If you believe most Google ads are for beneficial totally above-board products, you must've been running AdBlock for the past several years.
"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.
For me, the resistance comes when I look at the large reptiles of today which are descended from dinosaurs.They don't have feathers.
Which large reptiles are those? And which dinosaurs are they descended from? And how did dinosaurs, which were all killed at the KT boundary, manage to have descendents?
Dinosaurs are reptiles with their legs under their bodies. This makes them distinct from other reptiles (the kinds we have today, which are not descended from dinosaurs) which have their legs off to the side.
Mammals also managed the legs-under-the-body trick, and birds (which are descended from dinosaurs, unlike all modern reptiles, none of which are descended from dinosaurs, what with dinosaurs all being extinct without issue at the KT boundary.)
I don't have kids, but when I was one my parents were spending most weekends taking us somewhere to do something. Watching movies was not on the agenda, at least not at home (maybe the occasional trip tot he movie theater). Why would you waste prime family time on movies? You do those on the weekdays because there's fewer entertainment options and most of them are closed by the time you get home from work.
I'm up near 100% - assuming I can include my ripped movies and TV shows, which are "streamed" from my media server (an old Powerbook) to my television. If not, I'm still in the 60-80% bracket. My daughter's taste in movies and TV shows is similar to mine, and so she has pretty much the same viewing habits.
I'm not at 100% because we still watch (via Tivo) a few old TV shows - e.g. Hogan's Heroes and Seinfeld - that aren't always available via the streaming options I've got.
My wife, though, still watches a fair bit of network television - mainly those gosh-awful police procedurals and medical dramas. Some of those are watched on her iPad via the particular network's app, but most are Tivo'ed and watched that way.
Now, at last! Google People! In cooperation with the Venter Institute.
While I believe your statement to be true, I think given Google's history and business model it's unwise to assume the risks to the health data that'll be collected come only from government entities. And actually, the thought that the government might get at my health history through this doesn't particularly bother me since they likely already have acquired it legitimately for various reasons.
But Google could easily spin the "limited to medical and health purposes" to include health- and medical-related companies that pay them to serve you targeted ads, based on the data they "anonymously" have linked to you. It's how their overall ad system already functions. And if Google didn't see the potential for them to profit by this, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
The immediately previous story was about new SSL server rules. I read that, and then reloaded and saw this new story. My first reaction was "why on earth does the 'SSL Project' need anywhere near $400 million dollars?!"
Amazon isn't out of expansion area. Their target is all of retail, and there's still a lot of non-Amazon retail. Most other big US companies with lots of cash have hit their natural limits.
Trying to go beyond those limits is tough. Google has not been successful in expanding beyond ads. (Android only makes money as an ad platform; Google's phone revenue is small.) Apple has a lot of cash, but can't find any way to use it that will yield the kind of margins Apple is used to. Facebook is still growing, but again, it's all ads.
There's only so much ad spending in the world, and the ad-based companies are all fighting over the same pot. There's more room to grow when your business model is "sell everything".
Our problem is that we have given a generation of attention-deficient gadgeteers who think that a reader-edited encyclopedia was a good idea public forums to spew their gerontophobic bias.
Hallam said it best: there has never been a time when humanity has successfully and peacefully coexisted with nature.
That would be a nice quote, but it contains an implicit assumption which is seriously wrong: That there is any distinction between humanity and nature.
It's not surprising that we tend to see ourselves as distinct from the rest of nature, because we are dramatically different from all other forms of life around us, and not just because we're self-centered, or even because we're objectively hugely more successful than any other species. We're dramatically different because we're the only species we know of that is capable of creating explanatory knowledge, of conjecturing and criticizing ideas, individually and in collaboration, to understand how and why things work. Many species on Earth are capable of learning, but as far as we can tell it's all "behavioral" learning; understanding merely that specific behaviors cause specific results. Sometimes the results of that level of understanding can be quite sophisticated, as in the animals who can create and use tools in complex sequences to accomplish goals, but it's still on a completely different level from the ability that humans have to deduce deep explanations of the structure and nature of the universe, and how to manipulate it.
Regardless of the temptation to view ourselves as separate from nature, though, we're not. That doesn't mean we won't benefit from applying our understanding of the rest of nature to maintain the elements of it that are beneficial to us. Obviously, we're better off if we don't make the world a worse for ourselves -- the flip side of that is that we are better off if we make the world a better place for us, so stasis is not the goal. That's really good because stasis (aka "sustainability") is impossible.
Carbon taxes do not pay the external costs of carbon emissions. Full stop.
But that was never the intent of a carbon tax, was it? It's not a reparations program.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to make carbon emitting-technologies more expensive, so that the market will be encouraged to find alternatives that emit less carbon.
Without that, it's difficult for alternative technologies to get a foothold in the market, as they are forced to compete with carbon-based technologies that are allowed to pollute "for free", thus neutralizing (from a monetary perspective) the advantage of the non-polluting technologies.
How many people does solyndra employ today? Where are the green jobs?
Here they are. The solar industry of the USA now employs more people than the coal industry of the USA.
Funny how you weren't aware of that fact, isn't it? It's almost as if your media sources chose not to mention it, because it doesn't fit their narrative.
This is the recurring problem with the left. They promise everyone a world of rainbows and unicorn cheeseburgers. But when push comes to shove... you fail. You don't deliver.
Or, they succeed, but the right-wing media bubble pretends not not notice. Cherry-picking reality might help them keep their market share in the short run, but as time goes on more and more people will realize they're full of shit.
practical long distance EVs at a reasonable price and/or can recharge in less than half an hour
The price may or may not be reasonable, depending on your budget, though it definitely is for a non-trivial number of people, but the Tesla Model S fulfills the other requirements today.
My Nissan LEAF doesn't, though it's still a very practical car that easily manages all but a small fraction of my driving.