New Mars Forums

Griswold vs. Connecticut was not the only precedent for an implied right to privacy.  There was already considerable philosophical debate in judicial circles about a right to privacy during the time of Woodrow Wilson's administration.  Griswold vs. Connecticut just happened to be decided by the participants in that debate.

You do have one good point, though, Bill.  Despite Clark's (true) statement about how the Roe vs. Wade decision is a limitation of governmental power rather than an extension of it, every related supreme court decision has been couched in terms of "The Right to Privacy", not just limitation of power.  The arguments are all deontological, not literal interpretations of what the constitution allows. 

"The Right to Privacy" has been the key concept.  Knock that one pin out, and the rest will topple.

There's just one problem with that little trick, though:  The US Supreme Court's technically correct.  The constitution and bill of rights, taken together, do imply a right to privacy/self-determination.  And plenty of other implied rights, too.  It's inescapable that a deontology would lend itself to a deontological argument.  Right or wrong, that's just its nature.

Hmm...

Indeed, there are a lot of parallels between the current situation with terrorism by islamic extremists and the early crusades.  The problems between the Islam and Christianity had been brewing for some time prior to full blown war, just like today's. 

Early in the crusades, Christendom didn't recognize Islam as a real, separate religion from itself, but rather considered it the major christian heresy of the day.  Ominously, there's a modern tendency to consider the particular strain of Islam represented by Osama bin Laden as having no essential difference from other sects.  During the crusades, the fall of Jerusalem to arab muslims lit the embers of conflict, but it didn't become a full blown war between the Muslims and Christians until Jerusalem fell again - not to the armies of christendom, but to the Seljuk Turks, a separate group of muslims who attacked christian pilgrims not just in the christian/islamic holy land but throughout turkish territory, and then put the blame off on Islam. 

The Crusades could have been fought more easily and successfully by focussing on the Seljuks (who were much closer to home and already harassed by arabs on their rear flank).  But no, in their ignorance, the forces of christendom decided to try and stamp out the entire Islamic world.  No wonder they failed so miserably.

Our own conflict with Islamic extremists to date is going much better than christendom's did.  Thus far, we have (largely) avoided the fatal error of valuing religious zeal over military intelligence.  We're actually bothering to learn who our enemies are before plunging in.  But not always, Iraq being the prime example, IMHO.  Iraq wasn't at the heart of islamic extremism when we started this mess, any more than the arabian penninsula started the second millenium that way.  But they are now.  Throw in a major famine and some Cluniacs, and we could end up going the Crusades' route, too.

This current conflict with terrorst guerillas really is us against them.  However, if we never take the time to determine who "them" is, we're gauranteed to be on the losing end.  You don't win a war by making new enemies faster than you can defeat the old ones.

So please, Cobra, try to only stamp out one culture at a time.

Dook, are you familiar with the philosophy of ecumenism?  My current church's support of it is one of the primary reasons that I chose to join them.  Basically, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that one religious belief can admit several equally valid religious practices.  Mine is not a universalist church (remember - one religious belief), but we recognize the claim to truth of a long list of other sects, and furthermore both welcome them to communion with us and encourage our members to visit and work with other churches. 

We are a Christian denomination, and I admit that this ecumenical practice isn't extended to non-christians (at least, not with the same openess).  But a lutheran or a baptist is as welcome to come participate in every aspect of our church as I am.  Every aspect.  Becoming a priest might take a little extra time in seminary, depending on which denomination they originally came from, but they would be admitted.

I firmly believe that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.  However, I won't badmouth someone over the volumetric capacity of their baptismal font.  When it comes to spiritual journeys, whether you go is more important than where you go.

Also, about joining religious groups:

My main reason for joining a congregation wasn't safety in numbers, it was strength in numbers.  Resources, not religion.  Seventy people are more likely to produce twenty like-minded souls than twenty-one people are, and twenty like-minded people are more likely to accomplish something they set out to do than just one person. 

Which is best, to be the guy sitting around wishing he could help, or to clean toilets for the other twenty who are helping? You can read the bible and learn more from its stories than the pope, but if you can't answer that question, you've learned nothing.

I prefer churches that make it easy to serve.  If I really couldn't find a church in my area that I liked, I'd find some other charity to join.  The servant is the basic measure of my religion, not the church.  Whatever I sign on with, though, I prefer to have other like-minded servants with me once in a while.  We just get more done that way.

A church can also help you, spiritually, if you're willing to learn and they're willing to teach.  Being part of a group won't necessarily help your spiritual growth, but it can.  Not every congregation is a collection of the frozen chosen.

Better than Louis Armstrong?  Might be reaching a tad bit...   :;):

As of Sol 516, they were poised to start driving away but had not yet done so.  That was several days ago, though - no updates since.

True.  I humbly change my "derigibles" to "dirigibles", and apologize for misplacing a letter.  Oh, the shame...  :bars3:

(Capricious little "i" !  Now that mischievous letter has even moved into your "explanation".  :bars2: What ever will we do with that letter?  :;):) 

I'll stand by the rest of my statement, though.  In fact,

is not as all encompassing a statement as one might think.  The first dirigible ( :bars3: ) airships were Solomon Andrews' Aereon and Aereon II, flown in the mid nineteenth century.  They flew upwind without powerplants through a combination of diving and tacking against the wind.  Their dives were maneuvers to fight the wind, not utilize it.  Essentially, they were sail powered dirigibles ( :bars3: ), and not just "elevation controllable". 

Such a system could be employed on Mars, but only for high altitude flights.  The dive speed would need to be comparable to the wind speed for the airship to make any forward progress, and since wind speeds on Mars can reach hundreds of miles per hour, that's... problematic.

Yes, but will there be zeppelins even if there are no Zeppelins?

A little about the three terms:

A derigible is any steerable airship which can be driven against the wind.  A derigible can use lifting gas or hot air, and doesn't necessarily have to always have to be positively bouyant or even have engines, as long as it has some altitude it can be made to float at unpowered and can successfully fly against the wind.

Derigible is used as both an adjective and a noun.  Remember, only a derigible airship is a derigible.

Hot airships are derigibles that use hot air for bouyancy.  However, they aren't hot in terms of performance.  If you want a big ship, you want to use lifting gas instead.  Hot airships have to be humongous compared to a gas airship with the same cargo capacity.

Zeppelins are a type of derigible (but not the only type) that use gas for bouyancy and have a rigid internal framework.  Zeppelin is also a manufacturer's name.  All rigid airships of this type are "zeppelins" in the same way that all facial tissue is "kleenex", all cellophane tape is "scotch tape", or all cola is "coke".

Blimps are a type of derigible that doesn't have a rigid frame.  They're definitely not zeppelins, but if the Zeppelin company made one, it would be a Zeppelin. 

Oddly enough, although you can't have a hot air zeppelin, you can have a hot air blimp.  Although if the Zeppelin company made hot air blimps, then those would be Zeppelins, too.

There, that seems confusing enough.      Isn't english wonderful?  It's so... derigible!

Unfortunately, srmeaney, your numbers are too optimistic.

To sell a cookbook, you have to be able to print a cookbook.  Bookstores will stock a small amount on commission, but that requires the books be pre-printed in lots of at least 50.  Printing books and shipping them is expensive, and we would need to do it in lots. 

For example, say you can print and ship and distribute a lot of 50 books at an average price of $7 US each.  If you sell at $20 each, that would require you to sell 20 books per lot just to avoid a loss.  That can be done, but then the profit from the next 20 books sold has to go into printing the next lot if you want to keep selling books.  That means you're only receiving the profit from 10 book sales in every lot.  Up to $200 per lot can be yours.  The rest goes back into your operation. 

You could raise prices to make up for this, but that will reduce overall sales.  1000 books sold is reasonable if your cookbooks are very popular.  10000 is spectacular.  Slightly higher efficiency can be had by conducting sales online (not everything has to be shipped in lots, meaning fewer lost sales), but this can only bring in about $4000 for every 1000 books sold. 

It can be done, but the returns are closer to the operating budget of the Mars Society than the operating budget of the ISS.

Good point.  There is a recurring refrain in Christian theology, which can be paraphrased as: Do not anthropomorphisize God.  Perhaps theology recognizes this trend as well, but if so it denounces it.

A good question. 

Perhaps instead of "religion", I should say "religious observance".  Rationally, there's no purpose in adapting if there's nothing to adapt to.  So the assumption is that the necessity precedes the adaptation.  The widely acknowledged function of religion as a form of education, socialization, legitimization, etc., should indicate that the superatural isn't the only necessity that religious observance is intended to deal with. 

However, yes, I would say that religious observances are also directed to the supernatural as well.  "Supernatural" is a rather subjective term, of course.  (If something has been part of the universe from its inception, it's only supernatural from our viewpoint.)  I prefer "holy", but that's a semantic can of worms, too.

So many people feel the drive toward religion that the development of religions probably has "hardwired" or "collective unconscious" elements (pick your favorite poorly defined psychological adjective :;): ).  Something along these lines is inevitable. 

Probably people in this state still feel those drives (sense the archetypes?  feel the force? :;): ), but don't buy the garbage other people try to pile onto their experience.

Well, why else would they be interested, unless they intended to send their own missionaries here.

Well, thank goodness religious adherents are just like everybody else on this planet!   

Why not?  I would be very interested in talking monkeys.  Talking monkeys with high explosives would bear even more scrutiny, though for different reasons.

I'm going to retract another statement:  Purgatory is slightly more than a pile of dirt, though we'll probably never see it.

Those gaps around the pebbles in those soil target images are almost certainly recent formations.  Opportunity's examination of old rover tracks, "Berrybowl" and other formations has revealed that tiny holes in a dune face like those around these pebbles should have a short lifetime, even in a patch of duricrust.  Those gaps are certainly less than a few decade old, and probably were formed in the past year.  Otherwise, they would be filled in.  Some of them already are partially filled.

Now, for my next wild guess...

The most likely cause was gas under pressure.  Volcanic vents and geysers clear similar gaps around rocks here on Earth, and create similar deposits of salts.  There probably never was enough water percolating through Purgatory to call it a geyser, but I think it's a vent and those little high albedo patches with holes in them are the beginnings of calcera.  Further, I think it's technically still active.

I've been over photos of the area, including the various panoramas.  Preliminary blink comparisons of Purgatory images (i.e., switching between images of the same location that were made at different times, looking for changes over time) reveals no obvious vent activity at this time.  Opportunity could sit at this location for a year and see nothing except some slowly filling holes.  But it could see venting start again tomorrow.  If it were worth sacrificing the rest of the rover mission just to find an active vent on Mars, I'd seriously recommend driving it right back into Purgatory and parking it there until it dies, just to continue observations.

However, that course isn't worth the risk, especially when we're equally likely to find an active vent just by moving south a few hundred meters.

As the rover's trip south continues, we should continue looking for formations like this, and should keep an eye out for fully developed calcera.  We should also begin looking for active vent activity in this area.

If we find one, we'll have just found our first water well on Mars.  As long as water vapor is coming out of the vent, it can be condensed and collected even if the water table is a kilometer down.

I am becoming more confindent that Opportunity has a chance to find a well on Mars.

That's good news.

I'm starting to suspect they'll find recent water activity in the terrain to the south.  Purgatory's fascinating, sure, but without further data it's just a unique pile of dirt.