Obama wins Nobel Prize

[crux]

I think we're on the same page, then, duct.

[Limewater]

Preface:

Duct, I often don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion and generally enjoy your posts. I'm not sure if we've directly conversed on the board before, at least on anything substantial, so I wanted to mention that.

In this country we like to pride ourselves on our freedoms, but sometimes we like to come together and set a common goal. It allows us to work as a county, one of the prime reasons for having a country. You have someone to depend on. If we all just minded our own business, what is the point of government in the first place?

None of those things inherently require government, though. If I have a goal in which I believe strongly, it is often easier to accomplish that goal with a group of others who share my goal. Why force a bunch of others to go along with it?

And things like social safety nets have existed as far back as recorded history, generally independent of government structure. These systems were generally smaller, more efficient, and require more accountability than government-run systems.

Problem with choices and different options put into place in our government is some people WON'T agree, so it is done in a way so that MOST agree (not to say the modern beuracracy of gov't is doing a good job at distinguishing most, but I'm considering the theory of the U.S. gov't, not the actual implementation there in).

But what is so special about "most"? "Most" people (who mattered) agreed that black people shouldn't be able to vote. "Most" people agreed that gay sex should be illegal. Might makes right, I guess.

Now back at the space thing. I don't think it was a "we did it first thing" only, yes that played a big part. It was the "pep rally" to get everyone behind it.

Point conceded. I didn't mention the "pep rally" aspect because I don't consider a pep rally to be worth the financial investment required in landing on the moon.

FURTHERMORE it gave a REASON to develope certain technologies. For instance the first computers were designed and implemented in the creation of the Atomic Bomb (I'm not going to say it was for, but it was the first actual research use of the contemporary computer). Then it kind of fizzled, research and development for computers didn't really advance in the decade following. With the space race it gave a huge public reason to develop more on it, not just gov't contract work on computer research... but broad PUBLIC research. It introduced the nation to what a computer WAS... before which computers mostly existed as science fiction in the consumer realm.

Wait. What? I think you're wrong on a lot of things here.

*ENIAC was announced in 1946.
*The transistor was invented in 1947.
*The first silicon transistor was made in 1954.
*The first integrated circuit was demonstrated in 1958.
*Texas Instruments began selling silicon IC-based computers to the Air Force in 1961 (not for space applications).
*Moore's Law was not intoned until 1965, but it was based upon a decade of observation.
*Texas Instruments then spent the next few years developing the IC-based pocket calculator, which debuted in 1967 and was sold to the general public.

This is ignoring a lot of history, but I consider these to be pretty vital to modern computer technology. The other elements, such as Bell Labs' earlier development of commercial calculators based upon vacuum tubes was also not really motivated by the space program.

The space program did involve computers, but it was by no means a primary driving force in their development. Most of the work towards their development went on at Bell Labs and Texas Instruments. Now, both AT&T and TI did do contract work with the government, but both also put computer-based technologies on the commercial market.

I don't see a strong connection between manned space flight and the development of the computer.

Prior to the space race technological advancement was stagnate and not going much of anywhere.

I don't see how history supports this.

Inspired little boys and girls to dream of one day being a scientist when before they dreamed of doctors, firemen, and cowboys (all noble jobs... well not cowboys... but still not the same).

You say things like this several times, but I think you're kind of begging the question.

I'm kind of out of time. I may write more later.

I will give the lunar program credit for the first real-time embedded system, though. But most people still don't know what that means.

[lordofduct]

None of those things inherently require government, though. If I have a goal in which I believe strongly, it is often easier to accomplish that goal with a group of others who share my goal. Why force a bunch of others to go along with it?

And things like social safety nets have existed as far back as recorded history, generally independent of government structure. These systems were generally smaller, more efficient, and require more accountability than government-run systems.

I never said that in required gov't. I basically said that gov't endorsement can work on a broad scope quickly. Maybe not as efficiently, but when considering the size of our nation and the time this occurred in, it did make it quickly.

But what is so special about "most"? "Most" people (who mattered) agreed that black people shouldn't be able to vote. "Most" people agreed that gay sex should be illegal. Might makes right, I guess.

Hospitals, Firemen, Police, the Interstate, Scientific grants, water systems, electrical framework endorsement, radio licensing, telecommunication endorsement... etc. Of these that private investors partook in, the gov't endorsement and regulation assisted greatly.

I stated in my post how it sometimes doesn't get it right every time. But neither does free market, communism, or any form of economic or government system. We're human, we fuck up, and we are filled with pent up hate. Even when gov't stopped allowing the hate, the hate still continued.

Point conceded. I didn't mention the "pep rally" aspect because I don't consider a pep rally to be worth the financial investment required in landing on the moon.

And I already conceded that it wasn't the most cost effective.

Wait. What? I think you're wrong on a lot of things here.

... etc

I never said other means can't invoke creativity. Computers and that technology was greatly advanced by WWII and the atomic bomb studies.

Influences can come from many places.

Furthermore, influence does not mean that a person who is influenced or inspired is going to go on to work in the field that influenced them. I was influenced by anthropology, music, and math into becoming a programmer. Programming has very little to do with anthropology and music (though small parts of it can work with or about those fields). But those fields greatly influenced me.

Of course break throughs were made, but even greater break throughs were made after it, and were directly "influenced" by. Just ask any older scientist today how influenced they were influenced by the lunar landing, and a large majority will agree a lot.



I was not debating the financial cost of it. It was extremely costly. But influenced great interest and pushed a technological age into motion much faster then it was already moving. Merely by the injection of knowledge into the general public who had NO idea what any of those break throughs you listed were until after it. It takes Mary Lou and Joe Schmoe from corn fed Indiana to realize their potential and step into the game.

Stuff costs money, sometimes lots of money, and sometimes those costs can have majour outcomes. So you don't agree with me, whoopy schmoo, you have to at least concede the "pep rally" mentality (which you do). That was merely my point.

Yes you can say something else could have come along to inspire a nation to advance technology. That is all speculative, but YES something could have, I certainly agree. But who says we wouldn't be sitting here saying "that mission to the bottom of the sea was a waste of money for so and so." or some other hypothetical mission some one may have commited on a grand scale to capture the eyes of the world and inspire. Furthermore by circumstance the possibility always exist that nothing would have happened and wWait. What? I think you're wrong on a lot of things here.e could have diverged completely from it all.

You know what else is a waste of money, the private health insurance industry and the well hidden high expendature that the ER takes on and really should be fixed up. Or the Oil industry which innadvertently costs citizens tons of money. Or the bail out handed to corporations like AIG. Do these things deal with gov't as well? Yes they do, but a lot of it comes from the mere fact that privatized America asks the gov't NOT to step in on the game and to NOT regulate or repremand... and then when they about topple over they come asking for a hand out.

So yes a LOT of shit costs a LOT of money. War, corporations, civil service, LIVING... does that mean we should stop spending the money for it? Because money is money, it's pieces of fucking paper and numbers floating in cyber-space, the expendature of money merely means the expendature of resources... and those resources at the bottom line equate to JOBS.

You know how they say we live in a consumer market now a days. Well that same mentality works in research, war, service, and almost all money funded situations. By spending the money, jobs are created, and people get to live. Keep the money flowing, keep it moving...

I don't like the free market, I think it's a horrible system. But it's the system I have to live in, so if I'm going to, then keep it working the way it's supposed to be working. People hate it when the government spends money and puts it into the god damn economy. Shit they've got it, I paid them it, thank you gov't for putting it back into the damn system so I can pick it up again!




And back at "most" people. You know what, not everyone is going to agree all the time. If we entered a completely free market, 100% 0 regulation. As well as complete lack of federal investment into the civil union... where they offered no rule or consuquence. There are people who would love this. Several different theologies are based on some degree of this idea, and they range across the entire spectrum from "left" to "right", "anarchist" to "communist", etc etc.

The thing is, the implimentation of that is going to piss of other people. The day you get it your way, is the day I feel I've been robbed of something. And the day I get it my way, is the day you feel you were robbed of something. You speak as if letting everyone just live there own life is the best thing, well I don't agree... and the FACT I don't agree exemplifies your reasoning for why you don't want it the current way (the 'you' in this is both ambiguous and directed). That's why we have representatives, voters, beurocracy, and all that other crap... it's there so we can push and shove on the system moving it in diverse mechanics so that new systems can appear that can make more people happy, as certain ideas fail, we can push back on them and make them better. You think we just ended up here on a whim? You think the world just fell over the way it is right now? NO you don't think that, and most people know this is millenias of building and growing into what we are... and it's going to continue.

Go fight, go push your beliefs, and admit yes some ideas didn't work as well as more modern and contemporary ideas would work... but they did their job, and the extended our realm of understanding, and helped push this world to the position it is in. The lunar mission served a huge purpose, at a heavy financial cost, be we afforded it... it's not like it broke the bank, it's not like it spiraled us into financial destitution... no other things did that, other more recenet things I'm not even going to get into.

But now I digress as I've spanned this out of the realm of just lunar landing, merely under the stance that you wanted to debate more then just the implications of the lunar landing.

[lisalover1]

I was going to give my usual rant here, but I've learned my lesson about arguing with moderators, especially about politics. Until next time, lordofduct...

[lordofduct]

I was going to give my usual rant here, but I've learned my lesson about arguing with moderators, especially about politics. Until next time, lordofduct...

What would arguing with moderators vs arguing with regular users make a difference? Did a moderator suspend you, edit your post, etc etc? If so please let us other moderators know... I know I for one would not allow that. ( by argue I mean debate )

Though I wouldn't even consider myself a moderator. I don't do much moderating anymore. Since my hiatus I really don't consider myself a moderator anymore. The title just still stands.


But as debates go, I have never closed, stopped, or in any way hindered anyone's ability to join in, or continue a debate. I don't expect a last word, and I am always happy to hear everyones opinions on the matter. I don't debate so that everyone thinks I'm right, I debate because I learn so much from other people about that matter. I am merely so passionate and have such long posts because it's how much I am interested in hearing and reading what everyone has to say about the matter... I just merely have a lot to say myself. I've also come to find out that my opinions insight a lot of discourse from people, which makes me pleased, everyones response (and usually in disagreeance) is what I hope to receive. I'm only 26, and I could have my entire world view upside down, every post I read has altered, moved, and progressed my world view further and I appreciate it! Why else would I hang out and "waste" so much time posting?

The only discussions I've closed are when they become more about hate, flaming, and stuff that just really shouldn't be said on the forum. There are rules and the sort. But a normal debate isn't against them.

[Jrecee]

I was going to give my usual rant here, but I've learned my lesson about arguing with moderators, especially about politics. Until next time, lordofduct...

What would arguing with moderators vs arguing with regular users make a difference? Did a moderator suspend you, edit your post, etc etc? If so please let us other moderators know... I know I for one would not allow that. ( by argue I mean debate )

Though I wouldn't even consider myself a moderator. I don't do much moderating anymore. Since my hiatus I really don't consider myself a moderator anymore. The title just still stands.


But as debates go, I have never closed, stopped, or in any way hindered anyone's ability to join in, or continue a debate. I don't expect a last word, and I am always happy to hear everyones opinions on the matter. I don't debate so that everyone thinks I'm right, I debate because I learn so much from other people about that matter. I am merely so passionate and have such long posts because it's how much I am interested in hearing and reading what everyone has to say about the matter... I just merely have a lot to say myself. I've also come to find out that my opinions insight a lot of discourse from people, which makes me pleased, everyones response (and usually in disagreeance) is what I hope to receive. I'm only 26, and I could have my entire world view upside down, every post I read has altered, moved, and progressed my world view further and I appreciate it! Why else would I hang out and "waste" so much time posting?

The only discussions I've closed are when they become more about hate, flaming, and stuff that just really shouldn't be said on the forum. There are rules and the sort. But a normal debate isn't against them.

I think I do the same thing. I learn more by arguing with people or hearing the points that the other side makes than I do just watching or reading the news. Then I go and try to research where they're getting their information, and try to validate anything I've heard. I like hearing from the other side more than my own. Which is why I love reading stuff on this forum, a texas mustang club political section:

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45

Have fun