Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Marc Razia
2,700 followers
2,700 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Am I the only one that finds it fascinating that there's currently a planet in our Solar System that is entirely inhabited by robots?
Photo

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
Originally shared by ****
Our TIES program is fighting this type of scientific ignorance. Join us and support scientific literacy: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/membership
Photo

Post has attachment
How to be cruel to old guys: AARP Eye Chart
Photo

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has attachment
What would happen if the US military budget was used Elsewhere?

I'm aware there's a crowd of people that will insist that the world would fall to pieces, or that this would basically be cutting and running, taking the cowards way out to the worlds problems.

So let me start by saying I am not suggesting we get rid of the military entirely. I am saying, what if instead of focusing all that ridiculous amount of money on military, we took even 75% of it and used it elsewhere.

Sure, there'd be more turmoil around the world, since the US basically acts as the worlds police force. But wouldn't this force other nations to pick up the slack? Would this also remove much of the animosity toward the US that provides so much blow back?

We'd still protect the homeland, but rather than constantly having to see so much of our tax dollars spent on intervening in world affairs (especially those that seem to not be improving, such as the middle east) they could be spent on things that would actually promote peace.

The military budget is over half a trillion dollars/year. That's more than 50% of our discretionary spending.

Imagine if half that money was spent on scientists working to cure the world's diseases, or trying to find ways to ensure not a single person on earth is malnourished.

What if even half that money was used to find alternative fuels, or ways to utilize solar power in an effective and economical manner.

What if even half that money was spent on NASA. In no time, we'd likley have a massive space station, bases on the moon and mars, interstellar probes, and likley be able to learn how to terraform planets.

Is there any doubt, with all the great minds on this planet, that redirecting this money in a more proactive manner would benefit us all? Doesn't it make sense to even try?

Yet instead, we're told its vitally important that we need another fleet of even more advanced fighter jets, or more accurate missiles, or more powerful bombs.

How did we let ourselves become convinced of this?
Photo

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has attachment
Happy 5th birthday Google+. According to this website, Google+ is doing fairly well.

Of course, if you ask those are not not actively using the site they think these stats must be crazy. I think that's because, well, for starters, its not in FB's league in terms of user interaction. No one denies that.

But more importantly, even though its showing more active users than Twitter, something that sure feels accurate to those of us using G+, to those on the outside, that seem insane. My guess is that its because Twitter is popular with celebrities and news outlets, meaning it gets constant press and publicity. G+ is popular, but with a much more average pool of users.

Post has attachment
An interesting battle here between doing what's safe for people and ensuring we're not hurting one industry to help another.

I'm a huge fan of Uber, but if they can't ensure their drivers aren't psychopaths, that's not good.

However, it makes me cringe every time I hear about some cities wanting them to get chauffeur licences. The whole reason they are blowing the taxi industry up is because they found a way to get rid of all the government middlemen.

It's going to be interesting.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/after-austin-uber-and-lyft-could-leave-chicago-too.html

Post has attachment

So what does this mean for our hologram hypothesis?
Wait while more posts are being loaded