While there is certainly a group that would enjoy the show, the larger audiance would probably not be too interested with a cast of characters they cannot relate to (Kingon, not human).
Breast Cancer is not the only other option. There are countless fields that the money could be funneled into that will also provide "accidents or offshoots or unintended consequences" too. Why NASA over any of them? I'm not saying don't give money to NASA, I'm saying what direct value does NASA offer besides the "accidents or offshoots or unintended consequences"?
I agreed that NASA has given us a lot. But it's usually, "Ohh hey, we can use this here also!". While that is great (and a lot of advancements actually come from that method), why not invest that same money into research to find answers/solutions to problems that we want directly instead of relying on the indirect bonuses that we get from NASA?
Why should we invest into NASA research versus other forms of research? What does NASA offer us that other research does not?
Just to say were better? Yes, I know that there have been several "trickle down" advancements from NASA. But, I'm not a fan of Trickle Down Economics, so I'm not sure how much I support Trickle Down Science. So, what is the direct advancement? Why put money into space for off shoot Advancement when we could put money directly into scientific research for different problems we currently have?
Or maybe a "library worker" with wifi-enabled PDA is a capable substitute.
Just because a job requires a degree, doesn't mean a trained monkey couldn't do it. (Not meaning to imply that a trained monkey could do the job of a Librarian.)
Then I'd be advised to start driving a Hummer to offset the global cooling with global warming? Meaning I'd have a more comfortable temp. and be able to burn all the fosil fuels I want?
If I recall correctly, Japan was set to surrender to Russia. Doing this would have allowed them to keep their Emperor with his God Status. The U.S. did not want them to become a part of Russia's sphere of influence and they wanted a full surrender, not just a treaty to end the war.
So, a full scale invasion would have only been necessary as another means of conquering Japan before they surrendered to Russia.
I say "tricked" because, as you pointed out, people think voting for another person is throwing away your vote. however, if everyone voted for who they actually wanted, and did not limit themselves to the two parties, then we would not be limited to the two parties.
We are only limited to two parties because the American people choose to limit themselves. The republican party didn't even exist for the first half a century of the country. Parties have come and gone, and can do so again fi the people were not "tricked" into thinking there are only two choices.
'soft targets' like schools, hospitals, churches and government buildings
Are these really targets? Has any terrorist ever attacked any of these "soft targets" outside of Government Buildings? Where do people get the concept that "The Terrorists" are going to start attacking Schools, Hospitals, & Churches in America?
I guess if you include Students involved in School Shootings as Terrorists. But yeah, how woudl any of this protect againt that? Plus, I'd hardly call them Terrorists any more then I would a Serial Killer or Rapist.
The first line of oversight was voting; being able to remove politicians from office that did not govern in a manor that the population agreed with. After that, the next oversight was provided in the First and Second Amendments.
Unfortunately, the population has been tricked into believing that it only has two choices (Democrat or Republican). We have representatives in Government because the population is not qualified to govern itself. It seems they might not be qualified to vote either.
Additionally, people lack the will to Revolt against their Government. But there is good reason for that; life is good in America. The standard of living in America is so high that the vast majority of people have little desire to put forth the effort to make any real changes to the system. Why would they? Their lives are going pretty well. Even "In this Economy" most people that want jobs have them. Even if unemployment was 15%, there would still be 85% of Americans who want to work who are working. So, those 85% have more incentive to do nothing then risk their security.
There will certainly be a few select people that use this as a creative outlet. In doing so, they will provide wonderful content to everyone. But, they will be dwarfed by the talentless masses.
The link does not really fit into the relation of scientific discovery and population as the people on the list are only required to have had a Grandparent from Hungary. Not having to have been born in, or lived in, hungary, kind of removed the relation to population.
Slashdot Mirror
Wish i could mod you Funny. Sadly, you could probably be modded insightful.
While there is certainly a group that would enjoy the show, the larger audiance would probably not be too interested with a cast of characters they cannot relate to (Kingon, not human).
The concept is certainly intersting enough. Hopefully they will redo the series.
But for a while you beleived there were 5
But hopefully without it getting all crappy and losing direction while they try to draw it out further then it was meant to go.
I'm sure there would be better things they could purchase and resell for more then a 1% return.
Breast Cancer is not the only other option. There are countless fields that the money could be funneled into that will also provide "accidents or offshoots or unintended consequences" too. Why NASA over any of them? I'm not saying don't give money to NASA, I'm saying what direct value does NASA offer besides the "accidents or offshoots or unintended consequences"?
I agreed that NASA has given us a lot. But it's usually, "Ohh hey, we can use this here also!". While that is great (and a lot of advancements actually come from that method), why not invest that same money into research to find answers/solutions to problems that we want directly instead of relying on the indirect bonuses that we get from NASA?
Why should we invest into NASA research versus other forms of research? What does NASA offer us that other research does not?
Why?
Just to say were better? Yes, I know that there have been several "trickle down" advancements from NASA. But, I'm not a fan of Trickle Down Economics, so I'm not sure how much I support Trickle Down Science. So, what is the direct advancement? Why put money into space for off shoot Advancement when we could put money directly into scientific research for different problems we currently have?
Or maybe a "library worker" with wifi-enabled PDA is a capable substitute.
Just because a job requires a degree, doesn't mean a trained monkey couldn't do it. (Not meaning to imply that a trained monkey could do the job of a Librarian.)
So,
Then I'd be advised to start driving a Hummer to offset the global cooling with global warming? Meaning I'd have a more comfortable temp. and be able to burn all the fosil fuels I want?
At least it seems like it would be a pretty comfortable Ice Age.
If I recall correctly, Japan was set to surrender to Russia. Doing this would have allowed them to keep their Emperor with his God Status. The U.S. did not want them to become a part of Russia's sphere of influence and they wanted a full surrender, not just a treaty to end the war.
So, a full scale invasion would have only been necessary as another means of conquering Japan before they surrendered to Russia.
While they were initially made to win, their roll has changed over the last ~60 years.
Greed is "the root of all evil", Money is just a tool.
This sentence lost me.
I say "tricked" because, as you pointed out, people think voting for another person is throwing away your vote. however, if everyone voted for who they actually wanted, and did not limit themselves to the two parties, then we would not be limited to the two parties.
We are only limited to two parties because the American people choose to limit themselves. The republican party didn't even exist for the first half a century of the country. Parties have come and gone, and can do so again fi the people were not "tricked" into thinking there are only two choices.
Are these really targets? Has any terrorist ever attacked any of these "soft targets" outside of Government Buildings? Where do people get the concept that "The Terrorists" are going to start attacking Schools, Hospitals, & Churches in America?
I guess if you include Students involved in School Shootings as Terrorists. But yeah, how woudl any of this protect againt that? Plus, I'd hardly call them Terrorists any more then I would a Serial Killer or Rapist.
The first line of oversight was voting; being able to remove politicians from office that did not govern in a manor that the population agreed with. After that, the next oversight was provided in the First and Second Amendments.
Unfortunately, the population has been tricked into believing that it only has two choices (Democrat or Republican). We have representatives in Government because the population is not qualified to govern itself. It seems they might not be qualified to vote either.
Additionally, people lack the will to Revolt against their Government. But there is good reason for that; life is good in America. The standard of living in America is so high that the vast majority of people have little desire to put forth the effort to make any real changes to the system. Why would they? Their lives are going pretty well. Even "In this Economy" most people that want jobs have them. Even if unemployment was 15%, there would still be 85% of Americans who want to work who are working. So, those 85% have more incentive to do nothing then risk their security.
The Federal Government stopped following the Consitution some time around 1861
There will certainly be a few select people that use this as a creative outlet. In doing so, they will provide wonderful content to everyone. But, they will be dwarfed by the talentless masses.
The link does not really fit into the relation of scientific discovery and population as the people on the list are only required to have had a Grandparent from Hungary. Not having to have been born in, or lived in, hungary, kind of removed the relation to population.
Same logic that says me playing Basketball at the Y on the weekends does not make me a "Backetball Player".
Never been to the AP website myself, but it seems that a good portion of the real articles in other media outlets are copies from the AP (or Reuters).
bloggers != reporters out there reporting