You are not logged in.
Mars has enough water for oceans too.
A 26% variation? You mean, from, say, freezing to room temperature? Wow, that's pretty huge.
So, if Mars receives 50% less light, why does it need 99% more CO2? Forgive me, it just doesn't make much sense.
The cash wouldn't be used for anything.
And even if it was a "do-nothing" program, so what? That "do-nothing" program funnelled a lot of money into a crawling manufacturing industry, and it will serve a real science purpose.
Even now, it is serving a purpose. Our OSP R&D must be accelerated so that we have a viable crew ferry to take us to the ISS. The ISS gave us a public purpose in space.
Cindy is right, cancelling these programs would just take money out of NASA. Congress has to approve everything, and trust me, they wouldn't approve of anything that didn't look nice in the sky. Now, Congress can look politically motivated by funnelling money into the OSP, to keep the international dream alive.
Without the ISS, nobody would be in orbit for a long time. And we wouldn't have the resources to get there either. Many small private entrepreneurial firms are trying to develop cheaper launch vehicles expecting to cater to the demand created by the ISS. Without that demand, there is no private space sector at all. We would just have more Deltas, Arianes, and Atlases.
Let's assume that ET is on our level of advancement.
They are confined to one planet and have minimal interplanetary activity. How would ET find *us*? Radio waves? Do we really think that ET, x light years away, is going to pick up on our radio waves?
How are we supposed to find ET? We're doing the best we can, but we are trying to find a specific ameba in the ocean. It's not going to happen.
wayne, come on, you've been banned from multiple boards, including your own board, nuclearspace.com. You've spread personal information of people, tried to disguise your IP, hacked into accounts, and brought down ES.
I wouldn't call archiebald the troll.
Yep. And I can say that plants are still everywhere.
Our atmosphere is 20% oxygen, and >1% CO2. Mars probably had liquid water at one point, for a long period of time, which means that it must have been temperate.
Whenever a tree, plant, or animal dies, it releases carbon. No plant is 100% efficient, either. And we only need trace amounts of CO2 to balance the temperature.
So tell me, on Earth, why hasn't all the greenhouse gases disappeared, and been replaced by O2? It's saturated with plant life.
I like 0, 0 to land. A cliche, perhaps, but it's apparently one of the wetter areas, and its in the crater zone, so there's plenty of scenery. To the west is Tharsis, and to the east is more cratered regions, and then flatland.
Nuclear bombs must have a certain critical mass. So, they can't be tiny, first of all. And explosions, and the resulting shockwaves, last more than "a milisecond."
A misfired bomb, too close to the ship, may generate enough force to detonate the other bombs. Bombs do go off by shock, which atomic weapons are not impervious to.
clark, but in 100-200 years, Mars won't be a red desert, terraformation can bring out water, food can easily be grown by extracting water, and within 500 years, a reasonably breathable atmosphere can be in place.
Mars won't always be a desert. 100 years is a SHORT time. We can drill out lakes and recycle water. Agriculture won't be some luxury, it can be done relatively easily.
Mars won't be a permanent prison colony. Within a few centuries, we can make it fairly hospitable, not paradise, but hospitable. Within 500-1000 years, it can be as livable as Earth.
Cal, who's that? I don't remember anybody denying a war was going to happen.
They had no problem defining it that way in the early '90s. Or else the specific Gulf War resolutions, which came after the war was approved via 1441, would not have resulted.
And why did you outright lie by saying that 1441 and Gulf War resolutions were the same?
I didn't lie, Josh, don't make things up. I said that 1441 is implicity allowing war, which the hypocritical security council members now wish to ignore.
Josh, you've really done nothing but spout leftist propogandizing. Yes, there is a such thing as being propogandized and not supporting Bush!
1441-->"Serious consequences"-->WAR
Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but you've clearly shown an inablity to interpret law here. I mean, you laughably think 1441 and the Gulf War resolutions are in any way similar, this is just a downright lie.
No, I've shown a failure to interpret it in the way you wish it was written.
I only stated what is actually written, there is no lie when it's written in plain text.
but still the best this i can say to be on the safe side would be to reformat yer harddrive! and reinstall windows and set up a firewall i have sone alarm it is a pretty good firwall! also if u dl something from someone make sure if its a picture download make sure it doasnt have .exe at the end of the pic file that will allow someone full access to yer PC.
That would be retarded. You can clean your PC without reformatting-it destroys all your stuff. Not worth it. You can get it fixed and preserve the data.
Oh, I saw that, as I said before.
I agreed, Bush was too quick to war, but Chirac was full of it on some points, as well.
The perception, now, is that Chirac will do whatever we don't want. He is getting petty. I mean, at least let the planes fly over France-even if he doesn't like the war, why make it harder, more costly, and longer? He is going against his own stated desire for minimal casualties.
OBL is captured, I'm pretty convinced of it.
if not corrupted, by their interest in the iraki's oil
and I probably think this is true, Chirac does want his share of the oil.
Oh, wait, though, why would I crush competition, I would just continue buying everything out until I owned everything. Then everyone would work for me, and I would practically own the government, and so on. If you let me have one monopoly, there's nothing keeping me from having a hundred monopolies.
Wouldn't happen. This is another area where monopoly laws apply. You can't own horizontal monopolies. This is another area where Microsoft bumped into trouble (Microsoft and IE, or Microsoft products exclusive).
Good, then, we're in agreement. Ideas can't be owned. Apple, as far as I can tell, is patenting an idea, though. There's nothing in there, as far as I can tell, about a specific way to implement their idea.
And I honestly don't see how they'd be able to implement it without there being some prior art on the idea. Unless they invent a new color changing material.
"Apple is applying for a patent to release "devices capable of dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance."
Erm, I think you're misinterpreting the article-the application is specific devices, not the idea.
But, yes, I agree, ideas can't be patented. A person can, if he wants, use them for profit (i.e. teach somebody the idea), but the knowledge cannot be "property" of only that person.
That's not to say he can't choose to keep it to himself.
I actually refuted you quite well.
1441=war in 1991-1992.
1441=war in 2003.
1441=1441.
I guess only people who go against Bush are capable of interpreting law? Blair supports Bush, so now he's slandered by anti-Bushes as some kind of lapdog. It's funny the double standard that so many possess.
Even if that is the Bush administrations mantra, me agreeing with it doesn't mean I'm propogandized. It simply means that I agree with it.
I don't like Bush, but too many people are blinded by their resentment of Bush.
So, as I was saying, you really haven't offered anything that shows that the war is illegal.
And you haven't addressed Tibet or Chechnya. Interesting.
Or the French in Vietnam. Yes, they were there first, and we came to help them (among other things). Funny how the French seem to be made of Teflon.
Nope. Unless somebody did it first, and has patented it.
However, if your invention is unique, and different/more efficient/cheaper, etc. than the orignial, sure.
My friend just put together a cheap PCR machine (genetic replication, i.e. replicates specific sequences), which doesn't violate any inventions, because it is a different design, which is much cheaper.
Exactly. That's why I ask you, why can't I buy out all the greenhouses? I'm not doing anything remotely wrong. I'm just more productive. Microsoft got in trouble because they leveraged their position, and made it impossible for other people to compete with underhanded deals (the EULA they had for OS partitioning was quite devious). My greenhouses, on the other hand, are just more productive. Nothing underhanded, everything is honest. I just grow stuff better. What's wrong with that? Monopolies can be perfectly legal, and many are.
Let me rephrase than, if you buy out all the other greenhouses, and then try to take over the colony/crush competition, the government has the right to intervene.
Hahaha, then I guess anything which doesn't let me be happy violates the constitution. I hate work, the constitution is totally violated.
It's your choice to go to work. And the constitution doesn't violate "happiness," it protects the "Pursuit of Happiness," in other words, your right to make a living.
Well, you've been sufficiently propagandized, it seems.
Because I don't agree? I could make the same argument about you. Go ahead, throw the Guardian at me!
Without a resolution.
The war is illegal.
Do I really have to go back and quote 1441 again?
We are not obligated to have a resoultion, and certainly not a second one. Yet we made the effort.
1441 is sufficient. The war is legal.
No, no, no. Van Ripers won a war game against the American Navy, using simulated Iranian weapons. That's assuming they use their weapons-but if we used our weapons, the world could go up in flames.
My nightmare is that the Russians decide they do not like these new standards of international law and seek to remove a few US carrier battle groups to better balance the world's militaries.
Won't happen. We have too many. No country in the world could stand up to our training, tactics, and arsenal. Russia doesn't have the Navy, funding, or overall military. China doesn't have the training or navy.
Any Russian attack on our carrier groups would be a virtual death sentence.
Secret300 writes "Apple is applying for a patent to release "devices capable of dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance." If this is a success, it would considerably boost Apple's presence in the technology world." So, perhaps we can not only theme our desktop on the machine - but our *literal* desktop.
Yeah, so? They're applying for a patent on a specific application.
I haven't been reading much of this thread until the past couple of hours. So, no, I didn't read the dickbill linked threads.
If the UN doesn't have what it takes to enforce their own resolutions, then it is our right to enforce them. There is no law that I know of that says the UN must be consulted prior to any war. If that was the case, what is China doing in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, and any number of other actions?
Nope, you adhere to the treaty.
And if they don't adhere to the treaty? It can't be enforced?
They can't ban Microsoft from using it, because Microsoft has been using themes for over a decade.
I'd like to see the article, but my guess is that the extent of the patent is being overstated.