| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2012 11:03:05 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Frankly, at this point, I just take umbrage with that transcript.  Bear_music, do you use the CC transcription on youtube? I know it's not at all perfect, but it certainly performed better than that transcript you found... at least for this video. :) |
The video linked to the University of Buffalo website, and I copy/pasted from their article about his talk. Perhaps "transcript" was the wrong word? I had assumed those were quotes from the talk. Certainly the whole talk's not in the video, because it was an hour long and the video isn't.
//www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/2010_03_31/tyson_dss |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 11:13:27 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
Well, he's the heir-apparent to Sagan at PBS. It's an important role, it's message that needs repeating. |
Forgive me, but I preferred Sagan. |
I started to re-watch "Cosmos" with my kids...we had a hard time getting past the late 70's era special effects and the "Starship of the Mind". I loved the show as a kid, but maybe some things are better in the context of memory. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 11:15:17 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 11:16:00 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Frankly, at this point, I just take umbrage with that transcript. Bear_music, do you use the CC transcription on youtube? I know it's not at all perfect, but it certainly performed better than that transcript you found... at least for this video. :) |
The video linked to the University of Buffalo website, and I copy/pasted from their article about his talk. Perhaps "transcript" was the wrong word? I had assumed those were quotes from the talk. Certainly the whole talk's not in the video, because it was an hour long and the video isn't.
//www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/2010_03_31/tyson_dss |
Heh... You didn't say transcript FWIW... You said "summary".. *shrug* It was a fine summary of the larger talk, now that I see where it came from this makes more sense... Hell I even find the use of Sagan's ideas less egregious, as he wasn't really presenting them as his own, but more in the context of "10 things you should know"...
*shrug*
Anyway, on the context of the actual video, let's get back on topic -
Do you think a half-percent is enough, not enough, or too little for us to spend on space exploration?
I'd love to see much more spending in the [science / discovery / space / pure research / theory] areas. I'd like to see less spending on war and the military, less spending on foreign aid, and more spending on domestic science.
But, that's just me. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 12:04:27 PM · #80 |
Without science and industrialization, we could never hope to feed and employ the world. I say employ, because no matter the human, we can get accustomed to handouts. Payment without some effort from the receiver only contributes to the delinquency of our species.
We expect to feed the world, but without science there would be no hope. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 12:21:34 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
I think you'll find i didn't, church and missionaries were mentioned just before my post.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:30:06 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
I think you'll find i didn't, church and missionaries were mentioned just before my post. |
So I see. It was mentioned as part of a larger post highlighting the giving done by the US to less fortunate peoples. The church and missionaries weren't the focus of the post, just a smaller part of the whole. There was no mention of the faith of the church or the missionaries. I also didn't see anywhere mentioned that missionaries only give aid to those who believe as they do. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:36:38 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
I think you'll find i didn't, church and missionaries were mentioned just before my post. |
So I see. It was mentioned as part of a larger post highlighting the giving done by the US to less fortunate peoples. The church and missionaries weren't the focus of the post, just a smaller part of the whole. There was no mention of the faith of the church or the missionaries. I also didn't see anywhere mentioned that missionaries only give aid to those who believe as they do. |
As you wish. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:42:04 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
I think you'll find i didn't, church and missionaries were mentioned just before my post. |
So I see. It was mentioned as part of a larger post highlighting the giving done by the US to less fortunate peoples. The church and missionaries weren't the focus of the post, just a smaller part of the whole. There was no mention of the faith of the church or the missionaries. I also didn't see anywhere mentioned that missionaries only give aid to those who believe as they do. |
As you wish. |
Wishing has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:42:41 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
Why bring religion into this? |
I think you'll find i didn't, church and missionaries were mentioned just before my post. |
So I see. It was mentioned as part of a larger post highlighting the giving done by the US to less fortunate peoples. The church and missionaries weren't the focus of the post, just a smaller part of the whole. There was no mention of the faith of the church or the missionaries. I also didn't see anywhere mentioned that missionaries only give aid to those who believe as they do. |
As you wish. |
Wishing has nothing to do with it. |
Ok. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 02:05:57 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower. |
You completely miscontextualize this remark, which was made in reference to war and military "rockets," not to space rockets as we know them, or in any way relating to scientific exploration. He was warning about allowing the establishment of a "military-industrial complex" which would gain control of the country's budget, to the detriment of the needs of the rest of the population.
He made the remark in 1953 ΓΆ€” five years before Sputnik and the establishment of NASA and the start of the space race. There was no "space program" at the time.
For a Republican former general, he said some remarkably progressive things ΓΆ€” things which would surely have him hung in effigy by the Tea Party-ers who've stolen the "Party of Lincoln" ...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
ΓΆ€” Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), from a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
FWIW: The French space agency built the laser and analytical camera on the tippy-top of the rover's mast, which allows it to analyze rocks from several feet away. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 02:08:06 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower. |
You completely miscontextualize this remark, which was made in reference to war and military "rockets," not to space rockets as we know them, or in any way relating to scientific exploration. He was warning about allowing the establishment of a "military-industrial complex" which would gain control of the country's budget, to the detriment of the needs of the rest of the population.
He made the remark in 1953 ΓΆ€” five years before Sputnik and the establishment of NASA and the start of the space race. There was no "space program" at the time.
For a Republican former general, he said some remarkably progressive things ΓΆ€” things which would surely have him hung in effigy by the Tea Party-ers who've stolen the "Party of Lincoln" ...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
ΓΆ€” Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), from a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
FWIW: The French space agency built the laser and analytical camera on the tippy-top of the rover's mast, which allows it to analyze rocks from several feet away. |
you just got eisenhower'd |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 03:02:48 PM · #88 |
I don't think provocation is necessary.
I'm going to quote myself in order to get this learned discussion going again:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Without science and industrialization, we could never hope to feed and employ the world. I say employ, because no matter the human, we can get accustomed to handouts. Payment without some effort from the receiver only contributes to the delinquency of our species.
We expect to feed the world, but without science there would be no hope. |
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 15:04:48. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 03:19:27 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower. |
You completely miscontextualize this remark, which was made in reference to war and military "rockets," not to space rockets as we know them, or in any way relating to scientific exploration. He was warning about allowing the establishment of a "military-industrial complex" which would gain control of the country's budget, to the detriment of the needs of the rest of the population.
He made the remark in 1953 ΓΆ€” five years before Sputnik and the establishment of NASA and the start of the space race. There was no "space program" at the time.
For a Republican former general, he said some remarkably progressive things ΓΆ€” things which would surely have him hung in effigy by the Tea Party-ers who've stolen the "Party of Lincoln" ...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
ΓΆ€” Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), from a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
FWIW: The French space agency built the laser and analytical camera on the tippy-top of the rover's mast, which allows it to analyze rocks from several feet away. |
General, I'm aware that the French are invested in the program, I never thought for one moment that this was a purely American thing, I'm not French by the way, I just live here for the moment.
Eisenhower did veto the Apollo project although admittedly I'm completely ignorant to the rest of the story.
Let's just agree to disagree, just like when someone mentioned what they thought was a waste of money in the Olympic games, I believe vast sums of money could be spent in a wiser and less wasteful way than space exploration. In the time it's taken me to type this many children have died of starvation and a robot will have moved 10cm and sent a picture similar to the ones we've seen a hundred times in the past.
It is great that people can think differently and openly so I totally respect your opinion.
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 15:21:14. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 03:57:36 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Let's just agree to disagree, just like when someone mentioned what they thought was a waste of money in the Olympic games, I believe vast sums of money could be spent in a wiser and less wasteful way than space exploration. In the time it's taken me to type this many children have died of starvation and a robot will have moved 10cm and sent a picture similar to the ones we've seen a hundred times in the past. |
If the choice was solely between funding NASA or feeding starving children, then your argument might make some sense. However, there are quite a few things, both within and without government(s), which are far more wasteful than space exploration, which yields several times the value of its cost in new products/techniques useful to humanity.
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ...
To set up NASA funding as the cause of widespread starvation is to create a wholly false dichotomy. Why not compare the cost cost and benefit to humanity of NASA and, say, a single nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier, or even something more patently obvious like Congressional per diems, salaries, perks, and pensions ... |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:01:23 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ... |
Wait... did you just say that poverty is being caused by companies that are profitable? Maybe you can explain the link, as I'm missing it. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:15:59 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
Let's just agree to disagree, just like when someone mentioned what they thought was a waste of money in the Olympic games, I believe vast sums of money could be spent in a wiser and less wasteful way than space exploration. In the time it's taken me to type this many children have died of starvation and a robot will have moved 10cm and sent a picture similar to the ones we've seen a hundred times in the past. |
If the choice was solely between funding NASA or feeding starving children, then your argument might make some sense. However, there are quite a few things, both within and without government(s), which are far more wasteful than space exploration, which yields several times the value of its cost in new products/techniques useful to humanity.
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ...
To set up NASA funding as the cause of widespread starvation is to create a wholly false dichotomy. Why not compare the cost cost and benefit to humanity of NASA and, say, a single nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier, or even something more patently obvious like Congressional per diems, salaries, perks, and pensions ... |
I don't really see how other wasteful expenditures are relevant in this discussion, just because we waste hellish amounts of money in other areas does not justify by any means wasting money on space exploration.
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 16:17:29. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:19:28 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ... |
Wait... did you just say that poverty is being caused by companies that are profitable? Maybe you can explain the link, as I'm missing it. |
Chevron (and other global companies) receives billions in subsidies/ tax exemptions from the US government that supposedly represents everyone. Everyone is collectively sharing in the cost of Chevron doing business, while only a few share in the rewards.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:22:35 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I don't really see how other wasteful expenditures are relevant in this discussion, just because we waste hellish amounts of money in other areas does not justify by any means wasting money on space exploration. |
I fail to see how getting seven or eight dollars of benefit from spending one dollar is "wasting" money. I've already referred to several things (generally considered) beneficial which are a direct result of research and scientific advancement initiated by NASA. The potential savings in life and property made possible by NASA satellites and knowledge in predicting/monitoring extreme weather events alone probably more than offsets its total budget. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:23:16 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ... |
Wait... did you just say that poverty is being caused by companies that are profitable? Maybe you can explain the link, as I'm missing it. |
Chevron (and other global companies) receives billions in subsidies/ tax exemptions from the US government that supposedly represents everyone. Everyone is collectively sharing in the cost of Chevron doing business, while only a few share in the rewards. |
chevron produces oil and energy. we need those things. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:25:58 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
Let's just agree to disagree, just like when someone mentioned what they thought was a waste of money in the Olympic games, I believe vast sums of money could be spent in a wiser and less wasteful way than space exploration. In the time it's taken me to type this many children have died of starvation and a robot will have moved 10cm and sent a picture similar to the ones we've seen a hundred times in the past. |
If the choice was solely between funding NASA or feeding starving children, then your argument might make some sense. However, there are quite a few things, both within and without government(s), which are far more wasteful than space exploration, which yields several times the value of its cost in new products/techniques useful to humanity.
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ...
To set up NASA funding as the cause of widespread starvation is to create a wholly false dichotomy. Why not compare the cost cost and benefit to humanity of NASA and, say, a single nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier, or even something more patently obvious like Congressional per diems, salaries, perks, and pensions ... |
I don't really see how other wasteful expenditures are relevant in this discussion, just because we waste hellish amounts of money in other areas does not justify by any means wasting money on space exploration. |
You've categorized space exploration as a wasteful venture and that wasteful ventures are causing babies to starve. For the moment, I'll entertain the notion that you're right about space exploration, If wasteful ventures are indeed the source of such great human suffering as you say, why on earth would you start with addressing the smallest of these wasteful ventures? You could feed many more people by addressing the most wasteful and destructive ventures instead of raving about the small stuff. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:29:40 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ... |
Wait... did you just say that poverty is being caused by companies that are profitable? Maybe you can explain the link, as I'm missing it. |
Chevron (and other global companies) receives billions in subsidies/ tax exemptions from the US government that supposedly represents everyone. Everyone is collectively sharing in the cost of Chevron doing business, while only a few share in the rewards. |
chevron produces oil and energy. we need those things. |
So? What's your point? That we should continue to subsidize one of the most profitable industry while they charge us whatever they like for their product? |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:34:19 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, Chevron Corporation (which is currently experiencing its second refinery fire in Richmond, Califonria, in less than five years) just posted a [u]profit[/url] of $14 billion -- or almost the entire NASA budget (I didn't hear if that was profit for the quarter or the year -- it hardly matters, now does it). Most of that ends up in the pockets (or offshore tax-havens) of people who already have billions -- how much does that benefit humankind? Rather, it's creating a whole new level of poverty right here in the US ... |
Wait... did you just say that poverty is being caused by companies that are profitable? Maybe you can explain the link, as I'm missing it. |
Chevron (and other global companies) receives billions in subsidies/ tax exemptions from the US government that supposedly represents everyone. Everyone is collectively sharing in the cost of Chevron doing business, while only a few share in the rewards. |
chevron produces oil and energy. we need those things. |
So? What's your point? That we should continue to subsidize one of the most profitable industry while they charge us whatever they like for their product? |
nope, my point was that the company makes us wealthier. somebody in the thread (i think) mentioned that the company was actually causing poverty, which is truly not the case. im sure it could be managed in ways to reap even greater profits (economic benefit), but we're definitely better off with it than without it. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:34:19 PM · #99 |
double poste
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 16:35:40. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:40:28 PM · #100 |
What a colossal thread derailment.
Can we at least agree that it is an amazing achievement regardless of whether the cost is justified or well spent? |
|
