Yea, here's mine: (1) More expansion room (we're kind of running out of places to put things and people down here. (2) More natural and exotic resources (helium 3, rare metals and substances). (3) Inspiration (it could very well kickstart many a young genius). (4) It's a permanent fix (space is huge, it could be the crux of our economy for much longer than anything else previously mentioned or even thought of).
Basically, I think developing into a space-oriented culture will go a long way towards us not having to continually search for the next big thing to support the economy -- there's always plenty more in space.
The big thing is that it truly enfranchises the disenfranchised. People could always set out in search for a better life. That's powerful, our most innovative times have traditionally come from people setting out to new lands in search of a better life.
The Republicans have hijacked the word conservative. Maybe it happened back in the 70's when being a conservative probably wasn't cool. I don't know, I'm too young. But I do know that there hasn't been a true conservative as president for a while (maybe Kennedy). The Republicans are alienating the conservatives, and the Democrats are kind of courting them.
I personally hope that we eventually get a new party that is truly conservative. Being a conservative has nothing to do with either party -- it's really rhetoric that is just thrown around, and as usual, is dead wrong.
I am a conservative, and I haven't considered myself a Republican for a while now.
I think you have it the wrong way. Your question should be:
Where exactly did all this bandwidth to just give away come from when garage door opener manufacturers are polluting spectrum that the military owns?
The answer would be Section 15. Garage door openers can operate on pretty much any frequency as long as they are Section 15 devices. Many companies just happened to use a portion of the spectrum that the military owns.
That's part of their reason for the decline of arcades.
But the more important question is you actually have a 180 degree wrap around screen in your house?!?!?!?!!? and 73 inch monitors!?!?!! rock on bro. I have some, uh, nature DVD's that would be intriguing to watch.
oh wait, you don't? Damn.
Maybe he's influential in that he provides a steady hand, and transparency for (nearly) all processes.
You don't have to be some dynamite guy doing crazy things. Keeping a big ship steady is a big job, and commands respect. When he talks, people listen. He's not going to bullshit anyone.
I guess he's influential, because he doesn't overly use his influence, gaining him more respect, and more influence. Mutually reinforcing cycles.
How about being honest with yourself? Being your own abatoir?
Hunting up until you shoot the animal is fun, but I don't do it for entertainment value. I could get the same fun out of photographing them. I do it because then, at least, I know that I'm willing to kill the animal, gut it and prepare it in order to feed my carnivore side. There's no one that can tell me that I, as a meat-eater, am being hipocritical because I wouldn't be able to kill the animal myself. I now know that I would, and that I will continue to do so. I put a lot of value in knowing my limits with regards to my quality of life. Would I personally kill and gut my own animals to have a good steak or Thanksgiving dinner? Yes, and I'm happy that I can be honest with myself about that.
Also, wild meat is about 1,000 times healthier than pretty much any other way of upbringing -- look the numbers up, they're staggering.
Re:This is interesting...
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Matters what animal you hunt, and with what. With just about any weapon (exceot the mouse button), there is stalking and tracking required. You can hike around for a week in elk country and hardly see a single one if you don't know what you're doing.
Personally, I like bow hunting just because of the sportsmanship. Gun hunting is a lot easier, but with certain animals it's still hard.
You consider Jacksonvilles, NC out in the boonies? You city folk amaze me.
Boonies is in the dakotas, wyoming, montana, new mexico (where I live). Where you can drive 90 for five hours and not see a single light.
That 100 miles thing is a great statistic to throw around, but is meaningless in the end. Power plants have always been geographically biased to particular locations. I live in po-dunk nowhere, but have 5 power plants within 100 miles. But those people in the big cities are multiple hundreds of miles form the plants. So, in the future the number might jump from 5 to 8, but I still supply the big cities that are still just as far from the plants.
Well, considering that (nearly) all modern power plants are on a body of water, I fail to see your point. Most of those (at least locally, and we're in a desert) are artificial bodies of water. I don't see the problem with raising their temperature a little -- that's what they were made for.
Nothing wrong with building a pond next to your power plant and then using it.
Kyoto isn't about energy efficiency, it's about pollution.
We'd reduce our pollution, with probably no gains in energy efficiency. In fact, our energy efficiency would probably drop due to having to use less than optimal (but clean) technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, here's mine: (1) More expansion room (we're kind of running out of places to put things and people down here. (2) More natural and exotic resources (helium 3, rare metals and substances). (3) Inspiration (it could very well kickstart many a young genius). (4) It's a permanent fix (space is huge, it could be the crux of our economy for much longer than anything else previously mentioned or even thought of). Basically, I think developing into a space-oriented culture will go a long way towards us not having to continually search for the next big thing to support the economy -- there's always plenty more in space. The big thing is that it truly enfranchises the disenfranchised. People could always set out in search for a better life. That's powerful, our most innovative times have traditionally come from people setting out to new lands in search of a better life.
The Republicans have hijacked the word conservative. Maybe it happened back in the 70's when being a conservative probably wasn't cool. I don't know, I'm too young. But I do know that there hasn't been a true conservative as president for a while (maybe Kennedy). The Republicans are alienating the conservatives, and the Democrats are kind of courting them. I personally hope that we eventually get a new party that is truly conservative. Being a conservative has nothing to do with either party -- it's really rhetoric that is just thrown around, and as usual, is dead wrong. I am a conservative, and I haven't considered myself a Republican for a while now.
I think you have it the wrong way. Your question should be: Where exactly did all this bandwidth to just give away come from when garage door opener manufacturers are polluting spectrum that the military owns? The answer would be Section 15. Garage door openers can operate on pretty much any frequency as long as they are Section 15 devices. Many companies just happened to use a portion of the spectrum that the military owns.
That's part of their reason for the decline of arcades. But the more important question is you actually have a 180 degree wrap around screen in your house?!?!?!?!!? and 73 inch monitors!?!?!! rock on bro. I have some, uh, nature DVD's that would be intriguing to watch. oh wait, you don't? Damn.
Maybe he's influential in that he provides a steady hand, and transparency for (nearly) all processes. You don't have to be some dynamite guy doing crazy things. Keeping a big ship steady is a big job, and commands respect. When he talks, people listen. He's not going to bullshit anyone. I guess he's influential, because he doesn't overly use his influence, gaining him more respect, and more influence. Mutually reinforcing cycles.
How about being honest with yourself? Being your own abatoir? Hunting up until you shoot the animal is fun, but I don't do it for entertainment value. I could get the same fun out of photographing them. I do it because then, at least, I know that I'm willing to kill the animal, gut it and prepare it in order to feed my carnivore side. There's no one that can tell me that I, as a meat-eater, am being hipocritical because I wouldn't be able to kill the animal myself. I now know that I would, and that I will continue to do so. I put a lot of value in knowing my limits with regards to my quality of life. Would I personally kill and gut my own animals to have a good steak or Thanksgiving dinner? Yes, and I'm happy that I can be honest with myself about that. Also, wild meat is about 1,000 times healthier than pretty much any other way of upbringing -- look the numbers up, they're staggering.
Matters what animal you hunt, and with what. With just about any weapon (exceot the mouse button), there is stalking and tracking required. You can hike around for a week in elk country and hardly see a single one if you don't know what you're doing. Personally, I like bow hunting just because of the sportsmanship. Gun hunting is a lot easier, but with certain animals it's still hard.
You consider Jacksonvilles, NC out in the boonies? You city folk amaze me. Boonies is in the dakotas, wyoming, montana, new mexico (where I live). Where you can drive 90 for five hours and not see a single light.
That 100 miles thing is a great statistic to throw around, but is meaningless in the end. Power plants have always been geographically biased to particular locations. I live in po-dunk nowhere, but have 5 power plants within 100 miles. But those people in the big cities are multiple hundreds of miles form the plants. So, in the future the number might jump from 5 to 8, but I still supply the big cities that are still just as far from the plants.
Well, considering that (nearly) all modern power plants are on a body of water, I fail to see your point. Most of those (at least locally, and we're in a desert) are artificial bodies of water. I don't see the problem with raising their temperature a little -- that's what they were made for. Nothing wrong with building a pond next to your power plant and then using it.
Kyoto isn't about energy efficiency, it's about pollution. We'd reduce our pollution, with probably no gains in energy efficiency. In fact, our energy efficiency would probably drop due to having to use less than optimal (but clean) technologies.