You undersestimate the finger pointing. Just wait a few hundred years the "Fight to save Saturns Rings" will go down in history as humanities folly, just like global warming.
I just want video footage of the neo-hippies getting sucked into Saturns Gravity well while holding hands and singing Kumbia. Oh the humanity...
They'd have to nuke the mideasts entire current population into oblivion before I'd voluntarily step foot there. Bring the snow on any Good Midwesterner (see Minnesotan and Yooper in the Dictionary) has seen worse then the day after tommorrow. Most thought it was a movie about the winter of 78'. Wimps from the south.
You see if we wait long enought and spend enough money to research the facts we will discover that Kyoto is a bunch of bull and just another way for the indebt third world counties to wiggle thier way out of paying off loans.
Now I'm going out back to go start a tire fire and roast small animals over it to get PETA's and the Sierra Clubs attention.
A better solution to global warming might be to hold off building hydrogen cars, and instead harness fuel cells to generate electricity for homes and businesses.
This article then goes on and continues to destroy hydrogen as save all to the energy and environmental crisis affecting the world today. (While I might consider it a wastefully inefficient economic crisis I will call it that to avoid confusion of the important part of this post.)
The real question: What niches in the future economy do you see hydrogen fuel cells filling?
Personally I see the greatest advantages of hydrogen technology in supporting and storage of energy from other alternative sources of energy like solar and wind power. These sources are traditionally rural solutions to energy problems. By creating a source of storing this energy for continuous use these energy solutions are much easier to forsee as economic solutions to the energy cunch.
As for fuel cell vehicles, they are limited in thier uses due to low accelleration, limitted fuel cell range, and availibility of hydrogen infastructure. The best solution is to fit the technology to the vehicles used. Delivery vehicles such as mail/delivery vehicles and public transportation are obvious uses for hydrogen technology. UPS and the Federal Postal Service should be jumping over each other to adopt a location to hydrogen fueled vehicles. One large scale hydrogen prodution facility at a post office or UPS distribution hub, and WALLA; biggest public relations coup ever.
Any other niche markets? Comments? UPS VP's waiting to hire me?
I'm begining to wonder about the politics of militia's and conspiricy theory wacko's. They seem to alway's side with the party of the down trodden. Waco and Oklahoma City was blamed on a bunch of Neo-Conservative crazies during the Clinton years. The next batch will be drugged out hippie cults with vegetarianism on the mind and PETA cards in thier wallets.
Just as a side note to your The body which had the authority to block contracts with kickbacks was the security council (ahem, Bush!) comment. Most of the kickbacks and exploitation of the Oil for Food Program occured during a period from 1996 - Jan 2001. 5 years of Clinton run administration. Only 2 years of the Bush administration. (Surprisingly this is the same period of time Enron, Arther Anderson, and the e-commerce bubble built the US economy into the mess it is today). The Bush administration has confronted not buried corruption issues.
Not to through a wrench in your Bush bashing good times but you were attacking Delay. I know Republicans all look the same to you.
As for your alarmist use of the current war casualty figures (Though my heart goes out to those troops still over seas.) U.S. Troops rid the world of a dictator who killed 7,000 of his own people using chemical weapons in March of 1988 and thousands more in crushed uprisings all over the all over the country. Freeing Iraq was right regardless of stated intentions. The question you should be asking yourself is what happened to those chemical weapons since 1988. Did they use all the weapons they had and then just quit producing them? Did he just destroy those left over? Yaw, right and monkey?s might fly out of my butt. I for one sleep better with one less crazy dictator with the means to produce these things. (He might not of stockpiled them but he sure as hell could have made them or sold the technology to make them, which is just as dangerous to the US populous.)
To keep this rant on topic, Risk adversity (like that you display by using casualty figures) and human space travel are two things that do not sit well together. You might want to reevelaute your priorities.
Agreed but cutting U.S. spending on Applied Science research is not going to hurt distribution of debt. What we need is a debt exchange program. Central and South American debt owed to US institutions (Much of which was taken in good faith and is likely never to be repaid) should be exchanged to level out international debt to ensure no one country or region controls the majority of another country or regions debt. However since most of the debt the US holds is more risky (likely to default) such an exchange is unlikely.
If you have a way to fix international debt inequity I'd be the first to support you.
Actually from the information coming out of the U.N. on the Oil for food scandel fines for breaking international law on European companies should be able to help rebuild Iraq.
We kept Clinton in office regardless of lying to a federal court, hell Harding's cabinet ran opium dens from the oval office.
You have to make a better case then that.
In the long run federal funding for any applied science and technology initutives can't be looked down upon. Just cause the idea was supported by a Republican does not mean you should be a vindictive, partisan, mean-spirited --slashdot poster-- who will stop at nothing to defeat the opposition.
You forget, the U.S.A. can kick the crap out of the repo man.
Seriously comparing personal finance to government finance is absurd. Even comparing Corporate Finance to Government Finance is ridiculous because of the scale and longevity of debt financing. A large stable government can carry massive debt for long periods of time. I think somewhere I read an article where an environmental economist tried to do a debt equity ratio on the US and found our debt/equity ratio was low compared to other nations.
Great. So to please the ?Outlaw Haliburton Crowd? we send it out for bid; get underbid by a Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and German international conglomerate and you start to bitch about outsourcing jobs to other countries and ?putting? down the hard working American manufacturing community.
Poor babies and your hypocrisy.
This is the same way every President has funded technology for 5 decades. If you think any democratic politician left, right, or European does things differantly you need to have your head examined.
All you can do is cheer really loud any time one of them funds/supports something you like. Positive reenforcement fo political motivations. That is why our vote and voice still count. It might be wrong but don't blame the current administration for faults of modern democracy.
"Politicians are the same all over they promise to build bridges where there are no rivers."
Actually I think he plans on shipping out a bunch of uppity liberals with more "ideals" then "ideas". You know the ones, they think the way to fix Iraq is to outlaw Haliburton; and that we need to go around the world singing Kumbiya with Russians and the Chinese.
Actually you could win a war on drugs in Colombia. It would however take a much differant approach to attacking the production of these plants. Attack encomically. If the US government was able to design a herbicide plant that was just as profitable to produce that grew as easily the peasant peoples of rural Colombia would be encouraged to enter the new market. You would have to freely dsitribute the plants to the people of Colombia but it would be cheaper then how we fight the war now with constant spraying, busts, instead we just have to raise production costs to the point that it is no longer profitable for them to produce.
But... What cash crop do we have the Colombians plant?
"But there's no chance for increased nuclear power with the current administration. GWB was president of an oil company, for goodness's sake!"
Given that you take the former occupations of presidents (and vice presidents) as proof of future action;
I hope you weren't looking forward to tort legislation (Vice presidential canidate John Edwards was a , for goodness's sake! Plus, he's so tight with the Barr Association, it's ridiculous. No, we'll have to stick with more instability in the and US Ditto all above for next election when Hilary runs with Bill at her side... again...) Just because a person has personal/financial interests does not mean that he has vested interest in those stocks doing well, both Bush and Cheney sold thier interests in oil and Halliburton in exchange for solid fixed payments before entering office. What could either of them gain from supporting oil sales through war in Iraq (which in it's very nature was doomed to destroy fixed corporate oil assets).
And that statement is one of just a few examples of the faulty logic used in your post.
Their however a truth in your post. There is no chance for increased nuclear power in this administration... You have to add however a disclaimer at the end. or any other administration in the next 20 years. Because that is how long it would take the US government to design, produce funding for, circumvent current regulation, and build a new nuclear power infastructure.
What would be the best way to way a success in robotics for an X-Prize like competition.
Multiple prizes
A.I. developement
Speed and manuverablity
pressure atmosphere conditions?
Few considerations for the number crunchers out there.
Take US national debit divide by national income level.
Do the same for other leading economies. (Including the EU totals which have become more interesting since the recent inclusion of Czech, Poland......)
You will see that the US political debit to possible income ratio really is not that bad. It gets a lot worse with places like Sweden where national socialist agenda's stretch peoples income with high tax.
Better indications of national wealth and wellbeing are based on environmental economic principals, the Big Mac index (Economist.com), and infrastructure levels.
Slashdot Mirror
You undersestimate the finger pointing. Just wait a few hundred years the "Fight to save Saturns Rings" will go down in history as humanities folly, just like global warming.
I just want video footage of the neo-hippies getting sucked into Saturns Gravity well while holding hands and singing Kumbia. Oh the humanity...
Good old LBJ. Chasing those damned Conservative villagers/natives.
Flamebait modifiers not applicable due to SARCASM.
You forgot about Hollywood liberals like Cher, Ellen, Rosie, and Ms. Strisand.
(Why haven't they left for Canada yet?)
They'd have to nuke the mideasts entire current population into oblivion before I'd voluntarily step foot there. Bring the snow on any Good Midwesterner (see Minnesotan and Yooper in the Dictionary) has seen worse then the day after tommorrow. Most thought it was a movie about the winter of 78'. Wimps from the south.
You see if we wait long enought and spend enough money to research the facts we will discover that Kyoto is a bunch of bull and just another way for the indebt third world counties to wiggle thier way out of paying off loans.
Now I'm going out back to go start a tire fire and roast small animals over it to get PETA's and the Sierra Clubs attention.
Given a high density silicon based ceramic brick how many Empire State buildings is that?
I'm waiting for a crazed scientist to invent a machine to make the tounged smiley face on the moon into a mosaic. Hopefully the sub-script will read:
Damned Red's... We need to find Hiroko so she can put them in thier place. Coyote will help.
(As for the taconite slag, I assume you are a Minnesotan?)
I for one look forward to the day I am an interstellor resource stripping overlord.
According to the article:
A better solution to global warming might be to hold off building hydrogen cars, and instead harness fuel cells to generate electricity for homes and businesses.
This article then goes on and continues to destroy hydrogen as save all to the energy and environmental crisis affecting the world today. (While I might consider it a wastefully inefficient economic crisis I will call it that to avoid confusion of the important part of this post.)
The real question: What niches in the future economy do you see hydrogen fuel cells filling?
Personally I see the greatest advantages of hydrogen technology in supporting and storage of energy from other alternative sources of energy like solar and wind power. These sources are traditionally rural solutions to energy problems. By creating a source of storing this energy for continuous use these energy solutions are much easier to forsee as economic solutions to the energy cunch.
As for fuel cell vehicles, they are limited in thier uses due to low accelleration, limitted fuel cell range, and availibility of hydrogen infastructure. The best solution is to fit the technology to the vehicles used. Delivery vehicles such as mail/delivery vehicles and public transportation are obvious uses for hydrogen technology. UPS and the Federal Postal Service should be jumping over each other to adopt a location to hydrogen fueled vehicles. One large scale hydrogen prodution facility at a post office or UPS distribution hub, and WALLA; biggest public relations coup ever.
Any other niche markets? Comments? UPS VP's waiting to hire me?
I'm begining to wonder about the politics of militia's and conspiricy theory wacko's. They seem to alway's side with the party of the down trodden. Waco and Oklahoma City was blamed on a bunch of Neo-Conservative crazies during the Clinton years. The next batch will be drugged out hippie cults with vegetarianism on the mind and PETA cards in thier wallets.
So are you advocating we stop international aid!!! That would be external spending. What about this stuff about forgiving foriegn debt? Please.....
Just as a side note to your The body which had the authority to block contracts with kickbacks was the security council (ahem, Bush!) comment. Most of the kickbacks and exploitation of the Oil for Food Program occured during a period from 1996 - Jan 2001. 5 years of Clinton run administration. Only 2 years of the Bush administration. (Surprisingly this is the same period of time Enron, Arther Anderson, and the e-commerce bubble built the US economy into the mess it is today). The Bush administration has confronted not buried corruption issues.
Not to through a wrench in your Bush bashing good times but you were attacking Delay. I know Republicans all look the same to you.
As for your alarmist use of the current war casualty figures (Though my heart goes out to those troops still over seas.) U.S. Troops rid the world of a dictator who killed 7,000 of his own people using chemical weapons in March of 1988 and thousands more in crushed uprisings all over the all over the country. Freeing Iraq was right regardless of stated intentions. The question you should be asking yourself is what happened to those chemical weapons since 1988. Did they use all the weapons they had and then just quit producing them? Did he just destroy those left over? Yaw, right and monkey?s might fly out of my butt. I for one sleep better with one less crazy dictator with the means to produce these things. (He might not of stockpiled them but he sure as hell could have made them or sold the technology to make them, which is just as dangerous to the US populous.)
To keep this rant on topic, Risk adversity (like that you display by using casualty figures) and human space travel are two things that do not sit well together. You might want to reevelaute your priorities.
Agreed but cutting U.S. spending on Applied Science research is not going to hurt distribution of debt. What we need is a debt exchange program. Central and South American debt owed to US institutions (Much of which was taken in good faith and is likely never to be repaid) should be exchanged to level out international debt to ensure no one country or region controls the majority of another country or regions debt. However since most of the debt the US holds is more risky (likely to default) such an exchange is unlikely. If you have a way to fix international debt inequity I'd be the first to support you.
Actually from the information coming out of the U.N. on the Oil for food scandel fines for breaking international law on European companies should be able to help rebuild Iraq.
"not to mention a likely felon"
We kept Clinton in office regardless of lying to a federal court, hell Harding's cabinet ran opium dens from the oval office.
You have to make a better case then that.
In the long run federal funding for any applied science and technology initutives can't be looked down upon. Just cause the idea was supported by a Republican does not mean you should be a vindictive, partisan, mean-spirited --slashdot poster-- who will stop at nothing to defeat the opposition.
You forget, the U.S.A. can kick the crap out of the repo man.
Seriously comparing personal finance to government finance is absurd. Even comparing Corporate Finance to Government Finance is ridiculous because of the scale and longevity of debt financing. A large stable government can carry massive debt for long periods of time. I think somewhere I read an article where an environmental economist tried to do a debt equity ratio on the US and found our debt/equity ratio was low compared to other nations.
Great. So to please the ?Outlaw Haliburton Crowd? we send it out for bid; get underbid by a Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and German international conglomerate and you start to bitch about outsourcing jobs to other countries and ?putting? down the hard working American manufacturing community. Poor babies and your hypocrisy.
This is the same way every President has funded technology for 5 decades. If you think any democratic politician left, right, or European does things differantly you need to have your head examined.
All you can do is cheer really loud any time one of them funds/supports something you like. Positive reenforcement fo political motivations. That is why our vote and voice still count. It might be wrong but don't blame the current administration for faults of modern democracy.
"Politicians are the same all over they promise to build bridges where there are no rivers."
Actually I think he plans on shipping out a bunch of uppity liberals with more "ideals" then "ideas". You know the ones, they think the way to fix Iraq is to outlaw Haliburton; and that we need to go around the world singing Kumbiya with Russians and the Chinese.
Actually you could win a war on drugs in Colombia. It would however take a much differant approach to attacking the production of these plants. Attack encomically. If the US government was able to design a herbicide plant that was just as profitable to produce that grew as easily the peasant peoples of rural Colombia would be encouraged to enter the new market. You would have to freely dsitribute the plants to the people of Colombia but it would be cheaper then how we fight the war now with constant spraying, busts, instead we just have to raise production costs to the point that it is no longer profitable for them to produce.
But... What cash crop do we have the Colombians plant?
"But there's no chance for increased nuclear power with the current administration. GWB was president of an oil company, for goodness's sake!"
Given that you take the former occupations of presidents (and vice presidents) as proof of future action;
I hope you weren't looking forward to tort legislation (Vice presidential canidate John Edwards was a , for goodness's sake! Plus, he's so tight with the Barr Association, it's ridiculous. No, we'll have to stick with more instability in the and US Ditto all above for next election when Hilary runs with Bill at her side... again...) Just because a person has personal/financial interests does not mean that he has vested interest in those stocks doing well, both Bush and Cheney sold thier interests in oil and Halliburton in exchange for solid fixed payments before entering office. What could either of them gain from supporting oil sales through war in Iraq (which in it's very nature was doomed to destroy fixed corporate oil assets).
And that statement is one of just a few examples of the faulty logic used in your post.
Their however a truth in your post. There is no chance for increased nuclear power in this administration... You have to add however a disclaimer at the end. or any other administration in the next 20 years. Because that is how long it would take the US government to design, produce funding for, circumvent current regulation, and build a new nuclear power infastructure.
Enjoy,
What would be the best way to way a success in robotics for an X-Prize like competition. Multiple prizes A.I. developement Speed and manuverablity pressure atmosphere conditions?
Only causes a problem if your drug smugglers try to bring the good $hit in through ports like Duluth, St. Saint Marie, Bangor.....
I just had the mental picture of this blimp hovering over Duluth til the next hunting season.
Few considerations for the number crunchers out there.
Take US national debit divide by national income level.
Do the same for other leading economies. (Including the EU totals which have become more interesting since the recent inclusion of Czech, Poland......)
You will see that the US political debit to possible income ratio really is not that bad. It gets a lot worse with places like Sweden where national socialist agenda's stretch peoples income with high tax.
Better indications of national wealth and wellbeing are based on environmental economic principals, the Big Mac index (Economist.com), and infrastructure levels.