[afx114]

NASA’s initial research, or “waste of money,” as some like to call it, have resulted in plenty of things that we use today and enable us to live the modern life that we do. Where would we be without satellite technology? GPS? Insulation? Solar technology? Rocket design and fuel? Optical tech? Gyroscopes? Silicon chips? Lasers? Composites?

Now imagine back to when NASA requested the initial funds to begin research on these technologies. I’m sure plenty of people saw these things as wastes of money. But look today and you’ll find that all of these things have payed for themselves and then some. A million times over.

Crashing this thing into the moon doesn’t cost any more money than just letting it turn into space junk at the end of its mission. It wasn’t sent up to crash into the moon. It was sent up to survey the moon. Now that its job is over, why not crash it and increase the research data that we can squeeze from the mission? It’s better than leaving the thing floating in space as a piece of junk or burning up upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Lots of people called Columbus’ voyages a waste of money too. But now 500+ years into the future, wouldn’t you say those expensive voyages were worth it?

[afx114]

NASA’s initial research, or “waste of money,” as some like to call it, have resulted in plenty of things that we use today and enable us to live the modern life that we do. Where would we be without satellite technology? GPS? Insulation? Solar technology? Rocket design and fuel? Optical tech? Gyroscopes? Silicon chips? Lasers? Composites?

Now imagine back to when NASA requested the initial funds to begin research on these technologies. I’m sure plenty of people saw these things as wastes of money. But look today and you’ll find that all of these things have payed for themselves and then some. A million times over.

Crashing this thing into the moon doesn’t cost any more money than just letting it turn into space junk at the end of its mission. It wasn’t sent up to crash into the moon. It was sent up to survey the moon. Now that its job is over, why not crash it and increase the research data that we can squeeze from the mission? It’s better than leaving the thing floating in space as a piece of junk or burning up upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Lots of people called Columbus’ voyages a waste of money too. But now 500+ years into the future, wouldn’t you say those expensive voyages were worth it?

[afx114]

NASA’s initial research, or “waste of money,” as some like to call it, have resulted in plenty of things that we use today and enable us to live the modern life that we do. Where would we be without satellite technology? GPS? Insulation? Solar technology? Rocket design and fuel? Optical tech? Gyroscopes? Silicon chips? Lasers? Composites?

Now imagine back to when NASA requested the initial funds to begin research on these technologies. I’m sure plenty of people saw these things as wastes of money. But look today and you’ll find that all of these things have payed for themselves and then some. A million times over.

Crashing this thing into the moon doesn’t cost any more money than just letting it turn into space junk at the end of its mission. It wasn’t sent up to crash into the moon. It was sent up to survey the moon. Now that its job is over, why not crash it and increase the research data that we can squeeze from the mission? It’s better than leaving the thing floating in space as a piece of junk or burning up upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Lots of people called Columbus’ voyages a waste of money too. But now 500+ years into the future, wouldn’t you say those expensive voyages were worth it?

[afx114]

Using Glen Beck as an economic indicator, has gold officially jumped the shark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjjHzO8aeI

Kinda interesting in that Beck has lost all of his advertising revenue except for those gold scrap-for-cash spamfomercials.

[afx114]

Using Glen Beck as an economic indicator, has gold officially jumped the shark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjjHzO8aeI

Kinda interesting in that Beck has lost all of his advertising revenue except for those gold scrap-for-cash spamfomercials.

[afx114]

Using Glen Beck as an economic indicator, has gold officially jumped the shark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjjHzO8aeI

Kinda interesting in that Beck has lost all of his advertising revenue except for those gold scrap-for-cash spamfomercials.

[afx114]

Using Glen Beck as an economic indicator, has gold officially jumped the shark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjjHzO8aeI

Kinda interesting in that Beck has lost all of his advertising revenue except for those gold scrap-for-cash spamfomercials.

[afx114]

Using Glen Beck as an economic indicator, has gold officially jumped the shark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjjHzO8aeI

Kinda interesting in that Beck has lost all of his advertising revenue except for those gold scrap-for-cash spamfomercials.

[afx114]

When you say that housing will “literally crater” do you mean that you are expecting meteor showers to come crashing down on homes, turning them into craters?

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
• taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
• free from exaggeration or distortion.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

[afx114]

When you say that housing will “literally crater” do you mean that you are expecting meteor showers to come crashing down on homes, turning them into craters?

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
• taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
• free from exaggeration or distortion.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

[afx114]

When you say that housing will “literally crater” do you mean that you are expecting meteor showers to come crashing down on homes, turning them into craters?

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
• taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
• free from exaggeration or distortion.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

[afx114]

When you say that housing will “literally crater” do you mean that you are expecting meteor showers to come crashing down on homes, turning them into craters?

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
• taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
• free from exaggeration or distortion.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

[afx114]

When you say that housing will “literally crater” do you mean that you are expecting meteor showers to come crashing down on homes, turning them into craters?

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
• taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
• free from exaggeration or distortion.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

[afx114]

Doctors may be the wrong people to ask, because they will do their job to the best of their ability regardless of who (insurance companies vs governmet) is paying the bill. Doctors get paid either way.

Remember, this debate is about who will be paying for the healthcare, not the actual healthcare itself.

[afx114]

Doctors may be the wrong people to ask, because they will do their job to the best of their ability regardless of who (insurance companies vs governmet) is paying the bill. Doctors get paid either way.

Remember, this debate is about who will be paying for the healthcare, not the actual healthcare itself.

[Author]

Posts