Because there's absolutely no way for Orion to dock with something else that has yet to be developed, launched separately, meant to support a longer mission.

Right?

Rendezvous with an asteroid is about the same as rendezvous with another small orbital body, like a space station. You match your orbital plane, and then you plot a point of intersection between your orbit and the target. You match velocity and orbit with a maneuver when you get close. You then get nice and close, and do what you're gonna do (take pictures, grab on, etc.).

As with all things, the devil is in the details. But we've gotten really good at rendezvous - we've been doing it in orbit since the 1960s in Gemini, we've done it in lunar orbit. There's no reason to say that rendezvous with a giant lump of rock would be any different - it's just crunching the math on how much delta-V is necessary, and then building hardware to get it done.

When Kennedy gave that speech, we had all of 15 minutes of manned spaceflight experience from putting a single manned capsule on what was essentially a V-2 rocket imported from Germany. Alan Shepard could have held his breath through most of that flight.

So yeah, the later Mercury flights, the Gemini flights, and the Apollo program were essentially from scratch.

We don't need it. However, all our allies need it, and we choose to keep footing the bill and helping them out.

Note: I do not agree with this policy, but that's what's going on.

I get what you're saying, but in the time when the Constitution was written, a standing army wasn't necessary because you had a good month of lead time before someone else's army could get here to do something untoward.

The technology of flight changes that. There should be a smaller standing army specifically for defense of the nation restricted to North America, and then a reserve contingent that can only be activated by Congress (emergency resolution, war declaration, etc.).

All the hundreds of bases on foreign soil should be liquidated, and the foreign countries that get those back should start footing the bill for their own defense. Then we'll see how much they want to cry about American expansionist policies and so on.

Yeah, because some web site posted vague information about a rumored product ban by unspecific intelligence agencies for the possibility of a rumored back door, with no information whatsoever.

Probably not.

Or, was half the remaining Blackberry customer base simply tricked into buying something else that sucks?

I'm pretty sure that it is neither Malaysian Airlines, nor Boeing's fault that it was hit with an anti-aircraft missile.

What, is the 777 supposed to be equipped with flares and chaff now?

Intel has always been the absolute best in the world at semiconductor manufacturing. It's their lithography that has kept them in the game through various design missteps (and disasters).

And yet, at the same time, the vast majority of PCs were still using DOS, because Windows was a fucking joke and all the software that ran in Windows was over-bloated garbage.

News flash: All PC options in 1993 sucked.

Except that this one law from Congress makes sure that 10,000 municipalities cannot enact a tax on internet service.

So it is not a waste of time.

No, this just means that local municipalities cannot attach an excise tax to internet service, like they do for telephone service.

Governments are free to spend tax dollars on building networks and providing access, within applicable legal frameworks.

Example - City X cannot attach a 5% excise tax onto your cable modem service in order to pay for sewer repairs.

Here's something that will deflate your entire argument: most conservatives don't claim to be open and inclusive - you set up that straw man and knocked the hell out of it. Liberals do, and then bash anyone with different ideas or beliefs as neo-conservative warmongering science-denying ultra-fascist teahadists.

It's perfectly possible to be open to ideas from both sides of the spectrum. In fact, it's where the majority of the electorate is because no particular philosophy has a monopoly on good ideas. It's called being a moderate. You might have heard of it.

I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.

God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.

Great Society was an LBJ thing. You're off by 30 years.