thank you, exactly. since the venusian day moves so slowly (and the day moves backwards!: sun rising in west, setting in east!), it wouldn't be an energy taxing effort. and plenty of solar power so much closer to the sun than earth (and mars)
better yet, you could position the city in permanent twilight, where the temperature would be perfectly balanced for humans
so you have:
1. human friendly temperature 2. human friendly gravity 3. human friendly atmospheric pressure 4. magnetosphere
mars can offer none of these things. all it has is ground (minor detail? lol)
all you have to do is make the dramatic jump in materials science to make building such a floating city possible
well yeah, no ground. but a human-friendly atmosphere on venus equals hot air balloon on earth: it floats. with some future technology, you could have entire cities comfortably floating above the clouds
with mars you have no magnetosphere, awful atmospheric pressure, and paltry gravity. venus doesn't have these problems
both don't have enough hydrogen. that's a ding against both planets
obviously mars and venus are pretty hostile for colonization. i am merely making the case, that you don't have to agree with, but i think is true, is that when comparing venus's pluses and negatives with mars pluses and negatives, venus comes out ahead as a slightly more attractive target for colonization
but all sorts of future technology changes can change the pluses and minuses. maybe building floating cities will be made easy with some future technological jump in materials science (nanofibres self-assembling and self-sealing, for example). or maybe dealing with no magnetosphere on mars will be made moot with some future technological jump in biotechnology (curing cancer proactively and continually, for example)
who knows. but what i am saying is the mars colonization bandwagon, to me, is overhyped and preassumed without enough real rational examination. no one gives enough thought to venus, which in many respects represents a superior colonization target
Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System, even more so than the surface of Mars. Due to the similarity in pressure and temperature and the fact that breathable air (21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen) is a lifting gas on Venus in the same way that helium is a lifting gas on Earth, the upper atmosphere has been proposed as a location for both exploration and colonization.[11]
cloud city anyone?
living chambers or entire cities, pressurized to earth-friendly atmospherics, floating like balloons. with human-friendly gravity and a good-enough magnetosphere, and, on top of the clouds, a much nicer temperature (although the venusian day > venusian year! so you'd have a hot and cold cycle that's pretty dramatic)
still, all this points to life above the venusian clouds as something better than mars. colonial life, floating on the venusian cloudtops. on a number of merits, compared to mars, with much less atmosphere, no magnetosphere and paltry gravity to offer... venus comes out the superior choice. and then there's the closer solar proximity (power source anyone?)
one drawback to venus is it seems to boiled off most of its hydrogen. but mars seems to have done that too, so the deficiency is simply a problem with both mars and venus
the lusers as you call them are whom the internet is for. the point is to make the internet to their standards: none and few, rather than making it to your standards: computer science majors only. the internet is not an exclusive club for the technically sophisticated
think of it as an engineering exercise in robustness and hardiness and elasticity in the face of abuse. because your current inferior attitude that some sort of technical proficiency is required to use the internet is a standard that will simply never happen. continue on in snobbery that makes you feel smugly superior in classic narcissistic style, or accept reality. your choice
if a company writes "your first born is owned by us" in the small print that does not entitle them to anything. the idea that you must absorb yourself in legalistic muck just to use a piece of software is a fantasy of lawyers and idiots like yourself, but holds no relevance to reality. skype has a responsibility to act honorably, no matter what the fuck it writes in the small print, and for you to excuse some slimy company on such flimsy grounds makes you nothing more than an ignorant asshole. why do you side with company and not the consumer? do you not understand the power imbalance here? or apparently you do, and you like the power imbalance just fine. again: then you are an asshole
if all the transformers on the long range lines get blown at the same time in the northern hemisphere, yeah, the world is not going to end. but it will still be a huge issue to get it all fixed, since there currently is no emergency trip for an incoming flare on most systems
so your comment is funny, but it is just as stupid to have a false sense of complacency as it is to be a false alarmist
After defending sales of a self-published book on pedophilia, online retail giant Amazon last night reversed course and pulled the book from its Kindle store.
The electronic book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," by Philip R. Greaves II, went on sale on Oct. 28 and cost $4.79 to download.
that was november 11. to amazon's credit, it initially defended the selling of this book. but it caved under pressure and bad publicity, and now the internal politics of amazon seems to have shifted course, and amazon has proactively started cutting other books that amazon doesn't want to be associated with, for whatever reason. it's a sea change. before october 28, amazon's policy seemed to have been "publish whatever". now, it's "publish whatever doesn't make amazon a target for bad pr"
but here with mugabe and wikileaks an actual evil person does something transgressive. the evil person, in that specific situation, takes all the blame
you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
yes. but in a situation where an actual evil person does something transgressive, then the evil person takes all the blame. that's the situation with mugabe and wikileaks. you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
if they aren't evil, then they don't deserve any blame. mugabe does, 100% of it. if you agree with that statement, then indeed, as you say, we have no disagreement
"Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes."
if i tell a man where someone is, i'm stupid. if i use that information to hurt someone, i'm evil
do you understand the difference between stupidity and evil?
of course, the friend may KNOW that the information will be used to hurt someone. if they KNOW that, and they share the information, they ARE evil. but if they don't know how that information will be used, they are chumps, dupes, idiots. but they aren't EVIL
apparently, right now, you don't understand the difference between stupidity and evil. therefore, you lack the the foundational understanding of human nature to make moral judgments. i am sincerely saying that about you: you currently lack an understanding of morality
people who believe in wikileaks and absolute transparency in diplomatic relations are naive, foolish, idealistic in an uneducated, unsophisticated, and hamfisted way... but they aren't EVIL. now did assange KNOW mugabe would use wikileaks to hurt his people? if he did, he's evil. but if he's just an idealistic zealous wannabe revolutionary whose mind is clouded with visions of punishing evil governments, he's just stupid for not thinking things through. but he's not evil
you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. then you are letting criminals get away with crimes
repeat: you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. as soon as you agree to that statement, you are a moral person. if you do not agree to that statement, you are simply not a moral person, and you have no business making moral judgments, as you lack the cognitive capacity
do we blame the woman and her short dress for her being raped?
do we blame the parents and their inattentiveness for their child being molested?
of course you should be modest in the wrong places and you should pay attention to your children's whereabouts, but you blame transgressions on transgressors, and the transgressors alone, 100%. this is the only way morality can be read: blame always falls 100% on the criminal, not the victim
if i leave $100 on my front porch, i'm an idiot. but the guy who goes on my front porch, and takes something which is clearly not his and on someone else's property: that's a crime, and he's the criminal. there is a difference between evil and stupid, and you don't blame the victim, no matter how stupid they are. innocence IS stupidity: not understanding the danger of transgressive criminals in the world at large. you blame the criminal, always and completely, or you simply don't understand what morality is. morality is about protecting the victim, not prosecuting them
likewise, you can say that those who support wikileaks are naive, idealistic, and unsophisticated in their hamfisted approach to world affairs and transparency. but they are not evil, and they aren't criminals, they're just dumb and unsophisticated in their reading of how wikileaks will be used by evil men. and so, blaming the naive and foolish for what someone clearly evil like mugabe does is not morality. who deserves the blame for what mugabe does because of wikileaks? answer: mugabe, and only mugabe. he is the criminal, and zimbabweans are the victims, and wikileaks is just a convenient excuse like "well, its her fault, look at her dress" or "where were the parents?"
unfortunately, those who don't understand the difference between weakness and evil, will accept mugabe's lame argument. understand true morality: you don't blame wikileaks for what evil people do. of course it would be nice to have some awareness of evil people and their predictable actions, but evil people, and evil people alone, still shoulder 100% of the blame. that's the only view compatible with morality
you can proactively mask your cheats with statistically valid test answers, right and wrong. thus, the cheats won't be caught by the test analysis software, it will be thrown off the scent
however, if you can actually master this methodology, and the test you are cheating on is a test in a college level statistical analysis class, perhaps you deserve the A nonetheless
i mnetioned canada. you should read, then respond. i am well aware of your oil sands. i will give you more credit than you have given me and assume you are also aware of the pollution involved in processing those sands
canuckistan supplies most of our oil, yes. however, giving money to canucks is not as frightening as giving money to wahabbis who fund al qaeda. thus the saudi bugaboo. so perhaps in the interest of american energy independence you canucks could do something unstable, like declare war on denmark or claim the north pole. canadians are just so... harmless and innocuous
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice. with electric, you can get your electricity from coal plants belching acid rain and CO2, yes, but at least you are only funding mining barons in west virginia. but your electricity can also be from nuclear, or solar, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or tidal, or wind... or whatever. the whole point being, you can still drive the same car, you have energy independence, as an individual, and as a society. you don't have to worry what gas prices will be in 2011 as demand rises and supplies get deeper and deeper. you don't have to worry about soccer moms in SUVs, when they fill their fuel tanks, funding al qaeda or hugo chavez or russian neoimperialism or.. shiver... canada (relax canucks, its just a dumb joke)
electric cars are just being smart and planning for the future. not that planning for the future is a concept many people are very familiar with. change makes people uncomfortable. well, brazil, and india and china are not shrinking economies, and the global economy is recovering. remember fuel prices before the economic collapse in 2008? if you don't you'll soon get a nasty reminder. buy an electric car now. you've been amply warned, don't be dumb
as equally as wrong as your attitude, which is obviously extremely eager to absolve him of guilt
frankly, it just doesn't fucking matter to his work on transparency, but the way the human mind works, we can't merely discuss the genuinely important topic of transparency, we have to engage in mindless pointless celebrity worship and revilement, and therefore be completely distracted as to any worthwhile discussion
assange is a human being with human weaknesses, like all of us
however, this particular flawed man started a movement for transparency which is laudable
the proper response is to pay homage to the man for his good works, and chastise him for his transgressions in the bedroom, at the same time
but apparently people can only process assange as devil or angel. when of course, this is a gross simplification that serves nothing other than to mark the person as an idiot who cannot bring himself to chastise the man (or laud the man)
you who say "assange can do no wrong" or "assange can do no right", which is the starting point for many comments here, you are no better than the chattering monkeys who engage in celebrity worship on TMZ. you are simply no better if you cannot bring yourself to repudiate the man for his transgressions in the bedroom (or if you can't bring yourself to praise the man for his transparency efforts)
the man, honestly, means nothing. but the MOVEMENT he helped start (and will not stop, with or without him) remains a permanent virtue on his permanent record (just as permanent as the rapes)
yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong. it is possible for you to acknowledge both. so do it, and free yourself from shallow pointless celebrity worship, which is what you do when you mindlessly defend assange on an UNRELATED ISSUE to his transparency work
Slashdot Mirror
thank you, exactly. since the venusian day moves so slowly (and the day moves backwards!: sun rising in west, setting in east!), it wouldn't be an energy taxing effort. and plenty of solar power so much closer to the sun than earth (and mars)
better yet, you could position the city in permanent twilight, where the temperature would be perfectly balanced for humans
so you have:
1. human friendly temperature
2. human friendly gravity
3. human friendly atmospheric pressure
4. magnetosphere
mars can offer none of these things. all it has is ground (minor detail? lol)
all you have to do is make the dramatic jump in materials science to make building such a floating city possible
well yeah, no ground. but a human-friendly atmosphere on venus equals hot air balloon on earth: it floats. with some future technology, you could have entire cities comfortably floating above the clouds
with mars you have no magnetosphere, awful atmospheric pressure, and paltry gravity. venus doesn't have these problems
both don't have enough hydrogen. that's a ding against both planets
obviously mars and venus are pretty hostile for colonization. i am merely making the case, that you don't have to agree with, but i think is true, is that when comparing venus's pluses and negatives with mars pluses and negatives, venus comes out ahead as a slightly more attractive target for colonization
but all sorts of future technology changes can change the pluses and minuses. maybe building floating cities will be made easy with some future technological jump in materials science (nanofibres self-assembling and self-sealing, for example). or maybe dealing with no magnetosphere on mars will be made moot with some future technological jump in biotechnology (curing cancer proactively and continually, for example)
who knows. but what i am saying is the mars colonization bandwagon, to me, is overhyped and preassumed without enough real rational examination. no one gives enough thought to venus, which in many respects represents a superior colonization target
for a number of reasons, not least of which its "fake" magnetosphere, which mars does not have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Induced_magnetosphere
also note:
cloud city anyone?
living chambers or entire cities, pressurized to earth-friendly atmospherics, floating like balloons. with human-friendly gravity and a good-enough magnetosphere, and, on top of the clouds, a much nicer temperature (although the venusian day > venusian year! so you'd have a hot and cold cycle that's pretty dramatic)
still, all this points to life above the venusian clouds as something better than mars. colonial life, floating on the venusian cloudtops. on a number of merits, compared to mars, with much less atmosphere, no magnetosphere and paltry gravity to offer... venus comes out the superior choice. and then there's the closer solar proximity (power source anyone?)
one drawback to venus is it seems to boiled off most of its hydrogen. but mars seems to have done that too, so the deficiency is simply a problem with both mars and venus
overall, venus is the future folks, not mars
aka 133t status
use the fbi to do your dirty work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job
You use the same argument spammers do when they claim they have a right to use 100% of the bandwidth they don't pay for at all.
no, the arguments are not comparable. to attempt to explain why to you is a level of intellectual charity i am not interested in stooping too
the lusers as you call them are whom the internet is for. the point is to make the internet to their standards: none and few, rather than making it to your standards: computer science majors only. the internet is not an exclusive club for the technically sophisticated
think of it as an engineering exercise in robustness and hardiness and elasticity in the face of abuse. because your current inferior attitude that some sort of technical proficiency is required to use the internet is a standard that will simply never happen. continue on in snobbery that makes you feel smugly superior in classic narcissistic style, or accept reality. your choice
if a company writes "your first born is owned by us" in the small print that does not entitle them to anything. the idea that you must absorb yourself in legalistic muck just to use a piece of software is a fantasy of lawyers and idiots like yourself, but holds no relevance to reality. skype has a responsibility to act honorably, no matter what the fuck it writes in the small print, and for you to excuse some slimy company on such flimsy grounds makes you nothing more than an ignorant asshole. why do you side with company and not the consumer? do you not understand the power imbalance here? or apparently you do, and you like the power imbalance just fine. again: then you are an asshole
that's right, because everyone who wants to use VOIP should review the source code and familiarize themselves with the relevant RFC specs
classic "if you aren't a computer scientist you shouldn't use the internet" ignorant geek snobbery. how's that standard of behavior working for you?
"Does the company just randomly choose users who are online a lot and declare them supernodes without the owner's knowledge"
yes, that's exactly what they do. and yes, that's retarded for a company like skype
if all the transformers on the long range lines get blown at the same time in the northern hemisphere, yeah, the world is not going to end. but it will still be a huge issue to get it all fixed, since there currently is no emergency trip for an incoming flare on most systems
so your comment is funny, but it is just as stupid to have a false sense of complacency as it is to be a false alarmist
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/amazon-removes-pedophilia-book-store/story?id=12119035
that was november 11. to amazon's credit, it initially defended the selling of this book. but it caved under pressure and bad publicity, and now the internal politics of amazon seems to have shifted course, and amazon has proactively started cutting other books that amazon doesn't want to be associated with, for whatever reason. it's a sea change. before october 28, amazon's policy seemed to have been "publish whatever". now, it's "publish whatever doesn't make amazon a target for bad pr"
absolutely true
but here with mugabe and wikileaks an actual evil person does something transgressive. the evil person, in that specific situation, takes all the blame
you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
yes. but in a situation where an actual evil person does something transgressive, then the evil person takes all the blame. that's the situation with mugabe and wikileaks. you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
if they aren't evil, then they don't deserve any blame. mugabe does, 100% of it. if you agree with that statement, then indeed, as you say, we have no disagreement
"Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes."
if i tell a man where someone is, i'm stupid. if i use that information to hurt someone, i'm evil
do you understand the difference between stupidity and evil?
of course, the friend may KNOW that the information will be used to hurt someone. if they KNOW that, and they share the information, they ARE evil. but if they don't know how that information will be used, they are chumps, dupes, idiots. but they aren't EVIL
apparently, right now, you don't understand the difference between stupidity and evil. therefore, you lack the the foundational understanding of human nature to make moral judgments. i am sincerely saying that about you: you currently lack an understanding of morality
people who believe in wikileaks and absolute transparency in diplomatic relations are naive, foolish, idealistic in an uneducated, unsophisticated, and hamfisted way... but they aren't EVIL. now did assange KNOW mugabe would use wikileaks to hurt his people? if he did, he's evil. but if he's just an idealistic zealous wannabe revolutionary whose mind is clouded with visions of punishing evil governments, he's just stupid for not thinking things through. but he's not evil
you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. then you are letting criminals get away with crimes
repeat: you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. as soon as you agree to that statement, you are a moral person. if you do not agree to that statement, you are simply not a moral person, and you have no business making moral judgments, as you lack the cognitive capacity
do we blame the woman and her short dress for her being raped?
do we blame the parents and their inattentiveness for their child being molested?
of course you should be modest in the wrong places and you should pay attention to your children's whereabouts, but you blame transgressions on transgressors, and the transgressors alone, 100%. this is the only way morality can be read: blame always falls 100% on the criminal, not the victim
if i leave $100 on my front porch, i'm an idiot. but the guy who goes on my front porch, and takes something which is clearly not his and on someone else's property: that's a crime, and he's the criminal. there is a difference between evil and stupid, and you don't blame the victim, no matter how stupid they are. innocence IS stupidity: not understanding the danger of transgressive criminals in the world at large. you blame the criminal, always and completely, or you simply don't understand what morality is. morality is about protecting the victim, not prosecuting them
likewise, you can say that those who support wikileaks are naive, idealistic, and unsophisticated in their hamfisted approach to world affairs and transparency. but they are not evil, and they aren't criminals, they're just dumb and unsophisticated in their reading of how wikileaks will be used by evil men. and so, blaming the naive and foolish for what someone clearly evil like mugabe does is not morality. who deserves the blame for what mugabe does because of wikileaks? answer: mugabe, and only mugabe. he is the criminal, and zimbabweans are the victims, and wikileaks is just a convenient excuse like "well, its her fault, look at her dress" or "where were the parents?"
unfortunately, those who don't understand the difference between weakness and evil, will accept mugabe's lame argument. understand true morality: you don't blame wikileaks for what evil people do. of course it would be nice to have some awareness of evil people and their predictable actions, but evil people, and evil people alone, still shoulder 100% of the blame. that's the only view compatible with morality
it's called humor
you can proactively mask your cheats with statistically valid test answers, right and wrong. thus, the cheats won't be caught by the test analysis software, it will be thrown off the scent
however, if you can actually master this methodology, and the test you are cheating on is a test in a college level statistical analysis class, perhaps you deserve the A nonetheless
i mnetioned canada. you should read, then respond. i am well aware of your oil sands. i will give you more credit than you have given me and assume you are also aware of the pollution involved in processing those sands
canuckistan supplies most of our oil, yes. however, giving money to canucks is not as frightening as giving money to wahabbis who fund al qaeda. thus the saudi bugaboo. so perhaps in the interest of american energy independence you canucks could do something unstable, like declare war on denmark or claim the north pole. canadians are just so... harmless and innocuous
electric allows for energy source flexibility
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice. with electric, you can get your electricity from coal plants belching acid rain and CO2, yes, but at least you are only funding mining barons in west virginia. but your electricity can also be from nuclear, or solar, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or tidal, or wind... or whatever. the whole point being, you can still drive the same car, you have energy independence, as an individual, and as a society. you don't have to worry what gas prices will be in 2011 as demand rises and supplies get deeper and deeper. you don't have to worry about soccer moms in SUVs, when they fill their fuel tanks, funding al qaeda or hugo chavez or russian neoimperialism or.. shiver... canada (relax canucks, its just a dumb joke)
electric cars are just being smart and planning for the future. not that planning for the future is a concept many people are very familiar with. change makes people uncomfortable. well, brazil, and india and china are not shrinking economies, and the global economy is recovering. remember fuel prices before the economic collapse in 2008? if you don't you'll soon get a nasty reminder. buy an electric car now. you've been amply warned, don't be dumb
if he did what the two women assert he did, he did something wrong, and should be chastised for it, whatever the legality
yes, it is wrong to rush to judgment
as equally as wrong as your attitude, which is obviously extremely eager to absolve him of guilt
frankly, it just doesn't fucking matter to his work on transparency, but the way the human mind works, we can't merely discuss the genuinely important topic of transparency, we have to engage in mindless pointless celebrity worship and revilement, and therefore be completely distracted as to any worthwhile discussion
exactly
assange is a human being with human weaknesses, like all of us
however, this particular flawed man started a movement for transparency which is laudable
the proper response is to pay homage to the man for his good works, and chastise him for his transgressions in the bedroom, at the same time
but apparently people can only process assange as devil or angel. when of course, this is a gross simplification that serves nothing other than to mark the person as an idiot who cannot bring himself to chastise the man (or laud the man)
you who say "assange can do no wrong" or "assange can do no right", which is the starting point for many comments here, you are no better than the chattering monkeys who engage in celebrity worship on TMZ. you are simply no better if you cannot bring yourself to repudiate the man for his transgressions in the bedroom (or if you can't bring yourself to praise the man for his transparency efforts)
the man, honestly, means nothing. but the MOVEMENT he helped start (and will not stop, with or without him) remains a permanent virtue on his permanent record (just as permanent as the rapes)
yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong. it is possible for you to acknowledge both. so do it, and free yourself from shallow pointless celebrity worship, which is what you do when you mindlessly defend assange on an UNRELATED ISSUE to his transparency work
800,000 dead rwandans from 1994 while diplomat assholes debate legalistic wording thank you for your kind words
"What have you done lately that is comparable?"
i'm just an individual, i'm not comparable. but if you want to talk about the usa, it invented the internet, which this whole discussion is about
"The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades"
yes. just like russia, china, britain, france and every other country in the world. what's your point?
"It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. you're a funny man