Alexey, funny...
i just read 5 minutes before i saw your post
***********.gallup.com/poll/127316/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Lowest-Yet-One-Point.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating fell to 47% for the week ending April 11, the lowest of his administration so far by one percentage point.

there are polls that show 50% think Obama doesn't deserve second term.. I just don't want to jinx anything.. hope it stays this way till 2012.. :-)

Mike, it just says that polls have margin of error -- and how you _spin_ that is totally up to a "spinner" :-)
However, some conservative commentators (to be fair, I guess some liberal too) really need to get some education in statistical analysis. More money to colleges and universities! :-)

Fortunately, there is no need to spin.(ch) Obamka approval ratings keeps falling. It's been below 50% for a while. Poll after poll. Check it out for yourself.
I'm going to a Tea Party in San Francisco tomorrow. It's gonna be so much fun! We are going to wear flowers in our hair -to play on the 60s theme(F) (F) (F) :-D

Aleksey, i find Gallop tracking poll to be normally pretty reliable.. if you look at trends it does a good job indicating which way the wind is blowing..
CNN poll is point-in-time snapshot..

the best one is Rasmussen.. the most accurate.. they were the closest to the actual count the last two elections (2004 and 2008).. Gallup is often scewed toward democrats..

We are going to wear flowers in our hair -to play on the 60s theme
--------------------------------------------------------------
to play on the fact that you're the antithesis of everything that flower children stood for?

Obamka approval ratings keeps falling. It's been below 50% for a while. Poll after poll. Check it out for yourself.
C'mon Maria! This is just not serious. The original discussion started with me posting the link to the results of CNN poll (which I DID CHECK) which shows Obama's support above 50% in the month of March.
I don't care, frankly, what his ratings are, but you got to keep to the facts...

the best one is Rasmussen.. the most accurate..
Why is it most accurate? Most of them use the same methodology -- is it different (and the same statistical margin of error (4% or so they claim))? Does it use a larger sample? Or different questions? I'm just curious -- can you quantify it?

Obamka approval ratings keeps falling. It's been below 50% for a while. Poll after poll. Check it out for yourself.

Why is it not serious? Do I make up the poll numbers? There so many different legitimate polls posted online everyday - Gallup, Rassmusen, Fox, CNN, and many more. So, it's all out there, he has been at 46%, even 42% for his job performance. These are great numbers for the conservatives, give us HOPE. (H)

The complaint comes from the difference in results between Rasmussenand other national pollsters, such as Gallup. However, they use twodifferent sampling techniques: Rasmussen polls likely voters, while Gallup and others poll adultsuntil the final few weeks before an election. The former is much morepredictive for elections, while polling a general population of adultsis the least predictive sampling technique. And thatdifference gives Rasmussen an advantage that has already been seen thisyear. Rasmussen first detected the erosion of support for Obama andObamaCare in late June, an erosion that other pollsters corroborated inthe fall as discontent spread from the politically aware to the generalpopulation.

The Value of Party Weighting for a Tracking Poll
Rasmussen Reports does weight our sample to a set of partisan targetsand bases those targets on surveys conducted in preceding months.Entering the month of June, our targets for the month were set so thatthe sample would include 9.44% more Democrats than Republicans. At theend of the month, a review of the data showed that if we had not usedthe party weights, the Democrats would have had a 9.37% advantage overthe GOP. The bottom line is that—over the course of a full month—ourresults would have been the same with or without party weighting.
***********.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/the_value_of_party_weighting_for_a_tracking_poll

Good representation of how much US spends on scientific research:
***********.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1305

National oceanic and atmospheric administration $4.1 bln : это что на изучение глобал ворминга?

Defense research and development -$11 blln,
Acorn -$6 bln.
Puts Obama priorities in perspective:-|

From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)'s website: "From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it."

What do you think about this article?
********city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html
Steven Malanga
The Beholden State

How public-sector unions broke California
Man, they are powerful, and the sheeple who keep electing Democrats in California are enabling the endless cycle of corruption.

Well, NASA's plan is interesting.
What I like: privatization of low-orbit flights (now it's like if govt would have owned an airline), possibility of privatization of human orbital delivery, increasing NASA's science budget and budget for robotic exploration. The last two things are what NASA does very well -- and with very limited funds.
What I don't like: cancellation of the base on the Moon and continuing funding of that bucket in space called ISS.
What do you think about that?

According to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, President Obama has asked NASA to "find ways to reach out to dominantly Muslim countries," in a push to make the agency a tool of international diplomacy.
The Orlando Sentinel reports:“In addition to the nations that most of you usually hear about when you think about the International Space Station, we now have expanded our efforts to reach out to non-traditional partners,” said Bolden, speaking to a lecture hall of young engineering students.
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.

Canceling the Constellation program already threatens to put the U.S. behind countries like China and Russia. When did Kennedy's once undeterred vision of American space exploration transform into Obama's plan for an international science "welfare" program? When did NASA become a tool of diplomacy and an extended arm of the EPA?

Ok, rhetoric aside, it is not clear to me that Constellation program is (was) scientifically sound (the original idea of placing a capsule on the top of Shuttle's booster did not quite work out due to issues with vibrations). Base on the Moon was a part of the Constellation program. I liked the base on the Moon idea.
IMHO, cancellation of the Constellation program will not put us behind Russia and China, who still rely of the 60-s technology to put people in space. Outreach activity of NASA is small peanuts comparted to everything else, so it should not be a basis of the outrage over Obama or NASA.
ISS should have been dumped long time ago. There is no science (or anything else) there anymore.

it's not a rhetoric per say.. it's the "logic", if you will, behind his decision.. the outrage is legimate from my point view because Obama is not committed to the United States..

what's the "return" from the space program?
to me the whole thing looks like a giant black hole..
money goes in, nothing comes out..

"what's the "return" from the space program?
to me the whole thing looks like a giant black hole..
money goes in, nothing comes out..
Сегодня 19:51"
Mike, there has been a whole host of innovations over the last 25-30 years directly attributable to the space program, from satellite communications to new drugs developed and tested in the weightless environment. You can probably GOOGLE a lot of this stuff.
But I do agree that NASA over the years has done a lousy job advertising their achievements and how these translated into our everyday lives. They need to hire an advertising agency....

The main thing of space exploration (outside of missiles and satellite com or other military applications -- which was NOT done by NASA) was development of integrated circuits.
But as for "the rate of return" -- high energy physics probably did much more for less money invested -- accelerators and detectors for medical applications, superfast computing for pretty much everything and, of course, World Wide Web (browsers and such). And that's besides the main goal -- studies of particles and their interactions.
No one argues that space is "the final frontier". But many things there could now be done with robots and do not require expensive human participation.
What kind of medicine was developed in weightless environment (and requires that environment)?

uhm.. i don't know if diapers came out...
i have looked to see how much 'return' we are actually getting from the space program before and it was not much..
i wonder if there is a cost/benefit analysis of that whole thing.
it's a "cool" thing to do, the whole dream of walking on moon ( before ) and walking on Mars now..
however from a practical standpoint, I think we have better places to spend the money..
lets China do the heavy lifting for now..

why let China do it?? did they ever pioneer in anything?? they can still do it.. but if we stop, I think the whole process will stop..

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2002) — A miniature pump designed to help your heart beat and a device that insures the safety of the International Space Station and its crew have received NASA's commercial and government invention of the year awards.
Receiving NASA's Commercial Invention of the Year is a miniature ventricular-assist device (VAD). Initially called the NASA/DeBakey heart pump, it is based in part on technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps. It is intended as a long-term "bridge" to a heart transplant, or as a more permanent device to help patients toward recovery and a more normal life.

the <FONT color=#002bb8>Four Great Inventions of ancient China
: <FONT color=#002bb8>papermaking, the <FONT color=#002bb8>compass, <FONT color=#002bb8>gunpowder, and <FONT color=#002bb8>printing

the Four Great Inventions of ancient China: papermaking, the compass, gunpowder, and printing

The Chinese invented technologies involving mechanics, hydraulics, and mathematics applied to horology, metallurgy, astronomy, agriculture, engineering, music theory, craftsmanship, nautics, and warfare. By the Warring States Period (403–221 BC), they had advanced metallurgic technology, including the blast furnace and cupola furnace, while the finery forge and puddling process were known by the Han Dynasty (202 BC–AD 220). A sophisticated economic system in China gave birth to inventions such as paper money during the Song Dynasty (960–1279). The invention of gunpowder by the 10th century led to an array of inventions such as the fire lance, land mine, naval mine, hand cannon, exploding cannonballs, multistage rocket, and rocket bombs with aerodynamic wings and explosive payloads.

lets China do the heavy lifting for now..
Why China? What's wrong with American private companies? They are already doing that -- Boeing, Orbital Sciences, etc.

Aleksey, they are doing is based on government grants, right?
I don't think there is "profit" to be had... is there?
I honestly don't know..

Leadership in any new field will pay eventually, even through sheer projection of being first throughout the world. We can stop sending money abroad to backstabbers in form of Foreign Aid. Space Exploration in not a waste.

Svetlana, i am not saying they don't accomplish anything, i am just saying they are not carrying their own weight.
NASA budget is about 18billion/year
to compare Apple has about 1.3bil/year r&d costs...
Toyota about 5bln
Merck 2.5billion
GE 2.2billion..
Boeing 1.7
( these are the numbers as i remember, maybe off a bit )

I understand they are not "profitable" in the traditional way(ch) .. but do you think it can be done any other way?? no private entity will invest in this kind of research and development on their own, plus it's a national security issue..no?

i don't expect them to be fully profitable..
but 18bln/year can pay for a lot of food stamps, and god knows i need some :)

well, it's just another confirmation government doesn't run things the most efficient way.. but certain things it just HAS to do.. that's why "limited government" is the best approach..

Space exploration is exactly where the government involvement is needed. It's one area where I don't feel sorry for my tax dollars ( in addition to defense and border security).

OMG! Look up this chart- it lists the salaries and pensions for some of the bureaucrats in the Chicago public education department. No wonder, the states go bust(md)
( I wonder, what is it in California, perhaps even more outrageous?).
***********.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1023