I assume this would be correct if the "end" in question pertained to the termination of multiple rainbows (i.e. they went away) and in fact seems to imply that all rainbows are ending. More likely it is a play on the phrase "end of the rainbow", a mythical place where a pot of gold can be located.
It's probably a brief sentence in the indicative mood. Subject = "rainbows", verb = "end", third person plural present tense of "to end".
The title therefore makes an affirmative statement that all rainbows do indeed end.
The President is not in charge of NASA's budget, Congress is.
Congress is in charge of allocating NASA's budget. The President is in charge of overseeing its expenditure. That's the difference between the legislative and the executive functions.
If our congress critters were in Europe and pulled these stunts, most of them would be in jail.
I am forced to assume that you don't know anything about European governments. Legislative corruption is much more common and a much more severe problem there.
I think it would be a good idea if we could individually allocate most of our tax money to specific programs we support. Since my ballot does not much count, maybe I could influence "my" government with my tax return. I might be a little happier come tax time.
The problem with that idea, unfortunately, is that NASA, NPR, and childhood immunization programs would be overfunded, and that nobody would remember to pay for slaughterhouse inspectors, air traffic control radar, or NOAA.
There are more than 300 million in the states. If 1% donated, that would be 3 million. If the average was $10 each, that would be 30 Million. It would help
To start with, the population of the United States of America is approximately 293 million as of July 2004. The number of individual taxpayers is significantly less, because large portions of that 293 million do not file a federal personal income tax return (because they are minors, because they have no income, or for some other reason). Your figure of 300 million potential donors is thus unrealistically high.
But, let us say for the sake of argument that your figures are correct, and that this donations campaign raised $30 million. How much would that "help"?
Well, it would fund 1% of the annual cost of the Shuttle program. Or about 0.92% of the Cassini mission. Or about 0.3% of a space elevator. As I said, peanuts.
The real issue is that the current admin (and probably other ones) will fight this. They want total control of how money is spent.
I would earnestly hope that this or any other Presidential administration would have 'total control' over how its employees were spending their budgets. Wouldn't you?
If this were made possible I'm sure thousands of people would gladly donate money every year.
Supposing "thousands" did donate money every year... let's be amazingly optimistic and say that 10,000 people donated $100 apiece (which is probably an order of magnitude too high).
That would raise $1,000,000 for NASA. Which is absolutely peanuts. That's enough to replace a few space shuttle tiles, or complete half of a small mission feasibility study.
NASA is a government agency. Government agencies waste a titanic amount of money in bureaucratic overhead. Donating money to a government agency is a waste of money.
That article is a little thin on actual information. I think we get a better inside line on Nintendo's operations from Samir Gupta, who should be posting in this thread at any minute.
Samir Gupta is actually just one of the mini-bosses. You have to get through several of those, at increasing levels of difficulty, to reach the Boss which the article quotes.
The shuttle may not be perfect. It was designed for a set of missions that have very little to do with what it is doing now.
Well, the shuttle was successful in repairing the gyros on the ISS, so that it could be pushed away from the Terrible Secret of Space. That's got to count for something.
And for decades they have put that investment into US companies, knowing their investment was safe. Last year, more people chose to safely tuck their money away in China than in America.
You're confusing 'risk' and 'return'. People haven't put their investments into US companies because they knew their investment was safe, they did it because they felt they could get a high rate of return on their money. If they wanted a safe investment, they would buy US treasury securities, currently the safest investment on Earth.
Now, they're investing more money in the Chinese economy, because they feel that Chinese companies will grow faster (and thus provide a higher rate of return). That's not terribly surprising, as it's easy to see that China has enormous economic growth potential. Much the same occurred with southeast Asia in the early-to-mid 1990s, until their bubble collapsed.
It can do basic, medium and even some high-tech manufacturing for a fraction of the price to do so in the US.
The reason for this is not some magic, but because China has vastly lower labor costs. To some extent, this is because China uses a huge amount of slave labor.
Re:Do not screw with private property
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
And it's just selfish, stupid, and ugly.
Much like the rest of graffiti.
Re:The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except that he cleaned the wall, he didn't add anything to it, it just so happened that he cleaned in a pattern and then stopped, if you don't like it, you can keep cleaning the wall, since by definition, a clean wall can not be "disfigured" by the addition of more cleaning.
He caused an image to appear permanently (that is, for a non-brief period) on a wall that did not belong to him. He thought of a clever way to do it, but that is not the same thing as saying that he had the right to do it.
It is shady. The company has cash earning interest, the customer has a certificate losing value in exact proportion to the currency it's denominated in. I've received gift certificates for goods from companies that offered nothing I wanted, and had to wait years until they got something I liked.
This isn't shady, or dishonest, or unethical. It's merely stupid - on the part of the buyer. The buyer either knows full well that he's lending his money to the company at no interest (by buying goods in advance), or he's an idiot.
Think how much a Spanish Dollar (S) is worth today - nothing - it doesn't even exist anymore
If you were to find a Spanish dollar coin in good condition, you would be very pleased to find out how much it was worth. Inflation doesn't affect coins of pure metal content, which is why governments have historically pursued paper money (or debased metal content) if they want to launch an inflationary policy.
One would think watching Earth grow smaller beneath you would be entertainment enough.
I think it would probably be a cloudy blur for most of the trip. Either you'd be in clouds, or you'd be looking down at them. Not much in the way of "hey, I can see my state from here!"
Nevertheless, your argument is fairly poor. "Tiresome and pretentous twaddle" is more a literary critique than substantive critique. The fact is that you (presuming you are who you say you are) did choose the line of work I mentioned as "preferred" in a zero-sum environment.
Well, in the first place, I'm a student, not a lawyer. It says so in my user profile.
In the second place, your response is merely an ad hominem attack. I have stated that your argument that diminished manned space exploration encouraged people not to become farmers or engineers is far-fetched. Your response is "people like you are not to be trusted". This does not do a great deal to buttress your conclusions.
Nope. We have 98-pound weaklings and we don't even know why we call them 98 as opposed to 99 or 100.
Because 98 was the figure which the Charles Atlas Bodybuilding Company chose for their famous magazine ads in the 1920s. "I was a 98-pound weakling, until..."
British people are metric in name only: underneath, the sickening heart of ugly imperial units beats away.
You seem to feel very passionately about the way in which people who live a long way off measure their lumber, roads, and beer. What difference does it make to you?
And no matter how many times I cut up a stick of butter, I still can't remember the tablespoon -> cup conversion.
It's usually printed on the wax-paper wrapper that the stick of butter comes in. Look for a pattern of evenly spaced lines, labelled in denominations of tablespoons and cups. Cut accordingly, or segment and recombine if timid.
I don't think you'll see a great headline "cost saving", but it's the accumulated cost of not having to run a (mental or automated) conversion from miles to kilometers. This can be in staff time or your time.
This doesn't make any sense. No conversion is taking place now, because the measurements originate in miles. What is the cost savings?
Car speedometers and other other measuring devices won't have to display a different number, even though they're showing the same amount (just according to a different standard). This has got to reduce product development cost which means a cheaper product (or more profits to the corporation).
The measuring devices are already manufactured to display American units. What would be the product development cost savings by switching to metric?
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a brief sentence in the indicative mood. Subject = "rainbows", verb = "end", third person plural present tense of "to end".
The title therefore makes an affirmative statement that all rainbows do indeed end.
Congress is in charge of allocating NASA's budget. The President is in charge of overseeing its expenditure. That's the difference between the legislative and the executive functions.
I am forced to assume that you don't know anything about European governments. Legislative corruption is much more common and a much more severe problem there.
The problem with that idea, unfortunately, is that NASA, NPR, and childhood immunization programs would be overfunded, and that nobody would remember to pay for slaughterhouse inspectors, air traffic control radar, or NOAA.
To start with, the population of the United States of America is approximately 293 million as of July 2004. The number of individual taxpayers is significantly less, because large portions of that 293 million do not file a federal personal income tax return (because they are minors, because they have no income, or for some other reason). Your figure of 300 million potential donors is thus unrealistically high.
But, let us say for the sake of argument that your figures are correct, and that this donations campaign raised $30 million. How much would that "help"?
Well, it would fund 1% of the annual cost of the Shuttle program. Or about 0.92% of the Cassini mission. Or about 0.3% of a space elevator. As I said, peanuts.
The real issue is that the current admin (and probably other ones) will fight this. They want total control of how money is spent.
I would earnestly hope that this or any other Presidential administration would have 'total control' over how its employees were spending their budgets. Wouldn't you?
Supposing "thousands" did donate money every year... let's be amazingly optimistic and say that 10,000 people donated $100 apiece (which is probably an order of magnitude too high).
That would raise $1,000,000 for NASA. Which is absolutely peanuts. That's enough to replace a few space shuttle tiles, or complete half of a small mission feasibility study.
NASA is a government agency. Government agencies waste a titanic amount of money in bureaucratic overhead. Donating money to a government agency is a waste of money.
Samir Gupta is actually just one of the mini-bosses. You have to get through several of those, at increasing levels of difficulty, to reach the Boss which the article quotes.
Well, the shuttle was successful in repairing the gyros on the ISS, so that it could be pushed away from the Terrible Secret of Space. That's got to count for something.
You're confusing 'risk' and 'return'. People haven't put their investments into US companies because they knew their investment was safe, they did it because they felt they could get a high rate of return on their money. If they wanted a safe investment, they would buy US treasury securities, currently the safest investment on Earth.
Now, they're investing more money in the Chinese economy, because they feel that Chinese companies will grow faster (and thus provide a higher rate of return). That's not terribly surprising, as it's easy to see that China has enormous economic growth potential. Much the same occurred with southeast Asia in the early-to-mid 1990s, until their bubble collapsed.
It can do basic, medium and even some high-tech manufacturing for a fraction of the price to do so in the US.
The reason for this is not some magic, but because China has vastly lower labor costs. To some extent, this is because China uses a huge amount of slave labor.
It puts the numbers in the correct boxes, or else it gets the hose again.
You're on your own. The rest of us Must Dissent.
Much like the rest of graffiti.
He caused an image to appear permanently (that is, for a non-brief period) on a wall that did not belong to him. He thought of a clever way to do it, but that is not the same thing as saying that he had the right to do it.
This isn't shady, or dishonest, or unethical. It's merely stupid - on the part of the buyer. The buyer either knows full well that he's lending his money to the company at no interest (by buying goods in advance), or he's an idiot.
If you were to find a Spanish dollar coin in good condition, you would be very pleased to find out how much it was worth. Inflation doesn't affect coins of pure metal content, which is why governments have historically pursued paper money (or debased metal content) if they want to launch an inflationary policy.
I think it would probably be a cloudy blur for most of the trip. Either you'd be in clouds, or you'd be looking down at them. Not much in the way of "hey, I can see my state from here!"
Well, in the first place, I'm a student, not a lawyer. It says so in my user profile.
In the second place, your response is merely an ad hominem attack. I have stated that your argument that diminished manned space exploration encouraged people not to become farmers or engineers is far-fetched. Your response is "people like you are not to be trusted". This does not do a great deal to buttress your conclusions.
Because 98 was the figure which the Charles Atlas Bodybuilding Company chose for their famous magazine ads in the 1920s. "I was a 98-pound weakling, until..."
You seem to feel very passionately about the way in which people who live a long way off measure their lumber, roads, and beer. What difference does it make to you?
It's usually printed on the wax-paper wrapper that the stick of butter comes in. Look for a pattern of evenly spaced lines, labelled in denominations of tablespoons and cups. Cut accordingly, or segment and recombine if timid.
You misspelled "JFK".
This doesn't make any sense. No conversion is taking place now, because the measurements originate in miles. What is the cost savings?
Car speedometers and other other measuring devices won't have to display a different number, even though they're showing the same amount (just according to a different standard). This has got to reduce product development cost which means a cheaper product (or more profits to the corporation).
The measuring devices are already manufactured to display American units. What would be the product development cost savings by switching to metric?