Maybe, but it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. That and every slashdot article turns into a republicans vs. democrats shouting match where everybody is repeating the same old tired arguments. I really don't come here to discuss politics.
If Bush were to come to the G8 and have some imagination, he could improve his image drastically. He could cater to and recognize European cultural achievements, give the Europeans some concession, on -anything-, be it the war on terror, or more importantly, a commitment to do -something- about climate change. Even if the USA doesn't agree to climate targets per se, a real commitment to pay for all the research needed to meet them could ultimately prove as useful and would more politically tenable for all involved. It's not like research isn't needed - and on a number of topics from solar power, biofuels, nuclear power, wind, etc, a big mega billion dollar a year research commitment would sail through a Democratic congress. Bush, for all of his failings, seems to be handed one historic opportunity after another for greatness, and then blowing it. Funny, I both strongly agree and disagree with you. I do agree that he could, and should, do this. It'd be better not only for the goodwill but for our future. Sadly, I disagree that he'd be considered a great president for it. He already has a reputation for cronyism, regardless of whether or not it was deserved. Even if he awarded the contracts for such research to non-American companies or institutions, there would be accusations of corruption and cronyism. With a family as politically connected as his, pretty much all of the major players are going to be within 2 steps or so from him.
I think that unless he simultaneously ends global climate change, cures cancer, and stops world hunger he'll be viewed in a negative light for decades to come. By getting a popular senator like John McCain to spearhead an initiative like this he might be able to accomplish the same goals and allow America to keep the goodwill its earned. Personally, that's what I'd do if I was trying to help my successor get elected and simultaneously do something good for the world.
On a side note, I'd argue against any attempts to get America to fund this research by non-American companies. America already has an enormous trade deficit, and its incredible research capabilities and infrastructure is pretty much its last major asset. America needs to be putting all of its muscle behind its scientific community and research to ensure another 60 years of prosperity. Non-Americans should agree with this as well because the research will help nearly everybody and a collapse of the American economy would greatly harm the global economy.
If America cut the political bullshit and focused on research we'd already have working stem cell cures, Integral Fast Reactors, etc. Hell, 300-400 nuclear reactors would meet the energy needs of the entire US, but they haven't built any new reactors in over 30 years because the American public doesn't know the difference between "nuclear weapons" and "nuclear reactors". And if IFR had been finished, we wouldn't even need to worry about spent fuel rods. Not to mention thousands of other technological advancements that have been canned or delayed due to political concerns or monetary misappropriations.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing abhorrent behavior, as long as you're willing to accept criticism yourself. The problem I had with the post I replied to was the idea that fear is a worthy response to disagreeing with the politics of another nation. At least we agree on something. I'm fully willing to accept criticism of my behavior as well as that of America. I will simply argue and debate when the criticism is incorrect, politically-motivated bullshit such as the following:
alleged poisonings - Alleged. It was also alleged that Saddam had WMD. And it was also alleged that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Alleged does not mean "likely untrue" it means "believed to be true but not proven". In scientific terms, it's usually slightly better than a hypothesis.
building reactors for Iran - several countries export reactors. Iran just happens to be a country that we don't have diplomatic relations with and they say bad things about us. If we still had the relationship with them that we had 30 years ago, we'd be the ones building the reactors. I would rather someone built them reactors and supplied them with fuel than have them continue with their own nuclear processing programs. How do you think Iran got their own nuclear processing programs to begin with? Where do you think the enrichment capabilities came from? The reactors? Russia has been helping them since the days America backed Iraq, and Russia will continue to do so for as long as it's an inexpensive (for them) thorn in America's side. While they may not be directly competing with only the US now, one must understand that the major nations are all competing with each other on various fronts: world influence, political influence, territory, technology, the success of their businesses, the growth of their GDP, etc.
If Russia can make a profit off of helping Iran, knowing it will end badly for Iran but cost America billions of dollars, they'll do it with good reason. The profits will help their economy and the cost to America and its allies will increase Russia's relative gains. There is some pretty damning evidence to suggest that this is exactly what is they're doing.
suppression of political opposition - because our news isn't processed. You're comparing the suppression of political opponents to... Fox news including bias in their reports? !!! I don't even know what to say to that. You might have a valid comparison if President Bush had sent some SEALs to raid and imprison all attendees of the Democratic National Convention. Yes, news corporations, in concert with other large corporations, filter news for us. But the ruling powers don't directly and openly silence, imprison, and murder their political opponents.
But really, is it any of our business? I don't remember hearing anyone ask for our opinion of their political processes. Yes. At the very least, it is our business to stand up and say "hey, those people over there are being oppressed!" Even if we aren't going to do anything about it, at least we can draw attention to it. Europeans should be doing the same thing every time a new sodomy law comes on the books in the US and every time the US imprisons someone for something they do in the privacy of their own home. Who gives a damn if anybody asked for our opinion on it? It's not like saying "hey, Putin's suit is pretty ugly." It's a little closer to "hey, look, Putin just imprisoned 5,000 people for protesting and demanding rights!" Or do you think we shouldn't have commented on Tiananmen Square because the Chinese didn't ask our opinion?
Ok, I'll bite. What in the world is a "first strike anti-missile"?!
Everybody knows that the US missile defense system, even if fully operational, would only be able to destroy a very small fraction of Russia's ICBMs. It is an extremely limited defensive capability that would only prevent a nation state from launching a handful of missiles at western Europe or the US. Useful against nations such as Iran or North Korea, not so useful against nations with thousands of ICBMs equipped with multiple warheads. Hell, they have 100x as many nuclear ICBMs as America has missile defense system components!
If Russia is so afraid of the damned thing, they should offer to buy one from America. Trade a billion or so barrels of oil for a fully functional missile defense system!
Or are you just trying to emulate the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" naming convention where you're renaming something to suit your political goals?
Yes, I believe this is an attempt at a return to the cold war, but not by America. Russia has a failing democracy and economy. They need a large enemy like the US to attempt to crack down on their nation, unify it, and expand their industry. And of course America could do the same thing. It wouldn't hurt to double the size of its military and take some attention away from its other ongoing conflicts. Hell, if it leads to another space race I might even be willing to support it! Who wants to compete for first manned colony on the moon?
Maybe, but it's easy enough to forget that there's a silent "k" in "know". I would understand if it wasn't his third language, but it's like accusing Einstein of not knowing physics because his English skills weren't perfect. I've made similar mistakes due to inebriation, sleep deprivation, and broken keyboarditis. Hopefully people don't judge my actual knowledge of my field based on occasional relatively simple mistakes.
Perhaps the dinosaurs discovered The One Grand Unified Brane Theorem, and were so enlightened that they all had seizures and died. Damn. That's halfway plausible. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Easy. Man hunted the dinosaurs to extinction about 5000 years ago.
As someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between 'now' and 'to know', you give quite an impression of lacking the required education for saying anything meaningfull about this. As someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between 'meaningfull' and 'meaningful, you give quite an impression of lacking the required education for saying anything meaningful about this.
To anyone who's got this far without having downloaded the mp3, go listen to it! It is actually quite interesting.
And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about... Seriously! We're not even asking people to RTFA here. All they have to do is listen to the damned thing. Is it just me or has/. turned into a collection of lame jokes where no one actually has any insight into the news items?
I'd have to research all of your claims, and I haven't, so I'm not going to argue them. But I'm not claiming that the US did everything out of the goodness of its heart. I'm simply refuting the previous assertion that the USSR was a superpower therefor didn't need any supplies from America. American supplies were instrumental in the winning of the war. So were the millions of Russians who died on the eastern front. So were the Brits and Aussies. Without the pure industrial power of America it is unlikely that the Allies would've won the war. Without the concessions granted to America during this war America likely would not be the superpower that it is today.
Fact of the matter is, the US was the driving force behind keeping the UK, USSR, AUS, and anyone else against Hitler and the Japanese in the war. They would have all lost to Hitler very quickly if the US had not shipped all the guns, ammo, food, clothing, aircraft, tanks, trucks, etc... for them to fight with, long before Pearl Harbor or the Pacific Theater.
Oh really? The US was supplying the USSR, a superpower, with packed lunches and American tanks to help them fight hitler on russian soil? News to me. Time to ask your high school history teacher for your money back. I figure you're trolling, but you really should consider asking your community college for a refund. Although there were dozens of runs like it, I'll single out one specific Merchant Marine run:
"Through the Murmansk Run, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots. American boots made a difference on the Eastern Front, especially during the harsh winters."
Yes, this was a series of convoys that delivered war material to Murmansk. If you ever feel like reading I can throw a million other references your way, but America supplied Australia, Russia, and Great Britain, among others, with crucial supplies even before officially joining the war.
Just look at US government foreign policy at any time in the past, and you'll quickly get a good feeling for just how badly they misunderstood most of the people they were dealing with in the rest of the world. Your claim, if true, could be evidence that the state department or our government misunderstands others. It does not directly support the claim that intelligence agencies are doing a bad job. Intelligence agencies merely provide the facts to our nation's leadership. Advisers and think tanks then analyze the facts and situation and recommend solutions to decision makers. Sometimes their personal agendas are covertly inserted here. The decision makers then weigh the risks and benefits of actions, consider the political fallout, consider whether it will score them brownie points with the electorate, and interject their personal beliefs and biases into the decision or policy.
To directly blame intelligence agencies for the actions of elected officials is kind of like blaming the Germans for your BMW failing to start on a cold winter morning.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that American intelligence was consistently among the best in the world throughout the 20th century. The only times they really sucked were when politicians tied their hands "because gentlemen don't read each other's mail".
For example, a key reason why America still has as many military bases as it does in Japan despite the lack of a legitimate threat of invasion from any country is because the ruling LDP politicians fear that if they force the US off of Japanese soil, America will force Japan to open up its domestic market to real international competition. You kidding? Japan losing the billions of dollars Americans spend in their bars, strip clubs, and apartments would destroy several of their markets. No, they want Americans to slowly leave one base at a time so they can convert the bases into housing without flooding the market.
...and a reduced American military presence in the Far East. That's two victories in my book. I'll assume you're Chinese and of the mainland variety. Nobody else in the world stands to benefit. The DPRK would not behave itself if Americans weren't in Japan and ready to respond to them. Likewise, China would have already flexed its muscles. The American military is defending multiple democracies by simply sitting there and being ready to fight. I'd think that most people would prefer this over having to re-take South Korea.
...but I really think the secret desire of astronomers is to find Earth 2; a lovely place with average annual temperature are in line with the more hospitable areas of Earth, where open water can be found and an atmosphere resembling ours is present. Secret desire? That's the openly stated wet dream of astronomers! It's like the return of Jesus to the Christians or the worldwide adoption of Islam to Al Qaeda. This is exactly what they openly hope and wish for.
My father is an amateur astronomer and he has always told me that he ultimately wants to find another Earth-like planet harboring intelligent life, but he'd be happy just to see as much as he can of what's out there or maybe even discover something new in his lifetime. One of his hopes is that it will happen in my lifetime since it's probably not going to happen in his.
And this doesn't even take into consideration the insane probability of a large asteroid breaking away 1/6 of the planet and launching that chunk into a place where it could form into a stable orbit. Life as we know it wouldn't exist if the moon wasn't pretty much exactly where it was when it was.
Of course even if the odds of all of this happening are 1 in a trillion it's probably still happened elsewhere in the universe.
Uh, since when has ANY planet that we know of had life on it (let alone intelligent)? I think he was referring to the third rock around the sun, but you have definitely shot down his intelligent life argument.
As scary as it is for some of you to believe, we are alone. And until you find evidence otherwise that isn't a lie. As scary as it is for some of you to believe, there is no god. And until you find evidence otherwise that isn't a lie. (I love burden of proof!)
Oh, and signs of life does not dictate life. Remember that when you reply with your evidence. ......? So even if we find life and they send us a message over the radio saying "Hello, Earthlings" it may not be life? What does dictate life?
Then again, this is the same site whose readers think that a few skeletons explain the path life on earth took. I don't know, I think that a bunch of pictures of a man made of straw is a pretty good indicator of the creation of a straw man.
"....life could be able to live at thousands of degrees hot. You just don't know."
I'm sure most of us don't know about this new temperature measurement you refer to as "hot" What is the conversion rate in celsius?
Please elaborate.... "Hot" refers to any temperature that involves heat. Since he said "degrees" and this is a pseudo scientific discussion, you can assume he means degrees of the Celsius/kelvin nature. I think it's safe to assume that 1 kelvin = 1 degree hot. Of course "thousands of degrees kelvin" is indistinguishable from "thousands of degrees Celsius".
For all we know, life could be able to live at thousands of degrees hot. You just don't know.
Whoever wrote the article doesn't know about the life that lives around volcanic vents deep in the ocean or the things living deep underground at extreme temps and pressures.
We know life can live there, but we don't know whether or not life can form there. And to appeal to the creationists, we don't know whether or not God is fond of creating life in non-earth like environments.
I'm still amazed at how much stuff was created in just 6000 years. Another 28 planets! The miracles never cease... You're obviously a bit confused. God created this in just one day!
Genesis 1:16-19: God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
To gain some profit out of these annoyingly common planets. I patent the idea of large chunks of matter in the sky! You can't patent ideas, idiot! Besides, I already own the patent to "the process of large masses orbiting larger masses". You can't patent ideas, but you can patent processes!
Me too. Unfortunately, I'm also 99% certain that I won't be able to afford them.
This is probably a good thing, because we can't sustain a world in which everyone lives forever.
Sure we can. We just can't sustain a world in which everyone lives forever and can have children.
I think we might get to the point where one has to decide between immortality and reproducing. It could be interesting, especially since even I am not sure which I would choose.
...actually it creates a win-win situation. The users, instead of getting a name error (useless), click an advertisement... Actually, I'd call this a win-win-win situation. Not only do people profit off of the idiotic, but, much like spam, this actually takes money out of the hands of idiots. It's kind of like developing a money-eating virus that only targets stupid people. This could, somehow, over time, reduce the number of idiots in the world. Although I feel that the Jerry Falwell method is more effective, I commend you in your selfless efforts.
It has been solved, it's just that most people don't bother using the solution. If everyone used gmail, there would be no spam as it wouldn't be worth sending it. Isn't that kind of like saying "It has been solved. Everybody knows the solution! The spammers just have to actually stop sending spam."
I've heard that nearly all of Bagdad is under control now It's so under control that a politician can walk through it without an escort or body armor, just ask McCain. Yes, rather unlike politicians in America.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. That and every slashdot article turns into a republicans vs. democrats shouting match where everybody is repeating the same old tired arguments. I really don't come here to discuss politics.
I think that unless he simultaneously ends global climate change, cures cancer, and stops world hunger he'll be viewed in a negative light for decades to come. By getting a popular senator like John McCain to spearhead an initiative like this he might be able to accomplish the same goals and allow America to keep the goodwill its earned. Personally, that's what I'd do if I was trying to help my successor get elected and simultaneously do something good for the world.
On a side note, I'd argue against any attempts to get America to fund this research by non-American companies. America already has an enormous trade deficit, and its incredible research capabilities and infrastructure is pretty much its last major asset. America needs to be putting all of its muscle behind its scientific community and research to ensure another 60 years of prosperity. Non-Americans should agree with this as well because the research will help nearly everybody and a collapse of the American economy would greatly harm the global economy.
If America cut the political bullshit and focused on research we'd already have working stem cell cures, Integral Fast Reactors, etc. Hell, 300-400 nuclear reactors would meet the energy needs of the entire US, but they haven't built any new reactors in over 30 years because the American public doesn't know the difference between "nuclear weapons" and "nuclear reactors". And if IFR had been finished, we wouldn't even need to worry about spent fuel rods. Not to mention thousands of other technological advancements that have been canned or delayed due to political concerns or monetary misappropriations.
If Russia can make a profit off of helping Iran, knowing it will end badly for Iran but cost America billions of dollars, they'll do it with good reason. The profits will help their economy and the cost to America and its allies will increase Russia's relative gains. There is some pretty damning evidence to suggest that this is exactly what is they're doing. suppression of political opposition - because our news isn't processed. You're comparing the suppression of political opponents to... Fox news including bias in their reports? !!! I don't even know what to say to that. You might have a valid comparison if President Bush had sent some SEALs to raid and imprison all attendees of the Democratic National Convention. Yes, news corporations, in concert with other large corporations, filter news for us. But the ruling powers don't directly and openly silence, imprison, and murder their political opponents. But really, is it any of our business? I don't remember hearing anyone ask for our opinion of their political processes. Yes. At the very least, it is our business to stand up and say "hey, those people over there are being oppressed!" Even if we aren't going to do anything about it, at least we can draw attention to it. Europeans should be doing the same thing every time a new sodomy law comes on the books in the US and every time the US imprisons someone for something they do in the privacy of their own home. Who gives a damn if anybody asked for our opinion on it? It's not like saying "hey, Putin's suit is pretty ugly." It's a little closer to "hey, look, Putin just imprisoned 5,000 people for protesting and demanding rights!" Or do you think we shouldn't have commented on Tiananmen Square because the Chinese didn't ask our opinion?
Ok, I'll bite. What in the world is a "first strike anti-missile"?!
Everybody knows that the US missile defense system, even if fully operational, would only be able to destroy a very small fraction of Russia's ICBMs. It is an extremely limited defensive capability that would only prevent a nation state from launching a handful of missiles at western Europe or the US. Useful against nations such as Iran or North Korea, not so useful against nations with thousands of ICBMs equipped with multiple warheads. Hell, they have 100x as many nuclear ICBMs as America has missile defense system components!
If Russia is so afraid of the damned thing, they should offer to buy one from America. Trade a billion or so barrels of oil for a fully functional missile defense system!
Or are you just trying to emulate the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" naming convention where you're renaming something to suit your political goals?
Yes, I believe this is an attempt at a return to the cold war, but not by America. Russia has a failing democracy and economy. They need a large enemy like the US to attempt to crack down on their nation, unify it, and expand their industry. And of course America could do the same thing. It wouldn't hurt to double the size of its military and take some attention away from its other ongoing conflicts. Hell, if it leads to another space race I might even be willing to support it! Who wants to compete for first manned colony on the moon?
Maybe, but it's easy enough to forget that there's a silent "k" in "know". I would understand if it wasn't his third language, but it's like accusing Einstein of not knowing physics because his English skills weren't perfect. I've made similar mistakes due to inebriation, sleep deprivation, and broken keyboarditis. Hopefully people don't judge my actual knowledge of my field based on occasional relatively simple mistakes.
And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about... Seriously! We're not even asking people to RTFA here. All they have to do is listen to the damned thing. Is it just me or has
I'd have to research all of your claims, and I haven't, so I'm not going to argue them. But I'm not claiming that the US did everything out of the goodness of its heart. I'm simply refuting the previous assertion that the USSR was a superpower therefor didn't need any supplies from America. American supplies were instrumental in the winning of the war. So were the millions of Russians who died on the eastern front. So were the Brits and Aussies. Without the pure industrial power of America it is unlikely that the Allies would've won the war. Without the concessions granted to America during this war America likely would not be the superpower that it is today.
Oh really? The US was supplying the USSR, a superpower, with packed lunches and American tanks to help them fight hitler on russian soil? News to me. Time to ask your high school history teacher for your money back. I figure you're trolling, but you really should consider asking your community college for a refund. Although there were dozens of runs like it, I'll single out one specific Merchant Marine run:
"Through the Murmansk Run, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots. American boots made a difference on the Eastern Front, especially during the harsh winters."
Yes, this was a series of convoys that delivered war material to Murmansk. If you ever feel like reading I can throw a million other references your way, but America supplied Australia, Russia, and Great Britain, among others, with crucial supplies even before officially joining the war.
To directly blame intelligence agencies for the actions of elected officials is kind of like blaming the Germans for your BMW failing to start on a cold winter morning.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that American intelligence was consistently among the best in the world throughout the 20th century. The only times they really sucked were when politicians tied their hands "because gentlemen don't read each other's mail".
...and a reduced American military presence in the Far East. That's two victories in my book. I'll assume you're Chinese and of the mainland variety. Nobody else in the world stands to benefit. The DPRK would not behave itself if Americans weren't in Japan and ready to respond to them. Likewise, China would have already flexed its muscles. The American military is defending multiple democracies by simply sitting there and being ready to fight. I'd think that most people would prefer this over having to re-take South Korea.
...but I really think the secret desire of astronomers is to find Earth 2; a lovely place with average annual temperature are in line with the more hospitable areas of Earth, where open water can be found and an atmosphere resembling ours is present. Secret desire? That's the openly stated wet dream of astronomers! It's like the return of Jesus to the Christians or the worldwide adoption of Islam to Al Qaeda. This is exactly what they openly hope and wish for.My father is an amateur astronomer and he has always told me that he ultimately wants to find another Earth-like planet harboring intelligent life, but he'd be happy just to see as much as he can of what's out there or maybe even discover something new in his lifetime. One of his hopes is that it will happen in my lifetime since it's probably not going to happen in his.
And this doesn't even take into consideration the insane probability of a large asteroid breaking away 1/6 of the planet and launching that chunk into a place where it could form into a stable orbit. Life as we know it wouldn't exist if the moon wasn't pretty much exactly where it was when it was.
Of course even if the odds of all of this happening are 1 in a trillion it's probably still happened elsewhere in the universe.
I'm sure most of us don't know about this new temperature measurement you refer to as "hot"
What is the conversion rate in celsius?
Please elaborate.... "Hot" refers to any temperature that involves heat. Since he said "degrees" and this is a pseudo scientific discussion, you can assume he means degrees of the Celsius/kelvin nature. I think it's safe to assume that 1 kelvin = 1 degree hot. Of course "thousands of degrees kelvin" is indistinguishable from "thousands of degrees Celsius".
Whoever wrote the article doesn't know about the life that lives around volcanic vents deep in the ocean or the things living deep underground at extreme temps and pressures.
We know life can live there, but we don't know whether or not life can form there. And to appeal to the creationists, we don't know whether or not God is fond of creating life in non-earth like environments.Genesis 1:16-19: God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
Me too. Unfortunately, I'm also 99% certain that I won't be able to afford them.
This is probably a good thing, because we can't sustain a world in which everyone lives forever.
Sure we can. We just can't sustain a world in which everyone lives forever and can have children.I think we might get to the point where one has to decide between immortality and reproducing. It could be interesting, especially since even I am not sure which I would choose.
Right, but I'm assuming that the advertisers pay because the idiots usually buy stuff from them after they click on those links.
...actually it creates a win-win situation. The users, instead of getting a name error (useless), click an advertisement... Actually, I'd call this a win-win-win situation. Not only do people profit off of the idiotic, but, much like spam, this actually takes money out of the hands of idiots. It's kind of like developing a money-eating virus that only targets stupid people. This could, somehow, over time, reduce the number of idiots in the world. Although I feel that the Jerry Falwell method is more effective, I commend you in your selfless efforts.Damn you! My bicycle doesn't even get 1 mpg on gasoline. Last time I tried, the paint just burned off and it didn't even go anywhere!