The Jews and Palestinians have killed each other over land for thousands of years.
I was wondering. The Palestinians have controlled the land for more than 1200 years. Would the Jews mind allowing them to have the land for 60 years if that means peace?…

At least you wouldn’t be destroying another country, just to prove you can. Better to ‘conquer’ Space, even if only to prove you can. Less Cosmic karma for USA, if there is such a thing as Cosmic or karma.

Would that fully fund things?

*********************************************************
Twenty percent of what we’ve spent on the Iraq debacle would be a good start in my opinion.

Here is some food for thought about NASA funding.

I hope your business doesn’t count on any GIs eating burgers, buying DVDs, drinking coke, smoking marlboro, furnishing their homes, installing PC’s and gadgets, or selling them cars and later servicing them. I hope you don’t need to sell them lawnmowers or the one thousand and one do it yourself tools and bits and pieces that fill garages, bikes for the kids or whatever else…

Because that is where government spending ends up, in the pockets of thousands of little businesses, suppliers and services. Oh did I forget the filling station where they fill up, the travel agent where they book their holiday, the hotel or guest house where they stay, the tyre fitter who changes or replaces the tyres on their cars. The clothes shop where they buy their clothes.

And the same with all the money the government spends on civil engineering projects. Do you think the architects, draughttsmen, contractors, labourers and suppliers all take the money and run …
or do you see that they then go and spend it on small or big businesses, food, shops, and services.

The same with all those on NASA contracts. Oh and incidentally the same with all those on defence contracts and arms manufacturing. They all take their wives out to dinner, buy flowers for their darlings, send their kids to schools, and the thousand and one things that ‘make the world go round’ and make the economy grow. Trade, business, velocity of money = wealth

Better to build shuttles and dump them in the sea or the desert, than build more missiles and go looking for more countries to destroy and invade. like Israel in Gaza, knock out the power station and the bridges, and who gets the contract to rebuild? – uhh dunno or don’t want 2

Incidentally if there were no government spending and social security, just to use round figures take a 1/3 of the money out of the economy – who do you think would be the first to suffer. Yes, small businesses and the food industry, and other basic or necessary services, like hot dog salesmen, etc.

If you give more to those who have (ie: reduce taxes) they cannot possibly eat any more than they do.
Take away from those who have little or have not, and you force them into crime. Now I haven’t got enough pages to deal with this circular or downward spiral, which would drag the economy into recession, but suffice it to say that you did not create the money or the wealth. You are just a ‘cog’ in the machine. No more and no less important (or indispensable) than any other.

Why don’t you state what your business is, and why you think people should give you their money. You complain about taxes.
You are the TAXMAN – you want to charge people for services or goods they probably don’t need, for what you consider a fair margin or profit. But tell me why should they give you their money, and not someone else. Someone who you would put out of work (employment diversity) who would then be forced to compete against you in your trade, and possibly be forced to undercut you. Then you’d be griping about too much competition and not enough diversity, and crying that your business and profit margins are suffering.

So learn to be grateful for what you have and what you get. And by all means exercise your right to state whether you prefer the government to waste taxpayers money dropping a whole load of ordinance on another country, to keep arms manufacturers in business, the military have to replace all that old stock and junk. Or like Germany & Japan have done in the last 60 years invest in civil engineering: cars, tvs, fridges, etc etc

And whether you prefer the government to spend tax payers money to bring clean running water, basic needs housing and electricity to Africa to reduce civil wars and diseases …

Or like Dubai to build luxury fomes for Americans in the desert, with vast artificial lakes.
Or build 10 shuttles capable of travelling to the Moon with 1000 plus men on board to start work on a Lunar base.

But whatever your preference, do not be a miser or a scrooge, do not be afraid to be ambitious or to dream the impossible …
Everything before you (good & bad) is because someone dared to dream and to take chances. It is not private citizens built the roman empire, roman roads and acueducts, but the Senate and/or government, who had the power and authority to see the ‘bigger picture’.
It is not private citizens built the dams, highways, power plants in the US, but successive governments, And when private enterprises did do anything it was as part of government contracts, or with serious government subsidies, from money the government CREATED.

Not from the ‘peanuts’ they collected in taxes from individuals. Not in the US, not in Europe, not in Japan, and not even in China.

The idea that we have to spend endless amounts of money just because we can, or because past discoveries indicate there are future discoveries to be had, is just not a very smart way of handling money.

If there are discoveries to be had, they will come in their own due time. Galileo financed his own research by selling telescopes. He didn’t need massive amounts of the population’s gross product in order to make his discoveries.

If you think an expensive experiment is absolutely necessary, you should also think of a way to pay for the experiment as well. Taxpayers should fund experiments that have an identifiable way of possibly benefiting society as a whole, and not just to provide incomes for researchers.

What are they going to do with that shuttle now? Can it tolerate an 1/8 inch crack in it’s fuel tank foam, or are they going to have to install a new fuel tank? And what if that fuel tank gets a tiny crack in it too? Would we really miss the space station, if it didn’t exist?

Island, you and I know the world is full of lies & falsehood. The world is full of error, misinformation and misconceptions. The world is full of theories, fantasies and dreams.

Start unravelling the yarn
(1) what is real – the unreal is real in its unreality
(2) what is fact – the falsehood is real in its falseness
(3) what is fiction – fiction is real in its fiction
(4) what exists – the existing is real in its existing
(4i)what exists – the nonexisting is real nonexisting
So what are you asking:
(A) What is physical fact & real?
(B) What is physical reality & fact?
(C) What is fact & reality, and physical?
Because we couldn’t see, touch, taste, hear or measure DNA 100 years ago, does that mean DNA did not exist 100 years ago?
Because we couldn’t see, touch, taste, hear or measure PLUTO 75 years ago, does that mean Pluti didn’t exist before 75 years?

As to your statement, well we lived without nuclear power fine for thousands of years – it was not necessary before the 20th C, and some will argue it still isn’t.

We lived without trains, planes, and space shuttles for thousands of years – they were not ‘necessary’ before they were discovered/invented/created/designed? – some people will argue they still aren’t

As for evermore powerful & faster laptops and PCs, were they necessary – are video games REAL? – They evidently are you can go and buy one, it has cost, it has weight, it has volume, it has code. BUT DOES IT EXIST?

Q said:
…knowledge, perceptions, point of views, and physics or sciences are never quite as ‘fixed’ or concrete as some would like to think.

No, but some are more absolute than others, which is why it’s called the “preferred theory”, per the scientific method. It’s the most accurate reflection of nature in the least possible number of steps.

My point was that strings or loops aren’t necessary to the preferred theory of quantum gravity, not that I’m too conservative to buy the hype.

I don’t buy the hype because I honestly believe that I have very good reason to feel this way, but not because I’m purely skeptical.