1. They want to add to their bag of "tricks". Sure, they might learn something. 2. See what people send. Maybe they want to learn about what is causing problems on people's machines. Or, last but not least - 3. See what people don't send. The malware that people don't give to the FBI that they know about is what is really causing problems on people's machines. They just don't know about it.
We have plenty of rare earth metals as well as tantalum. They are not mined because of regulations, esp. from the EPA. As I understand it, rare earths are never mined in this country because thorium always occurs with them. Thorium is slightly radioactive. It's sad. Thorium is more common than uranium and burns cleaner. The DOE, however, has regulations from the 60's or 70's that only allow uranium to be used in this country. This appears to be because Uranium 235 can be used to make plutonium for weapons. Yet Thorium is much safer.
When Thorium is hit with a neutron, it gives off two neutrons (continuing the reaction) and turns into Uranium 234, which is fissionable. Uranium 234 burns cleaner and does not produce plutonium. And since Thorium is in such abundandance, it is an inexaustible supply of energy. A reactor can be designed using molten salt, which is much safer than ones using the solid rods used in many solid fuel reactors. The problems have been worked out and they are much safer. Here is one of many links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
It seems to me, if we want to get out of "conflict metals", we should try getting them here. Eventually, someone is going to "charge us through the teeth" if we don't
I had forgotten the 'experiment in a cube' thing that they were doing now. In some ways ISS has already been "merchandised." Some might want to pay for an experiment in space. Others might want to take a multi-million dollar 'vacation' in space. So I stand corrected in under-estimating the uses they have put ISS to. And glad to hear of it again, really. Thanks!
A relative of mine used to work at NASA and I became familiar with its budgetary challenges. That NASA could go a long way on a fraction of the money being spent on overseas wars is an excellent point someone else made. They have had to become much more efficient than they used to be since the Apollo days. And since the shuttle disasters, more humble.
So if we could take that large chunk of money from the foreign wars and the defense budget mentioned above, would putting it into the ISS and NASA be the Best use of it? Or is it just a Good use of it? My teaching has always been that discerning between good and best is where the real challenge in life lies. No one wants to appear in favor of something bad. There are always lots of "Good" uses for money. Ask any lobbyist. And any bureaucrat will tell you they can put the money to good use. It doesn't matter if they are in NASA or not. But what is the best thing to do?
Herein we may disagree. And on Slashdot, where many of us nerds revel in the glories of the space program some may want to simply dump more and more tax payer dollars. But speaking of best, just suppose the central government were cut to the minimum constitutional level it was originally at. Then, with no taxes (that's how it was for the first 100+ years), everyone would have an extra 30% of their salary to play with. There could be a space program charity for people to donate to. It would be a popular one for many nerds. I laugh at those of you who think it wouldn't work. I see how much people give to things like United Way even after having 30%+ of their money pulled out of their wallets by taxes. Honestly, I think we would have already been to Mars and Back - with a crew of astronauts.
We won't hold our breath on that one. . . yet. For now, I'll just say I'm in agreement that letting ISS drop out of the sky would be a waste of money and it should be allowed to continue - and where possible, updated and improved. There are certainly bigger fish to fry than the ISS.
Actually, I agree with you in principle 100%. Apollo was more fun, more cool and a lot less bloody than the stuff DOD works on. I wasn't making fun of your comment either. I just like your terminology, "less unprofitable." Double negatives are so much fun!
Good points. And I realize you may be aware of other experiments you believe are more useful than spiderweb studies, but there really isn't room to list them. One problem is few of these experiments receive much public coverage so people don't know about them. Couldn't NASA list the experiments, what they are trying to find out and if they have been successful? I've considered that there might be some 'National Security related' experiments they aren't going to report on. But I wouldn't think a spacelab labeled "International" would be doing that type of experiment exclusively. And the openness seems a responsibility since they are paid for (for the most part) by tax dollars. Photos and videos provided by Mars Rovers and Curiosity have helped the popularity and perceived profit of their respective programs.
To sum up, I see you feel the Space Station is profitable in ways not necessarily measured in money. OK, but I would like it if more of the info that makes you feel that way was made publicly available and easy to find. Maybe you know where it is. Other people might want to know, too. Thanks for your input.
So what do we really get out of the space station? Is it ever going to turn a profit? Has it ever helped produce anything?
I'm not trying to be critical. I've heard of things like experiments to see whether spiders can still spin webs in 0 G and whether the webs look different. But after many years of hearing about stuff like this, I've never heard a strong explanation put forward as to what is its real tangible benefit. If it is simply to work with other nations in a unique environment, call congress. I've heard they have some pretty unique and expensive parties. No doubt, there's a cynical meter reading very high right now. But I do know a number of the companies providing major support for the space station are well connected politically and get a lot of money for it.
So what to do? I don't know. If it is a waste of money, I don't think it is the worst the federal government has dreamed up. That's because it's a cool project. But me-thinks more could be accomplished for less money in private industry.
Sure. Evolution is science. Actually, no. It's more like a religeon. And just like most folk here say 'religeous' folk won't listen to reason, neither do many who say they are into science. It's all just inflated ego on some subjects. I usually get dropped or banned here - even when I'm polite and careful in my responses. So why bother. But here is some science for you. Check the link. It appears that the apostles of global warming are having some problems with their theories. I'm not a troll. I'm just tired of Slashdot's biased treatment of anyone with an opinion even slightly different.
I have problems debating with both sides - 'Religious' and 'Scientific'. It's funny, but consider both sides. Each side supposedly has standards.
For example, If one is a Bible Believing Christian, their logical standard would be the Bible. But if something in the Bible shows that what you believe up until now has been wrong, one is supposed to change it. Consider that it is a known fact that Jesus Christ was not born in December. The Bible never says it was December. There is much proof on this but to keep it simple, shepherds don't watch their flocks after mid October in that region. It's too cold. It's always been that way. Why don't we just change the date for his birthday? Traditions. It would 'shake the boat' and totally Freak most Christians out.
Now consider most evolutionists. Their standard should be scientific facts. Yet there have been cases of fraud involving things like orangatang skulls, carefully aging bones, and skulls put together from more than one source to prove the theory for a missing link and get fame. And there's more. As one with a chemistry degree, I find the argument where the odds against producing even one 'left handed' protein (life uses left-handed proteins and DNA exclusively) are shown to be astonomical to have strong merit. And then having them get together and just happen to form the first living cell is . . . well, it just ain't happening. A much better and provable method needs to be there than just a large ocean cooking organics that just happen to turn into living things. But tell that to a hardcore evolutionist that there needs to be something more and see what happens. It's like being told you are a stupid infidel and you need to accept what those greater scientific evolutionary priests tell you and accept it by faith. Please, I'm just making an observation based on experience.
Ever debated with Christians and had fun with, "Did humans and dinosaurs get together?" Heh! Heh! Sure you have. Although some dating methods have turned out to make dino bones much older than they are, there is no doubt that they are way older than modern human bones and the (let's use 6K years) time to fit in the generally accepted Genesis timeline. So what's it all about? What really happened?
There is a loophole. The original language (Aramaic) used for Genesis had no verb form of 'to be'. That means there is no "was", or "is" or passive verbs. They were put in by translators so it would be easier to read. When it says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep", what it is saying (using the original words) is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep". Why did it become without form and void? Apparently, something destroyed what was there before. Although details are not given in this location, there is evidence of it given in other places. Consider, why did God tell Adam and Eve to RE-plenish the earth in Genesis, if it had not been 'plenished' before? To summarize the parts together, there was this character who was originally named 'Lucifer', who decided he wanted to be on top and rebelled. He took 1/3 of the rest of his kind (angels) in his rebellion. When his rebellion didn't go so well, he lost and was kicked out. So he came down and ruined what was the originally done on the earth and earned a new name, the Devil.
Perhaps you are laughing at this point. That's OK. Most Christians I've told this too tend to be, at first, fascinated. But most (not all) go back to their church and decide it is easier to go with their traditions. But at least they listen! But there are quite a few people who have noticed this detail. I didn't get it out of thin air. But most people into evolution that I tell this to get irritated or even mad - especially since I'm removing a key stumbling block for many people and making science an
OK, from a web dictionary, the definition of Reflection: serious thought or consideration.
Perhaps that works. I see it, sort of. Snowden certainly did give serious thought or consideration in giving his assessment of NSA Spying on citizens. But reflection? It is like taking a bony, emaciated individual and calling them "fairly trim". Wouldn't it would be more accurate to go to slender. . . . or why not go to skinny. Really, if we are honest, just call it what it is and say "emaciated, bony, and starving to death." Isn't that better? It is obvious Snowden made decisions putting his future freedom, lifestyle, and possibly his physical life in jeapordy.
A stronger descriptive noun or adjective is in order.
Is Telling the Truth a Crime? It is always available to make a law that makes it a crime - especially when it hurts people in power. Please consider the case of Peter Zenger, a printer in the colonies before the Revolutionary war. One link to info on that is: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_3.pdf. Here is an excerpt.
When Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was charged with criminal libel for criticizing the royal governor, Zenger wished to argue at his trial that his remarks were true. The court instructed the jury that truth was no defense. Defense counsel Andrew Hamilton, however, urged the jury to reach their own conclusions about this legal issue. They did so, acquitted Zenger, and struck a blow for free speech that was critical to the struggle for independence a few decades later.
The prosecution argued that because his criticisms were true it made his revealing them to be an even more serious crime! Alexander Hamilton, an excellent lawyer and later founding father, defended Zenger and said the law could also be judged by a jury. The law could itself be found to be unjust, or, unjustly applied. Either way, if the jury by it's own conscience found the accused innocent, it was duty-bound not to convict. This sort of thing occurred in England before, in the case of William Penn. It has become known as Jury Nullification and is a right never challenged by any Supreme Court. It is why there is a right to a jury trial. It is so a government cannot rubber-stamp a conviction of someone they do not like. How about you? If you were in a trial where you had disclosed actions by the government violating civil rights causing embarrassment of those in power, wouldn't you want an impartially picked jury making the final decision rather than a judge, appointed by the same government?
So go ahead and say it is illegal . . . . even if the laws that make it illegal have questionable (at best) Constitutional authority. Now perhaps at some point, it will become established law that a person accused of crimes affecting national security will not be afforded a lawyer. And if he is declared innocent by the jury, the government can still keep him in custody. This stuff is already in the NDAA (National Defence Authorization Act). But If it's what you want to do, go with the flow and say what Snowden did is illegal. A lot of government officials say so. It is safe to agree.
Or, Instead, why not do your own research. Don't just believe me or anyone else. Check out the Peter Zenger trial. Like many others, I do not believe Snowden could get a fair trial in this country. The government, after capturing him, would hold him as long as possible before a trial. They would leak all kinds of info to our news sources about bad things he did. And then, only if they could load the jury would they go forward with it. And even if they lost, they would still find a reason to nullify a jury verdict. I hate to say that. But it happens in other countries and I believe it to be the case here that it could happen here also.
Don't assume SCOTUS will rule against the police state. The ruling with Obamacare should have been a slam dunk denial of the program. The most recent justice, Kagan, is 'progressive' in believing the Constitution can be molded to suit the needs of modern times. Hence, the original meaning is secondary. Roberts, a supposed conservative expected to repudiate Obamacare, did a complete about face at the last minute. I'm not a lawyer but even I could see that the explanation he gave made no sense.
So no. I think the best thing to do is keep it out of the supreme court. There are some in the main stream media pushing for it to go to SCOTUS is because they believe SCOTUS is on their side . . . . not because they believe (or care) they will do what the Constitution says. I have to agree. Obama (and Bush) picked their nominees carefully. Most state courts care more about the Constitution than the US Supreme Court.
". . . with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. . . . "
So Began the introduction every time the Science Fiction television series called, "The Outer Limits" came on. But isn't that how television always was? There was no way to jump in the screen and add your input or comments. It was just there. But this isn't television - It's the internet. Input back and forth is available, unless the content side refuses to allow it.
I can understand having some filtering of comments which are insulting or inflammatory in a personal manner. Sure. But I don't want to be forced to always listen to this or that person's opinion or theory. There's a box with news I can turn on for that. Thomas Jefferson once said he would rather deal with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the bigger problems of too little. How about you? When you read someone's opinion that you disagree with, do you stay calm and thoughtful . . . or get steaming mad and upset because other people read it and they might get 'converted' from what you believe? Remember, some of these people you consider trolls, may also be on other sites where 'people like you' are considered trolls when you post your opinion. Do they allow you to post when you post thoughtful opinions? Then maybe you should do the same. Let's use the internet as the internet and not as a TV - - as much as possible.
"We now return control of your television set to you. Until next week at the same time, when the control voice will take you to – The Outer Limits.
If so then it is also true: "Faith Challenges evolution"
And though I absolutely agree with evolutionists that those dinosaur bones are indeed very old - yes, much older than 5,000 years, I have yet to find a place where a number of years is placed on the first verse of the Bible- the one where it says he created the heavens and the earth. In the original, verse two says it "became" without form and void, not "was". Something cataclysmic happened between v1 and v2. Day one through seven fixing the earth started after that."
To each his own choice of what to believe. And more power to you to have your own belief! But keep in mind Freedom of speech came about because many of the Colonies started when persecution of religeous 'heresy' forced people in Europe to come to America. Stagnant religeon politically connected tried to shut people up. They left. Again we see the same thing. IMO, Evolutionists sometimes show just as much venom about not permitting doctrinal 'heresy' in the schools. And I'll bet tax dollars from the Christians far exceed tax dollars from agnostics. Why not allow both? Let the kids debate and consider the merits and problems of both! Isn't that one thing our country has in its Constitution that is so excellent? "
Seriously, if evolution continues to be forced as teaching in the schools, "blow back" of one type or another may become the expected result. IMO, it doesn't have to be that way.
LMFAO. Yeah, and I'm sure 'claiming the land' was not at all the original intent. The claim by flag was meant just in humor.
But if they ever do figure out how to fuse H3 and the moon is a big moneymaking resource. . . . I'm not sure I want to be around to witness the kind of war that could happen over H3.
There may be pros and cons about mining Helium 3 on the moon. It would be a dangerous business if humans are involved. But until fusion with Helium 3 has been successfully done, it's all cons. The cost of space mining by nature is ridiculously expensive - filling balloons with extra light helium just won't put this business in the black.
The only thing that I would consider logical as an "international law" concerning the use of the moon would be to ban the use of the moon in advertisements. If we get to where we can move large amounts of ore through space, someone might also find a way to darken or blacken moon dust over a selected area until letters or pictures are formed that could be seen from earth, either by telescope or the naked eye. At that point it becomes "pollution" on earth.
Back in the dot com boom, a friend told me about a company he had worked for that built up a number of software products that represented the company's intellectual property. When the dot com went bust the company went bankrupt. When the writing was on the wall, the management of the company formed another company and bought up the best of the IP. Then they started again.
No, it's not right. The Investors should be the owners of the property or at least compensated rather than managers sneaking in and grabbing it. Maybe there should be laws or something to stop this. But it does happen and it is what it is.
Suits: Hello. We're from the EPA. Afraid your spaceflight launch will need to be cancelled indefinitely. Apparently it will be coming in contact with the moon's atmosphere and our public sources from Slashdot and elsewhere have identified it as being, "extremely tenuous and fragile".
NASA: But it's the moon! It's not earth!
Suits: [smiles] Now. Now. You knew this was going to happen. Just because it's the moon doesn't mean that the regulatory arms of the US government can't reach. If your rockets can reach it - why so can we. And since the atmosphere is fragile and tenuous, it may also harbor a similarly fragile and tenuous ecosystem.
NASA: Ecosystem?
Suits: Yes! Ecosystem. You engineers need to show a little more imagination. Think a little more outside the box. But we're quite certain that with the small number of atmospheric molecules around the moon, the percent pollution from a few rockets would be horrendous! Anything that might possibly be living would be affected. Eventually, it would get Maia upset.
NASA: Who is Maia? Someone in your office?
Suits: Uh, Maia is a half finished idea. We thought it would be nice to have a Gaia for the moon, so we changed the 'G' to an 'M' for the moon, see? Now we have Maia.
Agreed. And I'm not going to judge Bradley Manning on his personal life one way or another. Attacks and slander on a person's sex life seem to always come up when someone goes against big people. Assange himself seems to have also (what a coincidence!) been accused of perverted behaviour. But far as judging what Manning did in releasing classified files, all sides seem to agree that he did it because in his conscience he felt the stuff had to be exposed. And who did it hurt. . . . really? The people who had decisions that were morally or ethically dark they wanted to hide. Ooops!
With no previous history on this before now, plus holding him for several years, naked, with torture - - - do they have anything they could use against him (ie. blackmail)? To get this kind of confession from him after being sentenced makes little sense. And if the army were to say he had gender emotional problems before he was sentenced. . . . well if that is the case, why did they hire/put him in such a sensitive position? A lot of stuff doesn't make sense here.
Slashdot Mirror
1. They want to add to their bag of "tricks". Sure, they might learn something. 2. See what people send. Maybe they want to learn about what is causing problems on people's machines. Or, last but not least - 3. See what people don't send. The malware that people don't give to the FBI that they know about is what is really causing problems on people's machines. They just don't know about it.
Oh, wait. . . . . er, never mind.
We have plenty of rare earth metals as well as tantalum. They are not mined because of regulations, esp. from the EPA. As I understand it, rare earths are never mined in this country because thorium always occurs with them. Thorium is slightly radioactive. It's sad. Thorium is more common than uranium and burns cleaner. The DOE, however, has regulations from the 60's or 70's that only allow uranium to be used in this country. This appears to be because Uranium 235 can be used to make plutonium for weapons. Yet Thorium is much safer.
When Thorium is hit with a neutron, it gives off two neutrons (continuing the reaction) and turns into Uranium 234, which is fissionable. Uranium 234 burns cleaner and does not produce plutonium. And since Thorium is in such abundandance, it is an inexaustible supply of energy. A reactor can be designed using molten salt, which is much safer than ones using the solid rods used in many solid fuel reactors. The problems have been worked out and they are much safer. Here is one of many links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
It seems to me, if we want to get out of "conflict metals", we should try getting them here. Eventually, someone is going to "charge us through the teeth" if we don't
By the way, I've linked to your link on the experiments. Thanks!
I had forgotten the 'experiment in a cube' thing that they were doing now. In some ways ISS has already been "merchandised." Some might want to pay for an experiment in space. Others might want to take a multi-million dollar 'vacation' in space. So I stand corrected in under-estimating the uses they have put ISS to. And glad to hear of it again, really. Thanks!
A relative of mine used to work at NASA and I became familiar with its budgetary challenges. That NASA could go a long way on a fraction of the money being spent on overseas wars is an excellent point someone else made. They have had to become much more efficient than they used to be since the Apollo days. And since the shuttle disasters, more humble.
So if we could take that large chunk of money from the foreign wars and the defense budget mentioned above, would putting it into the ISS and NASA be the Best use of it? Or is it just a Good use of it? My teaching has always been that discerning between good and best is where the real challenge in life lies. No one wants to appear in favor of something bad. There are always lots of "Good" uses for money. Ask any lobbyist. And any bureaucrat will tell you they can put the money to good use. It doesn't matter if they are in NASA or not. But what is the best thing to do?
Herein we may disagree. And on Slashdot, where many of us nerds revel in the glories of the space program some may want to simply dump more and more tax payer dollars. But speaking of best, just suppose the central government were cut to the minimum constitutional level it was originally at. Then, with no taxes (that's how it was for the first 100+ years), everyone would have an extra 30% of their salary to play with. There could be a space program charity for people to donate to. It would be a popular one for many nerds. I laugh at those of you who think it wouldn't work. I see how much people give to things like United Way even after having 30%+ of their money pulled out of their wallets by taxes. Honestly, I think we would have already been to Mars and Back - with a crew of astronauts.
We won't hold our breath on that one. . . yet. For now, I'll just say I'm in agreement that letting ISS drop out of the sky would be a waste of money and it should be allowed to continue - and where possible, updated and improved. There are certainly bigger fish to fry than the ISS.
Actually, I agree with you in principle 100%. Apollo was more fun, more cool and a lot less bloody than the stuff DOD works on. I wasn't making fun of your comment either. I just like your terminology, "less unprofitable." Double negatives are so much fun!
Good points. And I realize you may be aware of other experiments you believe are more useful than spiderweb studies, but there really isn't room to list them. One problem is few of these experiments receive much public coverage so people don't know about them. Couldn't NASA list the experiments, what they are trying to find out and if they have been successful? I've considered that there might be some 'National Security related' experiments they aren't going to report on. But I wouldn't think a spacelab labeled "International" would be doing that type of experiment exclusively. And the openness seems a responsibility since they are paid for (for the most part) by tax dollars. Photos and videos provided by Mars Rovers and Curiosity have helped the popularity and perceived profit of their respective programs.
To sum up, I see you feel the Space Station is profitable in ways not necessarily measured in money. OK, but I would like it if more of the info that makes you feel that way was made publicly available and easy to find. Maybe you know where it is. Other people might want to know, too. Thanks for your input.
He! He! He! But my government project is less unprofitable that your government project.
So what do we really get out of the space station? Is it ever going to turn a profit? Has it ever helped produce anything?
I'm not trying to be critical. I've heard of things like experiments to see whether spiders can still spin webs in 0 G and whether the webs look different. But after many years of hearing about stuff like this, I've never heard a strong explanation put forward as to what is its real tangible benefit. If it is simply to work with other nations in a unique environment, call congress. I've heard they have some pretty unique and expensive parties. No doubt, there's a cynical meter reading very high right now. But I do know a number of the companies providing major support for the space station are well connected politically and get a lot of money for it.
So what to do? I don't know. If it is a waste of money, I don't think it is the worst the federal government has dreamed up. That's because it's a cool project. But me-thinks more could be accomplished for less money in private industry.
Sure. Evolution is science. Actually, no. It's more like a religeon. And just like most folk here say 'religeous' folk won't listen to reason, neither do many who say they are into science. It's all just inflated ego on some subjects. I usually get dropped or banned here - even when I'm polite and careful in my responses. So why bother. But here is some science for you. Check the link. It appears that the apostles of global warming are having some problems with their theories. I'm not a troll. I'm just tired of Slashdot's biased treatment of anyone with an opinion even slightly different.
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
I have problems debating with both sides - 'Religious' and 'Scientific'. It's funny, but consider both sides. Each side supposedly has standards.
For example, If one is a Bible Believing Christian, their logical standard would be the Bible. But if something in the Bible shows that what you believe up until now has been wrong, one is supposed to change it. Consider that it is a known fact that Jesus Christ was not born in December. The Bible never says it was December. There is much proof on this but to keep it simple, shepherds don't watch their flocks after mid October in that region. It's too cold. It's always been that way. Why don't we just change the date for his birthday? Traditions. It would 'shake the boat' and totally Freak most Christians out.
Now consider most evolutionists. Their standard should be scientific facts. Yet there have been cases of fraud involving things like orangatang skulls, carefully aging bones, and skulls put together from more than one source to prove the theory for a missing link and get fame. And there's more. As one with a chemistry degree, I find the argument where the odds against producing even one 'left handed' protein (life uses left-handed proteins and DNA exclusively) are shown to be astonomical to have strong merit. And then having them get together and just happen to form the first living cell is . . . well, it just ain't happening. A much better and provable method needs to be there than just a large ocean cooking organics that just happen to turn into living things. But tell that to a hardcore evolutionist that there needs to be something more and see what happens. It's like being told you are a stupid infidel and you need to accept what those greater scientific evolutionary priests tell you and accept it by faith. Please, I'm just making an observation based on experience.
Ever debated with Christians and had fun with, "Did humans and dinosaurs get together?" Heh! Heh! Sure you have. Although some dating methods have turned out to make dino bones much older than they are, there is no doubt that they are way older than modern human bones and the (let's use 6K years) time to fit in the generally accepted Genesis timeline. So what's it all about? What really happened?
There is a loophole. The original language (Aramaic) used for Genesis had no verb form of 'to be'. That means there is no "was", or "is" or passive verbs. They were put in by translators so it would be easier to read. When it says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep", what it is saying (using the original words) is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep". Why did it become without form and void? Apparently, something destroyed what was there before. Although details are not given in this location, there is evidence of it given in other places. Consider, why did God tell Adam and Eve to RE-plenish the earth in Genesis, if it had not been 'plenished' before? To summarize the parts together, there was this character who was originally named 'Lucifer', who decided he wanted to be on top and rebelled. He took 1/3 of the rest of his kind (angels) in his rebellion. When his rebellion didn't go so well, he lost and was kicked out. So he came down and ruined what was the originally done on the earth and earned a new name, the Devil.
Perhaps you are laughing at this point. That's OK. Most Christians I've told this too tend to be, at first, fascinated. But most (not all) go back to their church and decide it is easier to go with their traditions. But at least they listen! But there are quite a few people who have noticed this detail. I didn't get it out of thin air. But most people into evolution that I tell this to get irritated or even mad - especially since I'm removing a key stumbling block for many people and making science an
Reflection?
OK, from a web dictionary, the definition of Reflection: serious thought or consideration. Perhaps that works. I see it, sort of. Snowden certainly did give serious thought or consideration in giving his assessment of NSA Spying on citizens. But reflection? It is like taking a bony, emaciated individual and calling them "fairly trim". Wouldn't it would be more accurate to go to slender. . . . or why not go to skinny. Really, if we are honest, just call it what it is and say "emaciated, bony, and starving to death." Isn't that better? It is obvious Snowden made decisions putting his future freedom, lifestyle, and possibly his physical life in jeapordy.
A stronger descriptive noun or adjective is in order.
Is Telling the Truth a Crime? It is always available to make a law that makes it a crime - especially when it hurts people in power. Please consider the case of Peter Zenger, a printer in the colonies before the Revolutionary war. One link to info on that is: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_3.pdf. Here is an excerpt.
When Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was charged with criminal libel for criticizing the royal governor, Zenger wished to argue at his trial that his remarks were true. The court instructed the jury that truth was no defense. Defense counsel Andrew Hamilton, however, urged the jury to reach their own conclusions about this legal issue. They did so, acquitted Zenger, and struck a blow for free speech that was critical to the struggle for independence a few decades later.
The prosecution argued that because his criticisms were true it made his revealing them to be an even more serious crime! Alexander Hamilton, an excellent lawyer and later founding father, defended Zenger and said the law could also be judged by a jury. The law could itself be found to be unjust, or, unjustly applied. Either way, if the jury by it's own conscience found the accused innocent, it was duty-bound not to convict. This sort of thing occurred in England before, in the case of William Penn. It has become known as Jury Nullification and is a right never challenged by any Supreme Court. It is why there is a right to a jury trial. It is so a government cannot rubber-stamp a conviction of someone they do not like. How about you? If you were in a trial where you had disclosed actions by the government violating civil rights causing embarrassment of those in power, wouldn't you want an impartially picked jury making the final decision rather than a judge, appointed by the same government?
So go ahead and say it is illegal . . . . even if the laws that make it illegal have questionable (at best) Constitutional authority. Now perhaps at some point, it will become established law that a person accused of crimes affecting national security will not be afforded a lawyer. And if he is declared innocent by the jury, the government can still keep him in custody. This stuff is already in the NDAA (National Defence Authorization Act). But If it's what you want to do, go with the flow and say what Snowden did is illegal. A lot of government officials say so. It is safe to agree.
Or, Instead, why not do your own research. Don't just believe me or anyone else. Check out the Peter Zenger trial. Like many others, I do not believe Snowden could get a fair trial in this country. The government, after capturing him, would hold him as long as possible before a trial. They would leak all kinds of info to our news sources about bad things he did. And then, only if they could load the jury would they go forward with it. And even if they lost, they would still find a reason to nullify a jury verdict. I hate to say that. But it happens in other countries and I believe it to be the case here that it could happen here also.
Aspirin, please.
Don't assume SCOTUS will rule against the police state. The ruling with Obamacare should have been a slam dunk denial of the program. The most recent justice, Kagan, is 'progressive' in believing the Constitution can be molded to suit the needs of modern times. Hence, the original meaning is secondary. Roberts, a supposed conservative expected to repudiate Obamacare, did a complete about face at the last minute. I'm not a lawyer but even I could see that the explanation he gave made no sense.
So no. I think the best thing to do is keep it out of the supreme court. There are some in the main stream media pushing for it to go to SCOTUS is because they believe SCOTUS is on their side . . . . not because they believe (or care) they will do what the Constitution says. I have to agree. Obama (and Bush) picked their nominees carefully. Most state courts care more about the Constitution than the US Supreme Court.
". . . with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. . . . "
So Began the introduction every time the Science Fiction television series called, "The Outer Limits" came on. But isn't that how television always was? There was no way to jump in the screen and add your input or comments. It was just there. But this isn't television - It's the internet. Input back and forth is available, unless the content side refuses to allow it.
I can understand having some filtering of comments which are insulting or inflammatory in a personal manner. Sure. But I don't want to be forced to always listen to this or that person's opinion or theory. There's a box with news I can turn on for that. Thomas Jefferson once said he would rather deal with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the bigger problems of too little. How about you? When you read someone's opinion that you disagree with, do you stay calm and thoughtful . . . or get steaming mad and upset because other people read it and they might get 'converted' from what you believe? Remember, some of these people you consider trolls, may also be on other sites where 'people like you' are considered trolls when you post your opinion. Do they allow you to post when you post thoughtful opinions? Then maybe you should do the same. Let's use the internet as the internet and not as a TV - - as much as possible.
"We now return control of your television set to you. Until next week at the same time, when the control voice will take you to – The Outer Limits.
"[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith."
If so then it is also true: "Faith Challenges evolution"
And though I absolutely agree with evolutionists that those dinosaur bones are indeed very old - yes, much older than 5,000 years, I have yet to find a place where a number of years is placed on the first verse of the Bible- the one where it says he created the heavens and the earth. In the original, verse two says it "became" without form and void, not "was". Something cataclysmic happened between v1 and v2. Day one through seven fixing the earth started after that."
To each his own choice of what to believe. And more power to you to have your own belief! But keep in mind Freedom of speech came about because many of the Colonies started when persecution of religeous 'heresy' forced people in Europe to come to America. Stagnant religeon politically connected tried to shut people up. They left. Again we see the same thing. IMO, Evolutionists sometimes show just as much venom about not permitting doctrinal 'heresy' in the schools. And I'll bet tax dollars from the Christians far exceed tax dollars from agnostics. Why not allow both? Let the kids debate and consider the merits and problems of both! Isn't that one thing our country has in its Constitution that is so excellent? "
Seriously, if evolution continues to be forced as teaching in the schools, "blow back" of one type or another may become the expected result. IMO, it doesn't have to be that way.
LMFAO. Yeah, and I'm sure 'claiming the land' was not at all the original intent. The claim by flag was meant just in humor.
But if they ever do figure out how to fuse H3 and the moon is a big moneymaking resource. . . . I'm not sure I want to be around to witness the kind of war that could happen over H3.
There may be pros and cons about mining Helium 3 on the moon. It would be a dangerous business if humans are involved. But until fusion with Helium 3 has been successfully done, it's all cons. The cost of space mining by nature is ridiculously expensive - filling balloons with extra light helium just won't put this business in the black.
The only thing that I would consider logical as an "international law" concerning the use of the moon would be to ban the use of the moon in advertisements. If we get to where we can move large amounts of ore through space, someone might also find a way to darken or blacken moon dust over a selected area until letters or pictures are formed that could be seen from earth, either by telescope or the naked eye. At that point it becomes "pollution" on earth.
"it would seem that we would need to know who owns the moon? Does it belong to the first one who gets there? "
Who's flag is that on there, baby!? At the very least we lay claim to the Sea of Tranquility!
Back in the dot com boom, a friend told me about a company he had worked for that built up a number of software products that represented the company's intellectual property. When the dot com went bust the company went bankrupt. When the writing was on the wall, the management of the company formed another company and bought up the best of the IP. Then they started again.
No, it's not right. The Investors should be the owners of the property or at least compensated rather than managers sneaking in and grabbing it. Maybe there should be laws or something to stop this. But it does happen and it is what it is.
'Unprincipled Leaking' will still be protected.
Suits: Hello. We're from the EPA. Afraid your spaceflight launch will need to be cancelled indefinitely. Apparently it will be coming in contact with the moon's atmosphere and our public sources from Slashdot and elsewhere have identified it as being, "extremely tenuous and fragile".
NASA: But it's the moon! It's not earth!
Suits: [smiles] Now. Now. You knew this was going to happen. Just because it's the moon doesn't mean that the regulatory arms of the US government can't reach. If your rockets can reach it - why so can we. And since the atmosphere is fragile and tenuous, it may also harbor a similarly fragile and tenuous ecosystem.
NASA: Ecosystem?
Suits: Yes! Ecosystem. You engineers need to show a little more imagination. Think a little more outside the box. But we're quite certain that with the small number of atmospheric molecules around the moon, the percent pollution from a few rockets would be horrendous! Anything that might possibly be living would be affected. Eventually, it would get Maia upset.
NASA: Who is Maia? Someone in your office?
Suits: Uh, Maia is a half finished idea. We thought it would be nice to have a Gaia for the moon, so we changed the 'G' to an 'M' for the moon, see? Now we have Maia.
NASA: So when can we launch?
Suits: Now you're getting it.
Agreed. And I'm not going to judge Bradley Manning on his personal life one way or another. Attacks and slander on a person's sex life seem to always come up when someone goes against big people. Assange himself seems to have also (what a coincidence!) been accused of perverted behaviour. But far as judging what Manning did in releasing classified files, all sides seem to agree that he did it because in his conscience he felt the stuff had to be exposed. And who did it hurt. . . . really? The people who had decisions that were morally or ethically dark they wanted to hide. Ooops!
With no previous history on this before now, plus holding him for several years, naked, with torture - - - do they have anything they could use against him (ie. blackmail)? To get this kind of confession from him after being sentenced makes little sense. And if the army were to say he had gender emotional problems before he was sentenced. . . . well if that is the case, why did they hire/put him in such a sensitive position? A lot of stuff doesn't make sense here.