Please give me some good arguments--pithy and humorous, especially--about why the wheel should be (Edit)reinvented.

I am so sick and tired of hearing people argue against change because "We don't need to reinvent the wheel."

I'm also sick and tired of hearing people argue that 'you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand so and so'--but that's another matter.

I'd just like a good zinger to throw back at people who regularly say we don't need to reinvent the wheel, especially if I see problems with the wheel in question.

Thanks for coming up with a zinger if you can.

...and, being in need of an especially good zinger, I would be especially grateful if someone would think of something beyond the expected 'flat tire' kind of zinger--just a little beyond that.

"You should see the ruts in Fred Flintstone's driveway!"

Thanks, Mav. Wonder how to deliver that line? Somehow can't imagine your own voice delivering that line--you seem anything but Flintstonish, although I do like the similarity between flintstonish and astonish, now that I think about it...

I'd just like a good zinger to throw back at people who regularly say we don't need to reinvent the wheel "Yeah, well, a lot of the spokes are busted and the wheel has gone out of true".

I am so sick and tired of hearing people argue against change because "We don't need to reinvent the wheel."

I assume you are talking about the burnt-out and fossilized types who insist on teaching everything the same way as they have always taught it because they have lost their passion for getting thru to kids (if they ever had any passion or talent for that in the first place).

For them I think I would say "That wheel isn't getting any traction any more."

Even popular shows like "Seinfeld" and "Friends" will eventually wear out. Savvy tv producers never wait until the show runs flat.

As to that "other matter". Here's some actual rocket science from today's Seattle Times:

"Going into orbit [as opposed to going "suborbital" 62 miles above the earth] is exponentially more difficult.

"There's a thing called the rocket equation," Andrews said. "You have to go from zero to 25,000 feet per second (about 17,000 mph) to go into orbit."

That requires a much more powerful rocket engine than being used by the X-Prize teams. It also requires special heat shielding because the spaceship re-enters the atmosphere traveling at 17,000 mph.

"Things really get hot above 3,000 mph," Andrews said."

Here is url if anyone is interested in learning why rocket science isn't always "rocket science":
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001759020_xprize05m.html