I wanted to write that paper about the current affairs of the political system but I can't give you any sources since it's illegal to link to copyrited material...the new my dog ate my homework.
There's a big difference between giving the population something to vote for and serving the will of the population, which will never be served adequately as long as there are so many parties duking it out.
I don't agree with this statement, I live in the United States and we only have two major parties, along with a dozen or so other parties that many people have never heard of. Down here many of us consider it a flaw that two parties with similar agendas dominate politics. In fact myself and a lot of others envy the Canadian system and others like it because of the fact that you have so many parties that are represented. Here if they don't win the election they really don't have a voice, but from what I understand about the Canadian system all parties that recieved a vote get some kind of influence representing the amount of people who voted for them. (I am totally willing to accept that I may have this wrong, but during the last Canadian election that is how the process was explained when listening to various podcasts that talked about it)
I would imagine that if colonizing Mars were going to be successful it would not be a one way ticket. I think that a system where Mars was used as a base for scientists to use for short term stays would be the best start. Civilians (I'm using this term to describe anybody who is not a scientist because I'm drawing a blank on another term) would be more likely to want to vacation on Mars rather than live there. This would eventually lead to long term stays which would increase the livability until permanent residence was common. About 90 percent of the population is smarter than I am, and likely than most of us here, so I'm sure if they act intelligently and fight to prevent bureaucracy from interfering they can make colonizing Mars a pleasant adventure.
I really like his ideas, hopefully they will come to fruition and NASA will turn into the space agency we all have been wishing we had. To think, if Aldrin's plans succeed we will be on Mars in my lifetime...That sends thrill filled shivers through my body.
I don't see how funding this research would be considered "evil". From the article it seems that the company has learned from the past mistakes and are at doing things differently, as long as the earthquakes are minimal and harmless the benefits will be worth it. Now if there was a good chance that it would be a disaster then sure I'd say it was not the brightest move for Google or anyone else to pitch in on the project, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
How is it a monopoly if the town builds there own infrastructure? There's nothing stopping any of the other companies from building a competing system. The town voted on the issue and a large majority want this, this is there way of competing with the private market that is not satisfying their wants and needs.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to write that paper about the current affairs of the political system but I can't give you any sources since it's illegal to link to copyrited material...the new my dog ate my homework.
I don't agree with this statement, I live in the United States and we only have two major parties, along with a dozen or so other parties that many people have never heard of. Down here many of us consider it a flaw that two parties with similar agendas dominate politics. In fact myself and a lot of others envy the Canadian system and others like it because of the fact that you have so many parties that are represented. Here if they don't win the election they really don't have a voice, but from what I understand about the Canadian system all parties that recieved a vote get some kind of influence representing the amount of people who voted for them. (I am totally willing to accept that I may have this wrong, but during the last Canadian election that is how the process was explained when listening to various podcasts that talked about it)
I would imagine that if colonizing Mars were going to be successful it would not be a one way ticket. I think that a system where Mars was used as a base for scientists to use for short term stays would be the best start. Civilians (I'm using this term to describe anybody who is not a scientist because I'm drawing a blank on another term) would be more likely to want to vacation on Mars rather than live there. This would eventually lead to long term stays which would increase the livability until permanent residence was common. About 90 percent of the population is smarter than I am, and likely than most of us here, so I'm sure if they act intelligently and fight to prevent bureaucracy from interfering they can make colonizing Mars a pleasant adventure.
I really like his ideas, hopefully they will come to fruition and NASA will turn into the space agency we all have been wishing we had. To think, if Aldrin's plans succeed we will be on Mars in my lifetime...That sends thrill filled shivers through my body.
I don't see how funding this research would be considered "evil". From the article it seems that the company has learned from the past mistakes and are at doing things differently, as long as the earthquakes are minimal and harmless the benefits will be worth it. Now if there was a good chance that it would be a disaster then sure I'd say it was not the brightest move for Google or anyone else to pitch in on the project, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
How is it a monopoly if the town builds there own infrastructure? There's nothing stopping any of the other companies from building a competing system. The town voted on the issue and a large majority want this, this is there way of competing with the private market that is not satisfying their wants and needs.
100%? That means you would be going the wishes of 99.99% of the population just because one person voted against it. That is not democracy.