Re:First things first
on
GPS on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
Fuel is inconsequential when you have to bring food, water, and environmental processing facilities in your space ship to survive round trip times appraching 12-18 months.
I'm not sure I understand. I was pointing out that for any given payload, Mars is more fuel efficient than the moon. Also, Mars Direct calls for a 6 month trip each way, not 12-18 months.
Mars direct suffers from the same short-sightedness as Apollo. We only need 3 or 4 launchers, and we can end the program.
That also is not Mars Direct. Mars Direct calls for continuous launches on a regular schedule.
There's no commitment for infrastructure, no design for construction vehicles, permanent occupation. Zubrin's plan is to launch lots of ships to lots of sites and basically leave them there, rather than launching lots of cargo to one site, building a space port, and exploring from there.
I think we may be analyzing completely different plans. Zubrin's Mars Direct has multiple plans for several types of permanent habitation. He recommends landings at different sites early on to provide some redundancy and to see which site proves the best for a permanent base. He does not recommend against a larger space port-type facility, and he does recommend sending multiple payloads over time to build up a larger base.
Interplanetary vehicles SHOULDN'T be launched from planet surface.
The payload we want to deliver to Mars is here on the planet surface, so we don't have a choice. If you're recommending some kind of LEO transfer station, once again the fuel is the central factor. We can send more people and supplies to Mars without that kind of stop.
Re:First things first
on
GPS on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
This whole fascination with Mars thing sounds strange to me when we have a much closer, much easier, much less prone to failure environment in which we can perfect things...
A lot of those are common misconceptions. True, the moon is closer, but Mars is the easier and more promising target. For instance, going to Mars requires less fuel due to aerobraking and on-site manufacturing of propellant. Mars is the hands-down winner for permanent settlement.
Take a look at the Mars Direct and The Case For Mars sites for more information. Zubrin's book The Case For Mars is an exciting read also: Zubrin makes it clear that Mars settlement is in our hands right now.
I really don't see why people hate C++ and love C. If you don't like certain features of C++, don't use them.
Every so often, I used to run a little test: I compiled "hello, world" in C and C++. The last time I did this -- with gcc on Slackware, maybe a year ago -- was the *first* time the binaries were the same size. Usually the C++ binaries are two to two-and-a-half times the size of the C binaries. That is with *no* C++ features and the identical source code file renamed with a ".cc" suffix.
C++ has other issues, but they're more subjective: I don't like the look of it. It doesn't feel right to me. The whole concept seems a little shady. It feels too much like the natural language programming scam: the idea that we can make programming easier by changing the tools. I always feel like it's hiding things from me.
... the hybrid source model depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software.... and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector.
In related news, the Neanderthal Marketing Association issued a statement claiming that larger Cro-Magnon brains are unfairly depreciating the value of hunting grounds with less food by allowing more evolved humans to migrate. NMA spokesman Oogla said, "We want study cost 5 billion shells-with-holes-drilled-in-them. We want make Cro-Magnon brain small again."
The moon needs to be the proving ground for the technology needed to get to Mars.
The technological sense of going to directly to Mars is that the fuel costs are lower and self-sustainability is orders of magnitude sooner than on the Moon.
The psychological sense of it is that Mars will become "real" to people on Earth the fastest; people will be living and working on Mars. Once that happens, you spend a lot less time answering questions like, "How can you breathe there?" and "Why would you want to go there?" and more time answering questions like, "What kinds of jobs are there?" and "How much will I get paid?" We want to go to Mars because it's tremendously cool to go new places, but nothing gets us there faster than getting non-enthusiasts to see that it's a real place that they can actually go to, not some abstract science project.
Personally, I suspect that once there's even the smallest permanent presence on Mars, space travel and settlement will explode, not just to Luna and Mars, but to LEO, L-4 and -5, and the asteroids in really short order. You won't have to be a visonary to see the value of it; it'll be obvious to anyone.
Ahh, asteroids. Personally I think that that's the way to go. Hollow out one of those, make it livable, self sufficient, then whip the fucker out into the blackness. Send hundreds out in all directions, and humanity can spread like cancer!
Facts? You care about facts? How about 6,000,000. That's the number of Jews your countrymen killed. Yet, you're not a Nazi because your German but I'm a murderer and persecutor of non-believers because I am a Christian? Makes no sense to me.
The Irish killed 6,000,000 Jews? You probably need to look into this more. (Rereading the other post where I told you I'm not German probably wouldn't hurt, either.) And bear in mind that Ireland's ancestral culture, the Celts, have been so exterminated we're not even sure what our cultural rituals are. Who did that? Oh, yes, you Christians.
Please, if you can, name ONE instance of modern-day Christian violence towards non-christians. Clearly you have pre-conceived notions about Christians that inhibits you from thinking clearly with an open mind.
Here's three. Gay bashing, because church leaders tell their followers that gay people are sinners. Wiccans are attacked as well, because they worship differently. Doctors who perform abortions are killed by Christians.
You clearly want to believe you're the good guys, but you're not. Christianity has been the most repressive, hostile, murderous part of Western "civilization" for most of 2000 years. The violence and hatred of outsiders is built into Christianity.
You want to be a Christian, fine. But keep it to yourselves, don't force it on others. No one has the right to tell anyone else what to do. They certainly don't have the right to take away their equal access to government service, their health or their lives.
1. The constant martyrdom of Christians has been documented, consistently, throughout the ages. Factual, historical, record. You could check the facts yourself, if you were interested.
Those facts aren't in dispute. But Christians have persecuted others far more than they have ever been persecuted.
We could go back and forth like this all day. I think the point to be learned is that the church is not one monolithic entity, but comprised of many parts, and many different people.
Those people give money, funding the church.
2. So caring for the hungry, sick and dying counts for nothing?
They're only caring for the hungry, sick and dying to recruit.
The renaissance was a malicious act? And you say the church is the one who is doing the brainwashing? That is, well,... absolutely amazing.
You're trying to take credit for the renaissance?!? The renaissance was despite Christianity, not because of it.
3. You don't seem able to separate the actions of individuals from the intent of an organization.
If you support an fascist institution, you are a fascist.
... to condemn the church worldwide because of the acts of some Cathlolics is to paint with a brush that is, oh, about 5 miles wide.
Wrong again. Christian culture is based on violence. These acts you're trying to characterize as exceptional are an inevitable result of the culture.
"Lobbying efforts to censor movies, television and radio."... How is this violent?
You think people follow laws without the threat of confiscation of property or threat of incarceration? Until there's a man with a gun, there is no law.
"Gay bashing."... Once again, actions of individuals, and usually neo-nazi skinheads.
Who were taught that being gay is a sin and evil by the church. Do you deny that the church teaches this?
"Telling Wiccans they can't wear their religious icons to school while Christians can. Blue Springs, Missouri spending government money to slander the Goth community."... Haven't heard of that one. Care to provide some details?
"Because if lots of people identify as Christian, politicians lean toward supporting Christian legislation."... Sorry, that's usually called the democratic process. They're entitled to their own opinions, even if they conflict with yours.
Not when they force that opinion on me with guns. If it's a law, there's a gun somewhere.
No. All the logic -- and by logic, I mean bullshit -- at the link you provided doesn't change the facts:
(1) The woman bought hot coffee and spilled it on herself.
(2) Everyone points out that the coffee was at 185 degrees F and that this is hotter than other restaurants. It's still too cold. Brewed coffee is supposed to be 190 to 200 degrees F and served immediately. This can be googled up in about 3 minutes. I used to know a guy who's a chef, and when this case hit the airwaves, he showed me the coffee section in one of his reference book, so I've seen this sort of figure myself: 198 F.
(3) The woman bought hot coffee and spilled it on herself.
I despise McDonald's for their brainwashing of kids and their crappy food, but the idea that the coffee was too hot is all wrong.
Historically speaking, the Christian church has endured far more persecution than it has handed out...
Nonsense. Christians were persecuted early on, but as early as the Fourth Century, the church was a substantial and powerful institution. Since at least then, Christians have handed out persecution in big economy size packages.
For that matter - how many atheist or agnostic organizations have soup kitchens in the core of your city? Now compare that to the number of Christian ones.
So what? Those are recruiting centers. Christians use the hospitals, the schools and the soup kitchens to get their hands on the sick and dying, who are especially vulnerable to religion; kids, who are especially vulnerable to brainwashing; and the hungry, who will generally side with whoever is feeding them.
And let's not forget the Catholic church keeping reading, writing and science alive during that unfortunate period called the dark ages.
No one earns points for preserving their own culture. If they had preserved Celtic or other pagan cultures as diligently, then they might deserve credit. Since they instead wiped out those cultures, this is not a good Christian deed.
... but to smear the whole church because of those individuals is disingenuous and malicious.
No, it's not. "Those individuals" get support from other individuals, the church-goers who tithe. That makes them culpable.
How would you know? I'm guessing that you don't run much in Christian circles.
Are you kidding? Christians are everywhere! They come out of the ventwork like aliens in a Sigourney Weaver movie.
The ones I know do not support violence or oppression of any sort, and would consider it a personal insult to insinuate that they did.
So the ones you know don't give money when the plate comes around? They don't attend church on Sunday? They don't call themselves Christians when the census taker comes around? If they do those things, they are supporting an institution that uses violence.
Can you give one concrete example of how a mainstream Christian organization or denomination is perpetuating violence today?
Child molestation by priests. Covering up those molestations by Bishops and Cardinals. Lobbying efforts to censor movies, television and radio. Gay bashing. Telling Wiccans they can't wear their religious icons to school while Christians can. Blue Springs, Missouri spending government money to slander the Goth community.
Sorry, should I have stopped at one?
And how does identifying oneself as a Christian foster oppression today?
Because if lots of people identify as Christian, politicians lean toward supporting Christian legislation.
Geno, my friend, this is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists (which obviously is *not* true). I gather from your name and your web site that you're German. By your logic I would have to conclude that you're a Nazi?:-)
Wrong on both counts -- Heinlein and Nietzsche were both strong individualists:-) -- but I'm not using logic. I prefer the facts.
I didn't say "all Christians". I will say "most". Christianity at-large has continually applied violent action against non-Christians.
I know many people who identify as Christian, but who are against all of the examples I listed. Few of them cease to call themselves Christian or oppose the churches' use of the term, few of them boycott or oppose the churches or other Christian institutions, few of them withdraw financial support from the church, few of them speak out against the use of force.
Few.
The rest -- and I stress that these are the vast bulk, the overwhelming majority of the population self-identified as Christian -- watch silently and continue tacit support, like attending, contributing, identifying as Christian on the census, and so on. Since those people are actively supporting the users of violence (often with cash), I can't see any ethical way not to hold them accountable for the violence.
Until those people forswear the use of violence -- and disassociate themselves from those who use violence -- I can't consider them as anything other than dangerous criminals.
As a Christian and believer in God, I find your comments to be ignorant and intolerant.
Maybe it's your karma catching up with you.
The Crusades. (Killed Muslims.)
The Inquisition. (Killed Jews.)
The Burning Times. (Killed witches.)
Trying to "cure" gay people with drugs or electric shock.
Shooting doctors who perform abortions.
Demonization of other religions.
Christians have done everthing possible not just to advocate their religion, but to eliminate all other religions. I'll tolerate Christians when you forswear the use of violence against us.
That said, there are about 2.5Gs in an 80-year human lifetime. Ralsky boasts of something like 70 million spams per day. If it takes a human being 1 second to delete a spam, that's one human lifetime wasted per 36 days of spamming.
Hmmm. This reminds me of 9/11. After watching people give away their freedoms to government for a while, I made some notes:
people killed by . . . . . . . . . interval. . deaths attacks on the World Trade Center. < 1 day . . 2800 smoking cigarettes . . . . . . . . 8.48 days . 2800 car crashes. . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 days . 2800 hunger-related disease (children). 4 hours . . 2800
People understand one big event way more than they understand a lot of little events. 2800 deaths in one big spectacular event live on television gets to them, but not 2800 kids dying for lack of food one-at-a-time on the other side of the planet. They understand one murder, but not 2.5Gs. They get a politician stealing a little of their time or money or freedom, but not how all those nickels and dimes add up to billions over time.
To me, this is just all part of one issue: people don't have the big picture, in time, in space, or in 'social-space'. I usually get chewed out when I say this, but the issue is education. When kids are brought up from day one to understand long-term, long-range consequences, that's when people will stop making decisions that seem good in the short-run but are remarkably bad in the long-run.
Which do you think is better, support over the phone or support another way?
Another way: Google.
Seriously, since Google, I haven't needed to call tech support numbers. Whatever problem I'm having generally falls into one of two categories: other people have had that problem, solved it and posted the solution to the web somewhere, or no one has ever had that problem, and in that case tech support is useless.
The only value of tech support is to the product vendor, who can then advertise that they have tech support.
Hell, I look things up on Google before I crack the manual. Google is faster, I can narrow down the search to exactly what I'm looking for, and I often come across a cool and informative website on the topic at hand.
Plus, using Google requires that you think about how to describe the problem, which can often solve it before you even need to follow a link. Tech support is kind of like "natural language" programming nonsense. Programming isn't hard because the language is hard, programming is hard because you have to specify your desires precisely. You do that without realizing it as you refine your search; the search process is educational.
In other news, Zubrin is an armchar scientist and the people in the linked NYT article are real physicists. These specialists know what they are talking about.
Perhaps, but only in a very small area of expertise. Mars colonization is a big project for big minds... specifically, generalists.
More to the point... Zubrin? An armchair scientist? You must be thinking of someone else. This is someone who's been out stumping for Mars colonization for more than twelve years. He promotes, he gives interviews, he testifies before Congress. He was an engineer at Martin Marietta and went on to found his own company. He built a demonstration unit of the In-Situ Propellant Production design for $47,000. He is most definitely a hands-on guy.
Saying they would suffer less hardship than the American colonists of four centuries ago isn't saying much, considering that a number of the early colonies were either wiped out, abandoned, or lost large fractions of their populations over the winter.
Fair enough... much less hardship.:-)
I think the remoteness and isolation of the earlier scientific missions would be the worst for a lot of people. Being one of the only four humans on an entire planet has got to be a real brain-bender. ("Bending" in the Nietzschean sense seems to apply here as well.)
Barring crashes or explosions or other catastrophes, the zero-gee environment and radiation are the worst physical hazards. The studies and our (admittedly minimal) experience in space all seem to point to the idea that we can not only cope with these issues, but that we can do so much more easily than almost any prior generation of human pioneers.
Anytime somebody puts this type of argument into their comment, they look like a wacko. Stick to the point and you won't sound like a some loony toon.
Are you kidding? The fact that the US spends thousands of times as much money on "defense" as it does on space R&D is central to this discussion. DoD spending for 2004 is estimated at about $380 billion. The 2004 estimate for NASA is $15.5 billion. You could cut miltary spending by 5% and more than double NASA's budget. Zubrin's estimates for Mars Direct are $30 billion done government-style and $4-6 billion if it's done by the private sector. $30 billion is 7.9% of the DoD budget. You could cut military spending by one dollar out of twelve and fund the entire Mars Direct project, including the pork flavoring packet, tomorrow.
(Reference: Budget of the US Government, FY 2004: Budget documents. BTW, Table S-2 in the budget document shows that the plan for discretionary spending through 2008 is to increase the defense spending percentage and decrease the non-defense spending percentage. Who are we planning to fight in 2008?)
That's not even considering that the US spent extra billions this year and last to start a war while we were in the middle of UN resolution of the conflict with the opposing country.
And even if you believe the propganda coming out of DC, there's nothing that would make the US more secure than the benefits of space R&D. Even in a purely military analysis, we'd have the undisputed literal high ground, better technology and a stronger economy to defend ourselves. The world would be a more prosperous place in general, reducing the threat from disaffected political groups. And maybe a few more people would come back with a little perspective and be better world leaders for the experience. Maybe that kind of world leader would solve international conflicts before we have to send in troops.
We'll need to find innovative new ways of shielding spacecraft from fraction-of-lightspeed interstellar rubbish if we're ever to spend much time outside our own magnetosphere.
The short version is this: we have all the technology we need to safely colonize Mars right now, and with less danger and hardship than the American colonists suffered four centuries ago. If funding were allocated today, the first scientists could be on Mars in 10 years, and colonists in perhaps 20. (The money required would be a small fraction of the US civilian-bombing budget.)
Safety from radiation is easy. Zubrin points out that you can just go to the center of the ship and stack your supplies around you to reduce radiation to acceptable levels, even in the case of a powerfuil solar flare. On the surface, you just build homes underground for everyday living. People here on Earth are doing this now just for the energy-bill savings. I think we can do it in order to colonize an entire planet.
I wouldn't call the 'open road' myth a lie.... There are a hell of a lot of places one can go in an automobile, more than can be reached by any other means at all.
You can reach more places in an automobile than by any other means? Mountaintops? Underwater? Flying through the air? Outer space?
More to the point -- more to what I actually said, to be specific -- a hypothetical "flying car" would have one less dependency, one less restriction, than a regular car: it would be able to bypass roads. It would be able to go anywhere a car can go, plus other places a car can't go. It remains to be seen whether these flying cars will actually do this, but the idea I'm promoting is pretty straightforward.
If you can only travel by road, you are dependent on government to put in a road first. I prefer not to let Uncle Sam dictate where I can go.
And your point about 'individual freedom' being reduced by the infrastructure sounds like more of a philosophy debate than a practical reality.
Fine, build your own road. Drive on it. Let me know how that goes.
... there's no way "roadless" travel is going to happen in a flying car. there will be air corridors that you are restricted to, otherwise it's going to be mass pandemonium.
True, but with a car, you're physically restricted from certain terrain; even SUVs can't just drive anywhere. In a plane, you can deviate from those air corridors if you choose to.
Of course, we'll need a force of tech-savvy, anti-government people who can bypass the inevitable federally-required tracking devices. If only there was some way, maybe an electronic forum, where such brave individuals could communicate....
Slashdot Mirror
Fuel is inconsequential when you have to bring food, water, and environmental processing facilities in your space ship to survive round trip times appraching 12-18 months.
I'm not sure I understand. I was pointing out that for any given payload, Mars is more fuel efficient than the moon. Also, Mars Direct calls for a 6 month trip each way, not 12-18 months.
Mars direct suffers from the same short-sightedness as Apollo. We only need 3 or 4 launchers, and we can end the program.
That also is not Mars Direct. Mars Direct calls for continuous launches on a regular schedule.
There's no commitment for infrastructure, no design for construction vehicles, permanent occupation. Zubrin's plan is to launch lots of ships to lots of sites and basically leave them there, rather than launching lots of cargo to one site, building a space port, and exploring from there.
I think we may be analyzing completely different plans. Zubrin's Mars Direct has multiple plans for several types of permanent habitation. He recommends landings at different sites early on to provide some redundancy and to see which site proves the best for a permanent base. He does not recommend against a larger space port-type facility, and he does recommend sending multiple payloads over time to build up a larger base.
Interplanetary vehicles SHOULDN'T be launched from planet surface.
The payload we want to deliver to Mars is here on the planet surface, so we don't have a choice. If you're recommending some kind of LEO transfer station, once again the fuel is the central factor. We can send more people and supplies to Mars without that kind of stop.
This whole fascination with Mars thing sounds strange to me when we have a much closer, much easier, much less prone to failure environment in which we can perfect things...
A lot of those are common misconceptions. True, the moon is closer, but Mars is the easier and more promising target. For instance, going to Mars requires less fuel due to aerobraking and on-site manufacturing of propellant. Mars is the hands-down winner for permanent settlement.
Take a look at the Mars Direct and The Case For Mars sites for more information. Zubrin's book The Case For Mars is an exciting read also: Zubrin makes it clear that Mars settlement is in our hands right now.
I really don't see why people hate C++ and love C. If you don't like certain features of C++, don't use them.
Every so often, I used to run a little test: I compiled "hello, world" in C and C++. The last time I did this -- with gcc on Slackware, maybe a year ago -- was the *first* time the binaries were the same size. Usually the C++ binaries are two to two-and-a-half times the size of the C binaries. That is with *no* C++ features and the identical source code file renamed with a ".cc" suffix.
C++ has other issues, but they're more subjective: I don't like the look of it. It doesn't feel right to me. The whole concept seems a little shady. It feels too much like the natural language programming scam: the idea that we can make programming easier by changing the tools. I always feel like it's hiding things from me.
... the hybrid source model depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software.... and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector.
In related news, the Neanderthal Marketing Association issued a statement claiming that larger Cro-Magnon brains are unfairly depreciating the value of hunting grounds with less food by allowing more evolved humans to migrate. NMA spokesman Oogla said, "We want study cost 5 billion shells-with-holes-drilled-in-them. We want make Cro-Magnon brain small again."
Checkmate.com's fee structure
The funny part is that Checkmate actually says on their web page, "All information is kept strictly confidential."
We also now know we need wiper blades on the solar panels of any vehicle that would potentially be sent to Mars, on account of the dust.
Or a guy with a broom.
The moon needs to be the proving ground for the technology needed to get to Mars.
The technological sense of going to directly to Mars is that the fuel costs are lower and self-sustainability is orders of magnitude sooner than on the Moon.
The psychological sense of it is that Mars will become "real" to people on Earth the fastest; people will be living and working on Mars. Once that happens, you spend a lot less time answering questions like, "How can you breathe there?" and "Why would you want to go there?" and more time answering questions like, "What kinds of jobs are there?" and "How much will I get paid?" We want to go to Mars because it's tremendously cool to go new places, but nothing gets us there faster than getting non-enthusiasts to see that it's a real place that they can actually go to, not some abstract science project.
Personally, I suspect that once there's even the smallest permanent presence on Mars, space travel and settlement will explode, not just to Luna and Mars, but to LEO, L-4 and -5, and the asteroids in really short order. You won't have to be a visonary to see the value of it; it'll be obvious to anyone.
Ahh, asteroids. Personally I think that that's the way to go. Hollow out one of those, make it livable, self sufficient, then whip the fucker out into the blackness. Send hundreds out in all directions, and humanity can spread like cancer!
You forgot to say, "Mister Anderson".
(Anti-slashdotting measure: remove the spaces before the .jpg extension in the URL to view the pictures)
We have to type in the URLs by hand? You must work for Microsoft Security.
Facts? You care about facts? How about 6,000,000. That's the number of Jews your countrymen killed. Yet, you're not a Nazi because your German but I'm a murderer and persecutor of non-believers because I am a Christian? Makes no sense to me.
The Irish killed 6,000,000 Jews? You probably need to look into this more. (Rereading the other post where I told you I'm not German probably wouldn't hurt, either.) And bear in mind that Ireland's ancestral culture, the Celts, have been so exterminated we're not even sure what our cultural rituals are. Who did that? Oh, yes, you Christians.
Please, if you can, name ONE instance of modern-day Christian violence towards non-christians. Clearly you have pre-conceived notions about Christians that inhibits you from thinking clearly with an open mind.
Here's three. Gay bashing, because church leaders tell their followers that gay people are sinners. Wiccans are attacked as well, because they worship differently. Doctors who perform abortions are killed by Christians.
You clearly want to believe you're the good guys, but you're not. Christianity has been the most repressive, hostile, murderous part of Western "civilization" for most of 2000 years. The violence and hatred of outsiders is built into Christianity.
You want to be a Christian, fine. But keep it to yourselves, don't force it on others. No one has the right to tell anyone else what to do. They certainly don't have the right to take away their equal access to government service, their health or their lives.
1. The constant martyrdom of Christians has been documented, consistently, throughout the ages. Factual, historical, record. You could check the facts yourself, if you were interested.
... absolutely amazing.
... to condemn the church worldwide because of the acts of some Cathlolics is to paint with a brush that is, oh, about 5 miles wide.
Those facts aren't in dispute. But Christians have persecuted others far more than they have ever been persecuted.
We could go back and forth like this all day. I think the point to be learned is that the church is not one monolithic entity, but comprised of many parts, and many different people.
Those people give money, funding the church.
2. So caring for the hungry, sick and dying counts for nothing?
They're only caring for the hungry, sick and dying to recruit.
The renaissance was a malicious act? And you say the church is the one who is doing the brainwashing? That is, well,
You're trying to take credit for the renaissance?!? The renaissance was despite Christianity, not because of it.
3. You don't seem able to separate the actions of individuals from the intent of an organization.
If you support an fascist institution, you are a fascist.
Wrong again. Christian culture is based on violence. These acts you're trying to characterize as exceptional are an inevitable result of the culture.
"Lobbying efforts to censor movies, television and radio."... How is this violent?
You think people follow laws without the threat of confiscation of property or threat of incarceration? Until there's a man with a gun, there is no law.
"Gay bashing."... Once again, actions of individuals, and usually neo-nazi skinheads.
Who were taught that being gay is a sin and evil by the church. Do you deny that the church teaches this?
"Telling Wiccans they can't wear their religious icons to school while Christians can. Blue Springs, Missouri spending government money to slander the Goth community."... Haven't heard of that one. Care to provide some details?
Here's a brief summary.
"Because if lots of people identify as Christian, politicians lean toward supporting Christian legislation."... Sorry, that's usually called the democratic process. They're entitled to their own opinions, even if they conflict with yours.
Not when they force that opinion on me with guns. If it's a law, there's a gun somewhere.
Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.
No. All the logic -- and by logic, I mean bullshit -- at the link you provided doesn't change the facts:
(1) The woman bought hot coffee and spilled it on herself.
(2) Everyone points out that the coffee was at 185 degrees F and that this is hotter than other restaurants. It's still too cold. Brewed coffee is supposed to be 190 to 200 degrees F and served immediately. This can be googled up in about 3 minutes. I used to know a guy who's a chef, and when this case hit the airwaves, he showed me the coffee section in one of his reference book, so I've seen this sort of figure myself: 198 F.
(3) The woman bought hot coffee and spilled it on herself.
I despise McDonald's for their brainwashing of kids and their crappy food, but the idea that the coffee was too hot is all wrong.
Historically speaking, the Christian church has endured far more persecution than it has handed out...
... but to smear the whole church because of those individuals is disingenuous and malicious.
Nonsense. Christians were persecuted early on, but as early as the Fourth Century, the church was a substantial and powerful institution. Since at least then, Christians have handed out persecution in big economy size packages.
For that matter - how many atheist or agnostic organizations have soup kitchens in the core of your city? Now compare that to the number of Christian ones.
So what? Those are recruiting centers. Christians use the hospitals, the schools and the soup kitchens to get their hands on the sick and dying, who are especially vulnerable to religion; kids, who are especially vulnerable to brainwashing; and the hungry, who will generally side with whoever is feeding them.
And let's not forget the Catholic church keeping reading, writing and science alive during that unfortunate period called the dark ages.
No one earns points for preserving their own culture. If they had preserved Celtic or other pagan cultures as diligently, then they might deserve credit. Since they instead wiped out those cultures, this is not a good Christian deed.
No, it's not. "Those individuals" get support from other individuals, the church-goers who tithe. That makes them culpable.
How would you know? I'm guessing that you don't run much in Christian circles.
Are you kidding? Christians are everywhere! They come out of the ventwork like aliens in a Sigourney Weaver movie.
The ones I know do not support violence or oppression of any sort, and would consider it a personal insult to insinuate that they did.
So the ones you know don't give money when the plate comes around? They don't attend church on Sunday? They don't call themselves Christians when the census taker comes around? If they do those things, they are supporting an institution that uses violence.
Can you give one concrete example of how a mainstream Christian organization or denomination is perpetuating violence today?
Child molestation by priests. Covering up those molestations by Bishops and Cardinals. Lobbying efforts to censor movies, television and radio. Gay bashing. Telling Wiccans they can't wear their religious icons to school while Christians can. Blue Springs, Missouri spending government money to slander the Goth community.
Sorry, should I have stopped at one?
And how does identifying oneself as a Christian foster oppression today?
Because if lots of people identify as Christian, politicians lean toward supporting Christian legislation.
Geno, my friend, this is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists (which obviously is *not* true). I gather from your name and your web site that you're German. By your logic I would have to conclude that you're a Nazi? :-)
:-) -- but I'm not using logic. I prefer the facts.
Wrong on both counts -- Heinlein and Nietzsche were both strong individualists
I didn't say "all Christians". I will say "most". Christianity at-large has continually applied violent action against non-Christians.
I know many people who identify as Christian, but who are against all of the examples I listed. Few of them cease to call themselves Christian or oppose the churches' use of the term, few of them boycott or oppose the churches or other Christian institutions, few of them withdraw financial support from the church, few of them speak out against the use of force.
Few.
The rest -- and I stress that these are the vast bulk, the overwhelming majority of the population self-identified as Christian -- watch silently and continue tacit support, like attending, contributing, identifying as Christian on the census, and so on. Since those people are actively supporting the users of violence (often with cash), I can't see any ethical way not to hold them accountable for the violence.
Until those people forswear the use of violence -- and disassociate themselves from those who use violence -- I can't consider them as anything other than dangerous criminals.
Maybe it's your karma catching up with you.
- The Crusades. (Killed Muslims.)
- The Inquisition. (Killed Jews.)
- The Burning Times. (Killed witches.)
- Trying to "cure" gay people with drugs or electric shock.
- Shooting doctors who perform abortions.
- Demonization of other religions.
Christians have done everthing possible not just to advocate their religion, but to eliminate all other religions. I'll tolerate Christians when you forswear the use of violence against us.Hmmm. This reminds me of 9/11. After watching people give away their freedoms to government for a while, I made some notes:
People understand one big event way more than they understand a lot of little events. 2800 deaths in one big spectacular event live on television gets to them, but not 2800 kids dying for lack of food one-at-a-time on the other side of the planet. They understand one murder, but not 2.5Gs. They get a politician stealing a little of their time or money or freedom, but not how all those nickels and dimes add up to billions over time.
To me, this is just all part of one issue: people don't have the big picture, in time, in space, or in 'social-space'. I usually get chewed out when I say this, but the issue is education. When kids are brought up from day one to understand long-term, long-range consequences, that's when people will stop making decisions that seem good in the short-run but are remarkably bad in the long-run.
Which do you think is better, support over the phone or support another way?
Another way: Google.
Seriously, since Google, I haven't needed to call tech support numbers. Whatever problem I'm having generally falls into one of two categories: other people have had that problem, solved it and posted the solution to the web somewhere, or no one has ever had that problem, and in that case tech support is useless.
The only value of tech support is to the product vendor, who can then advertise that they have tech support.
Hell, I look things up on Google before I crack the manual. Google is faster, I can narrow down the search to exactly what I'm looking for, and I often come across a cool and informative website on the topic at hand.
Plus, using Google requires that you think about how to describe the problem, which can often solve it before you even need to follow a link. Tech support is kind of like "natural language" programming nonsense. Programming isn't hard because the language is hard, programming is hard because you have to specify your desires precisely. You do that without realizing it as you refine your search; the search process is educational.
In other news, Zubrin is an armchar scientist and the people in the linked NYT article are real physicists. These specialists know what they are talking about.
Perhaps, but only in a very small area of expertise. Mars colonization is a big project for big minds... specifically, generalists.
More to the point... Zubrin? An armchair scientist? You must be thinking of someone else. This is someone who's been out stumping for Mars colonization for more than twelve years. He promotes, he gives interviews, he testifies before Congress. He was an engineer at Martin Marietta and went on to found his own company. He built a demonstration unit of the In-Situ Propellant Production design for $47,000. He is most definitely a hands-on guy.
A brief Zubrin bio: About FMARS - Dr. Robert Zubrin Crew Bio.
A slightly longer Zubrin bio: SAF's Ask the Scientists: Robert Zubrin.
Saying they would suffer less hardship than the American colonists of four centuries ago isn't saying much, considering that a number of the early colonies were either wiped out, abandoned, or lost large fractions of their populations over the winter.
:-)
Fair enough... much less hardship.
I think the remoteness and isolation of the earlier scientific missions would be the worst for a lot of people. Being one of the only four humans on an entire planet has got to be a real brain-bender. ("Bending" in the Nietzschean sense seems to apply here as well.)
Barring crashes or explosions or other catastrophes, the zero-gee environment and radiation are the worst physical hazards. The studies and our (admittedly minimal) experience in space all seem to point to the idea that we can not only cope with these issues, but that we can do so much more easily than almost any prior generation of human pioneers.
Anytime somebody puts this type of argument into their comment, they look like a wacko. Stick to the point and you won't sound like a some loony toon.
Are you kidding? The fact that the US spends thousands of times as much money on "defense" as it does on space R&D is central to this discussion. DoD spending for 2004 is estimated at about $380 billion. The 2004 estimate for NASA is $15.5 billion. You could cut miltary spending by 5% and more than double NASA's budget. Zubrin's estimates for Mars Direct are $30 billion done government-style and $4-6 billion if it's done by the private sector. $30 billion is 7.9% of the DoD budget. You could cut military spending by one dollar out of twelve and fund the entire Mars Direct project, including the pork flavoring packet, tomorrow.
(Reference: Budget of the US Government, FY 2004: Budget documents. BTW, Table S-2 in the budget document shows that the plan for discretionary spending through 2008 is to increase the defense spending percentage and decrease the non-defense spending percentage. Who are we planning to fight in 2008?)
That's not even considering that the US spent extra billions this year and last to start a war while we were in the middle of UN resolution of the conflict with the opposing country.
And even if you believe the propganda coming out of DC, there's nothing that would make the US more secure than the benefits of space R&D. Even in a purely military analysis, we'd have the undisputed literal high ground, better technology and a stronger economy to defend ourselves. The world would be a more prosperous place in general, reducing the threat from disaffected political groups. And maybe a few more people would come back with a little perspective and be better world leaders for the experience. Maybe that kind of world leader would solve international conflicts before we have to send in troops.
This is entirely about priorities.
We'll need to find innovative new ways of shielding spacecraft from fraction-of-lightspeed interstellar rubbish if we're ever to spend much time outside our own magnetosphere.
Great, space FUD.
I recommend The Case For Mars (amazon.com link), by Robert Zubrin. You can also check out The Case For Mars website.
The short version is this: we have all the technology we need to safely colonize Mars right now, and with less danger and hardship than the American colonists suffered four centuries ago. If funding were allocated today, the first scientists could be on Mars in 10 years, and colonists in perhaps 20. (The money required would be a small fraction of the US civilian-bombing budget.)
Safety from radiation is easy. Zubrin points out that you can just go to the center of the ship and stack your supplies around you to reduce radiation to acceptable levels, even in the case of a powerfuil solar flare. On the surface, you just build homes underground for everyday living. People here on Earth are doing this now just for the energy-bill savings. I think we can do it in order to colonize an entire planet.
Count your blessings; "Anonymous Coward" is the respectful term.
This could be a Slashdot Poll: Best New Term For "Anonymous Coward":
One wonders what a geek orgy would be like, the ancient greeks solved the gender ratio issue by hiring 'flute girls'...
Hmmm, "geek orgy"... "flute girls"... suddenly I'm picturing Alyson Hannigan.
I wouldn't call the 'open road' myth a lie.... There are a hell of a lot of places one can go in an automobile, more than can be reached by any other means at all.
You can reach more places in an automobile than by any other means? Mountaintops? Underwater? Flying through the air? Outer space?
More to the point -- more to what I actually said, to be specific -- a hypothetical "flying car" would have one less dependency, one less restriction, than a regular car: it would be able to bypass roads. It would be able to go anywhere a car can go, plus other places a car can't go. It remains to be seen whether these flying cars will actually do this, but the idea I'm promoting is pretty straightforward.
If you can only travel by road, you are dependent on government to put in a road first. I prefer not to let Uncle Sam dictate where I can go.
And your point about 'individual freedom' being reduced by the infrastructure sounds like more of a philosophy debate than a practical reality.
Fine, build your own road. Drive on it. Let me know how that goes.
dude...
... where's my air car?
:-)
... there's no way "roadless" travel is going to happen in a flying car. there will be air corridors that you are restricted to, otherwise it's going to be mass pandemonium.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
True, but with a car, you're physically restricted from certain terrain; even SUVs can't just drive anywhere. In a plane, you can deviate from those air corridors if you choose to.
Of course, we'll need a force of tech-savvy, anti-government people who can bypass the inevitable federally-required tracking devices. If only there was some way, maybe an electronic forum, where such brave individuals could communicate....