Ah, yes. A user of the word "fucknut." I stand corrected. Domestic terrorists have "committed arsons with improvised incendiary devices made from milk jugs, petroleum products and homemade timers in a series of attacks in the five states." Without a doubt this justifies the expense of a vast network of liquid nitrogen-jacketed superconductors buried deep underground, no question. The War on Terror is a harsh taskmaster, and there are many Anonymous Cowards out there to constantly remind us, even if it is necessary to mention entirely irrelevant details such as wartime attacks on power grids by formal, uniformed, state-sponsored armies representing a specific national government.
The terrorists we are supposed to fear deeply are not organized state-sponsored armies. It may have escaped your notice that they are ragtag bands of deranged fanatics, many of them undecuated impulsive simpletons, to put it charitably. They are sponsored by wealthy and powerful individuals and organizations who hide in distant shadow. These bands of terrorist nitwits serve many purposes, not the least of which is maintaining a psychology of imminent emergency and cataclysm among our more gullible fellow citizens. This 1) maintains a high per-barrel price of oil, 2) supports contentions by political officials that hundreds of billions of dollars must be funneled to specific private concerns, 3) causes the public to accept a massively bloated military apparatus, and damn the human and financial cost, and 4) justifies the systematic elimination of our civil rights and the acceptance of an unprecedentedly powerful and ever more Soviet-style government here in the US.
I could go on, but why bother? People who call each other "fucknut" tend to be neither good listeners nor thoughtful interlocutors.
...because terrorists have demonstrated that they want to blow up electric towers...
Well, well. Funny you should mention that. Have any electrical power towers been blown up by terrorists in the US recently? Ever? Have any credible plots planning to do so come to light?
Guess what folks. That is evidence that there are extremely few terrorist cells in the US, not the other way around. Wise up, everybody, the "War on Terror" is a lie. It is a scam built around 9/11, which itself still holds a few dark secrets. 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to these lying, cheating, thieving , murderous bastard businessmen-politicians.
After all, competition made life: Just so long as it does not become conflict, it is healthy.
I suggest you look a little closer. In Darwinian evolution, those who lose the competition must not reproduce. This usually meant dying an unpleasant death as a virgin.
I understand your point, but the target will be moving, sometimes unpredictably. Even if you actually hit it, reflected rays may cause a lot of unintended damage, possibly even to your own team, depending on the circumstances.
Snipers are a special case, as someone else posted "primitive sniper rifles were heavy and took some prep time as well, didn't make them non-lethal when you have it sitting (concealed) a mile away from the main fighting." However, closer in with a rifle that is not as securely fixed on the target can be more trouble than it is worth. Blinding friend and foe alike with light reflected from the target, raking unintended targets with stray beams as the rifleman tries to stay on the target, dealing with the heat signature the rifle will surely generate when it fires (not the laser beam itself, but heat dissipated by the mechanism) and which anyone with IR detection capability can zero in on (especially at night), dealing with radiactive materials if the mechanism goes that route, etc.
Military planners know about all of these issues. That is why I think it is partly disinformation for the gullible, and government pork for those who will justify expensive R&D on this for many years to come. This is too exotic and wacky to be of any military use for the foreseeable future.
To say nothing of the mayhem they cause due to some of the beam reflecting off the target, or missing it partly or completely. As I recall, this was deemed a major drawback to the airborne laser discussed here about a year ago. Also, the lasers require very large amount of input energy in order to generate a militarily useful beam. This means consumables, added weight, transportation, firing prep, detectability by the enemy, etc. This sounds like Pentagon bullshit to me, disinformation designed to frighten and fake out naive Third World military.
Meaning what, it doesn't work? You didn't like the wallpaper? You can't configure it to your liking? None of the half dozen or so desktop environments (compared to the lone Vista equivalent) will work for you? It doesn't consume enough memory and CPU resources for you? You just wanted to make a snide anti-Ubuntu remark?
Dude, just grab some old unused PC from your garage or somewhere and install Ubuntu on it. Play around with it, then let us know how it went. You will be surprised, more knowledgable, and not a penny poorer. Well, OK, you may need to spend a quarter on a CD blank. Of course, they'll give you one for free if you are nice about it and have some patience.
Have you used both Vista and Ubuntu? Your comments are at least a couple of years out of date.
I have a couple of Win2k boxes, an XP box, a couple of ubuntu edgy eft boxes, and a Fedora 4 or 5 box at home, some used as desktops, some as servers. My 17 year old utterly non-geek daughter got an HP laptop recently, with Vista Home Premium (whatever that means). It was slow, rebooted occasionally of its own free will, and refused to see a shared printer on a Win2k box or see any of the shared directories on any of the other boxes. I wrestled with it for 20 or 30 minutes, to no avail. Granted, I could have gone online and researched it and figured out the stupid trick, but for what? To make a Windows box see a printer on another Windows box? Isn't that why people resist using Linux, to not have to dig around for every stupid little thing?
Yesterday I set her up with Ubuntu Edgy Eft. Everything went smoothly, just moronically pushing the OK button to very reasonably selected options. Updated all the software, and installed more stuff than she really needs, all in about an hour and a half with a single reboot. Setting up the printer was as easy as it ever has been in Windows, easy, painless, fast. The network server browser immediately shows not only the other linux boxes, but all of the Windows shares as well, and copying files was nothing more than a mouse-driven copy/paste.
Wake up, folks. Linux is ready for the desktop. It will pass the test with most middle-class college-educated grannies, at the very least. The Aunt Tilly's of the world will soon realize that spending hundreds of dollars on software is no longer a requirement.
We are there, people! Hallelujah, we are fucking there!
Occupying a large country and pretending that we're not invaders is a stupid idea. It was a stupid idea before it was executed, and it's a stupid idea now. No good will come of it, no matter how much better you feel when you blame the person who points out that it was a stupid idea.
Hear, hear! It was also plainly and obviously stupid before it was done, but too late now.
I do take issue with the current conventional wisdom that "the region descend into utter chaos and barbarism" if we leave. That claim represents a shallow view of history. Much more likely is that the Shiites will unabashedly exterminate any remnant of Al Qaeda in Iraq, arguably a desirable outcome, and viciously repress the Sunnis, arguably a recipe for prolonged conflict. The Saudis and other Gulf states will support both the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, as they apparently have been doing for quite a while. Iran will support the Shiites by supporting instability within Saudi Arabia and the other authoritarian Gulf states, which these days is probably not a difficult thing to do. These forces will test each other and back down if the heat gets too high, and trust me, it will. The region will cool off to a simmering conflict among the local players, and the usual supects there and here in the US will take advantage of the situation to cry out impending doom to ensure high oil prices, as they have been doing all along.
Suckers the world over will believe the bullshit, and spend their lives in fear of chaos and imminent massive terrorist attacks, which will rarely occur. The US energy and "defense" industries, the Saudis, and the Gulf states will continue to be controlled by wealthy oil-industry players who will enjoy an even greater windfall than they already have, and will use part of that wealth to 1) ensure that the windfall continues by supporting the conflict and public sense of emergency, 2) viciously repress anyone or anything that threatens them, and 3) support terrorists attacks in the region and occasionally in the west, so that "world public opinion" stays in line.
Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."
Please support H Res 333, the articles of impeachment of Vice President R. Cheney submitted by Congressman D. Kucinich, in the most vigorous terms possible. The invasion of Iraq was an international crime, and I do not need to describe to you the colossal human, economic, and social costs that have already accrued, and that will increase in the future with the inevitable multi-faceted blowback that will result.
Please make this your top priority and do everything in your power to recruit your colleagues in its support, and to ensure the successful impeachment of Mr Cheney.
I suspect that a minority of soldiers will be highly skilled at the use of this tech, at least in the short term. Where this will really come into its own is in remotely-directed soldiers, which is already going on in Iraq. The next step would have to be semi-autonomous mobile robotic combat devices of some kind in combination with remote control. It is asking too much of a person to rapidly and repeatedly shift focus from one relatively high bandwidth information stream to another while his life is constantly in imminent danger. That is a job for a machine.
The comparison with Ghost Recon is apt, because that is the sort of interface one can imagine for human controllers of remote robotic combat units. Combine it with a reasonably robust semi-autonomous combat robot, even one on wheels, and it's a whole new ballgame.
The single gigantic hole in your theory is that the best-funded candidates LOSE as often as not.
I said nothing of the kind. I made no claims about the influence of money on election outcomes. My claim has to do with who can influence seated politicians and who cannot. Your argument does not address that.
The second part of your post is profoundly naive. If you gave a lot of money, you will get far more attention than if you did not. Only on rare occasions do enough average joe voters align to influence a politician sufficiently to have her change her mind. This is rare, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.
Please do not be offended, but I sense that you place a great deal of faith in the system, in spite of daily evidence to the contrary. There is little I can say to dissuade you. I predict you will be very disappointed by the end of 2009, even if your favorite candidate or political party does well in 2008.
The greatest examples of our time are the invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror." If ever there were circumstances where greedy businessmen-politicians came together to raid the federal till on the flimsiest of pretexts, these are they. And yet, the vast majority of our citizens still believe the sappy back-stories and specious claims thinly portrayed as evidence. No questioning, no accountability, a tacit acceptance that the events of 09/11/2001 have been adequately explained, the common belief that thousands of terrorists are constantly trying to get into our country and repeat them, and the utterly unfounded belief that there was any justification for the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the passing of the Patriot Act or that they are of any use whatsoever.
By now you no doubt believe I am a crank. You may be right, but I challenge you to print this message out on paper and read it again 10 years from now. Your perspective will have changed dramatically.
Politics is politics, dear friends. Partisanship and political discourse are theater whose purpose is to obtain votes. Either of the two parties will say and do anything, and I do mean anything to put their people in power. Ideology, "positions," speeches, platforms, and the like should not be construed as promises or guarantees of future behavior. They are meant for one and only one thing: to obtain votes.
Also, do not believe that we, the voters are their constituents in the sense that they are beholden to our interests. This is not the case. They are beholden to those who can pressure them by providing or withholding money, usually (but not always) through lobbyists. If you are not represented in such a way to your government representatives, then you are not in any practical sense one of their constituents. Your vote was the single act in which you are able to influence the process. In principle, you can write to them once they are in office and attempt to sway them, but unless you are onboard with the money-providing players, or unless you are part of a massive broad-based campaign, you will be ignored and will receive a canned response.
I claim that the above is neither an opinion nor ideology, but an expression of practical facts. Please refute that claim.
With all due respect, I would suggest that the posts you refer to, namely those pointing out the wastefulness and lack of utility of manned space travel, or the practical impossibility of achieving the childish dreams of colonizing space, escaping the dreaded asteroid impact, etc., are not values based. I merely point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the necessary resources to fulfill those dreams can ever be practically applied. This is not values based. It is due to physical barriers of mass and energy balance. Perhaps my ad hominem characterizations are values based, or merely insulting, but the underlying arguments are not.
No. You are supposed to be overwhelmed with positive emotions, and glad to have had the chance to fund whatever miniscule part of the Shuttle or ISS was paid for with your taxes. You need to feel that as he is in space, you are too, and that in itself should be fulfilling. You must also conclude that this shows the commercial viability of manned space travel, as well as its imminent blossoming on a much larger scale at Spaceport America. You should also have had your faith in the usefulness of manned space travel enormously reinforced. Now your faith in it is unwavering and rock-solid. You will write to your congressional representatives asking them, nay, telling them, ordering them, to spend scores of billions more on manned space exploration. This proves that humanity will colonize space, escape the dreaded asteroid impact, terraform and colonize Mars, colonize the moon, and generally have a vast and bright new future away from our troubled planet.
Even if only five or six people actually make it beyond earth orbit for any significant amount of time. Ever. At least they went, and that proves the whole concept.
Of course. What did you expect? A puzzling remark.
any reason they must be the ones I follow?
The only reason would be if you agree with them, which I gather is not the case. Here's something more general and possibly less ideological:
Write to your state and federal congressional representatives at least once a quarter or so. Let them know what you would like them to do or how you would like them to vote on at least one issue or specific piece of legislation.
Promote small- and medium-sized businesses in your area. You choose the focus.
Promote open source software in your area. You choose the focus.
With regards to US space exploration, make sure the actual programs and spending are in alignment with the short- and medium-term goals you think are important. Be very wary of defense/aerospace industries just grabbing for pork as a way of life. Let your congressional representatives know about the results of your analyses.
Anything that will help local small businesses will be of great help. Figure out ways to make your local economy resilient to recession, including food supply, shifting labor to other businesses when local industry slows down, etc. Things that will help local small- and medium-scale agriculture and food production. Promote cuisine that deemphasizes meat because it is wasteful of resources, because cows produce a lot of greenhouse gases and huge amounts of other waste, and because more people can be fed per hectare with plant crops than with animal products. Help people switch to open-source software at home (try the Ubuntu version that comes out on April 19). Promote a path to higher education that avoids the current standardized testing and advanced placement rat race. Figure out ways for people to be more self-sufficent and DIY in their daily lives, no achievement is too small. Get people to wean themselves away form commercial pop-culture, especially scheduled TV viewing. Promote reading, socializing, manual arts, using computers for productive and/or creative activities. Support local sports for children and teenagers, such as AYSO, Little League, and the like. Teach people to program computers. Donate prizes to school competitions such as writing contests, math and science competitions, etc. I'm sure you can think of many other things.
I think its his right that he do what he wants with the money he earned
Don't you get it, you dipshit? He didn't pay for more than a fraction of it. We and a lot of average Russian citizens subsidized his trip with a lot of prior public investment. Earned? Microsoft earned their billions? With hard work, no doubt, not a structural monopoly they defend tooth and nail and a huge ocean of PR bullshit.
Paving the way for the future! Colonize space! Escape from earthly cataclysm! Embrace the future! Mine the asteroids! Terraform and colonize Mars! Put manned bases on the moon and in orbit! Make your moronic SciFi dreams come true! Make sure the pork keeps flowing in vast amounts to the defense industry! Keep sitting on the floor playing with your Fisher-Price spaceships well into your 30s and 40s!
Slashdot Mirror
The terrorists we are supposed to fear deeply are not organized state-sponsored armies. It may have escaped your notice that they are ragtag bands of deranged fanatics, many of them undecuated impulsive simpletons, to put it charitably. They are sponsored by wealthy and powerful individuals and organizations who hide in distant shadow. These bands of terrorist nitwits serve many purposes, not the least of which is maintaining a psychology of imminent emergency and cataclysm among our more gullible fellow citizens. This 1) maintains a high per-barrel price of oil, 2) supports contentions by political officials that hundreds of billions of dollars must be funneled to specific private concerns, 3) causes the public to accept a massively bloated military apparatus, and damn the human and financial cost, and 4) justifies the systematic elimination of our civil rights and the acceptance of an unprecedentedly powerful and ever more Soviet-style government here in the US.
I could go on, but why bother? People who call each other "fucknut" tend to be neither good listeners nor thoughtful interlocutors.
Well, well. Funny you should mention that. Have any electrical power towers been blown up by terrorists in the US recently? Ever? Have any credible plots planning to do so come to light?
Guess what folks. That is evidence that there are extremely few terrorist cells in the US, not the other way around. Wise up, everybody, the "War on Terror" is a lie. It is a scam built around 9/11, which itself still holds a few dark secrets. 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to these lying, cheating, thieving , murderous bastard businessmen-politicians.
And, um, keep your wallet handy.
You're just jealous because none of the gravy will drip onto your plate.
I suggest you look a little closer. In Darwinian evolution, those who lose the competition must not reproduce. This usually meant dying an unpleasant death as a virgin.
Snipers are a special case, as someone else posted "primitive sniper rifles were heavy and took some prep time as well, didn't make them non-lethal when you have it sitting (concealed) a mile away from the main fighting." However, closer in with a rifle that is not as securely fixed on the target can be more trouble than it is worth. Blinding friend and foe alike with light reflected from the target, raking unintended targets with stray beams as the rifleman tries to stay on the target, dealing with the heat signature the rifle will surely generate when it fires (not the laser beam itself, but heat dissipated by the mechanism) and which anyone with IR detection capability can zero in on (especially at night), dealing with radiactive materials if the mechanism goes that route, etc.
Military planners know about all of these issues. That is why I think it is partly disinformation for the gullible, and government pork for those who will justify expensive R&D on this for many years to come. This is too exotic and wacky to be of any military use for the foreseeable future.
To say nothing of the mayhem they cause due to some of the beam reflecting off the target, or missing it partly or completely. As I recall, this was deemed a major drawback to the airborne laser discussed here about a year ago. Also, the lasers require very large amount of input energy in order to generate a militarily useful beam. This means consumables, added weight, transportation, firing prep, detectability by the enemy, etc. This sounds like Pentagon bullshit to me, disinformation designed to frighten and fake out naive Third World military.
Meaning what, it doesn't work? You didn't like the wallpaper? You can't configure it to your liking? None of the half dozen or so desktop environments (compared to the lone Vista equivalent) will work for you? It doesn't consume enough memory and CPU resources for you? You just wanted to make a snide anti-Ubuntu remark?
Dude, just grab some old unused PC from your garage or somewhere and install Ubuntu on it. Play around with it, then let us know how it went. You will be surprised, more knowledgable, and not a penny poorer. Well, OK, you may need to spend a quarter on a CD blank. Of course, they'll give you one for free if you are nice about it and have some patience.
Cancel. Reboot to Ubunto install CD. The rest is obvious and easy.
The window's users' liberation:
Goodbye, cruel world
I'm leaving you today
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye
Goodbye, all you people
There's nothing you can say
To make me change my mind
Goodbye
Pink Floyd
You don't use Vista or Linux, do you?
I have a couple of Win2k boxes, an XP box, a couple of ubuntu edgy eft boxes, and a Fedora 4 or 5 box at home, some used as desktops, some as servers. My 17 year old utterly non-geek daughter got an HP laptop recently, with Vista Home Premium (whatever that means). It was slow, rebooted occasionally of its own free will, and refused to see a shared printer on a Win2k box or see any of the shared directories on any of the other boxes. I wrestled with it for 20 or 30 minutes, to no avail. Granted, I could have gone online and researched it and figured out the stupid trick, but for what? To make a Windows box see a printer on another Windows box? Isn't that why people resist using Linux, to not have to dig around for every stupid little thing?
Yesterday I set her up with Ubuntu Edgy Eft. Everything went smoothly, just moronically pushing the OK button to very reasonably selected options. Updated all the software, and installed more stuff than she really needs, all in about an hour and a half with a single reboot. Setting up the printer was as easy as it ever has been in Windows, easy, painless, fast. The network server browser immediately shows not only the other linux boxes, but all of the Windows shares as well, and copying files was nothing more than a mouse-driven copy/paste.
Wake up, folks. Linux is ready for the desktop. It will pass the test with most middle-class college-educated grannies, at the very least. The Aunt Tilly's of the world will soon realize that spending hundreds of dollars on software is no longer a requirement.
We are there, people! Hallelujah, we are fucking there!
I see what little press this is getting and what little support from other Democrats, and I am getting a mighty urge to reach for my tinfoil hat.
Hear, hear! It was also plainly and obviously stupid before it was done, but too late now.
I do take issue with the current conventional wisdom that "the region descend into utter chaos and barbarism" if we leave. That claim represents a shallow view of history. Much more likely is that the Shiites will unabashedly exterminate any remnant of Al Qaeda in Iraq, arguably a desirable outcome, and viciously repress the Sunnis, arguably a recipe for prolonged conflict. The Saudis and other Gulf states will support both the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, as they apparently have been doing for quite a while. Iran will support the Shiites by supporting instability within Saudi Arabia and the other authoritarian Gulf states, which these days is probably not a difficult thing to do. These forces will test each other and back down if the heat gets too high, and trust me, it will. The region will cool off to a simmering conflict among the local players, and the usual supects there and here in the US will take advantage of the situation to cry out impending doom to ensure high oil prices, as they have been doing all along.
Suckers the world over will believe the bullshit, and spend their lives in fear of chaos and imminent massive terrorist attacks, which will rarely occur. The US energy and "defense" industries, the Saudis, and the Gulf states will continue to be controlled by wealthy oil-industry players who will enjoy an even greater windfall than they already have, and will use part of that wealth to 1) ensure that the windfall continues by supporting the conflict and public sense of emergency, 2) viciously repress anyone or anything that threatens them, and 3) support terrorists attacks in the region and occasionally in the west, so that "world public opinion" stays in line.
Are you kidding? An asshole like that, the guy must live next to a paper mill.
Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."
Please support H Res 333, the articles of impeachment of Vice President R. Cheney submitted by Congressman D. Kucinich, in the most vigorous terms possible. The invasion of Iraq was an international crime, and I do not need to describe to you the colossal human, economic, and social costs that have already accrued, and that will increase in the future with the inevitable multi-faceted blowback that will result.
Please make this your top priority and do everything in your power to recruit your colleagues in its support, and to ensure the successful impeachment of Mr Cheney.
Thank you very much!
The comparison with Ghost Recon is apt, because that is the sort of interface one can imagine for human controllers of remote robotic combat units. Combine it with a reasonably robust semi-autonomous combat robot, even one on wheels, and it's a whole new ballgame.
I said nothing of the kind. I made no claims about the influence of money on election outcomes. My claim has to do with who can influence seated politicians and who cannot. Your argument does not address that.
The second part of your post is profoundly naive. If you gave a lot of money, you will get far more attention than if you did not. Only on rare occasions do enough average joe voters align to influence a politician sufficiently to have her change her mind. This is rare, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.
Please do not be offended, but I sense that you place a great deal of faith in the system, in spite of daily evidence to the contrary. There is little I can say to dissuade you. I predict you will be very disappointed by the end of 2009, even if your favorite candidate or political party does well in 2008.
The greatest examples of our time are the invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror." If ever there were circumstances where greedy businessmen-politicians came together to raid the federal till on the flimsiest of pretexts, these are they. And yet, the vast majority of our citizens still believe the sappy back-stories and specious claims thinly portrayed as evidence. No questioning, no accountability, a tacit acceptance that the events of 09/11/2001 have been adequately explained, the common belief that thousands of terrorists are constantly trying to get into our country and repeat them, and the utterly unfounded belief that there was any justification for the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the passing of the Patriot Act or that they are of any use whatsoever.
By now you no doubt believe I am a crank. You may be right, but I challenge you to print this message out on paper and read it again 10 years from now. Your perspective will have changed dramatically.
Also, do not believe that we, the voters are their constituents in the sense that they are beholden to our interests. This is not the case. They are beholden to those who can pressure them by providing or withholding money, usually (but not always) through lobbyists. If you are not represented in such a way to your government representatives, then you are not in any practical sense one of their constituents. Your vote was the single act in which you are able to influence the process. In principle, you can write to them once they are in office and attempt to sway them, but unless you are onboard with the money-providing players, or unless you are part of a massive broad-based campaign, you will be ignored and will receive a canned response.
I claim that the above is neither an opinion nor ideology, but an expression of practical facts. Please refute that claim.
With all due respect, I would suggest that the posts you refer to, namely those pointing out the wastefulness and lack of utility of manned space travel, or the practical impossibility of achieving the childish dreams of colonizing space, escaping the dreaded asteroid impact, etc., are not values based. I merely point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the necessary resources to fulfill those dreams can ever be practically applied. This is not values based. It is due to physical barriers of mass and energy balance. Perhaps my ad hominem characterizations are values based, or merely insulting, but the underlying arguments are not.
Even if only five or six people actually make it beyond earth orbit for any significant amount of time. Ever. At least they went, and that proves the whole concept.
Of course. What did you expect? A puzzling remark.
any reason they must be the ones I follow?
The only reason would be if you agree with them, which I gather is not the case. Here's something more general and possibly less ideological:
Write to your state and federal congressional representatives at least once a quarter or so. Let them know what you would like them to do or how you would like them to vote on at least one issue or specific piece of legislation.
Promote small- and medium-sized businesses in your area. You choose the focus.
Promote open source software in your area. You choose the focus.
With regards to US space exploration, make sure the actual programs and spending are in alignment with the short- and medium-term goals you think are important. Be very wary of defense/aerospace industries just grabbing for pork as a way of life. Let your congressional representatives know about the results of your analyses.
There. How's that?
Anything that will help local small businesses will be of great help. Figure out ways to make your local economy resilient to recession, including food supply, shifting labor to other businesses when local industry slows down, etc. Things that will help local small- and medium-scale agriculture and food production. Promote cuisine that deemphasizes meat because it is wasteful of resources, because cows produce a lot of greenhouse gases and huge amounts of other waste, and because more people can be fed per hectare with plant crops than with animal products. Help people switch to open-source software at home (try the Ubuntu version that comes out on April 19). Promote a path to higher education that avoids the current standardized testing and advanced placement rat race. Figure out ways for people to be more self-sufficent and DIY in their daily lives, no achievement is too small. Get people to wean themselves away form commercial pop-culture, especially scheduled TV viewing. Promote reading, socializing, manual arts, using computers for productive and/or creative activities. Support local sports for children and teenagers, such as AYSO, Little League, and the like. Teach people to program computers. Donate prizes to school competitions such as writing contests, math and science competitions, etc. I'm sure you can think of many other things.
I am assuming you were not being sarcastic.
Don't you get it, you dipshit? He didn't pay for more than a fraction of it. We and a lot of average Russian citizens subsidized his trip with a lot of prior public investment. Earned? Microsoft earned their billions? With hard work, no doubt, not a structural monopoly they defend tooth and nail and a huge ocean of PR bullshit.
Oh, es inutil...