Foundation might have been ground breaking and original when it was written. But its best ideas have either been adapted by other science fiction (Look! A city-planet, just like Coruscant!) or rendered quaint by the progress of technology (A handheld calculator! How amazing!). HBO has had success adapting contemporary fantasy, they should try adapting some contemporary science fiction.
Your definition also includes gas giants and possible even planets Earth-like planets. Consider that most of Earth's matter is engaged in Brownian motion except for the solid core and thin outer crust.
Note that your wedding wasn't really cheap, you just spread out your costs through expected reciprocal obligations. The biggest cost is that you'll be expected to continue giving 10% of your income to the Church for the rest of your life. At future weddings, you'll be the one expected to provide food, cash, gifts, etc. You probably consider your tithe and participation in your community barter economy to be a sunk cost, so it seems like a good deal. But from a outsider view, you're actually spending a whole lot more than someone who just rents a banquet hall and hires a caterer.
Fossil fuels sustain life. Without heat, millions would freeze. Without fuel to operate machinery, modern agriculture would be impossible and billions would starve.
Almonds, though? You can live without almonds. We definitely don't need use a trillion gallons of water each year to grow almonds in a desert during a drought.
The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with bribes. In 2004, Citizens United (the group) wanted to block Micheal Moore's anti-Bush movie from being advertised during an election. The FEC rejected that, ruling that documentaries were protected by the first ammendment. So in 2008, Citizens United made an anti-Hillary movie and started to advertise it during an election. They were quickly struck down by FEC, who were then struck done by the Supreme Court. If you're such a "staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment", how can you honestly say that Micheal Moore (and Miramax films) can make a political documentary, but other people (and corporations) can't?
You seem to operating under the assumption that the only insights that are valid are those that can be supported by per reason. Is there no music in your world? No art? If someone smokes some weed and writes a song, is that song less valid that one that's written sober?
You're moving the goal posts a bit. Your previous post claimed that a "sense of the profound" from marijuana was somehow distinct from what occurs "naturally". But both are just brain chemistry. There is no rational basis for a objective measure for profoundness of an idea.
Even if we take all of those adverse affects at face value, they're either statistical noise or questionable casual link. It's not like smoking tobacco where the odds of developing lung cancer go up 23 times that of non-smokers. It's also not like alcohol, where tens of thousands of people die from overdose alone each year.
That's why it makes sense to colonize the moon first. The moon is a harsher environment, but it's easier to deliver emergency supplies or launch a rescue mission. Colonize the moon, develop the technical experience and Mars will be a cakewalk.
The only assumption is that the colonization would be done with CURRENT technologies. The Mars Colonial Transporter, algae or bacteria as primary food source: these are still all on the drawing board, at best. Even the Falcon Heavy is a still in development.
The big problem is all the rocket jocks think that getting to Mars is hard part and they have the idea that since biology and ecology are "soft" sciences that those are just details that will work themselves out. Until someone starts a long term self-sufficient colony on someplace like Antarctica, its really hard to take an Mars colonization plan seriously.
Why exactly do you think germans or frensh or british or italian or spanish or norwegian or finnish or swedish or... insert random country... have a lower standard of living than you americans have?
Because we have much bigger houses with more appliances. Your flat is less than half the size of the average American home. Based on your energy consumption, I'm guessing that your flat lacks a washing machine, dryer, dishwasher or air conditioning. You don't have better technology, you have a lower qualify of life in a very real and measurable way.
There are no conceivable circumstances where Earth would be less suitable for life than Mars. Even during the worst extinction level events, Earth was a paradise compared to Mars.
Have you been in a cave to 30 years? When was the last time you heard the n-word used in commercial media? What TRADEMARK (not copyright) includes the term?
Adapting to new environments is exactly what humans are good at. From the arctic tundra to the Kalahari desert, humans were living in every environment earth has to offer long before we even got around to agriculture. If you don't think that humans can adapt to living on a post-asteroid Earth, something that a myriad of other animals actually did accomplish, then we're certainly not going to adapt to living on Mars.
You defeated your own point with that parenthetical. If birds, turtles, crocodiles, mammals, sharks and many other branches of animal life all survived that last asteroid impact, why do you think it would be a threat to human survival?
Slashdot Mirror
Foundation might have been ground breaking and original when it was written. But its best ideas have either been adapted by other science fiction (Look! A city-planet, just like Coruscant!) or rendered quaint by the progress of technology (A handheld calculator! How amazing!). HBO has had success adapting contemporary fantasy, they should try adapting some contemporary science fiction.
Most movies and TV shows take place in a universe where the only sentient beings are humans from Earth.
"Social Justice Warrior" is a sarcastic label. No one actually calls themselves that.
Your definition also includes gas giants and possible even planets Earth-like planets. Consider that most of Earth's matter is engaged in Brownian motion except for the solid core and thin outer crust.
Note that your wedding wasn't really cheap, you just spread out your costs through expected reciprocal obligations. The biggest cost is that you'll be expected to continue giving 10% of your income to the Church for the rest of your life. At future weddings, you'll be the one expected to provide food, cash, gifts, etc. You probably consider your tithe and participation in your community barter economy to be a sunk cost, so it seems like a good deal. But from a outsider view, you're actually spending a whole lot more than someone who just rents a banquet hall and hires a caterer.
I was trying to provide a broad overview and I don't disagree with your minor corrections. But there's still nothing about BRIBES.
Almonds, though? You can live without almonds. We definitely don't need use a trillion gallons of water each year to grow almonds in a desert during a drought.
The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with bribes. In 2004, Citizens United (the group) wanted to block Micheal Moore's anti-Bush movie from being advertised during an election. The FEC rejected that, ruling that documentaries were protected by the first ammendment. So in 2008, Citizens United made an anti-Hillary movie and started to advertise it during an election. They were quickly struck down by FEC, who were then struck done by the Supreme Court. If you're such a "staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment", how can you honestly say that Micheal Moore (and Miramax films) can make a political documentary, but other people (and corporations) can't?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
California almond farms use 1.1 TRILLION gallons of water per year.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
You seem to operating under the assumption that the only insights that are valid are those that can be supported by per reason. Is there no music in your world? No art? If someone smokes some weed and writes a song, is that song less valid that one that's written sober?
You're moving the goal posts a bit. Your previous post claimed that a "sense of the profound" from marijuana was somehow distinct from what occurs "naturally". But both are just brain chemistry. There is no rational basis for a objective measure for profoundness of an idea.
I did. It's not a study, it's just a review of other cherry picked studies.
the scientific journal Addiction
That's sound like an unbiased source.
Even if we take all of those adverse affects at face value, they're either statistical noise or questionable casual link. It's not like smoking tobacco where the odds of developing lung cancer go up 23 times that of non-smokers. It's also not like alcohol, where tens of thousands of people die from overdose alone each year.
You should call up CBS with your life story. I'd watch that show.
That's why it makes sense to colonize the moon first. The moon is a harsher environment, but it's easier to deliver emergency supplies or launch a rescue mission. Colonize the moon, develop the technical experience and Mars will be a cakewalk.
The big problem is all the rocket jocks think that getting to Mars is hard part and they have the idea that since biology and ecology are "soft" sciences that those are just details that will work themselves out. Until someone starts a long term self-sufficient colony on someplace like Antarctica, its really hard to take an Mars colonization plan seriously.
The paper uses Mars One as an introduction, but its really a rebuttal of any attempt to colonize Mars using current technology.
Animals do not achieve an equilibrium by choice. They just die of mass starvation whenever they exceed the carrying capacity of the local environment.
Why exactly do you think germans or frensh or british or italian or spanish or norwegian or finnish or swedish or ... insert random country ... have a lower standard of living than you americans have?
Because we have much bigger houses with more appliances. Your flat is less than half the size of the average American home. Based on your energy consumption, I'm guessing that your flat lacks a washing machine, dryer, dishwasher or air conditioning. You don't have better technology, you have a lower qualify of life in a very real and measurable way.
When the sun goes red giant, Mars is likely to be engulfed, too. Feel free to try again.
There are no conceivable circumstances where Earth would be less suitable for life than Mars. Even during the worst extinction level events, Earth was a paradise compared to Mars.
Have you been in a cave to 30 years? When was the last time you heard the n-word used in commercial media? What TRADEMARK (not copyright) includes the term?
Adapting to new environments is exactly what humans are good at. From the arctic tundra to the Kalahari desert, humans were living in every environment earth has to offer long before we even got around to agriculture. If you don't think that humans can adapt to living on a post-asteroid Earth, something that a myriad of other animals actually did accomplish, then we're certainly not going to adapt to living on Mars.
Seen any (non-feathered) dinosaurs lately?
You defeated your own point with that parenthetical. If birds, turtles, crocodiles, mammals, sharks and many other branches of animal life all survived that last asteroid impact, why do you think it would be a threat to human survival?
Lake Powell is an artificial reservoir. Without the government that built Glen Canyon Dam, the "lake" wouldn't exist at all.