Had we taken heed 30 years ago and done something about it, the cost would have been substantially lower and ultimately if we were wrong it would be dirt cheap to go back to our old ways
You mean 30 years ago exactly, or 37 years ago when the problem was global cooling and we were headed for another ice age?
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
I can't stop thinking that this is the first time America can't put a person into space since I was barely 10 and John F. Kennedy was starting his fourth full month in office.
Apparently you're forgetting the period between Feb 4, 1974 (Skylab 4, the last Skylab mission) and April 12, 1981 (STS-1, the first Shuttle launch).
I agree with removing deductions, but I disagree with "after a certain amount of income". Just to make the math simple, let's assume that the tax rate is 10%, and the threshold is $50K. Assuming anyone making under $50K pays no taxes and everyone earning $50K and over pays 10%, there is a very stiff penalty associated with making that extra dollar between $49,999 and $50,000.
As a result, the concept of a threshold is a disincentive to earning that extra dollar as the person would have to increase their income by 10% just to "break even".
On the other hand, if everyone pays the same percentage regardless of income, there is virtually no difference between making $49,999 and $50,001.
I see you're a supporter of what Mr. Obama refers to as "shared sacrifice". I'm all for shared sacrifice as long as it means everyone pays the same percentage. The 47% (or whatever) that actually pay no taxes need to contribute to the shared sacrifice.
I would gladly support a flat tax, even though it would likely mean a net increase in what I currently pay in taxes.
Please try reading before responding next time. And to whoever modded this guy up, the same goes for you.
To paraphrase Robert J. Hanlon, "Never ascribe to ignorance that which is adequately explained by tomfoolery".
In the words of that noted philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son. A flag waver. You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is."
I believe you mean Falcon 9 Heavy, which are essentially three Falcon 9s strapped together. In either case the Ares V was being designed to carry 188,000kg to LEO so it's not even in the same ball park.
The mighty Saturn V could lift approx 120,000kg to LEO The Falcon 9 Heavy is supposed to be able to launch 32-34,000kg to LEO The Falcon X is supposed to launch 38,000kg to LEO The Falcon X Heavy is targeted to launch 125,000kg to LEO The Falcon XX referenced by h4rr4r is supposed to launch 140,000kg to LEO, which I'd say is in the ballpark.
At this point, I'd say the Falcon XX may eventually be built and flown, while the Ares V will never, ever happen.
Just for giggles, I checked the N1 Russian moon rocket (with 5 stages and 30 engines in the first stage), It was rated at 75,000kg to LEO
I would say that only a small percentage of the population has the same interest in the subject as I do, and therefore few would commit this information to memory.
I did miss one, BTW -- Worden was the CMP on Apollo 15 and therefore did not land. Jim Irwin was the LMP.
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad / Gordon Bean Apollo 13: Did not land Apollo 14: Alan Shepard / Edgar Mitchell Apollo 15: Scott / Worden? Apollo 16: John Young / Charlie Duke Apollo 17: Gene Cernan / Harrison "Jack" Schmitt
I'm pretty sure about the 3rd - 6th men to walk on the moon, as well as 11-12. The others are a little iffy...
We should keep our fingers crossed that NASA won't manage to kill a third crew until the Shuttle program is finished.
I think you mean "We should keep our fingers crossed that NASA won't manage to kill a third crew before the Shuttle program is finished". Unless you're suggesting that NASA will kill a third crew upon the completion of the program...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing envelope #3.
HP is not profitable?
Had we taken heed 30 years ago and done something about it, the cost would have been substantially lower and ultimately if we were wrong it would be dirt cheap to go back to our old ways
You mean 30 years ago exactly, or 37 years ago when the problem was global cooling and we were headed for another ice age?
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1W4hnyeK8
Oh how I wish I had mod points today.
Did you seriously just suggest that NASA has never landed on the moon?
Just curious -- did you work on the ISS program, or did you actually work ON the ISS?
I guess I'm going to have to buy the White album again
I can't stop thinking that this is the first time America can't put a person into space since I was barely 10 and John F. Kennedy was starting his fourth full month in office.
Apparently you're forgetting the period between Feb 4, 1974 (Skylab 4, the last Skylab mission) and April 12, 1981 (STS-1, the first Shuttle launch).
I agree with removing deductions, but I disagree with "after a certain amount of income". Just to make the math simple, let's assume that the tax rate is 10%, and the threshold is $50K. Assuming anyone making under $50K pays no taxes and everyone earning $50K and over pays 10%, there is a very stiff penalty associated with making that extra dollar between $49,999 and $50,000.
As a result, the concept of a threshold is a disincentive to earning that extra dollar as the person would have to increase their income by 10% just to "break even".
On the other hand, if everyone pays the same percentage regardless of income, there is virtually no difference between making $49,999 and $50,001.
I see you're a supporter of what Mr. Obama refers to as "shared sacrifice". I'm all for shared sacrifice as long as it means everyone pays the same percentage. The 47% (or whatever) that actually pay no taxes need to contribute to the shared sacrifice.
I would gladly support a flat tax, even though it would likely mean a net increase in what I currently pay in taxes.
Please try reading before responding next time. And to whoever modded this guy up, the same goes for you.
To paraphrase Robert J. Hanlon, "Never ascribe to ignorance that which is adequately explained by tomfoolery".
In the words of that noted philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son. A flag waver. You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is."
Delta-v has always been an important part of space travel.
Do you take turns driving the parking lot?
If the word God bothers you so much, I'd be happy to relieve you of any federal reserve notes bearing the phrase "In God We Trust".
Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up mod points.
Very well played
Wow... Hyperbole much?
Is there anything factually incorrect about teaching that "the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic"?
Exactly how dangerous is mercury in a sealed vacuum tube?
I believe you mean Falcon 9 Heavy, which are essentially three Falcon 9s strapped together. In either case the Ares V was being designed to carry 188,000kg to LEO so it's not even in the same ball park.
The mighty Saturn V could lift approx 120,000kg to LEO
The Falcon 9 Heavy is supposed to be able to launch 32-34,000kg to LEO
The Falcon X is supposed to launch 38,000kg to LEO
The Falcon X Heavy is targeted to launch 125,000kg to LEO
The Falcon XX referenced by h4rr4r is supposed to launch 140,000kg to LEO, which I'd say is in the ballpark.
At this point, I'd say the Falcon XX may eventually be built and flown, while the Ares V will never, ever happen.
Just for giggles, I checked the N1 Russian moon rocket (with 5 stages and 30 engines in the first stage), It was rated at 75,000kg to LEO
SCE to AUX, FTW!
Thank you John Aaron -- steely eyed missile man!
Who's running these corporations? Millipedes?
I picked a bad day to give up my mod points...
Doh! Yep - Alan Bean.
I must have been thinking of Gordon Cooper, who flew with Pete Conrad on Gemini 5
I would say that only a small percentage of the population has the same interest in the subject as I do, and therefore few would commit this information to memory.
I did miss one, BTW -- Worden was the CMP on Apollo 15 and therefore did not land. Jim Irwin was the LMP.
From memory:
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad / Gordon Bean
Apollo 13: Did not land
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard / Edgar Mitchell
Apollo 15: Scott / Worden?
Apollo 16: John Young / Charlie Duke
Apollo 17: Gene Cernan / Harrison "Jack" Schmitt
I'm pretty sure about the 3rd - 6th men to walk on the moon, as well as 11-12. The others are a little iffy...
I have a bit of experience with SEDs, LERs (light-emitting resistors) and DEDs (dark emitting diodes).
I think you mean "We should keep our fingers crossed that NASA won't manage to kill a third crew before the Shuttle program is finished". Unless you're suggesting that NASA will kill a third crew upon the completion of the program...