Well, no. We need to spend considerably more than 5% of the federal budget on space research and development. IMHO, the return on investment we have received from the space program has far outweighed any other endeavour humanity has undertaken.
Obviously, the benefits are great in a pure-information sense, expanding our understanding of the universe we inhabit, but they have also been incredibly practical. Most of the things you enjoy in life today would not exist without the research put into the space program, starting with anything that uses plastic or its derivatives (which is nearly everything, these days).
Of course, there's ~0% chance that the current administration will increase funding for this sort of thing, because unlike the USSR, the terrorists (whatever that means, anymore) are generally not space-capable, so we don't have that "race" mentality that drove us in decades past.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the real problem in the months/years ahead is that we're running full-tilt into the next Red Scare?
We're starting a "war" against a group of individuals who are more or less evenly spread throughout the entire world. They don't look like anything special. They don't act like anything special (until it's too late). Heck, *anybody* could be one of those terrorists we're trying to nail!
I'm afraid we are exactly one Senator McCarthy away from turning on our neighbors just like we did when Communism was the invisible enemy.
Hey, did that guy piss you off? Call up the super-priority, well-publicized FBI tip line and tell them you have evidence he might be a terrorist. Suddenly, he loses his job, gets "blacklisted" from his profession, can't go out in public, and his life is over for about 10 years while he tries to prove his innocence.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced.
If it makes you feel better at all, those of us who *do* live in the U.S. feel the same way about Japan and Europe, just in different areas.
Pretty much every electronic device (incl. new consoles and their games) comes out in Japan long before we see it in the States, and some things I would like to have *never* make it across the Pacific. Most cool wireless communication stuff hits the E.U. long before it reaches the New World.
Each country or region seems to have its own sector where it gets the stuff before anyone else. Japan gets the electronic gadgets and consoles, the U.S. gets the computer software, most of the E.U. gets cool wireless technology first, and Britain gets... er... mad cow disease.
Seriously. Isn't this crowd against government expansion? I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives? And less government beuracracy? I'm voting for Bush mainly because I don't want Gore's inflated government.
This doesn't answer your question, but I have to question the concept of voting for Bush because you don't want Gore's inflated government.
Bush may not increase the size of the government as much as Gore, but he will undoubtedly still increase the size of government. Regardless of what they say during election years, every Democratic or Republican president has increased the size of government -- just in somewhat different areas.
If you don't want bigger government, why not find a candidate who supports smaller government, not just "less bigger" government?
Believe it or not, you have more than two choices.
1) If you really meant your statement concerning your future voting habits as written (i.e. "I will vote in this order of preference: Green, Independent, Libertarian."), are you really doing better than those who always vote Democrat or always vote Republican? Individuals are elected to office, not political parties.
2) If your #1 concern, as it seems from your post, is the national debt and the incredible tax burden here in the U.S., why in heaven's name would you vote Green as your preferred party? Their platform contains nothing that would lead me to believe they will ever lower taxes or pay off the debt. In fact, folks like Nader seem even more likely than Gore to raise taxes and spend the excess protecting the ants in your backyard.
If I may make a little plug regarding #2... if you are really concerned about taxes and the national debt, why not consider Libertarian as your first choice? They're the only party with a consistent presence (i.e. not a one-shot candidacy) who have a serious plan to quickly pay off the national debt, while eliminating the income tax and all other national taxes that our government, constitutionally, has no right to impose on us in the first place. (Incidentally, the Libertarians are also generally for reducing Defense spending to a level commensurate with defending the U.S., as opposed to running around the world attacking everyone like we do now.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. We need to spend considerably more than 5% of the federal budget on space research and development. IMHO, the return on investment we have received from the space program has far outweighed any other endeavour humanity has undertaken.
Obviously, the benefits are great in a pure-information sense, expanding our understanding of the universe we inhabit, but they have also been incredibly practical. Most of the things you enjoy in life today would not exist without the research put into the space program, starting with anything that uses plastic or its derivatives (which is nearly everything, these days).
Of course, there's ~0% chance that the current administration will increase funding for this sort of thing, because unlike the USSR, the terrorists (whatever that means, anymore) are generally not space-capable, so we don't have that "race" mentality that drove us in decades past.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the real problem in the months/years ahead is that we're running full-tilt into the next Red Scare?
We're starting a "war" against a group of individuals who are more or less evenly spread throughout the entire world. They don't look like anything special. They don't act like anything special (until it's too late). Heck, *anybody* could be one of those terrorists we're trying to nail!
I'm afraid we are exactly one Senator McCarthy away from turning on our neighbors just like we did when Communism was the invisible enemy.
Hey, did that guy piss you off? Call up the super-priority, well-publicized FBI tip line and tell them you have evidence he might be a terrorist. Suddenly, he loses his job, gets "blacklisted" from his profession, can't go out in public, and his life is over for about 10 years while he tries to prove his innocence.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced.
If it makes you feel better at all, those of us who *do* live in the U.S. feel the same way about Japan and Europe, just in different areas.
Pretty much every electronic device (incl. new consoles and their games) comes out in Japan long before we see it in the States, and some things I would like to have *never* make it across the Pacific. Most cool wireless communication stuff hits the E.U. long before it reaches the New World.
Each country or region seems to have its own sector where it gets the stuff before anyone else. Japan gets the electronic gadgets and consoles, the U.S. gets the computer software, most of the E.U. gets cool wireless technology first, and Britain gets... er... mad cow disease.
This doesn't answer your question, but I have to question the concept of voting for Bush because you don't want Gore's inflated government.
Bush may not increase the size of the government as much as Gore, but he will undoubtedly still increase the size of government. Regardless of what they say during election years, every Democratic or Republican president has increased the size of government -- just in somewhat different areas.
If you don't want bigger government, why not find a candidate who supports smaller government, not just "less bigger" government?
Believe it or not, you have more than two choices.
1) If you really meant your statement concerning your future voting habits as written (i.e. "I will vote in this order of preference: Green, Independent, Libertarian."), are you really doing better than those who always vote Democrat or always vote Republican? Individuals are elected to office, not political parties.
2) If your #1 concern, as it seems from your post, is the national debt and the incredible tax burden here in the U.S., why in heaven's name would you vote Green as your preferred party? Their platform contains nothing that would lead me to believe they will ever lower taxes or pay off the debt. In fact, folks like Nader seem even more likely than Gore to raise taxes and spend the excess protecting the ants in your backyard.
If I may make a little plug regarding #2... if you are really concerned about taxes and the national debt, why not consider Libertarian as your first choice? They're the only party with a consistent presence (i.e. not a one-shot candidacy) who have a serious plan to quickly pay off the national debt, while eliminating the income tax and all other national taxes that our government, constitutionally, has no right to impose on us in the first place. (Incidentally, the Libertarians are also generally for reducing Defense spending to a level commensurate with defending the U.S., as opposed to running around the world attacking everyone like we do now.)
My $0.02.