Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
But exploring the (literally) endless space doesn't hold anything that we can realistically use, besides maybe making a map of things that our future robot creations can use to mine. . .
It's useful, just insanely low on the value list compared to communications, health care, food production, carbon emissions reduction, etc. But it's easy to sell as a tax consumption scheme.
That's my point, where is the value from any sort of project like this? Practical sciences that can affect the world we live in today are much better suited than staring at the stars with the goal of seeing the first stars etc.
Much better uses for the money, no matter how little money it might seem.
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
The point isn't the money, the original cost for the project was 500 million, to date they've spent something like 16 times the estimation, and are decades behind on the plan.
How has this not been scrapped? If this were a private business they would've gone under decades ago.
Practical sciences. Things that with a simple explanation can offer a "we can reduce CO2" or "we can give everyone free energy" etc.
I'd much rather have substantially better solar panels at a much lower cost, than a fancy picture of some place so far away that no one for the next 20 billion years will see in person.
Edit:
I mean it, I see no value in staring at stars. Work on better communication systems, sure, work on national defence projects, sure.
But as a platform for people to stare at stars? I don't see any way someone can prove value in any practical sense.
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
That's a TON of money for no reason. Just because one bit of wasting money isn't that big of a percentage doesn't give it any excuse for wasting money. That's money that could do a lot of good, instead it's one of many "hidden welfare" programs - all split up so that they each seem like a reasonable amount of money on its own. Corruption is bad, even if the scale isn't huge.
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
Think of it another way, NASA has a budget so large that instead of one big waste of money, it could be used to drive an insane amount of actual innovation. It's not that we "threw away $18 billion dollars", it's that we threw away $18bn USD worth of actual improvements for mankind.
-
It's also a two way problem. The US budget is too big, this then hides individual things within the budget that are also too big. NASA benefits from the budget being too large, the central fed benefits from NASA justifying an extra large budget. It's a self feeding loop.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
Think of it another way, NASA has a budget so large that instead of one big waste of money, it could be used to drive an insane amount of actual innovation. It's not that we "threw away $18 billion dollars", it's that we threw away $18bn USD worth of actual improvements for mankind.
That's a super big deal in the face of $600 billion spent on being the bully on the playground. I mean, totally necessary military spending that we can't live without.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
It's also a two way problem. The US budget is too big, this then hides individual things within the budget that are also too big. NASA benefits from the budget being too large, the central fed benefits from NASA justifying an extra large budget. It's a self feeding loop.
It's not just a 2 way problem. It's a solution to a problem that we don't have. Spend money to find an answer to a question that doesn't exist or need to be answered anyways.
I'd rather than take the money and literally set it on fire and keep people warm rather than waste it on this. . ..
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
Think of it another way, NASA has a budget so large that instead of one big waste of money, it could be used to drive an insane amount of actual innovation. It's not that we "threw away $18 billion dollars", it's that we threw away $18bn USD worth of actual improvements for mankind.
That's a super big deal in the face of $600 billion spent on being the bully on the playground. I mean, totally necessary military spending that we can't live without.
National defense is something everyone can use. Pictures of stars, who uses it? What is the benefit?
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller yes it was, no it wasnt, no it isnt.
Not my fault if you dont know the mission of this telescope. It is easily available.
It's mission is to siphon government funds without congressional approval, IMHO. NASA's mission is cold war propaganda, that's literally why it exists. It now has momentum as government systems do to keep taking tax dollars long after it's mission is fulfilled (or failed, in this case.)
Yeah, that gigantic half a percent of the federal budget going to NASA is really draining us taxpayers dry... better keep spending most of the tax revenue on creating war and conflict 'round the globe where it doesn't exist... it's our only hope.
Think of it another way, NASA has a budget so large that instead of one big waste of money, it could be used to drive an insane amount of actual innovation. It's not that we "threw away $18 billion dollars", it's that we threw away $18bn USD worth of actual improvements for mankind.
That's a super big deal in the face of $600 billion spent on being the bully on the playground. I mean, totally necessary military spending that we can't live without.
But using some other big mistake to make this one look like we shouldn't worry about it is the problem - what I'm hearing is that you agree that NASA is 100% bad and totally worthless and correct. But while I feel it should be shut down instantly, you feel that since there are other problems we should ignore this one at least until those are fixed.
I agree, stopping $600bn of defense spending is certainly more important that stopping NASA. But I don't see how that reduces the importance of stopping NASA.
It's like ignoring someone's car theft because they also committed murder. Murder shouldn't be a way to get lesser charges dropped. It should be additional, not "instead."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Murder shouldn't be a way to get lesser charges dropped. It should be additional, not "instead."
Can you change that to be a technical statement?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Murder shouldn't be a way to get lesser charges dropped. It should be additional, not "instead."
Can you change that to be a technical statement?
Do you mean make a technical analogy?
-
Like you should have strong passwords on your desktop. Even if someone refuses to do patching, don't ignore other things?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Murder shouldn't be a way to get lesser charges dropped. It should be additional, not "instead."
Can you change that to be a technical statement?
Do you mean make a technical analogy?
Pretty much, I was thinking along the lines of no one has ever been fired for buying ibm
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Murder shouldn't be a way to get lesser charges dropped. It should be additional, not "instead."
Can you change that to be a technical statement?
Do you mean make a technical analogy?
Pretty much, I was thinking along the lines of no one has ever been fired for buying ibm
No one has never been fired for misappropriating funds in America?
-
-
-
-
-
-
@mlnews Cops murder 3 people a day in the US. You are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a cop for no reason than a terrorist in the US.
