Since we are too poor to fund space endeavors and too broke, too politically correct and beat up to pursue wars we will find out that technological development may be slowed or the next new technology may not be forthcoming at all.

When Obama went down to Florida to talk about some of the reductions at Canaveral he talked about public/private partnerships. He was 'flash mobbed' by irate Tea Party partisans about making the cuts. I too found that a bit 'interesting'. Sort of like the 'keep your government hands off of my Medicare' signs that seemed just a bit too obvious.

And it's funny, the self-contradiction: why do you not support the private industrialization of space travel/exploration?

Could be -- though for me it would have more like 40 years ago or more. I do remember being in the 'untracked' Junior English class in high school due to a schedule conflict. Fortunately there were two other 'lost souls' in that class so we got to conspire a certain amount.

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Nah, just 20 years ago you were likely in the smart kids class and didn't rub elbows with the average ones.

Getting back to whether Obama is going to close NASA even though I believe he would like to I doubt that he can without a lot of help from somewhere. California, Texas and Florida have a lot to lose if NASA and all it's programs were closed down and those three states have a large impact on how National elections turn out. Also their members of congress from both parties heavily support the space program. NASA may not initiate any new space missions over the next few years but it is very doubtful that it will close it's doors. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

Still telling ya, with the previous suggesting we go back to the Moon first, before Mars, NASA was in trouble.
And it's funny, the self-contradiction: why do you not support the private industrialization of space travel/exploration?

Getting back to whether Obama is going to close NASA even though I believe he would like to I doubt that he can without a lot of help from somewhere. California, Texas and Florida have a lot to lose if NASA and all it's programs were closed down and those three states have a large impact on how National elections turn out. Also their members of congress from both parties heavily support the space program. NASA may not initiate any new space missions over the next few years but it is very doubtful that it will close it's doors. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

As opposed to the Texas politicians who NEVER use funding for other purposes. Cool, glad to know <giggle>. LBJ is now turning over, let alone the chuckles that Rove is getting out of this.

Find a clean politician -- go ahead, make my day.

LBJ Ballot box 13.

A Texas politician will arrange it; A Chicago Politician will buy it; A Florida Politician will nepotism it.

---

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Nah, just 20 years ago you were likely in the smart kids class and didn't rub elbows with the average ones.

---

Yup, I know the deal with IQ tests -- been there, done that as a smart ass kid. Now, I'm a smart ass old fart.

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Oh, and I've seen those malware ads.

I figure if Palin and Obama are that close, it demonstrates what drive and motivation can do for some and what the lack of it does for others....

Average (Median?) on the Stanford-Binet scale 1s 100. Most of us would find people at this level extremely dull. !28 is not too bad but far from near genius.

Too bad that of my recent posts, this is the one people have seized on.
But, since you choose to, Barry, William is closer to correct.
As IQ scores, as with many standardized tests, is nearly Normally distributed, William, it is mu that is referred to here.
Now, in my earlier days, it was stated the standard deviation, sigma, was 20. Now I see some texts claiming it is 15.
The bit about Obama and Palin's IQs is merely what some ads claim to try to get you to follow their link at take their test (and perhaps get some spyware and malware dumped on you). I hoped people would realize I was joking when citing it.
However, with sigma = 20, roughly 68% of people are in the 80 to 120 range; roughly 95% in the 40 to 140 range; roughly 99.7% in the 40 to 160 range.
Focusing on the upper end: 34% in the 100 to 120 range; 13.5% in the 120 to 140 range; 2.35% in the 140 to 160 range. That leaves 0.15% in the range above 160.
If youo accept the sigma = 15 instead, use the same percentage but say the 100 to 115, 115 to 130, 130 to 145, and above 145 ranges.
Now,how do they define "genius"? I'll bet that varies, too. But I'm sure if you're not more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, you don't meet the condition, no matter what.
By probabilities, I would not be at all surprised if Obama's and Palin's IQs are as stated, but I am sure that's not part of what they are legally required to disclose, lol.

I score around 150 but then I still can't find my keys in the morning.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Average (Median?) on the Stanford-Binet scale 1s 100. Most of us would find people at this level extremely dull. !28 is not too bad but far from near genius.

Nah, 125 and 128 (if they were accurate numbers and I don't have any clue that they are), would be way above normal. The thing is, the collective IQ of the US has seemingly dropped a good 10 or more points in the past 20 years. I call it the double digit national IQ. And, when it comes to electioneering IQ -- drop another 10 points.

(Oh. Wait. 125 and 128 just barely go above the average range. OOPS!)

---

Probes are easier and require much less space than sending people to planets. I'd rather see near time use of NASA's budget spent on probes to planets/asteroids than trying to get someone there.

The whole point of this report is that Obama wants to scrap all space exploration, manned or robotic. I guess he thinks we have learned everything there is to learn about space.

Dude! Palin has an IQ of 125. Obama has an IQ of 128. (It's been all over the web the last 3 years.) Of course they've learned all they can about space!
(Oh. Wait. 125 and 128 just barely go above the average range. OOPS!)

I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space hardware, specifically manned space craft. Boeing and Lockheed/Martin are private corporations just like Space X. I doubt that anybody will build a fully functioning manned spacecraft without any government backing and funding. No matter who builds a manned spacecraft they will have to meet NASA safety standards before getting permission to put one human into orbit or beyond. So there won't be any backyard homeboys building their own low tech space dump trucks to collect space garbage.

So whether or not a small underfunded start up aerospace corporation will build the next manned space vehicle remains doubtful to me. I am not counting Burt Rutan's sub orbital craft as it has no potential to evolve into an orbital vehicle.

Abandoning NASA is about as stupid as closing the FAA would be.

Despite standards and laws, eventually, someone who thinks they can do it is going to do it or try to do it. And the question is, will it be the right choice? Still, someone will most definitely try. And I'd rather see them try that than see if they can rap better than Marshall Smathers.

Probes are easier and require much less space than sending people to planets. I'd rather see near time use of NASA's budget spent on probes to planets/asteroids than trying to get someone there.

The whole point of this report is that Obama wants to scrap all space exploration, manned or robotic. I guess he thinks we have learned everything there is to learn about space.

Face it, when Bush said let's go BACK to the MOON, an accomplishment we already achieved and didn't need to revisit before shooting for MARS, you know NASA was screwed right then and there. BACK TO THE MOON? NUTS!!! :)

does seem like you have really drunk Becktaid or Rushpills. I took you for less stupid than that.

When The MSNBC Wonks quit using Terms of Derision for The Repugs/TeaPots, then I might decide not to use them for The DEM/Libs and Potus.

Wah, wah, Rush coined Feminazis, so when some less moral wonks on the "other side" mimic him, Rush fans cry foul when it's "turnabout is fair play."

Except there probably is no other side.

MSNBC is owned by a corporation. Those corporations the Occupiers you dislike are protesting against.

So which is it? Do you support the protesters or oppose them?

Do you support corporations and the media outlets they own, or oppose them?

Sowwsh. Slam. Dunk.

Thank you.

I mean, seriously, Sarah, "I studied journalism in college", "I hate the lamestream media" that I "manipulate so well" Palin?
She and Obama could be best friends for all we know.
A video AFTER the election with McCain and Obama sure seemed to show cooler sides of them way to soon after a supposedly vitriolic election.

Thanks Sarge, I thought it was at best rather humorous whining about MSNBC's style of characterization coming from the land of Faux News partisans.

Wah, wah, Rush coined Feminazis, so when some less moral wonks on the "other side" mimic him, Rush fans cry foul when it's "turnabout is fair play."

---

does seem like you have really drunk Becktaid or Rushpills. I took you for less stupid than that.

When The MSNBC Wonks quit using Terms of Derision for The Repugs/TeaPots, then I might decide not to use them for The DEM/Libs and Potus.

Wah, wah, Rush coined Feminazis, so when some less moral wonks on the "other side" mimic him, Rush fans cry foul when it's "turnabout is fair play."

Except there probably is no other side.

MSNBC is owned by a corporation. Those corporations the Occupiers you dislike are protesting against.

So which is it? Do you support the protesters or oppose them?

Do you support corporations and the media outlets they own, or oppose them?

Sowwsh. Slam. Dunk.

Thank you.

Bob, I agree, but then again, I've been branded a socialist <smile>

That being said, it seems that NASA over the past 20 years or more, has had its share of mishandled and mismanaged programs. These make it a target in the political sphere from both the left and the right.

I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space
hardware, specifically manned space craft

Abandoning NASA is about as stupid as closing the FAA would be.

I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space hardware, specifically manned space craft. Boeing and Lockheed/Martin are private corporations just like Space X. I doubt that anybody will build a fully functioning manned spacecraft without any government backing and funding. No matter who builds a manned spacecraft they will have to meet NASA safety standards before getting permission to put one human into orbit or beyond. So there won't be any backyard homeboys building their own low tech space dump trucks to collect space garbage.

So whether or not a small underfunded start up aerospace corporation will build the next manned space vehicle remains doubtful to me. I am not counting Burt Rutan's sub orbital craft as it has no potential to evolve into an orbital vehicle.

Abandoning NASA is about as stupid as closing the FAA would be.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.