The flood (this has shown up in many texts, not just the bible). I suspect most historians agree jesus was a human being. Probably the israelis being enslaved in Egypt, and some of the plagues, etc. The book of kings.
. . .
Note, obviously these stories and probably aren't terribly accurate, but still they are based in real stuff.
So what? Jesus was a person, after all, you know. Many of the biblical stories refer to actual historical events.
Come on! Try it out! Play with me a while: both have apocolyptic badness at the end, if all the people don't accept and behave a certain way. Pretty similar ideas, aren't they?
I'm surprised my parent post hasn't been modded down for "blashpemy" yet, but I'm sure it will:)
I don't see much difference between this religion and the apocolyptic eco-crazy memes they pump into kids at school these days. Instead of "Your soul will go to hell if you don't study" it has become "The earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle."
The patent system wasn't invented to protect the little guy. It was invented to protect society.
In your note above, you say going it alone might take so long to get there someone else scoops you. In that case, you want to protect that you got there first, or patented the idea first. Patents weren't designed to protect the person that gets there first.
In terms of getting funding for an idea, in my experience VCs fund teams and markets first, and ideas second. I do have some sympathy with this part of your argument, but not a tremendous amount. If your ideas are really good, they will fund you precisely because you can come up with good ideas.
CIA, spooks, etc.? Pulease. Patents aren't about protecting information, they are about releasing information but protecting ideas.
> SS1 is a deadend design a > by building off 40+ years of NASA research.
On the one hand its using NASA research, and on the other hand it is dead end technology. I guess only NASA can afford to waste 40+ years of research. Really, think about your own double standards.
Let's see. There was an air blast in Siberia that people hypothesize was a meteorite. There was a large meteor strike 35Million years ago, and one about 65 million years ago. Better spend $Billions$ to fight this threat. Who cares if there is an actual threat, better look to Bruce Willis movies to figure out how to get public support for the expensive beaurocratic solutions, and develop a solution now that is 100 times more expensive than it would be 100 years from now (i.e., let's find a reason for existance).
The only threat here seems to be that NASA is an agency in trouble. Forbidding launches of private spacecraft in the US to protect the shuttle merely helped other countries to develop their own space programs. We are all tired of expensive failure after failure of overly complex missions, and see the many near misses of massive failures such as Hubble with its inverted lens, and Galileo when the antenna wouldn't open. [Being honest people we love the two Mars rovers, and applaud the out of the box thinking in their lander].
NASA, figure out a mission, or get out of the way.
When I read this article, I had to laugh. The article is written as if this is a major consideration of the PROJECT , when it really isn't. First of all, we don't send too many people into space, but we send lots of stuff into space, so something like this would never stop it. Secondly, and more importantly, space elevators are fifty years or more away.
It's really just a way of exciting teenagers into thinking the space elevator is a certainty that's going to happen in a few years or so. Interesting, but irrelevent.
It's pretty clear that both incidents were poor individual decisions
and
Remember when the CEO of Diebold wrote a fund raising letter promising to "deliver Ohio to Bush"?
Notice the difference between these two. They are both individual decisions, but one was just a poor choice of words (Diebold's comments). Yet, and ironically, you give more credence to the Diebold comment when nothing was actually done.
Regarding the big thing that is happening is the liberalization of voting rules.
From the opinion piece:
Yet a string of recent court decisions has blocked their implementation in some places, thus siding with Democrats and liberal special interest groups who would rather turn a blind eye to voter fraud.
I love it, the appearance of impropriety is improper itself.
How about the willful manipulation of the appearance of impropriety is a severe attack on our democracy, and should be viewed as seditious.
Really, all this stuff is in the noise, and is a complete distraction. Consider how much more variation there is due to the weather or the press incorrectly calling the election for Gore.
The real wackos think someone might actually rig the voting machines. As if a political party would have so much stake in one election/candidate they would be willing to risk destruction of the entire party. Jeez.
Maybe the press and liberals will stop complaining when they lose elections, and start focusing on the real issue. Voter fraud brought about by liberals.
What's worse: a few hours of terror or months or years knowing you have terminal cancer, heart disease, etc., and going through potentially very painful procedures because the end is too hard to bear, all the while a handful of people in the health care profession get richer.
Let's see, Democrat Gerry Studds had sex with a male 17 year old page in 1983. He wasn't forced to resign. He served in the US house of representatives until 1997. Where was the press and outrage?
Now all Foley admits to doing is writing some suggestive emails, and AFAIK that's where it all ended. Yet Foley has resigned, and if the fair minded Democrats and press had their way those who knew about the notes, or preferably the entire republican party, would be brought down.
Yes, it's pretty obvious the Democrats and their lap dogs in the mainstream media would never act unfairly. Let's see how the press spins Saddam Hussein's death verdict, etc. I suspect there won't be much advantage to for the republicans.
Incidentally, I don't deny the possibility, or even likelihood of the Saddam Hussein death sentence was timed. But the Democrat and lap dog press shenanigans are, IMO, much worse.
What's interesting about this? Nothing, unless it is that anyone can find this interesting.
A voting machine was miscalibrated! Wooohooo!
Imagine what would have happened if the year 2K Butterfly ballots in Florida were developed by a republican. People like you would have been ABSOLUTELY SURE it was due to evil republicans. Liberals attack another great institution: Voting. You can't be sure they didn't vote for the liberal!! Recount until we get the answer we want!!!
But when it comes to things like the left leaning media calling it for Gore BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED, and the likely attendent decline in republicans voting, we hear not a whisper.
I too never spoke about "biological progress means we will be able to explore the galaxy"...you mentioned it.
I mentioned this where?
I contend there are indications there is no other intelligent life in this galaxy (I would guess it exists elswhere in the universe). From a probability perspective we can cut out:
All those instances in which we become aware of that other intelligent life.
I like to argue the set of universes in which intelligent life exists and the set of intelligent life exists and we are aware of it are nearly the same.
No, this isn't the same as "knowing."
Anyway, as another poster pointed out, it turns out this is fermi's paradox or other, so my ideas aren't original, and as such I'm losing interest in them.
is the main point of the argument. In a short biological period of time we will be able to explore the entire galaxy. So radio waves not reaching other planets, etc., is moot.
You make another great assumption...the fact that we have made biological progress in such a short period of time does not mean that we are going to be able to explore the galaxy.
You will notice I made no mention of biological progress. Just a short period of time biologically speaking. Very different things, aren't they? But your reply is something to anything in my post: that because we have made biological progress means we will be able to explore the galaxy. Who said this? I certainly didn't. You claim I did, or used it as a basis for my argument, none of which is correct.
In fact, everything in your reply is either a leap of ignorance or non-sequitor.
I need to sometimes realize it is almost useless trying to have a rational discussion with dim witted arrogant people. If you do come back, please don't come back with another idiotic or unrelated statement.
Looks like this is exactly what I was arguing:). Thanks for pointing it out. One thing I don't see though is the following idea.
What are the chances there are just several (2, 3, 4) intelligent life forms in the Galaxy? I think the chances of this are very low. I believe 1 intelligent life form is much more likely than 2, 3 or 4, and I also think that many intelligent life forms in the galaxy is more likely than a small number. Given many intelligent life forms, it would seem one of them would seek us out.
Slashdot Mirror
The flood (this has shown up in many texts, not just the bible).
I suspect most historians agree jesus was a human being.
Probably the israelis being enslaved in Egypt, and some of the plagues, etc.
The book of kings.
. . .
Note, obviously these stories and probably aren't terribly accurate, but still they are based in real stuff.
No, I don't know what he meant. Think about 100 years from now when robots can clean up the landfills, or companies get into "landfill mining."
I really don't think tossing aluminium or plastics is going to harm my grandkids.
I do believe the "Everyone must recycle" mania is a religious appeal.
So what? Jesus was a person, after all, you know. Many of the biblical stories refer to actual historical events.
:)
Come on! Try it out! Play with me a while: both have apocolyptic badness at the end, if all the people don't accept and behave a certain way. Pretty similar ideas, aren't they?
I'm surprised my parent post hasn't been modded down for "blashpemy" yet, but I'm sure it will
Really? You mean if I throw away my plastic garbage instead of recycle it the world will become unlivable? Please. . .
I don't see much difference between this religion and the apocolyptic eco-crazy memes they pump into kids at school these days. Instead of "Your soul will go to hell if you don't study" it has become "The earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle."
The patent system wasn't invented to protect the little guy. It was invented to protect society.
In your note above, you say going it alone might take so long to get there someone else scoops you. In that case, you want to protect that you got there first, or patented the idea first. Patents weren't designed to protect the person that gets there first.
In terms of getting funding for an idea, in my experience VCs fund teams and markets first, and ideas second. I do have some sympathy with this part of your argument, but not a tremendous amount. If your ideas are really good, they will fund you precisely because you can come up with good ideas.
CIA, spooks, etc.? Pulease. Patents aren't about protecting information, they are about releasing information but protecting ideas.
> SS1 is a deadend design a
> by building off 40+ years of NASA research.
On the one hand its using NASA research, and on the other hand it is dead end technology. I guess only NASA can afford to waste 40+ years of research. Really, think about your own double standards.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Exactly. You might have a while to wait.
Better spend $billions$ now.
Let's see. There was an air blast in Siberia that people hypothesize was a meteorite. There was a large meteor strike 35Million years ago, and one about 65 million years ago. Better spend $Billions$ to fight this threat. Who cares if there is an actual threat, better look to Bruce Willis movies to figure out how to get public support for the expensive beaurocratic solutions, and develop a solution now that is 100 times more expensive than it would be 100 years from now (i.e., let's find a reason for existance).
The only threat here seems to be that NASA is an agency in trouble. Forbidding launches of private spacecraft in the US to protect the shuttle merely helped other countries to develop their own space programs. We are all tired of expensive failure after failure of overly complex missions, and see the many near misses of massive failures such as Hubble with its inverted lens, and Galileo when the antenna wouldn't open. [Being honest people we love the two Mars rovers, and applaud the out of the box thinking in their lander].
NASA, figure out a mission, or get out of the way.
> Not bad for what was slated to be a '90 Sol'
They intentionally underestimate the operational duration of the equipment to continually "WOW" the public. "Undercommit, overdeliver."
Something Engineers need to do to when scheduling their projects.
When I read this article, I had to laugh. The article is written as if this is a major consideration of the PROJECT , when it really isn't. First of all, we don't send too many people into space, but we send lots of stuff into space, so something like this would never stop it. Secondly, and more importantly, space elevators are fifty years or more away.
It's really just a way of exciting teenagers into thinking the space elevator is a certainty that's going to happen in a few years or so. Interesting, but irrelevent.
What, the Dems didn't rig this election with their press buddies? Come on, they dont' actually stand for anything.
The voters of Ohio delivered Ohio to George Bush. What an amazingly sore loser you are.
and
Notice the difference between these two. They are both individual decisions, but one was just a poor choice of words (Diebold's comments). Yet, and ironically, you give more credence to the Diebold comment when nothing was actually done.
Regarding the big thing that is happening is the liberalization of voting rules.
From the opinion piece:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/ca t_silence_of_the_cheese.php
3 1.shtml
Talks about Wisconsin Democrat voter fraud
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/853
Talks about using crack to register voters.
Uh, why do you think they want to remove the requirement to have a photo ID?
I love it, the appearance of impropriety is improper itself.
How about the willful manipulation of the appearance of impropriety is a severe attack on our democracy, and should be viewed as seditious.
Really, all this stuff is in the noise, and is a complete distraction. Consider how much more variation there is due to the weather or the press incorrectly calling the election for Gore.
The real wackos think someone might actually rig the voting machines. As if a political party would have so much stake in one election/candidate they would be willing to risk destruction of the entire party. Jeez.
Maybe the press and liberals will stop complaining when they lose elections, and start focusing on the real issue. Voter fraud brought about by liberals.
What's worse: a few hours of terror or months or years knowing you have terminal cancer, heart disease, etc., and going through potentially very painful procedures because the end is too hard to bear, all the while a handful of people in the health care profession get richer.
Let's see, Democrat Gerry Studds had sex with a male 17 year old page in 1983. He wasn't forced to resign. He served in the US house of representatives until 1997. Where was the press and outrage?
Now all Foley admits to doing is writing some suggestive emails, and AFAIK that's where it all ended. Yet Foley has resigned, and if the fair minded Democrats and press had their way those who knew about the notes, or preferably the entire republican party, would be brought down.
Yes, it's pretty obvious the Democrats and their lap dogs in the mainstream media would never act unfairly. Let's see how the press spins Saddam Hussein's death verdict, etc. I suspect there won't be much advantage to for the republicans.
Incidentally, I don't deny the possibility, or even likelihood of the Saddam Hussein death sentence was timed. But the Democrat and lap dog press shenanigans are, IMO, much worse.
What's interesting about this? Nothing, unless it is that anyone can find this interesting.
A voting machine was miscalibrated! Wooohooo!
Imagine what would have happened if the year 2K Butterfly ballots in Florida were developed by a republican. People like you would have been ABSOLUTELY SURE it was due to evil republicans. Liberals attack another great institution: Voting. You can't be sure they didn't vote for the liberal!! Recount until we get the answer we want!!!
But when it comes to things like the left leaning media calling it for Gore BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED, and the likely attendent decline in republicans voting, we hear not a whisper.
I too never spoke about "biological progress means we will be able to explore the galaxy"...you mentioned it.
I mentioned this where?
I contend there are indications there is no other intelligent life in this galaxy (I would guess it exists elswhere in the universe). From a probability perspective we can cut out:
All those instances in which we become aware of that other intelligent life.
I like to argue the set of universes in which intelligent life exists and the set of intelligent life exists and we are aware of it are nearly the same.
No, this isn't the same as "knowing."
Anyway, as another poster pointed out, it turns out this is fermi's paradox or other, so my ideas aren't original, and as such I'm losing interest in them.
You will notice I made no mention of biological progress. Just a short period of time biologically speaking. Very different things, aren't they? But your reply is something to anything in my post: that because we have made biological progress means we will be able to explore the galaxy. Who said this? I certainly didn't. You claim I did, or used it as a basis for my argument, none of which is correct.
In fact, everything in your reply is either a leap of ignorance or non-sequitor.
I need to sometimes realize it is almost useless trying to have a rational discussion with dim witted arrogant people. If you do come back, please don't come back with another idiotic or unrelated statement.
Looks like this is exactly what I was arguing :). Thanks for pointing it out. One thing I don't see though is the following idea.
What are the chances there are just several (2, 3, 4) intelligent life forms in the Galaxy? I think the chances of this are very low. I believe 1 intelligent life form is much more likely than 2, 3 or 4, and I also think that many intelligent life forms in the galaxy is more likely than a small number. Given many intelligent life forms, it would seem one of them would seek us out.