I'll start off by saying that I think we're actually in agreement, but you'll have to read the whole thing.:) So if I piss you off early, just hang in there.
This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.
Absolutely correct. The argument is frequently misapplied. As in here:
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.
I'll take it again, one at a time.
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations;
Nope, the First Amendment also says "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right to petition the government for grievances". Either/both of which can be applied to the right to demonstrate. Also, demonstrations happen in public places. You can't go *inside* IBM's building and demonstrate against them, but you *can* demonstrate on the street outside, which is a public place, publicly owned. My right to not have to listen to the demonstration does not trump the demonstrators' right to demonstrate. If I don't wanna hear it, I should walk away. What if I work for IBM and they're being demonstrated against them? Does my right now get totally trumped? Well, no. Not exactly. As far as rights are concerned, government's satisfied. i still have the choice to leave. As far as my personal choice, do I really want to work for a company that's gonna put me in that situation? Or is the company right, and the demonstrators wrong? I still have the choice.
it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration.
The public place argument stated above should do just as well here. I can say "no" to the guy (and have).
Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech",
Yes, they are. The problem with telephone lines has everything to do with who owns the telephone, the service, and the time that is being spent. More on this later.
like newspapers,
With newspapers, you don't have to read them. You don't have to buy them, and you're not likely to have significant problems for that choice.
TV, books.
Same. You don't have to watch TV, you don't have to read books. Furthermore, you have choices available in what you watch and what you read.
Your next paragraph said more or less these exact things, but less wordy.
Here's the difference. When my 1-month old son is sleeping, and a telemarketer calls, he wakes up my kid. My kid currently requires something like 16 hours of sleep each day, and that telemarketer is taking it from him. Yaddayadayada. More of this. There are all kinds of reasons a person calling me on the phone is disruptive. These same reasons don't apply to other forms of "speech", as you've mentioned. If my kid is sleeping, the TV isn't going to magically turn on and start pushing "VOTE FOR BUSH". Nor is a book going to just jump up, smack my kid awake, and start pouring out with all the reasons I should vote libertarian in this election.
I'm sure you've read all kinds of reasons phone calls are disruptive, and I'll let you use your imagination to identify more yourself.:) The logical solution now is to turn off the ringer. Here's
My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives incumbents an advantage.
Actually, you're completely right about this, and I've gotten flamed a lot for stating this sentiment exactly.:)
While I agree with your post in spirit, I will contest it.
If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out
Monopoly laws work to the advantage of many corporations, who would not exist without competition.
corporate taxes would be nullified,
This is in blatant contrast to your last statement. If "the people" run the government, why are we taxed? Why aren't businesses the only ones taxed? Because *someone* has to pay for government if we want it, and even if corporations ran the government, they'd still pay their taxes.
companies would have the right to vote
The assumption is that companies pay representatives to vote how the company wants them to. They don't need regular balloting like citizens have, if that's the case.
environmental protections would go away
Not necessarily. There are many corporations who would destroy the world with their irresponsibility, but most corporations realize at some level that if they ruin the environment, they lose their market, their workforce, and their customers.
corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.
The assumption is that they already are, with a few freak occurences. This is because of the high cost of lawyers and law suits in general. So protection from the public in lawsuits isn't strictly needed. On the other hand, if there were such protections, there is likely to be an uprising to throw out those in power. So they take one for the team, so to speak.
Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.
Sorry, dude, you're going to have to define "evil" to back this up. And just for the record, if someone declared corporations evil and I responded, I'd ask the same of them.:)
You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.
It is also the nature of a state of oppression to restrict political speech that disagrees with those in power. This is, iirc, the fundamental reason political speech is protected.
However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.
Where I disagree with the Denver court is that I think the do-not-call list should be split according to preference, rather than a blanket rule that applies to all or none, depending on who signs up. I don't mind political and charity phone calls. I can shrug them off. There's these people that call every now and then wanting stuff for the blind, and I don't mind the calls. One of these days, they'll call whenever I'm about to dump a bunch of stuff, and they'll get it. But my wife actually minds these calls because they're intrusive to her. Point is, some people want these calls, and some don't, and if it's going to be an issue with the do-not-call list, then let's let the people signing up for the list decide what calls are allowed and what aren't.
that was archaeology 101 with dr. henry jones jr., iirc
The dude with the dog named Indiana? That guy's cool! I love him! Especially when he's off killing stormtroopers and running around with that old--school movie babe.
I speak to people in a condescending manner on the street all the time, give them dirty looks, etc.
I consider this to be socially unacceptable behavior. Naturally, I say it to you in the hopes that you will improve your behavior. If I didn't say anything at all, then I would be sure that nothing will change. I can't go through life just focusing on the little piece of ground before my feet.
Note: yes, I am mocking you, but I have not spoken a lie either.
Then, keep in mind, it's all fiction. At the end of the day, you're no better of having read one version or another. It's all just entertainment.
There ya go.:) That's exactly what it is. There's no reason to be upset over inconsistencies, or even complete ignorance of a story. It's just not that big of a deal.:) (Naturally, I prefer to regard Lucas' latest creations as something to be endured more than enjoyed and have no trouble subtracting them from the Star Wars story at my convenience)
You can't give something away, and at the same time complain that it was stolen.
So if a chick sleeps with pretty much anybody that asks nicely gets raped by some dude who doesn't even bother to ask, just throws her down and does his thing, is it considered rape?
Try to define static vs. dynamic linking carefully on a modern system (where for example memory position is allocated JIT) and it is not easy. Its entirely possible that the courts will find that any KDE app needs to GPLed.
Actually, I seem to recall that the GPL is pretty clear cut, it's just that people make exceptions a lot. According to the GPL, if you link to a library, you've created a derivative work, regardless of whether it's static or dynamic linked. If you create a library and you want to allow everyone to link to it without requiring them to GPL their code, you are recommended to either make an exception in the GPL, or to use the LGPL, which is much looser in that regard.
THe reason you would use GPL with an exception over LGPL is because you'd still want the larger protection of teh GPL, but you only want to make a small exception. The LGPL isn't as mature as the GPL, and is much looser in general. on the other hand, you might choose LGPL over GPL with exceptions for precisely the fact that LGPL is much looser than GPL.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of that is canonical. You said it yourself in the first sentence, "The Clone Wars is a very long war (or was, until Lucas came and started chronicling it)..." If Lucas wants to rewrite the storm troopers to be clones, he can. If that makes some of the back-story inconsistent, it's ok because it's just back-story. Fact is, the only story you can rely on is what comes out in the movies. Sure, the novels are authorized, but that doesn't make them canonical. Not sure where this convention started, but it's pretty common, not just to the Star Wars universe.
Yes, and no. The main problem is that Lucas doesn't care about any of that. You expect the stories in a universe written by a whole bunch of authors to contradict each other from time to time. But they all make a good attempt to be consistent. When contradictions occur, it's usually because the stories were written at the same time with no communication between the authors or an author wrote one story without even knowing another one existed that was pertinant.
I seem to recall that when Lucas authorized the stories he was going to accept them as canonical (as you put it). I'm not so certain people would have written so many of them if they thought it was just going to be thrown out whenever Lucas felt like it.
I remember reading that Boba was supposed to be a clone warrior who escaped. I also remember reading that Boba was just an average bounty hunter who found a clone suit and decided to wear it because he thought it was really cool. Looks like neither story ended up being canon. So get over it.
IN the books (and iirc the original Boba Fett action figure had a paragraph to this extent) Boba was born and raised in a "normal" family with a strong sense of justice and truth and so forth. As a Protector (cop) he killed someone that needed killing, although it was against the law, and was sentenced to death. I forget how he escaped, but he went and got Mandalorian body armor (the type of armor was stated during the first issue of action figures) and became a bounty hunter. He's a good guy in the sense that he fights for his own version of truth and justice and order. He's a bad guy in the sense that while he knows the Empire is evil, he thinks it's the best thing going for the galaxy, at the time.
But none if this is relevant any longer because Lucas decided to throw all that work away so he can make a few more bucks on another shitty movie.
...we can expose the American moon landing SCAM!;-)
Aha! NOt after we expose the European Moon Mission Launch Scam, AND shoot down that fucking ship with our SDI that was actually built, in spite of the ridiculous claims of politicians and various sorts. That's what "build in secrecy" means!
Also, the books talk about Storm Troopers being grown instead of recruited.
The timeline goes something like this:
The Clone Wars is a very long war (or was, until Lucas came and started chronicling it) that was fought between clones and droids, and was therefore a HUGE waste of resources. The end of the Clone Wars saw the Galaxy essentially bankrupt, and laws were passed to outlaw cloning (and probably laws passed to outlaw droid armies).
Emperor Palpatine (this is a spoiler for anyone with half a brain that hasn't yet figured out that Chancellor Palpatine is the Emperor) stashed a few cloning tubes away (well, slightly more than a few) on his mountain. Grand Admiral Thrawn showed up 5 years after the Emperor was hideously betrayed and brutally murdered, digs out the cloning tubes, and grows a new army.
IN the Imperial interim, the clones died out after awhile and were replaced with regular recruits. Stormtroopers are essentially brainwashed to wash away all traces of individuality. First thing they lose is their name. After that, they are a number.
TIE Fighter pilots, on the other hand, are an aggressive and arrogant lot. In fact, Han Solo himself went to the Imperial Academy and trained as a TIE fighter pilot. He flew for awhile, then got kicked out of the navy when he rescued some wookie slave (Chewbacca) from the terrible crewelty of NIMH--er, the Empire.
Yeah? Well, for your information TIE Fighters don't have any kind of shielding, and only 1 out of 4 survive to retirement. They're fast, and they're extremely lightweight, and *very* maneuverable, but they don't have any shielding. The pilots fly in a spacesuit, and that's their atmosphere. None of the pressurized bullshit X-wings with their shielding. That's how come the TIE fighters outran the X-wings and even flew circles around them at the Death Star. It's also why if you hit one it usually blew up, whereas an X-wing could sustain a lot more damage.
But then it is more efficient to use your reactor to throw out particles directly, skipping the step of turbines and electricity generation.
I am not a rocket scientist, but it appears that you've oversimplified the problem.
Can't use the nuclear reaction directly while in the atmosphere, too much fallout. That's why we use chemical rockets in the first place (well, that and the fact that nuclear rockets haven't even been built yet). Suppose we could stick a small nuclear reactor and an engine on a single box and launch it into orbit. That eliminates the space shuttle's current booster system and massive fuel tank.
The ideal earth to moon shuttle should be able to take off from the surface of either body and fly all the way to the surface of the other body, and hopefully have enough reaction mass left to return (not likely, I suppose). This shuttle can't have a bunch of boosters and big fuel tanks that it drops into orbit on its way. When you have to shed 90% of your weight just to make it all the way up, you're operating very inefficiently.
In my opinion, any engine that has the potential to take us from surface to surface earth to moon without all the clumsy boosters is an engine that should be thoroughly pursued.
Then we can build, in orbit around the moon (or somewhere else in the vicinity) the big interplanetary vessels with the nuclear rockets.
Not much different than this, actually. Just take a couple of cowbells with different tones and strap the same solenoids onto them. The pitch code would have to be rewritten, most likely, or adapted. Otherwise, the project would be identical.
The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences
Actually, the whole point you're missing is that because of our intelligence, we have pushed the evolutionary boundaries farther than they have been pushed before, at least, on our planet, and as far as we know.:) We have't sidestepped evolution, we have participated. We keep on participating. You look at a few given situations and think "Oh gee, we're smart enough to defy evolution". I look at the same situations and think "Hmm, we got over that obstacle. What's the next one?" Have you noticed that as people live longer, more diseases are being found? Take cancer, any kind of cancer. It used to be a very very rare disease, and was always fatal. Now that we've pushed human age to 100 (and counting) we've uncovered all kinds of cancers, and it's getting more and more common. Cancer is a disease that doesn't normally strike before your 30s. What's the average age of a cancer patient? Probably higher than the previous maximum age. Now we have to beat cancer. After we beat cancer, what's next? When we finally make it into space, what's next? Obviously, the people who are smart will survive in space, and the people who are not will not. (That's very simplistic, I realize)
You can't circumvent evolution, and you never stop evolving until you go to church.
Re:at the limit it actually would be a good thing.
on
Building Better Spam
·
· Score: 1
Winnowing through this large pile of trash to find the one piece (or no pieces) of real, important mail, takes up a significant amount of my time (about an hour each week).
That's odd. We get about that same amount of daily mail, and I can go through it in 5 minutes a day to pull out the useful stuff. I should point out that my wife enjoys looking through junk mail...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll start off by saying that I think we're actually in agreement, but you'll have to read the whole thing. :) So if I piss you off early, just hang in there.
This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.
Absolutely correct. The argument is frequently misapplied. As in here:
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.
I'll take it again, one at a time.
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations;
Nope, the First Amendment also says "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right to petition the government for grievances". Either/both of which can be applied to the right to demonstrate. Also, demonstrations happen in public places. You can't go *inside* IBM's building and demonstrate against them, but you *can* demonstrate on the street outside, which is a public place, publicly owned. My right to not have to listen to the demonstration does not trump the demonstrators' right to demonstrate. If I don't wanna hear it, I should walk away. What if I work for IBM and they're being demonstrated against them? Does my right now get totally trumped? Well, no. Not exactly. As far as rights are concerned, government's satisfied. i still have the choice to leave. As far as my personal choice, do I really want to work for a company that's gonna put me in that situation? Or is the company right, and the demonstrators wrong? I still have the choice.
it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration.
The public place argument stated above should do just as well here. I can say "no" to the guy (and have).
Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech",
Yes, they are. The problem with telephone lines has everything to do with who owns the telephone, the service, and the time that is being spent. More on this later.
like newspapers,
With newspapers, you don't have to read them. You don't have to buy them, and you're not likely to have significant problems for that choice.
TV, books.
Same. You don't have to watch TV, you don't have to read books. Furthermore, you have choices available in what you watch and what you read.
Your next paragraph said more or less these exact things, but less wordy.
Here's the difference. When my 1-month old son is sleeping, and a telemarketer calls, he wakes up my kid. My kid currently requires something like 16 hours of sleep each day, and that telemarketer is taking it from him. Yaddayadayada. More of this. There are all kinds of reasons a person calling me on the phone is disruptive. These same reasons don't apply to other forms of "speech", as you've mentioned. If my kid is sleeping, the TV isn't going to magically turn on and start pushing "VOTE FOR BUSH". Nor is a book going to just jump up, smack my kid awake, and start pouring out with all the reasons I should vote libertarian in this election.
I'm sure you've read all kinds of reasons phone calls are disruptive, and I'll let you use your imagination to identify more yourself. :) The logical solution now is to turn off the ringer. Here's
My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives incumbents an advantage.
Actually, you're completely right about this, and I've gotten flamed a lot for stating this sentiment exactly. :)
While I agree with your post in spirit, I will contest it.
If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out
Monopoly laws work to the advantage of many corporations, who would not exist without competition.
corporate taxes would be nullified,
This is in blatant contrast to your last statement. If "the people" run the government, why are we taxed? Why aren't businesses the only ones taxed? Because *someone* has to pay for government if we want it, and even if corporations ran the government, they'd still pay their taxes.
companies would have the right to vote
The assumption is that companies pay representatives to vote how the company wants them to. They don't need regular balloting like citizens have, if that's the case.
environmental protections would go away
Not necessarily. There are many corporations who would destroy the world with their irresponsibility, but most corporations realize at some level that if they ruin the environment, they lose their market, their workforce, and their customers.
corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.
The assumption is that they already are, with a few freak occurences. This is because of the high cost of lawyers and law suits in general. So protection from the public in lawsuits isn't strictly needed. On the other hand, if there were such protections, there is likely to be an uprising to throw out those in power. So they take one for the team, so to speak.
Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.
Sorry, dude, you're going to have to define "evil" to back this up. And just for the record, if someone declared corporations evil and I responded, I'd ask the same of them. :)
You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.
It is also the nature of a state of oppression to restrict political speech that disagrees with those in power. This is, iirc, the fundamental reason political speech is protected.
However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.
Where I disagree with the Denver court is that I think the do-not-call list should be split according to preference, rather than a blanket rule that applies to all or none, depending on who signs up. I don't mind political and charity phone calls. I can shrug them off. There's these people that call every now and then wanting stuff for the blind, and I don't mind the calls. One of these days, they'll call whenever I'm about to dump a bunch of stuff, and they'll get it. But my wife actually minds these calls because they're intrusive to her. Point is, some people want these calls, and some don't, and if it's going to be an issue with the do-not-call list, then let's let the people signing up for the list decide what calls are allowed and what aren't.
Freedom is what enables you to share the truth. For some it is a goal, but for a journalist, it is a means to an end.
Truth is subjective, and that's a fact.
that was archaeology 101 with dr. henry jones jr., iirc
The dude with the dog named Indiana? That guy's cool! I love him! Especially when he's off killing stormtroopers and running around with that old--school movie babe.
I speak to people in a condescending manner on the street all the time, give them dirty looks, etc.
I consider this to be socially unacceptable behavior. Naturally, I say it to you in the hopes that you will improve your behavior. If I didn't say anything at all, then I would be sure that nothing will change. I can't go through life just focusing on the little piece of ground before my feet.
Note: yes, I am mocking you, but I have not spoken a lie either.
That's like saying a rape victim should consider it a victory that the rapist decided to make use of her rather than switch to prostitutes.
Heh, I used the rape analogy in this thread too. :) Welcome to the club!
Then, keep in mind, it's all fiction. At the end of the day, you're no better of having read one version or another. It's all just entertainment.
There ya go. :) That's exactly what it is. There's no reason to be upset over inconsistencies, or even complete ignorance of a story. It's just not that big of a deal. :) (Naturally, I prefer to regard Lucas' latest creations as something to be endured more than enjoyed and have no trouble subtracting them from the Star Wars story at my convenience)
You can't give something away, and at the same time complain that it was stolen.
So if a chick sleeps with pretty much anybody that asks nicely gets raped by some dude who doesn't even bother to ask, just throws her down and does his thing, is it considered rape?
Try to define static vs. dynamic linking carefully on a modern system (where for example memory position is allocated JIT) and it is not easy. Its entirely possible that the courts will find that any KDE app needs to GPLed.
Actually, I seem to recall that the GPL is pretty clear cut, it's just that people make exceptions a lot. According to the GPL, if you link to a library, you've created a derivative work, regardless of whether it's static or dynamic linked. If you create a library and you want to allow everyone to link to it without requiring them to GPL their code, you are recommended to either make an exception in the GPL, or to use the LGPL, which is much looser in that regard.
THe reason you would use GPL with an exception over LGPL is because you'd still want the larger protection of teh GPL, but you only want to make a small exception. The LGPL isn't as mature as the GPL, and is much looser in general. on the other hand, you might choose LGPL over GPL with exceptions for precisely the fact that LGPL is much looser than GPL.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of that is canonical. You said it yourself in the first sentence, "The Clone Wars is a very long war (or was, until Lucas came and started chronicling it)..." If Lucas wants to rewrite the storm troopers to be clones, he can. If that makes some of the back-story inconsistent, it's ok because it's just back-story. Fact is, the only story you can rely on is what comes out in the movies. Sure, the novels are authorized, but that doesn't make them canonical. Not sure where this convention started, but it's pretty common, not just to the Star Wars universe.
Yes, and no. The main problem is that Lucas doesn't care about any of that. You expect the stories in a universe written by a whole bunch of authors to contradict each other from time to time. But they all make a good attempt to be consistent. When contradictions occur, it's usually because the stories were written at the same time with no communication between the authors or an author wrote one story without even knowing another one existed that was pertinant.
I seem to recall that when Lucas authorized the stories he was going to accept them as canonical (as you put it). I'm not so certain people would have written so many of them if they thought it was just going to be thrown out whenever Lucas felt like it.
I remember reading that Boba was supposed to be a clone warrior who escaped. I also remember reading that Boba was just an average bounty hunter who found a clone suit and decided to wear it because he thought it was really cool. Looks like neither story ended up being canon. So get over it.
IN the books (and iirc the original Boba Fett action figure had a paragraph to this extent) Boba was born and raised in a "normal" family with a strong sense of justice and truth and so forth. As a Protector (cop) he killed someone that needed killing, although it was against the law, and was sentenced to death. I forget how he escaped, but he went and got Mandalorian body armor (the type of armor was stated during the first issue of action figures) and became a bounty hunter. He's a good guy in the sense that he fights for his own version of truth and justice and order. He's a bad guy in the sense that while he knows the Empire is evil, he thinks it's the best thing going for the galaxy, at the time.
But none if this is relevant any longer because Lucas decided to throw all that work away so he can make a few more bucks on another shitty movie.
Aha! NOt after we expose the European Moon Mission Launch Scam, AND shoot down that fucking ship with our SDI that was actually built, in spite of the ridiculous claims of politicians and various sorts. That's what "build in secrecy" means!
f we combine this with the space elevator, we can send shit to the moon on 6 AA batteries!!!
Well hurry it up, dude! I gotta go, real bad!
You must do what you feel is right, of course.
Also, the books talk about Storm Troopers being grown instead of recruited.
The timeline goes something like this:
The Clone Wars is a very long war (or was, until Lucas came and started chronicling it) that was fought between clones and droids, and was therefore a HUGE waste of resources. The end of the Clone Wars saw the Galaxy essentially bankrupt, and laws were passed to outlaw cloning (and probably laws passed to outlaw droid armies).
Emperor Palpatine (this is a spoiler for anyone with half a brain that hasn't yet figured out that Chancellor Palpatine is the Emperor) stashed a few cloning tubes away (well, slightly more than a few) on his mountain. Grand Admiral Thrawn showed up 5 years after the Emperor was hideously betrayed and brutally murdered, digs out the cloning tubes, and grows a new army.
IN the Imperial interim, the clones died out after awhile and were replaced with regular recruits. Stormtroopers are essentially brainwashed to wash away all traces of individuality. First thing they lose is their name. After that, they are a number.
TIE Fighter pilots, on the other hand, are an aggressive and arrogant lot. In fact, Han Solo himself went to the Imperial Academy and trained as a TIE fighter pilot. He flew for awhile, then got kicked out of the navy when he rescued some wookie slave (Chewbacca) from the terrible crewelty of NIMH--er, the Empire.
In Soviet Russia, early cosmonauts didn't wear pressure suites to display the superiority of their space program.
Actually, In Soviet Russia, pressure suits wear YOU.
The simple turth is that the U.S. is a second-rate space power.
What're you talking about? We've got 5, no wait, 4 Space planes. How many do you have? Ah ha!
Yeah? Well, for your information TIE Fighters don't have any kind of shielding, and only 1 out of 4 survive to retirement. They're fast, and they're extremely lightweight, and *very* maneuverable, but they don't have any shielding. The pilots fly in a spacesuit, and that's their atmosphere. None of the pressurized bullshit X-wings with their shielding. That's how come the TIE fighters outran the X-wings and even flew circles around them at the Death Star. It's also why if you hit one it usually blew up, whereas an X-wing could sustain a lot more damage.
But then it is more efficient to use your reactor to throw out particles directly, skipping the step of turbines and electricity generation.
I am not a rocket scientist, but it appears that you've oversimplified the problem.
Can't use the nuclear reaction directly while in the atmosphere, too much fallout. That's why we use chemical rockets in the first place (well, that and the fact that nuclear rockets haven't even been built yet). Suppose we could stick a small nuclear reactor and an engine on a single box and launch it into orbit. That eliminates the space shuttle's current booster system and massive fuel tank.
The ideal earth to moon shuttle should be able to take off from the surface of either body and fly all the way to the surface of the other body, and hopefully have enough reaction mass left to return (not likely, I suppose). This shuttle can't have a bunch of boosters and big fuel tanks that it drops into orbit on its way. When you have to shed 90% of your weight just to make it all the way up, you're operating very inefficiently.
In my opinion, any engine that has the potential to take us from surface to surface earth to moon without all the clumsy boosters is an engine that should be thoroughly pursued.
Then we can build, in orbit around the moon (or somewhere else in the vicinity) the big interplanetary vessels with the nuclear rockets.
Run TCP/IP over a cowbell and I'll be impressed.
Not much different than this, actually. Just take a couple of cowbells with different tones and strap the same solenoids onto them. The pitch code would have to be rewritten, most likely, or adapted. Otherwise, the project would be identical.
grunge-death-metal
What the fuck is that? A bunch of dope-smoking hippy-looking dudes whining about being dead?
would these be a set of african bongo drums? or a set of mechanical digital drums?
You mean, "African or European?" Right? ;)
The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences
Actually, the whole point you're missing is that because of our intelligence, we have pushed the evolutionary boundaries farther than they have been pushed before, at least, on our planet, and as far as we know. :) We have't sidestepped evolution, we have participated. We keep on participating. You look at a few given situations and think "Oh gee, we're smart enough to defy evolution". I look at the same situations and think "Hmm, we got over that obstacle. What's the next one?" Have you noticed that as people live longer, more diseases are being found? Take cancer, any kind of cancer. It used to be a very very rare disease, and was always fatal. Now that we've pushed human age to 100 (and counting) we've uncovered all kinds of cancers, and it's getting more and more common. Cancer is a disease that doesn't normally strike before your 30s. What's the average age of a cancer patient? Probably higher than the previous maximum age. Now we have to beat cancer. After we beat cancer, what's next? When we finally make it into space, what's next? Obviously, the people who are smart will survive in space, and the people who are not will not. (That's very simplistic, I realize)
You can't circumvent evolution, and you never stop evolving until you go to church.
Winnowing through this large pile of trash to find the one piece (or no pieces) of real, important mail, takes up a significant amount of my time (about an hour each week).
That's odd. We get about that same amount of daily mail, and I can go through it in 5 minutes a day to pull out the useful stuff. I should point out that my wife enjoys looking through junk mail...