I don't see the advantages for colonizing another planet to go for Venus instead of Mars. It IS pretty corrosive, even without the hype, you'd need to build frickle 'cloudcities' - and hope you never fall off, and there is an almost total lack of any water.
Compared to that, Mars is a relatively benign planet to colonize. Pragmatically speaking, it would be foolish to go for Venus. I mean, yes, I get it: I saw the nasa retro-art too: a cloudcity on Venus looks cool. But with that, all is said. I'm for more exploration of the inner planets (Mercury hasn't gotten much love neither), and our scientific knowledge would gain greatly by it, but if you're talking in the context of colonizing and making humans multi-planetary, it's *definitely* a better idea to go for Mars. Idem with a context of finding life in the solarsystem (though some moons like Europa are also good candidates in that case). Point is, whether we like it or not, there is a reason why there is more attention for Mars than for Venus.
Though I would agree with you it's a bit disappointing they send so little probes to the inner most planets. Then again, budgets are - certainly of NASA these days - limited, so if the money for one is to the expense of the other - in that case, I do think they should focus on Mars and/or Europa, as far as planetary exploration goes. If NASA was guaranteed 1% of GNP, much more leeway would be possible, but it is what it is.
However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.
There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.
The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon, compared to the same from Earth. But by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.
Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars for centuries to come, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.
So the other poster was right in this respect. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.
However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.
There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.
The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon. but by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.
Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.
So the other poster was wrong. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.
Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.
It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.
The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.
But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.
Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.
You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terrorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. That you only find your question legitimate is not my problem, since it wasn't *my* question, and *you* responded to *my* question, not vice versa. And, as said - but you fail to realise, apparently - even if you take it that to mean 'done by believers of a religion', than for the past half century, Muslims still would have killed more than Christians.
I've repeated this several times now, and you never actually discuss anything let alone try to refute anything of the arguments I provided, but only reiterate the same thing over and over, like a mantra. Maybe you should start reading comprehensively? Or is your only point trolling?
Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question: you only interpreted it as such. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.
You keep failing to understand that, while you only need a working brain to grasp it, with or without bigotry, but with rationality.
The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.
But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.
Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.
In contrast to your irrational emo-response, this does not mean or imply that I think that *every* Muslim is a terrorist. Far from it. But it does mean, that currently, Islam is the most dangerous religion in the context of terrorist attacks being done in name of a religion.
You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. Period.
Don't be so puerile. This is about applying logic and rational reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.
And.. don't you even read? I've already answered it twice.
Crusade:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue. "he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s" synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote "she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
Yes, and for that question you obviously need to address the attacks made in name of a religion, otherwise you can't say which religion is the greatest threat. Are you daft or simply being willfully obtuse? It was clear from the start you misinterpreted my question, since you started with a war that had no religious connotation at all, and that's why I clarified my question from the start. It's my question, so *I* know best what is meant by it, me thinks.;-)
Besides, you can't have it both ways. If no religious connotation is necessary, than I would like to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war alone, 1,66 million Muslims were killed - by Muslims. that would trump your 1 million on the Iraq war by far.
But regardless, I can see you're trolling and will never concede the point unless I ask it directly, so you have no wriggle room anymore.
I'll ask you this question, thus: In the name of what religion is being done the most terrorist attacks this last decade?
Not at all. You can scroll back, if you want, it's plain to see for all. I'll quote my original post to which you responded again:
"Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times."
Since you invoked wars done for geopolitical interests and oil control, which had nothing to do with a religious basis, I've provided further context: namely that for determing how dangerous a religion is, it has to have the religious component (duh), aka: which religion is the most dangerous in the sense of which attacks have been done in the name of which religion, and that for the last decade? You can continue to ignore the obvious, but it's clear the war in Iraq wasn't a religious war. You keep 'sic'-ing the word crusade, but I've already given you an anwser on that, namely that that word has other allegorical meanings as well. If you have doubts, you can look up the definitions yourself. Or better still, I'll provide them:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue. "he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s" synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote "she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
The USA, while - granted - inventing excuses like WMD's, did not do it out of hatred for Muslims and wanting to impose Christianity on Iraq, nor was it a Holy War against Islam (if it were, they would have simply nuked all Muslim countries), nor was it done in name of Christianity. You know this as well as I do, so your insistence that religion was the driving force behind the war in this regard is nonsensical and puerile.
You also didn't answer the other question: why did you presume Islam? Why not, for instance, Budhism? Or Jainism?
In regard to cracks caused by the pressure and heat of the fuel when ignited, or of the turbineblades which pump the fuel, etc., it gives an exact representation, not a 'pale substitute'. There are some form of stresses that are less accurate when measured on ground-tests, but most of it provides excellent proof of reliability (or lack thereof) at the same level as if the rocket *were* retrieved afterwards.
Exactly. when I read the article of his own link, it was clearly mentioned: "Under even aggressive testing assumptions, *existing* fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles"
Maybe he didn't read the article well himself? Obviously, if one would have an 'existing fleet' of 1000 vehicles it could take tens of years, but if you have 1000000 vehicles you could have that within a couple of months.
I find it sometimes puzzling that people want to make a point , but than don't read their own linked articles, which doesn't corroborate their claim at all if you read them comprehensively.
No, the question was: in which name of which religion is done the most attacks, this last decade? I explicitly said so what the question was in my former post, so either you're being wilfully obtuse, or you can't read comprehensively.
Obviously, if it isn't done in the name of a religion, the question which religion is the most dangerous has no bearings on it.
Islam?
So...why didn't you presume Buddhism was? Or Jainism?
True. But the question was not: what kills most people: traffic accidents or religion. It was: what religion is the most dangerous. This, in the context of how many attacks are done in the name of which religion the most.
Yes, clearly the WMD was an excuse to get rid of Saddam (which they failed to do the first time), to get influence in the Middle-East, and for the oil.
All that, however, is irrelevant to consider which religion is the most dangerous, as in: determining in what regions' name attacks are being carried out the most, this past decade. For instance: were there the most terrorist attacks from Christians (done in the name of Christianity), from Muslims (in the Name of Islam), or from Buddhist (in the name of Buddha)?
Given that context, I stand by my words that it's pretty clear who scores the highest this last decade. This does not mean that all practitioners of that religion are terrorists, only that that particular religion gives rise to the most amount of terrorists these days.
He did not do it in name of Christianity, though. You know as well as I do, that 'crusade' has other allegorical meanings, and not points to an actual crusade like happened 600 years ago. And while many innocents were killed, the *target* was not innocent civilians, in contrasts to terrorists. Also, there is no doubt that, if certain parts of the world with a certain religious conviction had the military might and power of the US, the death- toll would be far higher than 1 million.
The point was not that wars can not be fought by others, but what religion is most dangerous in the sense of: most terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion. It's quite simple: how many terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion this last decade. Is it Christianity? Buddhism? etc. Evaluate this objectively, and you get your answer. I don't see why one has to become all emotional if not defensive about it.
"The problem, which is obvious to the non-stupid, is that the damage is done to a random sampling of society by stupid people."
Not entirely. Stupidity is also partially hereditary, so in any given sample, kids of stupid parents will be more likely to be stupid themselves, than kids from two intelligent parents.
It's true that other factors, like education, makes has a larger influence on it, but still, one can't actually say it's a totally random sample. Stupid parents, as a whole, are also more likely to be stupid in different domains - such as having a more rational approach in childrearing. Thus, they tend to have more kids than intelligent people. And those kids tend to be more stupid in their turn, and do the same themselves. As said, mostly by example, but ALSO by genes.
Let's not fall into the 'victimhood'-role. We have Wu for that.;-)
I just looked at your list, and the problem was that it was very subjective. for instance, wanting to go to Mars may seem like insane to you, but looks awesome to me. He might be overly optimistic and ambitious with his timetable, but better that, then having no zeal or goal at all (or just lining your and your shareholders pockets, like most CEO's strive for).
I fail to see the gravity of these 'flaws', nor are they clear flaws to begin with, with the possible exception of the last one. then again, Linux was still immature back then, and you're wrong: windows2000 was one of the best windows OS'es ever made, in the context of that timeperiod. So even there there is room for saying he was doing something sane.
I know you might disagree, but that's how most others see it. and I think, your tone and the subjective nature of your arguments in consideration, you were more seen as a troll than being serious in your comments.
But anyway, if you're complaining about the inconsistency of the reputationbar, I'll help you out by giving troll status to Linus cussing too. So then you both get to downmodded, and there is no problem.
It can be solved simply by ordering all homeopathic substances must at least have a 10C dilution. And if they do not follow that - certainly when deliberately done - they can be jailed for fraud, and, if people have died because of it, manslaughter.
It would still leave the stupid people thinking it works, but if we also prohibit any actual medical help to any adult that voluntary and consciously takes homeopathic stuff, it will sort itself out after a few generations.
It's true there is some scientifically backed evidence on pain-removal for chiropractic treatment for the lower back/spine, in certain circumstances. It doesn't do all the miracle works some quacks claim it does, however.
But, true, it's better than homeopathy, which has NO medical benefit at all.
One small correction: statistically, it's more likely to win the jackpot of the lottery five times in a row, than to find one active molecule after the dilution-process in a homeopathic product for anything above a 15C dilution.
Typical homeopathic dilutions go to 20C and 30C...
There you go, this is a prime example of what I described earlier: someone who we should let remove himself from the genepool. And just as I predicted, when one is stupid in one domain, one is more likely to be stupid in other domains too, and stupid parents have the tendency to have more kids than intelligent parents. And lo and behold; it is thus.
It's difficult for me to say the kids should be the dupe of your behavior and attitude, but YOU certainly should. Please refrain from using ordinary medicine AT ALL, and solely use homeopathic 'medicine' exclusively, in all cases. that way, you're more prone to remove yourself from the genepool than people who aren't as stupid. The deplorable thing here is, that most of your 8 children have a high likelihood of adapting your stupidity as well.
I actually hope you ARE a troll, like the reputation indicates, because if you're not, it's really infuriating. Homeopathy DOES NOT work. You do not have more effect from it than from a placebo. At most, you endanger your kids by giving them placebo's when they would need actual medicine, and at worst you poison them when homeopathy is done wrong, like in this case. For the latter, you are right we don't have all the info. But for the former, we already know it doesn't work, and can't work, with the huge dilutions we're talking about. you have to be more lucky than winning the jackpot of the lottery to find even ONE working molecule in a homeopathic substance. what do you not understand about this?
And since you refuse to understand it, I have no problems with you taking some homeopathic cure against a deadly disease, so you remove yourself from the genepool. Idem for you children when and once they grow up to be adults, and if they also wallow in same stupidity. It will seem strange to say this, but this is not personal; it's just that I'm of the opinion people should live with the consequences of their own stupidity. I'm sure you agree to that principle, even if you're convinced that it doesn't apply to you, right?
True the parent poster shows little empathy, but, rationally speaking, he's not entirely wrong. Stupidity is partially hereditary, and partially upbringing.. in case of kids growing up from/by stupid parents, there is a considerable likelihood they will act as stupid as their parents, thus. From a rational/biological stance, one can argue that self-elimination by poisoning themselves or their children (or by dying from diseases because they believe homeopathy is more effective) will eliminate the problem in the long term. It's self-rectifying, in a sense, IF we let those people experience the consequences of their own behavior.
The problem lays entirely in the domain of ethics and morality, thus, but the logic in itself is irrefutable. From a libertarian stance (which I take) I don't adhere to such a policy because, while it's likely, there is also always a percentage of kids who will be smarter than their parents, either through mutation, lucky gene-mix, or (external) education. It doesn't change the statistics, but it does make it less applicable on individual cases, and individuality and free will are libertarian concepts by excellence.
But everything has its limits, and I would have far less problems if we let the adults who are (have proven to be) that stupid die off. I'm not a fan of protecting people against their own stupidity, even after they don't listen when you explained and warned them. As other posters say, this can even be detrimental to others too, as with vaccines. If enough do it (vaccinate), the total population gets a benefit from it, but if enough stupid parents don't do it, you loose that 'herd'-immunity, because the disease *can* propagate successfully, then.
If only homeopathic-adepts would be consistent and only take their miracle cure in all cases, or the doctors/hospitals only would subscribe homeopathic 'medicine' to adepts of homeopathy, things would resolve itself after even a few generations. As it is now, we perpetuate it and let stupidity thrive. And as a whole, stupid parents also have a higher likelihood to have more children, so, indeed, we create more and more stupidity in the gene-pool of the human race. I think there is a scientific paper from Iceland which demonstrated that, recently. It's still true education influences (the lack of) stupidity far more than genes on itself, but still, there *is* an effect.
So I agree with the ethical problem it poses when it's administered to small children who haven't got the possibility to refuse, but I'm also aware the parent poster was basically right in his reasoning.
Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times.
Look, there is no sense in continuing this debate. You're just not getting it, and then get all defensive and call us 'arrogant'. No, it's just that you refuse or are unable to understand the issue. Not seeing the 'entire picture', indeed.
Your analogies; turbines, flying wheels, etc. just prove that. You simply do not understand that those examples can not do the same as an EMdrive, because their power ratio is too weak; they never get to the point where you get MORE power out than you put in, because even for a photon rocket it would need to reach the speed of light for that, which is impossible. But since the reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher, you get far *more* energy back than you put in (at speeds that ARE attainable) - which is of course, bullocks. Losses, friction, torque, etc. only matter if you have the same amount of energy that you 'recycle'; that's why, in practise, you can not build a perpetuum mobile with the same energy you put in, because each time you get losses to the original amount of energy, and eventually it dries up. But those systems *can not* make more energy on itself than you put in, because their power ratio is too weak. No other device, not even a photon rocket, can achieve it with the power ratio it has. The EMdrive claims it has and thus does.
Ergo, you can get far more energy out of it than you put in, at speeds/thrusts that are attainable, and thus, it does not matter if it's from an outside source or not, as long as the energy keeps flowing. And it keeps flowing because it generates MORE energy than you put in, in total. With power ratios like that, you do not need to accelerate 'indefinitely', that is just the point!
Now, you can debate semantics all you want, claiming a perpetuum mobile means something else to you, but it doesn't change anything to the fact that such a thing isn't possible, and since the EMdrive would make it possible, the EMdrive, as a reactionless drive with the proclaimed power ratio, is nonsense. Yes, yes, you do not agree, but that still doesn't change anything to that fact.
Several people have tried to explain it to you in the most simple and clear way by now, and yet you persist in refuting it, or are unable to grasp this. Well, so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the advantages for colonizing another planet to go for Venus instead of Mars. It IS pretty corrosive, even without the hype, you'd need to build frickle 'cloudcities' - and hope you never fall off, and there is an almost total lack of any water.
Compared to that, Mars is a relatively benign planet to colonize. Pragmatically speaking, it would be foolish to go for Venus. I mean, yes, I get it: I saw the nasa retro-art too: a cloudcity on Venus looks cool. But with that, all is said. I'm for more exploration of the inner planets (Mercury hasn't gotten much love neither), and our scientific knowledge would gain greatly by it, but if you're talking in the context of colonizing and making humans multi-planetary, it's *definitely* a better idea to go for Mars. Idem with a context of finding life in the solarsystem (though some moons like Europa are also good candidates in that case). Point is, whether we like it or not, there is a reason why there is more attention for Mars than for Venus.
Though I would agree with you it's a bit disappointing they send so little probes to the inner most planets. Then again, budgets are - certainly of NASA these days - limited, so if the money for one is to the expense of the other - in that case, I do think they should focus on Mars and/or Europa, as far as planetary exploration goes. If NASA was guaranteed 1% of GNP, much more leeway would be possible, but it is what it is.
I think you're basically wrong in this.
However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.
There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.
The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon, compared to the same from Earth. But by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.
Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars for centuries to come, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.
So the other poster was right in this respect. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.
I think you're basically right in this.
However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.
There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.
The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon. but by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.
Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.
So the other poster was wrong. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.
Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.
It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.
The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.
But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.
Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.
You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terrorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. That you only find your question legitimate is not my problem, since it wasn't *my* question, and *you* responded to *my* question, not vice versa. And, as said - but you fail to realise, apparently - even if you take it that to mean 'done by believers of a religion', than for the past half century, Muslims still would have killed more than Christians.
I've repeated this several times now, and you never actually discuss anything let alone try to refute anything of the arguments I provided, but only reiterate the same thing over and over, like a mantra. Maybe you should start reading comprehensively? Or is your only point trolling?
Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question: you only interpreted it as such. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.
You keep failing to understand that, while you only need a working brain to grasp it, with or without bigotry, but with rationality.
The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.
But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.
Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.
In contrast to your irrational emo-response, this does not mean or imply that I think that *every* Muslim is a terrorist. Far from it. But it does mean, that currently, Islam is the most dangerous religion in the context of terrorist attacks being done in name of a religion.
You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. Period.
Don't be so puerile. This is about applying logic and rational reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.
And.. don't you even read? I've already answered it twice.
Crusade:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
Yes, and for that question you obviously need to address the attacks made in name of a religion, otherwise you can't say which religion is the greatest threat. Are you daft or simply being willfully obtuse? It was clear from the start you misinterpreted my question, since you started with a war that had no religious connotation at all, and that's why I clarified my question from the start. It's my question, so *I* know best what is meant by it, me thinks. ;-)
Besides, you can't have it both ways. If no religious connotation is necessary, than I would like to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war alone, 1,66 million Muslims were killed - by Muslims. that would trump your 1 million on the Iraq war by far.
But regardless, I can see you're trolling and will never concede the point unless I ask it directly, so you have no wriggle room anymore.
I'll ask you this question, thus: In the name of what religion is being done the most terrorist attacks this last decade?
Not at all. You can scroll back, if you want, it's plain to see for all. I'll quote my original post to which you responded again:
"Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times."
Since you invoked wars done for geopolitical interests and oil control, which had nothing to do with a religious basis, I've provided further context: namely that for determing how dangerous a religion is, it has to have the religious component (duh), aka: which religion is the most dangerous in the sense of which attacks have been done in the name of which religion, and that for the last decade? You can continue to ignore the obvious, but it's clear the war in Iraq wasn't a religious war. You keep 'sic'-ing the word crusade, but I've already given you an anwser on that, namely that that word has other allegorical meanings as well. If you have doubts, you can look up the definitions yourself. Or better still, I'll provide them:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
The USA, while - granted - inventing excuses like WMD's, did not do it out of hatred for Muslims and wanting to impose Christianity on Iraq, nor was it a Holy War against Islam (if it were, they would have simply nuked all Muslim countries), nor was it done in name of Christianity. You know this as well as I do, so your insistence that religion was the driving force behind the war in this regard is nonsensical and puerile.
You also didn't answer the other question: why did you presume Islam? Why not, for instance, Budhism? Or Jainism?
In regard to cracks caused by the pressure and heat of the fuel when ignited, or of the turbineblades which pump the fuel, etc., it gives an exact representation, not a 'pale substitute'. There are some form of stresses that are less accurate when measured on ground-tests, but most of it provides excellent proof of reliability (or lack thereof) at the same level as if the rocket *were* retrieved afterwards.
Exactly. when I read the article of his own link, it was clearly mentioned: "Under even aggressive testing assumptions, *existing* fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles"
Maybe he didn't read the article well himself? Obviously, if one would have an 'existing fleet' of 1000 vehicles it could take tens of years, but if you have 1000000 vehicles you could have that within a couple of months.
I find it sometimes puzzling that people want to make a point , but than don't read their own linked articles, which doesn't corroborate their claim at all if you read them comprehensively.
No, the question was: in which name of which religion is done the most attacks, this last decade? I explicitly said so what the question was in my former post, so either you're being wilfully obtuse, or you can't read comprehensively.
Obviously, if it isn't done in the name of a religion, the question which religion is the most dangerous has no bearings on it.
Islam?
So...why didn't you presume Buddhism was? Or Jainism?
True. But the question was not: what kills most people: traffic accidents or religion. It was: what religion is the most dangerous. This, in the context of how many attacks are done in the name of which religion the most.
Yes, clearly the WMD was an excuse to get rid of Saddam (which they failed to do the first time), to get influence in the Middle-East, and for the oil.
All that, however, is irrelevant to consider which religion is the most dangerous, as in: determining in what regions' name attacks are being carried out the most, this past decade. For instance: were there the most terrorist attacks from Christians (done in the name of Christianity), from Muslims (in the Name of Islam), or from Buddhist (in the name of Buddha)?
Given that context, I stand by my words that it's pretty clear who scores the highest this last decade. This does not mean that all practitioners of that religion are terrorists, only that that particular religion gives rise to the most amount of terrorists these days.
I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this.
He did not do it in name of Christianity, though. You know as well as I do, that 'crusade' has other allegorical meanings, and not points to an actual crusade like happened 600 years ago. And while many innocents were killed, the *target* was not innocent civilians, in contrasts to terrorists. Also, there is no doubt that, if certain parts of the world with a certain religious conviction had the military might and power of the US, the death- toll would be far higher than 1 million.
The point was not that wars can not be fought by others, but what religion is most dangerous in the sense of: most terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion. It's quite simple: how many terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion this last decade. Is it Christianity? Buddhism? etc. Evaluate this objectively, and you get your answer. I don't see why one has to become all emotional if not defensive about it.
"The problem, which is obvious to the non-stupid, is that the damage is done to a random sampling of society by stupid people."
Not entirely. Stupidity is also partially hereditary, so in any given sample, kids of stupid parents will be more likely to be stupid themselves, than kids from two intelligent parents.
It's true that other factors, like education, makes has a larger influence on it, but still, one can't actually say it's a totally random sample. Stupid parents, as a whole, are also more likely to be stupid in different domains - such as having a more rational approach in childrearing. Thus, they tend to have more kids than intelligent people. And those kids tend to be more stupid in their turn, and do the same themselves. As said, mostly by example, but ALSO by genes.
So, no, it's not a completely random sample.
Let's not fall into the 'victimhood'-role. We have Wu for that. ;-)
I just looked at your list, and the problem was that it was very subjective. for instance, wanting to go to Mars may seem like insane to you, but looks awesome to me. He might be overly optimistic and ambitious with his timetable, but better that, then having no zeal or goal at all (or just lining your and your shareholders pockets, like most CEO's strive for).
I fail to see the gravity of these 'flaws', nor are they clear flaws to begin with, with the possible exception of the last one. then again, Linux was still immature back then, and you're wrong: windows2000 was one of the best windows OS'es ever made, in the context of that timeperiod. So even there there is room for saying he was doing something sane.
I know you might disagree, but that's how most others see it. and I think, your tone and the subjective nature of your arguments in consideration, you were more seen as a troll than being serious in your comments.
But anyway, if you're complaining about the inconsistency of the reputationbar, I'll help you out by giving troll status to Linus cussing too. So then you both get to downmodded, and there is no problem.
j/k ;-)
It can be solved simply by ordering all homeopathic substances must at least have a 10C dilution. And if they do not follow that - certainly when deliberately done - they can be jailed for fraud, and, if people have died because of it, manslaughter.
It would still leave the stupid people thinking it works, but if we also prohibit any actual medical help to any adult that voluntary and consciously takes homeopathic stuff, it will sort itself out after a few generations.
It's true there is some scientifically backed evidence on pain-removal for chiropractic treatment for the lower back/spine, in certain circumstances. It doesn't do all the miracle works some quacks claim it does, however.
But, true, it's better than homeopathy, which has NO medical benefit at all.
One small correction: statistically, it's more likely to win the jackpot of the lottery five times in a row, than to find one active molecule after the dilution-process in a homeopathic product for anything above a 15C dilution.
Typical homeopathic dilutions go to 20C and 30C...
All people exhibit some level of stupidity now and then too. The difference is dosage as well...
And the intelligence of homeopathy-adepts is so hugely diluted that there is almost no brain-molecule to be found anymore, alas.
There you go, this is a prime example of what I described earlier: someone who we should let remove himself from the genepool. And just as I predicted, when one is stupid in one domain, one is more likely to be stupid in other domains too, and stupid parents have the tendency to have more kids than intelligent parents. And lo and behold; it is thus.
It's difficult for me to say the kids should be the dupe of your behavior and attitude, but YOU certainly should. Please refrain from using ordinary medicine AT ALL, and solely use homeopathic 'medicine' exclusively, in all cases. that way, you're more prone to remove yourself from the genepool than people who aren't as stupid. The deplorable thing here is, that most of your 8 children have a high likelihood of adapting your stupidity as well.
I actually hope you ARE a troll, like the reputation indicates, because if you're not, it's really infuriating. Homeopathy DOES NOT work. You do not have more effect from it than from a placebo. At most, you endanger your kids by giving them placebo's when they would need actual medicine, and at worst you poison them when homeopathy is done wrong, like in this case. For the latter, you are right we don't have all the info. But for the former, we already know it doesn't work, and can't work, with the huge dilutions we're talking about. you have to be more lucky than winning the jackpot of the lottery to find even ONE working molecule in a homeopathic substance. what do you not understand about this?
And since you refuse to understand it, I have no problems with you taking some homeopathic cure against a deadly disease, so you remove yourself from the genepool. Idem for you children when and once they grow up to be adults, and if they also wallow in same stupidity. It will seem strange to say this, but this is not personal; it's just that I'm of the opinion people should live with the consequences of their own stupidity. I'm sure you agree to that principle, even if you're convinced that it doesn't apply to you, right?
True the parent poster shows little empathy, but, rationally speaking, he's not entirely wrong. Stupidity is partially hereditary, and partially upbringing.. in case of kids growing up from/by stupid parents, there is a considerable likelihood they will act as stupid as their parents, thus. From a rational/biological stance, one can argue that self-elimination by poisoning themselves or their children (or by dying from diseases because they believe homeopathy is more effective) will eliminate the problem in the long term. It's self-rectifying, in a sense, IF we let those people experience the consequences of their own behavior.
The problem lays entirely in the domain of ethics and morality, thus, but the logic in itself is irrefutable. From a libertarian stance (which I take) I don't adhere to such a policy because, while it's likely, there is also always a percentage of kids who will be smarter than their parents, either through mutation, lucky gene-mix, or (external) education. It doesn't change the statistics, but it does make it less applicable on individual cases, and individuality and free will are libertarian concepts by excellence.
But everything has its limits, and I would have far less problems if we let the adults who are (have proven to be) that stupid die off. I'm not a fan of protecting people against their own stupidity, even after they don't listen when you explained and warned them. As other posters say, this can even be detrimental to others too, as with vaccines. If enough do it (vaccinate), the total population gets a benefit from it, but if enough stupid parents don't do it, you loose that 'herd'-immunity, because the disease *can* propagate successfully, then.
If only homeopathic-adepts would be consistent and only take their miracle cure in all cases, or the doctors/hospitals only would subscribe homeopathic 'medicine' to adepts of homeopathy, things would resolve itself after even a few generations. As it is now, we perpetuate it and let stupidity thrive. And as a whole, stupid parents also have a higher likelihood to have more children, so, indeed, we create more and more stupidity in the gene-pool of the human race. I think there is a scientific paper from Iceland which demonstrated that, recently. It's still true education influences (the lack of) stupidity far more than genes on itself, but still, there *is* an effect.
So I agree with the ethical problem it poses when it's administered to small children who haven't got the possibility to refuse, but I'm also aware the parent poster was basically right in his reasoning.
Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times.
My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
Look, there is no sense in continuing this debate. You're just not getting it, and then get all defensive and call us 'arrogant'. No, it's just that you refuse or are unable to understand the issue. Not seeing the 'entire picture', indeed.
Your analogies; turbines, flying wheels, etc. just prove that. You simply do not understand that those examples can not do the same as an EMdrive, because their power ratio is too weak; they never get to the point where you get MORE power out than you put in, because even for a photon rocket it would need to reach the speed of light for that, which is impossible. But since the reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher, you get far *more* energy back than you put in (at speeds that ARE attainable) - which is of course, bullocks. Losses, friction, torque, etc. only matter if you have the same amount of energy that you 'recycle'; that's why, in practise, you can not build a perpetuum mobile with the same energy you put in, because each time you get losses to the original amount of energy, and eventually it dries up. But those systems *can not* make more energy on itself than you put in, because their power ratio is too weak. No other device, not even a photon rocket, can achieve it with the power ratio it has. The EMdrive claims it has and thus does.
Ergo, you can get far more energy out of it than you put in, at speeds/thrusts that are attainable, and thus, it does not matter if it's from an outside source or not, as long as the energy keeps flowing. And it keeps flowing because it generates MORE energy than you put in, in total. With power ratios like that, you do not need to accelerate 'indefinitely', that is just the point!
Now, you can debate semantics all you want, claiming a perpetuum mobile means something else to you, but it doesn't change anything to the fact that such a thing isn't possible, and since the EMdrive would make it possible, the EMdrive, as a reactionless drive with the proclaimed power ratio, is nonsense. Yes, yes, you do not agree, but that still doesn't change anything to that fact.
Several people have tried to explain it to you in the most simple and clear way by now, and yet you persist in refuting it, or are unable to grasp this. Well, so be it.