Actually, in most cases you're probably better off not using "moving on" either. I'm guessing the misused phrase leaked into popular culture from 1980's "corporate speak", when mid-level managers babbled this sort of faux intelligent gibberish in attempts to cover up the fact that they actually had little or nothing to say.
"Moving forward" is exceedingly annoying in sentences which already address the future (ie; "What we should do moving forward (or on) is x."). Get to the point; "What we should do is not use the phrase "moving forward" where it is only redundant. If you must add something, how about "from here on out"? At least that phrase adds a wee bit of additional meaning to a sentence. Not much though.
I wanted to use this opportunity to get a discussion going on how we can improve Slashdot moving forward.
Let's start by banning the phrase "moving forward" unless you're talking about physical motion in a forward direction. Without a time machine there is no other direction for the "movement" of which you speak.
And it's the same reason I've never owned an apple product...
What, no apple jelly?!
Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell
If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.
Previous phases of human exploration had a number of common or frequent driving elements that space exploration is not likely to have. Such as: zealous religious missionary activities, conquest at behest of the king, racist judgement and condemnation of indigenous cultures, imperialist overreach into another country for minerals, slaves or other goods, etc. Most of that ideology is driven by the social thinkers/drivers at the top (or the powers behind the throne) and the privileged class just below that, not by the average citizens who prefer to just raise their families in peace. Humans will probably not even make it into the "interstellar community" if the species can't shake off the rule of sociopath oligarchs.
If we can assume we've evolved enough to travel among the stars, we would have solved a number of social problems (anger management?) and tech ones as well. I would expect we'd be way, way beyond playing "Billy Goat's Bluff".
Ok, there's plenty of space out there. We might miss a few battles just looking up from earth.
Think about it, war is extremely unlikely among interstellar species. With that level of technology, you're not gonna be hunting for food. Nor will scarcity of materials be a problem. Come on, you can travel among the stars, and you're gonna find one particular solar system that you just gotta have, right? Because this one system is just soooo cool, and there are no others out there like it. So, you figure "I'll just kill off the other interstellar species using the planets there and it'll be all mine!"
Or maybe it's the other scenario: Some insect-like aliens are gonna scour the universe just to hunt down other life forms, just 'cause that's what scary lookin' (by human standards) aliens do.
Anyone who believes inter-species battles is likely to be encountered in space needs some serious help.
Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.
And informed of the jury nullification option.
In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report.....
Sure, they should. But how about requiring completion of some sort of certification course for informants before they can be considered qualified to report situations that require the police or CPS to respond to activities where no child is actually in any immediate or obvious danger? Also, how about getting the informant's contact details, so they can be held financially liable for the trouble and expense they are likely to cause by such over-the-top reporting? (Anyone ever have to pay a lawyer before?)
Do we really need such eager busybodies to call in that "I see an 8 year old out in the cold without a warm hat! And it's freezing out here! Get CPS, quick!", when they haven't even bothered to observe that the kid is simply going from the family car to the house? Because that's where it's headed, folks.
10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm