go on and a whole new cadre of old coots will spout the same old nonsense about how the "youth of today" are worse than ever, just as it has always been for thousands of years.
The fundamental problem doesn't lie with the voters, it lies with the system. Our system is at equilibrium with two parties. When a third party grows in popularity, it acts as a "spoiler" against one of the two established parties (predominantly against the party that most closely matches that third-parties views, in fact). After a bit of turmoil, everything settles back down again with two parties.
What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral.
The explanation is simple. Right now, our choices (our two parties) are between a fast downward spiral, or a slow downward spiral. That's it.
If you choose (as many do) to pick one of the various "third" parties, you are giving up any say as for which downward spiral you'd prefer, which is another way of saying you are doing absolutely nothing to promote the slower over the faster. In the choice of downward spirals, you're abstaining.
It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same.
No, the results are *not* the same. Had Bush never won the Presidency, we would *not* be at war with Iraq right now (for example). And it would *not* have simply been postponed for a later date. It is possible we'd still be at war with Iraq again, eventually, but it is not inevitable (as you imply), nor would we necessarily have done it so poorly (note: by "poorly", I'm not referring to the troops, they've performed as ordered spectacularly. The problem is their leaders have failed them).
To simply think you're doing good by voting for a third-party at the national level is delusional. It's the "hail mary" of all "hail marys". While it's technically possible, the last time it worked was *150* years ago, and *that* was during a time of such great national division that it led up to a civil war!
To accept the fast downward spiral is a spectacularly awful plan which will lead only to spectacularly awful results. While my party may not be perfect, that's no justification for allowing the other party take us as far down that spiral as fast as they can.
It very much is science, it's just not a proper theory. Perhaps "not yet" or "not ever" a proper theory, no one can say which is correct at the moment.
Science, on the other hand, does not require one wait for the finished product. Working on string theory is working on science. It's just not complete, nor even all that useful currently. It's still in the early stages--a stage that is rarely so long and drawn out as it is in this case.
For example, when devising special relativity, Einstein's theory was, at some point, still in the state string theory is in currently--that is, significantly conceptual, with a lot of math and refining yet to be done, and early on was entirely untestable making no real predictions. He was still engaged in science during that stage. That doesn't mean that special relativity was useful yet, nor do I mean to imply that string theory is correct or will bear fruit, just that even at this early stage it is legitimate to call it science.
Slashdot Mirror
You fail at economics.
If tuna went for $300/can, it would be even more aggressively fished, not less.
Because in America, libertarians are right-wing. They identify more with Ronald Reagan than Bill Clinton.
That would be more convincing if you weren't actively trying to deny an integral aspect of our republic--namely that it *is* a democracy.
Agreed.
Additionally, republics *are* democratic. They aren't democratic in the sense that every single action taken by the state is put up for a vote, but democratic in the sense that the representatives are elected by the people.
In other words, a republic is a form of democracy. The only reason people (*ALWAYS* from the right-wing, both conservative and libertarian) try to make a distinction between democracy and republic is because they don't actually want the people to have any power. This is the *exact* opposite of democracy, and is not, even, a republic.
Because it allows the *STATES* to have their own armies, just in case they need to defend themselves from external threats, including those from other states or the federal government itself.
It essence, it means the states all have the right to have their national guards and state militias, and that Congress can't revoke that right, in the hopes of avoiding the sort of situation the colonies found themselves in relative to Great Britain.
There is absolutely no way whatsoever the FF's intended it to mean that every American has an inalienable right to own any weapon they want whatsoever without limit.
But I disagree with just about everything else you've said. Creativity and money are not as strongly linked as you seem to think. Second Life allows far more creativity than WoW does. On the other hand, WoW is far more broadly appealing.
Money better measures broad appeal than it measures creativity. In fact, often times creativity is detrimental to income. I really don't know if the person you were replying to is creative or not. He's definitely arrogant, but that doesn't negate his point.
He asked a question that someone who "bought, read, and understood" (you left off the first two) would not ask. It's not an insult to point that out. I didn't call him any names (idiot, moron, etc), and didn't imply that he is too stupid to understand the answer. I just don't think he's done all three of those things I listed.
I think he started down that road, and don't know where he stopped, but I don't believe he has made his way through to the end yet. I think his question was sardonic and based on unfounded cynicism. That's hardly the stuff of insults.
Did you reply to the wrong post? Because there's not a single insult in my post.
If you really did buy, read, and understand those "$50 USD books" (which is doubtful, given your post), you can write programs exactly the same as you do now. If you want to take advantage of garbage collection, you can do so at your own pace, and the included documentation and examples will be more than enough to learn from.
If a developer ports to OS X, they will have access to that entire 5% of computer users. If they simply recommend users use the Windows version, they will only have access to the small percentage of that 5% who have bought XP and want the software enough to buy Parallels and use virtualization, or who will go through the process of installing Boot Camp and want to run the software enough to reboot in order to run it.
Sure, there will be cases where the developer will just depend on Parallels or Boot Camp for Mac sales, but in those cases, the company most likely wouldn't have ported anyway.
Parallels devs have stated they are working on this, but I'm not sure it's going to happen since MS has XP check to make sure the hardware hasn't changed too much, and it will be very hard to legally trick XP into believing the VM is the same as the actual hardware.
I was countering your claim that the *only* way to punish a company is to fine it. This is just one of the many ways I list that contradict your claim.
That's not true whatsoever. They are not requests, they are demands, they are legal rulings. That's not to say the corporation cannot defy the court, but if they do, they will risk taking it to, eventually, the state either backing off, the state using physical force to exact it's ruling, or the state using third-parties to get what they want. That doesn't change the fact that the punishments I list actually are punishments that the state not only can do, but also has done.
I'm not sure the state cannot force a corporation to fire (or otherwise dismiss) an employee. In fact, I can think of several ways they can do it (license revocation, imprisonment of the employee, deportation, enforcement of contractual obligations, etc).
As for the case at hand, I agree with you more-or-less. Dismiss the officer and make things right (probably through restitution) with the people involved, if the police department has acted improperly as it appears. However, even that brings up some potential problems. I don't know anything about Nashua, NH, but if it's a small town, this could decimate the police force. What do you do then? The answer isn't really straightforward, and I think any compromise is going to be less-than-satisfying.
Another reason you make them pay--in fact, the primary reason you make them pay when someone sues them--is restitution. It's meant to compensate the plaintiff for whatever damages have been incurred. In the case at hand, being harassed, kicked out of your own home while it's illegally searched, and being arrested under such questionable circumstances, sounds like a reasonable situation to be awarded restitution, in my opinion.
Beyond restitution is punitive damages. That's what you are talking about, and they can be applied on top of restitution as a form of punishment (really, restitution is not really punishment, while punitive damages is), or can be the sole punishment.
In the case at hand, restitution would be just. I can understand not awarding punitive damages, and don't feel strongly either way.
As for there being no other way to punish a company, you can send it's employees to jail, you can dissolve them, you can split them up, you can take their products off of the market, you can demand alterations to their products, and you can limit the sorts of business practices they may engage in. I'm sure my list is not complete.
There are two issues here. One is a legitimate product failure, the other is just Mac users finding out that the Intel Core Duo/Solo runs hotter than G3's and G4's.
PowerBooks don't come into the picture--none were made of white plastic. But even so, I agree, it's an annoyance. However, if your interest in getting a Mac is so borderline that cleaning the palm rest area once every month or so is a deal-breaker, by all means get whatever you want. But really, it's a pretty lame argument against getting a Mac, especially since it's not even likely you'll be affected by the problem anyway, and even if you are it's easily dealt with.
Never heard this one. As long as you didn't abuse it, I'd expect Apple would replace it.
Actually, nail polish remover (non-acetone, non-isopropyl alcohol kind) does the trick. Also, this happens to a small number of people. Perhaps if you just have unlucky skin chemistry?
Test one out at the Apple Store.
In fact, I suggest looking at all of those issues at the Apple Store. I tested the heat on the MacBooks/MacBook Pros, which are all running full-time on power, and while they were all warm, they were not "OMFG BBQ!" hot.
In the end, pick the computer you think will serve you best. If you do decide to get a MacBook, you're already ahead of the game by being aware of the problems others are having, and can quickly take it to Apple for replacement. I would definitely check out the heat and the trackpad on the display models so at least you'll have reasonable expectations.
Sorry, but the whole point of taxes is to pay for the government. That *includes* paying for the government's fuck-ups. There's no two ways about it.
Yes, it's a dream I have. The dream to one day find myself in a situation where I can use the phrase, "bring in that floating fat man, the Baron!"
As you've described it, most Americans are socialists. There are very few Americans who would strip all socialist programs from our country (examples: public schooling, fire departments, depts of transportation, farm subsidies, libraries, anti-pollution laws, car safety laws, etc).
Unfortunately, the far right has been able to control the language, and make us think that the word "socialist" means "communist" or "fascist". That leaves your average, moderately socialist, American with a sense of morality and reason who knows that capitalism must be tempered with socialism, yet can only speak intelligently about capitalism, while any discourse in favor of socialism is hampered and limited to emotional pleas because the rational words are off-limits or misrepresented.
The death knell for any public debate of a socially beneficial program is the question, "but isn't that really socialism?" The honest answer ends the debate right there. The only political acceptable answer is, "no, because..." followed by an attempt to hide the fact that it is socialism, which puts the progressive and liberal proponent at an obvious rhetorical disadvantage. That's why you have no difficulty finding people who will say and believe silly things regarding how DRM is necessary to be able to produce television shows, or how private industry should replace NASA today, when private industry can barely place two people into a short, sub-orbital trip to the closest reaches of space.
What really needs to be made known to every American is that socialism is not a bad thing. It is a necessary part of the Western world. Capitalism is also necessary. It's not an either-or choice. Capitalism for a fluid economy and personal freedom, Socialism to keep Capitalism viable, and promote a healthy society.
Capitalism does not require DRM to survive.
That's not true either. Have you heard of PBS or the BBC? While I'm not advocating the elimination of for-profit, private entertainment/media, your assumptions are flawed.
"Encrypt with DRM" is wholly unnecessary in that equation.
Almost. Privatization is best at "optimizing for profit", and only that. It just so happens that in a great majority of endeavors, that leads to increased productivity, freedom and quality-of-life.
However, some things do not benefit from privatization. These things tend to be public services, utilities, life-and-death services, very difficult/expensive endeavors with inadequate profit potential, and things that don't get done otherwise. In the case of NASA, we are stuck with "very difficult, expensive, and lack of sufficient profit motive".
That said, properly executed partnerships with private corporations (as is done with the shuttle, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't also the case with Apollo), can let the private sector do what it does best and large governmental organizations do what they do best. The biggest problem with just throwing it out there for the private sector (as it sounds is the case here), is that:
1. The private sector will only do it if they believe there's profit in it.
2. The private sector may fail to provide anything.
The drawback with #1 is that the private sector won't necessarily provide the best vehicle, but the most profitable vehicle. That's not to say that a government agency will necessarily do the best (after all, the Air Force's interests altered the shuttle into a substantially inferior craft). Still, removing the profit motive removes a major potential conflict of interest. Additionally, the profit will have to come from NASA anyway, so what's the difference for NASA to just design the craft and contract out construction anyway?
The potential drawback of #2 is even more severe. A hobbled craft is superior, at least in the short-term, to no craft at all (poorly executed, a hobbled craft could set the space program backwards (as some have claimed the shuttle has done), but at least we've got something to get us into space). What are NASA's plans if the private sector fails to deliver a product (note: the private sector has never delivered a complete orbital human-flight spacecraft, so what makes NASA think they will manage to do so so quickly?)? Do we just bow out of space for the interim? Do we hitchhike aboard Soyuz? Extend the shuttle program? (According to TFA, sadly, it appears that the answer is this is only to go to ISS, so, aside from missions there, we effectively will be bowing out of non-ISS-related human spaceflight for four years. F**K! Someone, please, prove me wrong!)
In my opinion, I'd prefer Congress just fund NASA enough to do what they need to do, so long as it can be done within reason. After all, as I point out above, if the private sector does come up with a solution, NASA will still have to foot the bill anyway. If NASA really thinks this will work, it sounds like excessive faith in the free market. If NASA really knows the high improbability that this will succeed, it sounds more like an attempt to use the private sector as a scapegoat ("no one anticipated[*] the private sector would fail to provide a solution").
[*] Three magical words which seem able to absolve the speaker from any personal responsibility or blame for any disaster or failure.
A two-man sub-orbital vehicle that barely breaches the boundary of space is a far cry from an orbital vehicle capable of carrying an actual crew and/or supplies and stay in orbit for days on end.
Yeah, I read the article expecting some thoughtful insight--perhaps how people still buy toys for themselves, or like to eat at McDonald's or something. What I didn't expect was something so utterly useless. I do hope that the article doesn't really represent what the biology professor was trying to say.
Maturity isn't defined by any specific set of characteristics, it's described by them. By that I mean, you look at something that is mature (finished its final growth stage) and whatever state it's in is what is "mature" for that thing. These days, "maturity" means something different, psychologically, than it (apparently) did 100 years ago (I'm not so sure about this--I can think of many great people from centuries and even millennia ago who were just as "immature" in their maturity as the professor is saying we are today).
To me, one of the fundamentally key ingredients that makes the human mind so powerful is the fact that it doesn't have to "mature", in the sense that it doesn't have to reach a relatively unchanging state during life.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason one can't keep a child-like mind while still being financially responsible and dependable. Like I said, given that the article seems to paint such a seemingly arbitrary view of "maturity", I really do hope it's a case of bad reporting.
Yes, they are deliberately killing people. Or put more accurately, but lengthily, they knowingly lied about the medical risks and addictive qualities of cigarettes, portrayed them in advertisements as cool, including marketing that was deliberately designed to appeal to children, and, as if all that wasn't bad enough, they knowingly added ingredients which are very toxic and purposefully formulated cigarettes that are even more addicting than they naturally were!
Not gonna happen. The reason is that your lament is millennia old. Seriously. There are writings from ancient Greece and Rome that read exactly like the cranky old man of today, who decries the awful state of the youth "these days". If you want the divorce rate to go down, the number one thing you can do is to make it so that the middle class is strong and vibrant, and that people have great financial security and physical health. If you, on the other hand, make it so that both members of the married couple have to work long and hard just to scrape by, how can you possibly be surprised that the stress of daily life will have a detrimental toll on their marriage?
Wishful thinking made by someone who clearly hasn't turned on a television in the last 20 years. Just as it had always been, youth culture will reject the rigid demands of old coots like yourself. Just like always, there will be a segment of the youth who will be very responsible and upstanding. And just like always, life will go on and a whole new cadre of old coots will spout the same old nonsense about how the "youth of today" are worse than ever, just as it has always been for thousands of years.
The explanation is simple. Right now, our choices (our two parties) are between a fast downward spiral, or a slow downward spiral. That's it.
If you choose (as many do) to pick one of the various "third" parties, you are giving up any say as for which downward spiral you'd prefer, which is another way of saying you are doing absolutely nothing to promote the slower over the faster. In the choice of downward spirals, you're abstaining.
No, the results are *not* the same. Had Bush never won the Presidency, we would *not* be at war with Iraq right now (for example). And it would *not* have simply been postponed for a later date. It is possible we'd still be at war with Iraq again, eventually, but it is not inevitable (as you imply), nor would we necessarily have done it so poorly (note: by "poorly", I'm not referring to the troops, they've performed as ordered spectacularly. The problem is their leaders have failed them).
To simply think you're doing good by voting for a third-party at the national level is delusional. It's the "hail mary" of all "hail marys". While it's technically possible, the last time it worked was *150* years ago, and *that* was during a time of such great national division that it led up to a civil war!
To accept the fast downward spiral is a spectacularly awful plan which will lead only to spectacularly awful results. While my party may not be perfect, that's no justification for allowing the other party take us as far down that spiral as fast as they can.
It very much is science, it's just not a proper theory. Perhaps "not yet" or "not ever" a proper theory, no one can say which is correct at the moment.
Science, on the other hand, does not require one wait for the finished product. Working on string theory is working on science. It's just not complete, nor even all that useful currently. It's still in the early stages--a stage that is rarely so long and drawn out as it is in this case.
For example, when devising special relativity, Einstein's theory was, at some point, still in the state string theory is in currently--that is, significantly conceptual, with a lot of math and refining yet to be done, and early on was entirely untestable making no real predictions. He was still engaged in science during that stage. That doesn't mean that special relativity was useful yet, nor do I mean to imply that string theory is correct or will bear fruit, just that even at this early stage it is legitimate to call it science.