No they didn't... though they did have the F00F bug (note the zeros, not Os).
You do not need a significant increase in computational power. You need to increase reliability.
I know that quite well. You, however, seem to be unaware that I was merely responding to the (vague and completely hypothetical) question offered by the parent...
Of course, the F00F bug is both well known and consistent, so it is quite "reliable" and can probably be worked around without much difficulty. Of course, again, this is hypothetical, and presumes someone would want to upgrade...
If you were tasked with upgrading a 486 here on Earth, how many components do you think you'd be able to recycle into the new machine?
If the system was ridiculously expensive, and extremely hard to replace...
I imagine I'd pop over to eBay to buy a 83 MHz Pentium Overdrive CPU (circa 1996) to toss in the system, and if possible, add some higher capacity sticks of RAM for good measure.
What? You mean you've never had to deal with ridiculously old legacy systems still being pushed and extended decades later?
Anything they can process onboard or compress better for sending back down to us would cut down on things that are probably a lot more scarce like bandwidth (if not directly, then the power to operate the antenna probably draws more than the processor does).
That's really not the case. Being so close to the earth, Hubble can broadcast with tiny amounts of power (far less than to run a CPU) and NASA's gigantic 65 meter dishes can pick up the faint signal very easily. Radio power consumption becomes a notable issue only with substantial distances from the earth, as it has with Voyager I/II.
Bandwidth is certainly not scarce for such applications, this is very low power, highly directional, line-of-sight communications...
Part of the trouble NASA is encountering while fixing the Hubble Space Telescope comes from the fact that it's been up there for nearly two decades, and therefore carries computer systems long outdated here on Earth.
Which "part" of the "troubles" and according to who?
Only the Popular Mechanics article even SUGGESTS that age and technological obsolescence might (maybe-sorta-kinda slightly) contribute: "But perhaps finding a few problems should come as no surprise--not only have Hubble's backup systems sat idle for 18 years, but the telescope operates with computer systems long outdated here on Earth."
But even despite the high marks on the BS detector, it concludes with an unmistakable quote from an expert: "Hendrix says that the telescope's computer systems do exactly what they need to do. 'It's really reliable,' she said. 'There really is no need to upgrade it.'"
No it isn't. You're just ignorant (of history), irrational and overreacting.
The country's been insolvent since January.
Countries aren't businesses... They survive even deep debt. I suggest you take a good long look at the Great Depression, or any other major recession. Things have been much, much worse.
And post WWII, no recession has lasted more than 2 years... It's certainly possible that this is going to be somewhat worse, but this isn't the end of the world. Everyone is just obsessed with their short-term stock portfolio and doesn't know what to do.
It's not run under the rule of law as there is no guarantee of habeus corpus.
The separation of power still works. It's simply very slow and takes time. Again, it's been worse in the past, people just assume it was justified back then, while it isn't anymore.
It invaded another country, unprovoked.
As opposed to Vietnam, WWI, The Mexican-American War, The Spanish-American War, The War of 1812, etc.? As opposed to almost every UN peacekeeping operation? It shouldn't have happened, but neither should, eg. Vietnam. On the plus side, there was a big enough public outcry then that the US didn't fight in a major war for a couple decades after. Keep your fingers crossed...
One election was a failure. And another seems to have been stolen.
Not really. Polls showed Kerry was behind, and Gore more or less lost on the margin of error... It sucks, but if you aren't viable enough to get a decent majority of support, a statistical coin-toss is as good a tie-breaker as any. It was unsightly, but it did the job, even if you disliked the outcome.
Elections have REALLY been stolen in the past. Try the Compromise of 1877.
facing significant opposition from a third rate pilot and POW turned right wing hack and his "prom queen" veep choice?
No, he isn't. 13 points ahead in polls is a substantial margin. All signs point to a landslide. And it's only fair to point out that McCain has been relatively centrist for the past several decades of his public service career, and really only plays a right wing hack on TV to pump up his base. Again, the system is ugly, but the situation isn't what you paint it as. Until McCain picked Palin, it was looking like, for the first time in a decade, we'll have an election guaranteed to put an "adult" in the White House. Now, if McCain has a heart attack on Nov 8th, we're once again screwed for the next 4 years.
If you have any sense, get out now,
I agree. Get out now! I'm just going to stay behind for a little while to make sure someone turns the light off, honest.
If you'e reading this site, it is likely you have skillsets that are desirable all over the world.
And where shall we go? Jump across the not-quite-as-bad-but-getting-there frozen border? Even-further right-wing abandoned desert continent? Fascist nanny-state island? Drugs and whores are cheap, but you'll never get a job and still wouldn't possibly be able to afford a tiny condo mini-country? The standby "We eat dog meat so you can live like a king on $5,000USD a year" countries?
Politically, economically, they're ALL headed the same direction as the US, they might just be a bit slower in getting there... Economically, they've been doing reasonably well lately in large part because of a hemorrhage of US cash in trade, but are sure getting dragged down now. Legally, militarily, they're all beholden to the US; name one western country that doesn't have a one-way extradition treaty with the US.
It's pretty much East, West, or "good luck". If it's East, you're beholden to Russia and/or China. If it's West you're (somewhat less-) beholden to
No. I already explained several of the (many) reasons it CAN NOT be called such. Go look up the definition of the phenomenon yourself.
Visitors are not forced to visit. And, at least where I live, out in the boonies the firemen will indeed stop and watch your house burn if you are outside their geographical area of responsibility or if they feel it is unsafe to enter a structure.
Neither firemen nor visitors are going to have any way of knowing that you have made potentially dangerous modifications to your home. Both have a reasonable assumption of safety when they enter an occupied structure.
We don't have floods or hurricanes etc.
I'm not aware of any place in North America that is free of all such natural disasters. Very likely you're either very naive, or lying to support your point.
And you need to get out of the city sometime. Try visiting farming country for example.
I've spent plenty of time in farming country. There are certainly significant distances between homes, but never anywhere close to 2+ miles. I suspect you're just making things up to suit you.
The cure for ignorance isn't being infallible, it's keeping an open mind.
No. Read the definition again. It has nothing to do with how open minded you may be.
You can quote the dictionary. How cute. Did you have a point, though?
You obviously didn't know the definition, and have just demonstrated that you still do not.
Did you have a point, though? About our children being indoctrinated with sugar-coated crap?
Sure. You have not listed one example of "children being indoctrinated". Popular myth about Thanksgiving and Pilgrims is reasonably close to the facts of the matter, least biased, and one of just a few places in popular US history that Native Americans are even treated reasonably close to equals, or at the very least, "good guys."
I certainly don't recall any "Columbus Was a Nice Guy" school plays, so your rant is completely pointless. Even if there are, somewhere, a few years later on, children will receive a more complete education on the subject, which would largely defeat any earlier attempts at indoctrination.
All of this also has next to no relevance in the world today, with Columbus long dead, Spain being of no particular relevance in this hemisphere, Pilgrims being long dead, and Natives nearly extinct or otherwise fully integrated with western society.
No, it isn't. The scenario you have offered does not remotely describe a tyranny of the majority situation. Not every situation in which the law isn't to your liking (in a democracy) is a case of tyranny... What's more, if, as you insist, the situation couldn't POSSIBLY affect anyone other than yourself, then it also of course can't possibly be tyranny of the majority.
And I should point out that there are corollaries to the tyranny of the majority that apply as well. If the laws were revoked to suit you, to the detriment of the majority (because they would have less guarantee their homes are safe), that could actually be tyranny of the minority...
in the event of disaster, the safety of my home will have no impact on others if the nearest neighbor is miles away
That would be fine, if you never have any visitors, and you'll be perfectly fine with fire fighters standing outside your home, refusing to enter and rescue you (or anyone else inside) as it burns down.
Not to mention that "miles" isn't far in the event of flooding, hurricanes, etc. And I sincerely your nearest neighbor is in fact miles away. There are precious few (reasonably habitable) areas in the world where that is even possible these days.
your response is rather irrelevant.
Not at all. The fact that the populace makes up the government is QUITE relevant. It is a huge difference from "the time of the settlers". You have infinitely more control today than English subjects did. Never mind that we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee all the relevant fundamental freedoms, and the fact that the punishment for failing to follow building codes is a minor fine, not garroting and being burned at the stake.
Yes. Yes you are. I just pointed out numerous serious factual errors in your comment about the Pilgrims, for which (non-existant) transgressions you were vilifying them.
ig'no'rant [ig-ner-uhnt] -adjective 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics. 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
This time around, you seem to be confusing "ignorant" with "naive". Skepticism and cynicism isn't a cure for ignorance.
I need permission from the government to move a wall inside my house
This is a democracy. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
So, YOU have decided it is in YOUR best interest that YOU have to seek expert advice before making potentially dangerous changes to YOUR home.
The reason for this should be obvious... in the event of disaster, the safety of your home has a serious impact on others, so the modest restriction of professional inspection has been deemed necessary and reasonable.
They left Holland because it was "too tolerant". They couldn't have their children growing up "metropolitan".
Last I checked, there was a (yet another) European war looming, and the prospect of Holland getting involved seemed likely, required them to fight, which they did not agree with.
And Holland wasn't exactly a religious paradise. It was growing less and less tolerant at the time. Xenophobia was increasing, and foreigners often weren't able to take on just about any job, requiring many of them to survive on their savings.
And pressure was being put by the King of England, regarding "his" ex-pat subjects... National borders weren't quite as sovereign as they are today. And while they were allowed to operate under the radar, the prospect of a growing congregation made seemed likely to result in the group's expulsion.
Yeah, the puritans were escaping religious fascism, but they were religious fascists themselves. The reality is that those pilgrims burned "witches" at the stake,
No, they didn't. Though their offspring eventually did...
By the standards of the day, the Pilgrims were much less fascist than those they were escaping.
and committed genocide upon the Natives.
They cooperated with the local tribes, in general. the Pilgrims and the Natives shared their knowledge and resources, and there most certainly was a Thanksgiving feast that lasted for about 3 days, though decidedly far less idealized than it is imagined now (thanks to oversimplification of 30 minute school plays, not any form of propaganda).
They did fight with some neighboring tribes, and killed many, no doubt, but not just because they could. They did so when some of their own people were killed or resources were stolen, but it should be pointed out that they did so in alliance with their local (friendly) tribe. As part of their alliance with their local native tribe, they also risked their lives fighting in tribal wars that they had no stake in.
In reality, they simply didn't have the option of doing anything you're accusing them of. They could barely keep a hundred of their own people alive, let alone working, so executing a few healthy individuals for religious failings would have been suicidal. They were heavily outnumbered by natives, and greatly needed the support and trade of some the local natives, so genocide would also have been suicidal, not to mention extremely beyond their means...
I get the feeling you're confusing the Pilgrims with the Spanish Conquistadors. Completely different area, completely different agenda, completely different capabilities. Completely different history.
But, hey, you're righteously indignant over SOMETHING, so you get modded up for your ignorance.
There's no reason for anyone to live on Mars. The only reason to visit Mars is because it's there. They need to plant a flag, take some pictures and then bug out, just like the moon, Mount Everest or the Mariana Trench.
With such a mindset, there's no reason to go there in the first place... End of story. There, I just saved you BILLIONS of dollars.
Supporting a settlement on Mars would take continual resupply missions from earth costing hundreds of millions each. (There is no way that they locally could manufacturer all of the nutrition needs, drugs, advanced equipment spare parts, etc. they would need to maintain a colony.)
There is no way they could supply ALL their needs, but it is quite likely they will be able to supply the overwhelming majority of them, with minimal effort, making resupply missions likely less frequent than current Mars rover missions.
And even if they could be fully self-sufficient, they're going to be getting rockets from Earth fairly regularly, with scientific payloads. That's why they're there, after all.
Nutrition needs should be taken care of by using their own waste to fertilize crops. And nutritional supplements for human consumption or plant fertilization are very, very small... It would be easy to send up a lifetime supply of vitamins/minerals in one trip, and allow them to survive on whatever bulk calories they can get to grow up there. Once nutrition is out of the way, you can actually eat your shoes, cardboard boxes, etc. and survive indefinitely.
Drugs will likely be unnecessary. A decent cross-section of plants and you can address most ailments. Things found on Earth, like viruses, allergens, and infectious bacteria are highly unlikely to make it to Mars, and if so, they'll die out in short order, anyhow, eliminating the causes necessitating most medications.
This money would be better spent on other space missions, and the population on earth would quickly get bored of supporting a bunch of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs in an airless desert.
Yet they won't quickly get bored of the I.S.S.,NASA, or the space program as a whole? Yes, this will require a long-term commitment, but so would an expensive, useless, short round-trip.
What's more, life there would just suck.
I think you need to study your world history much, much more. Life for the early American colonist was absolutely horrific. Particularly Jamestown, where I recall a substantial majority of all the colonists DYING shortly after arrival due to disease. The survivors faced war and death from hostile natives, and came very, very close to starving to death, year after year.
Compared to that, being well fed and safe, locked in a basement without windows, but with a TV, stereo, and computer, with laggy internet access, unlimited music, e-Books, TV shows, movies, etc. doesn't sound so bad.
There ARE a huge number of people out there that would be more than willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Don't start saying others shouldn't do it because YOU wouldn't happen to want to go along.
Underestimate the terrain (Well, Houston, that surely LOOKED like ice from back home)
You don't NEED water from Mars... Human water consumption is pretty well a closed-loop. You just need the capability to filter urine back to standard water quality levels.
IMHO, the only question about Mars is whether we can get a substantial number of crops to grow there. Given enough diversity, it seems likely enough that at least a few will, but I'd still insist on an unmanned mission to send a greenhouse with seeds and soil, before any humans.
Loose your crops get lost yourself and basta!
Don't loose your crops... They won't ever come back home.
That should give you a pretty good perspective on how many things we take for granted in our daily lives and that we depend on for our (better than 50 % chance of ) survival (with a life expctancy of more than 45).
You should note that Crusoe and Hanks in Castaway were average people, with no preparations. If some survivalist from the wilderness of Montana had been stranded on an Island, they'd have a very easy time of it.
And that's what we're talking about, after all. You can bet astronauts will be fully trained for survival before they are sent. And they'll also have a full array of tools, endless sources of information, and an assortment of individuals with different skills (including a couple trained doctors, I'm sure).
Even with a monthly supply train, a bad tooth would kill you faster than a bullet, never mind taking the appendix out of your fellow astronaut.
See above. Any idiot can take care of a bad tooth (the hard way) in a survival situation. And that's sure not to be necessary since they'll no doubt have a couple medical pros, with anesthesia, and the full assortment of dental and medical tools.
The only medical conditions I would worry about are those which have a rather low life expectancy even here on Earth (where there are endless professional), such as cancer, tuberculosis, etc., due to lack of large equipment like MRIs, and numerous specialist. Even there, though, the odds aren't too bad, since NASA will surely get the Earth-bound experts on the phone, talking with the doctors (GPs) on Mars, looking at photos, and basically remotely doing their thing.
However, the odds of those diseases on Earth are pretty rare, and will be much less likely still on Mars, due to extensive screening of astronauts for early indicators of susceptibility to such diseases.
I think you picked the wrong "old guy" to support. Greenspan has shown nothing but utter incompetence over the years (and I've been saying this since back in ~2000, BTW). So "old" certainly hasn't helped him, and he hasn't helped us any.
Bull. The majority of those executives who made the horrible decisions were riding high on ridiculously, fraudulently inflated stock prices, and got their huge bonuses and golden parachutes, leaving before the crash.
From what I understand, they were giving loans to people who had no collateral and no income. If your computer model says that loan is a safe loan, then you have a bug.
No. This is the "garbage-in" part. You may not have any income, but if you or your lender lie on the documents saying you've got a full-time job and extra income on the side, the computer model can't do a thing about it.
electrified lines and electric high-speed trains have been operating in Europe for decades.
They never have full coverage. So, they're still restricted to carrying along all the weight of the engine, generator, fuel, etc. Hence the leapfrogging.
Yes it's true that correlation does not always equal causation, but causation does tend to result in correlation.
It does, but there are innumerable junk studies out there that do nothing but grab some handy statistics and pull bullshit conclusions out of the air. The news media is only too happy to uncritically report on them as well, exposing an unsuspecting public to ridiculously conclusions that may harm rather than help them. Skepticism is fully warranted.
I would go so far as to suggest a change of labeling, so such "studies" won't be so easily confused with actual controlled experiments, and phenomenon that are have known causal relationships that are well understood...
No, I don't believe drinking a glass of red wine every day is going to add 20 years to your life.
First, there are numerous corporate sponsors, which are counted separately from individual donations, and make up a significant portion of PBS' funding. Hence the 5 minutes of near-commercials at the start of every show.
Secondly, PBS makes a substantial amount of money from merchandise. Remember "Tickle Me Elmo"? DVD/VHS sales advertised at the end of every show?
And finally, how do you know what those figures are supposed to mean? Did they specifically say that's for PBS, or are they just talking about relative amounts of funding of that local station? After all, there are no "PBS" pledge drives, they're all station-specific (WQED/KCET/KPBS/etc.).
Last I checked (a handful of years ago), Government money made up a minority (substantial though it may be) of PBS funding. Perhaps you have more recent figures handy?
Certainly, they'd have a harder time without it, but I don't believe they'd cease to operate at all. Some consolidation of redundant PBS stations in an area might even be a good thing.
And 40 million Americans have no healthcare, so what.
HeathINSURANCE is NOT interchangeable with healthcare. Healthcare is easily accessible to anyone in the US, though they'll have to pay for it.
And everyone in the US is entitled to life-saving medical care, even if they don't have ANY money to pay for it. It's only non-urgent medical needs that a significant number of Americans will find difficult to pay for if they end up requiring it.
Of course the system should be fixed, but it's not remotely as bleak of a picture as you paint. It's most certainly not comparable with a 3rd world country.
India is not / no longer part of the third world. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Yes, it undoubtedly is. You may have had too much of that "coffee" there.
It is Asia that is going to rule the world this century.
I see no evidence for that, and I'm willing to bet I know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do.
China and India are both in a race into space, both large players in the world economy (outsourcing of technical staff to india, industry to China).
A space race that is more than 50 years behind their western counterparts... They can have a steam locomotive race if they want to, but that's not going to give them one-up on anybody. Meanwhile, the US is gradually ramping up to send manned spacecraft to Mars...
Economically, China has done a very good job at keeping wages low, and using their cheap labor to produce cheap junk. That doesn't necessarily translate in being able to transition to high quality, high priced, high tech, products. They've issued huge subsidies to get things going, but their economy tends to fall flat when the government money gets pulled out.
Don't bother mentioning Japan... The fact that they've done well is certainly NOT an indication that just any other country can follow in their footsteps. I can list dozens of OTHER Asian countries that have been producing cheap junk for the west for decades, and haven't been able to make the jump to high tech.
Besides, India and China have 1 billion+ innhabitants each so a third of the world population is living there..
Population has NEVER been an indicator of economic success.
The whole world should turn their economy towards renewable energy and towards Asia instead of Oil and America.
Renewable energy, and Asia are both buzz-words, not very firmly based in fact.
With renewables, only solar power has real potential. Wind, biodiesel/ethanol, and the like are obvious dead-ends which only make a bit of money with heavy subsidies and short-term economic situations. Solar power is likely to dominate in the next century, but it's an open questions whether subsidizing such technology will prove to substantially hasten developments. ie. When fuel prices rise, solar power is a natural alternative, driven by natural market forces. Forcing the roll-out while uneconomical may cost more than the benefits it provides.
And it's interesting that you're endorsing Asia & renewables in the same breath, since the two seem to be the antithesis of one another. Besides, you could have said the same things at any time, for the entirety of the past half century... But the US and fossil fuels are still here, in force.
As european i don't understand where the american arrogance (and ignorance) comes from.. No flamebait intended
First of all, you're just assuming those who disagree with you are arrogant and ignorant... while it's just as possible that YOU are the one who is ignorant.
Secondly, I sincerely doubt a substantial number of people in the US have any sense of self-superiority at all... There's plenty of fear of the growing dominance of China by average Americans, and a general ignorance of the place of America on the world stage. It's hard for people to be arrogant when they are mostly ignorant to the fact they are even part of the top world power.
However, if you'd like some objective reasons for potential continued US economic dominance, that's fairly easy (though, of course, subjective).
Only Airbus has been able to provide any competition at all to US aerospace, and it's not been a great competitor at that... For aerospace and industrial turbines, GE, Pratt-Whitney, and others continue to heavily out-compete their (very few) competitors around the globe. Heavy industry and construction equipment continues
What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient?
If you drive a car, US cities are very convenient.
And if you want to extol the virtues of walking (or biking) over driving, I suggest you take a close look at weather patterns in the US.
Not to mention the flexibility being able to drive gives you.
pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream
How many choices do you have for shopping within walking distance, and how long does it take you to walk there? I bet cars have you beat on speed and choice.
Besides, the crux of your point seems to be that driving is some painful, miserable activity that people tolerate... which is really the exact opposite of reality, except in the case of cities with heavy traffic congestion mainly during rush hour. In lesser densely populated areas, driving in an extremely fast and convenient way to get where you want to go, and offers a level of freedom that is difficult to describe to anyone who has never experienced it themselves. Someone who drives might have similarly negative opinions about being forced to walk a couple miles to get somewhere, rather than being able to drive there.
And finally, there's no denying the economics of it. Even with heavily government subsidized public transportation in the US, it's still almost always cheaper to drive yourself... The exception being distances well over 200 miles (~350km), at which point the limited schedules may become a problem. With substantially larger distances, commercial passenger jets quickly become cheaper, while being much faster, safer, and more frequently scheduled, hence the term "commuter flight".
And this is coming from someone who is actually a proponent for improved passenger rail service in the US. For those intermediate distances, it's a very good option. If operating costs could be reduced significantly, it might be able to compete with passenger jets for somewhat longer trips as well.
The population density of the US is more than a quarter of that of the EU; that means that the distance between hubs is on average only doubled
Lower population density doesn't mean that you can stop less frequently... The population is much more uniformly distributed, meaning you'd need a much larger transit system to get everyone to the "hub" in the first place. At which point, you can just connect the individual "spokes" and eliminate the hub all together.
That kind of system would actually describe the MetroLink rail system in Los Angeles quite well. Of course, it has the familiar disadvantages of innumerable stops, making getting to your destination slower than driving directly there. Never mind having to sit around waiting for the next scheduled train to arrive, which isn't an issue with a car.
Of course, what's really going on is that America just doesn't do infrastructure, because the country is hung up on a psychological model of 'winning' against the 'competition' by holding back your neighbours.
That's just not true at all. The US spends tons of money on roads, which is highly prized infrastructure, used by both rich and poor alike.
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't... though they did have the F00F bug (note the zeros, not Os).
I know that quite well. You, however, seem to be unaware that I was merely responding to the (vague and completely hypothetical) question offered by the parent...
Of course, the F00F bug is both well known and consistent, so it is quite "reliable" and can probably be worked around without much difficulty. Of course, again, this is hypothetical, and presumes someone would want to upgrade...
If the system was ridiculously expensive, and extremely hard to replace...
I imagine I'd pop over to eBay to buy a 83 MHz Pentium Overdrive CPU (circa 1996) to toss in the system, and if possible, add some higher capacity sticks of RAM for good measure.
What? You mean you've never had to deal with ridiculously old legacy systems still being pushed and extended decades later?
That's really not the case. Being so close to the earth, Hubble can broadcast with tiny amounts of power (far less than to run a CPU) and NASA's gigantic 65 meter dishes can pick up the faint signal very easily. Radio power consumption becomes a notable issue only with substantial distances from the earth, as it has with Voyager I/II.
Bandwidth is certainly not scarce for such applications, this is very low power, highly directional, line-of-sight communications...
Which "part" of the "troubles" and according to who?
Only the Popular Mechanics article even SUGGESTS that age and technological obsolescence might (maybe-sorta-kinda slightly) contribute: "But perhaps finding a few problems should come as no surprise--not only have Hubble's backup systems sat idle for 18 years, but the telescope operates with computer systems long outdated here on Earth."
But even despite the high marks on the BS detector, it concludes with an unmistakable quote from an expert: "Hendrix says that the telescope's computer systems do exactly what they need to do. 'It's really reliable,' she said. 'There really is no need to upgrade it.'"
No it isn't. You're just ignorant (of history), irrational and overreacting.
Countries aren't businesses... They survive even deep debt. I suggest you take a good long look at the Great Depression, or any other major recession. Things have been much, much worse.
And post WWII, no recession has lasted more than 2 years... It's certainly possible that this is going to be somewhat worse, but this isn't the end of the world. Everyone is just obsessed with their short-term stock portfolio and doesn't know what to do.
The separation of power still works. It's simply very slow and takes time. Again, it's been worse in the past, people just assume it was justified back then, while it isn't anymore.
As opposed to Vietnam, WWI, The Mexican-American War, The Spanish-American War, The War of 1812, etc.? As opposed to almost every UN peacekeeping operation? It shouldn't have happened, but neither should, eg. Vietnam. On the plus side, there was a big enough public outcry then that the US didn't fight in a major war for a couple decades after. Keep your fingers crossed...
Not really. Polls showed Kerry was behind, and Gore more or less lost on the margin of error... It sucks, but if you aren't viable enough to get a decent majority of support, a statistical coin-toss is as good a tie-breaker as any. It was unsightly, but it did the job, even if you disliked the outcome.
Elections have REALLY been stolen in the past. Try the Compromise of 1877.
No, he isn't. 13 points ahead in polls is a substantial margin. All signs point to a landslide. And it's only fair to point out that McCain has been relatively centrist for the past several decades of his public service career, and really only plays a right wing hack on TV to pump up his base. Again, the system is ugly, but the situation isn't what you paint it as. Until McCain picked Palin, it was looking like, for the first time in a decade, we'll have an election guaranteed to put an "adult" in the White House. Now, if McCain has a heart attack on Nov 8th, we're once again screwed for the next 4 years.
I agree. Get out now! I'm just going to stay behind for a little while to make sure someone turns the light off, honest.
And where shall we go? Jump across the not-quite-as-bad-but-getting-there frozen border? Even-further right-wing abandoned desert continent? Fascist nanny-state island? Drugs and whores are cheap, but you'll never get a job and still wouldn't possibly be able to afford a tiny condo mini-country? The standby "We eat dog meat so you can live like a king on $5,000USD a year" countries?
Politically, economically, they're ALL headed the same direction as the US, they might just be a bit slower in getting there... Economically, they've been doing reasonably well lately in large part because of a hemorrhage of US cash in trade, but are sure getting dragged down now. Legally, militarily, they're all beholden to the US; name one western country that doesn't have a one-way extradition treaty with the US.
It's pretty much East, West, or "good luck". If it's East, you're beholden to Russia and/or China. If it's West you're (somewhat less-) beholden to
No. I already explained several of the (many) reasons it CAN NOT be called such. Go look up the definition of the phenomenon yourself.
Neither firemen nor visitors are going to have any way of knowing that you have made potentially dangerous modifications to your home. Both have a reasonable assumption of safety when they enter an occupied structure.
I'm not aware of any place in North America that is free of all such natural disasters. Very likely you're either very naive, or lying to support your point.
I've spent plenty of time in farming country. There are certainly significant distances between homes, but never anywhere close to 2+ miles. I suspect you're just making things up to suit you.
No. Read the definition again. It has nothing to do with how open minded you may be.
You obviously didn't know the definition, and have just demonstrated that you still do not.
Sure. You have not listed one example of "children being indoctrinated". Popular myth about Thanksgiving and Pilgrims is reasonably close to the facts of the matter, least biased, and one of just a few places in popular US history that Native Americans are even treated reasonably close to equals, or at the very least, "good guys."
I certainly don't recall any "Columbus Was a Nice Guy" school plays, so your rant is completely pointless. Even if there are, somewhere, a few years later on, children will receive a more complete education on the subject, which would largely defeat any earlier attempts at indoctrination.
All of this also has next to no relevance in the world today, with Columbus long dead, Spain being of no particular relevance in this hemisphere, Pilgrims being long dead, and Natives nearly extinct or otherwise fully integrated with western society.
No, it isn't. The scenario you have offered does not remotely describe a tyranny of the majority situation. Not every situation in which the law isn't to your liking (in a democracy) is a case of tyranny... What's more, if, as you insist, the situation couldn't POSSIBLY affect anyone other than yourself, then it also of course can't possibly be tyranny of the majority.
And I should point out that there are corollaries to the tyranny of the majority that apply as well. If the laws were revoked to suit you, to the detriment of the majority (because they would have less guarantee their homes are safe), that could actually be tyranny of the minority...
That would be fine, if you never have any visitors, and you'll be perfectly fine with fire fighters standing outside your home, refusing to enter and rescue you (or anyone else inside) as it burns down.
Not to mention that "miles" isn't far in the event of flooding, hurricanes, etc. And I sincerely your nearest neighbor is in fact miles away. There are precious few (reasonably habitable) areas in the world where that is even possible these days.
Not at all. The fact that the populace makes up the government is QUITE relevant. It is a huge difference from "the time of the settlers". You have infinitely more control today than English subjects did. Never mind that we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee all the relevant fundamental freedoms, and the fact that the punishment for failing to follow building codes is a minor fine, not garroting and being burned at the stake.
Yes. Yes you are. I just pointed out numerous serious factual errors in your comment about the Pilgrims, for which (non-existant) transgressions you were vilifying them.
ig'no'rant [ig-ner-uhnt]
-adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
This time around, you seem to be confusing "ignorant" with "naive". Skepticism and cynicism isn't a cure for ignorance.
Great, let's see which one a massive asteroid crashes into first. That should finally settle the debate!
This is a democracy. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
So, YOU have decided it is in YOUR best interest that YOU have to seek expert advice before making potentially dangerous changes to YOUR home.
The reason for this should be obvious... in the event of disaster, the safety of your home has a serious impact on others, so the modest restriction of professional inspection has been deemed necessary and reasonable.
Last I checked, there was a (yet another) European war looming, and the prospect of Holland getting involved seemed likely, required them to fight, which they did not agree with.
And Holland wasn't exactly a religious paradise. It was growing less and less tolerant at the time. Xenophobia was increasing, and foreigners often weren't able to take on just about any job, requiring many of them to survive on their savings.
And pressure was being put by the King of England, regarding "his" ex-pat subjects... National borders weren't quite as sovereign as they are today. And while they were allowed to operate under the radar, the prospect of a growing congregation made seemed likely to result in the group's expulsion.
No, they didn't. Though their offspring eventually did...
By the standards of the day, the Pilgrims were much less fascist than those they were escaping.
They cooperated with the local tribes, in general. the Pilgrims and the Natives shared their knowledge and resources, and there most certainly was a Thanksgiving feast that lasted for about 3 days, though decidedly far less idealized than it is imagined now (thanks to oversimplification of 30 minute school plays, not any form of propaganda).
They did fight with some neighboring tribes, and killed many, no doubt, but not just because they could. They did so when some of their own people were killed or resources were stolen, but it should be pointed out that they did so in alliance with their local (friendly) tribe. As part of their alliance with their local native tribe, they also risked their lives fighting in tribal wars that they had no stake in.
In reality, they simply didn't have the option of doing anything you're accusing them of. They could barely keep a hundred of their own people alive, let alone working, so executing a few healthy individuals for religious failings would have been suicidal. They were heavily outnumbered by natives, and greatly needed the support and trade of some the local natives, so genocide would also have been suicidal, not to mention extremely beyond their means...
I get the feeling you're confusing the Pilgrims with the Spanish Conquistadors. Completely different area, completely different agenda, completely different capabilities. Completely different history.
But, hey, you're righteously indignant over SOMETHING, so you get modded up for your ignorance.
With such a mindset, there's no reason to go there in the first place... End of story. There, I just saved you BILLIONS of dollars.
There is no way they could supply ALL their needs, but it is quite likely they will be able to supply the overwhelming majority of them, with minimal effort, making resupply missions likely less frequent than current Mars rover missions.
And even if they could be fully self-sufficient, they're going to be getting rockets from Earth fairly regularly, with scientific payloads. That's why they're there, after all.
Nutrition needs should be taken care of by using their own waste to fertilize crops. And nutritional supplements for human consumption or plant fertilization are very, very small... It would be easy to send up a lifetime supply of vitamins/minerals in one trip, and allow them to survive on whatever bulk calories they can get to grow up there. Once nutrition is out of the way, you can actually eat your shoes, cardboard boxes, etc. and survive indefinitely.
Drugs will likely be unnecessary. A decent cross-section of plants and you can address most ailments. Things found on Earth, like viruses, allergens, and infectious bacteria are highly unlikely to make it to Mars, and if so, they'll die out in short order, anyhow, eliminating the causes necessitating most medications.
Yet they won't quickly get bored of the I.S.S.,NASA, or the space program as a whole? Yes, this will require a long-term commitment, but so would an expensive, useless, short round-trip.
I think you need to study your world history much, much more. Life for the early American colonist was absolutely horrific. Particularly Jamestown, where I recall a substantial majority of all the colonists DYING shortly after arrival due to disease. The survivors faced war and death from hostile natives, and came very, very close to starving to death, year after year.
Compared to that, being well fed and safe, locked in a basement without windows, but with a TV, stereo, and computer, with laggy internet access, unlimited music, e-Books, TV shows, movies, etc. doesn't sound so bad.
There ARE a huge number of people out there that would be more than willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Don't start saying others shouldn't do it because YOU wouldn't happen to want to go along.
You don't NEED water from Mars... Human water consumption is pretty well a closed-loop. You just need the capability to filter urine back to standard water quality levels.
IMHO, the only question about Mars is whether we can get a substantial number of crops to grow there. Given enough diversity, it seems likely enough that at least a few will, but I'd still insist on an unmanned mission to send a greenhouse with seeds and soil, before any humans.
Don't loose your crops... They won't ever come back home.
You should note that Crusoe and Hanks in Castaway were average people, with no preparations. If some survivalist from the wilderness of Montana had been stranded on an Island, they'd have a very easy time of it.
And that's what we're talking about, after all. You can bet astronauts will be fully trained for survival before they are sent. And they'll also have a full array of tools, endless sources of information, and an assortment of individuals with different skills (including a couple trained doctors, I'm sure).
See above. Any idiot can take care of a bad tooth (the hard way) in a survival situation. And that's sure not to be necessary since they'll no doubt have a couple medical pros, with anesthesia, and the full assortment of dental and medical tools.
The only medical conditions I would worry about are those which have a rather low life expectancy even here on Earth (where there are endless professional), such as cancer, tuberculosis, etc., due to lack of large equipment like MRIs, and numerous specialist. Even there, though, the odds aren't too bad, since NASA will surely get the Earth-bound experts on the phone, talking with the doctors (GPs) on Mars, looking at photos, and basically remotely doing their thing.
However, the odds of those diseases on Earth are pretty rare, and will be much less likely still on Mars, due to extensive screening of astronauts for early indicators of susceptibility to such diseases.
I think you picked the wrong "old guy" to support. Greenspan has shown nothing but utter incompetence over the years (and I've been saying this since back in ~2000, BTW). So "old" certainly hasn't helped him, and he hasn't helped us any.
Bull. The majority of those executives who made the horrible decisions were riding high on ridiculously, fraudulently inflated stock prices, and got their huge bonuses and golden parachutes, leaving before the crash.
No. This is the "garbage-in" part. You may not have any income, but if you or your lender lie on the documents saying you've got a full-time job and extra income on the side, the computer model can't do a thing about it.
They never have full coverage. So, they're still restricted to carrying along all the weight of the engine, generator, fuel, etc. Hence the leapfrogging.
It does, but there are innumerable junk studies out there that do nothing but grab some handy statistics and pull bullshit conclusions out of the air. The news media is only too happy to uncritically report on them as well, exposing an unsuspecting public to ridiculously conclusions that may harm rather than help them. Skepticism is fully warranted.
I would go so far as to suggest a change of labeling, so such "studies" won't be so easily confused with actual controlled experiments, and phenomenon that are have known causal relationships that are well understood...
No, I don't believe drinking a glass of red wine every day is going to add 20 years to your life.
That's a TERRIBLE guess...
First, there are numerous corporate sponsors, which are counted separately from individual donations, and make up a significant portion of PBS' funding. Hence the 5 minutes of near-commercials at the start of every show.
Secondly, PBS makes a substantial amount of money from merchandise. Remember "Tickle Me Elmo"? DVD/VHS sales advertised at the end of every show?
And finally, how do you know what those figures are supposed to mean? Did they specifically say that's for PBS, or are they just talking about relative amounts of funding of that local station? After all, there are no "PBS" pledge drives, they're all station-specific (WQED/KCET/KPBS/etc.).
Last I checked (a handful of years ago), Government money made up a minority (substantial though it may be) of PBS funding. Perhaps you have more recent figures handy?
Certainly, they'd have a harder time without it, but I don't believe they'd cease to operate at all. Some consolidation of redundant PBS stations in an area might even be a good thing.
HeathINSURANCE is NOT interchangeable with healthcare. Healthcare is easily accessible to anyone in the US, though they'll have to pay for it.
And everyone in the US is entitled to life-saving medical care, even if they don't have ANY money to pay for it. It's only non-urgent medical needs that a significant number of Americans will find difficult to pay for if they end up requiring it.
Of course the system should be fixed, but it's not remotely as bleak of a picture as you paint. It's most certainly not comparable with a 3rd world country.
Yes, it undoubtedly is. You may have had too much of that "coffee" there.
I see no evidence for that, and I'm willing to bet I know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do.
A space race that is more than 50 years behind their western counterparts... They can have a steam locomotive race if they want to, but that's not going to give them one-up on anybody. Meanwhile, the US is gradually ramping up to send manned spacecraft to Mars...
Economically, China has done a very good job at keeping wages low, and using their cheap labor to produce cheap junk. That doesn't necessarily translate in being able to transition to high quality, high priced, high tech, products. They've issued huge subsidies to get things going, but their economy tends to fall flat when the government money gets pulled out.
Don't bother mentioning Japan... The fact that they've done well is certainly NOT an indication that just any other country can follow in their footsteps. I can list dozens of OTHER Asian countries that have been producing cheap junk for the west for decades, and haven't been able to make the jump to high tech.
Population has NEVER been an indicator of economic success.
Renewable energy, and Asia are both buzz-words, not very firmly based in fact.
With renewables, only solar power has real potential. Wind, biodiesel/ethanol, and the like are obvious dead-ends which only make a bit of money with heavy subsidies and short-term economic situations. Solar power is likely to dominate in the next century, but it's an open questions whether subsidizing such technology will prove to substantially hasten developments. ie. When fuel prices rise, solar power is a natural alternative, driven by natural market forces. Forcing the roll-out while uneconomical may cost more than the benefits it provides.
And it's interesting that you're endorsing Asia & renewables in the same breath, since the two seem to be the antithesis of one another. Besides, you could have said the same things at any time, for the entirety of the past half century... But the US and fossil fuels are still here, in force.
First of all, you're just assuming those who disagree with you are arrogant and ignorant... while it's just as possible that YOU are the one who is ignorant.
Secondly, I sincerely doubt a substantial number of people in the US have any sense of self-superiority at all... There's plenty of fear of the growing dominance of China by average Americans, and a general ignorance of the place of America on the world stage. It's hard for people to be arrogant when they are mostly ignorant to the fact they are even part of the top world power.
However, if you'd like some objective reasons for potential continued US economic dominance, that's fairly easy (though, of course, subjective).
Only Airbus has been able to provide any competition at all to US aerospace, and it's not been a great competitor at that...
For aerospace and industrial turbines, GE, Pratt-Whitney, and others continue to heavily out-compete their (very few) competitors around the globe.
Heavy industry and construction equipment continues
If you drive a car, US cities are very convenient.
And if you want to extol the virtues of walking (or biking) over driving, I suggest you take a close look at weather patterns in the US.
Not to mention the flexibility being able to drive gives you.
How many choices do you have for shopping within walking distance, and how long does it take you to walk there? I bet cars have you beat on speed and choice.
Besides, the crux of your point seems to be that driving is some painful, miserable activity that people tolerate... which is really the exact opposite of reality, except in the case of cities with heavy traffic congestion mainly during rush hour. In lesser densely populated areas, driving in an extremely fast and convenient way to get where you want to go, and offers a level of freedom that is difficult to describe to anyone who has never experienced it themselves. Someone who drives might have similarly negative opinions about being forced to walk a couple miles to get somewhere, rather than being able to drive there.
And finally, there's no denying the economics of it. Even with heavily government subsidized public transportation in the US, it's still almost always cheaper to drive yourself... The exception being distances well over 200 miles (~350km), at which point the limited schedules may become a problem. With substantially larger distances, commercial passenger jets quickly become cheaper, while being much faster, safer, and more frequently scheduled, hence the term "commuter flight".
And this is coming from someone who is actually a proponent for improved passenger rail service in the US. For those intermediate distances, it's a very good option. If operating costs could be reduced significantly, it might be able to compete with passenger jets for somewhat longer trips as well.
Lower population density doesn't mean that you can stop less frequently... The population is much more uniformly distributed, meaning you'd need a much larger transit system to get everyone to the "hub" in the first place. At which point, you can just connect the individual "spokes" and eliminate the hub all together.
That kind of system would actually describe the MetroLink rail system in Los Angeles quite well. Of course, it has the familiar disadvantages of innumerable stops, making getting to your destination slower than driving directly there. Never mind having to sit around waiting for the next scheduled train to arrive, which isn't an issue with a car.
That's just not true at all. The US spends tons of money on roads, which is highly prized infrastructure, used by both rich and poor alike.