0
   

Barack Obama's $3 Million 'Overhead Projector' Actually Pretty Cool

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 01:02 am
Gadget Politics: Barack Obama's $3 Million 'Overhead Projector' Actually Pretty Cool

I'm already tired of hearing these guys talk, but that caught my ear. A $3 million projector? What does that even look like?

UNIVERSARIUM Looks a bit like that.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 791 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 01:58 am
@Sabz5150,
Cool as it may be, this type of luxury spending - like that of AIG's recent $400K boondogle, creates more public relation problems than it solves.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 02:04 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;60973 wrote:
Cool as it may be, this type of luxury spending - like that of AIG's recent $400K boondogle, creates more public relation problems than it solves.


It's an educational tool.
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 02:15 am
@Sabz5150,
OK, but somehow we managed to get along without it thus far. This pet project should have been put off until after "the recovery" whatever that means and whenever that happens.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 03:37 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;60976 wrote:
OK, but somehow we managed to get along without it thus far. This pet project should have been put off until after "the recovery" whatever that means and whenever that happens.


What they have is horribly outdated. Also, I do not call our children's education a "pet project".
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:41 am
@Sabz5150,
Outdated..? Aren't the stars pretty much in the same position..? And a cool $3 mill - yes, sir, that is a pet project. If they took the same money and threw it at the classrooms in Chicago (where the grad rates are now at 50%) it would have been better spent - in my humble opinion.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 10:06 am
@socalgolfguy,
I have to agree with socal on this. I don't really think this is the time to be spending that kind of money on those kind of things.

I think the money would be better spent by creating public works projects, that would stimulate the economy.
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 11:09 am
@Sabz5150,
To each their own, I suppose.
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 01:31 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;61037 wrote:
To each their own, I suppose.


sabz - I appreciate that you're a science guy. I share your zeal for study. But, do not be blinded by your advocacy. There are immediate needs that deserve priority.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:12 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;61059 wrote:
sabz - I appreciate that you're a science guy. I share your zeal for study. But, do not be blinded by your advocacy. There are immediate needs that deserve priority.


Alright, I'll give you that. I will admit that there are many things more important than a planetarium. However you've gotta admit that this isn't just some "overhead projector" and that it actually serves a beneficial, educational purpose. It's not wasted money, it's money better spent elsewhere at the time, but it's not a waste.

As an aside, the device this thing was supposed to replace (they didn't get the funding, BTW) is 40 years old, starting to fail and no longer supported by its manufacturer. You asked if it was outdated... the answer is "Yes, very."

To get an idea of why this thing costs three-large, download a copy of a program called Celestia (it's open-source) and check that out. Imagine that up on a planetarium dome. That's why.

Celestia: Home
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:48 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;61274 wrote:
Alright, I'll give you that. I will admit that there are many things more important than a planetarium. However you've gotta admit that this isn't just some "overhead projector" and that it actually serves a beneficial, educational purpose. It's not wasted money, it's money better spent elsewhere at the time, but it's not a waste.

As an aside, the device this thing was supposed to replace (they didn't get the funding, BTW) is 40 years old, starting to fail and no longer supported by its manufacturer. You asked if it was outdated... the answer is "Yes, very."

To get an idea of why this thing costs three-large, download a copy of a program called Celestia (it's open-source) and check that out. Imagine that up on a planetarium dome. That's why.

Celestia: Home


I love the idea of this great projector, truly. I think it's awe inspiring. I plan to visit it, if possible, on my next visit to the midwest. It just that this country needs other attention right now. It's like giving your drunk brother $1000 to pay his rent and he goes on vacation with it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Barack Obama's $3 Million 'Overhead Projector' Actually Pretty Cool
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 03:59:44