This. More specifically, this summary was a very long winded way of saying "people" (meaning the less technically inclined in this context) do not want to hear actual facts - better they will shun anyone who attempts provide them - rather they want to know what their peer groups' opinion is, despite any form of reasoning. Not sure why this is news, or even research worthy.

I was replying more directly to his statement:

Which stated that NASA wouldn't have caught this issue in time (or at all even). And while they probably didn't have a computer making all of these decisions, I can't see them lacking a pressure valve that when opened diverted pressure to something of an 'off' switch - which would have accomplished the same thing; nearly as fast as a computer. (speed of air over a few feet vs speed of calculation.. )
I don't disagree that the new rockets are safer - "new" is [nearly] always better when talking cutting edge science/engineering. Especially since computers have become so powerful. But that this doesn't mean that NASA was a failure - only that they didn't have the desire to upgrade, yet. You have to consider that this transition was rather forced - creating a less than natural progression of events. Even more, you have to consider that most of the Xspace engineers came from NASA...

you honestly think NASA used zero fault detection?? they had triple redundancy of nearly every system for god's sake! I for one see a pressure sensor/valve as nothing impressive. I can't imagine that such technology hasn't been employed in the space program since day one.

As for TFA - the media makes me bitter. Something that was intended for the good of the public has become vastly more of a harm. While I am of the opinion that the transition from public to private space programs should have been accomplished more organically, privatizing it overall is a good thing. And smear campaigns by the media is only helping to setback our nation - as funding and public opinion are often closely related.

The original enercalc, which performed various indeterminate/FEM calculations, like frame analysis, was written in excel (well, an early version of lotus) (ref: http://www.enercalc.com/sel58_help/index.html?company__software_history.htm )
I myself have written entire engineering calculation templates and even was able to perform automated solution on an iterative problem (ICR for an arbitrary bolt grouping - Crawford and Kulak) which mathmatica was unable to do (it simply replied "no algebraic solution") using excel. So while it isn't formally a "language" it is still a very powerful (and fast) solution to many mathematical/logic endeavors.

That index does not include numPy and sciPy, which is specifically what TFA is talking about. numPy performs calculations at "near C" speeds (at least *much* faster than normal python or other non-compiled languages can). And yes, a good amount of research/non-programming scientific types use it. I would imagine the time difference between learning to code well in C versus learning to use numPy at a basic level would pretty much cover the time one might save in performance. Plus C is a lot more writing.

when did I say any of that? We currently live in a decently educated society. So, NO... I didn't say that I don't want to live in the USA of today. And that is because more people are able to afford higher education. and NO I don't believe that high school is not enough - even private schools.
If you are looking for further examples, look to any first world nation. If you are looking for a contrast comparison, look to any third world nation. Notice any distinct patterns? Figure there may be a correlation? I know that you would love to save an extra few dollars on your taxes (and we really are talking a small amount), but the consequences are simply not worth those savings, IMHO. Lastly, if you really need a professional opinion, rather than common sense, I would direct here http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf .
I would go as far to say that the decrease in average education levels, created by increased costs in higher education from our taxes NOT going toward it, would result in crime levels that offset the savings in increased police budgets. That is, in the end you wouldn't be saving any money.

Because we would prefer that the general populous be educated. The more the better. It is to our detriment even. Under educated societies are dangerous in a number of ways - even for the people who are "better/above" than the general populous. It's not a place I would want to live, at least. So what your tax dollars are paying for is a better society. Thinking that it is merely paying for some individuals chance at success is vastly short-sighted.

all undergraduate study, at every state college, is covered 5/8's by taxes. tuition is only the other 3/8. That is the portions in FL at least - not sure about other states. That is why "out of state" and graduate students pay more. and that is why a state college costs less than a private one.

Simple curiosity .... when was a two-faced? I said we don't know what impact we are having, and we don't know if trying to control it will have a desirable outcome. For all we know CO2 has helped in terms of long term planet health... which is exactly my point: we don't know. So how can we know what is "the right thing" ?

This. Further, most of the "consensus" has been that we are, in fact, warming up. (duh)
But there are still the matters of
1.) is this a natural phenomenon that (apperently has) happens regardless of our input and
2.) should we go dicking with things we don't have complete knowledge and control over. ..
*those* are the points they need to address. Not simply "yes, it's getting warmer" ...
As far as I'm concerned, until our weather man can accurately predict at least 5 days out - for some small section of the planet - we have no business assuming we know wtf we are doing when messing with what appears a natural cycle of our global climate. We simply don't/can't know the consequences of such actions. (i.e. the planet becoming uninhabitable rather than merely less-inhabitable)