At least he is trying to create a vision to work towards. So I have to give him credit for that. The point I'm looking at we've given up landing on the moon to "go to the orbit" of mars 15 years later. How motivating is it to hear "we were the first to orbit mars"?
Just to add to what zogger said I would suggest reading about the Forgotten Depression of 1920 http://mises.org/daily/3788. And how America got out of a very similar problem before.
Problem with your statement is that EU is made up of several different countries. Even though they they share a common currency (not well liked, Britain still wants to use the GBP and drop the euro) they don't have one centralized government. Obviously different to the US.
Even though there is no public option the issue with this "universal" health-care plan, the government will force insurance companies to take up 30 some-odd-million people they can't really afford to take up, most likely putting a lot of these insurance companies out of business, thus leaving government an opportunity to move in and provide the public option after all.
And no I speak as a Libertarian not a tea party supporter, and as a Canadian.
As friends and I half jokingly say, "Now where will we go for excellent health-care?"
Here's the thing your overlooking, in government if you have smaller and smaller budget, means you have less and less reason to be needed, as only big budgets mean you have importance.This is the way people stay in their government jobs and feel like their important. I'm not agreeing with the method, I'm just pointing out the mentality.
The big difference with big business, I've worked with AT&T and IBM, it's their own money, not taxed from the people. Yes their is some similarities, again coming from people who want to be seen as important and that means their budgets have to be large.
Working with the Feds I can honestly agree, the mentality is vastly different. From perspectives of a federal agency, they submit a request for more funding if they need it, usually they get it (meaning, usually, a tax hike). What kills me is the way the whole funding is setup, if you don't spend all your funding you have to send it back, and next year you get reduced funding. So... all the agencies are motivated to spend all the cash on unneeded equipment at the end of the fiscal year just so they can get the same amount of money next fiscal year. So this tells us that basically Government is structured to waste money.
For example, in the late 50's, NASA didn't have a concrete idea where it was going, though everyone knew the Moon was an eventual target. That didn't stop it from developing manned space flight and getting started on lunar exploration.
Well yes someone (JFK) finally said we need to focus and go to the moon, they had nothing that would take them to the moon in the 50's, and if he hadn't directed that focus, we probably never made it to the moon.
I agree on the decision paralysis, although I'm still not convinced Constellation wasn't worth doing. I wouldn't have done it with ARES but there several other viable technologies such as DIRECT that would have been less costly and much more "doable" in the short term.
And the reality is, that right now, if we could get there, there is nothing to do there short of look around and come back.
Don't underestimate just looking around, I know I would pay a lot of money just to be able to stand on Dione and look at the rings of Saturn or look up at Olympus Mons for just a few minutes even, as I'm sure a lot of people would do. If they could provide transportation to any of these destinations at a fair cost $100,000 or so there's a lot of money to be made.
But there seems a lack of definition and that worries me. There has to be concrete goals to make this work. It's all good and well if we develop a new ion engine that get's you to Neptune in 5 years, but not so good if it really can't put anything less than a probe there. Where are we going is the question?
Its not my view that its "Catastrophic" either. I'm simply stating that the view held can't be simplified to the point that it's only two astronauts who believe it, because they have stated it. In likely hood others may well agree with them and not say anything, for whatever reason. I'm just glad that we live in a society where we can have individual points of view and are aloud to state them. Wether we agree with it or not.
No wouldn't say keep it a secret, maybe they did not want to get dragged into something very political? Maybe they just wanted to keep their opinions to themselves? Like thousands of others do every day in companies world wide.
I just could never say there is only two who believe that.
If I'm not missing something, if there is more snow, there is more reflectivity of incoming light, meaning less heating of the lower atmosphere. I would still think this is a corrective measure by the earths atmosphere for warming.
I believe there should be different agency, one devoted to exploitation of space resources,including transportation and habitability, which is more suited to private industry as compared to NASA who does exploration and science. The two would be interdependent, but it would focus NASA at what it supposed to do.
It was part of the era of when scientists were still able to dream big! I remember an article from Dr. Forward (God bless him and may he rest in peace) using condensed matter to nullify gravity, seriously excellent article.
So basically it will be reversible with removal of the artificial lymph node. I think that would be a very important caveat to mention to prevent people's fears of any autoimmune diseases. Thanks for the clarification.
Slashdot Mirror
At least he is trying to create a vision to work towards. So I have to give him credit for that. The point I'm looking at we've given up landing on the moon to "go to the orbit" of mars 15 years later. How motivating is it to hear "we were the first to orbit mars"?
Mod the parent up! Anyone who can tell you it can be done and then tells you how should be moderated up!
Just to add to what zogger said I would suggest reading about the Forgotten Depression of 1920 http://mises.org/daily/3788. And how America got out of a very similar problem before.
Even though there is no public option the issue with this "universal" health-care plan, the government will force insurance companies to take up 30 some-odd-million people they can't really afford to take up, most likely putting a lot of these insurance companies out of business, thus leaving government an opportunity to move in and provide the public option after all.
And no I speak as a Libertarian not a tea party supporter, and as a Canadian.
As friends and I half jokingly say, "Now where will we go for excellent health-care?"
The big difference with big business, I've worked with AT&T and IBM, it's their own money, not taxed from the people. Yes their is some similarities, again coming from people who want to be seen as important and that means their budgets have to be large.
Working with the Feds I can honestly agree, the mentality is vastly different. From perspectives of a federal agency, they submit a request for more funding if they need it, usually they get it (meaning, usually, a tax hike). What kills me is the way the whole funding is setup, if you don't spend all your funding you have to send it back, and next year you get reduced funding. So... all the agencies are motivated to spend all the cash on unneeded equipment at the end of the fiscal year just so they can get the same amount of money next fiscal year. So this tells us that basically Government is structured to waste money.
For example, in the late 50's, NASA didn't have a concrete idea where it was going, though everyone knew the Moon was an eventual target. That didn't stop it from developing manned space flight and getting started on lunar exploration.
Well yes someone (JFK) finally said we need to focus and go to the moon, they had nothing that would take them to the moon in the 50's, and if he hadn't directed that focus, we probably never made it to the moon. I agree on the decision paralysis, although I'm still not convinced Constellation wasn't worth doing. I wouldn't have done it with ARES but there several other viable technologies such as DIRECT that would have been less costly and much more "doable" in the short term.
And the reality is, that right now, if we could get there, there is nothing to do there short of look around and come back.
Don't underestimate just looking around, I know I would pay a lot of money just to be able to stand on Dione and look at the rings of Saturn or look up at Olympus Mons for just a few minutes even, as I'm sure a lot of people would do. If they could provide transportation to any of these destinations at a fair cost $100,000 or so there's a lot of money to be made.
As they did with the X-33 and so on. When do you stop "stopping" the development and going ahead? No way we can say this won't happen again.
But there seems a lack of definition and that worries me. There has to be concrete goals to make this work. It's all good and well if we develop a new ion engine that get's you to Neptune in 5 years, but not so good if it really can't put anything less than a probe there. Where are we going is the question?
I can see it now, "oh you aren't going to vote for us in the up coming election? Oh look here, your N-ID card has expired, sorry no work for you!"
I should clarify, how does piezoelectric electrolysis compare to grid/battery electrolysis, obvious voltage and current differences.
Compared to normal electrolysis of water?
Its not my view that its "Catastrophic" either. I'm simply stating that the view held can't be simplified to the point that it's only two astronauts who believe it, because they have stated it. In likely hood others may well agree with them and not say anything, for whatever reason. I'm just glad that we live in a society where we can have individual points of view and are aloud to state them. Wether we agree with it or not.
I just could never say there is only two who believe that.
Doubt its a minority, truthfully for every two who state it, possibly fourty keep it to themselves.
Wow, elitism and false intellectualism, so 2009.
If I'm not missing something, if there is more snow, there is more reflectivity of incoming light, meaning less heating of the lower atmosphere. I would still think this is a corrective measure by the earths atmosphere for warming.
Private companies will only survive until the first major crash of a manned space launch. Thinking there will be years of failed companies coming.
I believe there should be different agency, one devoted to exploitation of space resources,including transportation and habitability, which is more suited to private industry as compared to NASA who does exploration and science. The two would be interdependent, but it would focus NASA at what it supposed to do.
Here's to another 30 years in orbit.
Who uses DES? In the VPN's I setup and manage its at minimum AES-192.
It was part of the era of when scientists were still able to dream big! I remember an article from Dr. Forward (God bless him and may he rest in peace) using condensed matter to nullify gravity, seriously excellent article.
So basically it will be reversible with removal of the artificial lymph node. I think that would be a very important caveat to mention to prevent people's fears of any autoimmune diseases. Thanks for the clarification.
Nicely said. So this will not "train" the immune system as other vaccines do.