Ok, that's great, but you're the ones making this amazing claim that you could build a space elevator today if only you had the money. Amazing claims require amazing proof. Your official road map doesn't exactly cut it.
I must of missed something, I didn't see where he said they could build an elevator today. Instead I specifically recall he stated that they were loooking at 25 years before they got it off the ground.
WTF? As if this kite-on-steroids idea isn't daft enough to start with, they're going to attach it to a boat?
Actually a boat, really a large floating platform, would be better to anchor a space elevator to than the ground. Whereas the ground is "unmovable" without a considerable amount of resources, a floating platform can easily move a short distance.
I consider myself lucky that religion has not harmed me directly in my life. No bad childhood experiences: parents were agnostic, and encouraged me to make up my own mind.
Growing up the only problem as related to religion I recall having was experiencing and seeing rulers applied forcefully to children's hand for not saying the pledge of alegiance with "under god". Though my mom was Catholic she was pretty much non practicing and encouraged me to study other religions as well. After reading about Buddhism I considered myself Buddhist, which is why I didn't want to say "under god". Through childhood and early adulthood my beliefs kept evolving. Several years ago I came to the realization I was agnostic, without a belief in the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being. And now I don't even believe in a soul or spirit, I am agnostic in this as well as I don't believe in the nonexistence of them either. But I really want to know.
Maybe you wrote quickly but Monte Verde isn't in Peru it's in Chile.
A professor in one of my archeology classes talked about the controversy. A lot of archaeologists were skeptical of the stone tool evidence that were just river rocks, until they were shown similar rocks with twine wrapped around them, some with handles attached.
And who says that both arn't correct? The Bible says 7 days, but never defines what God sees as a day. Heck, one day to God could be one rotation of the Milky Way, not one rotation of Earth.
I think part of the problem is in the translations. I don't know or recall what language "Genesis" was written in, Aramaic maybe, but I heard the word used that was translated into "days" actually meant "days", years" and "eons". If so it could of meant seven eons.
I wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
You thinking of this one?
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
No, it was just before she said that, something like "there's biilions of billions of stars and if only one out a billion has planets...".
Oooh, someone needs to lay of the serious pills. That was a joke, Falcon.;-)
I went through something dealing with this with a friend. While in college a friend met some guy and quit college to move with him across the country. A couple of years later she returned with his baby and as a "Born Again" Christian after he dumped her. Almost every tyme I talked with her religion ended up in our conversation. Eventually I had to stop talking to her. So I get a bit sensitive at tymes.
As for holocaust denial itself, why not allow it? Mentioning it as a reason to ban other forms of thought is IMHO a red herring. Why? Because anyone foolish enough to deny the Holocaust can have all the arguments they care to scrounge so easily refuted, that it would be laughable to watch 'em try.
I agree. Instead of banning something like this, use data and facts to refute it. I support the KKK and neo nazis the right to speech and to demontrate or march down mainstreet, then have others refute them.
Experts write papers, which get peer reviewed and published in conferences and journals. After enough of the scientific community has accepted various theories, they get condensed into graduate-level survey courses, then undergraduate-level textbooks, and eventually filter down into high school textbooks and science experiments. This whole procedure was working fine until the ID folks demanded that their theory be taught in science classrooms without having gone through the above process. Putting it back the way that it was before the ID people got involved seems fine to me.
Thanks, the way you stated it is good. You're right about how some try to interfer in how it works, like ID proponents. Even Bush said ID should be taught in science class.
Do you believe anyone should create educational standards, or do you believe it should be total educational anarchy?
The experts in the fields involved should be the ones to set standards, for instance scientists shoud set science standards, not politicans.
Do you believe that education should be required by law for children? If so, how would you determine what qualifies as "education"?
Yes, Education should be required up to a certain age, say 16, but the way a child is taught should not be mandated so long as they meet the requirement set by experts.
"A random bad thing happened to me therefore God doesn't exist" is rather similar to "a random good thing happened to me therefore God exists."
It wasn't a "random bad thing" that happened to end my beliefs. For years after I came out of a coma I was in I meditated and prayed. Eventually I gave up on the existence of any "good" supreme diety.
You see, god said there would be people who would fail to see the evidence. You have failed to see the evidence. That there is proof that god exists and can prophesy the future.
I see no evidence of a supreme diety because there is no evidence which is exclusive to existence of one.
Where is this evidence? I haven't seen any evidence of any supreme diety. Nor for any soul or spirit.
How about "life"?
I don't see "life" as any evidence of a supreme diety, I see it as evidence of evolution.
Going back before we were complex creatures with billions of cells, it had to start somewhere.
Chaos or chance. Given there's billions of billions of stars, I find it hard to believe that only Earth has life. Darn, I wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
Simply I have yet to see any evidence of a supreme diety, soul, or spirit. I used to believe but an accident that I almost died from ended my beliefs. Now I have a hard tyme believing anything other than that if there is a supreme diety it must be sadistic.
Perhaps then these people need to contract a drug resistent strain of TB, like the one that guy had who was flying across the pond. Or perhaps E coli or avian flu.
As a matter of probability, as a matter of history, as a matter of precidence, ID is emminantly more probably than a Darwinian Evolution.
ID is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Evolution on the other hand is science and belongs there. I wouldn't mind having ID taught in public schools however as part of a philosophy curriculum. If so though then other beliefs of the origin of life need to be taught as well. Such as the Apache Creation Story, Navajo Creation Story, and the Zuni Creation Cycle.
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith.
Yet if "God" demands belief, faith, without proof in "It" to go to heaven instead of hell then "It" is sadistic.
I used to believe but after I "survived" an accident I lost the beliefs I had. And yes, I used and meant "survived". I was riding my bike when a moving van hit me. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. If I were to talk to those docs now I'd say they were wrong, my life has been a living hell since.
I wonder if it will come before Bush leaves office, or if some other shmuck will pick up where he left off. (Giuliani? Schwarzenegger? )
I don't know who will replace Bush but it won't be the Govenator, Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Without a Constitutional Amendment he can't be president of the USA. Personally, of those I've seen running I'm hoping to see Ron Paul win.
The "abuses" did have a purpose, a lofty one at that.
So the means justify the means? Like the massacre of 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population of East Timor? While the US didn't invade East Timor the US government under Pres Ford and Henry Kissinger encouraged and supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. They even supplied arms to Indonesia despite a congressional ban.
Government is the only remaining bullwark between the thugs who run industry and the people they use up as labour resource and then destroy as a product.
Ah but it's govrnemtn that lets these corporations get away with all this. Especially under Bush who installed industry insiders as the head of government watch agencies. His admin is even trying to gut or remove from the law books the Alien Tort Claims Act. This law, from 1789, is a method by which foreign nationals can hold US corporations responsible for actions they take or actions they support in other nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, that's great, but you're the ones making this amazing claim that you could build a space elevator today if only you had the money. Amazing claims require amazing proof. Your official road map doesn't exactly cut it.
I must of missed something, I didn't see where he said they could build an elevator today. Instead I specifically recall he stated that they were loooking at 25 years before they got it off the ground.
FalconWTF? As if this kite-on-steroids idea isn't daft enough to start with, they're going to attach it to a boat?
Actually a boat, really a large floating platform, would be better to anchor a space elevator to than the ground. Whereas the ground is "unmovable" without a considerable amount of resources, a floating platform can easily move a short distance.
FalconI consider myself lucky that religion has not harmed me directly in my life. No bad childhood experiences: parents were agnostic, and encouraged me to make up my own mind.
Growing up the only problem as related to religion I recall having was experiencing and seeing rulers applied forcefully to children's hand for not saying the pledge of alegiance with "under god". Though my mom was Catholic she was pretty much non practicing and encouraged me to study other religions as well. After reading about Buddhism I considered myself Buddhist, which is why I didn't want to say "under god". Through childhood and early adulthood my beliefs kept evolving. Several years ago I came to the realization I was agnostic, without a belief in the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being. And now I don't even believe in a soul or spirit, I am agnostic in this as well as I don't believe in the nonexistence of them either. But I really want to know.
Falconteach kids how to make chemicals that are fun to make?
Yea, and the next thing you know the Gestapo, er Homeland Security, will be busting down your doors accusing you of being a terrorist.
FalconMaybe you wrote quickly but Monte Verde isn't in Peru it's in Chile.
A professor in one of my archeology classes talked about the controversy. A lot of archaeologists were skeptical of the stone tool evidence that were just river rocks, until they were shown similar rocks with twine wrapped around them, some with handles attached.
Pro Clovis archeologists right?
FalconAnd who says that both arn't correct? The Bible says 7 days, but never defines what God sees as a day. Heck, one day to God could be one rotation of the Milky Way, not one rotation of Earth.
I think part of the problem is in the translations. I don't know or recall what language "Genesis" was written in, Aramaic maybe, but I heard the word used that was translated into "days" actually meant "days", years" and "eons". If so it could of meant seven eons.
FalconI wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
You thinking of this one?
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
No, it was just before she said that, something like "there's biilions of billions of stars and if only one out a billion has planets...".
FalconOooh, someone needs to lay of the serious pills. That was a joke, Falcon. ;-)
I went through something dealing with this with a friend. While in college a friend met some guy and quit college to move with him across the country. A couple of years later she returned with his baby and as a "Born Again" Christian after he dumped her. Almost every tyme I talked with her religion ended up in our conversation. Eventually I had to stop talking to her. So I get a bit sensitive at tymes.
FalconAs for holocaust denial itself, why not allow it? Mentioning it as a reason to ban other forms of thought is IMHO a red herring. Why? Because anyone foolish enough to deny the Holocaust can have all the arguments they care to scrounge so easily refuted, that it would be laughable to watch 'em try.
I agree. Instead of banning something like this, use data and facts to refute it. I support the KKK and neo nazis the right to speech and to demontrate or march down mainstreet, then have others refute them.
FalconExperts write papers, which get peer reviewed and published in conferences and journals. After enough of the scientific community has accepted various theories, they get condensed into graduate-level survey courses, then undergraduate-level textbooks, and eventually filter down into high school textbooks and science experiments. This whole procedure was working fine until the ID folks demanded that their theory be taught in science classrooms without having gone through the above process. Putting it back the way that it was before the ID people got involved seems fine to me.
Thanks, the way you stated it is good. You're right about how some try to interfer in how it works, like ID proponents. Even Bush said ID should be taught in science class.
FalconBut don't you see the recursive problem here? Who decides which people are "experts", which areas are "fields", which people are "scientists", etc.?
No I don't. Each can be tested, and if they don't pass they aren't an expert, much like a theory, if it fails it's not valid.
FalconWhy is it not a scientific theory?
Because we can't test with experiments and replicate the results. Put another way, Why "Intelligent Design" (ID) is not science, or AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.
FalconDo you believe anyone should create educational standards, or do you believe it should be total educational anarchy?
The experts in the fields involved should be the ones to set standards, for instance scientists shoud set science standards, not politicans.
Do you believe that education should be required by law for children? If so, how would you determine what qualifies as "education"?
Yes, Education should be required up to a certain age, say 16, but the way a child is taught should not be mandated so long as they meet the requirement set by experts.
Falcon"A random bad thing happened to me therefore God doesn't exist" is rather similar to "a random good thing happened to me therefore God exists."
It wasn't a "random bad thing" that happened to end my beliefs. For years after I came out of a coma I was in I meditated and prayed. Eventually I gave up on the existence of any "good" supreme diety.
FalconYou see, god said there would be people who would fail to see the evidence. You have failed to see the evidence. That there is proof that god exists and can prophesy the future.
I see no evidence of a supreme diety because there is no evidence which is exclusive to existence of one.
FalconWhere is this evidence? I haven't seen any evidence of any supreme diety. Nor for any soul or spirit.
How about "life"?
I don't see "life" as any evidence of a supreme diety, I see it as evidence of evolution.
Going back before we were complex creatures with billions of cells, it had to start somewhere.
Chaos or chance. Given there's billions of billions of stars, I find it hard to believe that only Earth has life. Darn, I wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
Simply I have yet to see any evidence of a supreme diety, soul, or spirit. I used to believe but an accident that I almost died from ended my beliefs. Now I have a hard tyme believing anything other than that if there is a supreme diety it must be sadistic.
FalconThe idiots in Kansas who got intelligent design into schools were voted out. (Although I think it took a few years.) So the system works, just slowly.
Things went much faster in Ohio. Those school board members in that county that voted for ID all lost the following election.
Falcon45% rejected evolution for any living thing
Perhaps then these people need to contract a drug resistent strain of TB, like the one that guy had who was flying across the pond. Or perhaps E coli or avian flu.
FalconAs a matter of probability, as a matter of history, as a matter of precidence, ID is emminantly more probably than a Darwinian Evolution.
ID is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Evolution on the other hand is science and belongs there. I wouldn't mind having ID taught in public schools however as part of a philosophy curriculum. If so though then other beliefs of the origin of life need to be taught as well. Such as the Apache Creation Story, Navajo Creation Story, and the Zuni Creation Cycle.
Falconthere is evidence that we can all see, whether it's in the Bible or in the environment around us
Where is this evidence? I haven't seen any evidence of any supreme diety. Nor for any soul or spirit.
FalconGod demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith.
Yet if "God" demands belief, faith, without proof in "It" to go to heaven instead of hell then "It" is sadistic.
I used to believe but after I "survived" an accident I lost the beliefs I had. And yes, I used and meant "survived". I was riding my bike when a moving van hit me. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. If I were to talk to those docs now I'd say they were wrong, my life has been a living hell since.
FalconI wonder if it will come before Bush leaves office, or if some other shmuck will pick up where he left off. (Giuliani? Schwarzenegger? )
I don't know who will replace Bush but it won't be the Govenator, Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Without a Constitutional Amendment he can't be president of the USA. Personally, of those I've seen running I'm hoping to see Ron Paul win.
FalconThe "abuses" did have a purpose, a lofty one at that.
So the means justify the means? Like the massacre of 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population of East Timor? While the US didn't invade East Timor the US government under Pres Ford and Henry Kissinger encouraged and supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. They even supplied arms to Indonesia despite a congressional ban.
FalconGovernment is the only remaining bullwark between the thugs who run industry and the people they use up as labour resource and then destroy as a product.
Ah but it's govrnemtn that lets these corporations get away with all this. Especially under Bush who installed industry insiders as the head of government watch agencies. His admin is even trying to gut or remove from the law books the Alien Tort Claims Act. This law, from 1789, is a method by which foreign nationals can hold US corporations responsible for actions they take or actions they support in other nations.
FalconTibet? Formosa?
Falcon