"Scratching for Water on the Moon"

[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I disagree. But then, I'm still trying to get off the force-fed media nipple. It's a slow process, but accelarated by Cellarites....

It's not a media problem. It is which media is being consulted for information. If using tabloids or the local (TV) gossip, then you have not viable media sources. A major difference between 1990 Kuwait and 2003 Iraq is obvious if your media sources are responsible. The former clearly and roundly met the defintion of a smoking gun - which is why virtually the entire world supported a liberation of Kuwait. The latter meets the defintion of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. It was conducted in direct opposition to most every world nation because it was justified only by lies - and no smoking gun. Responsible media sources make this difference obvious.

Go back one year to my strongly worded opposition to the latter invasion of Iraq AND to 1990 Cellar where I was appauled how people like Cheney opposed the liberation of Kuwait (thank you Margerat Thatcher for opposing neanderthal conservatives, for enpowered smarter people in the George Sr administration such as Scowcroft, and for putting a backbone into George Sr. Again if using responsible media, then this last sentence makes complete sense).

IOW to understand what has happened in NASA, well, did you read the Columbia murder investigation in www.caib.us ? If I remember, chapters 5 and 6 were 'must reads' for one using responsible media sources. Did you read the interrum resport on the Aug blackout - where First Energy was cited again and again for creating the blackout? The devil is in the details (but then you know First Energy is a problem because all top management are MBAs and lawyers - not a technical person anywhere in management or the Board of Directors. Again, a fact if your media sources are reporting properly.)

Cited in previous posts were opposition to the Iraq invasion based on information now known to have been quite accurate, the misappropriation of funds resulting in ISS and no super collider, and even an example of whether news source are viable. This latter example currently posted in the Internet discussion group on an obsolete technology called Blue Tooth verses a promising future technology called mesh networks. If your media sources have not reported on mesh networks today (and of Wireless hot spots over one year ago), then your problem is not mainstream media. Your problem would be listening to Rush Limbaugh type news reporters. How often do you watch a Ted Koppel town meeting?

[tw]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
There are many valid points on both sides of the perpetually unwinnable "why explore space?" debate. I think space exploration is a good idea for the same reason all exploration is a good idea... Progress is born by discovery, and discovery is born by exploration. The more we explore, the more we progress.

That said, I think the suggested applications for manned space exploration are often misplaced. ... but the market is ripe for commercial competitors who have cheaper and better ways of accomplishing some of the same things.

Why is the world leader in commercial launching France? Because of neaderthal political decision makers who stifled free market satellite launching in the US - so that another big buck boondoogle could be justified. Of course you know about the Texas based company that tried to launch commercial satellites and was quashed by the "We want a space shuttle" mentality. France's Arienne is the world leader because America foolishly pushed the Space Shuttle - at the expense of all other space exploration. We are simply making the same mistake with ISS. And, I suspect, too many don't even know why France is the world leader.

Progress is born in the minds of the little people - when top management finally decides to empower those little people instead of advocating personal agendas - such as the invasion of Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Innovation comes from the little people - and only when those little people are empowered.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
OK, but two wrongs don't make a right. (and to whomever writes 3 rights make a left, fuck you :p) I don't have a problem with the Space Station or most of NASA's budget but going past the moon doesn't make sense to me.

Same here. Plus, who is *really* going to benefit from populating another planet (a la "Total Recall")? Hint: Cha-chinggg!

I'm pretty sure the price tag of moving to another planet will cost a mint! Hell, it can cost too damned much to move around here on Earth!!

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jimf747
You should read your own statements… how can you use the word friendly in the same sentence. I’ll support my argument anytime. And if you want to call me names then you can come to Omonia’s Café on Broadway in Astoria Queens New York on Tuesday nights at 8:00Pm and say them to my face (look for the flight jacket)… put you money where your mouths is slob.

"Come up here and say it to my face!" LOL, haven't heard that line since high school about 17 years ago!! LMAOOO!

At any rate, when you throw shit, expect it to be thrown right back at you.

Put the Haterade down and play nice now.

[insoluble]

Yeah - it's pretty shitty that sports stars, actors, etc get the HUGE loot while the real heroes (scientists) have to scratch and scrimp and pinch and dirty deal eachother just to get by. This truly is a world that craves nothing more than distraction from itself. We should all just stop breeding!

[tw]

Originally posted by insoluble
Yeah - it's pretty shitty that sports stars, actors, etc get the HUGE loot while the real heroes (scientists) have to scratch and scrimp and pinch and dirty deal eachother just to get by.

Should Einstein (or Fermi or Sklar or Newton or Oppenheimer) have been a millionaire for what he accomplished?

[insoluble]

I am not saying that they deserve money, I am saying that entertainment is obviously a bigger priority than science. And I think that is indicative of a very hollow and miserable society.

[OnyxCougar]

I agree. MANY people who are having children don't seem to notice that we are getting measurably dumber as a society. Things are really going to hell, in all aspects of our culture.

We're more violent, more money hungry, much more deceptive, and backstabbing than ever before. And it's getting worse.

Parents are not raising their children, they are maintaining them. (And oftentimes, not even that much.) This is evident if you look in any school in the US.

The bitch of it is: how do we get back to a less crazy world? How do we, as a society, change what we do to raise better children?

Do we "deserve" to go to the moon? Has technology made us, as a society, better people?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by insoluble
I am not saying that they deserve money, I am saying that entertainment is obviously a bigger priority than science. And I think that is indicative of a very hollow and miserable society.

Hollow and miserable? I'd say comfortable and secure. Hell, our homeless people have a better standard of living than half the world. People that are comfortable and secure want to be entertained because they don't have a whole lot to worry about. Arab terrorists? I don't think there is any reason they would want to blow up my house. For most of the people in this country our problems are pretty petty.

[insoluble]

OC - (can I call you that?)

I agree with everything except the more violent part. Violence has been a constant human companion throughout history.

Bruce -

Not a lot to worry about? How about the fact that everyone's comfort comes at the cost of the environment? It's the complacent attitude evident in your post that I was talking about. So yeah - keep on consuming and looking the other way.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by insoluble
OC - (can I call you that?)
I agree with everything except the more violent part. Violence has been a constant human companion throughout history.

Yes, you can call me OC, better than most call me.

I agree that violence has been a part of human society throughtout history, but I think technology enabled humans to kill more people more quickly. So in that sense, we really are more violent.

[wolf]

For the same reasons, I'm going with same or possibly even less overall violence, at higher efficiency.

[FileNotFound]

If you think that technology has made us more violent, you're mistaken. Technology has merley made us more aware of the violence thanks to world news and the evening crime report.

Surprisingly little technology was used by the Egyptians to amass millions of slaves to build pyramids. Even less technology was used by the Mongl hordes to brutaly enslave over an entire continent. The Crusades didn't need computers to kill millions of women and children simply because they were not christian.

And if you think that we have become more greedy and more backstabing now than we once were, just read about the Romans (you know the guys who spread christianity).

[juju]

Actually, it was recently discovered that slaves were not employed in the building of the pyramids.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by juju
Actually, it was recently discovered that slaves were not employed in the building of the pyramids.

Well, the real way the pyramids were constructed seems to be discovered every few years. What was this theory?