1. Yours are not "good, solid arguments".
2. Fair enough.
3. Conservative? Liberal? The issues at hand are too serious to be simply 'binarized' to those those two simple American labels.
4. So basically you're saying that in spite of the destructive policies your 'friends' are causing around the world, it's OK, because of the long-term conequences, as stated by NeoCon foreign policy? No need to answer that, thank you.
5. So, you're naive enough to believe the corporatist propaganda. There is good evidence that brainwashing is still occurring in China, etc., but your case shows that evidently brainwashing is quite prevalent in the USA too. A real American patriot would decry and oppose the policies you promote.
6. Your 'reasoned explanation for my position' is MYOPIC. And BTW, *precisely* because of this your goverment will probably repeat the same mistakes as in Vietnam 30 (!) years ago. Be objective; be honest with yourself. You are not wanted in Irak; get it? No, you don't, and this 'conversation' is a waste of time.
'wiltsmith' has given you good, solid arguments and you keep sticking to your doublespeak, not to mention your abundant use of expletives. You're hopelessly stuck in an imaginary world (invented by the likes of PNAC, American Enterprise 'so-called' Institute, Cato 'so-called' Institute, etc.) that has little to do with reality. You and your kind will lose in Irak (not your lives, of course, because you are obviously not brave enough to pick up a gun and fight for your ideals), just as you have lost in Vietnam because of YOUR MYOPIA.
Well, Dave Schroeder, thank you for your long, thoughtful and honest reply in defence of the Bush foreign policy. You truly are a neocon believer, and it is rare for one of your kind to be honest about current US foreign policy; I thank you for that. Let's examine your points:
"What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good". You truly are a fundamentalist; YOU and your pals are good and therefore can do no wrong. This is essentially the same logical argument the European colonial powers were using when justifying colonizing, say, Africa in the 19th century.
YOu are certainly right that this is not just a "War for Oil"; it IS about Oil, but it is also about much more than that: control.
"But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords." Assuming that your Neocon pals are successful in Irak (far from certain), people will no longer be at the mercy of dictators or tribal warlords, true. But they'll be at the mercy of mulinational corporations (mostly US) and their corrupt and bought local oligarchs. Technocrats will be using words like 'economic miracle' to express (say) 10% growth and killer corporate profits while most Irakis will be starving; that has happened in other parts of the world (anyone remember the country of Bolivia in the 90's?). Quite a distorted concept of freedom you Neocons have...
Next you write "The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast." Obviously; next, "...But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq". Oh, really? Your powerful armies come with 'Shock & Awe' to invade a country that represented no threat to yours, and the Irakis are supposed to feel grateful? Say that to the 10,000 to 100,000 thousand Irakis that have died as a result of this ELECTIVE war; IMHO that approaches genocide. Not to say anything about the roughly 1,600 American grunts who have died for a LIE.
It is true that, internally and among you Neocons the reasons for justifying a war in Irak went along something like "...we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region". This is the kind of distorted reasoning that one can find in the PNAC website, after all. But the US is suppossed to be a democracy, and the reasons above are NOT how the looming war in Irak was presented. The Bush regime lied/exaggerated/gave half-truths (with the complience of the corporate media, BTW) to scare the US public into accepting an ELECTIVE war! Isn't war a serious enough topic that all sides should have been presented into an open and honest discussion by all persons with a knowledgeable point of view? Or perhaps we are at a historical point where people in the US are truly moving away from democracy.
Historical examples (Iran, Guatemala, Greece, much of South America during the 60's and 70's; the examples of Vietnam and Venezuela as reader 'willtsmith' pointed out; and yes, Irak under the monstruous Sadam Hussein) show how much the US cares about democracy. The truth is that US foreign policy has little to do with democracy, and much to do with control (of foreign goverments, sources of energy, etc.). Prior to Bush, the US was the reluctant Empire. The Bush regime, on the other hand and under the idelogical advice of the Neocons, is the new proud, planetary Imperial force (sounds like something out of Star Wars, but it is true). Welcome to the concept of "Pax Americana": the US goverment, in its infinte "Good and Wisdom" will unilaterally decide on the fate of people,
Hey, couldn't have said it better myself!
Your line "...to ensure US hegomony you must take over every other nation on Earth" is basically the neocon mantra; see PNAC's web site (they don't say exactly that, of course, but it comes down to that). The laboratory to test these ideas is, of course, Irak.
In any case, to get back on course, let it be said that I generally do support NASA. Unfortunately, it is being taken over by Bush administration officials who care nothing about science and exploration.
" US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space"
Protect "free access to space"?? From what, may I ask? Hostile ETs?? How can any entity "block" free access to space? You put up a rocket with your satelliet on top and off you go. End of story.
"If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us."
Nobody is FORCED; this is a false choice. The US goverment is using the so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse to militarize space.
Overall, very bad news; we should opposed the Bush regime in its plans to militarize space. If they go ahead with these plans, we'll not only see weapons in space, but soon we may also see orbiting Gulags (don't laugh - check out the latest Amnesty condemnation of the US goverment).
"Given those two facts, doubting alien intelligence strikes me as profoundly stupid"
It is not good to use the word 'stupid' here. There are very intelligent people (mostly Evolutionary Bilogists, i.e., E. Mayr) who have put forth good arguments as to why we may be the only intelligent species in the Cosmos. It does no good to call them stupid without having recourse to a reply to their arguments (briefly: the HUGE number of evolutionary pathways to get to intelligence, as measured from the begining of life on Earth). Personally, I hope they're wrong, but they may be right (?)
You wrote:
"Furthermore, lets look at this idea of placating evil. I have only a few names to mention: Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Ho Chi Minh.... Each of these people have either been close US allies or CIA operatives. "
Saddam Hussein & M. Noriega: true, as it's well documented. But J. Stalin? Ho Chi Minh? Mmh, with blunders like these it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously, my friend...
"Almost enough to make one a scientific believer. Finally, science is coming close to the Truth!"
You are, of course, joking...but it's not very funny.
I would not bet any $$ on this guy's 'Dark Energy Stars' ideas either. Having said that, I remind people of two caveats: (A) Ultimate artbitrer of ideas is Nature herself; (b) Einstein's revolutionary 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' was short and contained just a few equations.
kurosawdust, 1st of all thanks for the interesting story. However, it is obvious that many people are VERY easily offended. Still, it'd have been a good idea to refer to Ramanujan directly, as most people who were attracted to this (Math) story would have known who he was. Cheers!
There is some evidence that Mileva (Einstein's wife at the time) contributed to shaping Einstein's ideas. However, her contributions were at the level that one acknowledges at the end of a scientific paper ('thanks to person X for insightful conversations'). There is no evidence she contributed fundamentally to Einstein's ideas. As for the 'accusations' (http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm), well, I guess we MUST believe it because it's on the web, right? C'mon...
What?!? Einstein '..only had a small armful of memorable discoveries spread over the decades of his career..'?!? Please, do your homework and THEN post. Your comment makes you sound quite like the person who posts about something they know little about. Ramanujan may or may not have been smarter than Eintein (I don't think we should be including Linus in the same league as either man, but whatever), but what counts is what each's contributions are. See Macadamizer's post for 'Big AL's contributions to human knowledge and see mamba-mamba's post for Ramanujan's contributions. Or even better, consult each man's biographies.
Boeman is right - Mathematics is NOT a science; to imply otherwise is like saying that 'grammar' is the same as 'literature'. Understanding the Book of Nature (i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Biology) requires that one understand the language in which it is written (Math.), but the language itself and Nature are different entities. Mathematics might be called 'quantitative philosophy'. Note that none of this takes any merit away from (mighty) Mathematics! You are right, of course, to say that 'w/out the work of mathematicians physics would be nigh impossible'.
No, aerospace engineering, is NOT science. Aerospace engineering USES science, but it itself is NOT science (I also work in aerospace engineering, BTW). Simply put, Engineering is NOT Science. Science is about understanding Nature. Engineering is about applying the knowledge that comes from Science and using it to produce something useful/profitable. That's the way it is and there is nothing elitist about it.
Finally, I totally agree with LuckyStarr - (a) you are easily offended and (b) it seems you do not understand the scientific method. Take a breather, do your homework and don't be so easily offended by the facts...
I think you're wrong there - the system can not conserve momentum b/c a Force (i.e., gravitational attraction by the Earth) is acting on it. In spite of the non-conservation of momentum, it seems to me the mini-black hole would still oscillate back and forth until eventually it sits at the Earth's core, slowly eating it up...
I'm not even sure where to begin with a reply to this 'let the bush-bashing begin' comment. The fact of the matter is that the LA Times article by CowboyNeal "...hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests..." is completely consistent with the fact that the Bush administration has consistently supressed and distorted scientific findings whenever it does not suit their pro-business ideology. As someone else already pointed out, tampering with the scientific process at all MUST be condemmed: it's stupid because in the long-run it means shooting ourselves in the foot, really. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have done a bit of this in the past, but what the Bush administration is doing stinks so bad and it's so indefensible that it is reminiscent of the Trofim Lysenko affair in Stalinist Russia. Stalin considered that the science of genetics in the 50's was not consistent with marxism so he banned the teaching of genetics; then he put Trofim Lysenko in charge of genetics in the USSR because Lysenko 'created' a (pseudo) branch of genetics which was consistent with marxism! As a result, Russia lost several decades of genetics knowledge and research. What Stalin did to genetics in the USSR, the Bush administration is doing to science in general: it's basically filling scientific/technology goverment positions with numerous Lysenkos.
How very, very sad; I wonder how much US science will regress after four more years of this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not just you; Carrigan is completely out of his mind. It seems like a waste of time to discuss his deranged "idea"...
Well said - it is not true (and it's unfair, reall) to say that the Cassini team is "slow" to post images.
1. Yours are not "good, solid arguments". 2. Fair enough. 3. Conservative? Liberal? The issues at hand are too serious to be simply 'binarized' to those those two simple American labels. 4. So basically you're saying that in spite of the destructive policies your 'friends' are causing around the world, it's OK, because of the long-term conequences, as stated by NeoCon foreign policy? No need to answer that, thank you. 5. So, you're naive enough to believe the corporatist propaganda. There is good evidence that brainwashing is still occurring in China, etc., but your case shows that evidently brainwashing is quite prevalent in the USA too. A real American patriot would decry and oppose the policies you promote. 6. Your 'reasoned explanation for my position' is MYOPIC. And BTW, *precisely* because of this your goverment will probably repeat the same mistakes as in Vietnam 30 (!) years ago. Be objective; be honest with yourself. You are not wanted in Irak; get it? No, you don't, and this 'conversation' is a waste of time.
One thing is spying, another quite different is to actually put weapons in space. Please see the good reply by OldManandtheC++ (thanks).
'wiltsmith' has given you good, solid arguments and you keep sticking to your doublespeak, not to mention your abundant use of expletives. You're hopelessly stuck in an imaginary world (invented by the likes of PNAC, American Enterprise 'so-called' Institute, Cato 'so-called' Institute, etc.) that has little to do with reality. You and your kind will lose in Irak (not your lives, of course, because you are obviously not brave enough to pick up a gun and fight for your ideals), just as you have lost in Vietnam because of YOUR MYOPIA.
Well, Dave Schroeder, thank you for your long, thoughtful and honest reply in defence of the Bush foreign policy. You truly are a neocon believer, and it is rare for one of your kind to be honest about current US foreign policy; I thank you for that. Let's examine your points: "What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good". You truly are a fundamentalist; YOU and your pals are good and therefore can do no wrong. This is essentially the same logical argument the European colonial powers were using when justifying colonizing, say, Africa in the 19th century. YOu are certainly right that this is not just a "War for Oil"; it IS about Oil, but it is also about much more than that: control. "But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords." Assuming that your Neocon pals are successful in Irak (far from certain), people will no longer be at the mercy of dictators or tribal warlords, true. But they'll be at the mercy of mulinational corporations (mostly US) and their corrupt and bought local oligarchs. Technocrats will be using words like 'economic miracle' to express (say) 10% growth and killer corporate profits while most Irakis will be starving; that has happened in other parts of the world (anyone remember the country of Bolivia in the 90's?). Quite a distorted concept of freedom you Neocons have... Next you write "The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast." Obviously; next, "...But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq". Oh, really? Your powerful armies come with 'Shock & Awe' to invade a country that represented no threat to yours, and the Irakis are supposed to feel grateful? Say that to the 10,000 to 100,000 thousand Irakis that have died as a result of this ELECTIVE war; IMHO that approaches genocide. Not to say anything about the roughly 1,600 American grunts who have died for a LIE. It is true that, internally and among you Neocons the reasons for justifying a war in Irak went along something like "...we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region". This is the kind of distorted reasoning that one can find in the PNAC website, after all. But the US is suppossed to be a democracy, and the reasons above are NOT how the looming war in Irak was presented. The Bush regime lied/exaggerated/gave half-truths (with the complience of the corporate media, BTW) to scare the US public into accepting an ELECTIVE war! Isn't war a serious enough topic that all sides should have been presented into an open and honest discussion by all persons with a knowledgeable point of view? Or perhaps we are at a historical point where people in the US are truly moving away from democracy. Historical examples (Iran, Guatemala, Greece, much of South America during the 60's and 70's; the examples of Vietnam and Venezuela as reader 'willtsmith' pointed out; and yes, Irak under the monstruous Sadam Hussein) show how much the US cares about democracy. The truth is that US foreign policy has little to do with democracy, and much to do with control (of foreign goverments, sources of energy, etc.). Prior to Bush, the US was the reluctant Empire. The Bush regime, on the other hand and under the idelogical advice of the Neocons, is the new proud, planetary Imperial force (sounds like something out of Star Wars, but it is true). Welcome to the concept of "Pax Americana": the US goverment, in its infinte "Good and Wisdom" will unilaterally decide on the fate of people,
Hey, couldn't have said it better myself! Your line "...to ensure US hegomony you must take over every other nation on Earth" is basically the neocon mantra; see PNAC's web site (they don't say exactly that, of course, but it comes down to that). The laboratory to test these ideas is, of course, Irak. In any case, to get back on course, let it be said that I generally do support NASA. Unfortunately, it is being taken over by Bush administration officials who care nothing about science and exploration.
" US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space" Protect "free access to space"?? From what, may I ask? Hostile ETs?? How can any entity "block" free access to space? You put up a rocket with your satelliet on top and off you go. End of story. "If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us." Nobody is FORCED; this is a false choice. The US goverment is using the so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse to militarize space. Overall, very bad news; we should opposed the Bush regime in its plans to militarize space. If they go ahead with these plans, we'll not only see weapons in space, but soon we may also see orbiting Gulags (don't laugh - check out the latest Amnesty condemnation of the US goverment).
"Given those two facts, doubting alien intelligence strikes me as profoundly stupid" It is not good to use the word 'stupid' here. There are very intelligent people (mostly Evolutionary Bilogists, i.e., E. Mayr) who have put forth good arguments as to why we may be the only intelligent species in the Cosmos. It does no good to call them stupid without having recourse to a reply to their arguments (briefly: the HUGE number of evolutionary pathways to get to intelligence, as measured from the begining of life on Earth). Personally, I hope they're wrong, but they may be right (?)
"True democracy is not about giving the people a choice: it's about giving the people a voice" Very good: couldn't have said it better myself!
Well said...
You wrote: "Furthermore, lets look at this idea of placating evil. I have only a few names to mention: Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Ho Chi Minh.... Each of these people have either been close US allies or CIA operatives. " Saddam Hussein & M. Noriega: true, as it's well documented. But J. Stalin? Ho Chi Minh? Mmh, with blunders like these it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously, my friend...
"Almost enough to make one a scientific believer. Finally, science is coming close to the Truth!" You are, of course, joking...but it's not very funny.
Well said - good luck to JAXA and their long-term plans. And, yes, do put humans in space, but do not neglect the robotic missions.
I would not bet any $$ on this guy's 'Dark Energy Stars' ideas either. Having said that, I remind people of two caveats: (A) Ultimate artbitrer of ideas is Nature herself; (b) Einstein's revolutionary 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' was short and contained just a few equations.
kurosawdust, 1st of all thanks for the interesting story. However, it is obvious that many people are VERY easily offended. Still, it'd have been a good idea to refer to Ramanujan directly, as most people who were attracted to this (Math) story would have known who he was. Cheers!
There is some evidence that Mileva (Einstein's wife at the time) contributed to shaping Einstein's ideas. However, her contributions were at the level that one acknowledges at the end of a scientific paper ('thanks to person X for insightful conversations'). There is no evidence she contributed fundamentally to Einstein's ideas. As for the 'accusations' (http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm), well, I guess we MUST believe it because it's on the web, right? C'mon...
What?!? Einstein '..only had a small armful of memorable discoveries spread over the decades of his career..'?!? Please, do your homework and THEN post. Your comment makes you sound quite like the person who posts about something they know little about. Ramanujan may or may not have been smarter than Eintein (I don't think we should be including Linus in the same league as either man, but whatever), but what counts is what each's contributions are. See Macadamizer's post for 'Big AL's contributions to human knowledge and see mamba-mamba's post for Ramanujan's contributions. Or even better, consult each man's biographies.
Sorry, in my first sentence I meant to say that 'Anonymous Coward' (the original poster of this thread) is right, not boeman.
Boeman is right - Mathematics is NOT a science; to imply otherwise is like saying that 'grammar' is the same as 'literature'. Understanding the Book of Nature (i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Biology) requires that one understand the language in which it is written (Math.), but the language itself and Nature are different entities. Mathematics might be called 'quantitative philosophy'. Note that none of this takes any merit away from (mighty) Mathematics! You are right, of course, to say that 'w/out the work of mathematicians physics would be nigh impossible'. No, aerospace engineering, is NOT science. Aerospace engineering USES science, but it itself is NOT science (I also work in aerospace engineering, BTW). Simply put, Engineering is NOT Science. Science is about understanding Nature. Engineering is about applying the knowledge that comes from Science and using it to produce something useful/profitable. That's the way it is and there is nothing elitist about it. Finally, I totally agree with LuckyStarr - (a) you are easily offended and (b) it seems you do not understand the scientific method. Take a breather, do your homework and don't be so easily offended by the facts...
Y??? Estoy esperando...?
Yes, of course.
I think you're wrong there - the system can not conserve momentum b/c a Force (i.e., gravitational attraction by the Earth) is acting on it. In spite of the non-conservation of momentum, it seems to me the mini-black hole would still oscillate back and forth until eventually it sits at the Earth's core, slowly eating it up...
I agree, but it has nothing to do with competition, except Japan trying to improve on its space outlook. Overall, a good situation...
I'm not even sure where to begin with a reply to this 'let the bush-bashing begin' comment. The fact of the matter is that the LA Times article by CowboyNeal "...hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests..." is completely consistent with the fact that the Bush administration has consistently supressed and distorted scientific findings whenever it does not suit their pro-business ideology. As someone else already pointed out, tampering with the scientific process at all MUST be condemmed: it's stupid because in the long-run it means shooting ourselves in the foot, really. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have done a bit of this in the past, but what the Bush administration is doing stinks so bad and it's so indefensible that it is reminiscent of the Trofim Lysenko affair in Stalinist Russia. Stalin considered that the science of genetics in the 50's was not consistent with marxism so he banned the teaching of genetics; then he put Trofim Lysenko in charge of genetics in the USSR because Lysenko 'created' a (pseudo) branch of genetics which was consistent with marxism! As a result, Russia lost several decades of genetics knowledge and research. What Stalin did to genetics in the USSR, the Bush administration is doing to science in general: it's basically filling scientific/technology goverment positions with numerous Lysenkos. How very, very sad; I wonder how much US science will regress after four more years of this.