Look up the relativistic rocket equations on the Usenet Physics FAQ. Calculate in a spreadsheet what a crew member of a thrusting rocket would observe after throwing a ball upward at close to the speed of light. Chart the path of the ball's free fall. Use general relativity's equivalence principle to realize the same initial behavior must be observable to a person standing on the ground. You've found "dark energy". A little logic from there shows that high-redshift supernovae must accelerate away from us (the 1998 discovery that lead to the idea of dark energy). Good luck finding anyone else who'll look at your numbers.
As a component of discourse, asking for a source during an online discussion implies that such a source is not trivial to find, and thus calls into question the assertion for which a source is being asked for. Prepending your inquiry with "Really?" also contributed to that note of incredulity.
Particularly in a case where a source or citation is extremely easy to find, asking for one comes off as less of an honest inquiry and more of a rhetorical device designed to discredit the person making the assertion, regardless of intent.
It can disrupt conversation to ask for a source when you could find it yourself in less time than it takes to ask. This is especially true when phrased in a curt manner that implies you already doubt the claim.
"Just fucking google it" will always get you downvotes no matter how you phrase it. Downvote people asking for sources if you think they're being lazy.
The average American thinks an arrest is tantamount to guilt; one of many signs of this is that mugshots are made public here. Snowden should stay exiled.
Up to the jury. Jury nullification is a possibility. If I was on the jury I would vote to acquit (of course for that reason I wouldn't end up on the jury).
The government likely wants to charge Snowden with espionage, not just with mishandling classified information. There's a difference between guilty of some crime and guilty of the crimes the government wants to charge.
So was Rosa Parks. We have a whistleblower law, along with a gov't oath to defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws. So his prison potential isn't so clear.
> defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws
I can't see how it couldn't trump other laws!
Think about it. If you can pass a new law which trumps the Constitution via a method that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, then you've just done an end-run around the theoretically supreme law of the land. And if you can do that, the Constitution is completely meaningless.
The whole point of the document is that it outlines some bedrock stuff and it's neigh impossible to change unless everyone in the country really agrees that it needs to via a 3/4 majority of the states ratifying.
I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary and we see this play out all the time with the Supreme Court. Things get struck down all the time as unconstitutional and that's the end of it.
I can't see how the founding document of our government can somehow be subverted by other laws unless those laws are deemed as important via ratification.
> I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary
We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutional laws, i.e. ones that in an ideal world would be overridden by a fair Supreme Court.
Couldn't reply earlier due to "you're posting too fast" limitation, even after a day. I may have to wait several days to reply again.
If the benefits and carryover paid for it, fine. But I doubt it, not now anyway. If it wasn't borrowed money, I'd say throw .5% at at it. But no way when it's borrowed, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that the outcome is net positive.
I really wish we could retire the word "borrowed" to describe the nature of sovereign debt. It makes it sound like we're borrowing dollars from the Chinese to pay NASA. That's not how it works. (United States currency is one of the few things that isn't made in China these days.)
That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It's entertainment mostly.
It can have huge consequences for us down the line. For example when Theodore Roosevelt decided to preserve national parks, it wasn't as big of a benefit to the public, mainly recreation. But in Yellowstone's hot springs a bacteria was discovered which now helps major biological processes through a technique called PCR.
We should consider the alternatives. We're borrowing $trillions annually, so we have to pick our battles carefully. Why spend $billions to maybe possibly discover something like that, when the same $$$ can definitely pay back on some other crucial item? For example, most NASA funding should already have been diverted to solving the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; that's a more critical need that's currently being ignored. And that's only one of many giant cleanup tasks left to be done.
It's fine by me if a dictatorship takes the lead in space. Their people might suffer as a result. Our goal should always be to raise the average standard of living. If that means taking a back seat in some area, why not?
Well put. Of voters that have long term vision, I can't see them wanting space exploration over many better investments. We have so many huge problems to deal with that need funds before space exploration and its relatively small chance of payback for the average voter. Especially when it's all borrowed money.
Maybe it's the voters? I'm all for space exploration paid in advance, when the national debt is falling as well. Otherwise, no way. Why should my kids get only the bills? That would be rude. Let downvotes commence.
