<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1651201</id>
	<title>The Difficulty of Dismantling Constellation</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267294980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Last month, we discussed news that President Obama's 2011 budget proposal <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1725236/Obama-Choosing-NOT-To-Go-To-the-Moon">did not include plans</a> to continue NASA's Constellation program, choosing instead to focus on establishing a stronger foundation for low earth orbit operations. Unfortunately, as government officials prepare to shut down Constellation, they're <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-nasa-difficult-ending-20100228,0,5464832.story">warning that it won't be a quick or simple process</a> due to the contracts involved. From the Orlando Sentinel:
<i>"Obama's 2011 budget proposal provides $2.5 billion to pay contractors whatever NASA owes them so the agency can stop work on Constellation's Ares rockets, Orion capsule and Altair lunar lander. But administration officials acknowledge that this number is, at best, an educated guess. ... Many inside and outside of the space agency, however, think the number is too low. The agency has signed more than $10 billion worth of contracts to design, test and build the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule that were the heart of Constellation. But government auditors said last year that the costs of some of those contracts had swelled by $3 billion since 2007 because of design changes, technical problems and schedule slips. How much NASA will owe on all those contracts if the plug gets pulled is unclear. Many of the deals are called 'undefinitized contracts,' meaning that the terms, conditions &mdash; and price &mdash; had not been set before NASA ordered the work to start. That means the agency will need to negotiate a buyout with the contractor &mdash; and that can be a long and painful process, according to government officials familiar with the cancellation process."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last month , we discussed news that President Obama 's 2011 budget proposal did not include plans to continue NASA 's Constellation program , choosing instead to focus on establishing a stronger foundation for low earth orbit operations .
Unfortunately , as government officials prepare to shut down Constellation , they 're warning that it wo n't be a quick or simple process due to the contracts involved .
From the Orlando Sentinel : " Obama 's 2011 budget proposal provides $ 2.5 billion to pay contractors whatever NASA owes them so the agency can stop work on Constellation 's Ares rockets , Orion capsule and Altair lunar lander .
But administration officials acknowledge that this number is , at best , an educated guess .
... Many inside and outside of the space agency , however , think the number is too low .
The agency has signed more than $ 10 billion worth of contracts to design , test and build the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule that were the heart of Constellation .
But government auditors said last year that the costs of some of those contracts had swelled by $ 3 billion since 2007 because of design changes , technical problems and schedule slips .
How much NASA will owe on all those contracts if the plug gets pulled is unclear .
Many of the deals are called 'undefinitized contracts, ' meaning that the terms , conditions    and price    had not been set before NASA ordered the work to start .
That means the agency will need to negotiate a buyout with the contractor    and that can be a long and painful process , according to government officials familiar with the cancellation process .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last month, we discussed news that President Obama's 2011 budget proposal did not include plans to continue NASA's Constellation program, choosing instead to focus on establishing a stronger foundation for low earth orbit operations.
Unfortunately, as government officials prepare to shut down Constellation, they're warning that it won't be a quick or simple process due to the contracts involved.
From the Orlando Sentinel:
"Obama's 2011 budget proposal provides $2.5 billion to pay contractors whatever NASA owes them so the agency can stop work on Constellation's Ares rockets, Orion capsule and Altair lunar lander.
But administration officials acknowledge that this number is, at best, an educated guess.
... Many inside and outside of the space agency, however, think the number is too low.
The agency has signed more than $10 billion worth of contracts to design, test and build the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule that were the heart of Constellation.
But government auditors said last year that the costs of some of those contracts had swelled by $3 billion since 2007 because of design changes, technical problems and schedule slips.
How much NASA will owe on all those contracts if the plug gets pulled is unclear.
Many of the deals are called 'undefinitized contracts,' meaning that the terms, conditions — and price — had not been set before NASA ordered the work to start.
That means the agency will need to negotiate a buyout with the contractor — and that can be a long and painful process, according to government officials familiar with the cancellation process.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31303120</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>badasscat</author>
	<datestamp>1267296540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.</i></p><p>I hope you go to sleep one night "healthy" and wake up the next day with a collapsed lung like I did.  We'll see what you think about health care coverage you "don't need" then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage , meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they do n't want or need.I hope you go to sleep one night " healthy " and wake up the next day with a collapsed lung like I did .
We 'll see what you think about health care coverage you " do n't need " then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.I hope you go to sleep one night "healthy" and wake up the next day with a collapsed lung like I did.
We'll see what you think about health care coverage you "don't need" then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298982</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most Americans believe that they pay an inordinate amount of money on taxes, and therefore anything they can possibly take from the government is rightfully theirs, and any money the government gives to anyone else is "stolen" from them.</p><p>It doesn't help that the country is full of loonies on radio and TV that are telling them the exact same thing.</p><p>Of course, it all boils down to selfishness.  If it benefits you in some way it's a right.  If it benefits someone else it's an entitlement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most Americans believe that they pay an inordinate amount of money on taxes , and therefore anything they can possibly take from the government is rightfully theirs , and any money the government gives to anyone else is " stolen " from them.It does n't help that the country is full of loonies on radio and TV that are telling them the exact same thing.Of course , it all boils down to selfishness .
If it benefits you in some way it 's a right .
If it benefits someone else it 's an entitlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most Americans believe that they pay an inordinate amount of money on taxes, and therefore anything they can possibly take from the government is rightfully theirs, and any money the government gives to anyone else is "stolen" from them.It doesn't help that the country is full of loonies on radio and TV that are telling them the exact same thing.Of course, it all boils down to selfishness.
If it benefits you in some way it's a right.
If it benefits someone else it's an entitlement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299514</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Logic and Reason</author>
	<datestamp>1267264080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_and\_positive\_rights" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_and\_positive\_rights</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative \ _and \ _positive \ _rights [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_and\_positive\_rights [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300646</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1267275180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Health care reform as it stands isn't about covering everyone for health needs, it's about controlling the mechanism for health care.  That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Health care reform as it stands is n't about covering everyone for health needs , it 's about controlling the mechanism for health care .
That 's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage , meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they do n't want or need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Health care reform as it stands isn't about covering everyone for health needs, it's about controlling the mechanism for health care.
That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300350</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1267272540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your rights never extend to forcing other people to do things for you.  I mean, I understand the appeal of forcing someone to give me heart surgery, or build me a Ferrari, or whatever, but we decided early on that slavery is a no-go.</p><p>Life, liberty, and property are rights, not entitlements.  Entitlements are bullshit leeching.  When the government takes your liberty or property in order to fund others' "entitlements", that's the opposite of protecting our rights.</p><p>Should we anyway provide minimal health care for the poor? Of course, but only because diseases are contagious, not because it's any sort of right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your rights never extend to forcing other people to do things for you .
I mean , I understand the appeal of forcing someone to give me heart surgery , or build me a Ferrari , or whatever , but we decided early on that slavery is a no-go.Life , liberty , and property are rights , not entitlements .
Entitlements are bullshit leeching .
When the government takes your liberty or property in order to fund others ' " entitlements " , that 's the opposite of protecting our rights.Should we anyway provide minimal health care for the poor ?
Of course , but only because diseases are contagious , not because it 's any sort of right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your rights never extend to forcing other people to do things for you.
I mean, I understand the appeal of forcing someone to give me heart surgery, or build me a Ferrari, or whatever, but we decided early on that slavery is a no-go.Life, liberty, and property are rights, not entitlements.
Entitlements are bullshit leeching.
When the government takes your liberty or property in order to fund others' "entitlements", that's the opposite of protecting our rights.Should we anyway provide minimal health care for the poor?
Of course, but only because diseases are contagious, not because it's any sort of right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31307836</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267387260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else. </i> <br> <br>
Considering that the money spent on the military, police and intelligence (not to mention all the money that is channelled into the military-industrial complex as kickbacks) is quite a bit greater than that spent on healthcare and education, and furthermore that the cost of healthcare would go down under a socialised system -- your argument doesn't make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one set is free , the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else .
Considering that the money spent on the military , police and intelligence ( not to mention all the money that is channelled into the military-industrial complex as kickbacks ) is quite a bit greater than that spent on healthcare and education , and furthermore that the cost of healthcare would go down under a socialised system -- your argument does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
Considering that the money spent on the military, police and intelligence (not to mention all the money that is channelled into the military-industrial complex as kickbacks) is quite a bit greater than that spent on healthcare and education, and furthermore that the cost of healthcare would go down under a socialised system -- your argument doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31302698</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1267292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I need a bit more explanation than this.</p><p>Take for example this Medicare thing. It seems about 35-40 million Americans depend on it.<br><a href="http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf" title="kff.org">http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf</a> [kff.org]</p><p>I suppose for most of them, they would not survive without this support.</p><p>Given that apparently a large part of the USA populace is in favour of cutting Medicare spending, does this mean that they would like to see these 35 million or so people die?</p><p>That would be about 1 in 7 Americans, probably a lot of them children and elderly, who are not able to provide for themselves trough a paying job?</p><p>Or am I not understanding this Medicare program, and is it mainly spent on cosmetic surgery or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I need a bit more explanation than this.Take for example this Medicare thing .
It seems about 35-40 million Americans depend on it.http : //www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf [ kff.org ] I suppose for most of them , they would not survive without this support.Given that apparently a large part of the USA populace is in favour of cutting Medicare spending , does this mean that they would like to see these 35 million or so people die ? That would be about 1 in 7 Americans , probably a lot of them children and elderly , who are not able to provide for themselves trough a paying job ? Or am I not understanding this Medicare program , and is it mainly spent on cosmetic surgery or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need a bit more explanation than this.Take for example this Medicare thing.
It seems about 35-40 million Americans depend on it.http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf [kff.org]I suppose for most of them, they would not survive without this support.Given that apparently a large part of the USA populace is in favour of cutting Medicare spending, does this mean that they would like to see these 35 million or so people die?That would be about 1 in 7 Americans, probably a lot of them children and elderly, who are not able to provide for themselves trough a paying job?Or am I not understanding this Medicare program, and is it mainly spent on cosmetic surgery or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</id>
	<title>What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear Americans so often talk of this so-called "entitlement mentality". It is a confusing concept for us non-Americans.</p><p>On one hand, many Americans claim there are certain abstract concepts that are inalienable. That is, things that everybody is entitled to, without having to earn it. Freedom of expression, the right to life, the right to bear arms, and so forth.</p><p>Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later, and complain about how other Americans have an "entitlement mentality" when these other people want such basic things as affordable (not even "free"!) health care, or even a slight degree of job security.</p><p>What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear Americans so often talk of this so-called " entitlement mentality " .
It is a confusing concept for us non-Americans.On one hand , many Americans claim there are certain abstract concepts that are inalienable .
That is , things that everybody is entitled to , without having to earn it .
Freedom of expression , the right to life , the right to bear arms , and so forth.Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later , and complain about how other Americans have an " entitlement mentality " when these other people want such basic things as affordable ( not even " free " !
) health care , or even a slight degree of job security.What differentiates between those ideas that it 's okay to feel " entitled " to , versus those that lead to a " entitlement mentality " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear Americans so often talk of this so-called "entitlement mentality".
It is a confusing concept for us non-Americans.On one hand, many Americans claim there are certain abstract concepts that are inalienable.
That is, things that everybody is entitled to, without having to earn it.
Freedom of expression, the right to life, the right to bear arms, and so forth.Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later, and complain about how other Americans have an "entitlement mentality" when these other people want such basic things as affordable (not even "free"!
) health care, or even a slight degree of job security.What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31311730</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1267375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations, investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators.</p> </div><p>Uh-oh. Anyone else just get serious Shuttle deja-vu?</p><p>Though Constellation looked like crap to me too, but... well... isn't 'flagship technology demonstration' what the Shuttle could be charitably described as? Turns out it wasn't a particularly good idea to both cut costs and focus on one vehicle, and make that vehicle use bleeding-edge technology which would rapidly become obsolete while still remaining fragile.</p><p>And NASA has done plenty of tech demos since Shuttle - it's just that they seem to keep somehow never turning into actual products.</p><p>Still, I guess anything's got to be better than Constellation... surely?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations , investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators .
Uh-oh. Anyone else just get serious Shuttle deja-vu ? Though Constellation looked like crap to me too , but... well... is n't 'flagship technology demonstration ' what the Shuttle could be charitably described as ?
Turns out it was n't a particularly good idea to both cut costs and focus on one vehicle , and make that vehicle use bleeding-edge technology which would rapidly become obsolete while still remaining fragile.And NASA has done plenty of tech demos since Shuttle - it 's just that they seem to keep somehow never turning into actual products.Still , I guess anything 's got to be better than Constellation... surely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations, investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators.
Uh-oh. Anyone else just get serious Shuttle deja-vu?Though Constellation looked like crap to me too, but... well... isn't 'flagship technology demonstration' what the Shuttle could be charitably described as?
Turns out it wasn't a particularly good idea to both cut costs and focus on one vehicle, and make that vehicle use bleeding-edge technology which would rapidly become obsolete while still remaining fragile.And NASA has done plenty of tech demos since Shuttle - it's just that they seem to keep somehow never turning into actual products.Still, I guess anything's got to be better than Constellation... surely?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31316090</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Big\_Breaker</author>
	<datestamp>1267458960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>QuickLaunch is one of the most interesting concepts for cheap LEO launches I have ever seen.  It could make LEO incredibly cheap for hardened payloads (everything but people).  Traditional chemical rockets or Virgin Galactic style two stage vehicles can transport the squishy and relatively light weight humans.</p><p>http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/quicklaunch</p><p>With one of these firing five times a day, it is really feasable to put a space tug in place for boosting orbits and repairing satellites, establish a fuel depot in LEO and even work on massive projects like a skyhook - the LEO hyper velocity kind that we actually have the cable to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>QuickLaunch is one of the most interesting concepts for cheap LEO launches I have ever seen .
It could make LEO incredibly cheap for hardened payloads ( everything but people ) .
Traditional chemical rockets or Virgin Galactic style two stage vehicles can transport the squishy and relatively light weight humans.http : //www.popsci.com/category/tags/quicklaunchWith one of these firing five times a day , it is really feasable to put a space tug in place for boosting orbits and repairing satellites , establish a fuel depot in LEO and even work on massive projects like a skyhook - the LEO hyper velocity kind that we actually have the cable to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QuickLaunch is one of the most interesting concepts for cheap LEO launches I have ever seen.
It could make LEO incredibly cheap for hardened payloads (everything but people).
Traditional chemical rockets or Virgin Galactic style two stage vehicles can transport the squishy and relatively light weight humans.http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/quicklaunchWith one of these firing five times a day, it is really feasable to put a space tug in place for boosting orbits and repairing satellites, establish a fuel depot in LEO and even work on massive projects like a skyhook - the LEO hyper velocity kind that we actually have the cable to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</id>
	<title>Of Course</title>
	<author>DarkKnightRadick</author>
	<datestamp>1267298880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could continue the Constellation project - or sell out to private companies - and quit letting the government take over health care.</p><p>Since neither will happen, not sure what else we can do. We've lost our backbone for adventure as we've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could continue the Constellation project - or sell out to private companies - and quit letting the government take over health care.Since neither will happen , not sure what else we can do .
We 've lost our backbone for adventure as we 've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could continue the Constellation project - or sell out to private companies - and quit letting the government take over health care.Since neither will happen, not sure what else we can do.
We've lost our backbone for adventure as we've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299072</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1267303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be quite bad for NASA to continue the Constellation project, as it miserably fails to achieve any of the goals which were set forth for in the Vision for Space Exploration; the VSE is what Constellation was ostensibly designed to fulfill. From the 2004 VSE:</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main\_vision\_space\_exploration2.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main\_vision\_space\_exploration2.pdf</a> [nasa.gov] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Goal and Objectives<br>The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:<br>* Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and<br>beyond;<br>* Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;<br>* Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and<br>* Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.</p></div><p>Let's look at these original goals one by one and compare them to Constellation vs. the new plan:</p><p><b>Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and<br>beyond</b></p><p>Constellation was pretty much the opposite of sustained and affordable, with costs constantly increasing and an ever-slipping deadline. Not only that, but Constellation's going overbudget resulted in the cancellation of many human and robotic projects which would have contributed to making exploration sustainable and affordable.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html" title="nasa.gov">new plan for NASA</a> [nasa.gov] places sustainable and affordable exploration as its primary goals, allowing us to make steady progress towards expanding into the inner solar system, with key near-term development and in-space tests of technologies like  propellant depots, cost-effective access to orbit, nuclear propulsion, lightweight manned modules, in situ resource utilization (asteroid/moon mining), and nuclear electric propulsion. All of these things were unfunded under the old plan.</p><p><b>Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations</b></p><p>According to the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf" title="nasa.gov">Augustine Committee's report</a> [nasa.gov], Constellation wouldn't have been able to even produce the Ares I (essentially an in-house duplicate of the existing Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 rockets) by 2017-2019, which would have only been able to transport astronauts to the ISS several years after the ISS had splashed into the ocean. They wouldn't even be able to develop a lunar lander until "well into the 2030s, if ever," or the mid-2020s if NASA got a massive funding boost.</p><p>Under the new plan, IOC for several competing commercial crew vehicles is 2014/2015. The precise plan is still being formulated, but it's likely to involve propellant depots in low-Earth orbit and the EML-1 lagrange point in this decade, which makes the Moon (and near-Earth asteroids, and Phobos, and ultimately Mars) much easier to access for both robots and humans, using already-existing rockets.</p><p><b>Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration;</b></p><p>If you read through the documents which established Constellation, innovative technologies were deliberately excluded, as they didn't want to have to re-adapt the 15/20-year program if any of those technologies worked out differently than expected. Avoiding innovative kind of makes sense for short-term projects, but for a long-term project pretty much guarantees that your end product is going to be obsolete when it's released. Or at least, it would be obsolete if NASA didn't also manage to end funding for pretty much any innovative space tech.</p><p>The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations, investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators. It also restarts the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, which specifically studies blue-sky technologies which would be useful more than 10 years from now, while also ensuring that investments are made to bring technologies through the long process of going from the "blue-sky" stage to fully operating in space.</p><p><b>Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.</b></p><p>International and cooperation were regarded as small side-items in the old plan, while the new plan intends to leverage them as much as possible. We learned a lot from the ISS about how NOT to do international cooperation (i.e. don't pay for just about everything in a feeble attempt to keep Russian rocket engineers from going to Iran and North Korea), and take advantage of those lessons learned as we go forwards.</p><p>In general though, it's looking like it'll be tough indeed to kill off Constellation. It was designed by Michael Griffin to be such a large behemoth that it would be "too big to fail," but now that it has in fact failed to achieve its goals it's simply become "too big to cancel." With the new plans, the goal is to make sure that more flexible short-term contracts with multiple competitors are used, allowing our space plans to adapt based on how technologies progress and scientific findings. It ensures that contractors have to compete with each other constantly to meet the needs of NASA, rather than the other way around, which is the current state of affairs where NASA has to struggle to formulate their logn-term plans in a way which pleases as many contractors in various Congressional districts as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be quite bad for NASA to continue the Constellation project , as it miserably fails to achieve any of the goals which were set forth for in the Vision for Space Exploration ; the VSE is what Constellation was ostensibly designed to fulfill .
From the 2004 VSE : http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main \ _vision \ _space \ _exploration2.pdf [ nasa.gov ] Goal and ObjectivesThe fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific , security , and economic interests through a robust space exploration program .
In support of this goal , the United States will : * Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system andbeyond ; * Extend human presence across the solar system , starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020 , in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations ; * Develop the innovative technologies , knowledge , and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration ; and * Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific , security , and economic interests.Let 's look at these original goals one by one and compare them to Constellation vs. the new plan : Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system andbeyondConstellation was pretty much the opposite of sustained and affordable , with costs constantly increasing and an ever-slipping deadline .
Not only that , but Constellation 's going overbudget resulted in the cancellation of many human and robotic projects which would have contributed to making exploration sustainable and affordable.The new plan for NASA [ nasa.gov ] places sustainable and affordable exploration as its primary goals , allowing us to make steady progress towards expanding into the inner solar system , with key near-term development and in-space tests of technologies like propellant depots , cost-effective access to orbit , nuclear propulsion , lightweight manned modules , in situ resource utilization ( asteroid/moon mining ) , and nuclear electric propulsion .
All of these things were unfunded under the old plan.Extend human presence across the solar system , starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020 , in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinationsAccording to the Augustine Committee 's report [ nasa.gov ] , Constellation would n't have been able to even produce the Ares I ( essentially an in-house duplicate of the existing Atlas V , Delta IV , and Falcon 9 rockets ) by 2017-2019 , which would have only been able to transport astronauts to the ISS several years after the ISS had splashed into the ocean .
They would n't even be able to develop a lunar lander until " well into the 2030s , if ever , " or the mid-2020s if NASA got a massive funding boost.Under the new plan , IOC for several competing commercial crew vehicles is 2014/2015 .
The precise plan is still being formulated , but it 's likely to involve propellant depots in low-Earth orbit and the EML-1 lagrange point in this decade , which makes the Moon ( and near-Earth asteroids , and Phobos , and ultimately Mars ) much easier to access for both robots and humans , using already-existing rockets.Develop the innovative technologies , knowledge , and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration ; If you read through the documents which established Constellation , innovative technologies were deliberately excluded , as they did n't want to have to re-adapt the 15/20-year program if any of those technologies worked out differently than expected .
Avoiding innovative kind of makes sense for short-term projects , but for a long-term project pretty much guarantees that your end product is going to be obsolete when it 's released .
Or at least , it would be obsolete if NASA did n't also manage to end funding for pretty much any innovative space tech.The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations , investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators .
It also restarts the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts , which specifically studies blue-sky technologies which would be useful more than 10 years from now , while also ensuring that investments are made to bring technologies through the long process of going from the " blue-sky " stage to fully operating in space.Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific , security , and economic interests.International and cooperation were regarded as small side-items in the old plan , while the new plan intends to leverage them as much as possible .
We learned a lot from the ISS about how NOT to do international cooperation ( i.e .
do n't pay for just about everything in a feeble attempt to keep Russian rocket engineers from going to Iran and North Korea ) , and take advantage of those lessons learned as we go forwards.In general though , it 's looking like it 'll be tough indeed to kill off Constellation .
It was designed by Michael Griffin to be such a large behemoth that it would be " too big to fail , " but now that it has in fact failed to achieve its goals it 's simply become " too big to cancel .
" With the new plans , the goal is to make sure that more flexible short-term contracts with multiple competitors are used , allowing our space plans to adapt based on how technologies progress and scientific findings .
It ensures that contractors have to compete with each other constantly to meet the needs of NASA , rather than the other way around , which is the current state of affairs where NASA has to struggle to formulate their logn-term plans in a way which pleases as many contractors in various Congressional districts as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be quite bad for NASA to continue the Constellation project, as it miserably fails to achieve any of the goals which were set forth for in the Vision for Space Exploration; the VSE is what Constellation was ostensibly designed to fulfill.
From the 2004 VSE:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main\_vision\_space\_exploration2.pdf [nasa.gov] Goal and ObjectivesThe fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.
In support of this goal, the United States will:* Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system andbeyond;* Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;* Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and* Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.Let's look at these original goals one by one and compare them to Constellation vs. the new plan:Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system andbeyondConstellation was pretty much the opposite of sustained and affordable, with costs constantly increasing and an ever-slipping deadline.
Not only that, but Constellation's going overbudget resulted in the cancellation of many human and robotic projects which would have contributed to making exploration sustainable and affordable.The new plan for NASA [nasa.gov] places sustainable and affordable exploration as its primary goals, allowing us to make steady progress towards expanding into the inner solar system, with key near-term development and in-space tests of technologies like  propellant depots, cost-effective access to orbit, nuclear propulsion, lightweight manned modules, in situ resource utilization (asteroid/moon mining), and nuclear electric propulsion.
All of these things were unfunded under the old plan.Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinationsAccording to the Augustine Committee's report [nasa.gov], Constellation wouldn't have been able to even produce the Ares I (essentially an in-house duplicate of the existing Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 rockets) by 2017-2019, which would have only been able to transport astronauts to the ISS several years after the ISS had splashed into the ocean.
They wouldn't even be able to develop a lunar lander until "well into the 2030s, if ever," or the mid-2020s if NASA got a massive funding boost.Under the new plan, IOC for several competing commercial crew vehicles is 2014/2015.
The precise plan is still being formulated, but it's likely to involve propellant depots in low-Earth orbit and the EML-1 lagrange point in this decade, which makes the Moon (and near-Earth asteroids, and Phobos, and ultimately Mars) much easier to access for both robots and humans, using already-existing rockets.Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration;If you read through the documents which established Constellation, innovative technologies were deliberately excluded, as they didn't want to have to re-adapt the 15/20-year program if any of those technologies worked out differently than expected.
Avoiding innovative kind of makes sense for short-term projects, but for a long-term project pretty much guarantees that your end product is going to be obsolete when it's released.
Or at least, it would be obsolete if NASA didn't also manage to end funding for pretty much any innovative space tech.The new plan uses new technologies as one of its foundations, investing in near-term flagship technology demonstrators.
It also restarts the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, which specifically studies blue-sky technologies which would be useful more than 10 years from now, while also ensuring that investments are made to bring technologies through the long process of going from the "blue-sky" stage to fully operating in space.Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.International and cooperation were regarded as small side-items in the old plan, while the new plan intends to leverage them as much as possible.
We learned a lot from the ISS about how NOT to do international cooperation (i.e.
don't pay for just about everything in a feeble attempt to keep Russian rocket engineers from going to Iran and North Korea), and take advantage of those lessons learned as we go forwards.In general though, it's looking like it'll be tough indeed to kill off Constellation.
It was designed by Michael Griffin to be such a large behemoth that it would be "too big to fail," but now that it has in fact failed to achieve its goals it's simply become "too big to cancel.
" With the new plans, the goal is to make sure that more flexible short-term contracts with multiple competitors are used, allowing our space plans to adapt based on how technologies progress and scientific findings.
It ensures that contractors have to compete with each other constantly to meet the needs of NASA, rather than the other way around, which is the current state of affairs where NASA has to struggle to formulate their logn-term plans in a way which pleases as many contractors in various Congressional districts as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300810</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267276620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything that non-white and/or non-rich people want is considered an "entitlement mentality". That should tell you all you need to know about what *that* codeword means...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that non-white and/or non-rich people want is considered an " entitlement mentality " .
That should tell you all you need to know about what * that * codeword means.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that non-white and/or non-rich people want is considered an "entitlement mentality".
That should tell you all you need to know about what *that* codeword means...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31305860</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wall Street has a pretty healthy 'entitlement mentality'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wall Street has a pretty healthy 'entitlement mentality' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wall Street has a pretty healthy 'entitlement mentality'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299982</id>
	<title>Rights</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1267268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As explained by the likes of John Locke, the idea of fundamental human rights stems from the idea that you are your own sole master -- or in a religious wording, that nobody can claim ownership over you but God. Therefore, if anyone kills you, or enslaves you, or forces you to work for their benefit, they've infringed on this ownership. This idea of life, liberty and property stands in sharp contrast to ideas like a "right to health care", because the modern "rights" <i>necessarily</i> involve using force to violate other people's lives, liberty or property. To grant your right to live -- that is, to not have anyone take your life by force -- all I have to do is not murder you. To grant your supposed right to health care, I have to work and let you take the product of my labor by force. Meaning that you claim partial ownership over my labor and my thoughts, independent of the practical argument that we must tax people to protect their rights against each other's aggression. To turn a "right to life" into a "right to take anything you need to live" has the same problem of innately violating other people's rights.<br> <br>
The fact that Americans are now divided by whether they accept what I (and our Founders) said is why we might, unfortunately, be headed for civil war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As explained by the likes of John Locke , the idea of fundamental human rights stems from the idea that you are your own sole master -- or in a religious wording , that nobody can claim ownership over you but God .
Therefore , if anyone kills you , or enslaves you , or forces you to work for their benefit , they 've infringed on this ownership .
This idea of life , liberty and property stands in sharp contrast to ideas like a " right to health care " , because the modern " rights " necessarily involve using force to violate other people 's lives , liberty or property .
To grant your right to live -- that is , to not have anyone take your life by force -- all I have to do is not murder you .
To grant your supposed right to health care , I have to work and let you take the product of my labor by force .
Meaning that you claim partial ownership over my labor and my thoughts , independent of the practical argument that we must tax people to protect their rights against each other 's aggression .
To turn a " right to life " into a " right to take anything you need to live " has the same problem of innately violating other people 's rights .
The fact that Americans are now divided by whether they accept what I ( and our Founders ) said is why we might , unfortunately , be headed for civil war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As explained by the likes of John Locke, the idea of fundamental human rights stems from the idea that you are your own sole master -- or in a religious wording, that nobody can claim ownership over you but God.
Therefore, if anyone kills you, or enslaves you, or forces you to work for their benefit, they've infringed on this ownership.
This idea of life, liberty and property stands in sharp contrast to ideas like a "right to health care", because the modern "rights" necessarily involve using force to violate other people's lives, liberty or property.
To grant your right to live -- that is, to not have anyone take your life by force -- all I have to do is not murder you.
To grant your supposed right to health care, I have to work and let you take the product of my labor by force.
Meaning that you claim partial ownership over my labor and my thoughts, independent of the practical argument that we must tax people to protect their rights against each other's aggression.
To turn a "right to life" into a "right to take anything you need to live" has the same problem of innately violating other people's rights.
The fact that Americans are now divided by whether they accept what I (and our Founders) said is why we might, unfortunately, be headed for civil war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267263120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?</p></div></blockquote><p>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
</p><p>If the "someone else" then gets the notion that he has a "right" to my money, problems come up.
</p><p>Note, by the by, that few Americans are categorically opposed to a social safety net.  The debate is usually over the size (and cost) of the net, not the presence or absence of a net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What differentiates between those ideas that it 's okay to feel " entitled " to , versus those that lead to a " entitlement mentality " ? The one set is free , the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else .
If the " someone else " then gets the notion that he has a " right " to my money , problems come up .
Note , by the by , that few Americans are categorically opposed to a social safety net .
The debate is usually over the size ( and cost ) of the net , not the presence or absence of a net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
If the "someone else" then gets the notion that he has a "right" to my money, problems come up.
Note, by the by, that few Americans are categorically opposed to a social safety net.
The debate is usually over the size (and cost) of the net, not the presence or absence of a net.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299690</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me see if I can explain it to you from what I think is the perspective of the people that usually use the phrase:</p><p>The "entitlement mentality" is what the elderly, the sick, the poor, the jobless, the young (education), people in disaster areas, veterans, and so on have when they say the word "help".  See, they have this presumptuous expectation that they should receive help from the rest of us via the government.  We, the hard-working taxpayers that have never required, used, or benefited from any kind of government assistance ourselves are supposed to tell them "screw off", "solve your own problems", "get a real job, you loser", and other  historically successful social solutions.</p><p>If we do that enough we will enter a golden age where budgets are balanced and only non-mandatory spending on things as the military, judiciary, border security, and other essential things are necessary, thus enabling us to lower taxes greatly and keep more of our own money to ourselves.  If feeling generous, we could then use some of that extra money to set up private poor houses and similar charitable work, but it would be our choice whether or not to do so.</p><p>Or something like that.  I gather it's a fairly popular sentiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me see if I can explain it to you from what I think is the perspective of the people that usually use the phrase : The " entitlement mentality " is what the elderly , the sick , the poor , the jobless , the young ( education ) , people in disaster areas , veterans , and so on have when they say the word " help " .
See , they have this presumptuous expectation that they should receive help from the rest of us via the government .
We , the hard-working taxpayers that have never required , used , or benefited from any kind of government assistance ourselves are supposed to tell them " screw off " , " solve your own problems " , " get a real job , you loser " , and other historically successful social solutions.If we do that enough we will enter a golden age where budgets are balanced and only non-mandatory spending on things as the military , judiciary , border security , and other essential things are necessary , thus enabling us to lower taxes greatly and keep more of our own money to ourselves .
If feeling generous , we could then use some of that extra money to set up private poor houses and similar charitable work , but it would be our choice whether or not to do so.Or something like that .
I gather it 's a fairly popular sentiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me see if I can explain it to you from what I think is the perspective of the people that usually use the phrase:The "entitlement mentality" is what the elderly, the sick, the poor, the jobless, the young (education), people in disaster areas, veterans, and so on have when they say the word "help".
See, they have this presumptuous expectation that they should receive help from the rest of us via the government.
We, the hard-working taxpayers that have never required, used, or benefited from any kind of government assistance ourselves are supposed to tell them "screw off", "solve your own problems", "get a real job, you loser", and other  historically successful social solutions.If we do that enough we will enter a golden age where budgets are balanced and only non-mandatory spending on things as the military, judiciary, border security, and other essential things are necessary, thus enabling us to lower taxes greatly and keep more of our own money to ourselves.
If feeling generous, we could then use some of that extra money to set up private poor houses and similar charitable work, but it would be our choice whether or not to do so.Or something like that.
I gather it's a fairly popular sentiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300356</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Jacked</author>
	<datestamp>1267272540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have any mod points, so I'll just post an agreement, instead.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
</p><p>If the "someone else" then gets the notion that he has a "right" to my money, problems come up.
</p></div><p>Exactly, that's what most people don't seem to get.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any mod points , so I 'll just post an agreement , instead.The one set is free , the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else .
If the " someone else " then gets the notion that he has a " right " to my money , problems come up .
Exactly , that 's what most people do n't seem to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any mod points, so I'll just post an agreement, instead.The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
If the "someone else" then gets the notion that he has a "right" to my money, problems come up.
Exactly, that's what most people don't seem to get.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298866</id>
	<title>New HTML tag needed</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1267302540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and quit letting the government take over health care.</p></div><p>needs a kneejerk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/kneejerk tag</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and quit letting the government take over health care.needs a kneejerk /kneejerk tag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and quit letting the government take over health care.needs a kneejerk /kneejerk tag
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299874</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1267267680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.</p></div><p>Which rights, pray tell, are the "free" ones, that cost no money, effort, or lives to enforce?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one set is free , the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.Which rights , pray tell , are the " free " ones , that cost no money , effort , or lives to enforce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.Which rights, pray tell, are the "free" ones, that cost no money, effort, or lives to enforce?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301558</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's<br>&gt; sake - if it really was a choice between socialised<br>&gt; healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel,<br>&gt; I'd still put the former first.<br><br>I disagree, strongly.  The government doesn't have a long history of screwing up space exploration extremely badly.  Arguably they've paid too much for some things, but other than that NASA hasn't done a bad job.  And even if they DO a bad job with space exploration, it's not that big a deal.<br><br>Health care, on the other hand, is far too important to let the government run it.  I'm pretty sure they'll run socialized health care with approximately the same level of competence and skill they've displayed running Medicare and Social Security.  Do Not Want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I wish there was more money for space , but for heaven 's &gt; sake - if it really was a choice between socialised &gt; healthcare for people , or socialised manned space travel , &gt; I 'd still put the former first.I disagree , strongly .
The government does n't have a long history of screwing up space exploration extremely badly .
Arguably they 've paid too much for some things , but other than that NASA has n't done a bad job .
And even if they DO a bad job with space exploration , it 's not that big a deal.Health care , on the other hand , is far too important to let the government run it .
I 'm pretty sure they 'll run socialized health care with approximately the same level of competence and skill they 've displayed running Medicare and Social Security .
Do Not Want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's&gt; sake - if it really was a choice between socialised&gt; healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel,&gt; I'd still put the former first.I disagree, strongly.
The government doesn't have a long history of screwing up space exploration extremely badly.
Arguably they've paid too much for some things, but other than that NASA hasn't done a bad job.
And even if they DO a bad job with space exploration, it's not that big a deal.Health care, on the other hand, is far too important to let the government run it.
I'm pretty sure they'll run socialized health care with approximately the same level of competence and skill they've displayed running Medicare and Social Security.
Do Not Want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299638</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later, and complain about how other Americans have an "entitlement mentality" when these other people want such basic things as affordable (not even "free"!) health care, or even a slight degree of job security.</p><p>What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?</p></div><p>The fact that inalienable rights are things which nobody has to give you - the only reason we even talk about them is because others have tried to <i>take them away</i>.  Whereas the "rights" you're talking about inherently depend on someone else.  Health care isn't something you're born with, or something you'll find in the middle of a jungle - it's something that requires the labor of another person.  You can not have a right which requires someone else to do things for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later , and complain about how other Americans have an " entitlement mentality " when these other people want such basic things as affordable ( not even " free " !
) health care , or even a slight degree of job security.What differentiates between those ideas that it 's okay to feel " entitled " to , versus those that lead to a " entitlement mentality " ? The fact that inalienable rights are things which nobody has to give you - the only reason we even talk about them is because others have tried to take them away .
Whereas the " rights " you 're talking about inherently depend on someone else .
Health care is n't something you 're born with , or something you 'll find in the middle of a jungle - it 's something that requires the labor of another person .
You can not have a right which requires someone else to do things for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet those same Americans will turn around seconds later, and complain about how other Americans have an "entitlement mentality" when these other people want such basic things as affordable (not even "free"!
) health care, or even a slight degree of job security.What differentiates between those ideas that it's okay to feel "entitled" to, versus those that lead to a "entitlement mentality"?The fact that inalienable rights are things which nobody has to give you - the only reason we even talk about them is because others have tried to take them away.
Whereas the "rights" you're talking about inherently depend on someone else.
Health care isn't something you're born with, or something you'll find in the middle of a jungle - it's something that requires the labor of another person.
You can not have a right which requires someone else to do things for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300072</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1267269480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please note that you are not entitled to life. You are only entitled to your right to life. How you implement this right is up to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please note that you are not entitled to life .
You are only entitled to your right to life .
How you implement this right is up to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please note that you are not entitled to life.
You are only entitled to your right to life.
How you implement this right is up to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Frnknstn</author>
	<datestamp>1267262160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your entitlements:</p><p>1. Life<br>2. Liberty<br>3. Pursuit of happiness.</p><p>Health care fall under number 1. Why do you believe you are entitled to adventure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your entitlements : 1 .
Life2. Liberty3 .
Pursuit of happiness.Health care fall under number 1 .
Why do you believe you are entitled to adventure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your entitlements:1.
Life2. Liberty3.
Pursuit of happiness.Health care fall under number 1.
Why do you believe you are entitled to adventure?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300438</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>SteveFoerster</author>
	<datestamp>1267273200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.</em></p><p>In that case I'd definitely pick the latter, since we can better withstand mediocre manned space travel than mediocre healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there was more money for space , but for heaven 's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people , or socialised manned space travel , I 'd still put the former first.In that case I 'd definitely pick the latter , since we can better withstand mediocre manned space travel than mediocre healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.In that case I'd definitely pick the latter, since we can better withstand mediocre manned space travel than mediocre healthcare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300134</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>SirWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1267270020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We don't need humans in space for other than<br>&gt; entertainment reasons at this point in time.</p><p>I disagree entirely.  We're never going to answer the big questions by manipulating tiny little payload-limited rovers from millions of miles away on a speed-of-light-imposed time delay.  As an example, if there really is microbial life on Mars, we've probably been accomplishing nothing but cooking it with the primitive methods we've been trying to use to find its traces.  If instead we'd had either a manned landing or a presumably cheaper and/or safer manned spacecraft in Mars orbit directly manipulating large rovers, with far more extensive scientific testing capabilities, in realtime--we'd have found any traces of past or present life if they exist near the surface, without question.</p><p>That to me is a world-changing event waiting to happen--finding irrefutable traces of life on another planet would broaden more minds all across the globe than any other event in human history.  Most people are still very tribal and local and narrow-minded folks who put themselves, their inherited beliefs, and their limited view of the universe at the center of everything they do.  Proof that life is so common as to exist right next door elsewhere in our solar system, and that Earth isn't a special and privileged ball placed by God at the center of the universe with everything out there just to support us, would remake the way many or most people view...everything.</p><p>If that isn't worth tens of billions of dollars, nothing is.  We can't retard the progress and evolution of all of mankind to make the poorest few percent a little less poor.  We don't let the slowest learner in the class dictate the speed and level of education for everyone else.  It's sad, but by necessity some few people will always fall behind; we can try to help them as well as we can without dragging everyone else down, but ultimately we must compromise with a few to advance the many.</p><p>Manned exploration of our solar system is expensive, but it's the only way to definitively answer the big questions and so must be undertaken sooner rather than later.  We put men on the Moon within less than a decade after committing to it, nearly 50 years ago.  Today's goal should be putting people either on Mars or within Mars orbit with large scientific capabilities within 20 years.  It can and should be done, and if when there they find definitive traces of past or present Martian life...the world will change, evolve, and broaden almost overnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We do n't need humans in space for other than &gt; entertainment reasons at this point in time.I disagree entirely .
We 're never going to answer the big questions by manipulating tiny little payload-limited rovers from millions of miles away on a speed-of-light-imposed time delay .
As an example , if there really is microbial life on Mars , we 've probably been accomplishing nothing but cooking it with the primitive methods we 've been trying to use to find its traces .
If instead we 'd had either a manned landing or a presumably cheaper and/or safer manned spacecraft in Mars orbit directly manipulating large rovers , with far more extensive scientific testing capabilities , in realtime--we 'd have found any traces of past or present life if they exist near the surface , without question.That to me is a world-changing event waiting to happen--finding irrefutable traces of life on another planet would broaden more minds all across the globe than any other event in human history .
Most people are still very tribal and local and narrow-minded folks who put themselves , their inherited beliefs , and their limited view of the universe at the center of everything they do .
Proof that life is so common as to exist right next door elsewhere in our solar system , and that Earth is n't a special and privileged ball placed by God at the center of the universe with everything out there just to support us , would remake the way many or most people view...everything.If that is n't worth tens of billions of dollars , nothing is .
We ca n't retard the progress and evolution of all of mankind to make the poorest few percent a little less poor .
We do n't let the slowest learner in the class dictate the speed and level of education for everyone else .
It 's sad , but by necessity some few people will always fall behind ; we can try to help them as well as we can without dragging everyone else down , but ultimately we must compromise with a few to advance the many.Manned exploration of our solar system is expensive , but it 's the only way to definitively answer the big questions and so must be undertaken sooner rather than later .
We put men on the Moon within less than a decade after committing to it , nearly 50 years ago .
Today 's goal should be putting people either on Mars or within Mars orbit with large scientific capabilities within 20 years .
It can and should be done , and if when there they find definitive traces of past or present Martian life...the world will change , evolve , and broaden almost overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We don't need humans in space for other than&gt; entertainment reasons at this point in time.I disagree entirely.
We're never going to answer the big questions by manipulating tiny little payload-limited rovers from millions of miles away on a speed-of-light-imposed time delay.
As an example, if there really is microbial life on Mars, we've probably been accomplishing nothing but cooking it with the primitive methods we've been trying to use to find its traces.
If instead we'd had either a manned landing or a presumably cheaper and/or safer manned spacecraft in Mars orbit directly manipulating large rovers, with far more extensive scientific testing capabilities, in realtime--we'd have found any traces of past or present life if they exist near the surface, without question.That to me is a world-changing event waiting to happen--finding irrefutable traces of life on another planet would broaden more minds all across the globe than any other event in human history.
Most people are still very tribal and local and narrow-minded folks who put themselves, their inherited beliefs, and their limited view of the universe at the center of everything they do.
Proof that life is so common as to exist right next door elsewhere in our solar system, and that Earth isn't a special and privileged ball placed by God at the center of the universe with everything out there just to support us, would remake the way many or most people view...everything.If that isn't worth tens of billions of dollars, nothing is.
We can't retard the progress and evolution of all of mankind to make the poorest few percent a little less poor.
We don't let the slowest learner in the class dictate the speed and level of education for everyone else.
It's sad, but by necessity some few people will always fall behind; we can try to help them as well as we can without dragging everyone else down, but ultimately we must compromise with a few to advance the many.Manned exploration of our solar system is expensive, but it's the only way to definitively answer the big questions and so must be undertaken sooner rather than later.
We put men on the Moon within less than a decade after committing to it, nearly 50 years ago.
Today's goal should be putting people either on Mars or within Mars orbit with large scientific capabilities within 20 years.
It can and should be done, and if when there they find definitive traces of past or present Martian life...the world will change, evolve, and broaden almost overnight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</id>
	<title>false dichotomy</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267300920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.</p><p>But it's not one or the other. Curiously this false dichotomy is used by people against manned space travel. After all, the argument against the common "But the are more important things to spend money on than manned space travel" is not to somehow argue that manned space travel is more important than people living and having basic needs, but to point out that there can be money for both. As one example, perhaps if they spent slightly less on a socialised military, there'd be plenty of money for both socialised healthcare and socialised manned space travel.</p><p><i>We've lost our backbone for adventure as we've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources.</i></p><p>Yes, obviously it's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources, obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space. There's no "entitlement" here - your view on how taxes should be spent is no less an "entitlement mentality" than anyone else's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there was more money for space , but for heaven 's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people , or socialised manned space travel , I 'd still put the former first.But it 's not one or the other .
Curiously this false dichotomy is used by people against manned space travel .
After all , the argument against the common " But the are more important things to spend money on than manned space travel " is not to somehow argue that manned space travel is more important than people living and having basic needs , but to point out that there can be money for both .
As one example , perhaps if they spent slightly less on a socialised military , there 'd be plenty of money for both socialised healthcare and socialised manned space travel.We 've lost our backbone for adventure as we 've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources.Yes , obviously it 's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources , obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space .
There 's no " entitlement " here - your view on how taxes should be spent is no less an " entitlement mentality " than anyone else 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.But it's not one or the other.
Curiously this false dichotomy is used by people against manned space travel.
After all, the argument against the common "But the are more important things to spend money on than manned space travel" is not to somehow argue that manned space travel is more important than people living and having basic needs, but to point out that there can be money for both.
As one example, perhaps if they spent slightly less on a socialised military, there'd be plenty of money for both socialised healthcare and socialised manned space travel.We've lost our backbone for adventure as we've continued to reinforce the entitlement mentality that is draining our country dry of resources.Yes, obviously it's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources, obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space.
There's no "entitlement" here - your view on how taxes should be spent is no less an "entitlement mentality" than anyone else's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299098</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>VennData</author>
	<datestamp>1267304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take over health care? DarkKnightRadick, you need to direct your comments to the seniors who get the benefit of the gov't's current more-than-50\% control of gov't, not slashdotters.

What are you?  What GOP media machine outlet store are you the secret shopper for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take over health care ?
DarkKnightRadick , you need to direct your comments to the seniors who get the benefit of the gov't 's current more-than-50 \ % control of gov't , not slashdotters .
What are you ?
What GOP media machine outlet store are you the secret shopper for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take over health care?
DarkKnightRadick, you need to direct your comments to the seniors who get the benefit of the gov't's current more-than-50\% control of gov't, not slashdotters.
What are you?
What GOP media machine outlet store are you the secret shopper for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299870</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267267620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, obviously it's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources, obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's funny that you believe that people with a sense of entitlement to health care are somehow 'better' than those with a sense of entitlement to go traveling in space.</p><p>I say keep them <i>both</i> the hell out of my wallet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , obviously it 's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources , obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space.It 's funny that you believe that people with a sense of entitlement to health care are somehow 'better ' than those with a sense of entitlement to go traveling in space.I say keep them both the hell out of my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, obviously it's those evil people who are ill who are just draining resources, obviously they should be paying for those who have a sense of entitlement to go travelling in space.It's funny that you believe that people with a sense of entitlement to health care are somehow 'better' than those with a sense of entitlement to go traveling in space.I say keep them both the hell out of my wallet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31312722</id>
	<title>Re:false dichotomy</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About there being enough money... This pie chart really says it all, and end all arguments:<br><a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bailout-pie.png" title="ritholtz.com">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bailout-pie.png</a> [ritholtz.com]</p><p>A Mars base? That&rsquo;s literally a drop in the bucket compared to those other &ldquo;expenses&rdquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About there being enough money... This pie chart really says it all , and end all arguments : http : //www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bailout-pie.png [ ritholtz.com ] A Mars base ?
That    s literally a drop in the bucket compared to those other    expenses    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About there being enough money... This pie chart really says it all, and end all arguments:http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bailout-pie.png [ritholtz.com]A Mars base?
That’s literally a drop in the bucket compared to those other “expenses”.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298848</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Adventure" is what you have when you are too lazy to plan for the long term. We don't need humans in space for other than entertainment reasons at this point in time. Our robots and other remotely operated systems which are preconditions for effective human exploitation of space need vastly more development, and the benefits of making these systems clearly outweigh the entertainment value of sending humans so early.</p><p>Master space with spacefaring machines, exploit the expendability of those machines to gain RAPID development cycles, then send humans for their own amusement after the way has been paved.</p><p>The old idea of "humans first" made sense when humans were utterly expendable and wooden ships were cheap. Those days are over. Humans burden their machines by requiring life support systems, resources, and the return of expeditionary systems to bring humans back. We have a thousand years if we like to perfect the machines we must have anyway. Build and deploy the machines first, and perfect VR suits for those who want to interact with new environments. There will always be a barrier between human and the utterly hostile off-world environment, be it the skin of a space suit or a data link back to Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Adventure " is what you have when you are too lazy to plan for the long term .
We do n't need humans in space for other than entertainment reasons at this point in time .
Our robots and other remotely operated systems which are preconditions for effective human exploitation of space need vastly more development , and the benefits of making these systems clearly outweigh the entertainment value of sending humans so early.Master space with spacefaring machines , exploit the expendability of those machines to gain RAPID development cycles , then send humans for their own amusement after the way has been paved.The old idea of " humans first " made sense when humans were utterly expendable and wooden ships were cheap .
Those days are over .
Humans burden their machines by requiring life support systems , resources , and the return of expeditionary systems to bring humans back .
We have a thousand years if we like to perfect the machines we must have anyway .
Build and deploy the machines first , and perfect VR suits for those who want to interact with new environments .
There will always be a barrier between human and the utterly hostile off-world environment , be it the skin of a space suit or a data link back to Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Adventure" is what you have when you are too lazy to plan for the long term.
We don't need humans in space for other than entertainment reasons at this point in time.
Our robots and other remotely operated systems which are preconditions for effective human exploitation of space need vastly more development, and the benefits of making these systems clearly outweigh the entertainment value of sending humans so early.Master space with spacefaring machines, exploit the expendability of those machines to gain RAPID development cycles, then send humans for their own amusement after the way has been paved.The old idea of "humans first" made sense when humans were utterly expendable and wooden ships were cheap.
Those days are over.
Humans burden their machines by requiring life support systems, resources, and the return of expeditionary systems to bring humans back.
We have a thousand years if we like to perfect the machines we must have anyway.
Build and deploy the machines first, and perfect VR suits for those who want to interact with new environments.
There will always be a barrier between human and the utterly hostile off-world environment, be it the skin of a space suit or a data link back to Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301108</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "entitlement mentality"?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1267279500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is in opportunity vs. outcomes.  The Constitution is based on the idea that people are entitled to the <i>opportunity</i> to achieve, or fail, at our undertakings.  It does NOT guarantees that those undertakings be successful, or that other citizens be held responsible for the success of someone.</p><p>In that sense, every American already does have the right to health care - no government entity is stopping them from getting whatever healthcare they want and can pay for.  If someone cannot afford it, why does that mean that they have the right to have someone else pay for it?  And can force that person to pay for it at the point of a gun?  One might argue that indeed people HAVE that right, but you'll notice that an actual debate about whether such a right exists is singularly absent from the current debate.  THAT's the "sense of entitlement" being referred to - the idea that some should get what they want, payed for by others, without going through the bothersome process of asking for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is in opportunity vs. outcomes. The Constitution is based on the idea that people are entitled to the opportunity to achieve , or fail , at our undertakings .
It does NOT guarantees that those undertakings be successful , or that other citizens be held responsible for the success of someone.In that sense , every American already does have the right to health care - no government entity is stopping them from getting whatever healthcare they want and can pay for .
If someone can not afford it , why does that mean that they have the right to have someone else pay for it ?
And can force that person to pay for it at the point of a gun ?
One might argue that indeed people HAVE that right , but you 'll notice that an actual debate about whether such a right exists is singularly absent from the current debate .
THAT 's the " sense of entitlement " being referred to - the idea that some should get what they want , payed for by others , without going through the bothersome process of asking for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is in opportunity vs. outcomes.  The Constitution is based on the idea that people are entitled to the opportunity to achieve, or fail, at our undertakings.
It does NOT guarantees that those undertakings be successful, or that other citizens be held responsible for the success of someone.In that sense, every American already does have the right to health care - no government entity is stopping them from getting whatever healthcare they want and can pay for.
If someone cannot afford it, why does that mean that they have the right to have someone else pay for it?
And can force that person to pay for it at the point of a gun?
One might argue that indeed people HAVE that right, but you'll notice that an actual debate about whether such a right exists is singularly absent from the current debate.
THAT's the "sense of entitlement" being referred to - the idea that some should get what they want, payed for by others, without going through the bothersome process of asking for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298642</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1267301040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case you didn't notice, Constellation in many ways was a much bigger sellout to private companies -- these undefinitized contracts seem to be a handy way to funnel money to the big contractors with little oversight.</p><p>Space exploration is not about adventure for its own sake -- for that we can send all our astronauts to climb Mt. Everest instead.  Its about advancing the frontier, and learning to live and work sustainably in space, and Constellation wasn't doing that.   Even at the time of Apollo, Von Braun et.al. knew that that architecture was not the way forward, because each mission was individually incredibly expensive.  Rebuilding Apollo in the form of Constellation was always doomed to repeat flags and footprints with little else, and without the political impetus of cold war and a mission from a martyred president, it was quite frankly stillborn.  A cheap LEO launch vehicle with true spaceships that never re-entered the Earth's atmosphere was always a better long-term plan, it just couldn't get built as quickly, so didn't fit the goals of the time.</p><p>This was what the original Bush VSE said, until CxP hijacked it, and its what the Augustine commission said.  Sustainability is key, and the FY2011 budget, despite the piss-poor PR to go along with it, lays out a path for sustainable, flexible exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you did n't notice , Constellation in many ways was a much bigger sellout to private companies -- these undefinitized contracts seem to be a handy way to funnel money to the big contractors with little oversight.Space exploration is not about adventure for its own sake -- for that we can send all our astronauts to climb Mt .
Everest instead .
Its about advancing the frontier , and learning to live and work sustainably in space , and Constellation was n't doing that .
Even at the time of Apollo , Von Braun et.al .
knew that that architecture was not the way forward , because each mission was individually incredibly expensive .
Rebuilding Apollo in the form of Constellation was always doomed to repeat flags and footprints with little else , and without the political impetus of cold war and a mission from a martyred president , it was quite frankly stillborn .
A cheap LEO launch vehicle with true spaceships that never re-entered the Earth 's atmosphere was always a better long-term plan , it just could n't get built as quickly , so did n't fit the goals of the time.This was what the original Bush VSE said , until CxP hijacked it , and its what the Augustine commission said .
Sustainability is key , and the FY2011 budget , despite the piss-poor PR to go along with it , lays out a path for sustainable , flexible exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you didn't notice, Constellation in many ways was a much bigger sellout to private companies -- these undefinitized contracts seem to be a handy way to funnel money to the big contractors with little oversight.Space exploration is not about adventure for its own sake -- for that we can send all our astronauts to climb Mt.
Everest instead.
Its about advancing the frontier, and learning to live and work sustainably in space, and Constellation wasn't doing that.
Even at the time of Apollo, Von Braun et.al.
knew that that architecture was not the way forward, because each mission was individually incredibly expensive.
Rebuilding Apollo in the form of Constellation was always doomed to repeat flags and footprints with little else, and without the political impetus of cold war and a mission from a martyred president, it was quite frankly stillborn.
A cheap LEO launch vehicle with true spaceships that never re-entered the Earth's atmosphere was always a better long-term plan, it just couldn't get built as quickly, so didn't fit the goals of the time.This was what the original Bush VSE said, until CxP hijacked it, and its what the Augustine commission said.
Sustainability is key, and the FY2011 budget, despite the piss-poor PR to go along with it, lays out a path for sustainable, flexible exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31311730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31312722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31316090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31305860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31302698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31307836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31303120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1651201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1651201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31316090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31311730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300356
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31307836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31302698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300646
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31303120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31312722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31305860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31301558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31299264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31298848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1651201.31300134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
