Non-IT News Thread
-
Ask yourself why NASA got the funding it did back in the 60's? Because of the space race with the USSR. The public (through the controlled media) came to agree this was a good way to spend money to protect us. That's no longer the case. So the public doesn't care, so it's hard to justify spending billions or trillions on things like that at this time.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Ask yourself why NASA got the funding it did back in the 60's? Because of the space race with the USSR. The public (through the controlled media) came to agree this was a good way to spend money to protect us. That's no longer the case. So the public doesn't care, so it's hard to justify spending billions or trillions on things like that at this time.
You'll never, ever be able to justify it at any time ever again. Even some people then thought "we've got problems here on Earth!" even though they now benefit from all the things created directly or indirectly by the space race. There's always going to be problems, if we try to justify it against something else, we can always think of reasons not to do something, and that's just the American way now. I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
So who wins, who makes it there first or can keep going without falling apart? Nobody cares about who first figured out how to turn oil into gasoline (aside from people interested in history), and it doesn't play any part today in the success of oil companies. America got things moving, but even Warren McCabe fell into obscurity.
-
Corporations don't take risks. They calculate out what can go wrong, put plans in place to address them and accomplish goals.
Governments take risks. They can spend money on moon shot programs that might end up going no where but create the foundational technological advances that pave the way for companies to do it better and cheaper.
I do not want my tax dollars spent on space projects that we know we can achieve easily and with current technology. I want a space program that will push the bleeding edge of what's possible and be asking hard questions. More over, giving our children something to aspire to and ensuring the best and brightest of every generation knows that there will be a position in hard science waiting for them if they work bloody hard for it. I am tired of seeing brilliant kids become lawyers instead of astronauts and we change that as a society through programs like NASA.
-
@MattSpeller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think in addition to private entities on the Moon and/or Mars in the future, it may be governments which aren't afraid to take the same sort of risks America used to take, instead of being locked into an ideology which it never followed in the first place.
Corporations don't take risks. They calculate out what can go wrong, put plans in place to address them and accomplish goals.
It depends, some do, that's what R&D is for. The thing is the risks they do take are subsidised by the state pretty much all the time, so you're right in that governments take risks, but indirectly... at least with this.
Governments take risks. They can spend money on moon shot programs that might end up going no where but create the foundational technological advances that pave the way for companies to do it better and cheaper.
I agree, much like the Internet. What's so ironic too is that now many will deny that the state had any involvement in the creation of the Internet at all.
I do not want my tax dollars spent on space projects that we know we can achieve easily and with current technology. I want a space program that will push the bleeding edge of what's possible and be asking hard questions. More over, giving our children something to aspire to and ensuring the best and brightest of every generation knows that there will be a position in hard science waiting for them if they work bloody hard for it. I am tired of seeing brilliant kids become lawyers instead of astronauts and we change that as a society through programs like NASA.
I absolutely agree. As I said above, I think a lot of "the dream" has been lost, it's seen as largely fictional, hell, some even believe America never even went to the Moon... as if the USSR would let them get away with that.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
-
Also important to note, Russia sent up so many more launches than the US did. The US often saw Russia in absolute numbers, but they were launching twice as often. If we had equal absolute failure numbers, that made Russia's program twice as safe.
There is a reason that Russia was able to safely continue to service things in space when the US program was too dangerous to continue.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
yeah, the shuttle program was cool and all, but it was a gimmick.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
yeah, the shuttle program was cool and all, but it was a gimmick.
As was, you know, going to the moon. That cost SO much money and... why?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
yeah, the shuttle program was cool and all, but it was a gimmick.
As was, you know, going to the moon. That cost SO much money and... why?
We couldn't let them damn commies git there first! MERICA!
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
yeah, the shuttle program was cool and all, but it was a gimmick.
As was, you know, going to the moon. That cost SO much money and... why?
We couldn't let them damn commies git there first! MERICA!
We've not beaten them by... a lot on that one. Except, the won on the whole "cost effective" thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.
This is about economics though - why not use the Russian program - they don't care about lives like America has/does/whatever - so their program can be cheaper, and hell, they'll sell us space? Why not? It's the same with why iPhones are made overseas, cheap at or near slave labor.
They don't care about lives? but they have put so much into having a safer program. How can you say that they don't care about lives? All evidence says that they care more.
Ok, maybe now they do
But their program has always been safer, since day one.
I'm just going to shut up now
That's why there wasn't a Soviet moon mission, because it couldn't be proven to be safe enough, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and risky. The American perception is that the USSR played fast and loose with safety, but that wasn't true. Some huge, deadly failures were a great propaganda victory for the US in the early days, but since then you were more likely to die in a Space Shuttle than any Soviet or Russian built launch or return craft, and that was true all the way up until the end of the Space Shuttle program.
yeah, the shuttle program was cool and all, but it was a gimmick.
As was, you know, going to the moon. That cost SO much money and... why?
We couldn't let them damn commies git there first! MERICA!
We've not beaten them by... a lot on that one. Except, the won on the whole "cost effective" thing.
Jokes on you guys, that flag is now bleached white, all we gotta do is go back and paint it red. And maybe sweep over some foot prints, knock over from left behind equipment, that kind of thing.
I think I might be a sore loser on this point.
-
One for @RojoLoco
Perth's first adults-only burger comes with a legal waiver that precludes diners with a pre-existing stomach or heart condition – and insists you have someone drive you home.
...
The Canning Vale owner of the American-style Johnny's Burger Joint holds a monthly eating challenge where contenders with fire-resistant stomachs can take on the seemingly innocent-looking double cheese burger that packs a wallop so serious it could put the unwary in hospital.
...
"One man finished it, but he left with the shakes and shivers and had to take the next day off work," Mr Wong said. -
@nadnerB said in Non-IT News Thread:
One for @RojoLoco
Perth's first adults-only burger comes with a legal waiver that precludes diners with a pre-existing stomach or heart condition – and insists you have someone drive you home.
...
The Canning Vale owner of the American-style Johnny's Burger Joint holds a monthly eating challenge where contenders with fire-resistant stomachs can take on the seemingly innocent-looking double cheese burger that packs a wallop so serious it could put the unwary in hospital.
...
"One man finished it, but he left with the shakes and shivers and had to take the next day off work," Mr Wong said.That says to me: Nope. Nuh uh. Not me!
-
@nadnerB said in Non-IT News Thread:
One for @RojoLoco
Perth's first adults-only burger comes with a legal waiver that precludes diners with a pre-existing stomach or heart condition – and insists you have someone drive you home.
...
The Canning Vale owner of the American-style Johnny's Burger Joint holds a monthly eating challenge where contenders with fire-resistant stomachs can take on the seemingly innocent-looking double cheese burger that packs a wallop so serious it could put the unwary in hospital.
...
"One man finished it, but he left with the shakes and shivers and had to take the next day off work," Mr Wong said.I'm in!
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nadnerB said in Non-IT News Thread:
One for @RojoLoco
Perth's first adults-only burger comes with a legal waiver that precludes diners with a pre-existing stomach or heart condition – and insists you have someone drive you home.
...
The Canning Vale owner of the American-style Johnny's Burger Joint holds a monthly eating challenge where contenders with fire-resistant stomachs can take on the seemingly innocent-looking double cheese burger that packs a wallop so serious it could put the unwary in hospital.
...
"One man finished it, but he left with the shakes and shivers and had to take the next day off work," Mr Wong said.I'm in!
Oh yeah, hotter the better. If my hot sauce isn't blinding the person next to me, it'd too mild. One thing I miss about not being in the US is Taco Bell fire sauce, I'd put about 5 or 6 on a soft taco, oh man... I'd try for more but then it's just messy, but a beef burrito, you can do way more. That's not the hottest, I'm just saying it's something I miss
They did have, last time, some kind of other hotter type, but they didn't have it the last time I went before I left again, that sucked.
