There is no conspiracy here people. The US government arent covering anything up. A lot of the research into this has been done in other countries, where the US government has no jurisdiction, and diminishing influence. If anyone had discovered a genuine statistical link(and statistics are very complicated and prone to misinterpretation) between mobile phone usage and any sort of cancer that could stand up to peer review, it would have been published, somewhere. No peer reviewed study, in any country, has ever found a convincing statistical link between mobile phone usage and cancer, ever.
This is not to say that there is not a risk, but if there is, it is so small that it is indistinguishable from statistical noise.
I agree, we're getting into a general debate about economics, but allow me to respond to a couple of your points.
a) Alright then, they spend more per capita as well -
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 6,401 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD average of 2,759 USD in 2005. Yes, private is efficient, markets are efficient, I'm not contesting that. What I'm saying is that for essential public services, efficiency is not the only key factor. I believe that some things just aren't suited to a business model, things such as the provision of healthcare and education.
b) How is having a full fee paying system going to provide fairness of access to people from all socio-economic backgrounds?
e)
Well tell that to them since they are THE most profitable (marginal revenue vs marginal cost), industry. Hell yeah they are, and yet they spend less and less on R&D each year, and more on marketing.
Healthcare in the US is not a free market system, but it is a closer model to a free market than what we have here. Drug prices there are set by the market. So, if you're poor and you need expensive chemo for example, who's going to pay for it? Your private health insurance provided by your employer? Too bad you got laid off a few months ago due to the slump in the US economy.
I'm not an economics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have my firm beliefs that market driven models with no regulation or government intervention have no place in the provision of public services. There is just a fundamental conflict of interest there between the needs and interests of a community, and those of the company that is supposed to be supplying that service, who are interested in delivering good returns for their investors.
You're clearly a fervent believer in laissez-faire free market capitalism, in the divine power of self-regulating markets that somehow miraculously both return profits for shareholders, economic growth, and somehow at the same time serve the interests of the community.
This is a lie, don't buy into it, it has been proven time and time again that completely free market systems while useful in some situations do not serve the public interest when it comes to essential services.
a) Universal health care works, it is cheaper (for users as well as the government) than a US style wholly private system. Private health care is bad social policy, and it's bad economic policy. The US spends more money as a percentage of GDP on its healthcare system than any other OECD country
b) I may not know what I'm talking about, but I have been through the uni system during the Howard years, I graduated in 2003. I saw what successive funding cuts did to my university, and I watched it transition from a research and learning centre into a corporation funded by commercial grants with cost cutting at every corner. I saw the standard of learning corrode even in the time I was there. I watched as more and more places were given over to full fee paying, and thus denied to those relying on the HECS/HELP system.
You might not be paying a cent now, but you will be paying more than ever before when it comes time to pay off that HELP debt.
c) I would be suprised if your friends losing their jobs had nothing to do with workchoices being rolled back, because it hasn't in fact been rolled back yet. The government has just stipulated that no new AWAs can be implemented, and that workers currently on AWAs should transition to an equivalent agreement under the new framework, with a fairly generous timeframe for this to take place.
d) Nonsense. The majority of universities in Australia are public universities, not private universities. That is, they are (or should be) funded by public money. They are not there to make money, they are there to provide quality education to Australia's youth, at a cost that makes them available to anyone regardless of their economic status.
e) Again, nonsense. This is where free market economics fails, and fails badly. The power of competition doesnt work in this scenario because of patents. Drug companies own patents on novel treatments effectively handing a monopoly to that company who can then charge whatever the hell they want for it. You need external market controls. Additionally, it's actually not in pharmaceutical companies best interests to research new drugs, because it costs a lot of money and doesnt give great ROI when compared to say evergreening your existing products. In fact, pharmaceutical companies spend only 11-14% of their budget on R&D and a whopping 35% on marketing their products - http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451#R7-12
That was just the first article I found on the ills of the pharmaceutical industry, there are plenty more out there.
If you want to see what happens to drug prices under a free market system, just go and get sick in the US. You will not believe how much they pay over there compared to us.
What has Rudd done so far that's so grossly incompetent? Fuelwatch? It's hardly Watergate. All it will turn out to be is a misguided piece of populist policy that ultimately fails but doesnt cost us a huge amount of money or damage the social fabric of the country. Meanwhile, they have implemented a bunch of policies that are going to do us a lot of good in the future.
Howard set about to -
a) dismantle medicare and replace it with a user-pays system. Not only is this socially irresponsible, it is economically irresponsible - the American healthy system costs the US government more per capita than almost any universal healthcare system in the world.
b) Replace HECS/HELP university places with full fee paying positions, denying low and middle income earning Australians positions in universities, and generally lowering the standard of university graduates and Australian universities in general.
c) Remove the various awards and protections afforded to workers under the law. You might take a government mandated 4 weeks a year of paid annual leave + compulsory paid sick leave for granted, but I think our American friends would be quite envious of it.
d) Cut government funding of universities dramatically, to one of the lowest levels amongst OECD nations.
e) Replace the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee with one that is friendlier towards big pharmaceutical companies. The PBAC are responsible for deciding which pharmaceuticals were to be subsidised by the government, which resulted in Australians benefiting from some of the cheapest essential drugs in the world. A program that has since been emulated in many other countries. The PBAC had very strict guidelines about which drugs were worth subsidising (ie. novel lifesaving treatments) and which ones werent (eg. Viagra). Unfortunately the big pharmaceuticals werent happy about this and pressured the Howard government to dissolve the board and install a more 'business friendly' one.
I'll leave Tampa etc. for another time.
On top of all of this, his economic credentials are a bit overstated. Most of the most dramatic reform of the economy took place in the 80's and 90's under Hawk and Keating. This, combined with the resources boom was largely responsible for Australia's current economic strength.
Tax cuts are nice, but not at the expense of our universities and schools.
Come on mate, seriously? Howard is probably the worst thing that ever happened to Australia. It's going to take years to undo the damage he did to our international reputation, to our universities, education system, health system etc. And I'm not just talking about hospitals (which are partly a state responsibility), I'm talking about things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which made the price of pharmaceuticals in Australia some of the lowest in the world, and was the envy of other countries. Under duress from large multinational companies (who wanted Aussies to pay more for essential drugs), the Howard government dissolved the PBS board and installed their own one. There's also the public health system. The Howard government favoured an American style 'user pays' system. Unfortunately, per capita, the American system is one of the most expensive in the world. It actually costs the American government *more* (significantly so) per capita than most other western nations with a universal health care system.
While I don't think Rudd & Co have all the answers I'll take a slightly incompetent government over a government who knew exactly what it was doing and was intent on taking Australia in a very dark, very unpleasant direction.
Once the media develop a 'label' for something (a person, a country, etc.) then they pick all the stories that reinforce that label, and ignore any that don't. Therefore, the world hears about the Cronulla riots, the people protesting at Camden about the islamic school etc. The world doesn't hear however about the public outrage, and intense national shame caused by the Cronulla riots.
They don't report on the vigorous national debate that resulted from the decision not to allow the Islamic school in Camden.
I do genuinely think that Australia has been unfairly tarred with the 'racist' brush. I am not saying that a lot of Australians are not racist, and I have seen a disturbing rise in nationalism in recent years, however Australia was built on immigrants and I think that most Australians realise that, and appreciate what immigrants bring to the community, and the economy. Modern Australia would not be what it is without immigration.
Racism exists everywhere. Sometimes it is fanned by governments whose agenda it serves to inflame racial tension. But Australians, at heart, are no more racist than people from any other country.
Let's not confuse 'western culture' with American culture. There are varying degrees of individualism in the West. The United States is very individualistic, even by Western standards. The rights and importance of the individual are enshrined in the constitution, which informs public opinion and government policy heavily.
Most other western countries take a slightly more 'communal' approach to governance that recognises the the importance of society as a whole. For example, France has long been a bastion of democratic socialism, and Australia has just voted out a long serving conservative government who cut spending to public services, scaled back universal healthcare, and put an emphasis on individual tax cuts, in favour of a government who historically took a much more socialist approach.
It could be argued that the Australian people have rejected individualism in favour of a more inclusive and wholistic approach.
I don't think it's fair to label Westerners as being indivualistic.
The median loss from identity theft was just over $31,000, but in one case, investigated by the Secret Service's Dallas field office, the defendant spent millions on luxury vehicles and then managed to set up shell companies and defraud investors. Total losses: $13 million.
"A basic requirement for good science is an open mind, something both sides in this debate would do well to remember."
Yes, but at some point we need to act on the overwhelming evidence that we are causing this. Sure, investigate other possibilities, but let us act now on what we very strongly suspect is the cause of this climate change.
Meanwhile, whilst we're "looking into" the possibilty that we're causing it, we could be causing irreversible damage. Shouldnt we maybe, just maybe do something about it now? Ok, worst case, we spend billions of dollars adjusting our industry, lifestyle etc. and it turns out it wasnt our fault after all. At least the world will be a cleaner place. But what if it *is* our fault, and we do nothing? I'm not willing to take that chance.
Irrespective of whether we are causing it or not, global warming is happening, and more money should be spent on working out how we're going to mitigate it, and adapt to it.
It seems to me like across rest of the world there is a pretty solid consensus amongst people and scientists alike that global warming is real, and that humans are responsible for it. In the US however, opinion seems to be divided, and it seems to be divided roughly along party lines. Does it not occur to you critics of the theory that people are responsible for global warming that perhaps, just perhaps you are buying into bullshit propaganda and pseudo-science?
A lot of the 'science' that questions our role in global warming is in fact funded, directly or indirectly, by big industries like the oil industry. Doesn't that make you a little suspicious? The global scientific community has no reason to lie about this. There is not some massive conspiracy amongst climatologists to increase their prestige and funding. Occam's razor people.
Critics try to use scientific principles to discredit climate research that links mankind to climate change. What the hell? These are SCIENTISTS that are doing this research, they are PEER REVIEWED papers they are putting out. Don't you think that they have already been subject to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny?
It's really interesting how differently the UN is viewed in the United States compared to the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, it is viewed as a force for good, which although has a few problems like any large beaurocratic organisation, has it's heart in the right place and does much more good than harm. In the United States however it seems to be viewed as some sort of corrupt, evil, old boys club where the members sit around taking bribes and criticise America's unilateral approach to world affairs. It's pretty ridiculous when you think of all the good the UN has done over the years with it's food and health programs, the international court of justice etc. As well as it's various peace-keeping roles. It just amazes me how thoroughly the American public has been brainwashed, just because the UN doesnt do exactly what the United States government wants. The United Nations is no more corrupt, morally or financially, than the current US administration.
Despite the few controversies lately involving the UN, I'd much rather they had control of the.com and.net registers than Verisign, which is a company who serves the interests of shareholders, and shareholders alone. They also have a pretty patchy track record. Sitefinder anyone?
Yeah totally, and because this disease *is* preventable is a good reason *to* spend money on it, to educate people on how to prevent themselves from getting it.
I think it's one thing to have coordinates programmed into an ICBM, and completely another to launch a satellite and park it over a country. With the ICBM, it's not an overt display of aggression (although it is accepted by both sides that the other has certain targets ready to go at any second), wheras I think that launching a satellite to sit over a country 'watching over' them the whole time is really not conducive to diplomacy at all. Not that diplomacy is high on the US's agenda though:)
With the LEO idea you can have one parked over the Northern Hemisphere to cover Europe, the Koreas, the Middle East, and another over the Southern Hemisphere (Africa, South America, Australia:P ). Note that the 'rod's can be guided, so once you're over the right general area you can guide it to it's final destination.
This way, no country feels directly threatened or intimidated, and the satelite can be 'moved' to a new hotspot without using up fuel. Fuel is a big consideration. With a geostationary satellite you have a finite number of times you can move it before you run out of fuel.
Yeah but political climates are changing all the time. So one week you launch a satellite to sit over Iraq, then North Korea starts pissing you off and you have to launch another satellite. The enemy right now might be insurgents in Iraq, but 10 years ago it was the Serbs and the Somali war lords, 20+ years ago it was Russia, 30+ years ago Vietnam. Launching a satellite is a costly exercise, and you'd want to get more than just one 'conflict' out of it.
And it wouldnt be good foreign diplomacy to park a 'Rods from God' satellite over a foreign country anyway. That itself would be seen as an act of agression and could start a war. Imagine if the Americans parked one of those satellites over North Korea once they've developed nuclear capabilities. The consequences would be pretty nasty for both sides.
Hours? It doesnt even take the space shuttle hours to descend from orbit, and it's on a fairly shallow trajectory so it doesnt burn up. These things could probably drop straight down. And why would it be in a geostationary orbit? You could only drop it on one spot then. *Think* people.
For the record, I am a liberal left of center voter who is pro-Koyoto, but I completely agree - fission is the best answer we have right now and we should stop screwing around with stupid bloody ideas like carbon sequestration. I have no objection to nuclear power, in my opinion it's proved it's safety, rather than the opposite.
It is a *ridiculous* situation here in Australia where the only nuclear reactor we have is used for creating medical isotopes and doesnt generate power, but most of the population is scared of it anyway and wants it shut down. It's not just the radical left here, absolutely everyone is terrified of nuclear power. It will never happen here and it is an awful shame.
OK, as an Australian I am getting kind of sick of being patronised. I can take a light hearted quip as well as the next guy, but there's way too much condescension levelled at Australia these days.
Despite what many people might think, we're a very modern, cosmopolitan society.
Steve Irwin etc. is what we use to get the tourists in, and it works a treat. but for the most part we're quite civilised:)
There's no need for a one way trip, there is Mars Direct.
Mars direct was devised by an aerospace engineer called Robert Zubrin a few years ago in response to the previous Bush's original estimate of the cost of sending humans to Mars. Bush's administration devised a plan whereby a giant spaceship would be constructed in Earth orbit. This spaceship would package together everything required for a trip to and from Mars, and a stay of a few months.
Mars Direct proposes a multi-stage approach whereby the required supplies, infrastructure etc. are sent over several years. It is safer, has more redundancy, allows a longer stay on the surface, and best of all, it's cheaper. Much cheaper. The cost of the original plan was estimated by NASA to be $400 billion (1989, unadjusted.) When researchers at NASA's Johnson Space Center considered Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal, they decided to be generous, and scale it up by a factor of 2. The ultimate cost still only came out at $50 billion dollars.
Mars direct can be implemented now, using current technology, with no need to leave people on Mars, and no exotic propulsion methods. Of course, with the development of more exotic nuclear propulsion methods, the cost can probably be brought down even further, and the travel times reduced.
Mars Direct could constitute as little as 20% of NASA's annual budget if implemented. This means that by retiring the Space Shuttle, and ending the commitment to the ISS, Mars Direct could probably fit within NASA's current budget.
Any NASA plans to send humans to Mars will almost certainly emcompass elements of Zubrin's Mars Direct plan.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 0
Well actually some of the best CG effects are subtle, like adding clouds and sunsets and stuff (and no, I'm not talking about the one from Revolutions, that was as convincing as a circa 1930's matte screen), so you probably didnt even realise they were there.
I'd bet that you've been convinced by CG effects that you didnt even realise were CG.
I didnt realise how extensively they were used in the background of scenes until I saw the making of The Thin Red Line when they turned an ordinary Queensland day into a very dramatic looking sunset with clouds etc. I had no idea that scene was CG'd until I saw how it was pieced together. That really opened my eyes:)
And for my money, Gollum is about as convincing as it gets. You can almost see the pores in his skin.
"The Shenzhou spacecraft appears similar to the Russian Soyuz, but is different in dimensions (slightly larger and heavier) and does not seem to use any detailed parts copied from the Soyuz or built under license. Therefore although it follows the classic layout of the Soyuz, adopts many of the same technical solutions, and the re-entry vehicle has the same shape, it cannot be considered strictly a 'copy'. And if one considers Shenzhou to be a copy of the Soyuz, then was the Soyuz design stolen - from the American General Electric Apollo spacecraft proposal?"
Slashdot Mirror
There is no conspiracy here people. The US government arent covering anything up. A lot of the research into this has been done in other countries, where the US government has no jurisdiction, and diminishing influence. If anyone had discovered a genuine statistical link(and statistics are very complicated and prone to misinterpretation) between mobile phone usage and any sort of cancer that could stand up to peer review, it would have been published, somewhere. No peer reviewed study, in any country, has ever found a convincing statistical link between mobile phone usage and cancer, ever.
This is not to say that there is not a risk, but if there is, it is so small that it is indistinguishable from statistical noise.
a) Alright then, they spend more per capita as well - The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per
capita, with spending of 6,401 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD
average of 2,759 USD in 2005. Yes, private is efficient, markets are efficient, I'm not contesting that. What I'm saying is that for essential public services, efficiency is not the only key factor. I believe that some things just aren't suited to a business model, things such as the provision of healthcare and education.
b) How is having a full fee paying system going to provide fairness of access to people from all socio-economic backgrounds?
e) Well tell that to them since they are THE most profitable (marginal revenue vs marginal cost), industry. Hell yeah they are, and yet they spend less and less on R&D each year, and more on marketing.
Healthcare in the US is not a free market system, but it is a closer model to a free market than what we have here. Drug prices there are set by the market. So, if you're poor and you need expensive chemo for example, who's going to pay for it? Your private health insurance provided by your employer? Too bad you got laid off a few months ago due to the slump in the US economy.
I'm not an economics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have my firm beliefs that market driven models with no regulation or government intervention have no place in the provision of public services. There is just a fundamental conflict of interest there between the needs and interests of a community, and those of the company that is supposed to be supplying that service, who are interested in delivering good returns for their investors.
Thanks for the debate.
a) sorry, I left out a reference - http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
You're clearly a fervent believer in laissez-faire free market capitalism, in the divine power of self-regulating markets that somehow miraculously both return profits for shareholders, economic growth, and somehow at the same time serve the interests of the community.
This is a lie, don't buy into it, it has been proven time and time again that completely free market systems while useful in some situations do not serve the public interest when it comes to essential services.
a) Universal health care works, it is cheaper (for users as well as the government) than a US style wholly private system. Private health care is bad social policy, and it's bad economic policy. The US spends more money as a percentage of GDP on its healthcare system than any other OECD country
b) I may not know what I'm talking about, but I have been through the uni system during the Howard years, I graduated in 2003. I saw what successive funding cuts did to my university, and I watched it transition from a research and learning centre into a corporation funded by commercial grants with cost cutting at every corner. I saw the standard of learning corrode even in the time I was there. I watched as more and more places were given over to full fee paying, and thus denied to those relying on the HECS/HELP system.
You might not be paying a cent now, but you will be paying more than ever before when it comes time to pay off that HELP debt.
c) I would be suprised if your friends losing their jobs had nothing to do with workchoices being rolled back, because it hasn't in fact been rolled back yet. The government has just stipulated that no new AWAs can be implemented, and that workers currently on AWAs should transition to an equivalent agreement under the new framework, with a fairly generous timeframe for this to take place.
d) Nonsense. The majority of universities in Australia are public universities, not private universities. That is, they are (or should be) funded by public money. They are not there to make money, they are there to provide quality education to Australia's youth, at a cost that makes them available to anyone regardless of their economic status.
e) Again, nonsense. This is where free market economics fails, and fails badly. The power of competition doesnt work in this scenario because of patents. Drug companies own patents on novel treatments effectively handing a monopoly to that company who can then charge whatever the hell they want for it. You need external market controls. Additionally, it's actually not in pharmaceutical companies best interests to research new drugs, because it costs a lot of money and doesnt give great ROI when compared to say evergreening your existing products. In fact, pharmaceutical companies spend only 11-14% of their budget on R&D and a whopping 35% on marketing their products - http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451#R7-12
That was just the first article I found on the ills of the pharmaceutical industry, there are plenty more out there.
If you want to see what happens to drug prices under a free market system, just go and get sick in the US. You will not believe how much they pay over there compared to us.
What has Rudd done so far that's so grossly incompetent? Fuelwatch? It's hardly Watergate. All it will turn out to be is a misguided piece of populist policy that ultimately fails but doesnt cost us a huge amount of money or damage the social fabric of the country. Meanwhile, they have implemented a bunch of policies that are going to do us a lot of good in the future.
Howard set about to -
a) dismantle medicare and replace it with a user-pays system. Not only is this socially irresponsible, it is economically irresponsible - the American healthy system costs the US government more per capita than almost any universal healthcare system in the world.
b) Replace HECS/HELP university places with full fee paying positions, denying low and middle income earning Australians positions in universities, and generally lowering the standard of university graduates and Australian universities in general.
c) Remove the various awards and protections afforded to workers under the law. You might take a government mandated 4 weeks a year of paid annual leave + compulsory paid sick leave for granted, but I think our American friends would be quite envious of it.
d) Cut government funding of universities dramatically, to one of the lowest levels amongst OECD nations.
e) Replace the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee with one that is friendlier towards big pharmaceutical companies. The PBAC are responsible for deciding which pharmaceuticals were to be subsidised by the government, which resulted in Australians benefiting from some of the cheapest essential drugs in the world. A program that has since been emulated in many other countries. The PBAC had very strict guidelines about which drugs were worth subsidising (ie. novel lifesaving treatments) and which ones werent (eg. Viagra). Unfortunately the big pharmaceuticals werent happy about this and pressured the Howard government to dissolve the board and install a more 'business friendly' one.
I'll leave Tampa etc. for another time.
On top of all of this, his economic credentials are a bit overstated. Most of the most dramatic reform of the economy took place in the 80's and 90's under Hawk and Keating. This, combined with the resources boom was largely responsible for Australia's current economic strength.
Tax cuts are nice, but not at the expense of our universities and schools.
Come on mate, seriously? Howard is probably the worst thing that ever happened to Australia. It's going to take years to undo the damage he did to our international reputation, to our universities, education system, health system etc. And I'm not just talking about hospitals (which are partly a state responsibility), I'm talking about things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which made the price of pharmaceuticals in Australia some of the lowest in the world, and was the envy of other countries. Under duress from large multinational companies (who wanted Aussies to pay more for essential drugs), the Howard government dissolved the PBS board and installed their own one. There's also the public health system. The Howard government favoured an American style 'user pays' system. Unfortunately, per capita, the American system is one of the most expensive in the world. It actually costs the American government *more* (significantly so) per capita than most other western nations with a universal health care system.
While I don't think Rudd & Co have all the answers I'll take a slightly incompetent government over a government who knew exactly what it was doing and was intent on taking Australia in a very dark, very unpleasant direction.
Once the media develop a 'label' for something (a person, a country, etc.) then they pick all the stories that reinforce that label, and ignore any that don't. Therefore, the world hears about the Cronulla riots, the people protesting at Camden about the islamic school etc. The world doesn't hear however about the public outrage, and intense national shame caused by the Cronulla riots.
They don't report on the vigorous national debate that resulted from the decision not to allow the Islamic school in Camden.
I do genuinely think that Australia has been unfairly tarred with the 'racist' brush. I am not saying that a lot of Australians are not racist, and I have seen a disturbing rise in nationalism in recent years, however Australia was built on immigrants and I think that most Australians realise that, and appreciate what immigrants bring to the community, and the economy. Modern Australia would not be what it is without immigration.
Racism exists everywhere. Sometimes it is fanned by governments whose agenda it serves to inflame racial tension. But Australians, at heart, are no more racist than people from any other country.
Let's not confuse 'western culture' with American culture. There are varying degrees of individualism in the West. The United States is very individualistic, even by Western standards. The rights and importance of the individual are enshrined in the constitution, which informs public opinion and government policy heavily.
Most other western countries take a slightly more 'communal' approach to governance that recognises the the importance of society as a whole. For example, France has long been a bastion of democratic socialism, and Australia has just voted out a long serving conservative government who cut spending to public services, scaled back universal healthcare, and put an emphasis on individual tax cuts, in favour of a government who historically took a much more socialist approach.
It could be argued that the Australian people have rejected individualism in favour of a more inclusive and wholistic approach.
I don't think it's fair to label Westerners as being indivualistic.
You have to admire his audacity.
Can we get a FAIL tag on this?
"A basic requirement for good science is an open mind, something both sides in this debate would do well to remember."
Yes, but at some point we need to act on the overwhelming evidence that we are causing this. Sure, investigate other possibilities, but let us act now on what we very strongly suspect is the cause of this climate change.
Meanwhile, whilst we're "looking into" the possibilty that we're causing it, we could be causing irreversible damage. Shouldnt we maybe, just maybe do something about it now? Ok, worst case, we spend billions of dollars adjusting our industry, lifestyle etc. and it turns out it wasnt our fault after all. At least the world will be a cleaner place. But what if it *is* our fault, and we do nothing? I'm not willing to take that chance.
Irrespective of whether we are causing it or not, global warming is happening, and more money should be spent on working out how we're going to mitigate it, and adapt to it.
It seems to me like across rest of the world there is a pretty solid consensus amongst people and scientists alike that global warming is real, and that humans are responsible for it. In the US however, opinion seems to be divided, and it seems to be divided roughly along party lines. Does it not occur to you critics of the theory that people are responsible for global warming that perhaps, just perhaps you are buying into bullshit propaganda and pseudo-science?
A lot of the 'science' that questions our role in global warming is in fact funded, directly or indirectly, by big industries like the oil industry. Doesn't that make you a little suspicious? The global scientific community has no reason to lie about this. There is not some massive conspiracy amongst climatologists to increase their prestige and funding. Occam's razor people.
Critics try to use scientific principles to discredit climate research that links mankind to climate change. What the hell? These are SCIENTISTS that are doing this research, they are PEER REVIEWED papers they are putting out. Don't you think that they have already been subject to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny?
It's really interesting how differently the UN is viewed in the United States compared to the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, it is viewed as a force for good, which although has a few problems like any large beaurocratic organisation, has it's heart in the right place and does much more good than harm. In the United States however it seems to be viewed as some sort of corrupt, evil, old boys club where the members sit around taking bribes and criticise America's unilateral approach to world affairs. It's pretty ridiculous when you think of all the good the UN has done over the years with it's food and health programs, the international court of justice etc. As well as it's various peace-keeping roles. It just amazes me how thoroughly the American public has been brainwashed, just because the UN doesnt do exactly what the United States government wants. The United Nations is no more corrupt, morally or financially, than the current US administration.
.com and .net registers than Verisign, which is a company who serves the interests of shareholders, and shareholders alone. They also have a pretty patchy track record. Sitefinder anyone?
Despite the few controversies lately involving the UN, I'd much rather they had control of the
Yeah totally, and because this disease *is* preventable is a good reason *to* spend money on it, to educate people on how to prevent themselves from getting it.
Yeah, those damn aids victims, with their dying and what have you, using all our money. Dick head.
Well no apparently you're not at war. I seem to recall George Bush declaring the end of 'major combat operations' in Iraq.
I think it's one thing to have coordinates programmed into an ICBM, and completely another to launch a satellite and park it over a country. With the ICBM, it's not an overt display of aggression (although it is accepted by both sides that the other has certain targets ready to go at any second), wheras I think that launching a satellite to sit over a country 'watching over' them the whole time is really not conducive to diplomacy at all. Not that diplomacy is high on the US's agenda though :)
:P ). Note that the 'rod's can be guided, so once you're over the right general area you can guide it to it's final destination.
This way, no country feels directly threatened or intimidated, and the satelite can be 'moved' to a new hotspot without using up fuel. Fuel is a big consideration. With a geostationary satellite you have a finite number of times you can move it before you run out of fuel.
With the LEO idea you can have one parked over the Northern Hemisphere to cover Europe, the Koreas, the Middle East, and another over the Southern Hemisphere (Africa, South America, Australia
Yeah but political climates are changing all the time. So one week you launch a satellite to sit over Iraq, then North Korea starts pissing you off and you have to launch another satellite. The enemy right now might be insurgents in Iraq, but 10 years ago it was the Serbs and the Somali war lords, 20+ years ago it was Russia, 30+ years ago Vietnam. Launching a satellite is a costly exercise, and you'd want to get more than just one 'conflict' out of it. And it wouldnt be good foreign diplomacy to park a 'Rods from God' satellite over a foreign country anyway. That itself would be seen as an act of agression and could start a war. Imagine if the Americans parked one of those satellites over North Korea once they've developed nuclear capabilities. The consequences would be pretty nasty for both sides.
Hours? It doesnt even take the space shuttle hours to descend from orbit, and it's on a fairly shallow trajectory so it doesnt burn up. These things could probably drop straight down. And why would it be in a geostationary orbit? You could only drop it on one spot then. *Think* people.
For the record, I am a liberal left of center voter who is pro-Koyoto, but I completely agree - fission is the best answer we have right now and we should stop screwing around with stupid bloody ideas like carbon sequestration. I have no objection to nuclear power, in my opinion it's proved it's safety, rather than the opposite.
It is a *ridiculous* situation here in Australia where the only nuclear reactor we have is used for creating medical isotopes and doesnt generate power, but most of the population is scared of it anyway and wants it shut down. It's not just the radical left here, absolutely everyone is terrified of nuclear power. It will never happen here and it is an awful shame.
OK, as an Australian I am getting kind of sick of being patronised. I can take a light hearted quip as well as the next guy, but there's way too much condescension levelled at Australia these days.
:)
Despite what many people might think, we're a very modern, cosmopolitan society.
Steve Irwin etc. is what we use to get the tourists in, and it works a treat. but for the most part we're quite civilised
That's all, best wishes everyone.
There's no need for a one way trip, there is Mars Direct.
Mars direct was devised by an aerospace engineer called Robert Zubrin a few years ago in response to the previous Bush's original estimate of the cost of sending humans to Mars. Bush's administration devised a plan whereby a giant spaceship would be constructed in Earth orbit. This spaceship would package together everything required for a trip to and from Mars, and a stay of a few months.
Mars Direct proposes a multi-stage approach whereby the required supplies, infrastructure etc. are sent over several years. It is safer, has more redundancy, allows a longer stay on the surface, and best of all, it's cheaper. Much cheaper. The cost of the original plan was estimated by NASA to be $400 billion (1989, unadjusted.) When researchers at NASA's Johnson Space Center considered Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal, they decided to be generous, and scale it up by a factor of 2. The ultimate cost still only came out at $50 billion dollars.
Mars direct can be implemented now, using current technology, with no need to leave people on Mars, and no exotic propulsion methods. Of course, with the development of more exotic nuclear propulsion methods, the cost can probably be brought down even further, and the travel times reduced.
Mars Direct could constitute as little as 20% of NASA's annual budget if implemented. This means that by retiring the Space Shuttle, and ending the commitment to the ISS, Mars Direct could probably fit within NASA's current budget.
Any NASA plans to send humans to Mars will almost certainly emcompass elements of Zubrin's Mars Direct plan.
For more info
For a more recent critique of the plan
Well actually some of the best CG effects are subtle, like adding clouds and sunsets and stuff (and no, I'm not talking about the one from Revolutions, that was as convincing as a circa 1930's matte screen), so you probably didnt even realise they were there. I'd bet that you've been convinced by CG effects that you didnt even realise were CG. I didnt realise how extensively they were used in the background of scenes until I saw the making of The Thin Red Line when they turned an ordinary Queensland day into a very dramatic looking sunset with clouds etc. I had no idea that scene was CG'd until I saw how it was pieced together. That really opened my eyes :)
And for my money, Gollum is about as convincing as it gets. You can almost see the pores in his skin.
"The Shenzhou spacecraft appears similar to the Russian Soyuz, but is different in dimensions (slightly larger and heavier) and does not seem to use any detailed parts copied from the Soyuz or built under license. Therefore although it follows the classic layout of the Soyuz, adopts many of the same technical solutions, and the re-entry vehicle has the same shape, it cannot be considered strictly a 'copy'. And if one considers Shenzhou to be a copy of the Soyuz, then was the Soyuz design stolen - from the American General Electric Apollo spacecraft proposal?"