You are not logged in.
Looks like our debate will be ending! Bush plans to start launching a limited defense system by 2004. Here's the link to the Yahoo! story.
Should you worry about diameter when you are shopping for one? Diameter determines collecting area, right? Maybe I'm wrong. I'll keep the apeture thing in mind though.
Are you suggesting we use crawlers as human-assistance machines once we get to Mars, or use them as Earth-launched explorers? I was thinking you intended the latter.
If you wanted it to be human-assistance, what would you use it for? It would be too slow and tedious to use for mapping, and tight, dangerous places would required millions of calculations. If you wanted to use it as cargo, you would need to account for weight and balance, which increases the complexity of going down a slope.
Clark, you're saying that there's a higher power, but then you turn around and say that humans are just "organizing chaos through patterns."
We can argue about the nature of religion all day, but the purpose of religion is to decide what your own truths are. What you think is real and true in life. Not generalizing patterns; trying to figure out what is going on.
Religion is not about figuing out how we got here. It is simply the final order made from disorder. No one has a clue how any of us got here. All we know is that we are here, now. And when we die, we are not here.
We can't ever be 100% sure about how we got here; we can't be 100% sure about almost everything in life. However, we can believe and have ideas about it all, and that requires that you leave your fears about choosing the wrong path behind, and put your beliefs into one truth that you percieve to be true.
It's called faith... ???
Shawn, don't take the above about foreign governments the wrong way. I actually got a lot of my arguement from a letter I read that was written by a dentist in Australia, and another from a Canadian journalist's article calling for an end to the harping on America.
Thank you for your concern Shawn. It means a lot. ![]()
We know both Pakistan and Afghanistan have nukes.
Afghanistan doesn't have nukes. It's the terrorists inside their borders that we're worried about.
Quote
Do we have to wait for the mushroom cloud over New York before you people finally realise what you're up against?!
Will it take that for the world to draw attention to what our government is doing to the world?
Or can we not make the changes now to prevent that from happening?
This is what I don't get about liberalism. You are being hopelessly idealistic. The American policies overseas aren't near as bad as you make them out to be. We are champions of feeding the hungry, defending the defenseless, and helping the needy. It is only when tyrants don't get their way from our intervention that anyone gets mad.
And I don't recall ONCE, not ONCE, a foreign country rushing to our aid when we have a disaster happen. When an earthquake hits Turkey or India, who is there? The US. When terrorists destroy a building full of American citizens, who was there? THE US, THAT'S WHO! The world didn't even lift a finger to condemn the acts of 9/11, aside from their petty denuciations and foney pledges to join our coalition. The world never has, and never will, asist any American goal that doesn't directly benefit them.
And on your point, I can NO foreign policies we as Americans have made that need to be changed.
When will you hippies wise up and realize that the threat of nuclear attack is here, and the terrorists, regardless of our actions, will use it against us. If we don't act against the threat now, New York will be under a mushroom cloud before we know it.
It is against human nature to not ask and try to determine the "whys"
Oh.. one last thing... MAD works ONLY when the parties involved have something to risk in a nuclear exchange. That's why terrorists pose such a threat to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide.
Sorry. I think Clark already got that point. My bad...
I'm split two ways on the testing issue. I think it is vital to seperate student's abilities, but at the same time, most test taking is just about cramming notes the night before (thanks, soph).
I think we should leave testing as it is. If you really, truly learn the material, and absorb it, and comprehend it, you will be able to apply it further down the road, and that's the stuff that gets you into a good college, career, etc. The kids who cram notes the night before the test forget what they learned, and can't apply it later in life. Not to mention that cramming helps to only "get by", not do well. I'm sorry to say, but virtue is, once again, its own reward.
I suppose we can rest assured knowing that the kids who crammed notes went on to be IHOP fry cooks. GOD BLESS AMERICA! ![]()
If any of us knew James Cameron, I'm sure you would have heard about it by now. ![]()
I don't see why our reporters have to be spies for the world, divulging our battle plans. Yes, I know, there's little chance to lose, but maybe I want to be a little surprised if we come in from Kuwait instead of Saudi Arabia.
AMEN BROTHER! If we're going to go to war, why not give our troops the element of surprise? As a matter of fact, you, or me, or any American really doesn't need to know the technicalities of how we're going to fight this war. We really only need to know the "whys".
You claim to be religious, but you are afraid to admit that there is a higher power. You say that religion is nothing more than a perception of what we feel; that it is all in our heads, and so is everything, as you have put it. You are trying to say that religion is only what we make it.
I really don't know how to put my feeling from here... bear with me...
You are saying that religion is only our perceptions, but really religion is trying to figure out the "whys" of how we got here (coincidentally, science tries to find the "hows). The point of religion is deciding what the real truth to our existence is. Some people will be right; others will be wrong. Even if you don't follow an organized religion, you HAVE to have a belief as to the "whys" in nature. You can't just shrug it off; you have to have a belief one way or the other. An organized religion is just a bunch of people with the same fundamental ideas as to how they've answered the "whys" in life.
If I was an assassin and dictator like Sadam Hussein, I would order my militaries to hide very close to school children, or hospitals, stuff like that, obviously without saying anything to the teachers in the classroom or the doctors in the hospitals, and of course don't forget the video cameras, in such a way that when the US bombs fall on the school, the all world can see the poor kids dismembred, and the US militaries won't even be able to pretend they didn't know, it's so obvious, everybody know. The best shield for the Iraky is the combination dead civilians plus cameras.
As much as I hate to say it, this kind of war will have to happen. Saddam did it in the Gulf War when he put his bio-weapons factory inside of a baby milk factory. It was the same thing with Hiroshima... put your troops in a civilian center, and we will destroy civilians. We can't just let Saddam play around using human shields.
Again, I am not an expert, but I think that 200 to 500 commandos/paratroopers precisely delivered on the spot by helicopters at night and in complete surprise could control the situation for maybe just 1 hour, enough to catch sadam Hussein with minimal casualties. Don't send the all US army for that job.
Something tells me that the Iraky's soldiers won't fight too hard to defend their beloved dictator if they think HE is targeted, not THEY and if a bit of propaganda preparation has been done to warn them that "resistence is futile"
I have advocated this all along. Send in our covert-ops troops already stationed in the region, under cover of darkness, air raid the city, and in the confusion snipe Saddam and the other important people in his regime, and be out.
We all agree that Saddam is a bad leader and person, and needs to be removed. The question now is what means that will happen by. I know Clark thinks the murder (assassination)of anyone is terrible, but the deaths of our soldiers in a full-scale invasion is even worse. And don't try to get Saddam on war crimes (those Europeans will let him go without any thought whatsoever, just like Milosevick in Bosnia).
Oh.. one last thing... MAD works ONLY when the parties involved have something to risk in a nuclear exchange. That's why terrorists pose such a threat to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide.
I get what you're saying now. I was thinking you would use a Sonar line-of-sight to see through the edge and what was on the other side.
Even with a sonar out front by a meter, how would you navigate down "steps"? A washed out hillside with ledges in the path would look like a drop still, even though it is easy to get through. You couldn't keep asking mission control to summarize the gradient, because there's a 12 minute overlapse in transmission.
I think we should have accurate maps of the surface, and some kind of GPS system that is highly accurate, and a real-time video monitor operating in near-light frequencies.
What was that all about, Clark? ???
I'm telling you that you need to make up your mind as to what you believe and don't believe. You are just as bad in not making up your mind because you are afraid of picking the wrong one. It is comforting to you to think that you aren't picking the wrong one by picking all of them. We are children in a toy store, and our mothers will only let us pick one thing. There are no dualities.
no. like ive said, all we had to do was wait off the coast of Japan.
Why give Japan the chance to regroup and rearm with our troops off shore? The remainder of the Japanese army would have waited there and tried to repel and invasion.
Nope. It was not intended to do any military damage. We targeted civilians and killed civilians.
Japan's "production centers" were long gone.
Nagasaki was a ship building city, and in Hiroshima there were 60,000 Japanese troops waiting inside the city. Don't make the US out to be the evil "peope-slaughtering-machine". We bombed those centers because it reduced Japan's ability to fight the war any longer. If we wanted to kill people, we would have dropped those bombs on Tokyo and Kyoto.
My point about nuclear weapons is, they have saved many more lives than they have destroyed, because of their use as the ulitimate deterrent. Even though their use is a terrible last resort, it is still one of our best options to destroy the enemy, and one of the terrorist's best ways to destroy us.
And this post is getting pretty boring. We're debating history at this point. We need to get back to current affairs.
What kind of question is this for the Mars Society Boards? I might as well come out and say that I am a Counting Crows fan... ![]()
If Osama Bin Laden was truly a Muslim he would'nt tell all his followers to kill Americans and westerners on sight because that is againet Islam.
Osama bin Laden is part of a radical interpretation of Islam (Shiite?). I believe it is something like 90% of the believers in Islam practice the peaceful type (Sunni?).
Also the same with the IRA, if they truly were prodestant or Catholic they would'nt have been killing each other.
The IRA was the force working to liberate Ireland from Brittish rule. They haven't been big players since the 1920's, especially not in Northern Ireland.
In Israel, the Palestinans vs the Jews, its the same thing there as well.
The Palestinians aren't killing people over religion! The matter is race... the Palestinians want their own country, and the Israelis have tried to negotiate this several times, only to be slapped in the face with civilian bombings and riots. It is pure politics, with a small bit of religious strife.
Because of the acts of a few terrorists and fanatics religions get a bad name. Since 9/11 there has been alot of unfair persecution againest moderate Muslims who have nothing to do with Al-Queda.
Yes. I heard a story on 9/11 about an Arabic man who was so afraid of being persecuted because of his skin color, he stood outside a gas station asking if anyone would go inside with his money and buy rice and milk to feed his family. That's why our political leaders urged Americans not to commit hate crimes against Arab-Americans. I know most people aren't identifying their hatred of terrorism with Islam, but rather with Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
But I suppose when It comes to beliefs its 'each-to-his-own' and you don't have the right to impose what you believe on others.
Who was that remark aimed at? ![]()
As for the nuclear bomb being the "savior of the 20th century," I beg to differ. Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the blackmarket buying of nuclear components, "recipes," and etc. by all these little nasty rogue nations, thanks in great part to Russia. Hell, I can't believe I actually somewhat fondly recall when only the Soviet Union and USA were armed to the teeth! By comparison, it's a much more dangerous world today.
My point exactly. When the US and Russia were able to annihilate each other (and the rest of the world, several times over for that matter) no major world wars broke out. The major wars of the 20th century were based on the US fighting communism (Korean, Vietnam) and liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi control. It has only been since rogue nations gained them that nuclear weapons have been a problem.
When a country has a border, a heritage, and a population to lose, nuclear weapons have been the greatest deterrent ever. But when a group of individuals have nothing to lose, the nuclear weapon becomes our greatest fear.
And the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings weren't brutal muder, they were the only ways to viably and safely end the war. The Japanese would have leaped at the chance to annhilate Los Angeles or New York, so don't make us out to be the evil Americans.
I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the consequences of placing your forces and production centers near civilians.
And how would you feel, after seeing the footage of D-Day in France a while back, and be sitting on a transport waiting to wade ashore on a Japanese beach. I'd have wanted the US to nuke those cities too.
How would the robot differentiate between a 1000 ft cliff dropping off into nothingness, and a gently sloping crater wall? I mean, if you wanted to maneuver right up to the edge you could find out, but with sonar you would only be able to tell where the edge is, not its relative position. ???
What objects do you primarily look at? (Besides Mars
)
Does the bigger aperture help your view with everything, or just planets or deep sky?
The concept than an individual needs some tax exempt conglomerate of middle men to get in touch with god (or whatever they want to worship) is really silly.
That's why I'm not Catholic.
the war was ending anyway. we just wanted to speed it up. an invasion wasnt necessary.
What do you mean? The entire Japanese way of life was based on not surrenderring! To surrender was to dishonor your family and country. The incinerary bombing of the cities wasn't doing anything, and the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man if we invaded. It would have taken years of siege warfare to isolate Japan's resupply routes to a point of surrender.
NBC Nightly News is a joke -- it should be renamed "NBC Geriatric Update," as it mostly caters to the elderly, i.e. the latest Medicare/Social Security scare and prescription drug prices.
CBS & ABC aren't much better. Generally speaking, there is maybe, on average, 5 minutes of "global coverage" and the rest is about old people, the latest prancing poodle contest, etc., etc.
I can second that! I turn on the TV to get news, and I'm plastered against my couch with special interest stories. How do Nightline and 20/20 stay on the air? They're the most worthless programming on TV. It's not like I don't have enough problems with my own miserable life; then I have watch the story of a woman who's arms were cut off my this guy so he could rape her. THAT'S TERRIBLE! I mean, the point was that there is a flaw in California law regarding mutilation sentencing, but I really didn't need to know that.
--We interrupt this thread to bring you the following message--:
Well, I absolutely disagree with you.
I was thinking of nuclear weapons the other day, in the context of wondering how the 18th-century philosophers I enjoy reading about would view such a monster. I can imagine Jean-Jacques Rousseau shrieking, "I told you so! I told you so! Technology will destroy civilization!" before keeling over from pure terror. Voltaire would most likely weep at the implications of it all, and Denis Diderot would be both fascinated and repelled by it.
--Now back to our regularly scheduled programming--
--Cindy
HAS this technology destroyed civilization yet? No. We used it to end one of the longest and most brutal wars this planet has ever seen. The use of that on weapon, on two targets, saved the lives of millions of GI's that would have had to invade the island of Japan. And don't say I only care about American lives, because it saved Japanese lives too. Those GI's would have had to go door-to-door killing every armed farmer along the way to conquer the island, whereas the destruction of two cities saved literally millions of lives on both sides.
It has only been recently, when groups without a nation, without a national language, and without a border, got a hold of these weapons that we have had to fear them. Only one nation has to sell one nuclear weapon to one terrorist group to destroy and entire city; most likely in America, rather than abroad. ???
The nuclear weapon, without a doubt, was the savior of civilization in the 20th century.