Not to be rude, but how does Sweden have a space program? It's easy enough when given the technology and space in a cargo bay, but compare it to the US or Russian program both of which spent years developing the technology. I don't care that Sweden is using NASA's technology, but I hardly see how it qualifies as a space program.
Understandably, one can look at NASA's failures and claim that the money would be better spent. So, I have a few points.
If you look at the missions NASA is doing lately they aren't nationalistic; they're scientific in nature.
What if we found a cure for AIDS or Cancer on the ISS? And if we hadn't been doing this we wouldn't have discovered it.
Lastly, the comment about misuse of funding highlights a flaw in the system itself. The point should be not that we are spending too much on space, but not enough on other projects. Espicially here in the US, we could afford to spend a lot less on something like the military and more on NASA and medical research. I think both have long-term benefits for humanity. And if you look at our environmental record, we might want to find another planet =p.
I'm sorry that I'm ignorant to what Canada is currently capable of doing space-wise.
However, as far as I'm concerned, to be a 'space-power' they should be able to reliably send themselves and objects into space.
From the looks of the article mentioned, they can't because they are relying on US technology to get themselves there. To be honest, I don't see why it's a big accomplishment for the first Candidian in space(sure, it's cool), but I think the first based on their technology is much more important.
While I don't think the US should be the ones to apologize, there is something to be said about apologizing anyway and resolving the mess. Regardless of your views of the new administration (and I'm a major skeptic), I'd rather they apologize and move on to more important issues.
Secondly, apologizing is not saying "Yes, China, we are at fault!", but rather it's all in the interpretation. If China wishes to imagine we're saying that, fine, but all we really mean is that we're sorry this accident every happened. And aren't we? Yes, it's too bad the Chinese pilot died, regardless of who is at fault.
And if GW really cared about our servicemen/women, he'd say the word and bring them home.
We should protect the children by allowing such material to be posted on the internet. It shouldn't be laws which dictate what is acceptable - that changes over time as society alters what is normal and justifiable.
Yes, it might be sick humor, but to ban it would be worse IMHO. If people are that ticked off about it, then speak up and tell the author that. But don't bitch about it and use it as an excuse to start censoring - we have too many other problems.
I don't find it offensive. Maybe dark humor, but only offensive if you read it wanting to be offended.
Honestly, they put a big warning saying if you're easily offended to go away.
blizzardx
Did anyone see the ad Nader showed on television during the campaign season? There was a link to it on the original article, but it didn't say a lot.
I remember hearing about it, and later hearing how Mastercard had lost its suit against Nader. I doubt they'll have much more luck against a newsgroup.
blizzardx
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying you're buying our technology, but you're sending your satellites in our rockets. I fail to see how that constitutes as a space program.
Not to be rude, but how does Sweden have a space program? It's easy enough when given the technology and space in a cargo bay, but compare it to the US or Russian program both of which spent years developing the technology. I don't care that Sweden is using NASA's technology, but I hardly see how it qualifies as a space program.
BlizzardxUnderstandably, one can look at NASA's failures and claim that the money would be better spent. So, I have a few points.
If you look at the missions NASA is doing lately they aren't nationalistic; they're scientific in nature.
What if we found a cure for AIDS or Cancer on the ISS? And if we hadn't been doing this we wouldn't have discovered it.
Lastly, the comment about misuse of funding highlights a flaw in the system itself. The point should be not that we are spending too much on space, but not enough on other projects. Espicially here in the US, we could afford to spend a lot less on something like the military and more on NASA and medical research. I think both have long-term benefits for humanity. And if you look at our environmental record, we might want to find another planet =p.
blizzardx
However, as far as I'm concerned, to be a 'space-power' they should be able to reliably send themselves and objects into space.
From the looks of the article mentioned, they can't because they are relying on US technology to get themselves there. To be honest, I don't see why it's a big accomplishment for the first Candidian in space(sure, it's cool), but I think the first based on their technology is much more important.
blizzardx
I heard everyone gets a free taco if Mir 2 actually makes it into space.
While I don't think the US should be the ones to apologize, there is something to be said about apologizing anyway and resolving the mess. Regardless of your views of the new administration (and I'm a major skeptic), I'd rather they apologize and move on to more important issues.
Secondly, apologizing is not saying "Yes, China, we are at fault!", but rather it's all in the interpretation. If China wishes to imagine we're saying that, fine, but all we really mean is that we're sorry this accident every happened. And aren't we? Yes, it's too bad the Chinese pilot died, regardless of who is at fault.
And if GW really cared about our servicemen/women, he'd say the word and bring them home.
So now corporations can trademark a word (priceless)? Great.
We should protect the children by allowing such material to be posted on the internet. It shouldn't be laws which dictate what is acceptable - that changes over time as society alters what is normal and justifiable. Yes, it might be sick humor, but to ban it would be worse IMHO. If people are that ticked off about it, then speak up and tell the author that. But don't bitch about it and use it as an excuse to start censoring - we have too many other problems.
I don't find it offensive. Maybe dark humor, but only offensive if you read it wanting to be offended. Honestly, they put a big warning saying if you're easily offended to go away. blizzardx
Did anyone see the ad Nader showed on television during the campaign season? There was a link to it on the original article, but it didn't say a lot. I remember hearing about it, and later hearing how Mastercard had lost its suit against Nader. I doubt they'll have much more luck against a newsgroup. blizzardx