Remember what the first "A" stands for - Aeronautics. Their big PR thing is a space program, but they are really big in other fields and because of the demands required in a modern space program, very multi-disciplined. Heck, even doing the aeronautics part requires a lot of disciplines.
Right! And the first "S" stands for "Space". Neither Aeronautics nor Space take place on the ground (Earth ground, anyway). Lexuses don't fly. See where I'm getting at? NASA is doing things that that they should not be doing.
Granted, NASA has great engineers, but when it comes to fixing cars, I want a mechanic!
NASA has more than a dozen satellites studying the earths climate, more than any other group in the world.
NASA spends more money studying climate science than all other federal agencies combined.
Those two facts seem to put them at the forefront of scientific research into the earth's climate. Who exactly do you propose would be better suited to launching the satellites and doing the research? Or is this problem better left to "private industry" to solve?
Having satellites retrieving climate data is not the same thing as doing climate research. NASA has launched a bunch of communications satellites too. Does that make the qualified to fix my TV? There is a vastly different skill set involved in putting something in space and predicting the climate 50 years out.
Let the rocket scientists and engineers launch the rockets. Leave the climate to the climatologists. Maybe if they didn't spend so much money on climate science, they could put a man in orbit or resupply the ISS.
It seems their goal is to get NASA to refrain from talking about science because it is too political and damages their reputation among people who don't like science.
Right. We should leave the climate science to the biologists.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I wonder when they removed "Climatology" from their name.
Wow. Because when I want an opinion on climate change, I automatically turn to astronauts, shuttle leading edge system managers, and pogo prevention panel chairs.
You mean people NASA? Not only did you just describe these former NASA employees, but you also described the current ones. I put as much credence in former NASA employees as I do current ones. Maybe a bit more since the former employees accomplished something.
As soon as Apple can patent the idea "for use on a handheld communications device", and it will be called the qBit. Actually, iQ is a much more catchy name.
my ipad has taken over that task with the pluses being real local applications being installed and i can carry around 64GB of data on it as well
How much did the GP spend on his Chromebook, which has a bigger screen, full keyboard and mouse vs your iPad? Also, Chromebooks can connect to external drives, including those NTFS partitions, making your 64GB seem rather pathetic. Yes, your iPad is a bit easier to carry around, but it costs twice as much. For the extra money I can get a nice bag to carry a Chromebook, real mouse and the external hard drive.
Sure, the iPad is really nice and has its advantages, but don't assume that it's more capable or a better value. Personally, I'd prefer to have two Chromebooks sitting around my house than a single iPad.
I still follow the premise that Life originated on earth. As a random chemical reaction, that created simple DNA strains that that happened in an area where the environment stayed constant enough for those chemical reactions to persist but changing enough to allow the strain to change over time. The Chemical Reaction that didn't break down allowed for more chemicals to connect to the DNA strand and multiply.
While thinking about it, the environment would not necessarily need to change to force the DNA to change (evolve). All the "environment" needs is to be stable enough to foster replication. The edges of such an area would provide the change in conditions needed for evolution to take hold. The bonds that were able to multiply at the edges and beyond did so. Those that were not able to didn't.
An example would be ocean vents. This environment is rather stable and fosters life within it. Along the edges, where the conditions are not as favorable to the original life forms, most those that are venturing out will die. Those that don't die continue to reproduce, each surviving generation better able to survive further away from the vents until the need for the vents completely disappears.
Just my $0.02 and I'm not a biologist. But I have stayed in a Holiday Inn and the concepts are not that hard to grasp.
Hard to say if what that quote really speaks to. Like Galileo's recanting his discoveries and theories because of extreme pressure from the Church, and if you see some of the other responses here about what the reaction and consequences could be in a bible belt "Christian" community if you do not profess the dogma, Isaac may have just been keeping the religious Luddites at bay.
Could be true if Newton agreed with the prevailing dogma of the time. Quite to the contrary. In reading about his religious views, I would have a very difficult time placing him into any particular religious sect. For example, the Wiki page on Isaac Newton's Religious Views states the following:
Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was another of Sir Isaac Newton's passions. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science,
I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily [34]
He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said,
This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail
Also, the threat of persecution from the church leaders of the time did not prevent Gottfried Leibniz from openly debating him on religious matters. From the same page, Leibniz said:
Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion
Newton wasn't a christian so he wasn't on your side my friend.
I've read my post several times and I simply can not find where I said that Newton was a Christian. For that matter, TFA has almost nothing to do with Christianity, but whether or not there is room for a deity in science. I think that Newton proved that there is, regardless of what parents and grandparents of this post seem to think.
I don't think this law does what you think it does. I believe the goal of this law is to allow teachers to present creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to natural selection.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but don't assume that religion and science are mutually exclusive. See below:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." --Isaac Newton
Two Overrated mods! That means that at least two mods couldn't counter what I said, but didn't want others to read it.
The man did all his greatest work by the age of 22 and spent the rest of his life on a road with no destination.... Finally - Newton is a horrible choice for an authority when it comes to science. He wasn't a scientist. He was a natural philosopher - which is a sort of early fore-runner of science.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. Newton was born in Dec 1642. That means that Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published when Newton was 44 years old. Literally twice the age at which you said he had completed "all his greatest work". I don't know about you, but I consider Newtons Laws of to be a pretty significant piece of work. When you write something that is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science", you can come back and question Newton's qualifications.
Next, I never said Newton was a Christian, but he was certainly a theist.
I don't think this law does what you think it does. I believe the goal of this law is to allow teachers to present creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to natural selection.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but don't assume that religion and science are mutually exclusive. See below:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." --Isaac Newton
"Newton was a commie, gravity is actually God keeping you on the ground."
I weep for the future.
When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose. --Isaac Newton
If you worked in the home theater department (I was in PC home/office), add high margin cabling to that.
And here is why I don't shop at Best Buy. It's not that the sales people were trying to sell me a high end cable. It is the fact that there is no HDMI cables in the entire store for less than $30. Sorry, but I will not spend $30 on any cable, for anything, ever! I don't need gold plated HDMI cables for my less than 40 inch TV.
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
And oil companies give my car what is needed to get me to work, my child to the hospital, if necessary, and the whole family to grandma's house every Thanksgiving. They also heat homes to keep people from freezing to death and create the plastics that the keys on the keyboard you used to type your tripe. NPR gives us Big Bird, which could make plenty of profit to ensure the company's survival and liberal propaganda, which has been tried in the private sector and failed every single time. Tell me, which one do you think they NEED government funding for?
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
I don't know if they'd get fired, but I'd be interested in reading the article. Between the bailouts and the wars, white men have quite a few hands in my pockets.
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
Selling missiles to Iran. Hindsight is 20/20. Could you imagine if Iraq had won the wars they fought with Iran?
Paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage? I call bullshit.
Setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps. Serious bullshit here. There is a difference between the "Western Alliance" and Al Qaeda/Taliban. Know the difference. Not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda. Or do you not think you can be brown and not a racist?
Meh, unless it's a newsletter or mailing list I specifically signed up for and not a hidden away pre-checked checkbox somewhere then per my definition it is spam and the spam button it is. I don't care if you got my "consent", if you tricked me into it then this is my fuck you too.
Yes, it's still spam, but the spammer in this case is someone who knows your email address is legit. Clicking the "unsubscribe" button will not confirm your email address to them because it's already confirmed.
Think of it this way. There are two types of sales calls. You have the cold call, which is where you call someone who you have never had any dealings with. And then you have the call from the people who you have dealt with in the past. For example, if you had your car serviced three months ago, the dealership may call you to remind you that you are due for service again. The cold call is like the Viagra spam or the "I saw your profile on the web" spam. The "due for service" call is like the email you get from ProFlowers or some other company you've had dealings with in the past.
Yes, it's all Spam, but the unsubscribe button serves two opposite functions.
What I have found is that after clicking the "unsubscribe me" button on letters I end up getting even more spam from other places. I think they use that as a way to confirm its a real email address to spam you with other junk.
Well, the unsubscribe button works quite well if the email is something you actually subscribed to or it's a company that you purchased something from in the past. For example, Zag sends me about two or three emails a week. I have no problem using the "unsubscribe" button because I actually bought something from them. ProFlowers.com is a notorious spammer if you've ever purchased anything from them. I hit unsubscribe on their emails because I bought something from them. They know my email address is legit. The unsubscribe works in these cases.
However, when someone sends me a viagra or other obvious spam, I simply ignore and delete. Since these people do not know who I am and I did not give them my email address, clicking the unsubscribe button will simply confirm your email address. They are simply throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks. Don't be that sticky thing.
Up until recently, the teller terminals at my bank ran OS/2, but it was basically just a platform to run terminal sessions to the mainframe. Then they switched over to a browser-based front end to a UNIX back end.
The company I work for still supports old, legacy, OS/2 systems used for telephone menuing systems. It's funny that when there is a problem, many of the employees we support have no idea where the machine is located. It was literally stuck in an office somewhere and has been running completely unattended for years. It never gets updates. It never has to reboot. It just runs... and runs... and runs.
The problem we have now is finding hardware old enough to support it. We have to use 80GB drives for replacement and set up a 2GB partition for the OS and software. The rest just sits there idle. AT motherboards, ISA graphics and PS/2 keyboards and mice are getting harder and harder to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember what the first "A" stands for - Aeronautics. Their big PR thing is a space program, but they are really big in other fields and because of the demands required in a modern space program, very multi-disciplined. Heck, even doing the aeronautics part requires a lot of disciplines.
Right! And the first "S" stands for "Space". Neither Aeronautics nor Space take place on the ground (Earth ground, anyway). Lexuses don't fly. See where I'm getting at? NASA is doing things that that they should not be doing.
Granted, NASA has great engineers, but when it comes to fixing cars, I want a mechanic!
NASA has more than a dozen satellites studying the earths climate, more than any other group in the world.
NASA spends more money studying climate science than all other federal agencies combined.
Those two facts seem to put them at the forefront of scientific research into the earth's climate. Who exactly do you propose would be better suited to launching the satellites and doing the research? Or is this problem better left to "private industry" to solve?
Having satellites retrieving climate data is not the same thing as doing climate research. NASA has launched a bunch of communications satellites too. Does that make the qualified to fix my TV? There is a vastly different skill set involved in putting something in space and predicting the climate 50 years out.
Let the rocket scientists and engineers launch the rockets. Leave the climate to the climatologists. Maybe if they didn't spend so much money on climate science, they could put a man in orbit or resupply the ISS.
Plus, NASA can't do much without funding which has been the red headed stepchild of the US budget for decades.
Right! I think NASA has figured out that Global Warming will get you government funding. "We need more satellites to study Global Warming!"
It seems their goal is to get NASA to refrain from talking about science because it is too political and damages their reputation among people who don't like science.
Right. We should leave the climate science to the biologists.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I wonder when they removed "Climatology" from their name.
Wow. Because when I want an opinion on climate change, I automatically turn to astronauts, shuttle leading edge system managers, and pogo prevention panel chairs.
You mean people NASA? Not only did you just describe these former NASA employees, but you also described the current ones. I put as much credence in former NASA employees as I do current ones. Maybe a bit more since the former employees accomplished something.
So when does the iPhone Qubit come out?
As soon as Apple can patent the idea "for use on a handheld communications device", and it will be called the qBit. Actually, iQ is a much more catchy name.
my ipad has taken over that task with the pluses being real local applications being installed and i can carry around 64GB of data on it as well
How much did the GP spend on his Chromebook, which has a bigger screen, full keyboard and mouse vs your iPad? Also, Chromebooks can connect to external drives, including those NTFS partitions, making your 64GB seem rather pathetic. Yes, your iPad is a bit easier to carry around, but it costs twice as much. For the extra money I can get a nice bag to carry a Chromebook, real mouse and the external hard drive.
Sure, the iPad is really nice and has its advantages, but don't assume that it's more capable or a better value. Personally, I'd prefer to have two Chromebooks sitting around my house than a single iPad.
God? (Ducks!)
I still follow the premise that Life originated on earth. As a random chemical reaction, that created simple DNA strains that that happened in an area where the environment stayed constant enough for those chemical reactions to persist but changing enough to allow the strain to change over time. The Chemical Reaction that didn't break down allowed for more chemicals to connect to the DNA strand and multiply.
While thinking about it, the environment would not necessarily need to change to force the DNA to change (evolve). All the "environment" needs is to be stable enough to foster replication. The edges of such an area would provide the change in conditions needed for evolution to take hold. The bonds that were able to multiply at the edges and beyond did so. Those that were not able to didn't.
An example would be ocean vents. This environment is rather stable and fosters life within it. Along the edges, where the conditions are not as favorable to the original life forms, most those that are venturing out will die. Those that don't die continue to reproduce, each surviving generation better able to survive further away from the vents until the need for the vents completely disappears.
Just my $0.02 and I'm not a biologist. But I have stayed in a Holiday Inn and the concepts are not that hard to grasp.
Hard to say if what that quote really speaks to. Like Galileo's recanting his discoveries and theories because of extreme pressure from the Church, and if you see some of the other responses here about what the reaction and consequences could be in a bible belt "Christian" community if you do not profess the dogma, Isaac may have just been keeping the religious Luddites at bay.
Could be true if Newton agreed with the prevailing dogma of the time. Quite to the contrary. In reading about his religious views, I would have a very difficult time placing him into any particular religious sect. For example, the Wiki page on Isaac Newton's Religious Views states the following:
Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was another of Sir Isaac Newton's passions. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science,
I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily [34]
He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said,
This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail
Also, the threat of persecution from the church leaders of the time did not prevent Gottfried Leibniz from openly debating him on religious matters. From the same page, Leibniz said:
Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion
Newton wasn't a christian so he wasn't on your side my friend.
I've read my post several times and I simply can not find where I said that Newton was a Christian. For that matter, TFA has almost nothing to do with Christianity, but whether or not there is room for a deity in science. I think that Newton proved that there is, regardless of what parents and grandparents of this post seem to think.
I don't think this law does what you think it does. I believe the goal of this law is to allow teachers to present creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to natural selection.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but don't assume that religion and science are mutually exclusive. See below:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
--Isaac Newton
Two Overrated mods! That means that at least two mods couldn't counter what I said, but didn't want others to read it.
The man did all his greatest work by the age of 22 and spent the rest of his life on a road with no destination. ...
Finally - Newton is a horrible choice for an authority when it comes to science. He wasn't a scientist. He was a natural philosopher - which is a sort of early fore-runner of science.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. Newton was born in Dec 1642. That means that Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published when Newton was 44 years old. Literally twice the age at which you said he had completed "all his greatest work". I don't know about you, but I consider Newtons Laws of to be a pretty significant piece of work. When you write something that is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science", you can come back and question Newton's qualifications.
Next, I never said Newton was a Christian, but he was certainly a theist.
I don't think this law does what you think it does. I believe the goal of this law is to allow teachers to present creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to natural selection.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but don't assume that religion and science are mutually exclusive. See below:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
--Isaac Newton
"Newton was a commie, gravity is actually God keeping you on the ground."
I weep for the future.
When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose.
--Isaac Newton
Hopefully, this may get Texas' congressmen to abandon their opposition to NASA's commercial space initiatives.
Since when have Texas congresspeople opposed anything NASA?
First, this sounds great - Cheaper and better (plus the "Now with Graphene(tm)" factor), what not to like?
?
Don't forget the cool buzzword "Nanocomposite". You can't go wrong that kind of synergy!
If you worked in the home theater department (I was in PC home/office), add high margin cabling to that.
And here is why I don't shop at Best Buy. It's not that the sales people were trying to sell me a high end cable. It is the fact that there is no HDMI cables in the entire store for less than $30. Sorry, but I will not spend $30 on any cable, for anything, ever! I don't need gold plated HDMI cables for my less than 40 inch TV.
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
And oil companies give my car what is needed to get me to work, my child to the hospital, if necessary, and the whole family to grandma's house every Thanksgiving. They also heat homes to keep people from freezing to death and create the plastics that the keys on the keyboard you used to type your tripe. NPR gives us Big Bird, which could make plenty of profit to ensure the company's survival and liberal propaganda, which has been tried in the private sector and failed every single time. Tell me, which one do you think they NEED government funding for?
Tax exemption IS government funding.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
Then why are synagogues tax exempt?
Try wikipedia on npr funding. Seems that "pretty much government funded" is 11.3%. So no.
Well, they sure do scream bloody murder when we try to cut that 11.3% out. "Republicans hate Big Bird" was the rally cry last time it was attempted.
So, yeah, they are pretty much government funded. Until they can tell the federal government, "No thanks", they are government funded.
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
I don't know if they'd get fired, but I'd be interested in reading the article. Between the bailouts and the wars, white men have quite a few hands in my pockets.
Barack Obama is only half white.
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
Selling missiles to Iran. Hindsight is 20/20. Could you imagine if Iraq had won the wars they fought with Iran?
Paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage? I call bullshit.
Setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps. Serious bullshit here. There is a difference between the "Western Alliance" and Al Qaeda/Taliban. Know the difference. Not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda. Or do you not think you can be brown and not a racist?
Well, color me "surprised."
Meh, unless it's a newsletter or mailing list I specifically signed up for and not a hidden away pre-checked checkbox somewhere then per my definition it is spam and the spam button it is. I don't care if you got my "consent", if you tricked me into it then this is my fuck you too.
Yes, it's still spam, but the spammer in this case is someone who knows your email address is legit. Clicking the "unsubscribe" button will not confirm your email address to them because it's already confirmed.
Think of it this way. There are two types of sales calls. You have the cold call, which is where you call someone who you have never had any dealings with. And then you have the call from the people who you have dealt with in the past. For example, if you had your car serviced three months ago, the dealership may call you to remind you that you are due for service again. The cold call is like the Viagra spam or the "I saw your profile on the web" spam. The "due for service" call is like the email you get from ProFlowers or some other company you've had dealings with in the past.
Yes, it's all Spam, but the unsubscribe button serves two opposite functions.
What I have found is that after clicking the "unsubscribe me" button on letters I end up getting even more spam from other places. I think they use that as a way to confirm its a real email address to spam you with other junk.
Well, the unsubscribe button works quite well if the email is something you actually subscribed to or it's a company that you purchased something from in the past. For example, Zag sends me about two or three emails a week. I have no problem using the "unsubscribe" button because I actually bought something from them. ProFlowers.com is a notorious spammer if you've ever purchased anything from them. I hit unsubscribe on their emails because I bought something from them. They know my email address is legit. The unsubscribe works in these cases.
However, when someone sends me a viagra or other obvious spam, I simply ignore and delete. Since these people do not know who I am and I did not give them my email address, clicking the unsubscribe button will simply confirm your email address. They are simply throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks. Don't be that sticky thing.
Up until recently, the teller terminals at my bank ran OS/2, but it was basically just a platform to run terminal sessions to the mainframe. Then they switched over to a browser-based front end to a UNIX back end.
The company I work for still supports old, legacy, OS/2 systems used for telephone menuing systems. It's funny that when there is a problem, many of the employees we support have no idea where the machine is located. It was literally stuck in an office somewhere and has been running completely unattended for years. It never gets updates. It never has to reboot. It just runs... and runs... and runs.
The problem we have now is finding hardware old enough to support it. We have to use 80GB drives for replacement and set up a 2GB partition for the OS and software. The rest just sits there idle. AT motherboards, ISA graphics and PS/2 keyboards and mice are getting harder and harder to find.