New Mars Forums

Actually, I've written many artificial life experiments.  Evolution is easily simulated.

How do you know if your simulations are accurate?  There is not really a lot of experimental data on this.

Mundaka, why do you think that Kery, continuing the war will lead to the same erosion of personal freedom as has occurred under the bush administration?

Hi John, I'm going to answer you first because your question is more general than Clark's, and while I started to answer with specifics, I decided to go the other way, to wit:

When I first read your question I went out into the net, rounded up my library notes, and started to present my case, then I thought of something RXKE said: that everybody on this right/left divide (or in my case up and down on the Y-axis) keeps presenting their ideas, complete with each other's quotes, as some kind of boring, mindless political rally. I was *very* close to heading that way myself just now, so instead I'll just act as if you and I are sitting on my old frat house floor, getting tanked on a gallon jug of cheap Gallo, and having a friendly bull session.

So, to answer your question, when was the last time you heard Kerry address the matter of a supreme court who -- within the last two weeks -- decided the 5th and 4th amendments were optional? Perhaps more importantly, when have you heard his supporters do likewise? We are talking about fundamental change in our relationship to our government: have Kerry's supporters even asked questions about this? (politicians *will* respond to the demands of those whose votes they desire.)

I had to dig and root to find this stuff out -- *nobody* is talking about it. Not the left, not the right, and surely not those in the middle (who tend to be the most sane among us and can't conceive of other people having a head full of snakes.)   

Not even the partisan radio talk show hosts are talking about this, either left or right. Why isn't the press talking about it? Are they really too lazy to do the same research I did on my own, with limited free time? How much in campaign contributions do the media conglomerates give to each party?

From my perspective, its almost like watching those wrestlers, you know, the ones who yell at each other and work up the crowd? then they have a fake fight, and afterwords go back into the locker room and split the money and share a friendly beer. The TV network that broadcasts the "fight" makes even more money. Watch the candidates and the press through that lens, and then pay attention to what they say -- then compare it to the way they vote.

Kerry, for example, talks a good game about Bush's venal war for oil, but look at how he voted on matter: he voted for the war. Bush did the same thing: he promised smaller government and reduced spending -- I'd quote you a figure on how high he has run up our bill since the election but I can't count that high.

These are two small examples in a trend I've noticed now for about ten years -- whether it goes back futher I dunno -- where the two parties make news by stirring up the public with fancy rhetoric; however, if you look at the actions and votes of both parties you see, with few exceptions,  differences of degree within a pattern of common trends.

For a few current examples, both parties voted for the Patriot Act, both attack the second amendment, both continue to station so many of our troops overseas that the authors of our Constitution would freak. Both parties refuse to attend to our borders, both voted for the war in Iraq (and its continuance),  and both are printing and spending money like there is no tomorrow (and if we keep it up, eventually this country *will* go broke, and if that happens we will drag the world down with us.) There are differences to be sure: differences of degree -- but the trends are the same.

Yet each talks endlessly about how the other party is a bunch of rotten/corrupt, wimpy/warlike, commie/facists, etc., ad nausium -- and none of them is talking about the stuff I brought up before. Why not? Because they are business partners, and they are taking you and me for a ride.

Its like that car salesman I was talking about: he keeps the buyer worked up, and makes him fight for what for what the salesman wants. What better way to make the buyer mad than to take a national tragedy and a concurrent bloodlust for revenge (to which I admit sharing) and useing it to keep our eyes off what is being done to us at home? Take a look at the news: its "warwarwarwar", and what are we talking about? War.

Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court . . . oh, that's right, we *are* talking about the court -- about something as silly as gay marriage. If you want to marry a goat, have at it -- though I might not invite your spouse to my daughter's wedding -- just keep your hands off my Bill of Rights.

I don't see Kerry doing that, or Bush. If you think about (and in keeping with my theme of a friendly college bull session) these guys are practically frat brothers: same school, same social circles, same campaign contributors . . .

Kerry won't give you what he says he will, he is -- like Bush, and Caesar -- a soldier for his class.  :down:

and try to force it upon people.

*So these people aren't entitled to their opinions and beliefs?

If their viewpoints and beliefs disagree with -yours-, are you suggesting they should be deprived of expressing those viewpoints and beliefs because otherwise they are "forcing people"?

And what about the oft-spoken complaints on the part of religionists, that they are being "forced" by secularists to consider the theory of evolution? 

--Cindy

(I'm -not- religious or a creationist).

I agree. I visit a couple of science forums and it's always the samething. Bully the YEC person. I am entitled to my view of 6 day creation. Just the way God said He did it. I don't force my views upon anyone.

By the way, I'm the webmaster of YEC Headquarters.

If my website annoys, then don't go to it.

Let's hope we don't bring any of those things to Mars...no bugs allowed...!  hehe.

Sorry to hear about your morning, though...let's hope the rest of your day will be a 100% turnaround from this morning....

B

Mars needs earth women.

And Earth men, Earth people for that matter. In general, Mars needs multicellular life, it'd go great with the planet.

A while ago I was thinking about the problem of keeping astronauts occupied during the transit to Mars. I've never really thought of this as being a problem before, they would be very buisy keeping the ship from destroying itself and them, but the crew just might have some free time and I had free time of my own in French, so the idea occured to me to put something like an aquarium onboard the vehicle. How much would one weigh, 15, 20 pounds? Not much when you consider the ship's size. At least the crew wouldn't be able to complain about a lack of vertibrate diversity, the aquarium would defenately have to be an exotic saltwater one.

You know, these guys would esentially be by themselves for at least two years, no one really knows what the effects of being away from Earth's diversity for that long are. I really don't understand the proposals some have made to limit the crew not only to one species going to Mars (Excluding bacteria), but only one gender. The Bush administration is trying to outlaw same-sex marriage :angry: , should we send a unisex Masr team?

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.

Unless you want to argue that bin Laden doesn't exist.

As for the previous statement, I seriously doubt that 80% of the European population opposed the action, but more to the point the American desire for retaliation needed little inflating after 9/11.

But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.

But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

But does this justify unilaterally invading some country that couldn't possibly do the same to us? Ah, but we didn't. There's a technicality here that no one wants to talk about. We had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and part of the terms was complete inspections and destruction of the prohibited weapons, a list that went well beyond WMD's. We merely resumed hostilities based on Iraq's (repeated) violation of the terms. Opposition to such action is in essence opposition to any enforcement of international agreements, UN or otherwise. So forgive my utter lack of respect for, and confidence in the UN and the enlightened socialist elites of the world. We've got a war to win so they can resume the comfortable lifestyle they rail against but can't quite seem to give up.

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.

But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.

But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

But does this justify unilaterally invading some country that couldn't possibly do the same to us? Ah, but we didn't. There's a technicality here that no one wants to talk about. We had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and part of the terms was complete inspections and destruction of the prohibited weapons, a list that went well beyond WMD's. We merely resumed hostilities based on Iraq's (repeated) violation of the terms. Opposition to such action is in essence opposition to any enforcement of international agreements, UN or otherwise. So forgive my utter lack of respect for, and confidence in the UN and the enlightened socialist elites of the world. We've got a war to win so they can resume the comfortable lifestyle they rail against but can't quite seem to give up

20 person Publicly Funded.  It is not very likely.  Not at all.

Okay, not likely, but possible. It becomes more plausible since all Presidental contenders are limited, and provided, the same resources to be heard. That is the goal of leveling the playing field, which means smaller groups can form to gain enough backing to support their minority canadite of choice.

Parties like the Greens and Ross Perot's Independant party had nowhere near 5% after 8+ years of work.

Which is the result of the current system, which we are talking about turning on it's head! The Green's and Perot's of the America will have an easier time if the current big dogs are limited in their resources. This system is for those who are trying to get in, not those who are already established

Money is not the only thing that is needed to make a president, though it is in the top 3 of requirements.

I agree. Karl Rove helps. 

Your stating an inherent flaw in the US Constitution, not campaign finance reform in general.

That's the freaking point! It's easier to adjust law than the Constitution (just ask Cobra). This kind of change will magnify the flaw inherent in the Constitution, as such, we eithwer have to change the Constitution (the system, remember, my previous post), or figure out another way to implement this idea.

If just one 3rd party finally gains 10-20% popularity, or just a few key states, than the president will always be elected by the House.

More of the system... the electoral college, eh? Well, here we are talking about limiting the amount used for running for President, but what about the rest of the federal represenatives? Since they will in effect be choosing the President (assuming your hypothesis of 10-20%), they can effectively deny the will of the people to choose a third party canadite (since the House is controlled by just TWO parties).

See, it's starting to unravel. again, I'm not really against the idea itself, but making changes like this, to the actual system that underlies the process, we need to go in with our eyes and ears open to look for the unintended consquences that are lurking.

It's big idea to get your head around.

So at most, we would be looking at a possible 20 person ticket for a Presidential Election. The Chrisitian Right has their President, the Black Seperatists have theirs, the Mexi-Cali's have theirs (which calls for the return of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada back to Mexico), etc.

Well, we could see so many contestants that no one canadite ever wins a majority of the vote. We could see a President elected that only garners 20-30 percent of the vote, while the rest is split among the various parties.

Alt2War, I was just reading your post in "how do you feel about going to Mars" in "Human Missions" and you made alot of sense.

And then I find this little fit.

One question, what would have us do when our nation is attacked? How would you protect our citizens? What is your alternative to war, hmm?

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.

But that would be a hard sell.  Most people would not trade fire trucks and grandma's check for a few hundred extra at tax time.

Therein lies one of the common fallacies. Cutting federal spending will not affect you local police or fire service. It need not affect miitary spending, or federal law enforcement, or infrastructure maintenance etc. Even somesocial programs need not feel the crunch immediately, namely SS since it's demise is the focus of my "proposal" as it is. For example, the US Department of Education spends roughly $35 billion dollars a year, last time I checked. It does nothing. In America, Education is a local and state function. DofE is powerless and useless. Nix it and we have another $35 billion to work with. Many other agencies can get this same treatment.

The only real problem is figuring out what to do with all the bureacrats that won't have jobs anymore. Perhaps they can be taught some marketable skills...

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.

This has been one of my biggest beefs with the Bush Administration. Close the Fed wallet, George! I knows it's just paper backed by nothing but c'mon... :rant: