You're right--the arthur's one of my white-supremacist buddies; inbetween linchings last week, he showed me a rough draft of the article he submitted and I said, "Now hold on for a minute, Jethro--did you just refer to Ramanujan by his name?"
Seriously, how the hell can any one of you self-righteous PC crackpots get off on the notion that it was intentionally ommited? As another posted out, perhaps the arthur simply forgot how to spell his name and was too lazy to look it back up. I'll agree that the name should've been in there somewhere, but christ--none of you would be bitching if someone referred to the scrawnly white loner from the boonies who invented TV. His name was Filo T. Farnsworth, and even though he, too, was one of the greatest minds of the early 20th century, I doubt most people here have heard of him. Outside of anyone in the/. community, I've never said his name without explaining. Grow up, and realized the ommission of non-known names in favor of a title more generic title is not an American phenomenon, nor is it necessarily bad. As many other posters pointed out, what're you more likely to remember: Ramanujan, or an Indian Math Guy? I'll take my fly down so when you get here you have one less step to go through.
And yesterday we had "a major Australian newspaper" omitting to mention it was the "Melbourne Age". It seems that foreigners aren't worthy of having names, so it's just a waste of space to use them. But "they" really rubbed it in with this one, mentioning Ramanujan's nationality twice and still avoiding the name -- though perhaps it would have been more insulting if they'd tried to use it, considering the quality of spelling here.
You must own a hammer company you hit that nail on the head so square. Oh, wait, that's right--you're a dumb ass. You're honestly disappointed because there was no name mentioned (going insofar to say it was "avoided"), yet where it wasn't mentioned/it linked directly to the name/, and not only that, to biographical information in the case of Ramanujan. Seriously--that's like me, an American, going to the Melbourne Age, and when they refer to some American most people outside of America (just like Ramanujan's name not being widely known outside of academia) won't know, I get upset and call them racist/nationalist. Oh my god, could it possibly be that--I know I'm going out on a limb here--that people are perhaps not only geocentric, but also know the most about the things they study and see the most? Now listen, these're all very,/very/ revolutionary and new subjects and I hasten to add I'm not even sure if/I/ believe them...however I think I might. It's not the fault of foreigners (I'm using foreigner in a global sense--anyone not native to any country) if they don't know the in's and out's; furthermore, it most certainly is _not_ an American phenomenon. While Ramanujan's additions to mathematics are incredible and should in no way be overlooked, that doesn't mean Suzy Rottencrotch needs to be held accountable for not knowing his name. Chill the hell out, or tell everyone about your ideas for a utopia (which are doubtlessly fool-proof).
I'll be waiting to hear about 1u3hrvania, dumbass.
Excuse me for not being a Linus fanboy, but Linus is NOT in the same league as Einstein. I'm surprised they're mentioned in the same sentence. When Linus dies, nobody will be falling over themselves to dissect his brain.
It's not the caliber of their accomplishments, rather the respect they get from the/. community and the extent to which their respective names are known here. Your dad may not've tried to unify his own theories with those of Newton (well, maybe after a pint or two), but that doesn't mean you can't hold him in the same esteem. The same goes for anyone you respect.
But it's only to be expected that such places attract the lowest level of scum of society. Anyone with any skills or redeeming features would get a proper job.
A proper job? You're right, you're right; shit, I almost forgot my place. Too bad my parents couldn't afford to not only pay my tuition, but they couldn't board me either. I think I'll drop out and go to my local community college to study the custodial arts so that by cleaning up your shit, I may hope to better myself. Thanks.
Quit bitching and write your own TOS for your site that says none of it may be republished, even by google's cache. Then, if it happens, talk to google.
Several times a year it seems Maximum PC covers the topic--the female body just sells better. I've seen it covered in Popular Mechanics as well; editors are like "Listen, don't get offended, this is what moves copies off of newsstands" I know plenty of women who would rather sit through lesbian porn than gay porn, and these are very, very much straight females. Dominant male/female thing is a good point--people like pointing their heads upward with no foundation to launch off of. But the phenomenon's definately real, and I challange you to go out to your local newstand and ratio the male/female covers. Chances are, unless it's a male magazine (Why the hell wouldn't GQ have a man on it? And 8-10 issues of SI a year are also obvious--but let's remember: what SI issue sells the best?), it's going to have a female, an object, or an accompanied male. I'm thinking 3-5:1, female to male, at least. Especially during winter--it can be a cold, cold few months:-P
First of all, let me say you've done a very good job keeping up with the myriad of replies under your post--that impresses me.
Moving on, I never said democrat equals extreme left. Anywhere. You said extreme left. Furthmore, my boot was a metaphorical boot whose origin stems in how hard you just got smacked around knowledge-wise. Proof is not only in the original ignorance of your statements, but also in the fact you spent more time describing your 'credentials' than defending what you originally said against what I'd addressed. The content this 'angry 14 year old' wrote had addressed specific inconsistencies within your original post, along with their corrections. And since you insinuated my vocabularly was that of an 8th grader, I'll just assume when you saw "amalgamate", "et al", and "half-tangental diatribe" you just skipped over them rather than look them up.
I was raging about the audacity you have to group together things that don't belong together--if you haven't noticed by my tone yet, there's not much moderate about me. I happen to think government control is an enema all of our colons could do without, republicans and democrats have become far too disillusioned in their own disdain for eachother to be even remotely worth anything, and that extremes are necessary every so often, and that other times good ol' fashion compromise works best.
I swear I wish the extreme left and the libertarians both would get a clue
You/do/ realize how ridiculous that statement is, right? I can only assume that since you seem to dislike the 'extreme left' that you're a republican. Your poor grammar only further the hole you dug with your already ignorant statements, so I'll try to make this quick, because I have much better things to be doing right now.
You say: The governments job is to make laws to regulate companies for the common good
You're aware that's considerably more left than right, don't you? Democrats, socialists, et al think it's the governments job, while most on the right think the government should have the least amount of intervention as possible. And Libertarians think the government should have no intervention at all. Since that's the case, how did you group Libertarians with anybody except the extreme right, let alone the far left?
You also say: A companies job is to make money.
When a government's riding a company's back, they make less money due to regulation, and pass the price onto consumers. Those same consumers are the ones who decide who to support in the end, not the goverment. If a company's doing something you don't like, don't buy from them--you're right about that. Except you have absolutely no idea about any politcal philosophy, so after you amalgamate the philosophies of two wildly different parties into your own views after you said each respective party needs to "Get a clue", you go on some half-tangental diatribe to flex your obviously all-encompassing knowledge about the subject of energy. My only hope is that you've enough of an IQ to realize that "obviously all-encompassing knowledge" was sarcasm.
I mean seriously man, do you know anything about Libertarianism? Or even Democrats? Republicans, maybe? Your own party? You say: I will give you a clue. Thanks for the clue, captain dipshit--maybe I'll feel generous and give you a bar to remove my boot from your ass--hopefully you won't use it to remove your foot from your mouth.
When asked why he divorced his supermodel wife, Billy Joel replied, "Sometimes a man doesn't want filet mignon; sometimes a man just wants a burger."
Applicable kind of, however a lot of wisdom. Ask the guy who married the beauty queen in highschool what she's like now, and it's apparent that as relationships go over time, the average face is, in fact, the most attractive.
Come on, y'all. We all know that Slashdot isn't a news site, but you guys please at least pretend to be occasionally? How's this for a suggestion:
Nanotechnology may someday be used to fight cancer
How's that?
I'm pretty sure that the editors aren't the ones picking the headlines--it's the people who submit the stories as far as I know. So basically, I think you want to bitch at whomever submits things with wordings you don't immediately agree with rather than just try to make blanket statements about the staff to get more karma.
We chrono at 280fps...I'm wondering why they said in the article "A paintball gun can still fire at up to 235 feet per second" when APL rules are 280 and most places used to chrono at 300. Most guns are capable of more than 300; though we only set them that high when a group divides into parents vs kids:)
Space research is about learning about space and how to survive and thrive there
With what motives? Depending on whom one speaks to, that could be anything from business to war. Space research will merely open up new avenues for military research to get into.
When everything works in space, people survive and thrive. When everything works in the military, people die.
I have to disagree with you about "When everything works in the military, people die." When everything works in the military during war time, then yes, people die. However it is easy to notice that in more modern times when everything works in the military it's less likely to be wars fought. I'm not going to fire an ICBM at that country yander because I know he has ICBMs pointed right back at me. When you're both holding guns to eachother's heads, who shoots first?
And I dislike your condescending tone. I do not presume that space exploration will solve all of society's ills. Merely that it is a better way to spend my money.
For the most part, it was military spending that gave enough research before hand to get into space. The first rocketeers weren't military, but the giant leaps necessary (guidance (however poor), design, etc.) came mostly from WWII. However stating that it is a better way to spend your money puts this beyond the realm of any sort of fruitful debate, and even I am humble enough to step-back and say spend as you please:)
And why should we not try to improve life?
I'm not really sure what that means. Thus far, all the improving mankind has done seems to have, well, sucked. Then again, I love Thoreau, so perhaps I'm a tad extreme. Either way, since there's not going to be world unity anytime soon, any sort of improving life seems to first involve getting other enemies off one's back. Them's the ropes, and unfortunately one must play the cards they're dealt. However my original point of military and space having equal importance and being of equal necessity in the nice big hole mankind has dug for himself, and military research being here to stay because of human nature, I feel remains intact.
The article simply claims that this is new evidence. Blame michael for saying it is a new discovery.
Because Michael wrote the submission...
If by now people here are unaware to RTFA to make sure nothing happened between the submitter (whether that submitter is a/. editor or not) reading the story and writing the synopsis, then I feel them no better than those who they down.
However I don't feel that this is the case here, I'm just stating the obvious.
Where to do you think all those long-haired, hippie, student radicals came from?
Everyone's coming back from WWII, trying to forget everything--a return to normalcy. It was a rebellion. Not only that, you have your time frame wrong: the 50's and 60's had the first large groups of women working outside of the homes, also due to WWII. During the war, a damned good portion of women worked--mostly for the war effort, granted, but worked. They liked it, and when their husbands returned, they still wanted to work. However, it took a few years for everything to settle down and begin the transformation to women being good sources of income.
However, I will agree with you that kids have always been brats--even Socrates himself said, "Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." However, I believe there's a much bigger difference today--a lot of kids today hurt inside because of the lack of a real homelife. And I must agree with the grandparent when he says it doesn't matter who the homemaker is. Guys have hands, we can do dishes. Can't breastfeed, but hey--sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do:) As long as someone's home for the kids, it's much, much better. And while in the younger years of development much looks the same (the tyranny, as Socrates put it), when they start really developing during their teen years, that's when one can see what their homelife has really done to them.
Granted I believe that some people will turn out the way they will regardless--if someone's going to be strong and turn out a great person, they will regardless of their home life. Everyone has their own introspective doubts, but for the most part, the mind will get what it will get when it will get it--whether or not that's attributed to hallucinations, denial, or some other mental phenomenom. But many people have those mental gaps that are filled in with their environment, and seeming as that's the majority of people (and especially children), taking 90% of parental guidance away and all of them to develop ok on their own is downright ludicrus.
Unmanned missions also help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort....so if we don't do a manned mission, then there was no real point to begin with, other than gee-whiz factory. Whoopty shit. Not only did you prove your parent post right, but made yourself look like an ass at the same time. Wow, dovetailing--you must work out.
Survival shouldn't require abandoning Earth. Even if we can live elsewhere, it's not like we can allow asteroids to hit the motherland anyway.
Talk about maturity--what happened to having to do what one has to do? If the human race found out they had n to prepare for an immiment collision with an asteroid that will wipe most of the earth out, that's a finite amount of time. Let's also add the condition that it's at least feasible to send a large portion of people to another planet that will be habital for a large number of years. Are you gonna play Russian roulette with trying to block the asteroid, or are you going to send people to that planet? Or are you going to put your thumb in your ass, work on both at once, and get nowhere? It's survival that matters--where is inconsequential.
There's nothing wrong with being content with simpler goals like preserving the Earth.
Space and Military are the same thing in these contexts. It's all about dominance, about getting there, and about having. Having an army with a large budget has more than enough potetnial to "create new horizons to move into", and also "create access to new resources" while "help[ing] to develop technologies that are used terrestrially"
Military research helps mankind at the price of life. Space exploration helps mankind at the price of life. Both have direct and indirect benefits. You need to get out of the wading pool, put some swimmies on, and dive into the deep end--life isn't, and never will be, roses. If it were, what would be the point of living?
Jerri Blank: What's that, Mr. Noblett? Chuck Noblett, holding a large, clay phalus: This is a piece of exotic artwork I'm making for an exhibition about the lost city of Pompei. Jerri: How was it lost? Noblett: Nobody knows, Jerri--it was buried under volcanic ash, so all the records were destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right--the arthur's one of my white-supremacist buddies; inbetween linchings last week, he showed me a rough draft of the article he submitted and I said, "Now hold on for a minute, Jethro--did you just refer to Ramanujan by his name?"
/. community, I've never said his name without explaining. Grow up, and realized the ommission of non-known names in favor of a title more generic title is not an American phenomenon, nor is it necessarily bad. As many other posters pointed out, what're you more likely to remember: Ramanujan, or an Indian Math Guy? I'll take my fly down so when you get here you have one less step to go through.
Seriously, how the hell can any one of you self-righteous PC crackpots get off on the notion that it was intentionally ommited? As another posted out, perhaps the arthur simply forgot how to spell his name and was too lazy to look it back up. I'll agree that the name should've been in there somewhere, but christ--none of you would be bitching if someone referred to the scrawnly white loner from the boonies who invented TV. His name was Filo T. Farnsworth, and even though he, too, was one of the greatest minds of the early 20th century, I doubt most people here have heard of him. Outside of anyone in the
And yesterday we had "a major Australian newspaper" omitting to mention it was the "Melbourne Age". It seems that foreigners aren't worthy of having names, so it's just a waste of space to use them. But "they" really rubbed it in with this one, mentioning Ramanujan's nationality twice and still avoiding the name -- though perhaps it would have been more insulting if they'd tried to use it, considering the quality of spelling here.
/it linked directly to the name/, and not only that, to biographical information in the case of Ramanujan. Seriously--that's like me, an American, going to the Melbourne Age, and when they refer to some American most people outside of America (just like Ramanujan's name not being widely known outside of academia) won't know, I get upset and call them racist/nationalist. Oh my god, could it possibly be that--I know I'm going out on a limb here--that people are perhaps not only geocentric, but also know the most about the things they study and see the most? Now listen, these're all very, /very/ revolutionary and new subjects and I hasten to add I'm not even sure if /I/ believe them...however I think I might. It's not the fault of foreigners (I'm using foreigner in a global sense--anyone not native to any country) if they don't know the in's and out's; furthermore, it most certainly is _not_ an American phenomenon. While Ramanujan's additions to mathematics are incredible and should in no way be overlooked, that doesn't mean Suzy Rottencrotch needs to be held accountable for not knowing his name. Chill the hell out, or tell everyone about your ideas for a utopia (which are doubtlessly fool-proof).
You must own a hammer company you hit that nail on the head so square. Oh, wait, that's right--you're a dumb ass. You're honestly disappointed because there was no name mentioned (going insofar to say it was "avoided"), yet where it wasn't mentioned
I'll be waiting to hear about 1u3hrvania, dumbass.
Only on Slashdot would there be a dude who argues that _Einstein's_ number of discoveries was mediocre ;)
...oh. :-P
Relative to other geniuses, of course... *ow!*
Seriously! I mean, how many patches has Big Al submitted to the kernel? Huh? How many?
That's what I thought. He must be a crackpot, and therefore, terminated.
Excuse me for not being a Linus fanboy, but Linus is NOT in the same league as Einstein. I'm surprised they're mentioned in the same sentence. When Linus dies, nobody will be falling over themselves to dissect his brain.
/. community and the extent to which their respective names are known here. Your dad may not've tried to unify his own theories with those of Newton (well, maybe after a pint or two), but that doesn't mean you can't hold him in the same esteem. The same goes for anyone you respect.
It's not the caliber of their accomplishments, rather the respect they get from the
But it's only to be expected that such places attract the lowest level of scum of society. Anyone with any skills or redeeming features would get a proper job.
A proper job? You're right, you're right; shit, I almost forgot my place. Too bad my parents couldn't afford to not only pay my tuition, but they couldn't board me either. I think I'll drop out and go to my local community college to study the custodial arts so that by cleaning up your shit, I may hope to better myself. Thanks.
"You wouldn't call a lifelong smoker who told you not to smoke evil would you? You could certainly call them a hypocrite."
And who knows better the caveats of smoking than a life long smoker?
Quit bitching and write your own TOS for your site that says none of it may be republished, even by google's cache. Then, if it happens, talk to google.
Several times a year it seems Maximum PC covers the topic--the female body just sells better. I've seen it covered in Popular Mechanics as well; editors are like "Listen, don't get offended, this is what moves copies off of newsstands" I know plenty of women who would rather sit through lesbian porn than gay porn, and these are very, very much straight females. Dominant male/female thing is a good point--people like pointing their heads upward with no foundation to launch off of. But the phenomenon's definately real, and I challange you to go out to your local newstand and ratio the male/female covers. Chances are, unless it's a male magazine (Why the hell wouldn't GQ have a man on it? And 8-10 issues of SI a year are also obvious--but let's remember: what SI issue sells the best?), it's going to have a female, an object, or an accompanied male. I'm thinking 3-5:1, female to male, at least. Especially during winter--it can be a cold, cold few months :-P
first post prost first two in two days
oh um, relevant comment
You tell 'im, brother :-P
Honor*
Oops, that's probably flamebait
Prost Frist, and, uh, stuff like that.
First of all, let me say you've done a very good job keeping up with the myriad of replies under your post--that impresses me.
Moving on, I never said democrat equals extreme left. Anywhere. You said extreme left. Furthmore, my boot was a metaphorical boot whose origin stems in how hard you just got smacked around knowledge-wise. Proof is not only in the original ignorance of your statements, but also in the fact you spent more time describing your 'credentials' than defending what you originally said against what I'd addressed. The content this 'angry 14 year old' wrote had addressed specific inconsistencies within your original post, along with their corrections. And since you insinuated my vocabularly was that of an 8th grader, I'll just assume when you saw "amalgamate", "et al", and "half-tangental diatribe" you just skipped over them rather than look them up.
I was raging about the audacity you have to group together things that don't belong together--if you haven't noticed by my tone yet, there's not much moderate about me. I happen to think government control is an enema all of our colons could do without, republicans and democrats have become far too disillusioned in their own disdain for eachother to be even remotely worth anything, and that extremes are necessary every so often, and that other times good ol' fashion compromise works best.
I swear I wish the extreme left and the libertarians both would get a clue
/do/ realize how ridiculous that statement is, right? I can only assume that since you seem to dislike the 'extreme left' that you're a republican. Your poor grammar only further the hole you dug with your already ignorant statements, so I'll try to make this quick, because I have much better things to be doing right now.
You
You say: The governments job is to make laws to regulate companies for the common good
You're aware that's considerably more left than right, don't you? Democrats, socialists, et al think it's the governments job, while most on the right think the government should have the least amount of intervention as possible. And Libertarians think the government should have no intervention at all. Since that's the case, how did you group Libertarians with anybody except the extreme right, let alone the far left?
You also say: A companies job is to make money.
When a government's riding a company's back, they make less money due to regulation, and pass the price onto consumers. Those same consumers are the ones who decide who to support in the end, not the goverment. If a company's doing something you don't like, don't buy from them--you're right about that. Except you have absolutely no idea about any politcal philosophy, so after you amalgamate the philosophies of two wildly different parties into your own views after you said each respective party needs to "Get a clue", you go on some half-tangental diatribe to flex your obviously all-encompassing knowledge about the subject of energy. My only hope is that you've enough of an IQ to realize that "obviously all-encompassing knowledge" was sarcasm.
I mean seriously man, do you know anything about Libertarianism? Or even Democrats? Republicans, maybe? Your own party? You say: I will give you a clue. Thanks for the clue, captain dipshit--maybe I'll feel generous and give you a bar to remove my boot from your ass--hopefully you won't use it to remove your foot from your mouth.
When asked why he divorced his supermodel wife, Billy Joel replied, "Sometimes a man doesn't want filet mignon; sometimes a man just wants a burger."
Applicable kind of, however a lot of wisdom. Ask the guy who married the beauty queen in highschool what she's like now, and it's apparent that as relationships go over time, the average face is, in fact, the most attractive.
If it's so loud that you have to wear earplugs when you're at a concert.. Doesn't that say something?
Ya--you're too damned old!
They toss their own salads?
Ya--goatse's been following these guys for a long time now.
Come on, y'all. We all know that Slashdot isn't a news site, but you guys please at least pretend to be occasionally? How's this for a suggestion:
Nanotechnology may someday be used to fight cancer
How's that?
I'm pretty sure that the editors aren't the ones picking the headlines--it's the people who submit the stories as far as I know. So basically, I think you want to bitch at whomever submits things with wordings you don't immediately agree with rather than just try to make blanket statements about the staff to get more karma.
We chrono at 280fps...I'm wondering why they said in the article "A paintball gun can still fire at up to 235 feet per second" when APL rules are 280 and most places used to chrono at 300. Most guns are capable of more than 300; though we only set them that high when a group divides into parents vs kids :)
Space research is about learning about space and how to survive and thrive there
:)
With what motives? Depending on whom one speaks to, that could be anything from business to war. Space research will merely open up new avenues for military research to get into.
When everything works in space, people survive and thrive. When everything works in the military, people die.
I have to disagree with you about "When everything works in the military, people die." When everything works in the military during war time, then yes, people die. However it is easy to notice that in more modern times when everything works in the military it's less likely to be wars fought. I'm not going to fire an ICBM at that country yander because I know he has ICBMs pointed right back at me. When you're both holding guns to eachother's heads, who shoots first?
And I dislike your condescending tone. I do not presume that space exploration will solve all of society's ills. Merely that it is a better way to spend my money.
For the most part, it was military spending that gave enough research before hand to get into space. The first rocketeers weren't military, but the giant leaps necessary (guidance (however poor), design, etc.) came mostly from WWII. However stating that it is a better way to spend your money puts this beyond the realm of any sort of fruitful debate, and even I am humble enough to step-back and say spend as you please
And why should we not try to improve life?
I'm not really sure what that means. Thus far, all the improving mankind has done seems to have, well, sucked. Then again, I love Thoreau, so perhaps I'm a tad extreme. Either way, since there's not going to be world unity anytime soon, any sort of improving life seems to first involve getting other enemies off one's back. Them's the ropes, and unfortunately one must play the cards they're dealt. However my original point of military and space having equal importance and being of equal necessity in the nice big hole mankind has dug for himself, and military research being here to stay because of human nature, I feel remains intact.
The article simply claims that this is new evidence. Blame michael for saying it is a new discovery.
/. editor or not) reading the story and writing the synopsis, then I feel them no better than those who they down.
Because Michael wrote the submission...
If by now people here are unaware to RTFA to make sure nothing happened between the submitter (whether that submitter is a
However I don't feel that this is the case here, I'm just stating the obvious.
Where to do you think all those long-haired, hippie, student radicals came from?
:) As long as someone's home for the kids, it's much, much better. And while in the younger years of development much looks the same (the tyranny, as Socrates put it), when they start really developing during their teen years, that's when one can see what their homelife has really done to them.
Everyone's coming back from WWII, trying to forget everything--a return to normalcy. It was a rebellion. Not only that, you have your time frame wrong: the 50's and 60's had the first large groups of women working outside of the homes, also due to WWII. During the war, a damned good portion of women worked--mostly for the war effort, granted, but worked. They liked it, and when their husbands returned, they still wanted to work. However, it took a few years for everything to settle down and begin the transformation to women being good sources of income.
However, I will agree with you that kids have always been brats--even Socrates himself said, "Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." However, I believe there's a much bigger difference today--a lot of kids today hurt inside because of the lack of a real homelife. And I must agree with the grandparent when he says it doesn't matter who the homemaker is. Guys have hands, we can do dishes. Can't breastfeed, but hey--sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do
Granted I believe that some people will turn out the way they will regardless--if someone's going to be strong and turn out a great person, they will regardless of their home life. Everyone has their own introspective doubts, but for the most part, the mind will get what it will get when it will get it--whether or not that's attributed to hallucinations, denial, or some other mental phenomenom. But many people have those mental gaps that are filled in with their environment, and seeming as that's the majority of people (and especially children), taking 90% of parental guidance away and all of them to develop ok on their own is downright ludicrus.
Unmanned missions also help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort. ...so if we don't do a manned mission, then there was no real point to begin with, other than gee-whiz factory. Whoopty shit. Not only did you prove your parent post right, but made yourself look like an ass at the same time. Wow, dovetailing--you must work out.
Survival shouldn't require abandoning Earth. Even if we can live elsewhere, it's not like we can allow asteroids to hit the motherland anyway.
Talk about maturity--what happened to having to do what one has to do? If the human race found out they had n to prepare for an immiment collision with an asteroid that will wipe most of the earth out, that's a finite amount of time. Let's also add the condition that it's at least feasible to send a large portion of people to another planet that will be habital for a large number of years. Are you gonna play Russian roulette with trying to block the asteroid, or are you going to send people to that planet? Or are you going to put your thumb in your ass, work on both at once, and get nowhere? It's survival that matters--where is inconsequential.
There's nothing wrong with being content with simpler goals like preserving the Earth.
that's a simpler goal? I'd love to hear that one.
Space and Military are the same thing in these contexts. It's all about dominance, about getting there, and about having. Having an army with a large budget has more than enough potetnial to "create new horizons to move into", and also "create access to new resources" while "help[ing] to develop technologies that are used terrestrially"
Military research helps mankind at the price of life. Space exploration helps mankind at the price of life. Both have direct and indirect benefits. You need to get out of the wading pool, put some swimmies on, and dive into the deep end--life isn't, and never will be, roses. If it were, what would be the point of living?
Jerri Blank: What's that, Mr. Noblett?
Chuck Noblett, holding a large, clay phalus: This is a piece of exotic artwork I'm making for an exhibition about the lost city of Pompei.
Jerri: How was it lost?
Noblett: Nobody knows, Jerri--it was buried under volcanic ash, so all the records were destroyed.
mmm strangers with candy
[...]but how many senior executives do you see who don't have degrees?
And how many senior managers are incompetent?