Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him. The guy is not a dumb ass people. He may say things you don't agree with. He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television. However, he is not stupid. You don't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile, drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully, with your own agenda in mind. Glenn Beck is a public player. He wheels and deals in attention. He garners attention from critics. He garners attention from cheerleaders. He garners attention from other pundits, political figures, and, yes, even you and your coworkers. That is what he does and he is very good at it.
So right now, after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself (?in)famous, he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction. So he did what any good actor would do. He acted. He sniggered and, probably, would high five the owners of the original website in the end. He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted. He made it so his critics would say, "There, look, see, he can't take it either!"
He made it so his cheerleaders would say, "There, see, the other side hates our beloved hero and won't do him justice!"
And now, the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms, now it is circulating around the world. Now people on every continent will be able to say, "Glenn Beck...haven't I heard of him before?"
Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become. Congratulations slashdot, you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil. Personally, the whole thing, including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it (mine included) is fucking disgusting.
Exercising next to all the ripped guys by the mirrors is intimidating for us guys as well.
Interesting problem...I hate going to the gym for various reasons...cost, douchey, ripped guys without their shirts on, worrying about whether or not my deoderant is holding up, proper etiquette regarding how long to use equipment etc....so, I don't go.
What's my solution? I work out at home. A few sets of pushups every day, a few sets of sit-ups/crunches every day, about 10 pull-ups every day (I installed a bar from Home Depot for ~$20, a 3-4 mile jog every other day. I am in the best shape of my life. I am starting to look like one of those guys from Ninja Warrior (no really, jog that much and your quadriceps look like they were chiseled from fucking steel. I have a great heart rate and blood pressure. It works. There really is no need to drop $50 on a gym membership, you can build muscle and work out cheap and easy in the privacy of your own home, it just takes a little discipline.
On a somewhat offtopic note, I started curling gallons of milk since I don't have a weight set and the extra muscle mass in my wrist is really helping to ease the wrist fatigue/pain from sitting at a computer all day in the office.
I am not trying to brag, just saying, gyms are overrated. Your own body mass is the only equipment you need to perform a full and complete workout.
Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?
I blame generations of Disney movie indoctrination. One good white knight in shining armor against one bad black mustachioed fella or demonic witch lady, no compromise, no shades of grey, no Yoda...
The secondary benefit of this explanation is my feelings of vindication at the bitch Ariel for not returning my incessant phone calls...
When the CfC thing was getting pushed big time, my roomate teamed up with his dad to clean, restore, and retro fit the old 4 banger Mitsubishi engine in a beat to crap old pickup truck that had been sitting in a yard for 5 years. They rebuilt the suspension, scavenged a new bed and seats from a junkyard, and even jury rigged a catalytic converter on the old piece of crap. Six months later, my roomate has what is essentially a new truck (all of the internals) with a dinged old body and some scratches. It gets better mileage than his Toyota did (which was a '94, the restored Datsun is a '79) and, after running some smog tests, apparently has cleaner emissions. The whole process cost him about $2,000 and 6 months worth of work. Even more valuable than the money he saved (instead of going through the CfC program and buying a new truck/car) was the experience he earned rebuilding an entire vehicle. Him and I go around helping all of our friends work on all of their vehicles now and I am learning a lot as well. It seems to me that recycling an old clunker was quite a bit more productive than just buying a new car (best part, the money he saved he is using to put himself through college...partially).
The only reason I bring this up is because I don't see this local-level kind of gumption too much anymore. I wonder how much of an impact on the United States healthcare fiasco it would have if more people started taking the time to learn some field first aid and basic hygiene/disease prevention and treatment. Better yet, I wonder if it would have much of an impact if regular run of the mill folks started taking some CPR classes and other such things. I know that it wouldn't be the end all be all of healthcare...in the end no amount of local-level gumption is going to provide long term cancer treatments. Still, it would be nice to see Americans actually working towards solving national level problems in their own communities as well....just a thought....
It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible.
Actually, part of it is my money. I am an employed, independent citizen of the United States. I file my taxes every year. I certainly do contribute money to the federal budget every year. My own accounting of my own finances shows me that. That accounting is reviewed by the IRS. So, yes, my money does go towards the federal budget. As such, I am entitled (not because I am part of an 'entitlement generation', but because I am a contributing member of society) to my opinion on how that money should/could be spent. Also, as a citizen of the United States of America, I have a right to express that opinion in any form I see fit so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others (see First Amendment). This means that, if I so choose, I can express my opinions via comments on the internet that include resources for readers to go investigate themselves. I could also choose to express my opinion through other means such as voting, discussing ideas with my federal and state representatives, writing letters to people I consider influential and so on and so on. In fact, I exercise this right in many forms other than just posting on the internet. This is something I am entitled to as an educated, competent, contributing member of society.
So yes, you can mock me if you like:
Blah blah blah, We get it. You want to drive your neighbor's yoke instead of the brown fellah in the big house the swamp.
...because you, too, are entitled to the right to express yourself in various mediums. You can also overlook significant portions of my post, as well as my other responses, which discuss my advocacy of not only diverting funds, but also cutting spending in general. This would allow you to say things, in a naive manner, such as:
But the proper thing to do, if you find you can spend less on defense contractors, is to take the savings and *not* find something else to spend it on. It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible
Since you seem to remain blissfully ignorant (by choice or by coincident, I don't know) of the content of my post which included advocacy for rethinking the way our country does things in many realms, through many avenues (cut spending, divert remaining funds appropriately, consider the threat that lobby groups represent to the interest of the people, re-prioritize our nation's agenda, etc.).
In fact, you are even entitled to the right to express, via your opinion pieces, that you are an authority in the industry that is being discussed (an industry that I, too, work in) and, therefore, your comments should be given some clout because, well, you just know better. In fact, this liberates you from the burden of actually providing any third party reference material or further reading for readers of your comments which is convenient for you. This, of course, is not a problem as your comment contains little meaningful content that could, in anyway, be substantiated by third party contributions or research. That is also convenient.
That's all fine. I have no problem with you expressing these things in the manner you have chosen to do so. I do hope, however, that you are also fine with the fact that neither I, nor many other people on here, are going to take your post to be anything more than some opinionated drivel which mostly equates to you whining the mantra, "They took our money!" (a close cousin to the related mantra of, "Dey took our jorbs!"). Actually, I hope that you are so fine with these things that you understand why this will be the last response I post in this thread because, well, I have other interests that I feel would be more productive than encouraging the lovely cruft spouted from your fingertips in your last post by inviting even more drivel in another post.
A terrorist is going to be a LOT more afraid of getting on that plane and detonating a bomb on it,
And there is the fallacious assumption of your entire argument. You assume that there even are people trying to get on planes with bombs these days. Further more, you assume that there are enough of those people, in comparison to innocent travelers, to pose a significant risk. Honestly, how many airplane hijackings/terrorist acts have you heard of since 9/11? Any 'terrorist' (or activist or freedom fighter or whatever) that has any shred of intelligence whatsoever is not going to be trying to use airplanes for terror attacks after 9/11. It is unoriginal, and therefore risky. I would wager (no, its not fact, I know that) that the next significant report of terrorism (meaning X many people died) is going to come in some form of an attack that was completely unexpected and unaccounted for.
Beefing up airport security to extremely high levels (some security is necessary and should exist) is a very flashy attempt to close a barn door, lock it, nail-board it shut, and put a bomb shelter around it after the horse has already left.
Perhaps my original scenario presented was a little extremist, though that was not my intention. I am aware, at least somewhat, of the complicated international relationships that keep the U.S. in the position it is in today. I also understand that it is important to maintain our supremacy if we want to continue to be the big kid on the block with the hardest stick. While I did say that the U.S. should cut and divert funds from it's war machine, which is prone to the interpretation that I meant ALL funds, what I meant to say was that the funds should be cut to an extent. The level of spending on America's military that should, in my opinion, occur, should be a level that allows America to maintain whatever position of power it wants in the world, but does not require it to bloat its military to unnecessary levels. Projects like the ABL, the F-22, THAAD, and so on are hold overs from a period where we were preparing for WWIII. We can and should, in my opinion, cut military spending to 'reasonable' levels (yes I know this is subject to interpretation).
The bottom line is that our military spending is bloated even if we want to maintain the advantages we have over other countries. We should reduce said spending, not cut it entirely. That was what I originally meant to get across and I do realize that I was not particularly specific in that manner. Forgive my lack of particulars.
Also, before I get dinged for it, I do know that the ABL and F-22 programs have been cut, somewhat, but those cuts so far have just been a very minor chip off the iceberg...there are dozens of other bloated contracts to consider...
I'm am going to play the false dichotomy debuff card on your fallacy and add an alternative perspective to the game. From the way you presented your comment it sounded as if you were saying that we have the choice to either invest in useful cheaper science here on the ground, or invest in expensive fluff science up in space. I would assert that we can, and should do both. The federal government annual budget is not a simple pie that is divided into a few equally sized proportions. It is made up of thousands of expenditures on everything from federal employee wages to excessively expensive arms contracts to student grants for college assistance. If we cut spending on some of our more absurd money sinks that are not as valuable to science as say, alternative energy and space exploration, we could easily afford to fund useful science like alternative energy and space exploration simultaneously.
If you take an hour out of your day (really, you have plenty of time left in your life, you can survive 1 hour) to do some poking around over at USASpending.gov you will see figures pop up like the fact that the top five federal contractors this year were:
1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION... $29.748500571 Billion
2 THE BOEING COMPANY... $18.231538802 Billion
3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION... $12.318737574 Billion
4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION... $11.900713440 Billion
5 RAYTHEON COMPANY... $11.156782353 Billion
Now you may already know this, but if not, another hour of research won't kill you, but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers. They work on everything from appliances, to housing, to spacecraft. However, a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are, above all else, arms developers. And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new, powerful, absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War, which ended ~20 years ago. If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009, you see that, together, $88.356272740 Billion (with a B) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago. Now of course, neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be, but it does illustrate a point. While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general, the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now.
Suppose, for a second, that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas (terrorism, drugs, etc.) could, instead, be cut significantly and diverted instead to, as you put it, meaningful science pursuits. We could, quite easily, save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration (manned and unmanned) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc. Instead, however, we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt, greedy, selfish corporate interests. Thus, rather than funding valuable, civil science and tech, we have a government whose spending levels are out of control. A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best, and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos.
In short, our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you, and I, find valuable simultaneously
Since the two technologies are completely distinct from each other (i.e. the solution will come from different industries)
And therein lies the limiting assumption of your argument. Something as complicated and grandiose as a space elevator is going to be an extremely complex system of interdependency. Developing the system as a set of discrete parts that can be duct taped together in the end, while it probably will produce a solution, will more than likely produce an expensive, hacky, less robust and less elegant design than if the entire system is approached cohesively as one unit from the start. This is the fundamental approach taken to solving most missions in the space industry right now. Rather than saying, "We want to monitor this type of activity on this celestial body, so let's have someone build a camera, and have someone build some solar cells, and have someone build the bus, and then do our best to slap it altogether afterward," the space industry has matured and now says, "We have problem X, let's brainstorm some solutions with all of our subcontracting friends that build cameras, solar cells, and frames, and monitor/oversee the activites of each one to make sure that all components of the entire system utilize the strengths of other subsystems and account for the weaknesses of other subsystems." Thus, we are capable of delivering extremely complicated solutions (ISS) to extremely complicated problems (living in space) without having to constantly hack and rehack the whole damn system together (Mir).
Taking the fundamental assumption that there will be A) a climber and B) a cable, and that the two should be developed in parallel will allow a fork in the design path that leads to later interfacing issues. If the mission is approached on a unified front from the get go , "How can we use the climber, cable, and orbital anchor together to reduce overall system complexity and duplication," a more robust and elegant solution will fall out.
That being said, a space elevator is, indeed, decades if not centuries away. The fact that we are focusing research and development efforts on ANY part of it right now is extremely exciting and inspiring in my opinion. It just goes to show that there are still some mad-scientist badasses working for NASA pushing the envelope on crazy and acceptable. I am extremely elated to see NASA funding something other than an outdated jobs program. High five to whoever proposed and fought for this contest/challenge.
On a similar note, we should also be funding R&D contests for Launch Loop and Space Fountain designs....wikipedia them if you haven't heard of them, it's worth your time.
Another substantial change from the early days of the proj ect is that the licenses now would be with individual students rather than with colleges—although on some campuses, student governments or other groups may agree to pay the fee on behalf of students.
It's not a direct answer, but could be relevant. If the licensing scheme is with individual students now, I would bet that the students have to sign or agree to something in order to participate. Thus, if they don't want to participate, ideally they just could avoid that license agreement. But you are right, the article is scant on details regarding that particular aspect and it wouldn't surprise me if any opt-out option that was there got mired and intertwined with some other form of student registration contracts and agreements that make it very difficult/near impossible to opt out.
I know no one RTFA but you could at least make an exception for a story about parts of the recording industry attempting to update their business model (the mantra we have been chanting for how long now?)
No problem. Even after students stop paying the Choruss subscription fee, they will be able to keep all the songs they have downloaded. "They get to keep them the rest of their lives," as Mr. Griffin put it. That differs from some subscription music services, which allow access only while users are active members of the service.
What's to stop students from paying for one month and downloading the whole collection? "Nothing," said Mr. Griffin.
Other folks at other companies considering similar models even go on to say:
"We're not going to stop file sharing—it's probably going to happen in one form or another, and it's probably folly to try and stop it," said Charlie Moore, a Noank official who has traveled to campuses in the past few months to drum up interest. "If we're able to use consumption data to compensate the rights holders of a particular recording, then we think we've got a handle on a fair and equitable model for rights going forward."
That is a beautiful bit of reality right there and a much improved level of insight regarding the file sharing world by recording industry insiders. This may not be the best solution yet, I don't know, but at least these folks are trying to do something productive for both their business and their customer base (college students) rather than attempting to bankrupt the latter while clinging to an outdated version of the former. I find the attitude quite refreshing myself.
I realize your story was a bit tongue-in cheek and the ranks were listed for humor purposes, but someone might find it interesting that there currently are no 5 star generals currently active in the United States military as a 5th star requires service as a General during a time of war (a real fuck-em-all war, not the police actions we've been involved in perpetually since the 60's). Anyways, pedantic, but worth noting.
If you do, people stop giving loans, which is the most straightforward way of making money from money
Nonsense!, the mafia and other organized crime syndicates will always be there to meet your financial loan needs. Now, onto other matters of business...are you interested in a handheld "bunny" or perhaps a fully automatic "bunny?"...
I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor. I guess I was wrong.
Who, exactly, did you think was paying for that 'Obama' PR channel on the television networks all those months before the election. Who did you think paid the guy that came up with the 'Hope and Change' slogans? Who exactly paid for all those commercials flinging crap at Hilary, Mccain, and Palin during the primary and national election campaigns? You didn't think all that hype was free did you? You didn't honestly believe that those millions of dollars came from $20.00 contributions by every American that wanted change did you?
To quote my political science professor, it all stems from the golden rule:
I am going to throw up some anecdotal observations here (I know, not proof, but I hope you take them into consideration).
Let me first say that I am not a parent as I am only 23 and not ready to take on the responsibility yet. Let me further say that some of my close friends are parents and, while I have limited experience babysitting, most of my childcare experience has been in relation to children in the 1 year to 2 years range. However, I am fresh out of college and still have a pretty poignant memory of both college and high school. In the community where I grew up, there was a waldorf school that was known, perhaps unjustly so, as a 'hippy school' (I grew up in a small town in California near Yosemite, so the population was not terribly diverse nor open minded). The waldorf school was a k-8 school and, after 8th grade, all of the waldorf students integrated with the rest of the elementary school students into one common high school for the county. I made close friends with quite a few of the waldorf kids. In general, I noticed some trends in their thinking process in comparison to others.
Most of the waldorf kids were extremely compassionate and empathetic kids, which I highly respected. Most of them were multi-talented in the creative fields from music, to writing, to acting. Most of the waldorf kids grew up to pursue degrees in the creative fields and, these days, most of them work in those fields. In general, the waldorf education worked extremely well at preparing those students for a creative and art centered lifestyle, something I respect and value.
However, of those kids, very few of them were capable of achieving passing grades in any math class beyond high school trig. Few of them were terribly competent with computers beyond making an occasional word document and finding their favorite videos on youtube. Many of them reacted extremely biased whenever I brought a discussion of the basic laws of chemistry or physics onto the table. Few of them were able to understand computer programming at all (which was very surprising to me as it is very artistic in nature). In fact, to this day, not one of the waldorf kids that I knew in high school support the idea of America spending further money on the space program, development of high-speed internet access across the nation, or 'invasive' prosthetic/cybernetics research such as nervous system-microchip integration. In other words, they grew up to view technology and science as a means by which large corporations form faceless, apathetic, and dangerous products which will then be used to exploit the masses. Time and again when I reconnect with them and try to explain to them something interesting in the technological fields like the Big Bang theory and relevant astronomy or the open source movement and the importance of free information, I am met with an instant eye-glaze and a lack of interest. I am then told how horrible science can and usually is by my friends from waldorf and why we should go back to a nature-centric way of living the way we 'used to' (I still have no idea what time period they are referring to).
My point is that waldorf schools seem to be very skilled at soliciting the creative side of kids. That is great. However, I encourage you, as a parent, to actively foster an interest in technology and science in your children if you are going to subject them to a waldorf education because, so far as I have observed, waldorf education alone tends to produce a very myopic world view...just a different kind of myopic world view than those held by religious extremists and neo-conservative/patriots.
I am aware that this development was probably due to many factors, the waldorf education background of my friends being only one of them. However, I still feel compelled to encourage you, as the parent, to actively foster a love for science and technology along with creativity and appreciation for the arts. The two fields are not mutually exclusive and never should be viewed as such.
According to the Mission Status Log on Spaceflightnow.com there appeared to be some telemetry acquisition issues as late as t + 6:30 (min:sec) mission elapsed time. I am not sure how the launch vehicle was designed or what it's asset acquisition profile was supposed to look like, however, for Atlas V and Delta IV launches I know that acquisition and vehicle state data can start dumping to ground resources at least as early as t + 100 sec (with lag of course). Does anyone know if this test launch was designed with a full communications package on board, or whether or not the Ares acquisition profile is designed to fly this long without a telemetry dump to the ground? It seems very dubious to me and, if it is an error, it is a major one. Having a launch vehicle fail to establish a proper data connection with ground assets for ~5:00 + minutes could mean anything from an incorrect roll attitude to a power system failure to software state failure.
If the telemetry acquisition timing wasn't planned for or accounted for, I would say that the Ares team has some major debugging to do, which, of course, means some extra time and money =)
Yes I am a vocab Nazi, but the proper word is 'regardless.' "Irregardless" is redundant and not a proper word as it uses its prefix 'Ir-' to negate what is already negated by the root of the word, "-regardless." Let me guess, you also call ATM's, ATM machines, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him. The guy is not a dumb ass people. He may say things you don't agree with. He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television. However, he is not stupid. You don't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile, drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully, with your own agenda in mind. Glenn Beck is a public player. He wheels and deals in attention. He garners attention from critics. He garners attention from cheerleaders. He garners attention from other pundits, political figures, and, yes, even you and your coworkers. That is what he does and he is very good at it.
So right now, after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself (?in)famous, he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction. So he did what any good actor would do. He acted. He sniggered and, probably, would high five the owners of the original website in the end. He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted. He made it so his critics would say, "There, look, see, he can't take it either!"
He made it so his cheerleaders would say, "There, see, the other side hates our beloved hero and won't do him justice!"
And now, the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms, now it is circulating around the world. Now people on every continent will be able to say, "Glenn Beck...haven't I heard of him before?"
Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become. Congratulations slashdot, you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil. Personally, the whole thing, including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it (mine included) is fucking disgusting.
Exercising next to all the ripped guys by the mirrors is intimidating for us guys as well.
Interesting problem...I hate going to the gym for various reasons...cost, douchey, ripped guys without their shirts on, worrying about whether or not my deoderant is holding up, proper etiquette regarding how long to use equipment etc....so, I don't go.
What's my solution? I work out at home. A few sets of pushups every day, a few sets of sit-ups/crunches every day, about 10 pull-ups every day (I installed a bar from Home Depot for ~$20, a 3-4 mile jog every other day. I am in the best shape of my life. I am starting to look like one of those guys from Ninja Warrior (no really, jog that much and your quadriceps look like they were chiseled from fucking steel. I have a great heart rate and blood pressure. It works. There really is no need to drop $50 on a gym membership, you can build muscle and work out cheap and easy in the privacy of your own home, it just takes a little discipline.
On a somewhat offtopic note, I started curling gallons of milk since I don't have a weight set and the extra muscle mass in my wrist is really helping to ease the wrist fatigue/pain from sitting at a computer all day in the office.
I am not trying to brag, just saying, gyms are overrated. Your own body mass is the only equipment you need to perform a full and complete workout.
Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?
I thought that's what Chuck Norris was for....
I don't know why that is...
I blame generations of Disney movie indoctrination. One good white knight in shining armor against one bad black mustachioed fella or demonic witch lady, no compromise, no shades of grey, no Yoda...
The secondary benefit of this explanation is my feelings of vindication at the bitch Ariel for not returning my incessant phone calls...
When the CfC thing was getting pushed big time, my roomate teamed up with his dad to clean, restore, and retro fit the old 4 banger Mitsubishi engine in a beat to crap old pickup truck that had been sitting in a yard for 5 years. They rebuilt the suspension, scavenged a new bed and seats from a junkyard, and even jury rigged a catalytic converter on the old piece of crap. Six months later, my roomate has what is essentially a new truck (all of the internals) with a dinged old body and some scratches. It gets better mileage than his Toyota did (which was a '94, the restored Datsun is a '79) and, after running some smog tests, apparently has cleaner emissions. The whole process cost him about $2,000 and 6 months worth of work. Even more valuable than the money he saved (instead of going through the CfC program and buying a new truck/car) was the experience he earned rebuilding an entire vehicle. Him and I go around helping all of our friends work on all of their vehicles now and I am learning a lot as well. It seems to me that recycling an old clunker was quite a bit more productive than just buying a new car (best part, the money he saved he is using to put himself through college...partially).
The only reason I bring this up is because I don't see this local-level kind of gumption too much anymore. I wonder how much of an impact on the United States healthcare fiasco it would have if more people started taking the time to learn some field first aid and basic hygiene/disease prevention and treatment. Better yet, I wonder if it would have much of an impact if regular run of the mill folks started taking some CPR classes and other such things. I know that it wouldn't be the end all be all of healthcare...in the end no amount of local-level gumption is going to provide long term cancer treatments. Still, it would be nice to see Americans actually working towards solving national level problems in their own communities as well....just a thought....
One guy dropped it in the shower and it all went downhill from there....
It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible.
Actually, part of it is my money. I am an employed, independent citizen of the United States. I file my taxes every year. I certainly do contribute money to the federal budget every year. My own accounting of my own finances shows me that. That accounting is reviewed by the IRS. So, yes, my money does go towards the federal budget. As such, I am entitled (not because I am part of an 'entitlement generation', but because I am a contributing member of society) to my opinion on how that money should/could be spent. Also, as a citizen of the United States of America, I have a right to express that opinion in any form I see fit so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others (see First Amendment). This means that, if I so choose, I can express my opinions via comments on the internet that include resources for readers to go investigate themselves. I could also choose to express my opinion through other means such as voting, discussing ideas with my federal and state representatives, writing letters to people I consider influential and so on and so on. In fact, I exercise this right in many forms other than just posting on the internet. This is something I am entitled to as an educated, competent, contributing member of society.
So yes, you can mock me if you like:
Blah blah blah, We get it. You want to drive your neighbor's yoke instead of the brown fellah in the big house the swamp.
But the proper thing to do, if you find you can spend less on defense contractors, is to take the savings and *not* find something else to spend it on. It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible
Since you seem to remain blissfully ignorant (by choice or by coincident, I don't know) of the content of my post which included advocacy for rethinking the way our country does things in many realms, through many avenues (cut spending, divert remaining funds appropriately, consider the threat that lobby groups represent to the interest of the people, re-prioritize our nation's agenda, etc.).
In fact, you are even entitled to the right to express, via your opinion pieces, that you are an authority in the industry that is being discussed (an industry that I, too, work in) and, therefore, your comments should be given some clout because, well, you just know better. In fact, this liberates you from the burden of actually providing any third party reference material or further reading for readers of your comments which is convenient for you. This, of course, is not a problem as your comment contains little meaningful content that could, in anyway, be substantiated by third party contributions or research. That is also convenient.
That's all fine. I have no problem with you expressing these things in the manner you have chosen to do so. I do hope, however, that you are also fine with the fact that neither I, nor many other people on here, are going to take your post to be anything more than some opinionated drivel which mostly equates to you whining the mantra, "They took our money!" (a close cousin to the related mantra of, "Dey took our jorbs!"). Actually, I hope that you are so fine with these things that you understand why this will be the last response I post in this thread because, well, I have other interests that I feel would be more productive than encouraging the lovely cruft spouted from your fingertips in your last post by inviting even more drivel in another post.
Cheers Mate.
A terrorist is going to be a LOT more afraid of getting on that plane and detonating a bomb on it,
And there is the fallacious assumption of your entire argument. You assume that there even are people trying to get on planes with bombs these days. Further more, you assume that there are enough of those people, in comparison to innocent travelers, to pose a significant risk. Honestly, how many airplane hijackings/terrorist acts have you heard of since 9/11? Any 'terrorist' (or activist or freedom fighter or whatever) that has any shred of intelligence whatsoever is not going to be trying to use airplanes for terror attacks after 9/11. It is unoriginal, and therefore risky. I would wager (no, its not fact, I know that) that the next significant report of terrorism (meaning X many people died) is going to come in some form of an attack that was completely unexpected and unaccounted for.
Beefing up airport security to extremely high levels (some security is necessary and should exist) is a very flashy attempt to close a barn door, lock it, nail-board it shut, and put a bomb shelter around it after the horse has already left.
Please see my response to the other response to my original post. There is a difference between maintaining and funding further bloat.
Perhaps my original scenario presented was a little extremist, though that was not my intention. I am aware, at least somewhat, of the complicated international relationships that keep the U.S. in the position it is in today. I also understand that it is important to maintain our supremacy if we want to continue to be the big kid on the block with the hardest stick. While I did say that the U.S. should cut and divert funds from it's war machine, which is prone to the interpretation that I meant ALL funds, what I meant to say was that the funds should be cut to an extent. The level of spending on America's military that should, in my opinion, occur, should be a level that allows America to maintain whatever position of power it wants in the world, but does not require it to bloat its military to unnecessary levels. Projects like the ABL, the F-22, THAAD, and so on are hold overs from a period where we were preparing for WWIII. We can and should, in my opinion, cut military spending to 'reasonable' levels (yes I know this is subject to interpretation).
The bottom line is that our military spending is bloated even if we want to maintain the advantages we have over other countries. We should reduce said spending, not cut it entirely. That was what I originally meant to get across and I do realize that I was not particularly specific in that manner. Forgive my lack of particulars.
Also, before I get dinged for it, I do know that the ABL and F-22 programs have been cut, somewhat, but those cuts so far have just been a very minor chip off the iceberg...there are dozens of other bloated contracts to consider...
If you take an hour out of your day (really, you have plenty of time left in your life, you can survive 1 hour) to do some poking around over at USASpending.gov you will see figures pop up like the fact that the top five federal contractors this year were:
1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ... $29.748500571 Billion ... $18.231538802 Billion ... $12.318737574 Billion ... $11.900713440 Billion ... $11.156782353 Billion
2 THE BOEING COMPANY
3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
5 RAYTHEON COMPANY
Now you may already know this, but if not, another hour of research won't kill you, but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers. They work on everything from appliances, to housing, to spacecraft. However, a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are, above all else, arms developers. And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new, powerful, absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War, which ended ~20 years ago. If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009, you see that, together, $88.356272740 Billion (with a B) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago. Now of course, neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be, but it does illustrate a point. While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general, the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now.
Suppose, for a second, that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas (terrorism, drugs, etc.) could, instead, be cut significantly and diverted instead to, as you put it, meaningful science pursuits. We could, quite easily, save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration (manned and unmanned) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc. Instead, however, we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt, greedy, selfish corporate interests. Thus, rather than funding valuable, civil science and tech, we have a government whose spending levels are out of control. A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best, and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos.
In short, our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you, and I, find valuable simultaneously
Since the two technologies are completely distinct from each other (i.e. the solution will come from different industries)
And therein lies the limiting assumption of your argument. Something as complicated and grandiose as a space elevator is going to be an extremely complex system of interdependency. Developing the system as a set of discrete parts that can be duct taped together in the end, while it probably will produce a solution, will more than likely produce an expensive, hacky, less robust and less elegant design than if the entire system is approached cohesively as one unit from the start. This is the fundamental approach taken to solving most missions in the space industry right now. Rather than saying, "We want to monitor this type of activity on this celestial body, so let's have someone build a camera, and have someone build some solar cells, and have someone build the bus, and then do our best to slap it altogether afterward," the space industry has matured and now says, "We have problem X, let's brainstorm some solutions with all of our subcontracting friends that build cameras, solar cells, and frames, and monitor/oversee the activites of each one to make sure that all components of the entire system utilize the strengths of other subsystems and account for the weaknesses of other subsystems." Thus, we are capable of delivering extremely complicated solutions (ISS) to extremely complicated problems (living in space) without having to constantly hack and rehack the whole damn system together (Mir).
Taking the fundamental assumption that there will be A) a climber and B) a cable, and that the two should be developed in parallel will allow a fork in the design path that leads to later interfacing issues. If the mission is approached on a unified front from the get go , "How can we use the climber, cable, and orbital anchor together to reduce overall system complexity and duplication," a more robust and elegant solution will fall out.
That being said, a space elevator is, indeed, decades if not centuries away. The fact that we are focusing research and development efforts on ANY part of it right now is extremely exciting and inspiring in my opinion. It just goes to show that there are still some mad-scientist badasses working for NASA pushing the envelope on crazy and acceptable. I am extremely elated to see NASA funding something other than an outdated jobs program. High five to whoever proposed and fought for this contest/challenge.
On a similar note, we should also be funding R&D contests for Launch Loop and Space Fountain designs....wikipedia them if you haven't heard of them, it's worth your time.
Another substantial change from the early days of the proj ect is that the licenses now would be with individual students rather than with colleges—although on some campuses, student governments or other groups may agree to pay the fee on behalf of students.
It's not a direct answer, but could be relevant. If the licensing scheme is with individual students now, I would bet that the students have to sign or agree to something in order to participate. Thus, if they don't want to participate, ideally they just could avoid that license agreement. But you are right, the article is scant on details regarding that particular aspect and it wouldn't surprise me if any opt-out option that was there got mired and intertwined with some other form of student registration contracts and agreements that make it very difficult/near impossible to opt out.
No problem. Even after students stop paying the Choruss subscription fee, they will be able to keep all the songs they have downloaded. "They get to keep them the rest of their lives," as Mr. Griffin put it. That differs from some subscription music services, which allow access only while users are active members of the service. What's to stop students from paying for one month and downloading the whole collection? "Nothing," said Mr. Griffin.
Other folks at other companies considering similar models even go on to say:
"We're not going to stop file sharing—it's probably going to happen in one form or another, and it's probably folly to try and stop it," said Charlie Moore, a Noank official who has traveled to campuses in the past few months to drum up interest. "If we're able to use consumption data to compensate the rights holders of a particular recording, then we think we've got a handle on a fair and equitable model for rights going forward."
That is a beautiful bit of reality right there and a much improved level of insight regarding the file sharing world by recording industry insiders. This may not be the best solution yet, I don't know, but at least these folks are trying to do something productive for both their business and their customer base (college students) rather than attempting to bankrupt the latter while clinging to an outdated version of the former. I find the attitude quite refreshing myself.
The second amendment hasn't been completely destroyed yet...and so far as I know, homebrew explosives don't take that long either...
I'm generally against violence. So I won't be the one shooting.
Smart 5-star general: "Well, boys, let's find out."
I realize your story was a bit tongue-in cheek and the ranks were listed for humor purposes, but someone might find it interesting that there currently are no 5 star generals currently active in the United States military as a 5th star requires service as a General during a time of war (a real fuck-em-all war, not the police actions we've been involved in perpetually since the 60's). Anyways, pedantic, but worth noting.
If you do, people stop giving loans, which is the most straightforward way of making money from money
Nonsense!, the mafia and other organized crime syndicates will always be there to meet your financial loan needs. Now, onto other matters of business...are you interested in a handheld "bunny" or perhaps a fully automatic "bunny?" ...
My pleasure. Good luck being a father =) It should be one helluv an adventure.
I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor. I guess I was wrong.
Who, exactly, did you think was paying for that 'Obama' PR channel on the television networks all those months before the election. Who did you think paid the guy that came up with the 'Hope and Change' slogans? Who exactly paid for all those commercials flinging crap at Hilary, Mccain, and Palin during the primary and national election campaigns? You didn't think all that hype was free did you? You didn't honestly believe that those millions of dollars came from $20.00 contributions by every American that wanted change did you?
;)
To quote my political science professor, it all stems from the golden rule:
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/02_W_Education/index.asp [whywaldorfworks.org]
I am going to throw up some anecdotal observations here (I know, not proof, but I hope you take them into consideration).
Let me first say that I am not a parent as I am only 23 and not ready to take on the responsibility yet. Let me further say that some of my close friends are parents and, while I have limited experience babysitting, most of my childcare experience has been in relation to children in the 1 year to 2 years range. However, I am fresh out of college and still have a pretty poignant memory of both college and high school. In the community where I grew up, there was a waldorf school that was known, perhaps unjustly so, as a 'hippy school' (I grew up in a small town in California near Yosemite, so the population was not terribly diverse nor open minded). The waldorf school was a k-8 school and, after 8th grade, all of the waldorf students integrated with the rest of the elementary school students into one common high school for the county. I made close friends with quite a few of the waldorf kids. In general, I noticed some trends in their thinking process in comparison to others.
Most of the waldorf kids were extremely compassionate and empathetic kids, which I highly respected. Most of them were multi-talented in the creative fields from music, to writing, to acting. Most of the waldorf kids grew up to pursue degrees in the creative fields and, these days, most of them work in those fields. In general, the waldorf education worked extremely well at preparing those students for a creative and art centered lifestyle, something I respect and value.
However, of those kids, very few of them were capable of achieving passing grades in any math class beyond high school trig. Few of them were terribly competent with computers beyond making an occasional word document and finding their favorite videos on youtube. Many of them reacted extremely biased whenever I brought a discussion of the basic laws of chemistry or physics onto the table. Few of them were able to understand computer programming at all (which was very surprising to me as it is very artistic in nature). In fact, to this day, not one of the waldorf kids that I knew in high school support the idea of America spending further money on the space program, development of high-speed internet access across the nation, or 'invasive' prosthetic/cybernetics research such as nervous system-microchip integration. In other words, they grew up to view technology and science as a means by which large corporations form faceless, apathetic, and dangerous products which will then be used to exploit the masses. Time and again when I reconnect with them and try to explain to them something interesting in the technological fields like the Big Bang theory and relevant astronomy or the open source movement and the importance of free information, I am met with an instant eye-glaze and a lack of interest. I am then told how horrible science can and usually is by my friends from waldorf and why we should go back to a nature-centric way of living the way we 'used to' (I still have no idea what time period they are referring to).
My point is that waldorf schools seem to be very skilled at soliciting the creative side of kids. That is great. However, I encourage you, as a parent, to actively foster an interest in technology and science in your children if you are going to subject them to a waldorf education because, so far as I have observed, waldorf education alone tends to produce a very myopic world view...just a different kind of myopic world view than those held by religious extremists and neo-conservative/patriots.
I am aware that this development was probably due to many factors, the waldorf education background of my friends being only one of them. However, I still feel compelled to encourage you, as the parent, to actively foster a love for science and technology along with creativity and appreciation for the arts. The two fields are not mutually exclusive and never should be viewed as such.
Cheers Mate.
According to the Mission Status Log on Spaceflightnow.com there appeared to be some telemetry acquisition issues as late as t + 6:30 (min:sec) mission elapsed time. I am not sure how the launch vehicle was designed or what it's asset acquisition profile was supposed to look like, however, for Atlas V and Delta IV launches I know that acquisition and vehicle state data can start dumping to ground resources at least as early as t + 100 sec (with lag of course). Does anyone know if this test launch was designed with a full communications package on board, or whether or not the Ares acquisition profile is designed to fly this long without a telemetry dump to the ground? It seems very dubious to me and, if it is an error, it is a major one. Having a launch vehicle fail to establish a proper data connection with ground assets for ~5:00 + minutes could mean anything from an incorrect roll attitude to a power system failure to software state failure.
If the telemetry acquisition timing wasn't planned for or accounted for, I would say that the Ares team has some major debugging to do, which, of course, means some extra time and money =)
Irregardless,
Yes I am a vocab Nazi, but the proper word is 'regardless.' "Irregardless" is redundant and not a proper word as it uses its prefix 'Ir-' to negate what is already negated by the root of the word, "-regardless." Let me guess, you also call ATM's, ATM machines, don't you?
So that's why they were able to survive the bombs dropped by those red commie bastards and are still able to chew right through my power armor....
How did they get so big though?
It's like trying to get bees with vinegar.
So...you're saying it will work better than using honey? =P