"Historically, every dollar invested in the space program has brought seven back into the economy"
http://www.ae.utexas.edu/Archives/bishop_moon_arti cle.html
"We have documented the cost-effectiveness of space exploration, witnessing a 9-to-1 return on every dollar invested in the moon landings. "
So NASA is really just a front for a counterfitting business?
Of course, I'm referring to actual court case with actual plaintiffs who think they actually have an actual case of actual infringement of actual property by an actual defendant,
It also works that way for 'intellectual property' instead of just actual property.
Most terrorist acts commited in the US have been commited by Americans. It's just that the most well known one seems to have been committed by foreigners.
but we didn't recover much before the war. Also we may very well have come out of the depression at about the same time without either a war or the new deal.
They both cheated; Most politicians do cheat in elections to some extent. The unique thing about this election was that it was so close as far as the electoral college goes, such that whoever had Florida would win, and the florida vote was close enough that it could swing either way if just a few voters were disenfranchise, a few fraudulent votes were made, or a few ballots were contested. That made the cheating that did go on come to light, as well as provide a ton of incentive to cheat just a little more.
Theres no need to cause panic by the liberal media - CAPITALIZM and REPUBLICANIZM and the two KEYS that we have to AUTOMATICALLY address many of our problems, without the need for big government and bigger taxes.
Republicans don't seem to be for small government; Bush increased spending. I agree with much of what republicans say they are for, but very little of what they truly are for.
Solar power and wind power are both economically viable as alternatives to dead-end fossil fuel.
Not when you consider the cost of switching.
Where is the widespread federally-run government sponsorship program for placing solar panels on rooftops and wind turbines on farmlands?
Why Federally run, rather than privately owned.
The power use of the US could be halved without affecting standard of living, if the government just got serious about it.
I doubt the government could do much about it without limiting power usage(which would be vastly unfair, as those in Nevada cannot have the air conditioning they need without going to jail, while those in california can). What's needed is for people to take initiative in not wasting power.
But since they're all getting rich off this overuse of power, why do it?
That may be one reason, however a larger reason is that it would be political suicide to place quotas on power usage, and saving power is pretty much only of benefit to those who are wasting it anyway.
This would also have the nice side-effect of getting rid of that nasty global warming thing, but then the US never believed in that anyway.
Global warming is pseudoscience anyway. It hasn't been conclusively shown that global warming is real, or that if it is real its caused by our activities. besides in the long run it won't have much effect even if we assume that global warming exists, since more CO2 gives an advantage to plants, making them more common, bringing the CO2 back to reasonable levels.
I could go on with tons of other examples where the US could make a large difference with relatively little effort: reducing use of polluting but replaceable chemicals in production (something the EU is getting serious about now),
It has a large cost, and we don't know for sure thats better for the environment. For instance, NiCd batteries were hyped as environmentally friendly for a while, before it was realized that they cause ground pollution.
reducing use of weapons which activate even after the end of war (landmines, for example),
I agree with you, however what would be better is reducing the use of wars.
halting the worldwide decrease in biodiversity by engineering trade barriers which promote environmentally conscious trading partners,
But this prevents both of us from getting the mutual advantage from trade that is arguably more beneficial as a whole than the benefit to the environment. Also, it may not work, as other nations will resell stuff to them at a slight markup, which may be smaller than the cost of environmental friendliness.
reducing poverty by giving third world countries a real chance in the world trading community, and so on...
I agree with you on this one, but doesn't it contradict your previous statement?
but if the US wants to be the leader of the free world, they should act like one, and actually make life better for the rest of us.
By restricting trade and by forcing people to be environmentally friendly, and to pay for research on alternative fuels? It sure sounds free.
The resentment against the US over in Europe (where I live) flows not so much from the US grabbing power, but from the US grabbing power and using it only for their own protectionist benefit. They can rule the world all they want, but only if they make it a better place.
That will never happen; there is too much potential for abuse, that it will be abused; It's human nature. The correct approach is to limit power as much as possible.
If the USSR had sent troops into Saudi Arabia in the mid-1970s in an effort to break the back of the OPEC embargo, I assure you: invading the region would have been a benefit for all mankind.
There would be good effects and bad effects. OPEC would not be broken, and we would risk a nuclear war. However the USSR would not grow stronger either. Overall, ir may well be that the best decision in that situation would be not to invade.
The one possibility you haven't covered is a rebellion within the US. Nuclear weapons are useless then, as they cannot distinguish the rebels from those who are loyal. Many world powers have fallen from rebellions, and nuclear weapons would not change that. Rome, for instance, probably wouldn't have been overrun if not for the current unrest at the time. The Soviet Union fell from unrest as well.
Slashdot Mirror
So NASA is really just a front for a counterfitting business?
It also works that way for 'intellectual property' instead of just actual property.
Most terrorist acts commited in the US have been commited by Americans. It's just that the most well known one seems to have been committed by foreigners.
but we didn't recover much before the war. Also we may very well have come out of the depression at about the same time without either a war or the new deal.
Actually computers were independantly invented by the US and UK, for cryptanalysis.
They are the prosecutor, rather than the defendant. Waiting for the case to be dropped works only for the defense.
How is the parent OT?
Is there oil on mars? Didn't think so.
But you need score 4 or 5, since googlebot doesn't adjust preferences or anything.
You're a terrorist trying to get him to take the coin out of his pocket
That is a different scenario entirely. Talking to each other in private wasn't the problem, conspiring was.
they were afraid of violating this patent
They both cheated; Most politicians do cheat in elections to some extent. The unique thing about this election was that it was so close as far as the electoral college goes, such that whoever had Florida would win, and the florida vote was close enough that it could swing either way if just a few voters were disenfranchise, a few fraudulent votes were made, or a few ballots were contested. That made the cheating that did go on come to light, as well as provide a ton of incentive to cheat just a little more.
that's his homepage; his sig is:
Just follow the money trail, for it will lead you to the truth.
Republicans don't seem to be for small government; Bush increased spending. I agree with much of what republicans say they are for, but very little of what they truly are for.
They were issued visas actually, thus they were not illegal immigrants.
The idea is that its in the best interests of the majority of the shareholders.
That's not spam, it's perfectly relevant to the search.
You mean like this?
WARNING: somewhat racist.
He is saying AOL should block email to non-AOL addresses, as it is typically either some lame forward, or spam.
That leaves the question of how many of these were really spam? The headline may well be inaccurate.
Not when you consider the cost of switching.
Where is the widespread federally-run government sponsorship program for placing solar panels on rooftops and wind turbines on farmlands?
Why Federally run, rather than privately owned.
The power use of the US could be halved without affecting standard of living, if the government just got serious about it.
I doubt the government could do much about it without limiting power usage(which would be vastly unfair, as those in Nevada cannot have the air conditioning they need without going to jail, while those in california can). What's needed is for people to take initiative in not wasting power.
But since they're all getting rich off this overuse of power, why do it?
That may be one reason, however a larger reason is that it would be political suicide to place quotas on power usage, and saving power is pretty much only of benefit to those who are wasting it anyway.
This would also have the nice side-effect of getting rid of that nasty global warming thing, but then the US never believed in that anyway.
Global warming is pseudoscience anyway. It hasn't been conclusively shown that global warming is real, or that if it is real its caused by our activities. besides in the long run it won't have much effect even if we assume that global warming exists, since more CO2 gives an advantage to plants, making them more common, bringing the CO2 back to reasonable levels.
I could go on with tons of other examples where the US could make a large difference with relatively little effort: reducing use of polluting but replaceable chemicals in production (something the EU is getting serious about now),
It has a large cost, and we don't know for sure thats better for the environment. For instance, NiCd batteries were hyped as environmentally friendly for a while, before it was realized that they cause ground pollution.
reducing use of weapons which activate even after the end of war (landmines, for example),
I agree with you, however what would be better is reducing the use of wars.
halting the worldwide decrease in biodiversity by engineering trade barriers which promote environmentally conscious trading partners,
But this prevents both of us from getting the mutual advantage from trade that is arguably more beneficial as a whole than the benefit to the environment. Also, it may not work, as other nations will resell stuff to them at a slight markup, which may be smaller than the cost of environmental friendliness.
reducing poverty by giving third world countries a real chance in the world trading community, and so on...
I agree with you on this one, but doesn't it contradict your previous statement?
but if the US wants to be the leader of the free world, they should act like one, and actually make life better for the rest of us.
By restricting trade and by forcing people to be environmentally friendly, and to pay for research on alternative fuels? It sure sounds free.
The resentment against the US over in Europe (where I live) flows not so much from the US grabbing power, but from the US grabbing power and using it only for their own protectionist benefit. They can rule the world all they want, but only if they make it a better place.
That will never happen; there is too much potential for abuse, that it will be abused; It's human nature. The correct approach is to limit power as much as possible.
There would be good effects and bad effects. OPEC would not be broken, and we would risk a nuclear war. However the USSR would not grow stronger either. Overall, ir may well be that the best decision in that situation would be not to invade.
At least China is getting better, while the US is getting worse.
The one possibility you haven't covered is a rebellion within the US. Nuclear weapons are useless then, as they cannot distinguish the rebels from those who are loyal. Many world powers have fallen from rebellions, and nuclear weapons would not change that. Rome, for instance, probably wouldn't have been overrun if not for the current unrest at the time. The Soviet Union fell from unrest as well.