You are not logged in.
Ha ha! It’s a joke. Here’s what they did last year.
I wouldn't be surprised if Google and Virgin team up to do something space-related. But a 100-year plan for two corporations like them is very, very silly.
I ________ algae (as food).
[x] like
[ ] dislike
[ ] utterly loathe
[ ] would be willing, if absolutely necessary, to endure
Obama must not like the United States very much to listen to this preacher's ranting and railing against the United States for 20 years.
In my experience, the more one knows about a subject, the more accurate one's judgment of that subject will be. Therefore, a judgment made about a person is less likely to be accurate if that judgment was made based on a 10 second sound bite. It is completely disingenuous to say that Wright has "ranted and railed" against the US for 20 years. When watched in their proper context, the two speeches quoted so often on the news don't seem so outrageous. In fact, I've only been able to find two speeches where he says anything even close to "anti-american." There are a great number of things he says in other sermons that I find myself agreeing with. And none of his sermons were the type of racist, anti-American "hate-speeches" that everyone loves to talk about. I can totally imagine someone joining his church based on the issues they do agree with while ignoring the issues they don't.
If blacks are being oppressed in the United States, they can leave and seek their freedom and opportunities in Africa, no one is keeping them here, they aren't in chains.
I usually avoid political discussions on forums. This is why. Most people who start political discussions aren't at all interested in discussion. They've already made up their minds and are looking for people to agree with them. Because of this, they will continue to use a fallacious argument regardless of how many times it's been refuted. It's pretty obvious that I'm not going to convince you that Obama isn't the racist, unpatriotic, flag-burner you want him to be. So I guess the best thing to do would be to stop posting here and let the white guy keep complaining about how the ungrateful black people should shut up or go back to Africa. Have fun agreeing with yourselves.
"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."
-Mark Twain
I've counted several faces in woodgrain throughout my house. People often see patterns where patterns don't exist. Galileo thought he saw canals on Mars when he first looked at it.
Now we have a candidate who embraces racism and antipatriotism oozes out of his pores.
His alleged "antipatriotism" is strongly based on your (and only your) definition of the word. And you've still failed to explain exactly what makes him a racist. Just give me a quote where Obama is giving a hate speech. Not some quote mine from an old friend of his.
George W. Bush wouldn't be caught dead attending as sermon from such a preacher as Wright.
And yet, he had no problem allying himself with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Preachers who blamed 9/11 on "the gays," preachers who have no qualms with praying for God to kill judges so Bush can appoint Christian ones, preachers who have (and one who continues to) actively try to dismantle the first amendment.
What we have now is the occupation of Iraq. How exactly this is fighting the terrorist is a bit hard to tell.
Hussein's regime was very successful in keeping terrorists out.
We removed the regime, so the terrorists moved in.
Some racists have been clever speakers with lots of Charisma, one of whom was Adolf Hitler, if there is a chance of someone like that sitting in the White House, I don't want to take it.
You forget. Adolf Hitler was VERY open about his racism. It was the basis of his campaign. Are you suggesting that Obama is some sort of evil mastermind? Secretly plotting to destroy white people with a public policy of understanding? Then you sir, have never met a racist. Racism is born from ignorance. Nobody as willfully ignorant as a racist would be capable of showing that kind of deep social understanding.
If someone says one thing yet does another and does not renounce entirely what he has done, I don't want to take any chances with him, even if I risk being unfair or misjudging his character.
I'm confused, when exactly did Obama "say" anything racist?
Also, what's wrong with being "fair?" Being fair would only mean that you've applied that same doubt and cynicism to every candidate. Have you done that? John McCain has "flip-floped" on trivial issues too, why aren't you on here ranting about him?
Obama's own actions do this for him. Unless your willing to believe that Mr. Wright ONLY used that kind racist rhetoric on Sundays when Obama wasn't there,
If you had watched and listened to his speech, you would have your answer. Here are some links:
If you truly believe that someone as ignorant as a racist is capable of showing this kind of deep understanding of race issues, then you are beyond reason, and there is absolutely no point arguing with you.
There. Is that clearer?
Being a racist may fly in some countries when the racist is a member of the majority race or ethnic group, but not when the racist is a minority member disliking the majority.
I agree that racism is racism whether its a minority or a majority. But don't you see how telling people to "go be with your own kind" might not be the best solution to racial tension?
I realize blacks have had it hard in the past in the USA and they were discriminated against, but that doesn't make it more likely that I would vote for someone who isn't patriotic, hates this country and my race.
What you've done here is called "guilty by association." You've assumed several things about Obama based on the views of a long-time friend of his. He actually addressed this yesterday in a very good speech about race relations, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it as "pandering." If you're going to have that kind of extremely cynical mind-set in regards to Obama, claiming that you can't believe anything he says because he's "power-hungry," then the only fair thing to do would be to apply that same cynicism to every candidate. And if you do that, then there's really no point in participating in the Democratic process because then there’s no reason for you to believe anything any politician says ever. So why even bother voting?
"The fact is that the comments that have been made on the issues that have surfaced over the past few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country we've never really worked through... And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together to solve challenges like helth-care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."
-Barack Obama, 3/18/08
[sarcasm]Yeah, what an unpatriotic racist. He should go back to Africa.[/sarcasm]
Look again at the first picture Rota posted. It has the weird "S" symbol from Heroes. Dun dun dunnnnn!
I've run into this type of argument before. "If you don't like the way things are, then leave." But wouldn't staying and trying to fix the problem you see in the government be more patriotic than just leaving? You seem to be misunderstanding a fundamental point here. Obama (or Rev. White for that matter) saw a problem with America and tried to fix it. You may disagree, and say "there is no problem" and that's fine, everyone is subject to his/her bias. But you called into question his patriotism. And I'm telling you that an un-patriotic person would have left the country long ago for one that agreed with his philosophy. The fact that they stay and try to change things only proves their devotion to this country.
To be technical, the purpose of any flag has always been rooted in war. Colors were originally rally points for ground troops, waved high in the air so everyone could see and stay near them. Ships would display colors so that friendly ships would not fire on them. Over time, we've installed a more symbolic meaning behind the flag, but it still has an "Us and them" mentality to it. When is it that you see the colors displayed everywhere? During a war. Who is it that is required to salute the flag every day? Armed forces (though, we started requiring children to do the same thing because of cold war politics.) And again, hyper-active nationalism has further pushed the flag into civilian life. So much so that wearing (or not wearing) a tiny pin can cause someone to make all kinds of rash assumptions about your character.
I stand by my initial point that a tiny pin doesn't matter. It seems apparent to me that you've already made up your mind about Obama and this pin incident was just an excuse for you to rant about him (and Reverand White.. And democrats in general.)
Now, if Obama burned a flag at one of his campaign rallies, then that would be something noteworthy.
If we all are so terribly racist, why don't he go to Africa and live among his own kind?
So... the way to show black people that America is no longer racist is to tell them to go back to Africa? Yeah. That makes sense.
Honestly, a lapel pin isn't worth this kind of attention. Regardless of who's ancestor fought to free who's ancestor, the American flag has been cliché ever since it became an accessory. Look at Teddy Roosevelt... How many times did HE wear a lapel flag?
The American flag is something to be waved and saluted, not slapped on like a fraternity pin.
In our research for developing this comic, we got pretty detailed as to what effect the low, Martian gravity would have on various activities. And since there is a regular amount of gun-play in this comic, a programming/math genius friend of ours built an interplanetary ballistics calculator for us.
I figured that there might be some people on newmars who would be interested in it, so here you go.
What about large plants? Are there any trees that would be ideal for whatever reason?
I recently saw an Anime show called "Planet ES." I highly suggest any space nut to watch it (even if you don't normally watch anime.) The level of research and detail is nothing short of incredible.
Anyway, it's 2075 and we've got colonies on the Moon and Mars. They don't much talk about Mars but they do visit the moon quite often where they meet a Lunarian, one of only 4 people to have been born and rased on the Moon. Because it's only 1/6g, this twelve-year-old girl is already 6ft tall and still growing. She would never be able to live on Earth because her body is just too big for the gravity.
A similar thing would happen on Mars. People would be unusually tall and skinny (but not extremely so.) I don’t know if returning to earth would be as damaging to a Martian as it would for a Lunarian, but my guess is that they would have to go through some sort of physical therapy before they could go through such a dramatic change in environment.
Short-term view:
Only the best and the brightest will be sent to Mars. They're usually smart enough to see past meaningless differences. Sure they may end up with their little cliques in the lunchroom, but they'll (hopefully) know what they're their for. Business. And wouldn't allow squabbling to get in the way of the tough business of surviving. That's rather hard to do in a .13% oxygen environment.
Long-term view:
Supposing (far off in the future,) a self-sufficient colony could exist on Mars. It would have to function like any other society. And society requires a class system. Trekkies and Sci-fi fans can go on about their socialist utopia, but that's not what works. Yeah, a class system comes with the possibility of unrest and bigotry. As Antius said, its inevitable.
It looks like the action is taking place in an at least partially terraformed Mars. That's usually assumed to be some way off. Is there an approximate year in which the story is set?
You are mostly correct in your reasoning.
As for the date, we would rather information like that be revealed through the story.
In another thread...
BTW, Red Oasis is lookin' good - feel free to start a shameless promotion thread.
As requested, here it is. (If you haven't already seen my signature) I am the artist for a relatively new webcomic series called Red Oasis.
We've just uploaded our fourth page. I'm hoping to get on a routine of finishing a page on every Monday. So far, that has been difficult, but I am getting faster.
Some of you may recall that I joined this forum because I needed some scientific, Mars-related questions answered. All of us at RO would like to thank everyone that contributed. This forum has been and continues to be a great help to us in developing the world in Red Oasis.
We've already earned at least one fan here, our goal is to earn more.
Feel free to comment/ask questions if you wish.
Tough job for the selectors. How will they discern the applicant's wisdom?
Dude. Don't you remember your Socrates? Ask them.
"Yes" = Not wise.
"No" = Wise.
This thread appears to have died and been resurrected several times. But I noticed something.
Kahless and Joseph's little back and forth kind of illustrated the basis of this "intellectual class struggle." Intellectuals tend to equate education with intelligence and label every un-educated person "ignorant." At the same time, the un-educated worker sees the educated as out of touch and gives them labels like "egghead" and "elitist." It is only a minority of each side that thinks this way, but they're the ones that tend to be the loudest. (Like any other devision of people. Be it: religious, racial, political, sexual, or national.)
Another problem that arises is when you have a group who thinks they are not acting with bigotry when in fact they are. An example of this would be the challenging argument to the women's right to vote here in the U.S. The popular con argument was that a woman had enough troubles raising children and keeping a home so why burden them further with the responsibility of democracy? (What with they being the "weaker sex" and all.) As any modern woman would tell you, even though these people may have had good intentions and considered themselves sensitive to women's issues, they were actually greatly offending to women. A similar thing happens when an educated person will speak condescendingly to an uneducated person. They think they are benefiting the un-educated person, but fail to realize that no person wants to be treated like an idiot.
Many people are uneducated, yet very intelligent. All the same; many people are educated, and unintelligent. Hopefully, a factor in the selection of Mars researchers/"colonists" will be wisdom.
This may be an unpopular idea because it's not shiny and high-tech. But what about a radio? It's cheap, simple, and easy to fix. I'm thinking that early research missions would be more concerned with just talking to eachother than they would be with texting their friends and updating their blogs.
Redboy56: dude! this rok looks like a turd.
Wangle2: LoLz!!1!
As addressed in another thread, Mars soil is possibly toxic and corrosive to organic material. In that case, simple fertilization won't do the trick. That thread addresses some methods of removing it from people, enclosed areas, and equipment, but what about removing it from the soil? Any ideas?
It is a totally different planet then what Earth is, as far as we know there could be a new type of mineral that we don't have here on Earth, this means that new materials could be made, from new materials come new designs for buildings, ships, ect.
Plenty of scientists have theorized about Martian geography (I believe the technical term is: Areography since "Geo-" refers to Earth.) All of these theories involve Mars having the exact same, naturally occurring, minerals as Earth (just in different proportions, obviously. Iron is everywhere on Mars.) The idea that a strange and new mineral could form naturally on Mars, but not on Earth is preposterous.
I'm not trying to be a "naysayer," dryson. But you should read and pay attention to more of noosfractal's posts (more specifically, the one he linked earlier.) It's erroneous to think that a Mars colony will be anything like the historical colonies of Earth.
No, this is called Terra Preta
In a test crop using this method, the first season had little effect. But the second season showed an 800% increase in yield. This site outlines some tests in using Terra Preta to revitalize over-farmed soil.
I can tolerate a well-founded and legitimate argument (such as the one posed by Grypd,) but what I simply cannot tolerate is someone substituting reason for wishful thinking. Dryson, you are taking your own personal political ideas and coming up outlandish and unrealistic ways of supporting them.
You want Mars to have an independent, free-market, government-free, society so you come up with the notion of the "magic space resource" to prove to yourself that it could happen. You're not using scientific reasoning, you're using science-fiction reasoning. This thread is about reality. Sure, an independent Mars would be interesting (hell, I'm making a comic book about it,) but it's fantasy.
Furthermore, your arguments about progress and scientific advancement could only come from a lifetime of watching bad Sci-fi shows. According to television, space is a wondrous place where new elements are constantly discovered. But in reality, space is boring. Everything is made out of the same stuff. Read a book about it. A real book. There is absolutely no scientific reason to think that Mars (or any other planet in our solar system) will have any sort of new "ore."
*catches breath* There, with that out of the way...
The best way to describe the space elevator is to compare it to other heavy construction Transport developments that have been done here on Earth. These have in the main been completed by or on the behalf of goverments and even to the point of more than one goverment getting involved and therefore having ownership. As an example the Suez canal or Panama canal.
A space elevator will not be done by any commercial interest but in an a well thought out Goverment decision to have in there control the means to improve the economic capability of and increase there control of Mars. The elevator will probabily make a profit but it is its ability to be allow financial increase that will make a Goverment spend funds to create it.
That is a good way to describe it. But you're still talking about bases in the asteroid belt, a fully terraformed Mars, and an Earth that is completely out of food. These feats would take hundreds (if not thousands) of years. I'm talking about the immediate future. Several decades or so (as was the ISA post which started this thread.) Assuming that we land on Mars when President Bush claims we will and we decide to have a continued research-based presence there, Mars would still not have enough material value to justify an extremely dangerous, unpredictable, and costly project like a space-elevator. The risk far outweighs the reward.