"No amount of "practice" by astronauts or ground crews would have prevented those acidents."
Mmm. I said "our practice and experience", not our astronauts and ground crews. For instance, after the Challenger disaster, the engineers and designers whom you so rightfully fault for said disaster got a some practice redesigning those boosters and O-rings. And the bigwigs got some practice changing their policies to disallow takeoffs in cold weather. After the wing-foam disaster, those engineers and designers got some practice designing a camera system that would allow full visibility for the purpose of self-inspection by shuttle crews. Not to say those mistakes should have happened - they shouldn't - but they will never happen again.
I maintain that were we to fly as many shuttle missions as military airplane flights, the shuttle's safety record would drastically improve. Airplanes in their infancy were subject to not dissimilar disasters and failure rates. Ain't nothin' to it but to DO it.
"The Shuttle has flown 112 times, but it hasnever been declared an operational system."
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. I think you're using the word "operational" in a very beaurocratic sense. Let me clarify - the space shuttles have been FUNCTIONALLY operational 112 times. Meaning, when the astronauts turned the key, the engine cranked. They can "declare" it whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is it went up 112 times and came down 110.
"ISS is a bigger boondoggle than the Shuttle."
Sad, but not surprising, given how much of a boondoggle Mir was. Guess we just need to keep building bigger and better ones, like we did with airplanes, cars, and everything else that started out tricky but got easier the more we did it. I still believe in America's technological and technical abilities (when properly funded), and I still believe we're still at the very very beginning of the learning curve as regards space flight. I mean, we're still using rockets for crying out loud. It's a long road ahead, and not without challenges, but that's what American inginuity has always thrived on. And I for one look forward to the day when I can (affordably) take a commercial space flight just to say I did it. I think that's very possible within my lifetime.
"And it is the other members of the Senate's job to represent their constituants - by -not- spending the money unless it is a good idea on its own merit."
Actually, by not spending the money unless their constituents agree that it's a good idea. Which is exactly what I said here. Or didn't you read the rest of the thread?
"Last time I checked, Ms. Mikulski is a member of the minority party in the Senate, so for her opinion to prevail, she will need to convince some Republicans to her point of view."
Um, last time I checked, the Senate had already voted to spend this money on Hubble. All Senator BM (heh) was saying was that NASA should stop pussyfooting around and do what all of Congress had already told it to do. In fact, that point was also made in this thread here. But wait, let me guess - you didn't read the rest of the thread.
But hey, don't let me stop you from going off half-cocked. The old right-wing rake-in-the-face is always so entertaining.
"She voted against S256 (Bankruptcy reform) this week"
I knew I liked her.
"or follow in the footsteps of Senator Sarbanes and announce her retirement."
Heh. I chuckle at your lame attempt at conflating a healthy democracy with one-party rule. Just remember, as you're busy advocating the wholesale dismantling of checks and balances, that one day the shoe can and will be on the other foot.
"Because she's representing the interests of her constituents at the expense of other taxpayers."
Which makes her different from every other Senator...how?
"In a perfect world, all these kinds of decisions would be based on the science and what's practical."
But in the imperfect world we have, the best we can do is have our representatives vote on it, and the most popular viewpoint wins. Theoretically.
"The economy is running well enough that the government doesn't need to create make-work jobs with federal funds."
If you honestly consider the Hubble program to be for no other purpose than creating jobs to waste taxpayer money, I'm not sure you can be reasoned with. This isn't ditch-digging or hole-filling, this is the bleeding edge of astronomy.
"Now, having said that, I will say if Congress has allocated funds to fix Hubble, by law that's how NASA must spend them."
Well then we agree. In fact, that's all Senator BM (heh) was saying in the first place.
"What's wrong with this? Nothing; she's just representing her constituents"
But what you overlook is that there are 99 other Senators who represent THEIRS as well. This is why they do things like... VOTE.
"However, one could argue that there are more constructive ways of spending that money, even in her own state."
One could also make that argument about every government expenditure ever. There's always gonna be a better or worse course we could have taken, but at some point you gotta shit or get off the pot and do the best you can.
"I don't know much about the Hubble issue, but I do take exception to the argument that, just because a Senator is working on behalf of her constituents, she can do no wrong."
I never said she could do no wrong, I said she was doing her job. If America wanted the Hubble completely defunded, they'd all tell their elected representatives to vote against it, and it wouldn't matter WHAT she said, cuz the vote in the Senate would be 99 to 1.
This is called "Representative Democracy", maybe you've heard of it.
"No, it isn't. The safety record of the Shuttle is far worse than what would be acceptable for any military aircraft."
Right, but like I said to somebody else, aircraft fly far more frequently and under far less stressful conditions than space flights. There have been 112 shuttle flights EVER. There are MANY more military flights than that every DAY. If we flew as many shuttle space flights as military airplane flights, I'm sure the safety record would reflect our greater practice and experience with space travel. We've already learned a lot from the two major disasters that the shuttle program has had.
"The Shuttle has never been reliable enough to become operational."
?!?! The space shuttle has been operational 112 times, according to NASA.
"Science is a reason,"
In the history of American space flight, there has been precisely ONE reason other than scientific research that we've ever made any space flights, and that was to beat the Russians to the moon, and that hasn't been an issue since 1969. What do you think they do on the ISS, play pinochle? Just sit around, to further your supposed purpose of "just putting people there?" No, they do scientific research. Since the moon landing, scientfic research has been the SOLE purpose of American space flight, and it was at least half of the reason for the moon landings too.
"in the same sense that science was done in North America after the European migration."
You're comparing space flight to emigration?! News flash - there's no such thing as space colonists (yet). As soon as there is, you'll have a valid point, but there's not. Beyond the first moon landing, there has not been a single space mission ever that wasn't solely scientific in nature.
"Irregardless" isn't a word. You probably meant either "irrespective" or "regardless".
And I said very plainly earlier that I don't think the solution is throwing money at the problem indiscriminately. However, given the choice between throwing billions and billions and billions at Iraq, or throwing ONE billion at the Hubble, my priorities are clear.
If you're so well-informed, why don't you educate us all as to what part of "the actual facts behind the issue" wasn't covered in today's discussion.
"What about the taxpayers contributing those dollars?"
Well then, obviously they should contact their elected representatives and have them try and outvote Barbara M. But she's doing her job. You act as though the vocal support of one Senator can dictate policy for all of the American space program.
"Maybe they'd like that money back?"
Yes, I know, everybody wants a tax cut, IT professionals just don't make enough money, I'm sure your kids go without food some nights. Nobody wants a benefit cut, though.
I've decided I want my tax dollars that pay for the portion of NORAD that protects the airspace over your house, the law enforcement agencies in your state, county and municipality, your fire department, and the schools you or your kids go to, back. It's my money right?
If you don't want to pay taxes in America you have two options. a) emigrate. b) disenfranchise yourself from the government and never pay taxes again. But if you decide, as I have, that you consider the benefits of living in the country with the best standard of living and most powerful military to be worth the price of the 14th highest tax rate in the world, the least you can do is quit bitching. You're living in the best house on the block for the price of the 14th best house on the block. But somehow you're paying too much.
"I have no problem with a Senator doing something to support her constituents, but when it has a cost that must be shouldered by third parties, it's not a valid action."
By that logic no elected representative would ever do anything, because everything that gets done at the Federal level affects some "third party". I don't see you refusing to peruse any information provided by Hubble in moral outrage.
"Imagine if we lost almost 2% of our airline flights."
Right, but the people getting on these airline flights aren't test pilots who understand and have accepted the risk. Going into space, not to mention to the moon, is fundamentally different from flying in an airplane and entails more risk simply because we don't do it as much. If we had as many moon missions as commercial flights I'm sure the safety record would be much better.
OK, so it's from a movie. It was still something you thought was so relevant and significant to you personally that you chose to use it in your sig, while simultaneously talking about "zero-aggression". Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it...
Two crashes out of 112 flights is not a bad ratio, at least according to NASA, who anticipated something much higher. Of course, I'd love to see it be zero, but then I'd love world peace too... Apollo, Mercury and Gemini all had much much lower numbers of flights. The percentage of exploded shuttles is 1.79%. Apply that to, for example, Apollo's 17 flights (I only remember cuz of the They Might Be Giants album "apollo 18", the one that never happened) and you'll see that Apollo should have had 1/3 of a mission explode - which is basically what happened. Apollo 13 almost did. And let's not forget that ground test.
I couldn't find a percentage for, say, automobile accidents on the Jersey Turnpike, but I wouldn't be surprised if its safety record is worse than the shuttles. 98.3% is a pretty good success rate IMHO. The high number of deaths results from the fact that the shuttle can carry 7-10 astronauts as opposed to three to four in older, more traditional "rocket" spaceships.
You can't deny that they gave us the Statue of Liberty and helped us win our independance from England. Those two alone should be reason enough for every American to have at least some respect for them. Plus they're onboard with Syria now... No nation is so homogenized that you can say that none of them have ever been good for America, no matter what Mark Twain said.
Incidentally, the reason he didn't pay them was that he chose to not support an unjustified war of agression led by a president of questionable mental ability. Gee, why does that sound familiar?
And you do know you can disenfranchise yourself form the government, right? Never pay taxes again, if you don't want. I await the joyous news of your disenfranchisement, AC.
Of all the things you could complain about your taxes being wasted on, I can't see why the Hubble would be at the top of the list. I really can't.
Can you please explain to me why a Senator representing her constituants who, like most of us, want jobs, is a BAD thing? Isn't that why they're elected, to represent their constituants?
"Every Shuttle flight is risky"
Sure, just like every airplane landing is risky, just like crossing the street is risky. Most of them are former test pilots, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that the astronauts aren't willing to accept those risks. The fact that it's risky doesn't mean it istn't worth it.
Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.
"but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science."
Why must there be only one purpose for space travel? And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle? No, the people that went to the moon did science once they got there. So will the people we eventually send to Mars. Scientific research is a very valid purpose for space flight.
So these two instuments alone can replace all of the existing functionality of Hubble I's instruments? If that is the case then bravo, go for it. But if it means losing the ability to do deep UV astronomy or anything else that Hubble I has proven to be very adept at, I don't think we should skimp out. Hubble has shown itself to have exceeded expectations time and time again, and I think it's well worth the investment. Not to say we should throw money at the problem, but if we can find untold billions for the sake of running to stand still in Iraq then surely there's gotta be a spare 1 billion somewhere we could use to fix something that's been more useful than we expected.
That meme has just propagated incredibly well, helped along by the mainstream American media as well as by some French people who choose to play into it's hands. The French are just the people that it's acceptable to hate on an irrational basis today. In the past that group has included blacks, jews, homosexuals, women, and today, France and teenagers. To paraphrase John Lennon, France is the nigger of the world.
Well, from the way my anti-Frenchbashing comments got similarly modded down, I'd say the mods are mostly of the opinion that antifrancism as well as antiantifrancism are both offtopic. I can kinda see their point, but had to take the side nobody ever takes - plus I just like the French, they aren't afraid to think for themselves.
And I think the French judge was right on in this decision. The tax having already been paid, the *AA's were just trying to make more money and scare normal downloaders. There, I said something on topic.
The flamebait mod was probably because there's considerably more in the military history of the French than that bigoted post made out. I mean, you could say almost the exact same thing about Poland, but you won't see anywhere near the amount of anti-Polish prejudice in America that you will of the anti-French variety. Any country that's in Europe has been invaded a shitton of times, Germany and England included. That answer your question?
They hate you too. Does anybody else think it's ironic somebody bashing the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" chooses to post under the name "Anonymous Coward"? I do.
God, I'm so tired of this tactic. Replace the words all you want, man... That's fine. I'll play this game and I'll win. Allow me to rephrase.
Economic agression is still agression. How did they agress, you ask? Well, let's see. When they made people who, as consumers, chose to exercise their ability to make choices about what product to buy on it's merit as a product (which, last time I checked, is what responsible Capitalistic consumers are supposed to do), and, in the course of exercising said legally protected ability chose to buy products from Intel AND AMD, neither exclusively over the other, subject to higher prices had they also bought product from their main competitor, they agressed against both said competitor AND their own consumers simultaneously.
Don't think this is economic agression? Picture this. You go to Taco Bell on Monday, get your usual order, eat and leave. On Tuesday, you go to Burger King, or McDonald's, or Applebee's, or any other restaurant. And you get charged double price because, as a consumer of food, you chose to not limit yourself exclusively to one food outlet. Because sometimes you like a Chalupa and sometimes you like a nice chef salad. But now you're being denied the ability to pay what other consumers are paying simply because you were being you and eating what you wanted to. How would you feel then? Seemingly, were you to apply your own arguments to yourself in this situation, you would either choose to eat at Taco Bell the rest of your life or forsake fast food and restaurants altogether. Get it yet?
How 'bout this one. You see ad in in the paper that K-Mart has shower curtains on sale on Monday, so you go and buy one, since you need a shower curtain and they have the cheapest one. Then you see a commercial on TV that Target has a sale on bathmats, so, since you need a bathmat also, you go to Target. But Target has decided that since you bought your shower curtain from K-Mart not only are you ineligible for the sale price, you have to pay DOUBLE the normal retail price. Walmart says the same thing, and K-Mart doesn't have any cheap bathmats. You can't honestly say you wouldn't feel just a little bit annoyed at this situation. Would you just end you "voluntary association" with all these retailers?
Can you not see that the logical extention of that argument is you living in a house that you built yourself, with a toaster, furniture, etc that you made with your own hands?
Do you really think this is Capitalism?
"Coercion requires an act of force."
Mmm. Economic force is still force. Use whatever term you want, you can't escape that for every physical type of harm there is an equivalent economic one.
"I think what you really meant to say is that government knows better how to run a business than the business owners themselves, and therefore government should interfere by force."
First of all, where is the force? Did the government steal from, murder, or rape Intel?
Second of all, you done thunk wrong, boy. Thanks all the same for the words you so helpfully put in my mouth. I can understand how it's much easier for you to respond to what you think I said rather than the very clear words in black and white on your screen. After all, rationality and reason aren't in your script, they're not something you can have canned reponses handed to you by the Corpo-fascist elite for. Sucks to be you, eh?
But then, this isn't about you. This is about Intel, about AMD, and above all, about the CONSUMER, without whom Capitalism would not exist. Or are you anti-Capitalism?
No, since you appear to be interested in what I think, I'll let you know. What I really mean to say, Vincent, is that when companies cross the line from product- and service-based (which is to say, MERIT-based) competition into ball-cutting and illegal exploitation of near-monopoly status in the marketplace, especially when they know going into the
" In the last election cycle, computer companies gave money at the rate of 53/47 to Democrats"
That may well be the case. Now, if it's not too much trouble, go back and read my post. I wasn't talking about "computer companies", I was talking about Microsoft specifically, in response to a comment about Microsoft's OEM's. Were you not able to follow the thread or are you trying to change the subject?
"Does that indicate a new conspiracy on the left wing that we should be worried about?"
If you think that the emasculated American left has ANY power today, political or otherwise, let alone enough to have a "conspiracy", I have to wonder about you. Name one powerful leftist in American politics today. Not a useless blowhard like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton, not an up-and-comer like Barack Obama - somebody who can actually get something progressive done instead of just blowing hot air and watching their polls. Just one. I dare you.
So let's see, 47% of voting America represented by exactly NONE of the federal government in anything short of a filibuster... hmm, almost like we're being taxed without being represented.
Gee, why does that sound familiar?
Oh, and by the way, the word "conspiracy" is yours and yours alone, my friend. Nobody was talking about a conspiracy. I was talking about extortion, which I suppose could qualify as a conspiracy if you're bored and pedantic enough to consider a blowjob an impeachable offense. And now that I think about it, even "extortion" is probably the wrong word. "Criminal solicitation of bribes" is more like it.
"There are numerous sites that report Microsoft donations were even more lopsided: they gave at the rate of 58/42 to Democrates. Where's the big stink being made by the "right wing"?"
I fart in "numerous"'s general direction. How about numerous and reputable? Cite 'em if you got 'em, cowboy. And the like of Little Green Footballs doesn't count, sorry.
"What is Microsoft extorting from the Democrats, hmm?"
Oh, are we back to talking about Microsoft? I thought it was "computer companies". Well, seeing as how the dem's got less than 50% of the amount MS donated to the NRCC for one dinner before they solicited (and again, my MS's own admission, probably received) the other million on top of it, and seeing as how it was a Democratic DoJ that went after them... Nothing, Einstein. Come on, your UID number is like one seventh of mine, you can do better than that..
"All politicians accept money from many sources, and most industries/companies donate pretty evenly to the major parties."
Again, the previous comments were about MS, not the industry.
"while the other party that got almost exactly the same amount of money isn't doing them favors"
Hmm. Let's review, shall we? First Microsoft gave 25 grand to the National Republican Congressional Committee to be a "table sponsor" for ONE DINNER. In 1997-8 MS - again, by their OWN admission - gave 2/3 of all their campaign contributions to the Republican side of the aisle. Then the GOP, who could have denied some of these donations in the name of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety (they're the "values" guys, right? That's what my TV keeps telling me), instead went back to Redmond and ASKED FOR ANOTHER MILLION - again, by their OWN admission.
"is unsupported by any facts that you've presented."
They're not my facts, they're Redmond's. Look, if you want to have the opinion that Microsoft gave evenly to both sides of the aisle, I can't stop you. You just have to realize that the only account of their giving you are trying to refute is MICROSOFT'S ALONE. This is what THEY said happened. This is how THEY said they spent their money. Believe it or don't - it's not me you're arguing with.
Economic coercion is still coercion. If Intel made better chips, they wouldn't need to cut off the competition's balls. If economic coercion becomes accepted as standard business practice, it will be VERY detrimental to marketplace competition (which is to say, competition based on the merit of the actual product and not consumer loyalty) and therefore VERY detrimental to real Capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
"No amount of "practice" by astronauts or ground crews would have prevented those acidents."
Mmm. I said "our practice and experience", not our astronauts and ground crews. For instance, after the Challenger disaster, the engineers and designers whom you so rightfully fault for said disaster got a some practice redesigning those boosters and O-rings. And the bigwigs got some practice changing their policies to disallow takeoffs in cold weather. After the wing-foam disaster, those engineers and designers got some practice designing a camera system that would allow full visibility for the purpose of self-inspection by shuttle crews. Not to say those mistakes should have happened - they shouldn't - but they will never happen again.
I maintain that were we to fly as many shuttle missions as military airplane flights, the shuttle's safety record would drastically improve. Airplanes in their infancy were subject to not dissimilar disasters and failure rates. Ain't nothin' to it but to DO it.
"The Shuttle has flown 112 times, but it hasnever been declared an operational system."
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. I think you're using the word "operational" in a very beaurocratic sense. Let me clarify - the space shuttles have been FUNCTIONALLY operational 112 times. Meaning, when the astronauts turned the key, the engine cranked. They can "declare" it whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is it went up 112 times and came down 110.
"ISS is a bigger boondoggle than the Shuttle."
Sad, but not surprising, given how much of a boondoggle Mir was. Guess we just need to keep building bigger and better ones, like we did with airplanes, cars, and everything else that started out tricky but got easier the more we did it. I still believe in America's technological and technical abilities (when properly funded), and I still believe we're still at the very very beginning of the learning curve as regards space flight. I mean, we're still using rockets for crying out loud. It's a long road ahead, and not without challenges, but that's what American inginuity has always thrived on. And I for one look forward to the day when I can (affordably) take a commercial space flight just to say I did it. I think that's very possible within my lifetime.
"And it is the other members of the Senate's job to represent their constituants - by -not- spending the money unless it is a good idea on its own merit."
Actually, by not spending the money unless their constituents agree that it's a good idea. Which is exactly what I said here. Or didn't you read the rest of the thread?
"Last time I checked, Ms. Mikulski is a member of the minority party in the Senate, so for her opinion to prevail, she will need to convince some Republicans to her point of view."
Um, last time I checked, the Senate had already voted to spend this money on Hubble. All Senator BM (heh) was saying was that NASA should stop pussyfooting around and do what all of Congress had already told it to do. In fact, that point was also made in this thread here. But wait, let me guess - you didn't read the rest of the thread.
But hey, don't let me stop you from going off half-cocked. The old right-wing rake-in-the-face is always so entertaining.
"She voted against S256 (Bankruptcy reform) this week"
I knew I liked her.
"or follow in the footsteps of Senator Sarbanes and announce her retirement."
Heh. I chuckle at your lame attempt at conflating a healthy democracy with one-party rule. Just remember, as you're busy advocating the wholesale dismantling of checks and balances, that one day the shoe can and will be on the other foot.
"Because she's representing the interests of her constituents at the expense of other taxpayers."
Which makes her different from every other Senator...how?
"In a perfect world, all these kinds of decisions would be based on the science and what's practical."
But in the imperfect world we have, the best we can do is have our representatives vote on it, and the most popular viewpoint wins. Theoretically.
"The economy is running well enough that the government doesn't need to create make-work jobs with federal funds."
If you honestly consider the Hubble program to be for no other purpose than creating jobs to waste taxpayer money, I'm not sure you can be reasoned with. This isn't ditch-digging or hole-filling, this is the bleeding edge of astronomy.
"Now, having said that, I will say if Congress has allocated funds to fix Hubble, by law that's how NASA must spend them."
Well then we agree. In fact, that's all Senator BM (heh) was saying in the first place.
"What's wrong with this? Nothing; she's just representing her constituents"
But what you overlook is that there are 99 other Senators who represent THEIRS as well. This is why they do things like... VOTE.
"However, one could argue that there are more constructive ways of spending that money, even in her own state."
One could also make that argument about every government expenditure ever. There's always gonna be a better or worse course we could have taken, but at some point you gotta shit or get off the pot and do the best you can.
"I don't know much about the Hubble issue, but I do take exception to the argument that, just because a Senator is working on behalf of her constituents, she can do no wrong."
I never said she could do no wrong, I said she was doing her job. If America wanted the Hubble completely defunded, they'd all tell their elected representatives to vote against it, and it wouldn't matter WHAT she said, cuz the vote in the Senate would be 99 to 1.
This is called "Representative Democracy", maybe you've heard of it.
"No, it isn't. The safety record of the Shuttle is far worse than what would be acceptable for any military aircraft."
Right, but like I said to somebody else, aircraft fly far more frequently and under far less stressful conditions than space flights. There have been 112 shuttle flights EVER. There are MANY more military flights than that every DAY. If we flew as many shuttle space flights as military airplane flights, I'm sure the safety record would reflect our greater practice and experience with space travel. We've already learned a lot from the two major disasters that the shuttle program has had.
"The Shuttle has never been reliable enough to become operational."
?!?! The space shuttle has been operational 112 times, according to NASA.
"Science is a reason,"
In the history of American space flight, there has been precisely ONE reason other than scientific research that we've ever made any space flights, and that was to beat the Russians to the moon, and that hasn't been an issue since 1969. What do you think they do on the ISS, play pinochle? Just sit around, to further your supposed purpose of "just putting people there?" No, they do scientific research. Since the moon landing, scientfic research has been the SOLE purpose of American space flight, and it was at least half of the reason for the moon landings too.
"in the same sense that science was done in North America after the European migration."
You're comparing space flight to emigration?! News flash - there's no such thing as space colonists (yet). As soon as there is, you'll have a valid point, but there's not. Beyond the first moon landing, there has not been a single space mission ever that wasn't solely scientific in nature.
"Irregardless" isn't a word. You probably meant either "irrespective" or "regardless".
And I said very plainly earlier that I don't think the solution is throwing money at the problem indiscriminately. However, given the choice between throwing billions and billions and billions at Iraq, or throwing ONE billion at the Hubble, my priorities are clear.
If you're so well-informed, why don't you educate us all as to what part of "the actual facts behind the issue" wasn't covered in today's discussion.
"What about the taxpayers contributing those dollars?"
Well then, obviously they should contact their elected representatives and have them try and outvote Barbara M. But she's doing her job. You act as though the vocal support of one Senator can dictate policy for all of the American space program.
"Maybe they'd like that money back?"
Yes, I know, everybody wants a tax cut, IT professionals just don't make enough money, I'm sure your kids go without food some nights. Nobody wants a benefit cut, though.
I've decided I want my tax dollars that pay for the portion of NORAD that protects the airspace over your house, the law enforcement agencies in your state, county and municipality, your fire department, and the schools you or your kids go to, back. It's my money right?
If you don't want to pay taxes in America you have two options. a) emigrate. b) disenfranchise yourself from the government and never pay taxes again. But if you decide, as I have, that you consider the benefits of living in the country with the best standard of living and most powerful military to be worth the price of the 14th highest tax rate in the world, the least you can do is quit bitching. You're living in the best house on the block for the price of the 14th best house on the block. But somehow you're paying too much.
"I have no problem with a Senator doing something to support her constituents, but when it has a cost that must be shouldered by third parties, it's not a valid action."
By that logic no elected representative would ever do anything, because everything that gets done at the Federal level affects some "third party". I don't see you refusing to peruse any information provided by Hubble in moral outrage.
" Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were Skylab missions, no? Apollo 21 was Apollo-Soyuz in '75?"
nope.
"Imagine if we lost almost 2% of our airline flights."
Right, but the people getting on these airline flights aren't test pilots who understand and have accepted the risk. Going into space, not to mention to the moon, is fundamentally different from flying in an airplane and entails more risk simply because we don't do it as much. If we had as many moon missions as commercial flights I'm sure the safety record would be much better.
OK, so it's from a movie. It was still something you thought was so relevant and significant to you personally that you chose to use it in your sig, while simultaneously talking about "zero-aggression". Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it...
I can't help but notice you haven't disenfranchised yourself. I'm waiting.
Um, two explosions out of 112 flights is a failure rate of roughly 1.7%, not 4%.
But my memory might well be faulty, I was 11 at the time.
Two crashes out of 112 flights is not a bad ratio, at least according to NASA, who anticipated something much higher. Of course, I'd love to see it be zero, but then I'd love world peace too... Apollo, Mercury and Gemini all had much much lower numbers of flights. The percentage of exploded shuttles is 1.79%. Apply that to, for example, Apollo's 17 flights (I only remember cuz of the They Might Be Giants album "apollo 18", the one that never happened) and you'll see that Apollo should have had 1/3 of a mission explode - which is basically what happened. Apollo 13 almost did. And let's not forget that ground test.
I couldn't find a percentage for, say, automobile accidents on the Jersey Turnpike, but I wouldn't be surprised if its safety record is worse than the shuttles. 98.3% is a pretty good success rate IMHO. The high number of deaths results from the fact that the shuttle can carry 7-10 astronauts as opposed to three to four in older, more traditional "rocket" spaceships.
You can't deny that they gave us the Statue of Liberty and helped us win our independance from England. Those two alone should be reason enough for every American to have at least some respect for them. Plus they're onboard with Syria now... No nation is so homogenized that you can say that none of them have ever been good for America, no matter what Mark Twain said.
Somebody already tried that, eventually his family just paid his taxes for him.
Incidentally, the reason he didn't pay them was that he chose to not support an unjustified war of agression led by a president of questionable mental ability. Gee, why does that sound familiar?
And you do know you can disenfranchise yourself form the government, right? Never pay taxes again, if you don't want. I await the joyous news of your disenfranchisement, AC.
Of all the things you could complain about your taxes being wasted on, I can't see why the Hubble would be at the top of the list. I really can't.
"This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her."
Can you please explain to me why a Senator representing her constituants who, like most of us, want jobs, is a BAD thing? Isn't that why they're elected, to represent their constituants?
"Every Shuttle flight is risky"
Sure, just like every airplane landing is risky, just like crossing the street is risky. Most of them are former test pilots, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that the astronauts aren't willing to accept those risks. The fact that it's risky doesn't mean it istn't worth it.
Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.
"but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science."
Why must there be only one purpose for space travel? And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle? No, the people that went to the moon did science once they got there. So will the people we eventually send to Mars. Scientific research is a very valid purpose for space flight.
In other words, a Senator is representing the interests of her constituants. Horror of horrors. Perish the thought.
So these two instuments alone can replace all of the existing functionality of Hubble I's instruments? If that is the case then bravo, go for it. But if it means losing the ability to do deep UV astronomy or anything else that Hubble I has proven to be very adept at, I don't think we should skimp out. Hubble has shown itself to have exceeded expectations time and time again, and I think it's well worth the investment. Not to say we should throw money at the problem, but if we can find untold billions for the sake of running to stand still in Iraq then surely there's gotta be a spare 1 billion somewhere we could use to fix something that's been more useful than we expected.
That meme has just propagated incredibly well, helped along by the mainstream American media as well as by some French people who choose to play into it's hands. The French are just the people that it's acceptable to hate on an irrational basis today. In the past that group has included blacks, jews, homosexuals, women, and today, France and teenagers. To paraphrase John Lennon, France is the nigger of the world.
Well, from the way my anti-Frenchbashing comments got similarly modded down, I'd say the mods are mostly of the opinion that antifrancism as well as antiantifrancism are both offtopic. I can kinda see their point, but had to take the side nobody ever takes - plus I just like the French, they aren't afraid to think for themselves.
And I think the French judge was right on in this decision. The tax having already been paid, the *AA's were just trying to make more money and scare normal downloaders. There, I said something on topic.
The flamebait mod was probably because there's considerably more in the military history of the French than that bigoted post made out. I mean, you could say almost the exact same thing about Poland, but you won't see anywhere near the amount of anti-Polish prejudice in America that you will of the anti-French variety. Any country that's in Europe has been invaded a shitton of times, Germany and England included. That answer your question?
They hate you too. Does anybody else think it's ironic somebody bashing the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" chooses to post under the name "Anonymous Coward"? I do.
...let the French-bashing begin, *sigh*...
"You took his stuff. You pound him."
Yeah, let's hear it for zero-agression! Woo, zero-agression!!!!1111one!
"Coercion requries aggression."
God, I'm so tired of this tactic. Replace the words all you want, man... That's fine. I'll play this game and I'll win. Allow me to rephrase.
Economic agression is still agression. How did they agress, you ask? Well, let's see. When they made people who, as consumers, chose to exercise their ability to make choices about what product to buy on it's merit as a product (which, last time I checked, is what responsible Capitalistic consumers are supposed to do), and, in the course of exercising said legally protected ability chose to buy products from Intel AND AMD, neither exclusively over the other, subject to higher prices had they also bought product from their main competitor, they agressed against both said competitor AND their own consumers simultaneously.
Don't think this is economic agression? Picture this. You go to Taco Bell on Monday, get your usual order, eat and leave. On Tuesday, you go to Burger King, or McDonald's, or Applebee's, or any other restaurant. And you get charged double price because, as a consumer of food, you chose to not limit yourself exclusively to one food outlet. Because sometimes you like a Chalupa and sometimes you like a nice chef salad. But now you're being denied the ability to pay what other consumers are paying simply because you were being you and eating what you wanted to. How would you feel then? Seemingly, were you to apply your own arguments to yourself in this situation, you would either choose to eat at Taco Bell the rest of your life or forsake fast food and restaurants altogether. Get it yet?
How 'bout this one. You see ad in in the paper that K-Mart has shower curtains on sale on Monday, so you go and buy one, since you need a shower curtain and they have the cheapest one. Then you see a commercial on TV that Target has a sale on bathmats, so, since you need a bathmat also, you go to Target. But Target has decided that since you bought your shower curtain from K-Mart not only are you ineligible for the sale price, you have to pay DOUBLE the normal retail price. Walmart says the same thing, and K-Mart doesn't have any cheap bathmats. You can't honestly say you wouldn't feel just a little bit annoyed at this situation. Would you just end you "voluntary association" with all these retailers?
Can you not see that the logical extention of that argument is you living in a house that you built yourself, with a toaster, furniture, etc that you made with your own hands?
Do you really think this is Capitalism?
"Coercion requires an act of force."
Mmm. Economic force is still force. Use whatever term you want, you can't escape that for every physical type of harm there is an equivalent economic one.
"I think what you really meant to say is that government knows better how to run a business than the business owners themselves, and therefore government should interfere by force."
First of all, where is the force? Did the government steal from, murder, or rape Intel?
Second of all, you done thunk wrong, boy. Thanks all the same for the words you so helpfully put in my mouth. I can understand how it's much easier for you to respond to what you think I said rather than the very clear words in black and white on your screen. After all, rationality and reason aren't in your script, they're not something you can have canned reponses handed to you by the Corpo-fascist elite for. Sucks to be you, eh?
But then, this isn't about you. This is about Intel, about AMD, and above all, about the CONSUMER, without whom Capitalism would not exist. Or are you anti-Capitalism?
No, since you appear to be interested in what I think, I'll let you know. What I really mean to say, Vincent, is that when companies cross the line from product- and service-based (which is to say, MERIT-based) competition into ball-cutting and illegal exploitation of near-monopoly status in the marketplace, especially when they know going into the
" In the last election cycle, computer companies gave money at the rate of 53/47 to Democrats"
That may well be the case. Now, if it's not too much trouble, go back and read my post. I wasn't talking about "computer companies", I was talking about Microsoft specifically, in response to a comment about Microsoft's OEM's. Were you not able to follow the thread or are you trying to change the subject?
"Does that indicate a new conspiracy on the left wing that we should be worried about?"
If you think that the emasculated American left has ANY power today, political or otherwise, let alone enough to have a "conspiracy", I have to wonder about you. Name one powerful leftist in American politics today. Not a useless blowhard like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton, not an up-and-comer like Barack Obama - somebody who can actually get something progressive done instead of just blowing hot air and watching their polls. Just one. I dare you.
So let's see, 47% of voting America represented by exactly NONE of the federal government in anything short of a filibuster... hmm, almost like we're being taxed without being represented.
Gee, why does that sound familiar?
Oh, and by the way, the word "conspiracy" is yours and yours alone, my friend. Nobody was talking about a conspiracy. I was talking about extortion, which I suppose could qualify as a conspiracy if you're bored and pedantic enough to consider a blowjob an impeachable offense. And now that I think about it, even "extortion" is probably the wrong word. "Criminal solicitation of bribes" is more like it.
"There are numerous sites that report Microsoft donations were even more lopsided: they gave at the rate of 58/42 to Democrates. Where's the big stink being made by the "right wing"?"
I fart in "numerous"'s general direction. How about numerous and reputable? Cite 'em if you got 'em, cowboy. And the like of Little Green Footballs doesn't count, sorry.
"What is Microsoft extorting from the Democrats, hmm?"
Oh, are we back to talking about Microsoft? I thought it was "computer companies". Well, seeing as how the dem's got less than 50% of the amount MS donated to the NRCC for one dinner before they solicited (and again, my MS's own admission, probably received) the other million on top of it, and seeing as how it was a Democratic DoJ that went after them... Nothing, Einstein. Come on, your UID number is like one seventh of mine, you can do better than that..
"All politicians accept money from many sources, and most industries/companies donate pretty evenly to the major parties."
Again, the previous comments were about MS, not the industry.
"while the other party that got almost exactly the same amount of money isn't doing them favors"
Hmm. Let's review, shall we? First Microsoft gave 25 grand to the National Republican Congressional Committee to be a "table sponsor" for ONE DINNER. In 1997-8 MS - again, by their OWN admission - gave 2/3 of all their campaign contributions to the Republican side of the aisle. Then the GOP, who could have denied some of these donations in the name of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety (they're the "values" guys, right? That's what my TV keeps telling me), instead went back to Redmond and ASKED FOR ANOTHER MILLION - again, by their OWN admission.
"is unsupported by any facts that you've presented."
They're not my facts, they're Redmond's. Look, if you want to have the opinion that Microsoft gave evenly to both sides of the aisle, I can't stop you. You just have to realize that the only account of their giving you are trying to refute is MICROSOFT'S ALONE. This is what THEY said happened. This is how THEY said they spent their money. Believe it or don't - it's not me you're arguing with.
Economic coercion is still coercion. If Intel made better chips, they wouldn't need to cut off the competition's balls. If economic coercion becomes accepted as standard business practice, it will be VERY detrimental to marketplace competition (which is to say, competition based on the merit of the actual product and not consumer loyalty) and therefore VERY detrimental to real Capitalism.
Film at 11.