Non-IT News Thread
-
@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.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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.
That stat doesn't make sense. If cops kill so many people, they instill terror. So they can't be statistically separate from other terrorist organizations
-
US is actually an essentially terrorist free country. Most are. Terrorists are scary, but not dangerous (statistically, obviously hanging out with one isn't smart.) Cops aren't scary, but are very dangerous.
-
@scottalanmiller Perhaps. If you look at terror crimes in the US, the vast majority are carried out by white supremacist groups, not Islamic terrorists despite what Gmen and politicians would have you think. So the number of terrorists in the US probably much higher than other places if you include white nationalist groups. Something like 75% of terrorist acts/murders in the US are done by white nationalist shitbags. All this is ignoring the terrorists running state, local, and federal governments of course.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Perhaps. If you look at terror crimes in the US, the vast majority are carried out by white supremacist groups, not Islamic terrorists despite what Gmen and politicians would have you think.
That lines up with everything I see the government saying and implying. I never heard anything about Islamic groups in the US.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller If you look at terror crimes in the US, the vast majority are carried out by white supremacist groups, not Islamic terrorists despite what Gmen and politicians would have you think. So the number of terrorists in the US probably much higher than other places if you include white nationalist groups. Something like 75% of terrorist acts/murders in the US are done by white nationalist shitbags.
If you look at it another way, which is interesting I think, white supremacist or Westboro type groups actually are those Islamic fundamentalist groups here in the US. If you look at behaviour and ideology, rather than name, they are essentially identical. They believe the same things, feel the same way, behave the same way. They really are the same groups. And just as how in the US those groups don't represent white or Christian values; those groups in the Middle East don't represent Semitic or Islamic values. In both cases, it is "fundamentalist" values, which is it's own political-religious group that is the antithesis of the religious it purports to be related to.
-
So in some ways, we have two radically different groups. But in other ways, they are exactly the same group. If you think of them in absolute terms, they don't share names, looks, or dress codes. But if you look at them in relative terms, they both act as a "filter" on their local traditions and cultures in exact same ways. So perspective can make them polar opposites; or one the branch of the other.
