Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote. Then it really could become a popularity contest instead of more on the facts.
There was an article, "Guns, God, and gays" where it talked about wedge issues that are hot button items for some people but really doesn't effect most people like low job prospects and environmental issues.
Yes everyone knows they set out with failure in mind with the Moon landing.
To deal with failures, Apollo program also consisted of a huge infrastructure to deal with failures. Many test stands and test articles were built, a lot of F1 engines were built as one failed after another. I'm sure many a thousands of engineers pulled many allnighters trying to make things work including s-band transmitters. First flight of Saturn V rocket had significant pogo oscillation problems (heck many other rockets had same problems). Immediately many engineers and techs built a test stand to learn how to mitigate pogo oscillations. And there was Apollo 1 capsule fire. Lots of resources were poured into complete redesign and construction. Lots of problems occurred i.e. computer problems on Apollo 11 lunar lander but there were resources of engineers and programmers to attack and solve that problem before it became a disaster. And Apollo 13 but there was a huge infrastructure of people and hardware to come up with contingencies to deal with the situation that allowed crew to safety return.
Not only what you have said is baseless, it's utterly
it seems to me anyone that is member of Republican party has to be anti-climate research. Two examples that stand out are a PBS documentary about congress debating climate research is one longtime congressman that was voted out of office, he is a Republican but voted on a bill to fund a program relating to climate research. Another I was talking about a presentation by Neil DeGrasse Tyson I attended, a friend that shares same interests in space and technology as I do commented "ugh, I'd run out of that theatre as fast as I can." Apparently since NDT promotes climate research but my friend being a Republican has to oppose NDT because conflict with "party requirements." Yes, it's all political but geez you guys. At least collect data and do analysis. You may not like the results. We don't argue about whether E=mc^2 is correct or not.
I second what you say and I want to add the death penalty also prevents learning what motivates murderers and also other despicable people. Psychologists can study these people like Charles Manson. Then there are others that were put to death such as Rosenbergs (sp? the couple accused of selling atomic secrets) so as time goes on and viewpoints change, we miss on what there side of the story is. Saddam Hussein was hanged shortly after US occupation, supposably he really believed he had WMDs because his staff said so out of fear so they propped up this myth. And another was Saddam was more concerned of invasion by Iran instead of US. I also think he could have spilled a lot of dirt on various world leaders including those in US during his time in power. But he is conveniently dead so all this is subject to conjecture.
Getting back to life in jail means innocent people have a chance, few years ago Michigan (or some other state in that region) the governor put a halt on all death penalties even though he was pro-death penalty. Reason was a study showed 160 death row inmates were found innocent due to DNA testing. I don't have details on the story, I heard of it briefly mentioned on a radio news program.
Of all the reasonable candidates, (Low earth orbit, the Lagrange points, the Moon, Mars, Asteroids) Mars is about the worst.
Reason everyone loves to talk about Mars is because the task to build hardware is deferred to smucks 20 years into the future (Mars is always 20 years away so it's easy to crank out papers, graphics, PDFs and PPTs). That's why nobody talks about the Moon unless you start building hardware now. Though things like a earth transfer stage and a lunar lander takes time but if you don't have something substantial to demonstrate in 10 years, your credibility will be very low.
If you eliminated police entirely, reports of crime would *certainly* go down. If police simply stopped responding to calls, reports of crime would certainly go down.
I wonder for those cities showing statistics of numbers of burglaries going down but it is really a result of departments that no longer respond to burglary calls. i.e. San Jose PD will not respond or take calls unless a violent crime occurred or a burglary in progress. Talking with someone who said one neighborhood in SJ which is fairly nice and well has had a huge increase in number of burglaries. One group burglarized four houses in a row during daytime when everyone was at work. It seems if you are in the crime business, these are 'perfect' crimes because you can freely ransack a house (as long as occupants are not there and house is not alarmed) nobody will do anything. In same neighborhood a house owned by a cop got burglarized, that got some attention.
"Pending Radio Legislation"
from the magazine Radio Age, July 1924
CONGRESS has adjourned without acting either way on pending radio legislation, according to the news dispatches from Washington.
Unless a special session is called, which does not seem likely at this time, radio will be untouched by legal attachments until next year, at least.
The two most important measures which were shelved by the adjournment of the well-meaning but unusually deliberative governmental bodies are the White Bill and the Dill Bill. The first proposes to establish governmental control over radio broadcasting, reception and perhaps the industry eventually. This bill, while not viciously attacked, did not go through because some representatives of the people wanted to know just why such a young and untried industry as radio should suffer the bonds of law so soon. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the White Bill will ever become a law -- so the fans may rest assured they will not be hindered for some time to come in that respect.
The Dill Bill is more far reaching in its scope. It is liberal and fair-minded. It asks that the copyright laws be amended so that copyrighted music can be broadcast without the payment of levies to the music publishers. Although this bill has been opposed at every step by huge organizations and moneyed interests, as well as several prominent music publishers, it was about to be passed with a fair majority when Congress adjourned.
There is still hope for the Dill Bill, then, and we hope that when it finally reaches the President's desk it will represent the result of a fair compromise between the broadcasters and the music publishers, in the interests of the fan who listens to broadcast music and helps the sale of the published article by buying the pieces he likes best.
Government legislation, we believe, appears to be the only means yet suggested which offers any kind of a solution to the bitter enmity between the broadcasters and the so-called music "trust."
Radio's recent jump to prominence in official circles such as Congress is only one indication of its growing importance. Big capital interests, legislators and public spirited citizens are realizing more and more that radio will some day control the destinies of our nation; and accordingly they are setting out to prevent its too sudden growth to an unwieldy influence. Quick government control, the legislators aver, will prevent radio from becoming a menace instead of the help and pleasure it should be.
In a measure these radio-legislators are right. Something must be done to prevent the air from becoming a bedlam of tangled wave lengths. Something must be done to prevent the ether from being clogged with propaganda and useless stuff that will discourage interest in the world's latest miracle.
If legislation works along those lines, it will be beneficial. But if it takes a political trend, this country will see a united uprising of righteously aroused fans -- lovers and promoters of the good in radio.
However, that means someone's gotta put up some money for a earth transfer stage and a lunar lander. There off with a start on the commercial lander but first need to make it work, and will there be enough funding (wherever it may come from) to scale it up to industrial size? I wonder what Dennis Wingo http://www.amazon.com/Moonrush... has to say about this?
Unlike NASA, Musk, and Mars One use Mars as a goal. They romanticize about Mars because it's so far away (we'll put someone to Mars in 20 years and been saying that for past 50 years) and can put off building hardware for some poor smucks in the far future to get stuck with this task.
Hope this is not a Glomar Explorer repeat. And please no He3 talk (see Rei's above comment about lunar He-3 mining is pretty useless).