The problem is that we don't measure our government programs. It gets big because we make programs and then just leave it there like a rotting turd because... well, it works? Right? Or the other party is able to rail against it and destroy it, wasting all the money making it happen in the first place -- because that program doesn't work! Right?

We have amazing technological and scientific abilities to quantify and measure which programs work and which don't. But we don't give a shit.

I found this rather insightful.

Yeah and when emissions from volcanoes (among other things) got out of control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

The oceans aren't going to save us and, if anything, might be affected the most by increased CO2 in the atmosphere: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F.

I really don't see why it is such a bad idea to attempt to reduce harmful emissions around the globe - it can only benefit us in the long run and we have the technology to do so. But it will cost big dollars that citizens and, in particular, corporations are unwilling to part with. If we continue the way we are though, in another 100-200 years it might be too late.

Dental implants aren't covered by insurance, because they're cosmetic. In fact, most (all?) executive dental plans provided by major corporations don't even cover them.

I paid 2k for a dental implant after talking my dentist down from 5k. Why did I pay this hefty price instead of getting a bridge, which is covered by my usually very decent insurance? I did it to save my surrounding teeth, which would have been widdled down to nubs in order to support the bridge (that's why it's called a bridge).

Bridges should be an outdated procedure, replaced by the superior implant, because we have the technology to avoid it.

But, well, we highly value the SUCCESS of dentists and insurance company scam artists, who desperately need new Ferraris. Afterall, they paid successful education scam artists to become dentists and insurance zombies, so they need to pay off them loans -- with your money, of course.

Oh it's a vicious first world cycle. lol

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology."

We can rebuild him

We have the technology

I contracted for non-invasive inspection with ARDEC back in 2001. We have the technology to scan these bullets at an extremely fast rate (1000+ bullets/sec) using Photoelectric Effect and Compton Scattering and single out the bad powder using electron density and Z effecitive. We can definitely help the insurgence avoid these traps if politics weren't in the way.

@GeeSussFreeK

not really fear. maybe hope? if we can all log in to a bank account, or social networking site, the technology is there to effectively change how decisions are made in our "democracy".

we have the technological capacity to essentially end "representative" democracy (a farce) and start to create an actual democracy.
of course this would also require systemic change to our monopoly controlled propaganda/media.

Where is the science?

Two problems with Ethanol.

1. For the cost and energy input you don't get much additional energy output. (Lookup Ethanol fuel energy balance)

2. It competes with creating food and drives up food prices.

Lately I'm wondering why we don't use more geothermal energy. We have the technology to use it and from what I've seen we could create tons of hydrogen at massive power plants without much if any pollution. The plants also wouldn't take up miles of land like solar plants do.

Batteries and/or hydrogen are definitely the future, ethanol is a waste of time and resources that raise food prices for the gain of a few large farmers and the detriment of most of the poor nations.

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

What else could you say?

>> ^ghark:

You guys bitching about tennis fail to comprehend why we watch sport in the first place - because we are rooting for one of the teams or individuals. Watching any sport that you have no idea about is a bit bland because you don't have a team you are going for, you don't understand the rules, etc. So you're criticisms of tennis as a sport simply underline your ignorance of the game and it's players.
In the end it mostly comes down to what you got introduced to as a kid, you guys that are fans of NFL, baseball etc probably enjoy it because your dad cracked open a beer on Saturdays and let you watch the game with him, so you have strong memories of the game from a young age, you know how it works, and you have some knowledge of the players - that's about it really. If your dad introduced you to goat racing when you were 5 you'd be just as hot about that.
/rant off


I will adress your pionts one by one

"You guys bitching about tennis fail to comprehend why we watch sport in the first place - because we are rooting for one of the teams or individuals"

Rooting for one of the teams or individuals is just one aspect of sport and if you are watching a sport only for this then the sport could be anything might as well just bet on coin tosses.

"Watching any sport that you have no idea about is a bit bland because you don't have a team you are going for, you don't understand the rules, etc. So you're criticisms of tennis as a sport simply underline your ignorance of the game and it's players."

Although it might be the case that with Manny sports not knowing anything about a sport or the basic rules will make it bland for the general observer , I'm sure Manny people know the rules have played and follow sports and still can say why X sport is more bland or a worse spectator sport than another.

I know allot about tennis have watched allot of matches Your average tennis match i think can objectivly be described as predictable and bland , the same goes for most of the modern sports that are popular.


"In the end it mostly comes down to what you got introduced to as a kid,"


Again this can also be true but anny thinking person who looks for new exsperances will not simply go for things they are culturally indoctranted with.

you can also really enjoy all the external aspects of a sport the family gatherings and social aspects but then you are enjoying all the exsternal factors and not the macro aspects of the sport.

Tennis is actually a good example for this Its easy to follow interms of play x is winning will he wont he get the piont and you have tention derived from match pionts and what have you , However this same tention could be derived from a computer simulated match , and most matches play out in exactly the same way due to the lack of room for players to be creative and put an origonal stamp on play. ( this is a problem with Manny mainsteem sports It seems that people are more concernd with the ablity to follow the score and supporting a team or player and how clear that is over the macro elements of the game.

Now Granted there have been some tennis players that have played creatively but tennis produces very few of these players and evan these players often have bland matches. looking at other sports like English football you have countless players that play in a demonstrably different way to an existent where Evan a casual observer would notice. zeedane for example , or in f1 Michal Schumacher , personally i still think English football and F1 are still mindnumbingly bland for the most part but at least in something like f1 you have compleaty unexspected things happaning quite regulary ( cars blowing up people getting run over as well as pure racing thats uneequ )


Almost rant off ...

I still say you can objectively say x sport is a worse spectator sport than Y , and i would say that Tennis for the resion of lack of creativity afforded to its players makes a pore spectator sport.

I all-so apreceat that people have largely irrational motivations for why they like x sport over y nothing wrong with people enjoying stupid shit i enjoy stupid shit on a daily basis.

one thing that baffels me is the amount of people that turn out and watch these sports when we have the technology and ablity to have people competing them selfs and getting the benefit of not only seeing who will win but fitness and direct social interaction. if im to watch other humans partcing in an activty it has to be something Incredible that my mind cannot conseve of and that i cannot simply watch on a video.

Wow. That is insane to think that we have the technology to see that. Go science!

We can rebuild it. We have the technology.

the problem is his view is over simplified and thus invalidating his point

, all tax money and bail out mony is solely befitting rich people
, mony has been given to taliban/ militent groups in an effort for the usa goverment to get what they want

both those things are true to an extent but giving money to militant groups dosent automatically mean you are funding the Taliban / funding people to shoot at you ( although sometimes it dose and historically usa is good at mucking it up )

government regulation of money and tax to try and sort out the mess of banks and businesses doesn't automatically mean money to rich people. although im sure a good deal of money has ended up going to the super rich , im also sure a good deal or at least some has actually helped every day people .


If this guy only more clearly made his argument and made less sweeping statements then id be inclined to bother to listen to him.

the other thing is there is no benefit for man to physically be in space not for another 150 years or so when we have working technologies that sustain human life cheaply on earth yet alone in space, we should focus space money on probes, telescopes , and varouse experiments not wasting it on keeping humans alive up there. ( makes more sence to do the most experiments in the cheapest and quickest way , then once that's done fire people at the sun)

>> ^shuac:
>> ^westy:
when she is 18, when i have sex with her dose that still make me a pedophile?

Hilarious. To you downvoters of this comment: I have a coupon for Senses-Of-Humor-R-Us that I don't need. I can send it to you if you like.


In order to pull off an inappropriate joke, it needs to be both crass AND funny. If it fails at being funny you just come off as being unbelievably creepy.

I'm not saying you couldn't craft a joke about sexually abusing severely retarded teenage girls, but . . . wait, no yeah that might be the limit.

Then again Ricky Gervais pulled off a good necrophilia joke on sesame street. So that gives me hope that the infantilized midget rape barrier will be cracked some day. But I don't think we have the technology yet.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Elmo-Interviews-Ricky-Gervais

I don't think that the union will hold on to it's stake. Honestly, it's not really in the union's best interests to own, even in part, the one company, when the union operates in a bunch of other companies. The cash value is more valuable to the union than the ownership.

But I have to agree with the points Moore makes in the last portion of the interview, where he cites GM's WW2 plant conversions. We have the technology to make better, smarter, more efficient vehicles. This is a prime opportunity to change the GM, and by extension, the entire world, for the better. Maybe the UAW should give their ownership of GM to Neil Young.