Didn't say it was. I just said NASA should abandon it to whomever wants to pay to keep it operating. Prettty sure its past its original end of life anyway which I think was 2010.
If Russia doesn't want to play nice, or pay to run it themselves, I doubt ESA, Canada or Japan will be able to keep it going if the U.S. pulls out.
Probably one of the best things NASA could do at this point is abandon ISS, stop paying for it, and tell the Russians its all theirs. There is a fair chance they would fly Americans to it for free rather than get saddled with that boat anchor.
If the Russians don't want it either its time to deorbit it. It would free up a LOT of money for more useful endeavors. Its never been good for much of anything, certainly nothing to justify the staggering price tag
SpaceX will have the ability to put astronauts in to LEO in a few years. Its not like its a crisis, there is very little for people to do in LEO at the moment other than to be lab rats for zero G physiology studies. You would think they would have done most of that work by now.
About the only point in putting people in space at all is as colonists, persumably on Mars. You can do just about everything else way better and cheaper with robots.
So until you are ready to fly people to Mars to stay, stop getting your panties in a bunch about getting them to LEO.
I am nearly speechless that you would try to use the ISS as an example of a "success story". It was mind boggling behind schedule and over budget, though turning it in to an international project is partially to blame. The core is based on existing Russian design. If they had just launched that and kept it simple it would have cost a tiny fraction of what it did and accomplished nearly all the science ISS has done.
The fundamental problem with the ISS is its bled NASA and the manned space program white. NASA hasn't done ANYTHING useful, in its manned program since Skylab, other than maybe Hubble. They built Shuttle to fly to the ISS and the ISS so the Shuttle would have a place to fly. It resulted in NO breakthroughs or progress worth the price tag.
So what is your point on Falcon. I think you just agreed with me SLS is hopelessly uncompetitive and SpaceX approach is really smart.
SpaceX is trying to get to space cheaply, safely and with a very high launch rate.
SLS seems to be trying to come up with the most expensive, impractical and dangerous solution possible, just to keep funneling money to Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, etc. Its as if they are TRYING to develop a system that is sure to fail or be cancelled.
Note the proposed launch date, 2017, just long enough after the 2016 election so the next president can cancel it and start over.
I support Apple's initiatives and I'm glad they're setting a good example as an industry leader. However, I could not possibly care less that a given cell phone might be accessing a server that isn't "green". Yes, Amazon Fire will be running "on top of" AWS. This is an absolute given. It will also be leaning on servers from Google, Apple, Rackspace, and Joe's Server Shack.
Greenpeace, shoo. You're not involved in these discussions and you're not relevant to the task at hand. It's cute that you want to be a part of the conversation, but this is the adult table.
Imagine where we'd be if Palin were president.
Yeah, or that shining example of progressive intellectuual integrity, John Edwards.
"I can't imagine how demoralizing it is to spend years working on a project that would ultimately succeed"
None of NASA's major manned spaced projects are even remotely likely to succeed, they are not intended to do so any more. They are just a place to blow money, create jobs and put money in Lockheed and Boeing pockets. More importantly they buy votes in the critical swing state of Florida.
They are designed to run 4-8 years, produce nothing except votes, paychecks and contractor profits, then they get cancelled and start over. It is way easier and less risk than actually making anything that will fly.
It is not the political process that is broken, it is NASA and the political process.
Get a clue, and spend a few billion on SpaceX to help finish Falcon Heavy. I'm not sure why SLS is even on the table at this point, it isn't remotely competitive.
Lockheed and Boeing also need to be completely removed from the process. They are making a mint milking DOD contracts, they don't need to be in middle of the civilian space program fleecing NASA and taxpayers there too. They do not use money wisely, they devour everything thrown their way and produce as little as possible in return.
Here's the key point to all of this: If you only have one option for a phone company that's because it's unprofitable to serve the area you live in.
You're full of shit. I live in a wealthy suburb of San Francisco and have almost no Internet service options (which is what we're talking about in this article - Internet service). Any provider not hamstrung by regulations favoring incumbents would make an absolute killing here. Comcast has the monopoly (I don't care what you call it) on high speed Internet access in my area and has refused to do anything with it except raise prices through the roof while making my Netflix stream play like ass.
While I sympathize with my rural neighbors, I can't think of a single legitimate reason why their choice to live in difficult-to-serve areas means that I have to have shitty, expensive Internet in the heart of the world's high-tech capital.
No, you wouldn't have. You cannot win an argument with a flight crew; if they say "get off", you're getting off. There's absolutely no way to appeal that decision in the moment.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. You don't fix disgruntled paying customers by humiliating them in front of a crowd. He tweeted about his initial experience; you think he'll meekly shut up about the follow on treatment?
He might've been acting like a pompous, entitled ass. If your job is serving the public, you have to get used to dealing with pompous, entitled asses in ways that don't make your entire organization look bad.
I am honestly very confused about what your point is. In response to another poster,
That poster would be me. Maybe if you read my original post the context would be clear.
Coryoth rebutted that the college was supposed to be about education, not vocational training. You incorrectly assumed that s/he was arguing that college was about creating well-rounded people.
That's the modern reason, where "education" is often synonymous with "well-rounded". I assumed his point was the modern defense, because the vast majority don't go to college anymore just for an "education" with the expectation to remain in Academia. They go there with an expectation of earning a higher-paying job. It's a checkbox on the resume.
The only reason I replied was to point out that the well-rounded person argument isn't one that anyone with a clue seriously makes.
Why? You yourself just said, "requiring students to take classes outside of their major was perhaps a historical anachronism". It's kept around on the "well-rounded" argument, which is essentially what is expressed by many of the people in the article you quoted.
Sand slides in an hour glass are instances of "Self Organizing Criticality"
There is a book
I often see it as a justification for requiring non-major classes, but I have never seen anyone claim that this is the primary goal.
I never said it was the primary goal. What I've been arguing is what I emphasized above. People today go to college expecting to get a higher-paying job, and that's been why I've been questioning the value of being forced to take courses that will most likely not be used in that endeavor. That was the start and context of the argument when you jumped in.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
