Perhaps, but that doesn't account for the fact that even the facing side isn't always fully lit. It's obvious to see even from the surface of the Earth that even the near side isn't always the "light side".
So you think that looking ahead to the long term, having something to dream about, and doing something that has, can, and will yield positive benefits for society isn't a good idea?
By the way, global warming, environmental damage, oil reserves, financial problems, overpopulation, and the like aren't new. Every one of them existed 40 years ago. Every one of them will exist 40 years from now, although what we are doing about each can, will, and does change constantly.
And they didn't stop us before and they aren't going to stop us now. We also don't need to stop doing other things to focus on those problems -- that's why we have different agencies and companies and the like that have different foci. Each has specialized resources and experience. Each has its own job to do.
You may not be a troll, but you're not well informed.
It depends on the values of the people who are supporting and executing the program. There is also value in just improving yourself. I don't gain a direct benefit (other than spinoffs and improved technologies) from the current manned space programs, but I support them because I believe they're important and I'd like to see them succeed and I believe that someday, we will get off this planet for good.
So no, you don't need an endgame. Unless you're one of the vast majority of people out there who seem capable of thinking in the long term -- the short-sighted attitudes that lead to society going downhill and things that are long-term important being killed for frivolous shorter-term things.
Quite true and the post you repled to erroneously implies that the planes would be used on the Moon. I think that's just an error because airplanes have, however, been proposed for use on Mars. See:
I have no idea why the idea of a "dark side" perpetuates even to this day, when the fact that the Moon is round is blatantly visible. It's also clear that the part of it being lit changes and that the illuminated side is always "aimed at" the Sun. There have been smart people for centuries that figured it out... and yet the myth remains.
(The Earth being flat was an idea that lasted much longer because it's so big, and because you couldn't see it from space until the late 1950s).
Ironically, that's what the book I cited is all about -- starting over from scratch. I have no idea, however, if there will be a sequel to it -- the last Clancy book was something of a prequel instead -- describing whether the while thing was successful or not or if the system fell apart again. I'd be interested in such speculation -- after that kind of big "what if?" story, an author should follow up with "this is what I think if".
You can spend that much in St. Louis, too. But you can also get nice houses for 1/5th of that or less. My neighborhood goes for around $100Kish and it's a nice neighborhood. The houses just aren't huge. Now, go a few blocks over and they get bigger, sure. But you don't have to spend that much, so why should the taxpayers subsidize more than is necessary?
That's true on the houses, although you don't need a huge house to live in temporarily. So the public should not have to pay for mansions. Just an ordinary two-bedroom house should suffice.
I checked on the salaries and they already do earn what you suggest:
So there's no need to give them any more money. Lower to middle middle class is fine -- we're paying them to carry out public service, not live like fat cats. Taxpayers like me expect fair value, not blatant money-wasting. $160K is enough to pay for a moderate house, and a sufficient vehicle (something like a Camry, Accord, Passat, 500, Impala, whatever brand you prefer to think about). They can handle the rest from there -- a middle-class salary is plenty sufficient. ESPECIALLY given the cushy pension for life they get when the rest of us are getting that ripped out from under us.
The system is designed to cause the vehicle to destroy itself and not just shut down the engines, just to correct anyone who may not be sure about that from what you said. It has been used on many launches, though only once on the Shuttle (to destroy the Challenger boosters, which survived and were flying around randomly because there was no longer any guidance coming from the orbiter's computer systems). Valuable evidence of what had gone wrong was destroyed in the process, but given that millions of people were at risk if the boosters turned around and started heading toward populated land, the safety officer executed his or her responsibility to protect those people.
That is why the boosters just appear to randomly blow up in post-explosion footage.
"At least triple Congressional salaries and beef up the pension"? They already get ridiculously cushy pensions as it is -- FOR LIFE -- and get more than enough from their lobbyists etc. Who the hell needs two homes anyway? I do just fine with my single one at 1000 sq. ft. We really need to go back to true citizen-legislators.
Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" is an interesting read because it's largely about one idea of what reconstructing the government (and improving and simplfying it) would be like assuming the "high command" were taken out all at once, so normal succession procedures couldn't be carried out. In the book, the President decides to replace most of Congress (read the book for what happened to them - I won't spoil it all!) by having ordinary people, like farmers and regular working people, serve in Congress. He does this because he felt that the Founding Fathers intended legislators to be selected this way (and I agree). The system has gotten as messy as it is because it wasn't ever meant to be handled by career fat-cat politicians.
As for the space program -- actually, yes, NASA does need more money -- the current bug-riddled Shuttle we have now would have been much safer and capable had the budget not been slashed in the first place, and so many great programs get killed because some idiot somewhere thinks they have a better plan for the money, and so much more gets spent to fix the stupidity. For example, the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle that would have allowed a full seven-person crew to return safely in the event of an emergency was killed -- after flight testing was going very, very well -- and now the seven-person ISS is stuck with two-person crews because the Soyuz -- a second-hand technology (though very well made; I'm not slighting it in that way) we have to ram special funding bills through to use, which is totally unacceptable! -- can't handle more right now! (though yes, Soyuz TMA is designed to carry three).
We need to fully, and properly, fund what we're doing. None of this compromise crap. It just comes back to bite us in the ass.
The latest casualty of this stupidity: the methanol-fueled engines the CEV was intended to use. Too expensive.
All true. However, I find fault with the government for not banning such atrocious abuses -- the government's job is not to protect profits; it's to serve the needs of the people, and allowing the people to be ripped off is not acting in their best interests. As I said in my original post, most other countries do it. We don't.
So I don't think capitalism is a factor. Bullshit, on the other hand, is... do we have a pill to cure that yet?
Regulations protecting privacy have nothing to do with this particular issue. Drug manufacturers have been ripping off the public since long before those laws were enacted. And only the US (among North America/major European countries) has done nothing to stop it. The US idea of controlling drug prices is to create government insurance programs rather than actually forcing the ripping-off to stop.
I think I'll be remembering how I'm paying ridiculously higher prices than even inhabitants of other similarly rich countries for those drugs, for huge amounts per pill or (I kid you not) $130 (before insurance kicks in) a 59-mL bottle of rosacea face cream. I think I'll be thinking of the ridiculous patent crap pharma companies pull to keep generics, which are sorely needed to rein in abusive ripoff pricing, off the market. I think I'll be thinking of the pharma industry's focus on "blockbuster drugs" instead of actually trying to help people by focusing on the basics and on pulling drug prices out of the stratosphere.
Nice to know a lot of my rising-ridiculously-every-year insurance premiums are going toward horridly inefficient bureaucracies.
I really do wonder sometimes why the US market repeatedly gets inferior goods. Certainly US buyers can afford the better stuff; why not ship RDS-capable radios? Why not make OEM HID headlights an option? Yet they didn't do either of those things. Certainly they can -- RDS isn't exactly newfangled anymore, and with HID lights an option on things like the Mini Cooper, it's not like better lighting is going to price the cars out of the market. So why the foot-dragging?
Next time around I expect to get at least the headlights as factory instead of having to fix the shortcoming myself ("drop-in kits" don't count as a real fix; I was lucky and the parts were available as factory items elsewhere and I was able to get my hands on them) and my purchasing decision will be executed as appropriate.
Fortunately, the Audi (which is a VW division; good thing as I'm a VW buff) A3 offers everything I want (with a manual transmission; none of this "forcing an expensive and less reliable/efficient automatic on the customer who wants any option package" the Jetta/Passat pull) in a small 5-door hatchback package for a reasonable price. I'm leaning heavily that way... provided I can get my hands on a new or good-shape used one, configured the way I want, by the time the Golf falls apart.
They aren't all Europe-only options, but some are.
Better headlights, better A/C vents (from a Jetta), a Homelink sunvisor, a better radio that can actually receive RDS (since swapped out again for an Alpine one that can play MP3s and connect to an iPod). And that's just the VW OEM stuff. There's more.
What's up with the sterotypical dissing of anyone who isn't satisfied with the car that rolls out of the factory door?
MS didn't always have this idiotic system of waiting til a certain date to fix problems. It used to actually react without regard to some artificial and arbitrary schedule that simply has nothing at all to do with when threats and bugs actually exist.
If you want "good thin" arguments against Windows, just tell 'em how much crap the OS comes with that you can't install even if you don't want to use it!
I think you might be trolling, but just in case... Ever heard of regional language variances? Ever consider the submitter used whatever words they're used to using? Or would you scream at me for writing "truck" in an online discussion with someone who is British and responds to me by using the word "lorry"?
If you don't know the word, look it up instead of bitching.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense, I suppose. Good a reason as any.
Perhaps, but that doesn't account for the fact that even the facing side isn't always fully lit. It's obvious to see even from the surface of the Earth that even the near side isn't always the "light side".
So you think that looking ahead to the long term, having something to dream about, and doing something that has, can, and will yield positive benefits for society isn't a good idea?
By the way, global warming, environmental damage, oil reserves, financial problems, overpopulation, and the like aren't new. Every one of them existed 40 years ago. Every one of them will exist 40 years from now, although what we are doing about each can, will, and does change constantly.
And they didn't stop us before and they aren't going to stop us now. We also don't need to stop doing other things to focus on those problems -- that's why we have different agencies and companies and the like that have different foci. Each has specialized resources and experience. Each has its own job to do.
You may not be a troll, but you're not well informed.
It depends on the values of the people who are supporting and executing the program. There is also value in just improving yourself. I don't gain a direct benefit (other than spinoffs and improved technologies) from the current manned space programs, but I support them because I believe they're important and I'd like to see them succeed and I believe that someday, we will get off this planet for good.
So no, you don't need an endgame. Unless you're one of the vast majority of people out there who seem capable of thinking in the long term -- the short-sighted attitudes that lead to society going downhill and things that are long-term important being killed for frivolous shorter-term things.
Quite true and the post you repled to erroneously implies that the planes would be used on the Moon. I think that's just an error because airplanes have, however, been proposed for use on Mars. See:
ARES - A Proposed Mars Scout Mission
I have no idea why the idea of a "dark side" perpetuates even to this day, when the fact that the Moon is round is blatantly visible. It's also clear that the part of it being lit changes and that the illuminated side is always "aimed at" the Sun. There have been smart people for centuries that figured it out ... and yet the myth remains.
(The Earth being flat was an idea that lasted much longer because it's so big, and because you couldn't see it from space until the late 1950s).
Because no one understood that weird-ass symbol that was its icon.
No, it was Col. Mustard in the foyer with the candlestick.
Ironically, that's what the book I cited is all about -- starting over from scratch. I have no idea, however, if there will be a sequel to it -- the last Clancy book was something of a prequel instead -- describing whether the while thing was successful or not or if the system fell apart again. I'd be interested in such speculation -- after that kind of big "what if?" story, an author should follow up with "this is what I think if".
You can spend that much in St. Louis, too. But you can also get nice houses for 1/5th of that or less. My neighborhood goes for around $100Kish and it's a nice neighborhood. The houses just aren't huge. Now, go a few blocks over and they get bigger, sure. But you don't have to spend that much, so why should the taxpayers subsidize more than is necessary?
In which case, since it wasn't government-ordered, the provider is guilty of illegal wiretapping. Vodafone is going to have to pay up big for this.
That's true on the houses, although you don't need a huge house to live in temporarily. So the public should not have to pay for mansions. Just an ordinary two-bedroom house should suffice.
I checked on the salaries and they already do earn what you suggest:
Congressional Institute - Congressional Myths: Salary
So there's no need to give them any more money. Lower to middle middle class is fine -- we're paying them to carry out public service, not live like fat cats. Taxpayers like me expect fair value, not blatant money-wasting. $160K is enough to pay for a moderate house, and a sufficient vehicle (something like a Camry, Accord, Passat, 500, Impala, whatever brand you prefer to think about). They can handle the rest from there -- a middle-class salary is plenty sufficient. ESPECIALLY given the cushy pension for life they get when the rest of us are getting that ripped out from under us.
The system is designed to cause the vehicle to destroy itself and not just shut down the engines, just to correct anyone who may not be sure about that from what you said. It has been used on many launches, though only once on the Shuttle (to destroy the Challenger boosters, which survived and were flying around randomly because there was no longer any guidance coming from the orbiter's computer systems). Valuable evidence of what had gone wrong was destroyed in the process, but given that millions of people were at risk if the boosters turned around and started heading toward populated land, the safety officer executed his or her responsibility to protect those people.
That is why the boosters just appear to randomly blow up in post-explosion footage.
"At least triple Congressional salaries and beef up the pension"? They already get ridiculously cushy pensions as it is -- FOR LIFE -- and get more than enough from their lobbyists etc. Who the hell needs two homes anyway? I do just fine with my single one at 1000 sq. ft. We really need to go back to true citizen-legislators.
Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" is an interesting read because it's largely about one idea of what reconstructing the government (and improving and simplfying it) would be like assuming the "high command" were taken out all at once, so normal succession procedures couldn't be carried out. In the book, the President decides to replace most of Congress (read the book for what happened to them - I won't spoil it all!) by having ordinary people, like farmers and regular working people, serve in Congress. He does this because he felt that the Founding Fathers intended legislators to be selected this way (and I agree). The system has gotten as messy as it is because it wasn't ever meant to be handled by career fat-cat politicians.
As for the space program -- actually, yes, NASA does need more money -- the current bug-riddled Shuttle we have now would have been much safer and capable had the budget not been slashed in the first place, and so many great programs get killed because some idiot somewhere thinks they have a better plan for the money, and so much more gets spent to fix the stupidity. For example, the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle that would have allowed a full seven-person crew to return safely in the event of an emergency was killed -- after flight testing was going very, very well -- and now the seven-person ISS is stuck with two-person crews because the Soyuz -- a second-hand technology (though very well made; I'm not slighting it in that way) we have to ram special funding bills through to use, which is totally unacceptable! -- can't handle more right now! (though yes, Soyuz TMA is designed to carry three).
We need to fully, and properly, fund what we're doing. None of this compromise crap. It just comes back to bite us in the ass.
The latest casualty of this stupidity: the methanol-fueled engines the CEV was intended to use. Too expensive.
So why not rename it CV?
All true. However, I find fault with the government for not banning such atrocious abuses -- the government's job is not to protect profits; it's to serve the needs of the people, and allowing the people to be ripped off is not acting in their best interests. As I said in my original post, most other countries do it. We don't.
... do we have a pill to cure that yet?
So I don't think capitalism is a factor. Bullshit, on the other hand, is
That's a pretty good site. I remember entries like "Tire almost needs replacement." "Tire almost replaced."
Regulations protecting privacy have nothing to do with this particular issue. Drug manufacturers have been ripping off the public since long before those laws were enacted. And only the US (among North America/major European countries) has done nothing to stop it. The US idea of controlling drug prices is to create government insurance programs rather than actually forcing the ripping-off to stop.
I think I'll be remembering how I'm paying ridiculously higher prices than even inhabitants of other similarly rich countries for those drugs, for huge amounts per pill or (I kid you not) $130 (before insurance kicks in) a 59-mL bottle of rosacea face cream. I think I'll be thinking of the ridiculous patent crap pharma companies pull to keep generics, which are sorely needed to rein in abusive ripoff pricing, off the market. I think I'll be thinking of the pharma industry's focus on "blockbuster drugs" instead of actually trying to help people by focusing on the basics and on pulling drug prices out of the stratosphere.
Nice to know a lot of my rising-ridiculously-every-year insurance premiums are going toward horridly inefficient bureaucracies.
Shape up.
Ah, gotcha.
I really do wonder sometimes why the US market repeatedly gets inferior goods. Certainly US buyers can afford the better stuff; why not ship RDS-capable radios? Why not make OEM HID headlights an option? Yet they didn't do either of those things. Certainly they can -- RDS isn't exactly newfangled anymore, and with HID lights an option on things like the Mini Cooper, it's not like better lighting is going to price the cars out of the market. So why the foot-dragging?
Next time around I expect to get at least the headlights as factory instead of having to fix the shortcoming myself ("drop-in kits" don't count as a real fix; I was lucky and the parts were available as factory items elsewhere and I was able to get my hands on them) and my purchasing decision will be executed as appropriate.
Fortunately, the Audi (which is a VW division; good thing as I'm a VW buff) A3 offers everything I want (with a manual transmission; none of this "forcing an expensive and less reliable/efficient automatic on the customer who wants any option package" the Jetta/Passat pull) in a small 5-door hatchback package for a reasonable price. I'm leaning heavily that way... provided I can get my hands on a new or good-shape used one, configured the way I want, by the time the Golf falls apart.
And I do plan to drive it as long as possible -- I don't lease cars or buy new ones every three years, and I'm one of the 42% of people who pay their credit balances every month.
Go me.
Looking back, it looks like I replied to the wrong post and/or misread your comment. No offense intended to you! Sorry about that.
Hang Up And Drive (tm)!
They aren't all Europe-only options, but some are.
Better headlights, better A/C vents (from a Jetta), a Homelink sunvisor, a better radio that can actually receive RDS (since swapped out again for an Alpine one that can play MP3s and connect to an iPod). And that's just the VW OEM stuff. There's more.
What's up with the sterotypical dissing of anyone who isn't satisfied with the car that rolls out of the factory door?
MS didn't always have this idiotic system of waiting til a certain date to fix problems. It used to actually react without regard to some artificial and arbitrary schedule that simply has nothing at all to do with when threats and bugs actually exist.
If you want "good thin" arguments against Windows, just tell 'em how much crap the OS comes with that you can't install even if you don't want to use it!
I think you might be trolling, but just in case ... Ever heard of regional language variances? Ever consider the submitter used whatever words they're used to using? Or would you scream at me for writing "truck" in an online discussion with someone who is British and responds to me by using the word "lorry"?
If you don't know the word, look it up instead of bitching.