Good spotting. I'm glad someone pointed it out.
All this news about astronauts and the Shuttle makes me want to go back to the Moon (http://www.geocities.com/raceintospace/index.htm) ...
Ah--I see--you have a better understanding of the subject than I gave you credit for. I don't know about the numbers, but what you're outlining there is much more reasonable than what the original post sounded like.
And you're right that a lot of communists don't understand Marx. I'd go farther and say that most Americans don't understand him at all.
Seriously. What's the point of building a lunar base, all told? Sure, it's been suggested we can mine there for needed minerals, but look at the cost of doing so. It's something like twice as hard to get to the Moon as it is to achieve Earth orbit, and maintaining a Moon base would be phenomenally expensive. Think of the fuel, food, water, oxygen, etc. that would have to be ferried there on a regular basis. It seems to me that maintaining a base (mining or otherwise) on the Moon would be a net loss.
Also, think of the comparative risk: if you're in Earth orbit and run desperately low on supplies, or if something goes disastrously wrong, taking an escape pod home is a viable option, so long as you have one: hop aboard and drop out of orbit. But it would be a lot more complicated from the Moon: gotta lift off the surface, spend a couple days in transit home, and go through a harder reentry (reentry is faster--therefore hotter--coming back from the Moon than coming down from LEO).
As for using it as a jumpoff point for a trip to Mars, why the Moon? Why not Earth orbit? It's a lot easier to get to LEO than the Moon, and you don't have to lift off from the lunar surface.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of space science and exploration, and love the history of the Space Race (and enjoy playing a game that relives it: http://www.geocities.com/raceintospace/index.htm). I'm just not convinced that a Moon base is the most appropriate next step.
c6gunner, I see you're one of those who fails (refuses?) to understand the difference between a communist and someone who disagrees with you politically. This shouldn't have to be said, but: peace activists are di-ffer-ent than communists. Marx was wrong about what the future would look like, and the experiments based on his ideas failed ("went disastrously wrong" might be a better way to put it), but that's nothing to do with peace activists. Communist is a specific pigeonhole in the world of politics--it's not a catch-all for those who disagree with you--or for "anyone on the Left", or whatever.
I second that, Mattster. Especially your point that 9/11 pointed out we need to improve our security; it did NOT mean we need(ed) to throw aside our Constitutional rights.
Treason is the one crime specifically defined by the Constitution--as such, I consider it especially important we follow that definition. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
That said, you're absolutely right it should be treated as a very serious felony. I don't care if you're fixing an election for the Democrats, Republicans, or the Down With Lawyers party--damaging our electoral process is one of the worst things a person can do to our democracy, and it should be treated that way. Just we shouldn't label it treason.
That's called Classical Liberalism, represented today by the Libertarians. It's the original a priori reasoning put forward by John Locke. Contemporary Liberalism is the modern form. (These are the definitions in political science, contradiction in terms though poli sci might be.)
The media has a leftist agenda? You've fallen for one of the biggest myths of contemporary politics. Now, Hollywood has a leftist bent, no doubts there. But the mainstream media--not a bit of it. They're all owned by large conservative corporations who have no special interest in the integrity of the news, and no interest at all in favoring any liberal agenda their journalists might have. The mainstream media has been tamed substantially. They don't ask the difficult questions any more.
That said, I bet you're right that the media will jump all over this. It's a great story showing up someone doing something very illegal in a really unintelligent way. People eat that stuff up and it makes a good story.
Ah, a good old-fashioned ethical Republican. I've missed you guys while this crowd of neocons and other fools has been in control of things. I hope you and people like you can take back your party so we can have reasonable political discussions and debates again.
My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole. You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.
You're missing the point. Yahweh was more right than the other guy, on the subject of evolution. He's no more right than anyone, necessarily, in saying God exists or doesn't: i.e., in non-testable religious beliefs. But evolution is a very different animal from a religious belief, just as heliocentrism or accepting that the Earth is a sphere. It's one thing to say God exists and wants us to be/do/believe whatever, but it's another thing entirely to target a principle of science which is well-document and backed up by enormous amounts of evidence, and declare that you don't believe it because of your religion. "I believe in God" is a perfectly acceptable statement of religious beliefs. "I don't believe in evolution" or "I don't believe in the germ theory of disease" or "I don't believe in a spherical Earth" is a different thing entirely.
Honestly? They might not be as vehement about it, but they would still speak out against electronic voting. I'm a computer professional; I like to find electronic solutions, and tecnological ways to get things done. But I don't want to see electronic ballots! Electronic voting is dangerous. It's just too easy to change the results in them, and too difficult to check them for wrongdoing.
And from what I've read, the commercial electronic voting systems that are being adopted have been proven to be poorly designed, security-wise. In my estimation that should be a show-stopper for any voting system, paper or electronic. Current events aside, you wouldn't want to see a new form of machine politics emerge, where local officials control the ballot boxes directly rather than coax and compel the voters.
And, you wouldn't want the Democrats to take control of the technology and rig the elections in their favor, either. This isn't just a "Republicans are bad" thing; it's a concern for the security of our elections and outrage that those in charge of ensuring the security of our elections are blandly implementing an insecure (and seemingly biased) system, sometimes directly in the face of evidence that the system is insecure.
Well Otter, for what it's worth, when I travel I try to give a good impression of Americans--speaking the language as much as my meager talents allow, etc. And, like you, I really haven't seen any anti-Americanism abroad. Then again, I've mostly been to Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Good spotting. I'm glad someone pointed it out. All this news about astronauts and the Shuttle makes me want to go back to the Moon (http://www.geocities.com/raceintospace/index.htm) ...
But, I guess that'd be too much to ask...
Maybe the whole idea was for Peugeot to get a Nouvel Citron *, and their purchasing officer got the spelling wrong!
* ("New Lemon")
Ah--I see--you have a better understanding of the subject than I gave you credit for. I don't know about the numbers, but what you're outlining there is much more reasonable than what the original post sounded like. And you're right that a lot of communists don't understand Marx. I'd go farther and say that most Americans don't understand him at all.
Seriously. What's the point of building a lunar base, all told? Sure, it's been suggested we can mine there for needed minerals, but look at the cost of doing so. It's something like twice as hard to get to the Moon as it is to achieve Earth orbit, and maintaining a Moon base would be phenomenally expensive. Think of the fuel, food, water, oxygen, etc. that would have to be ferried there on a regular basis. It seems to me that maintaining a base (mining or otherwise) on the Moon would be a net loss.
Also, think of the comparative risk: if you're in Earth orbit and run desperately low on supplies, or if something goes disastrously wrong, taking an escape pod home is a viable option, so long as you have one: hop aboard and drop out of orbit. But it would be a lot more complicated from the Moon: gotta lift off the surface, spend a couple days in transit home, and go through a harder reentry (reentry is faster--therefore hotter--coming back from the Moon than coming down from LEO).
As for using it as a jumpoff point for a trip to Mars, why the Moon? Why not Earth orbit? It's a lot easier to get to LEO than the Moon, and you don't have to lift off from the lunar surface.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of space science and exploration, and love the history of the Space Race (and enjoy playing a game that relives it: http://www.geocities.com/raceintospace/index.htm). I'm just not convinced that a Moon base is the most appropriate next step.
c6gunner, I see you're one of those who fails (refuses?) to understand the difference between a communist and someone who disagrees with you politically. This shouldn't have to be said, but: peace activists are di-ffer-ent than communists. Marx was wrong about what the future would look like, and the experiments based on his ideas failed ("went disastrously wrong" might be a better way to put it), but that's nothing to do with peace activists. Communist is a specific pigeonhole in the world of politics--it's not a catch-all for those who disagree with you--or for "anyone on the Left", or whatever.
I second that, Mattster. Especially your point that 9/11 pointed out we need to improve our security; it did NOT mean we need(ed) to throw aside our Constitutional rights.
Treason is the one crime specifically defined by the Constitution--as such, I consider it especially important we follow that definition. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
That said, you're absolutely right it should be treated as a very serious felony. I don't care if you're fixing an election for the Democrats, Republicans, or the Down With Lawyers party--damaging our electoral process is one of the worst things a person can do to our democracy, and it should be treated that way. Just we shouldn't label it treason.
That's called Classical Liberalism, represented today by the Libertarians. It's the original a priori reasoning put forward by John Locke. Contemporary Liberalism is the modern form. (These are the definitions in political science, contradiction in terms though poli sci might be.)
The media has a leftist agenda? You've fallen for one of the biggest myths of contemporary politics. Now, Hollywood has a leftist bent, no doubts there. But the mainstream media--not a bit of it. They're all owned by large conservative corporations who have no special interest in the integrity of the news, and no interest at all in favoring any liberal agenda their journalists might have. The mainstream media has been tamed substantially. They don't ask the difficult questions any more. That said, I bet you're right that the media will jump all over this. It's a great story showing up someone doing something very illegal in a really unintelligent way. People eat that stuff up and it makes a good story.
Ah, a good old-fashioned ethical Republican. I've missed you guys while this crowd of neocons and other fools has been in control of things. I hope you and people like you can take back your party so we can have reasonable political discussions and debates again.
My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole. You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise. You're missing the point. Yahweh was more right than the other guy, on the subject of evolution. He's no more right than anyone, necessarily, in saying God exists or doesn't: i.e., in non-testable religious beliefs. But evolution is a very different animal from a religious belief, just as heliocentrism or accepting that the Earth is a sphere. It's one thing to say God exists and wants us to be/do/believe whatever, but it's another thing entirely to target a principle of science which is well-document and backed up by enormous amounts of evidence, and declare that you don't believe it because of your religion. "I believe in God" is a perfectly acceptable statement of religious beliefs. "I don't believe in evolution" or "I don't believe in the germ theory of disease" or "I don't believe in a spherical Earth" is a different thing entirely.
Honestly? They might not be as vehement about it, but they would still speak out against electronic voting. I'm a computer professional; I like to find electronic solutions, and tecnological ways to get things done. But I don't want to see electronic ballots! Electronic voting is dangerous. It's just too easy to change the results in them, and too difficult to check them for wrongdoing.
And from what I've read, the commercial electronic voting systems that are being adopted have been proven to be poorly designed, security-wise. In my estimation that should be a show-stopper for any voting system, paper or electronic. Current events aside, you wouldn't want to see a new form of machine politics emerge, where local officials control the ballot boxes directly rather than coax and compel the voters.
And, you wouldn't want the Democrats to take control of the technology and rig the elections in their favor, either. This isn't just a "Republicans are bad" thing; it's a concern for the security of our elections and outrage that those in charge of ensuring the security of our elections are blandly implementing an insecure (and seemingly biased) system, sometimes directly in the face of evidence that the system is insecure.
Well Otter, for what it's worth, when I travel I try to give a good impression of Americans--speaking the language as much as my meager talents allow, etc. And, like you, I really haven't seen any anti-Americanism abroad. Then again, I've mostly been to Europe.