FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. Watching a 60 minute show in 40 minutes makes a huge difference. Skipping over a boring segment and saving another 10 to 20 minutes saves even more time.
Nothing beats buckling spring. It's all I've used for 30 years or so. I used to have to use one with a ps/2 to USB adapter. I bought one of the first ones that was native USB.
Sure, they're loud. They're heavy. You can't really take them apart easily to clean. But they are the best keyboard for your fingers and wrists. They are worth the extra cost.
Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.
Shouldn't that mean that either the players play according to the rules or change the rules? Saying that "The refs can't call the rules as the players play and that's just how it is" seems a bit silly to me. I'd be happy if they would start calling traveling and palming again.
CA is pushing for their standards. Automakers are currently sticking with the more stringent standards until things are settled. You are foolish if you think automakers are willingly going along with 50 mpg standard in 7 years because they want to. You see the cars that are being built now, yes? Do you honestly think buyers and automakers would prefer to buy and sell, respectively, the equivalent of the Ford Focus?
"You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more."
That's how it's related to our discussion. Do you think we would have the iPhone if it wasn't for the internet? Or self-driving cars? Or any reason to have more powerful phones than slightly older laptops? The Internet drove those things. Just because you have shitty internet access is not a good reason for the government to implement stringent regulations.
Do you honestly think getting the government to impose stringent regulations would make it better? Really? Look what the government does. It literally fucks up everything. Sure, it's necessary, but it's a necessary evil.
If you don't mind, do me a favor, please. Imagine there is government regulation. Imagine the government puts down a strict regulation that everyone has to have say 60/60 megabits per second up and down. Once you get past the "OH HELL YEAH!!!" moment, imagine what happens. Think about what would happen and the cost.
But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time?
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
My mistake. On the same day, not the same time. As if that makes the gallon limit any better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/california-drought-jerry-brown-sets-permanent-water-conservation-rules-with-new-laws/
You actually read that article, yes? That article doesn't say what you think it says.
Oh and BTW, you realize exactly how slanted this little nugget is right? "At the time, the federal government, California and the states that follow its standards, and the automakers were all on the same page."
Obama unilaterally decreeing that all cars have to have 50 mpg by 2025 is like the federal govt decreeing "all phones have to have 30 hours of continuous battery life by 2025." It's capricious and you are extremely naive if you think there are no consequences to such actions.
Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency.
Safety is. Cars aren't. The government, ARBITRARILY mind you, just set unreachable CAFE standards. Just set them to what they wanted. You think your powerful and faster car with more bells and whistles will hit those standards? Nope. It'll be a one ton box of tissues that gets crumpled when a car from the 70's hits it. The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity?
Do you think TV technology is where is is due to government FCC regulations? Are you kidding me? The FCC has little if anything to due with the explosive growth of the TV. Do you honestly think government regulations are why a 60" 4K TV is $500 now? Really?
Gas/Water? Also Gov regulated.
When hooked up to government supplies. Sure there are some safety standards for wells & septic tanks, but not like what you're suggesting. Government run utilities should have government regulation. But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time? Or citizens drink tap water in Detroit? Or Puerto Rico have power? I'll not point out the common political party that has been in power for decades.
You get another Ma Bell, exactly what we are seeing with Comcast, Google, Time Warner, and others.
You obviously don't remember Ma Bell. Tell you what. Sure, things are cheaper now, but you go ask someone who was around when Ma Bell was around and they were under government regulation as well. They were required to spend a certain amount of service and maintenance. You won't find anyone who complained of their service then. Sure, things are better now, but not if you're talkign about service.
Without net neutrality we *could* end up paying for "Social Media" internet packages to speed up access to FaceBook, or "Streaming" packages to get faster access to Netflix or Hulu. I'd rather pay my ISP for a one-size-fits-all x mbps, NOT a-la-carte based on my browsing habits.
Wait a sec... You mean people could actually have to pay for what they use? Whaaaa? Why that's crazy talk.
What people want is competition. Net neutrality isn't competition. It's a "ok govt, you control everything and I'll shut up as long as I can stream every fucking thing I want right now." That sounds fine. But then the prices go up for everyone with everything. It always happens.
No, it fucking isn't. Right now, me and our company have exactly two ways to connect to the Internet (AT&T & SpectrumTimeWarner). Both are awful. They're trying to merge, so then we'd have exactly *one* for-profit company to purchase Internet access through. The Internet is not doing damn fine, and we desperately need some strong regulation in place to keep it from becoming AOL v2.
Ok, just so I understand your point.
You don't care that the internet is ubiquitous enough that it reaches refrigerators. Or that developing countries are skipping wired networks. Or that phones are more powerful that laptops of a few years ago. Or that you can use your phone to access just about all current data. You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more. You want MORE and STRONGER government regulation because you live in a place with shitty internet access.
Everyone understands the explosive growth of the internet until the previous administration, out of the blue, unilaterally, and WITHOUT THE POPULOUS VOTING, said "Let's change it."
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? A single political party, of either side, wants to radically change something as successful as the Internet immediately and unilaterally and that strikes no one as being odd?
Net neutrality is as neutral as the affordable care act is affordable.
Net neutrality is a bad idea. The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible.
When any political party seeks to change something fundamentally as net neutrality would change the Internet, the people need to ask "Why and why now?"
Sure, the bad analogies sound good, but bad analogies always do.
If Amazon left, which I think they should, they would also forgo the current taxes Amazon & Amazon employees pay.
This reminds me of a story about Rush Limbaugh. Rush used to live in NY City and after NY city & state kept raising taxes, he left. The mayor of NY joked that if he knew that raising taxes was all it took, he would have done it a long time ago. I'm sure he felt rather clever about himself, but now the city & state lost a significant chunk of money that's especially significant when both run a yearly deficit.
Government is a parasite. If they feed to much they'll kill the host then they'll die.
Actually, it's a $20 million dollar hit right now.
If Amazon adds employees, it goes up even more. The socialist city councilwoman (Yes, she ran as a socialist) said that Amazon can easy play double, triple, or quadruple this tax. Smart money says the city council doubles the tax in five years because, why not?
Why should the city say "You know what? We've mismanaged our funds so you pay us $20 million a year to start."
A round of applause for Amazon standing up to government bullying and blackmail.
Read some articles about this and you'll see that the city council has zero gratitude for Amazon and nothing but contempt and an entitlement to Amazon's earnings. Amazon can reasonably expect this tax to double, triple, or go even higher in the future. The best part was when a city council member said Amazon was partially to blame for the homelessness due to their success.
I hope Amazon pulls every job they have out of Seatle and goes to a city that appreciates them.
Plus, really amateur move passing the tax when the new construction is halfway finished. The government pros in Boston or NY would never have made such a mistake.
"too many people experience Stack Overflow as a hostile or elitist place, especially newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups."
New coders maybe, but are there people creating handle like "chick coder", "black overflow", "wheelchair windows", and other such names that tell everyone that they are a woman, person of color, or in some marginalized group?
This just sounds like more pc bullshit. It reminds me of the NY Times headline for the apocalypse "World ends tomorrow. Women, children, & minorities hit hardest."
You don't seem to know what the word "charged" means. In this case it means "entrust (someone) with a task as a duty or responsibility." My father charged me with taking out the garbage every night, does this means this was more important than my homework? No, charging someone with something has nothing to do with any level of importance.
Ahem. You don't seem to know what charged means.
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
You can say whatever you want, but THAT's what Obama told the new NASA administrator. Not "We're going to the moon." Not "Let's go to Mars." But "Let's turn NASA into a social program."
You're saying "Well, you know, Obama was just elected and he hired a new guy to run NASA. He told the new guy exactly what he was looking for when he hired him and he wouldn't have hired the new guy unless he had agreed to do exactly what Obama wanted. After all, Obama wouldn't have hired him otherwise. If he refused, Obama would have simply hired someone else. But don't worry, I'm sure the new guy completely ignored what his boss specifically hired him for. BTW, the simple fact we can't put astronauts into space is completely unrelated."
Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that THERE IS NO HISTORY OF NASA SPENDING SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ON MUSLIM OUTREACH, let alone resources on the scale of it being a top priority. Without that you literally have no case that Obama made that a top priority.
Nice picking and choosing what to respond to by the way. Ignore the most crucial point that there is zero history of NASA spending major resources on Muslim outreach and pick away at any side tangents you can.
You're missing my point. NASA can't even launch astronauts into space now. We used to be able to. We used to do it. NOW we can't. Why? Because NASA is full of political and social bullshit now. NASA isn't doing NASA things. Hiring a new administrator that doesn't want to do the social and political bullshit is the right move.
At least you stopped trying to push the bigot argument.
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
That the top administrator saying that the President charged him three things. That's the leader of the country and the leader of the agency.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama.
Again, NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. I'd say that reflects on the previous administration's record.
Finally, you've failed to establish why reaching out to Muslims
It's NASA. Not some social program. NASA shouldn't have any policy reaching out to any religious group. Especially, a top priority specifically directly personally by the president to the leader of NASA.
Earlier in your post you talk about NASA's work on climate issues; why isnt that listed in bold instead?
Because that wasn't specifically told to the top NASA administrator by the president.
Is the Muslim part so outrageous because it's Muslim?
Stop reading what you want to read and read what I'm typing. I don't give a fuck if it's Muslims, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Protestants, atheists, or any other religious group. NASA should not have any program that makes a religious group feel good about their contribution to mathematics, science, & engineering. I understand you are trying your best to find some bigoted argument here. Sorry to disappoint you.
I wasn't triggered. I highlighted the Muslim parts because it is absolutely absurd that one of NASA's top three goals is "to make dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about themselves."
It would be stupid for any government program to do that, but especially NASA. NASA? Imagine writing that "Obama wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Jehovah's Witnesses world and engage much more with dominantly Jehovah's Witnesses nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
NASA?
Anyway, there is a reason why the Muslim world is the most estranged society from the West. Probably because two-thirds of them are living as if their society is in the fourteenth century.
almost two decades. That's if you want to accept there was any at all in the 90's with the computer models. All of that is up to debate and moce and more evidence has been released to show the data was fudged. (To be generous)
Second, NASA shouldn't be concerned in the least with "global warming" or "global cooling" or any other bullshit. NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. We have to pay the Russians for that. You think about that for a minute.
Third, without being political, google what the three things the previous president charged Charles Bolden, the head of NASA, to do. I'll give you a hint' none of the three were about space.
Charles Bolden, a retired United States Marines Corps major-general and former astronaut, said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
Slashdot Mirror
But this bullshit of not being able see some movies for a couple weeks isn't going to fly. If I go to the theater, I better be able to see the movie.
FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. Watching a 60 minute show in 40 minutes makes a huge difference. Skipping over a boring segment and saving another 10 to 20 minutes saves even more time.
Oh, and pausing at boobs on TV. That's killer.
Nothing beats buckling spring. It's all I've used for 30 years or so. I used to have to use one with a ps/2 to USB adapter. I bought one of the first ones that was native USB.
Sure, they're loud. They're heavy. You can't really take them apart easily to clean. But they are the best keyboard for your fingers and wrists. They are worth the extra cost.
Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.
Shouldn't that mean that either the players play according to the rules or change the rules? Saying that "The refs can't call the rules as the players play and that's just how it is" seems a bit silly to me. I'd be happy if they would start calling traveling and palming again.
Service would improve and cost would go down. Just like our cheap, reliable electrical grid. Just like our cheap, reliable mail service.
I didn't think you were interested in a serious discussion. Now I'm sure.
You read your article correct?
CA is pushing for their standards. Automakers are currently sticking with the more stringent standards until things are settled. You are foolish if you think automakers are willingly going along with 50 mpg standard in 7 years because they want to. You see the cars that are being built now, yes? Do you honestly think buyers and automakers would prefer to buy and sell, respectively, the equivalent of the Ford Focus?
Well, I did cite the ultraconservative "Mercury News."
BTW, I didn't say "illegal." You did.
"You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more."
That's how it's related to our discussion. Do you think we would have the iPhone if it wasn't for the internet? Or self-driving cars? Or any reason to have more powerful phones than slightly older laptops? The Internet drove those things. Just because you have shitty internet access is not a good reason for the government to implement stringent regulations.
Do you honestly think getting the government to impose stringent regulations would make it better? Really? Look what the government does. It literally fucks up everything. Sure, it's necessary, but it's a necessary evil.
If you don't mind, do me a favor, please. Imagine there is government regulation. Imagine the government puts down a strict regulation that everyone has to have say 60/60 megabits per second up and down. Once you get past the "OH HELL YEAH!!!" moment, imagine what happens. Think about what would happen and the cost.
So you replied with misleading info, then I replied with the truthful info, and you took offense.
Nice.
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
My mistake. On the same day, not the same time. As if that makes the gallon limit any better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/california-drought-jerry-brown-sets-permanent-water-conservation-rules-with-new-laws/
You actually read that article, yes? That article doesn't say what you think it says.
Oh and BTW, you realize exactly how slanted this little nugget is right? "At the time, the federal government, California and the states that follow its standards, and the automakers were all on the same page."
Obama unilaterally decreeing that all cars have to have 50 mpg by 2025 is like the federal govt decreeing "all phones have to have 30 hours of continuous battery life by 2025." It's capricious and you are extremely naive if you think there are no consequences to such actions.
Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency.
Safety is. Cars aren't. The government, ARBITRARILY mind you, just set unreachable CAFE standards. Just set them to what they wanted. You think your powerful and faster car with more bells and whistles will hit those standards? Nope. It'll be a one ton box of tissues that gets crumpled when a car from the 70's hits it. The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity?
Do you think TV technology is where is is due to government FCC regulations? Are you kidding me? The FCC has little if anything to due with the explosive growth of the TV. Do you honestly think government regulations are why a 60" 4K TV is $500 now? Really?
Gas/Water? Also Gov regulated.
When hooked up to government supplies. Sure there are some safety standards for wells & septic tanks, but not like what you're suggesting. Government run utilities should have government regulation. But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time? Or citizens drink tap water in Detroit? Or Puerto Rico have power? I'll not point out the common political party that has been in power for decades.
You get another Ma Bell, exactly what we are seeing with Comcast, Google, Time Warner, and others.
You obviously don't remember Ma Bell. Tell you what. Sure, things are cheaper now, but you go ask someone who was around when Ma Bell was around and they were under government regulation as well. They were required to spend a certain amount of service and maintenance. You won't find anyone who complained of their service then. Sure, things are better now, but not if you're talkign about service.
Without net neutrality we *could* end up paying for "Social Media" internet packages to speed up access to FaceBook, or "Streaming" packages to get faster access to Netflix or Hulu. I'd rather pay my ISP for a one-size-fits-all x mbps, NOT a-la-carte based on my browsing habits.
Wait a sec... You mean people could actually have to pay for what they use? Whaaaa? Why that's crazy talk.
What people want is competition. Net neutrality isn't competition. It's a "ok govt, you control everything and I'll shut up as long as I can stream every fucking thing I want right now." That sounds fine. But then the prices go up for everyone with everything. It always happens.
The Internet is doing damn fine as it is.
No, it fucking isn't. Right now, me and our company have exactly two ways to connect to the Internet (AT&T & SpectrumTimeWarner). Both are awful. They're trying to merge, so then we'd have exactly *one* for-profit company to purchase Internet access through. The Internet is not doing damn fine, and we desperately need some strong regulation in place to keep it from becoming AOL v2.
Ok, just so I understand your point.
You don't care that the internet is ubiquitous enough that it reaches refrigerators. Or that developing countries are skipping wired networks. Or that phones are more powerful that laptops of a few years ago. Or that you can use your phone to access just about all current data. You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more. You want MORE and STRONGER government regulation because you live in a place with shitty internet access.
Ok. That makes sense.
Just for the record, access to the internet more than doubled from December 2008 to December 2016.
And for the record, Net neutrality was forced upon the public in April 2015. So your point is?
Everyone understands the explosive growth of the internet until the previous administration, out of the blue, unilaterally, and WITHOUT THE POPULOUS VOTING, said "Let's change it."
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
A single political party, of either side, wants to radically change something as successful as the Internet immediately and unilaterally and that strikes no one as being odd?
Net neutrality is as neutral as the affordable care act is affordable.
Net neutrality is a bad idea. The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible.
When any political party seeks to change something fundamentally as net neutrality would change the Internet, the people need to ask "Why and why now?"
Sure, the bad analogies sound good, but bad analogies always do.
All of these chicken littles view these changes in nature as if they are happening in a vacuum.
Nature is like a beanbag. Push here and it pops out there. One change spawns another change. Nothing is static and nature isn't in a vacuum.
$20 million is still a yawn. Let them leave.
If Amazon left, which I think they should, they would also forgo the current taxes Amazon & Amazon employees pay.
This reminds me of a story about Rush Limbaugh. Rush used to live in NY City and after NY city & state kept raising taxes, he left. The mayor of NY joked that if he knew that raising taxes was all it took, he would have done it a long time ago. I'm sure he felt rather clever about himself, but now the city & state lost a significant chunk of money that's especially significant when both run a yearly deficit.
Government is a parasite. If they feed to much they'll kill the host then they'll die.
Actually, it's a $20 million dollar hit right now.
If Amazon adds employees, it goes up even more. The socialist city councilwoman (Yes, she ran as a socialist) said that Amazon can easy play double, triple, or quadruple this tax. Smart money says the city council doubles the tax in five years because, why not?
Why should the city say "You know what? We've mismanaged our funds so you pay us $20 million a year to start."
It's wrong.
Read some articles about this and you'll see that the city council has zero gratitude for Amazon
They really don't need to have gratitude to Amazon, that's sick.
Where do you think the city gets its money from? Taxes. If Amazon leaves, that's a huge hit in revenue.
A round of applause for Amazon standing up to government bullying and blackmail.
Read some articles about this and you'll see that the city council has zero gratitude for Amazon and nothing but contempt and an entitlement to Amazon's earnings. Amazon can reasonably expect this tax to double, triple, or go even higher in the future. The best part was when a city council member said Amazon was partially to blame for the homelessness due to their success.
I hope Amazon pulls every job they have out of Seatle and goes to a city that appreciates them.
Plus, really amateur move passing the tax when the new construction is halfway finished. The government pros in Boston or NY would never have made such a mistake.
"too many people experience Stack Overflow as a hostile or elitist place, especially newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups."
New coders maybe, but are there people creating handle like "chick coder", "black overflow", "wheelchair windows", and other such names that tell everyone that they are a woman, person of color, or in some marginalized group?
This just sounds like more pc bullshit. It reminds me of the NY Times headline for the apocalypse "World ends tomorrow. Women, children, & minorities hit hardest."
You don't seem to know what the word "charged" means. In this case it means "entrust (someone) with a task as a duty or responsibility." My father charged me with taking out the garbage every night, does this means this was more important than my homework? No, charging someone with something has nothing to do with any level of importance.
Ahem. You don't seem to know what charged means.
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
You can say whatever you want, but THAT's what Obama told the new NASA administrator. Not "We're going to the moon." Not "Let's go to Mars." But "Let's turn NASA into a social program."
You're saying "Well, you know, Obama was just elected and he hired a new guy to run NASA. He told the new guy exactly what he was looking for when he hired him and he wouldn't have hired the new guy unless he had agreed to do exactly what Obama wanted. After all, Obama wouldn't have hired him otherwise. If he refused, Obama would have simply hired someone else. But don't worry, I'm sure the new guy completely ignored what his boss specifically hired him for. BTW, the simple fact we can't put astronauts into space is completely unrelated."
Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that THERE IS NO HISTORY OF NASA SPENDING SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ON MUSLIM OUTREACH, let alone resources on the scale of it being a top priority. Without that you literally have no case that Obama made that a top priority.
Nice picking and choosing what to respond to by the way. Ignore the most crucial point that there is zero history of NASA spending major resources on Muslim outreach and pick away at any side tangents you can.
You're missing my point. NASA can't even launch astronauts into space now. We used to be able to. We used to do it. NOW we can't. Why? Because NASA is full of political and social bullshit now. NASA isn't doing NASA things. Hiring a new administrator that doesn't want to do the social and political bullshit is the right move.
At least you stopped trying to push the bigot argument.
Top three goals?
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
That the top administrator saying that the President charged him three things. That's the leader of the country and the leader of the agency.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama.
Again, NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. I'd say that reflects on the previous administration's record.
Finally, you've failed to establish why reaching out to Muslims
It's NASA. Not some social program. NASA shouldn't have any policy reaching out to any religious group. Especially, a top priority specifically directly personally by the president to the leader of NASA.
Earlier in your post you talk about NASA's work on climate issues; why isnt that listed in bold instead?
Because that wasn't specifically told to the top NASA administrator by the president.
Is the Muslim part so outrageous because it's Muslim?
Stop reading what you want to read and read what I'm typing. I don't give a fuck if it's Muslims, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Protestants, atheists, or any other religious group. NASA should not have any program that makes a religious group feel good about their contribution to mathematics, science, & engineering. I understand you are trying your best to find some bigoted argument here. Sorry to disappoint you.
I wasn't triggered. I highlighted the Muslim parts because it is absolutely absurd that one of NASA's top three goals is "to make dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about themselves."
It would be stupid for any government program to do that, but especially NASA. NASA? Imagine writing that "Obama wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Jehovah's Witnesses world and engage much more with dominantly Jehovah's Witnesses nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
NASA?
Anyway, there is a reason why the Muslim world is the most estranged society from the West. Probably because two-thirds of them are living as if their society is in the fourteenth century.
almost two decades. That's if you want to accept there was any at all in the 90's with the computer models. All of that is up to debate and moce and more evidence has been released to show the data was fudged. (To be generous)
Second, NASA shouldn't be concerned in the least with "global warming" or "global cooling" or any other bullshit. NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. We have to pay the Russians for that. You think about that for a minute.
Third, without being political, google what the three things the previous president charged Charles Bolden, the head of NASA, to do. I'll give you a hint' none of the three were about space.
Charles Bolden, a retired United States Marines Corps major-general and former astronaut, said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
NASA should not be politcial.