Bush: Get Your Own Dream!

Here.

It bugs me that Bush would steal JFK's dream of getting off of our planet, especially after we've already done it. Why not reach for getting America off of foreign oil by developing alternative energy sources, freeing us from the need to screw around with other countries and making us targets for terrorism? That's a cool dream. But noooo, you can't do that one, because you're just a shill for US big oil!

Sorry about that... I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

what if it just can't be done, practically speaking?
the alternative fuel, that is.

Amen!

"what if it just can't be done, practically speaking?
the alternative fuel, that is."

Well, if you never try (investing money that is), you'll never know. Wasn't it the same to go to the moon?

Link to Wired's article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html
(Chris, your links are not obvious. It's tricky to find them)

Damn right dude, but you know that would be a personal conflict with Bush since his family is base don the Oil industry.

Sells:1
Bush:0

We (the United States) in fact, ARE, making huge investments into alternative fuels and research is plowing along. The reality, however, is that its not moving fast enough to justify just sitting on our collective behinds waiting for another 9/11.

that's pretty funny - i assume you will be supporting the opening of the Alaska wildlife refuges so we can drill more domestic oil?

Or we could just stop importing oil -- and have $4-6 a gallon gas (and you don't wanna know what heating oil will cost)...

chadb-

You should try reading the original post my chris, he is suggesting finding new types of energy.

Check out this site... http://www.truthuncovered.com

For such a supposedly intelligent guy (albeit conceited) you're surprising short-sighted.

And if you're so interested in weaning us off foreign oil perhaps you'd like to lobby for more drilling in the U.S. We have quite a bit of untapped reserves.

You think radical Islamic terrorists are targeting us because we buy oil???

yikes

Has truthuncovered.com done a story on Saddam and the 300,000 people he murdered?

"freeing us from the need to screw around with other countries and making us targets for terrorism?" -> just stop financing terrorists, thats enough!

We've never been on the moon.

sorry, I had to make a comment.

If you are looking for alternative fuels, what better vehicle to use than the space program? You cant use oil on the moon, or in transit to it. You have to come up with alternative energy sources.

What I would change about the program is to add a profit motive to the project so that it can be cheaper and we have a reason to stay there this time.

Spinoff technology from the space program is why you and I have jobs today.

The reality is, all programming is migrating overseas, and soon Microsoft and other computer vendors like Transcender, Infragistics, et al., will have to migrate their sales teams over there too. People in US have no need for the products.

ISV's in US wont have money or the need to shell out $2000 for a MSDN Universal subscription, and the Indians wont be able to because they only make $6 an hour.

Maybe these factors will motivate the mass unemployed US programmers to create startups that discover alternative fuels..

We've already discovered new energy sources ... nitrogen !!! nitrogen cells will be in production nearlly.
The problem is we need Oil to support the economy and Dollar.
All the world are buying US Dollar (which cost us nothing) to buy Oil. That's why we need Oil!

anyway ... I think he better off stoping his support to Israel if he realy wants to stop terrorism.

Ignoring the tiresome political debate going on here...

The last man set foot on the moon in 1972. Hell, that's before I was even born. JFK's dream wasn't for our country to only go to the moon a few times then quit. I applaud the president's decision to revitalize our spirit of exploration and discovery.

There is an answer out there NOW, Hybrid vehicles are a reality.

Too bad Bush decided to put his support behind fuel cells which are many years off.

I guess the oil companies wouldn't benefit much if cars suddendly used a quarter of the gas the do now.

Unsubscribed. Just lost a ton of respect for Sells. "nuff said"

Please take the essence of what Chris is saying. If we dream and work towards those goals of having a cleaner energy source, then it would make a difference in the world.

On the other hand, what is the objective of going back to moon and going to Mars. Lets stand first before we run. There are enough problems to be solved before we even put a priority on these kind of endeavors.

I come to these pages to learn about Longhorn, not to hear more crap about Bush, of which there's plenty elsewhere.

Anybody who thinks we have been targeted by terrorists because of our interest in oil is hopelessly naive. It's because our civilization is a treath to them.

These guys hate freedom more than you hate Bush. What's worse, they are willing to blow themselves up to impose their own version of tirany.

As for space, JFK had a dream but, having been to the moon, it was abandoned. Bush has reasserted our need to get back on track, that's all.

Now I realize this is your personal blog so you can say whatever you want. That's one right you have here.

I just ask that you please post all longhorn stuff on MSDN, so I can remain informed without having to swallow your political views.

"As for space, JFK had a dream but, having been to the moon, it was abandoned. Bush has reasserted our need to get back on track, that's all."

Our "need to get back on track?"

What *need*? JFK's dream was really about morale. The Apollo missions had nothing to do with science. Sure, there were big spaceships involved, and plenty of smart white lab coat people had to use a lot of pencils and erasers to effect the plans put to them, but the whole deal was about people rather than science.

Sure, we brought some rocks back, but we mostly did this so that some guys could play golf on the moon, which is *cool*, but it isn't something we *needed*. I'm glad it happened once, but it doesn't need to happen again, and certainly not right now. At the moment, manned-missions are a luxury, and anything *but* a need.

If you want to defend Bush's decision, and if there is a "need," as you claim, then I'd love to know what that need is.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love for us to go back to the moon more than anybody, but I'd like it even more if we did something useful on Earth before the lunar party fires up again.

"...so I can remain informed without having to swallow your political views."

It's interesting that you're so opposed to Chris expressing his political views, but have no problem whatsoever contributing your own to the mix. You say that "These guys hate freedom more than you hate Bush," and yet you come in here trying to tell everybody what to do like little Mr. BossyPants, which is, in effect, an attempt to control someone else's freedom.

I guess that your definitions of "freedom" and "need" are something that I need to understand before your comments will make sense to me.

I apologize to everybody for having used Chris' comments section to lose my temper a little, but it's irritating when people are getting something useful (coding info) for free all the time, but totally flip out when *one* little thing slips through that they don't like.

For further reading, I suggest "The Princess and the Pea."

Geez, Rory...

"It's interesting that you're so opposed to Chris expressing his political views, but have no problem whatsoever contributing your own to the mix. You say that "These guys hate freedom more than you hate Bush," and yet you come in here trying to tell everybody what to do like little Mr. BossyPants, which is, in effect, an attempt to control someone else's freedom."

I already have trouble watching renting a movie with Susan Saranden in it, because I can't get past what a leftist gasbag she is enough to enjoy the movie.

Now Herman has politely asked Chris to refrain from political meaderings in his blog no doubt largely for the same reasons: Those of us who love Chris' writings and technical insights would prefer not to have issues such as those cloud up a wonderful blog we read not for political commentary but for his other assets.

Yes, we're happy to discuss these things in appropriate forums. This just doesn't seem to be one of them.

I realize Herman committed (to a lefty) the unpardonable sin of providing an opposing view, but from one person with strong views to another - you can understand that, can't you?

I thought his request to keep it politics-free was pretty reasonable. Don't you guys ever get tired of suggesting such things are "an attempt to control someone else's freedom"?

Oops - Name left off previous message unitentionally...

"I realize Herman committed (to a lefty) the unpardonable sin of providing an opposing view, but from one person with strong views to another - you can understand that, can't you?"

You're completely ignoring this line of my comment:

"It's interesting that you're so opposed to Chris expressing his political views, but have no problem whatsoever contributing your own to the mix."

The point I was making was that Herman didn't want Chris to post his political views, but Herman went ahead and posted *his* views here.

If he doesn't want to see political discussion, then why is he encouraging it by *contributing*?

I'm all for viewpoints regardless of stance - it's hypocrisy and double-standards that bother me.

"Yes, we're happy to discuss these things in appropriate forums. This just doesn't seem to be one of them."

Tell that to Herman. After denouncing Chris for posting political opinions, Herman started posting political opinions.

If Herman were *really* opposed to seeing political content here, then he should have *only* asked that Chris stop, rather than asking that he stop, and *then* contributing his own view to the thread.

It's the same thing as saying, "I don't want anybody talking politics. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to talk politics."

???

"I thought his request to keep it politics-free was pretty reasonable."

The request itself is reasonable. The tone, on the other hand, was way out of line.

Herman: "I come to these pages to learn about Longhorn, not to hear more crap about Bush..."

Herman again: "Anybody who thinks we have been targeted by terrorists because of our interest in oil is hopelessly naive."

I don't know about you, but if I were to go and start asking that someone change the way they do things during their own free time (as Herman is asking Chris to do), I would probably refrain from referring to the person's opinions as "crap" and from calling that person "naive."

Think about it this way:

Near your workplace, some nice person has set up a lemonade stand. You like lemonade - it's lip-smackin' good. Even cooler is that the stand's owner is giving the lemonade away for free.

"That's pretty cool," you think to yourself. "I like lemonade, and this person is just *handing* it to me free of charge. How nice."

So, you go back. Everyday during lunch, you stop by the stand for another glass of cool, refreshing, tasty, *free* lemonade. You're a happy customer.

This goes on for some time.

Then, one day, you come along and discover that the person who runs the stand decided that, cool as lemonade is, spice is the variety of life, and making fruit-punch for the day might be fun. So you are now being offered, for one day only, a glass of fruit-punch. It'll be back to lemonade the next day.

Here's the problem: You hate fruit-punch. You think fruit-punch is refreshing as monkey piss. Yet, for reasons nobody else will ever understand, you decide to drink the fruit punch anyway - right down to the last drop.

What do you do next?

You slam the glass down on the counter, stare the stand's owner in the eye, and say, "Fruit-punch is *crap*! I come here for lemonade. Anybody who thinks fruit-punch is good is naive. If you want to make fruit-punch and give it away for free, then go do it someplace else, because I want to continue to drink my free lemonade everyday - the lemonade that I love, but for which I never, ever, ever, ever, ever thank you."

Now, Scott, you tell me: Is that reasonable? I understand that it's an analogy and that all analogies are flawed (as are generalizations), but it's basically the same story, and I'm guessing that you don't think it would be considered appropriate behavior to treat the stand's owner in the manner described.

So, why is it OK to do the same thing to a guy who works to bring all of us good information for free?

Ask him to stop? It's OK to do that, but, for crying out loud, it should be done in at least a remotely polite fashion.

Rory: Please read my post again. I was dissappointed to see politics intrude on a technical blog. But I realized that I couldn't ask Chris not to opine in his own blog! *That* would have been "like little Mr. BossyPants". Instead I asked him *please* (that was the polite part) to "post all longhorn stuff on MSDN".

What I meant by that was the page at http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn, which Chris edits as a longhorn evangelist. The problem I had is that a lot of the good stuff is in this blog, for example the "Avalon Image Effects Sample", or "Give Your Feedback on the WinFX Docs". This is useful stuff, and I wanted to have access to it without having his political comments raise my blood pressure.

I turns out Chris already does what I want! The link to his blog on MSDN doesnt take you to sellsbrothers.com. Instead it takes you to to an MSDN page that list his postings, including the two I mentioned above, but excludes the "Bush: Get Your Own Dream!" entry. So all I have to do is change my favorite to that page. Then I can have my cake (or lemonade) and eat it to.

I found a moon rock in my nose!

Herman-

You want the truth....You can't handle the truth...You want Chris's ideas on longhorn for free, but you dont want him to talk about anything else...how dare you question his means or motivations...its called Marquee de Sells: Chris's insight outlet...for god sake

Better said by Jack Nicholson-
You can’t handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world that has walls.
And those walls have to be guarded by men
with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You,
Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly
fathom. You weep for Santiago and you
curse the marines. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I
know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic,probably saved lives. And my existence,while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don’t want the truth. Because deep
down, in places you don’t talk about at
parties, you want me on that wall. You me there. We use words like honor, code,
loyalty...we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use ‘em as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to.

"Rory: Please read my post again. I was dissappointed to see politics intrude on a technical blog."

Herman - I did, and you're right (as you obviously know).

I guess I got a bit caught up in the fact that you had such a, well, *unpleasant* way of requesting that all the Longhorn info be posted to the Longhorn site.

So, I stand corrected in one area, but I still think that there are better ways to get someone to help you out than by calling their opinions "crap" and then calling the person "naive."

I also think that raising objections to political content and then *adding* more political content of your own is a weird thing to have done. I don't know if the "fight fire with fire" principal worked out so well here.

If your real issue was that you wanted all the Longhorn info posted on MSDN, then you probably ought to have just gotten to the point and skipped all the insults.

This is reliably the best MS-oriented technical blog around and personally, I thought it was pretty funny what Sells said about Bush.

Yeah, if you wanna watch people flip out and get their nose outta joint, saying anything political is usually the way to do it. This last decade has become extremely inpolite when it comes to public discussion of politics. Basically I blame Rush Limbaugh. It's really only since Clinton's impeachment and Bush's election that liberals have learned to be just as nasty. It's too bad, but Republicans and Democrats have never seemed so far apart on issues before.

Oh yeah, and Bush only gave $1 Billion to Nasa, which last I heard has an $80 Billion annual budget. But I think I can come up with a compromise that will keep us on budget and everyone mostly happy: put Osama bin Ladin in a porta-potty on top of an old missle and send him to Mars.

There! Now play nice you little freaks!

Chris,
Thank you! you are so right about the oil versus the cosmos. By the time that ship reaches it's destination, we will have all died from asthma, or some other horrible illness linked to pollutions. So why bother? well because it's a distraction.
Great websight, thanks for putting this together.

Q: What does N.A.S.A. stand for?

A: Need Another Seven Astronauts.

OK, that is horrible and I apologize ahead of time.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Sells. Although it seems I respectfully disagree with his politics, I also respect the first amendment. Keep it up Chris! You always have something amusing to say and worst case we will all learn a lot about Longhorn. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me people!

It bugs me that Clinton would steal JFK's dream of hooking up with as many chicks as possible while being married and serving as President of the United States. However, when Clinton got caught and we could all see he was a rank amateur. JFK was the master! As further proof of this let me just say... Marilyn Monroe or Monica Lewinsky? No further comment!

Isn't there a bit of irony that Bush is using success of the unmanned Mars Rover mission to try and drum up support for a manned mission? We should be concentrating our limited NASA resources on robotic exporation. Manned exploration has too little benefit given its extraordinary cost.

In relation to Chris' post about energy, there is a virtually limitless amount of solar energy available a mere 1000 miles above our heads. It's pretty clear that it's not cost-effective to do solar power satellites now, but it may be with a) lower launch costs or b) space-based manufacturing or c) a combination of the two.

I'm a big space fan, and I usually would support such an initiative, but I'm afraid it's the space-based version of the hydrogen car, which gets lots of talk in political circles because it's far enough away that nobody actually has to worry about it, and it detracts from something like CAFE standards.

Chris, Thank you for posting this.

Some alternative, non polluting sources of energy would be a really good idea right about now. Do americans believe in global warming?...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1122895,00.html

The joy of the weblogs is that it reflects the person's views.

Chris's blog entry was hardly controversial. I grew up with the moon landings so I am some one who gets excited about space travel. Though you can do alot more with less cost if you use unmanned craft. I would rather the Nasa budget was invested in supporting the Hubble telescope and it's sucessor than sending men to mars.

I think it is sad that some much is spent killing people and less and less on helping people or exploring space.

However, this announcement by Bush has much more to do with the US elections and winning Florida, where Nasa is based, than it does about exploring space.

One word, China.

Those who live in glass houses should be careful throwing around words like "shill."

It bugs me that Sells would steal Ada Lovelace's dream of programming, especially after she's already done it.

Why attack just Bush on this? The guy has barely been President for over three years. You think he was the creator of this mess with foreign oil? You give him too much credit! Oh yah! He is responsible for everything bad right? The guy takes office a few months after the tech bubble bursts causing the economy to go sour and it's all his fault. The guy barely moves his desk in and the 9-11 attacks happen. Oh, buy the way - that was all his fault too. Islamic radicals decided to start hating Americans and the 9-11 attacks were all thought up, planned, and pilots trained in eight short months. Oh and the 9-11 attacks could not have had any impact on the economy right? No way! That is all Bush's fault! Forget Longhorn! Let's hear more thickheaded propaganda!

I highly endorse this product and/or event.