I think it's time for a more international effort in space exploration. Sure, we have the International Space Station, but why not go further? Develop a UN Space agency beyond UNOOSA. Everybody involved will benefit, especially countries like Australia.
I know it's an experimental craft, but there doesn't seem to be much room left over for a crew. It looks like the parachutes take up one third of the vehicle.
It kinda reminds me of a cross between an X-37 and an X-38. Mostly the X-38.
It doesn't seem to have enough control surfaces or reaction control devices.
I should have known somebody was going to take that comment seriously. Mention porting a crappy game from 25 years ago, and somebody on Slashdot will do/find it.
....Just look under the hood of one of DoD's tactical military vehicles. You'll find a turbocharged, multi-fuel Diesel, capable of burning anything from LH to bear grease.
that cash makes a very big stick with which to put everybody in the line you want.
I spoke with some high school teachers here in Illinois. There is a fundamental flaw in the education funding system here. Schools are funded by local property taxes, so areas that have low home values have poor schools. All of the areas with high property values have rejected federal funding under NCLB. Schools in poor districts have accepted federal funding.
Which high school teachers complain? They all do. They always do. The high school teachers in the poor districts are complaining more than the ones in the rich districts, but that has always been the case. The federal government isn't going to fix it, only the state can.
The teachers I know say, the biggest improvement the poor schools can make is a complete repeal of the residency requirement in the city of Chicago. You can't throw federal money at that problem. Only the local government can solve it.
If you are concerned about the education in the United States, voice your concerns to your state and local government. The only thing the federal government has authority over concerning education is the ability to tax you and decide how it will spend that tax money. Looking to solve education issues at the federal level is a farce.
...while giving very little information about what, specifically, they would cut or fund, and how that would affect the overall bottom line.
Being specific in these kinds of topics is a political death sentence. If a candidate says he/she will cut funding to any program will only provides the opposition with an opportunity to attack/criticize that decision. If you want an example of this, watch the third presidential debate.
Aside from President Bush's actions, the Republican party generally favors far less government than the Democrats. I think your philosophical reservation against Democrats is still pretty much intact.
That depends on what you define as "less government." If you look at the data, Republicans tend to increase spending less than Democrats, but both increase spending. Democrats tend to have a more balanced budget, which means "less government" debt.
I think most people get tricked by thinking...
lower taxes=less government which isn't true.
Though I favor smaller government, I don't plan on voting Republican until there is a candidate that is actually serious about reducing spending, and not just lowering taxes. I don't mind paying slightly higher taxes now if it means I won't pay much higher taxes later. To me, being fiscally conservative means having a balanced budget. We haven't had a serious fiscal conservative Republican since Eisenhower (to a lesser extent Nixon)
Slashdot Mirror
Great idea, but it needs some guidelines.
Yeah, guidelines like these would be great.
I think it's time for a more international effort in space exploration. Sure, we have the International Space Station, but why not go further? Develop a UN Space agency beyond UNOOSA. Everybody involved will benefit, especially countries like Australia.
If China or India choose not to join, so be it.
Now we will see an even greater number of bogus science experiments on Youtube.
If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors.
I thought you could already do that.
Great, now any new hardware I buy will be incompatible with my old hardware, again!
L.A.
It's not remote enough. If a Snake can escape from L.A. surely a T-Rex can.
Also, Michael Crichton died yesterday.
Ice Age 3: Attack of the Clones
When I first read the summary, I thought they had cloned Scrat.
Alas, they didn't clone any extinct rodents, just some that had been frozen 16 years earlier.
They can work on building a larger one for cargo and/or humans if they manage this first significant milestone.
When they scale the vehicle up, how will the systems scale up with it? Will they simply be left with a larger vehicle that also has no cargo space?
I know it's an experimental craft, but there doesn't seem to be much room left over for a crew. It looks like the parachutes take up one third of the vehicle.
It kinda reminds me of a cross between an X-37 and an X-38. Mostly the X-38.
It doesn't seem to have enough control surfaces or reaction control devices.
welcome our new overlord.
I should have known somebody was going to take that comment seriously. Mention porting a crappy game from 25 years ago, and somebody on Slashdot will do/find it.
When will somebody port Radar Rat Race to Windows or Linux?
....Just look under the hood of one of DoD's tactical military vehicles. You'll find a turbocharged, multi-fuel Diesel, capable of burning anything from LH to bear grease.
DoD is also exempt from emissions regulations.
That's far short of being "each candidate" isn't it?
Good point, that should be, "each candidate that has greater than a snowball's chance in hell of winning."
I lived in Milwaukee for a few years, and if I recall, the room this is housed is right next to the cafe. Lovely!
Also, it appears the site MPM site has been Slashdotted.
Snopes has some good articles about myths and urban legends about each candidate.
McCain
Obama
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin
that cash makes a very big stick with which to put everybody in the line you want.
I spoke with some high school teachers here in Illinois. There is a fundamental flaw in the education funding system here. Schools are funded by local property taxes, so areas that have low home values have poor schools. All of the areas with high property values have rejected federal funding under NCLB. Schools in poor districts have accepted federal funding.
Which high school teachers complain? They all do. They always do. The high school teachers in the poor districts are complaining more than the ones in the rich districts, but that has always been the case. The federal government isn't going to fix it, only the state can.
The teachers I know say, the biggest improvement the poor schools can make is a complete repeal of the residency requirement in the city of Chicago. You can't throw federal money at that problem. Only the local government can solve it.
If you are concerned about the education in the United States, voice your concerns to your state and local government. The only thing the federal government has authority over concerning education is the ability to tax you and decide how it will spend that tax money. Looking to solve education issues at the federal level is a farce.
If you have a friend with a slingbox you could use that.
Go here and click on "live video."
...while giving very little information about what, specifically, they would cut or fund, and how that would affect the overall bottom line.
Being specific in these kinds of topics is a political death sentence. If a candidate says he/she will cut funding to any program will only provides the opposition with an opportunity to attack/criticize that decision. If you want an example of this, watch the third presidential debate.
Aside from President Bush's actions, the Republican party generally favors far less government than the Democrats. I think your philosophical reservation against Democrats is still pretty much intact.
That depends on what you define as "less government." If you look at the data, Republicans tend to increase spending less than Democrats, but both increase spending. Democrats tend to have a more balanced budget, which means "less government" debt. I think most people get tricked by thinking...
lower taxes=less government
which isn't true.
Though I favor smaller government, I don't plan on voting Republican until there is a candidate that is actually serious about reducing spending, and not just lowering taxes. I don't mind paying slightly higher taxes now if it means I won't pay much higher taxes later. To me, being fiscally conservative means having a balanced budget. We haven't had a serious fiscal conservative Republican since Eisenhower (to a lesser extent Nixon)
Saw this on a bumper sticker:
We're screwed: 2008.
I couldn't summarize my feelings any better.
I watched Frontline last night and realized we are even more screwed that I thought we were before.
Regardless of who becomes president, we in BIG trouble. There is no choice on the ballot that will undo what was done in the last 8 years.
Neither major party candidate has mentioned addressing the crushing national debt or deficit spending.
I found this game really informative, and disturbing.
It could probably be written better, but the concept is great.
see if clicking on this link helps. WSJ.com used to allow visitors if you were directed from news.google.com.