Unproven science
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Can anyone think of anything else that was deemed "unproven science"? How about the whole of scienctific knowledge. Every field of science started out as just an idea or science fiction. Having been forced to History of Science courses in collage, I can say It seems every siginificat inovation or derived application was seen as voodoo by some. It is just the course of scientific development. To be fair most experiments fail. But what is important, is the experminatl lesson learned. Without expermintation we'd still be chucking stones. Chris Losinger wrote: Was $17.5B spent on it? Have no idea. Does anybody know how much the space program has cost over the years in todays money? I've got to look that up now :) Later Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: How about the whole of scienctific knowledge yeah. i was thinking of something a little more recent (and maybe named for a japanese city). :) -c
-
But you must realize that it's because of that 17.5B that the US is the world's most powerful country and why it can dictate terms and overall this helps to improve it's economy. Correct me if I am wrong but that's the idea I have about my new country of residence. :-) I am open to learnbing new stuff about the US now that I am here :-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: and overall this helps to improve it's economy Common mistake: It's the same as saying "kicking foosballs through windows is good for the economy because it creates jobs for window-makers" $17.5B in missile defense is economically better than $17.5B in a treasure chest in the white house. But $17.5B invested in an low-interest program for people that want to start their own business would be 42x more effective. $17.5B in missile defense is nothing more than welfare program for some politics and steel tycoons. [sarcasm]Happily, the german economy will benefit, too - no doubt.[/sarcasm] Nishant S wrote: and why it can dictate terms Oh, I'm afraid we will have clashes about this attitude Nish... :((
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
Nishant S wrote: and overall this helps to improve it's economy Common mistake: It's the same as saying "kicking foosballs through windows is good for the economy because it creates jobs for window-makers" $17.5B in missile defense is economically better than $17.5B in a treasure chest in the white house. But $17.5B invested in an low-interest program for people that want to start their own business would be 42x more effective. $17.5B in missile defense is nothing more than welfare program for some politics and steel tycoons. [sarcasm]Happily, the german economy will benefit, too - no doubt.[/sarcasm] Nishant S wrote: and why it can dictate terms Oh, I'm afraid we will have clashes about this attitude Nish... :((
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
peterchen wrote: Oh, I'm afraid we will have clashes about this attitude Nish... Oh! Well I am neither for not against it. In fact, I really am not very thorough about such stuff and have only a vague idea of world politics. But I am trying to learn more stuff :-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
"The reason I think it's important to start is because you have to put something in place and get knowledge about it and experience with it." That's Rumsfeld's rationalization as to why the US should spend over $17.5 billion dollars on missile defense. Can anyone think of anything else that was deemed "unproven science"? Was $17.5B spent on it? (not counting trickle-down economics and Reagan's astrologer) -c
The "New Deal," and the "War on Poverty" come to mind... But seriously, it's ridiculous to commit this level of funding for what is essentially a proof-of-concept technology. We've had some important successes in this field - the HOES project for one - but the technology isn't yet there. A limited development would be far more appropriate, with a much smaller price tag. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
Nishant S wrote: I am open to learnbing new stuff about the US now that I am here Wow! :omg: Where have I been? Well, welcome aboard! So, which part of the states are you staying in? I mean, did you opt for the hillbilly, redneck, or yankee route? :) Jeremy Falcon Imputek Excrement escapes everyone - even elders.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: did you opt for the hillbilly, redneck, or yankee route? He picked the land of fruits and nuts.:-D "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
But you must realize that it's because of that 17.5B that the US is the world's most powerful country and why it can dictate terms and overall this helps to improve it's economy. Correct me if I am wrong but that's the idea I have about my new country of residence. :-) I am open to learnbing new stuff about the US now that I am here :-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
I think you will ultimately become a true American, Nish. But you still suffer from a misunderstanding of capitalism. Our economy is not powerful because we "dictate terms" to anyone. It is the other way around. We can dictate terms because we have a powerful economy. Our economy is powerful because it remains largely (although sadly decreasingly) commited to the principles of free market enterprise. The military is a drain on our economy. If you build a truck to transport produce, that truck generates revenue for the economy by improving the efficiency with which produce is transported, hence the truck improves the economy. On the other hand, an Army Tank produces no net gain for the economy at all. The military is a cost made necessary for the simple reason that the free market system has so many enemies and our system would be destroyed without the military. BTW, welcome to the U.S. (although many of us no longer consider California to actually be part of the U.S.) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I think you will ultimately become a true American, Nish. But you still suffer from a misunderstanding of capitalism. Our economy is not powerful because we "dictate terms" to anyone. It is the other way around. We can dictate terms because we have a powerful economy. Our economy is powerful because it remains largely (although sadly decreasingly) commited to the principles of free market enterprise. The military is a drain on our economy. If you build a truck to transport produce, that truck generates revenue for the economy by improving the efficiency with which produce is transported, hence the truck improves the economy. On the other hand, an Army Tank produces no net gain for the economy at all. The military is a cost made necessary for the simple reason that the free market system has so many enemies and our system would be destroyed without the military. BTW, welcome to the U.S. (although many of us no longer consider California to actually be part of the U.S.) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: BTW, welcome to the U.S. Thanks Stan :-) I am still merging in. It's taking me a lot longer to settle in that I had ever expected :-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
"The reason I think it's important to start is because you have to put something in place and get knowledge about it and experience with it." That's Rumsfeld's rationalization as to why the US should spend over $17.5 billion dollars on missile defense. Can anyone think of anything else that was deemed "unproven science"? Was $17.5B spent on it? (not counting trickle-down economics and Reagan's astrologer) -c
It is not about science it is about strategic military planning. I'm not strongly in favor of a missle defense system, but considering how much money we waste on social welfare crap, 17.5 billion seems like a modest investment. It would be better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Chris Losinger wrote: not counting trickle-down economics trickle-down == capitalism - proven beyond any scientific/economic doubt. Only the Marxists of the world fail to understand that. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
It is not about science it is about strategic military planning. I'm not strongly in favor of a missle defense system, but considering how much money we waste on social welfare crap, 17.5 billion seems like a modest investment. It would be better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Chris Losinger wrote: not counting trickle-down economics trickle-down == capitalism - proven beyond any scientific/economic doubt. Only the Marxists of the world fail to understand that. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: waste on social welfare crap yeah. to hell with living in a nice country. let's get to killing!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: waste on social welfare crap yeah. to hell with living in a nice country. let's get to killing!
Any one that wants to live in a nice country can always move to Canada. But you had better hurry before their economy collapses. In the long run nice is a lot more expensive than mean. The U.S. is mean, always has been, and, I hope, always will be. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Any one that wants to live in a nice country can always move to Canada. But you had better hurry before their economy collapses. In the long run nice is a lot more expensive than mean. The U.S. is mean, always has been, and, I hope, always will be. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
It is not about science it is about strategic military planning. I'm not strongly in favor of a missle defense system, but considering how much money we waste on social welfare crap, 17.5 billion seems like a modest investment. It would be better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Chris Losinger wrote: not counting trickle-down economics trickle-down == capitalism - proven beyond any scientific/economic doubt. Only the Marxists of the world fail to understand that. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: trickle-down == capitalism - proven beyond any scientific/economic doubt. yeah. i'm not even sure what you think you're trying to say with that. -c
-
Stan Shannon wrote: trickle-down == capitalism - proven beyond any scientific/economic doubt. yeah. i'm not even sure what you think you're trying to say with that. -c
what the left refers to as "trickle-down" economics is nothing more than old fashioned capitalism. Which has worked every time it has been tried. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: prove it Well, Canada is cannabalizing their military to pay for being nice with no clue as to how they are going to continue to pay for it once the military is gone. On the other hand, we have money to spare to build a missle defense system that might never be used. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
what the left refers to as "trickle-down" economics is nothing more than old fashioned capitalism. Which has worked every time it has been tried. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Which has worked every time it has been tried. it worked in tripling the debt, sure.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: prove it Well, Canada is cannabalizing their military to pay for being nice with no clue as to how they are going to continue to pay for it once the military is gone. On the other hand, we have money to spare to build a missle defense system that might never be used. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Canada is cannabalizing their military anecdotal. doens't prove your statement. Stan Shannon wrote: we have money to spare to build a missle defense system that might never be used. do you honestly believe that this the best use of that "spare" money? -c
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Which has worked every time it has been tried. it worked in tripling the debt, sure.
Nope, trying to be nice is what tripled the debt. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Canada is cannabalizing their military anecdotal. doens't prove your statement. Stan Shannon wrote: we have money to spare to build a missle defense system that might never be used. do you honestly believe that this the best use of that "spare" money? -c
Chris Losinger wrote: anecdotal. doens't prove your statement. It absolutely does prove that you can never get ahead of social welfare spending. The value of any commodity or service is dependent upon how much money there is in the economy to pay for it. When the government artificially makes more money available for it, it simply becomes that much more valuable and therefore that much more expensive. Thus, the government has to spend even more on it. This is a vicious cycle that always leads to the same place - nowhere. Chris Losinger wrote: do you honestly believe that this the best use of that "spare" money? Absolutely not. The best use would be to leave circulating freely in the economy - untaxed, to be used for productive purposes. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: anecdotal. doens't prove your statement. It absolutely does prove that you can never get ahead of social welfare spending. The value of any commodity or service is dependent upon how much money there is in the economy to pay for it. When the government artificially makes more money available for it, it simply becomes that much more valuable and therefore that much more expensive. Thus, the government has to spend even more on it. This is a vicious cycle that always leads to the same place - nowhere. Chris Losinger wrote: do you honestly believe that this the best use of that "spare" money? Absolutely not. The best use would be to leave circulating freely in the economy - untaxed, to be used for productive purposes. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: It absolutely does prove no it doesn't. an anecdote does not prove anything. Stan Shannon wrote: The best use would be to leave circulating freely in the economy - untaxed, to be used for productive purposes. so why the hell are you arguing with me ?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: It absolutely does prove no it doesn't. an anecdote does not prove anything. Stan Shannon wrote: The best use would be to leave circulating freely in the economy - untaxed, to be used for productive purposes. so why the hell are you arguing with me ?
Because you're a fun guy to argue with, and it keeps me occupied mentally while I'm wrapping presents. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle