We build stuff all the time at the bottom of a gravity well. Odds are you've even seen a few such constructions over the course of your day!
Sorry but "Cuz China doin it!" isnt a good reason at all. We should be doing it because its the best use of our scarce NASA funding and so far I haven't heard a compelling case for that.
"Think of it as a way to test and improve our designs and construction techniques for low-gravity, low-pressure, environments while staying within resupply/rescue range."
You mean like what we do on the ISS? I ask because what you describe sounds like what we've already been doing for years now.
None of what you say applies to the moon as we've been there a half dozen times. Good for China for playing catchup 4 decades later but our money would be infinitly better spent towards a trip to mars rather then revisiting the moon yet again.
Well what are our goals for another moon visit? All I've been hearing is that we should go back to the moon "Cuz China doin it!". That is not at all a good reason to blow a few billion dollars.
Your non-partisan post had me going until you said the following.
"However the Chinese:( or Elon Musk:) will probably get there first"
Well for starters there's the very obvious fact that the US made it to the moon decades ago but I can write that off as poor writing on your part. The part I can't forgive is that there's any sort of reason for Americans to go back to the moon. Sure, it's a great feel good landmark for those who have never made it but for America the question needs to be asked as to how it is at all beneficial to visit there again.
Personal insults! It's like I'm debating a thirteen year old! I bet you felt like a real life adult when you made those insults too! Good for you, you're super and your opinions are certainly based on solid reasoning given you have to resort to such base levels! I should obviously take you seriously and respect you!
Your examples are all examples of minor revolts and indiscretions. If those were what got those countries their independence then they would be on par with violence like Vietnam. Only they weren't because the British decided to devolve their empire after what was relatively limited revolt. In the field of political science being a former British colony is a key metric in how stable said country turns out versus other country's former colonies.
You're childish in your personal insults and in your victim-hood based limited knowledge of history.
Finally, "And by the way, lot's of European countries would still be under the despotic rule of some emporer far away in Rome, had they not been "disobedient" to Roman law." My primary post was responding to this claim thus making your statement... "The topic was rebellions against empires. What was off topic was your pointless pedantry on the fall of the (western) Roman Empire as the parent poster didn't say anything about it."...poorly informed (If i were less polite I'd tell you that you were retarded after all of the verbal abuse you've felt the need to deal out. Of course I would not stoop so low so you are absolutely not retarded.)
So a bunch of things that can be used as a weapon are the same as a weapon? Guns are designed specifically to kill. It's impractile to ban everything that can be used to kill but limiting the tools whose only purpose is to kill (and do it easily and efficiently) is moving towards a safer society.
Guns are absolutly not designed for self defense, they are designed to kill. The fact that they do this pretty well is why they are used for self defens.
It is also why a lot of people see a difference between regulating guns versus more regulations on cars or computers. They are tools that are very different in nature.
Oh name calling like a big boy! From the tone you must have shit your diapers when you read my post.
For you first link, I see a lot of US references in briefly looking. Furthermore, India knows Russia is of zero use in It's ongoing boarder disputes with China. I think you're getting confused by old cold war political alignments to be honest.
This is great because you've furnished nothing to support your claim. But hey, I'll spend time out of my life actually making a real life coherent point (you're welcome).
and honestly, what on earth does India get from alliances with Russia or Iran that would benefit it? Literally nothing aside from Iran playing a small counterweight to Pakistan. What on earth does modern Russia have to offer India? What does India have to gain from not helping the US in preventing China from becoming the dominant force in Asia? Simple casual logic dictates how wrong you are, let alone modern history.
"On the other hand Western European style socialism has become more popular (meaning socialized medicine and a few other light aspects, all of which Sweden has)"
Hahahaha, I was checking back over posts and noticed something. No normal person gets sweat in their ears in any significant quantity, the ear is shaped to avoid just such a thing. I've played soccer for 30 years and never had a problem with sweat in my ears.
Far Left socialism hasn't gotten any more popular in the US as NO ONE of any significant status in the US is demanding the ownership of all or even most of the means of production. On the other hand Western European style socialism has become more popular (meaning socialized medicine and a few other light aspects, all of which Sweden has) and yes, part of that probably has to do with the fall of the Soviet Union but really that's only because there's no boogieman for the Right to bring out when some one mentions the word.
Many modern Americans look at our Western neighbors with economies of similar wealth to our own and wonder why we can't have nice things like socialized medicine (I won't go bankrupt because I got cancer and don't have insurance? Amazing!) and good mass transportation too.
It's funny to me that so many on the Right want to paint our Left as so extreme when on a global spectrum it's our Right that has the extreme elements. Our "Left" is really a bunch of moderates by any Western standard.
These were part of the Roman Empire? Your post is nonsense and completely off topic from the parent. While Rome was weakened by internal civil war it was not conquered due to internal revolt, it fell apart due to external invasion.
Furthermore (to indulge your 100% side tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), all of you examples got their independence on the graces of their colonial masters aside from Vietnam.
Sorry but eliminating contrary opinions by marginalizing them to extreme ideologies is in itself both extremist and bigoted. Personally, I've never encountered a touch screen car interface I felt was as safe as physical buttons but yet I'm, as stated before, generally left wing.
Maybe you should consider that your completely unfurnished (maybe don't existent?) safety numbers have more to do with the fact that more affluent people purchase the more expensive cars that feature touch screens and (much like with crime rates) these people are less likely to engage in dangerous / criminal activities.
Honestly, I see you making political issues out of those who disagree with you on a completely non political issue as part of our political problem in the US. There is nothing "left" or "right" about wanting tactile feedback from ones interface.
Basically, you're an extremist exactly like those you rail against. I don't think me telling you that will make a difference though. Your opinions are clearly special and above critique!
Wow, way to turn a conversation about touch screen versus buttons in cars into a politically charged rant. I'm Left wing and all but you just come off as a troll by the end of your post. Just because some one has a contrary view to you about frick'n buttons in cars doesn't mean they're far right or on any other part of the political spectrum you happen to have issues with.
I was driving a car for a bit with touch screen for most of its UI and hated it. I had to take more attention then I like off the road just to adjust radio settings. Even after I got used to the button locations on the screen it was still very awkward.
It was great getting back into my own car with a volume nob I can just grab and adjust without taking my eyes off the road for a moment along with radio preset buttons i can feel (just to mention two of many instances I missed using a touch screen.
We are increasingly making human manual labor obsolete while we meanwhile seem to be approaching a future where ai takes over many white collar jobs. Taking a stance of blind faith saying "Oh, it will all sort its self out" isn't even a plan at all, it's a bunch of bullshit. Intelligent people plan for the future using the best information they have on hand. Idiots follow on blind faith.
There was a very clear distinction between armies fighting to defend the empire and those trying to sieze territory from it. The ethnic make up of the armies is irrelevant.
"And by the way, lot's of European countries would still be under the despotic rule of some emporer far away in Rome, had they not been "disobedient" to Roman law."
Your ignorance of history is astounding. The Roman empire was defeated by foreign armies, not native ones.
Your expending an awful lot of effort to talk your way around a definition. Complete with personal insults no less. Truely you are the thinking man here!
It's great you desperately want your own political slant to be put on a word but sadly reality gets in the way a bit.
"Again, a right is a word, words actually have meaning, denying a meaning of a word and redefining it to fit your political agenda does not actually change the meaning of the word.
The perception of people can change, the people are very often uneducated about issues, they are ignorant, some are actually incapable of understanding even mildly complex subjects."
So your current attempt to redfine this words meaning from the above posted definition is an example of this, right?
Slashdot Mirror
We build stuff all the time at the bottom of a gravity well. Odds are you've even seen a few such constructions over the course of your day!
Sorry but "Cuz China doin it!" isnt a good reason at all. We should be doing it because its the best use of our scarce NASA funding and so far I haven't heard a compelling case for that.
"Think of it as a way to test and improve our designs and construction techniques for low-gravity, low-pressure, environments while staying within resupply/rescue range."
You mean like what we do on the ISS? I ask because what you describe sounds like what we've already been doing for years now.
None of what you say applies to the moon as we've been there a half dozen times. Good for China for playing catchup 4 decades later but our money would be infinitly better spent towards a trip to mars rather then revisiting the moon yet again.
Well what are our goals for another moon visit? All I've been hearing is that we should go back to the moon "Cuz China doin it!". That is not at all a good reason to blow a few billion dollars.
Your non-partisan post had me going until you said the following.
"However the Chinese :( or Elon Musk :) will probably get there first"
Well for starters there's the very obvious fact that the US made it to the moon decades ago but I can write that off as poor writing on your part. The part I can't forgive is that there's any sort of reason for Americans to go back to the moon. Sure, it's a great feel good landmark for those who have never made it but for America the question needs to be asked as to how it is at all beneficial to visit there again.
Hey, that's both super and irrelevant! Obviously being married to an Indian doesnt make you an expert on modern Indian political alignments.
I generally dont name call but at least you learned something about India!
Personal insults! It's like I'm debating a thirteen year old! I bet you felt like a real life adult when you made those insults too! Good for you, you're super and your opinions are certainly based on solid reasoning given you have to resort to such base levels! I should obviously take you seriously and respect you!
Your examples are all examples of minor revolts and indiscretions. If those were what got those countries their independence then they would be on par with violence like Vietnam. Only they weren't because the British decided to devolve their empire after what was relatively limited revolt. In the field of political science being a former British colony is a key metric in how stable said country turns out versus other country's former colonies.
You're childish in your personal insults and in your victim-hood based limited knowledge of history.
Finally, ...poorly informed (If i were less polite I'd tell you that you were retarded after all of the verbal abuse you've felt the need to deal out. Of course I would not stoop so low so you are absolutely not retarded.)
"And by the way, lot's of European countries would still be under the despotic rule of some emporer far away in Rome, had they not been "disobedient" to Roman law."
My primary post was responding to this claim thus making your statement...
"The topic was rebellions against empires. What was off topic was your pointless pedantry on the fall of the (western) Roman Empire as the parent poster didn't say anything about it."
So a bunch of things that can be used as a weapon are the same as a weapon? Guns are designed specifically to kill. It's impractile to ban everything that can be used to kill but limiting the tools whose only purpose is to kill (and do it easily and efficiently) is moving towards a safer society.
Guns are absolutly not designed for self defense, they are designed to kill. The fact that they do this pretty well is why they are used for self defens.
It is also why a lot of people see a difference between regulating guns versus more regulations on cars or computers. They are tools that are very different in nature.
Oh name calling like a big boy! From the tone you must have shit your diapers when you read my post.
For you first link, I see a lot of US references in briefly looking. Furthermore, India knows Russia is of zero use in
It's ongoing boarder disputes with China. I think you're getting confused by old cold war political alignments to be honest.
As far as weapons go...
How about they're our second largest purchaser of arms
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Or how about we're their largest supplier of weapons
https://swarajyamag.com/politi...
As for education abroad, so what? Russia is far closer to India and far cheaper than the US so that's not terribly surprising at all.
This is great because you've furnished nothing to support your claim. But hey, I'll spend time out of my life actually making a real life coherent point (you're welcome).
https://www.quora.com/Are-Indi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and honestly, what on earth does India get from alliances with Russia or Iran that would benefit it? Literally nothing aside from Iran playing a small counterweight to Pakistan. What on earth does modern Russia have to offer India? What does India have to gain from not helping the US in preventing China from becoming the dominant force in Asia? Simple casual logic dictates how wrong you are, let alone modern history.
Well gee-golly, if Hitler was for it must be objectionable!
You didnt read my post at all did you?
"On the other hand Western European style socialism has become more popular (meaning socialized medicine and a few other light aspects, all of which Sweden has)"
Hahahaha, I was checking back over posts and noticed something. No normal person gets sweat in their ears in any significant quantity, the ear is shaped to avoid just such a thing. I've played soccer for 30 years and never had a problem with sweat in my ears.
You're an idiot.
Far Left socialism hasn't gotten any more popular in the US as NO ONE of any significant status in the US is demanding the ownership of all or even most of the means of production. On the other hand Western European style socialism has become more popular (meaning socialized medicine and a few other light aspects, all of which Sweden has) and yes, part of that probably has to do with the fall of the Soviet Union but really that's only because there's no boogieman for the Right to bring out when some one mentions the word.
Many modern Americans look at our Western neighbors with economies of similar wealth to our own and wonder why we can't have nice things like socialized medicine (I won't go bankrupt because I got cancer and don't have insurance? Amazing!) and good mass transportation too.
It's funny to me that so many on the Right want to paint our Left as so extreme when on a global spectrum it's our Right that has the extreme elements. Our "Left" is really a bunch of moderates by any Western standard.
These were part of the Roman Empire? Your post is nonsense and completely off topic from the parent. While Rome was weakened by internal civil war it was not conquered due to internal revolt, it fell apart due to external invasion.
Furthermore (to indulge your 100% side tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), all of you examples got their independence on the graces of their colonial masters aside from Vietnam.
Maybe stick to non-history subjects...
Sorry but eliminating contrary opinions by marginalizing them to extreme ideologies is in itself both extremist and bigoted. Personally, I've never encountered a touch screen car interface I felt was as safe as physical buttons but yet I'm, as stated before, generally left wing.
Maybe you should consider that your completely unfurnished (maybe don't existent?) safety numbers have more to do with the fact that more affluent people purchase the more expensive cars that feature touch screens and (much like with crime rates) these people are less likely to engage in dangerous / criminal activities.
Honestly, I see you making political issues out of those who disagree with you on a completely non political issue as part of our political problem in the US. There is nothing "left" or "right" about wanting tactile feedback from ones interface.
Basically, you're an extremist exactly like those you rail against. I don't think me telling you that will make a difference though. Your opinions are clearly special and above critique!
Wow, way to turn a conversation about touch screen versus buttons in cars into a politically charged rant. I'm Left wing and all but you just come off as a troll by the end of your post. Just because some one has a contrary view to you about frick'n buttons in cars doesn't mean they're far right or on any other part of the political spectrum you happen to have issues with.
Mod up parent.
I was driving a car for a bit with touch screen for most of its UI and hated it. I had to take more attention then I like off the road just to adjust radio settings. Even after I got used to the button locations on the screen it was still very awkward.
It was great getting back into my own car with a volume nob I can just grab and adjust without taking my eyes off the road for a moment along with radio preset buttons i can feel (just to mention two of many instances I missed using a touch screen.
We are increasingly making human manual labor obsolete while we meanwhile seem to be approaching a future where ai takes over many white collar jobs. Taking a stance of blind faith saying "Oh, it will all sort its self out" isn't even a plan at all, it's a bunch of bullshit. Intelligent people plan for the future using the best information they have on hand. Idiots follow on blind faith.
There was a very clear distinction between armies fighting to defend the empire and those trying to sieze territory from it. The ethnic make up of the armies is irrelevant.
"And by the way, lot's of European countries would still be under the despotic rule of some emporer far away in Rome, had they not been "disobedient" to Roman law."
Your ignorance of history is astounding. The Roman empire was defeated by foreign armies, not native ones.
Your expending an awful lot of effort to talk your way around a definition. Complete with personal insults no less. Truely you are the thinking man here!
It's great you desperately want your own political slant to be put on a word but sadly reality gets in the way a bit.
"Again, a right is a word, words actually have meaning, denying a meaning of a word and redefining it to fit your political agenda does not actually change the meaning of the word.
The perception of people can change, the people are very often uneducated about issues, they are ignorant, some are actually incapable of understanding even mildly complex subjects."
So your current attempt to redfine this words meaning from the above posted definition is an example of this, right?