That's a good point. Reminds of a great restaurant that served great food for a ridiculously low price. I ate there for months. Then one day the doors were closed and they were no longer in business even though they were packed every day. It is possible to under price yourself out of business. Better to pay a little more sometimes than to be left completely without the product or service you want.
But corporate lobbyists also spent fortunes to get the government to subsidize their infrastructure. They are free to do what they want with what they bought and paid for. If you want your representatives to actually represent your interests then you should spend the same millions that the corporate lobbyists do. That is how our democracy works.
Sorry dude, but Star Trek and Star Wars will always be to popular SciFi TV and Film what Homer and Shakespeare have been to drama and literature. They set the benchmark a magnitude higher than the previous works and future works are and will be graded by how they compare to these great standards.
What sets Star Trek and Star Wars apart from the classical works of centuries ago of course are the roles played by realistic props, special effects, and theatrical musical scores. John Williams is known first and foremost as the composer of the Star Wars anthem, and achievement that has entitled him to compose the scores of dozens of other top rated films. History will probably remember him as the greatest composer of the 20th century and for making classical orchestra fun again for the masses.
When you watch the latest action packed scifi movie years from now with your grandkids, you will still be able to point out which ideas first came from Star Trek or Star Wars. At some point movies might reach a level of quality such that teenagers would be too bored to watch classic Star Trek or Star Wars, but not any worse than youth for decades have been bored by mandatory school studies in Homer and Shakespeare. But the truth will be undeniable, that these great works introduced new concepts that are still borrowed from today by writers, artists, actors, and producers.
Of course, a movie is just a movie and a play is just a play. Changing the world with real inventions and technology is way cooler, so back to work for me.
I think it is a huge stretch to consider any of the objects identified in the images as signs of life. That said, if "life" tends to "happen" when the same common universal chemicals come together under similar conditions, then the result is that carbon-based life throughout the universe may be recognizable and comparable to similar creatures on our own planet.
Different environments, especially given the extreme differences in temperature, pressure, and availability of resources such as water, will likely yield very different results, presuming it is possible. But it would not be beyond reasonable to find on a hot, dry, sandy, and stony surface a creature that resembles a scorpion, which on earth is one of the most adapted species to thrive in the hot, dry deserts of our own planet. Case in point, when mammals evolve into sea dwelling creatures, they begin to resemble fish more than mammals (seals spending a lot of time in the water and having "fins" and whales spending all of their time in the water and having streamlined fish-like body shapes with more fish-like fins than seals). Likewise, penguins, as they require special ability to perform well under the surface, do not fly in the air, but rather their wings and webbed feet have adapted to perform like fins.
"...roll your own private cloud with friends and family as storage nodes. They host your files, you host theirs. Model it after a weird hybrid bittorrent/RAID setup..."
Once the FBI and **AA's find out your "rolling your own" underground clandestine P2P under-the-radar private information (translated into "intelligence" by the agency) sharing (translated into "espionage") system they will for sure decide that you are a terrorist/spy and send a drone to take out your network and your family.
They probably already have sniffers searching for this activity while we speak. ** Puts on tinfoil hat **
Then it's time to get innovative and come up with stuff that will work regardless of who copies it. Innovation doesn't stop just because the rules of the game change or don't seem fair.
Just because math is hard doesn't mean we don't learn calculus because we got a few headaches trying to learn algebra.
And innovation doesn't have to stop with technology. We need innovations in law, business, finance, and culture as well.
I would have much rather preferred that they fused the cells of a chicken and a pig. I think chork or picken would be well received by the culinary industry. Chicken fused with tuna might even make a bigger splash. Imagine eating Chuna or Ticken straight out of a can of "Chicken of the Sea" brand chicken-tuna. Finally, the brand name for the popular canned meat would make sense. Mmmm!
My local Subway has a sign on the front door: "For security purposes, please remove hoods and sunglasses before entering." I usually comply, but I don't think I would if I was planning to rob the place.
The corporation was invented to bring prosperity directly to the Crown of England, and many other European countries, such as the Netherlands. When politicians constantly bend the rules so they can be enriched by private corporations then you will always see corruption. This can clearly be seen when studying the history of the East India Company.
When businesses are no longer treated with special "person-hood" and when governments no longer make laws to benefit their corporate creations, then you might have a chance to see what the free market can do.
Somehow I don't think a truly effective purely libertarian system can form unless you start with a clean slate. If significant numbers of libertarians were to migrate to some unpopulated part of the world (or possibly a home outside of this world), and if they could exist unfettered by existing nation states as we know them, then we might see the result. Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.
Interference from existing nation states is a major hurdle, as attempts at building small libertarian colonies in international waters have been thwarted in the past. Though I have to admit that this argument may apply to other economic systems, including communism and socialism. If the USSR had not been so ravaged during WWII, or if they did not have to match the West in a nuclear arms race, including a wild goose chase to the moon and back, perhaps their model of communism would have been more effective. Of course success relies on the goals. Economic prosperity via the free market is one of the goals of Libertarianism, while sustainable production to meet the needs of the masses is one of the goals of communism. Freedom is one of the highest virtues of Libertarianism, while equality is typically more important to a communist. In the end, the people in a pure and effective communist state might not enjoy much economic prosperity, but they would have the security of knowing their needs would be met. In the Libertarian system most people would likely enjoy a greater sense of independence and attain a higher standard of living, but the fate of those less fortunate would highly depend on how charitable their more fortunate comrades are feeling from one day to another.
The predecessors of our modern FAA and FCC both began at the infancy of aviation (NACA in 1915, and FAA in 1926 when aviation went commercial) and wireless communication (Radio Act of 1912), respectively. Whenever activity goes unregulated, there is a congressman somewhere with a bill waiting to be voted into law. Any new development that frees people from the confines of their well regulated environment will quickly be snuffed out or absorbed by an ever expanding bureaucracy.
Both broadcasts you mention were supported by hundreds of full time engineers and technicians with the backing of American technology and tax dollars. A group of hackers, at best, might match the technological capability of cold war USSR. But even then I don't remember anyone ever being able to tune in to Soviet propaganda, except for PBS.
Because unlike government licensed and regulated AMSATs, launching anything branded with the word "hacker" or "pirate" carries with it a tinge of liability.
Hey - it works for me! I put a Turkish flag on my cargo ship, and I'm sailing in international waters. Hold on. Gotta go. I think Israeli commandos are repelling to my deck from a helicopter.
Yes, but try operating a phone or a car that is not in compliance with state and federal regulations. In most countries you can't drive any car without a driver's license, and in most cases a car cannot be legally operated unless it is registered and/or passes an inspection. These "hacker satellites" would not be subject to any government regulation, which is the intent, and also why the satellites will be shot down. This job will probably be outsourced to China since they excel at censorship and have already demonstrated their ability to destroy satellites.
The only chance for these satellites to succeed is if hackers actually man the satellites so that destroying them might be a politically unacceptable solution due to human rights concerns. Even then, the earth bound powers may launch a fatal attack as soon as the orbiting hacker is deemed a "terrorist", "spy", "criminal" or "infidel", depending on which nation decides to take action against the satellites. BTW - manning the satellites, and even launching the satellites, is a serious endeavor that could most likely be thwarted by governments disrupting activity on the planet's surface. The FAA could literally come out and impound your launch vehicle for violating one of dozens of aeronautical regulations. And don't expect "freedom of the seas" to be of any help here either. There have been attempts in the past to set up libertarian societies in international waters, and most have been thwarted by other nation states (Principality of Sealand being a rare exception). You can't just go out into international waters, raise your hacker flag, and expect the world's navies to just ignore you - they will board your vessel, and most likely seize your ship and cargo. If lucky, those on board will be returned to their country of citizenship.
It's called the welfare trap. Once you fall in you can never climb out. I think it's the inevitable result of our political system. If you're the member of the party that promotes welfare programs you have a built-in incentive to get as many potential voters into that system as possible. Once they are in those voters will rush to the polls to vote for the party that promotes the welfare programs. But the political incentive to help those in the system to get back on their feed is much weaker for the party that promotes the welfare programs.
On the other hand, you have a party that opposes the welfare programs because of the drag those programs have on those who support themselves. So the opposing party, knowing they cannot eliminate the welfare programs, negotiates with the other party to make the programs very difficult to qualify for and to strip down what those programs provide. The party that promotes welfare then hopes that those in the program stay there, creates incentives for those stuck into the system to have as many children as possible, thereby increasing the number of people in the system, and by making them continue to suffer while receiving spartan aid, they gain support from those who feel pity for the people in the system while at the same time gaining support from those living on the edge who hope the system will be available for them if they need it. Those who promote welfare also know that they have to keep costs low enough to prevent higher income taxpayers from being so overburdened that the system collapses onto itself. Both parties also depend on the higher income taxpayers for campaign contributions so there is strong incentive to keep them happy enough to tolerate the welfare programs.
So, clearly, the only piece of the puzzle missing is the program to help those stuck in the system to get back on their feet, but unfortunately financial success and self-righteous arrogance go hand in hand. So the people that should have the higher incentive to educate, heal, and rehabilitate those stuck in the welfare trap instead just have the "get off your ass and get a job" attitude, and then they go off on a tangent about how hard life was when they were growing up, but with hard work, determination, and risk taking, they were able to "make it." But such "make yourself rich" motivation talk sounds as silly as "I won the lottery. You can too." After all, many of our poor do work hard, are very determined, and did take risks. They just lost. It's the other end of the risk equation that nobody wants to talk about.
But heaven forbid someone who is getting food stamps has a color TV, or heaven forbid that a working class guy files for bankruptcy to keep a roof over his head, when, clearly, he should live in his car and work three jobs if that's what it takes to pay off his emergency room bill.
Or, perhaps in an economy without jobs, we can reinstate the homestead program first introduced by Lincoln to claim unused and underdeveloped land so that these people can engage in subsistence farming - something that poor families living in crowded urban apartments are not allowed to do. As for "getting a job" there are plenty of families who work more than one job and still can't make ends meet. And these workers need a more nourishing diet to keep them healthy enough to work jobs that involve heavy lifting all day and exposure to the elements. Access to basic healthcare would go a long way for them as well, not to mention the longer term savings to government and private health plans when disease and chronic conditions can be treated in early stages.
Then there are the physically and mentally disabled and infirm elderly who have outlived their retirement savings. Nobody wants to hire them for anything even if they could do the work. For many elderly, one spouse living even short term in a nursing home will leave the healthier surviving spouse destitute. Medicare won't pay for nursing care, and medicaid won't help them until all of their life savings are just about gone. A retired veteran in his or her late 80's or 90's who worked hard his or her whole life, lived frugally, and saved for retirement shouldn't be forced to live on nothing but corn meal and pork fat. They followed the rules and played by book. They did exactly what their financial advisers told them. And they were told the capitalist system would work for them. Now their savings are depleted, and they can't even take out the equity they had been building in their homes for years. Think the 'system' is going to work for you? Look what has happened to them and ask yourself again.
The primary purpose of the food pyramid is to justify the meager dollars the government provides for food stamps and similar food rationing programs for needy families. Most people that have ever relied on food stamps will tell you that you cannot use them to procure enough food to survive on. Cheap high-carb grains can carry a person through a crisis, but is deplorable for longer term survival, especially for developing children. But since it is not politically expedient to provide needy people with only enough food to leave them malnourished, the officials can point to the food pyramid to cover their ass. Fact is most needy families find creative ways to supplement their food rations, even resorting to eating weeds, like dandelions, and hunting and fishing "illegally" since they cannot afford a license. Fishing tackle is so commonly discarded that often times there is no need to buy any.
Those who disagree with my long-term survival odds for needy families should look up the statistics for life expectancy of those living under the poverty level. Oddly enough, fatty portions of meat, like pork shoulder roast, combined with the high-carb starch foods are cheap, so those in poverty are more likely to suffer obesity. The canned vegetables available at food banks often have very few vitamins or minerals left by the time they are consumed. An unhealthy, unbalanced diet deficient in fresh vegetables, vitamins, and minerals leads the body to over compensate by over eating.
For just about every leadership post for all the major government regulatory agencies, just look at where the officials worked before and after their appointment and you can see how the big corporations can influence how our country is run.
Air Hogs has a pair of helicopters with a "laser tag" type of function. When "hit" with the laser, the helicopter descends to the ground to simulate a kill. Makes for great two player action.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what my doctor told me three weeks ago before I started growing a FETUS IN MY E Y E ! ! !
That's a good point. Reminds of a great restaurant that served great food for a ridiculously low price. I ate there for months. Then one day the doors were closed and they were no longer in business even though they were packed every day. It is possible to under price yourself out of business. Better to pay a little more sometimes than to be left completely without the product or service you want.
But corporate lobbyists also spent fortunes to get the government to subsidize their infrastructure. They are free to do what they want with what they bought and paid for. If you want your representatives to actually represent your interests then you should spend the same millions that the corporate lobbyists do. That is how our democracy works.
Sorry dude, but Star Trek and Star Wars will always be to popular SciFi TV and Film what Homer and Shakespeare have been to drama and literature. They set the benchmark a magnitude higher than the previous works and future works are and will be graded by how they compare to these great standards.
What sets Star Trek and Star Wars apart from the classical works of centuries ago of course are the roles played by realistic props, special effects, and theatrical musical scores. John Williams is known first and foremost as the composer of the Star Wars anthem, and achievement that has entitled him to compose the scores of dozens of other top rated films. History will probably remember him as the greatest composer of the 20th century and for making classical orchestra fun again for the masses.
When you watch the latest action packed scifi movie years from now with your grandkids, you will still be able to point out which ideas first came from Star Trek or Star Wars. At some point movies might reach a level of quality such that teenagers would be too bored to watch classic Star Trek or Star Wars, but not any worse than youth for decades have been bored by mandatory school studies in Homer and Shakespeare. But the truth will be undeniable, that these great works introduced new concepts that are still borrowed from today by writers, artists, actors, and producers.
Of course, a movie is just a movie and a play is just a play. Changing the world with real inventions and technology is way cooler, so back to work for me.
I think it is a huge stretch to consider any of the objects identified in the images as signs of life. That said, if "life" tends to "happen" when the same common universal chemicals come together under similar conditions, then the result is that carbon-based life throughout the universe may be recognizable and comparable to similar creatures on our own planet.
Different environments, especially given the extreme differences in temperature, pressure, and availability of resources such as water, will likely yield very different results, presuming it is possible. But it would not be beyond reasonable to find on a hot, dry, sandy, and stony surface a creature that resembles a scorpion, which on earth is one of the most adapted species to thrive in the hot, dry deserts of our own planet. Case in point, when mammals evolve into sea dwelling creatures, they begin to resemble fish more than mammals (seals spending a lot of time in the water and having "fins" and whales spending all of their time in the water and having streamlined fish-like body shapes with more fish-like fins than seals). Likewise, penguins, as they require special ability to perform well under the surface, do not fly in the air, but rather their wings and webbed feet have adapted to perform like fins.
"...roll your own private cloud with friends and family as storage nodes. They host your files, you host theirs. Model it after a weird hybrid bittorrent/RAID setup..."
Once the FBI and **AA's find out your "rolling your own" underground clandestine P2P under-the-radar private information (translated into "intelligence" by the agency) sharing (translated into "espionage") system they will for sure decide that you are a terrorist/spy and send a drone to take out your network and your family.
They probably already have sniffers searching for this activity while we speak. ** Puts on tinfoil hat **
Exactly. You cannot separate the R&D lab from the plant floor. Both make common use of key personnel and resources.
Then it's time to get innovative and come up with stuff that will work regardless of who copies it. Innovation doesn't stop just because the rules of the game change or don't seem fair.
Just because math is hard doesn't mean we don't learn calculus because we got a few headaches trying to learn algebra.
And innovation doesn't have to stop with technology. We need innovations in law, business, finance, and culture as well.
I would have much rather preferred that they fused the cells of a chicken and a pig. I think chork or picken would be well received by the culinary industry. Chicken fused with tuna might even make a bigger splash. Imagine eating Chuna or Ticken straight out of a can of "Chicken of the Sea" brand chicken-tuna. Finally, the brand name for the popular canned meat would make sense. Mmmm!
My local Subway has a sign on the front door: "For security purposes, please remove hoods and sunglasses before entering." I usually comply, but I don't think I would if I was planning to rob the place.
What do you mean? Herbert Hoover was an engineer, and he was a great... Oh, wait, never mind.
The corporation was invented to bring prosperity directly to the Crown of England, and many other European countries, such as the Netherlands. When politicians constantly bend the rules so they can be enriched by private corporations then you will always see corruption. This can clearly be seen when studying the history of the East India Company.
When businesses are no longer treated with special "person-hood" and when governments no longer make laws to benefit their corporate creations, then you might have a chance to see what the free market can do.
Somehow I don't think a truly effective purely libertarian system can form unless you start with a clean slate. If significant numbers of libertarians were to migrate to some unpopulated part of the world (or possibly a home outside of this world), and if they could exist unfettered by existing nation states as we know them, then we might see the result. Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.
Interference from existing nation states is a major hurdle, as attempts at building small libertarian colonies in international waters have been thwarted in the past. Though I have to admit that this argument may apply to other economic systems, including communism and socialism. If the USSR had not been so ravaged during WWII, or if they did not have to match the West in a nuclear arms race, including a wild goose chase to the moon and back, perhaps their model of communism would have been more effective. Of course success relies on the goals. Economic prosperity via the free market is one of the goals of Libertarianism, while sustainable production to meet the needs of the masses is one of the goals of communism. Freedom is one of the highest virtues of Libertarianism, while equality is typically more important to a communist. In the end, the people in a pure and effective communist state might not enjoy much economic prosperity, but they would have the security of knowing their needs would be met. In the Libertarian system most people would likely enjoy a greater sense of independence and attain a higher standard of living, but the fate of those less fortunate would highly depend on how charitable their more fortunate comrades are feeling from one day to another.
The predecessors of our modern FAA and FCC both began at the infancy of aviation (NACA in 1915, and FAA in 1926 when aviation went commercial) and wireless communication (Radio Act of 1912), respectively. Whenever activity goes unregulated, there is a congressman somewhere with a bill waiting to be voted into law. Any new development that frees people from the confines of their well regulated environment will quickly be snuffed out or absorbed by an ever expanding bureaucracy.
Why couldn't you just set up a series of buoys for the transoceanic shots?
Both broadcasts you mention were supported by hundreds of full time engineers and technicians with the backing of American technology and tax dollars. A group of hackers, at best, might match the technological capability of cold war USSR. But even then I don't remember anyone ever being able to tune in to Soviet propaganda, except for PBS.
Because unlike government licensed and regulated AMSATs, launching anything branded with the word "hacker" or "pirate" carries with it a tinge of liability.
Hey - it works for me! I put a Turkish flag on my cargo ship, and I'm sailing in international waters. Hold on. Gotta go. I think Israeli commandos are repelling to my deck from a helicopter.
Yes, but try operating a phone or a car that is not in compliance with state and federal regulations. In most countries you can't drive any car without a driver's license, and in most cases a car cannot be legally operated unless it is registered and/or passes an inspection. These "hacker satellites" would not be subject to any government regulation, which is the intent, and also why the satellites will be shot down. This job will probably be outsourced to China since they excel at censorship and have already demonstrated their ability to destroy satellites.
The only chance for these satellites to succeed is if hackers actually man the satellites so that destroying them might be a politically unacceptable solution due to human rights concerns. Even then, the earth bound powers may launch a fatal attack as soon as the orbiting hacker is deemed a "terrorist", "spy", "criminal" or "infidel", depending on which nation decides to take action against the satellites. BTW - manning the satellites, and even launching the satellites, is a serious endeavor that could most likely be thwarted by governments disrupting activity on the planet's surface. The FAA could literally come out and impound your launch vehicle for violating one of dozens of aeronautical regulations. And don't expect "freedom of the seas" to be of any help here either. There have been attempts in the past to set up libertarian societies in international waters, and most have been thwarted by other nation states (Principality of Sealand being a rare exception). You can't just go out into international waters, raise your hacker flag, and expect the world's navies to just ignore you - they will board your vessel, and most likely seize your ship and cargo. If lucky, those on board will be returned to their country of citizenship.
Neither black nor white. My money is on zebra stripes. What do you mean I'm off topic?
It's called the welfare trap. Once you fall in you can never climb out. I think it's the inevitable result of our political system. If you're the member of the party that promotes welfare programs you have a built-in incentive to get as many potential voters into that system as possible. Once they are in those voters will rush to the polls to vote for the party that promotes the welfare programs. But the political incentive to help those in the system to get back on their feed is much weaker for the party that promotes the welfare programs.
On the other hand, you have a party that opposes the welfare programs because of the drag those programs have on those who support themselves. So the opposing party, knowing they cannot eliminate the welfare programs, negotiates with the other party to make the programs very difficult to qualify for and to strip down what those programs provide. The party that promotes welfare then hopes that those in the program stay there, creates incentives for those stuck into the system to have as many children as possible, thereby increasing the number of people in the system, and by making them continue to suffer while receiving spartan aid, they gain support from those who feel pity for the people in the system while at the same time gaining support from those living on the edge who hope the system will be available for them if they need it. Those who promote welfare also know that they have to keep costs low enough to prevent higher income taxpayers from being so overburdened that the system collapses onto itself. Both parties also depend on the higher income taxpayers for campaign contributions so there is strong incentive to keep them happy enough to tolerate the welfare programs.
So, clearly, the only piece of the puzzle missing is the program to help those stuck in the system to get back on their feet, but unfortunately financial success and self-righteous arrogance go hand in hand. So the people that should have the higher incentive to educate, heal, and rehabilitate those stuck in the welfare trap instead just have the "get off your ass and get a job" attitude, and then they go off on a tangent about how hard life was when they were growing up, but with hard work, determination, and risk taking, they were able to "make it." But such "make yourself rich" motivation talk sounds as silly as "I won the lottery. You can too." After all, many of our poor do work hard, are very determined, and did take risks. They just lost. It's the other end of the risk equation that nobody wants to talk about.
But heaven forbid someone who is getting food stamps has a color TV, or heaven forbid that a working class guy files for bankruptcy to keep a roof over his head, when, clearly, he should live in his car and work three jobs if that's what it takes to pay off his emergency room bill.
Or, perhaps in an economy without jobs, we can reinstate the homestead program first introduced by Lincoln to claim unused and underdeveloped land so that these people can engage in subsistence farming - something that poor families living in crowded urban apartments are not allowed to do. As for "getting a job" there are plenty of families who work more than one job and still can't make ends meet. And these workers need a more nourishing diet to keep them healthy enough to work jobs that involve heavy lifting all day and exposure to the elements. Access to basic healthcare would go a long way for them as well, not to mention the longer term savings to government and private health plans when disease and chronic conditions can be treated in early stages.
Then there are the physically and mentally disabled and infirm elderly who have outlived their retirement savings. Nobody wants to hire them for anything even if they could do the work. For many elderly, one spouse living even short term in a nursing home will leave the healthier surviving spouse destitute. Medicare won't pay for nursing care, and medicaid won't help them until all of their life savings are just about gone. A retired veteran in his or her late 80's or 90's who worked hard his or her whole life, lived frugally, and saved for retirement shouldn't be forced to live on nothing but corn meal and pork fat. They followed the rules and played by book. They did exactly what their financial advisers told them. And they were told the capitalist system would work for them. Now their savings are depleted, and they can't even take out the equity they had been building in their homes for years. Think the 'system' is going to work for you? Look what has happened to them and ask yourself again.
The primary purpose of the food pyramid is to justify the meager dollars the government provides for food stamps and similar food rationing programs for needy families. Most people that have ever relied on food stamps will tell you that you cannot use them to procure enough food to survive on. Cheap high-carb grains can carry a person through a crisis, but is deplorable for longer term survival, especially for developing children. But since it is not politically expedient to provide needy people with only enough food to leave them malnourished, the officials can point to the food pyramid to cover their ass. Fact is most needy families find creative ways to supplement their food rations, even resorting to eating weeds, like dandelions, and hunting and fishing "illegally" since they cannot afford a license. Fishing tackle is so commonly discarded that often times there is no need to buy any.
Those who disagree with my long-term survival odds for needy families should look up the statistics for life expectancy of those living under the poverty level. Oddly enough, fatty portions of meat, like pork shoulder roast, combined with the high-carb starch foods are cheap, so those in poverty are more likely to suffer obesity. The canned vegetables available at food banks often have very few vitamins or minerals left by the time they are consumed. An unhealthy, unbalanced diet deficient in fresh vegetables, vitamins, and minerals leads the body to over compensate by over eating.
For just about every leadership post for all the major government regulatory agencies, just look at where the officials worked before and after their appointment and you can see how the big corporations can influence how our country is run.
Air Hogs has a pair of helicopters with a "laser tag" type of function. When "hit" with the laser, the helicopter descends to the ground to simulate a kill. Makes for great two player action.