Space shuttle columbia lost

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ Feb. 05 2003,04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about that power plant in arizona that uses porabila(spelling) mirrors that is made were when the light hits it all the rays go to a certain point, that point is a pipe filled w/ oil and heats the oil up and boils water to spin a turbine. Would that be just as good as a solar plant?<span id='postcolor'>

This plant is also affected by the blocking effect of the atmosphere.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 05 2003,02:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 04 2003,165)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So we should just dump are trash on other planets ?<span id='postcolor'>

Sun will burn 'em all.<span id='postcolor'>

Sun will burn anything we can dump there, there is enough space in deep space to store anything we can dump there to the end of the universe, Jupiter or Saturn would not care if we dumped all the bad shit we can produce down there (they're Gas Giants you know).

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 04 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you imagine any known extraterrestrial environment being more hospitable than ones that could shelter us here on earth at much less cost, even after the worst nuclear holocaust scenario?<span id='postcolor'>

A proper nuclear holocaust propels heavily radioactive dirt into the air for tens of years. The dirt blocks the rays of the sun. The surface of the Earth cools, until ice covers the entire globe. What we get is a pitch black artic winter for years and years.

How do you propose we get energy to power our subterranean dwellings? How do we ever reconstruct a civilization on a barren, highly radioactive planet after the ice has gone, if it ever does?

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 04 2003,13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you entirely about how space exploration is vital in the event that natural disaster could wipe out the earth or an astroid.

But we "humans" could very well be the ones that make us exstinct with Nuclear war.  That's what I meant that we are not ready for space exploration, we can't even be civilized with other inhabitants on this planet, let alone on another planet!

I'm not saying stop space exploration completely or slow it down.  Obviously it will take many years to finally explore outside our own solar system.  I just hope that we do achieve the ability to travel outside our own solar system, that we "humans" are more stable and mature.  And hopefully wars will be a thing of the past.

I mean if we had the technology now and the way the world is today, it would be like the Cold War era, only difference would be that countries wouldn't be competing over weapons, they would complete over which planets to colonize for themselves!<span id='postcolor'>

I am aware that we humans have a tendency for self-destruction. That makes it even more imperative that we have habitats in space. In case of a nuclear showdown, same rules apply as with natural disasters.

I don't think we can wait for the emergence of Homo Peaceful, before pressing on to space. Not if we want to survive, which is the ultimate duty of all life.

[Stalingrad]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 03 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only thing he constantly he repeats was: the british killed germans for defending their freedom, so did the french, the russians and the americans. And what did I kill for?<span id='postcolor'>

He killed to survive like all soldiers do. Leaders can deliver speeches about justification and defending the freedom and stopping evil be it Hitler, Stalin or Osama bin Laden, but in the end, soldiers fight and kill to go home.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 04 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i thought the only way for solar power to become efficient enought to power a city like New York, you would have to have solar panels cover like 13 sq miles.    not to mention what happens on cloudy days? or during winter season when its cloudy the most? and maintance costs?<span id='postcolor'>

Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays of the sun. In space we do not have an atmosphere blocking the rays. Neither do we have nasty things as gravity limiting the construction options.

Nuclear power is also very convenient in space, since we can just jettison the nuclear waste to sun or deep space or to Jupiter or to a helicentric orbit and be done with it. Space is what is available in space.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,19:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is that?  That space exploration is our only way for the human race to survive?

Think about it this way.  We just continue to mess up the environment on this planet to the point that is not inhabitable anymore, and then just find the next planet that is habitable only to mess it up as well?  What have we learned if we do this?  Absolutely nothing!  We can't simply go rock jumping from planet to planet ruining the environment and eating up all its resources.

What's wrong with repairing the planet we have now?  I understand that space exploration is needed, but hell we can't even travel outside our own solar system yet.<span id='postcolor'>

Even if we had a perfectly eco-friendly economy down here on Earth (which we cannot ever have as long as we want to produce energy for our use because of heat-pollution), it is almost certain that natural disasters will wipe out the habitability of Earth at some point in the future. We only need to look at the fossil record for proof. Global catastrophes have happened quite regularly before, why would they suddenly stop happening?

We don't need to find another Earth up there, since there are heaps of what we need just in our solar system. Unimaginable amounts of raw materials float around in quite a pure form in the asteroid belt. Coal, hydrogen and oxygen are available here and there for input into the circle of life. Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays. We need to set up big space habitats, not find new planets to colonize. Living in the gravity well is a waste of energy anyway. This way we have 5 billion years to figure out how to get to other solar systems.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not their but you can take this up on the ME thread.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I wouldn't touch that issue with a twenty-foot pole.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole ISS might have to be junked if the shuttle program is closed. But I don't care.<span id='postcolor'>

What? You don't want new perfumes?

How different is space? Not even flowers smell the same. Perfume giant International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF) found that out in 1995 when they sent a miniature rose called "Overnight Scentsation" into orbit onboard the space shuttle Columbia. The flower developed a "floral rose aroma" quite distinct from its normal odor. The new fragrance has since been incorporated into "Zen", a perfume produced by the Japanese company Shiseido.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Umm..................... waht about the other tennants? <span id='postcolor'>

I guess we'll just have to ignore them and establish settlements on their land. And if they complain, shoot them.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can run but you can't hide! <span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure that with the combined military might of U.S. and Israel we can blow that nasty moon out of the sky just after we have established a palestinian state in there.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can handle that 5-6 billion year problem of yours. <span id='postcolor'>

5 billion years is what we have if we manage to get some of our population off this rock.

But since we are all down here, one extinction level event, which could occur tomorrow or a million years into the future, is all that is needed for the end.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 01 2003,19:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm, to be honest, what IS the big deal? Yes, people died and that is quite sad. But there are bigger accidents weekly all over the world and hardly anyone outside of the immidiate area gives a damn. Buses crashing, trains derailing, boats sinking and so on. This was actually a quite small accident compared to other stuff. Just seven dead.

Yeah, I feel sorry for the families. But I still dont see the big deal.<span id='postcolor'>

When buses crash, trains derail, boats sink or planes hit skyscrapers, it has no effect on anything in the grand scale of things.

But the space program is one of the pinnacles of human achievement and the destruction of the shuttle is going to seriously hamper it. The space program is the only hope we have of ever achieving a secure future for our children. At the moment our existence hangs by a thread that can be cut by an asteroid impact, global thermonuclear warfare, a cataclysmic volcanic eruption, a solar protuberance, greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, pollutant induced sterility, a passing singularity, etc.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or perhaps its a hint that we are not ready for space exloration just yet!  I mean after all we haven't sovled the problems down here on earth yet!<span id='postcolor'>

If this statement represents the average public opinion, we're heading towards extinction.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm no scientist/physicist/inventor but they need to construct a vehicle that has some single piece/coat outer skin that can handle the heat or they need to find a way to control decent back to earth at a much slower safer speed.<span id='postcolor'>

In order to accelerate to the orbital speed, the shuttle has those two extra boosters and the extra fuel tank. In order to descend back to Earth, the shuttle has to nullify that speed. The easiest way to do it is to use atmospheric friction, which converts speed to heat. Otherwise the shuttle would need a pair of extra boosters and a fuel tank to do the braking burn for descend.

Ceramics are the only type of material, which can take the immense heat generated by the re-entry. Tiles are easy to replace (down on Earth), when they wear down and much easier to manufacture than some kind of uniform ceramic shell covering the whole ship (which might be impossible to manufacture).

If people whine about NASA risking the lives of the astronauts because replacing some parts simply costs too much, they should give NASA more money so that they can use only the most expensive parts and so on... Small budgets kill people and small budgets are the fault of politicos.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,11:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, there's no connection between higher life expectancy ages and democratic societies?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes there is, but survival fitness of a species has nothing to do with life span of individuals. Survival fitness of a species indicates how robust the species is in avoiding extinction.

As a species we have so far developed some minor security nets against extinction, but we are still as vulnerable to global disasters as the dinosaurs were. And where are the dinosaurs now? With all our glorious cities with towers that reach for the heavens, we are still but worms that crawl in the mud of our mother planet.

Nope, we need to reach up from the gravity well and secure our existence for the next 5 billion years after which the sun will blink off.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if nothing it is at least a stop to the cutbacks. One space shuttle costs more then one billion US dollars so it's just a symbolic increase. The cost of design and production of a new space shuttle is far higher.<span id='postcolor'>

Here we find the reason why democracy does not work. Popularity-fishing politicos pour funding to popular issues like bigger guns and tax cuts in U.S. and social security in Europe. The result is a decapitated scientific effort and therefore a severe decrease in the survival fitness of our species.

It's only so long we can keep all the eggs in the same basket.

[Space shuttle columbia lost]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 02 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I heard of a satellite that nasa is going send up in space cost 2 billion dollars to make.It's going take pictures of jupiter moons.Now thats an huge waste of tax payer money.<span id='postcolor'>

Considering that few of Jupiter's moons might harbor life AND be very nice places for colonization, I think studying them is in no way waste of taxpayer money, at least when comparing to the whopping 331+ billion dollars U.S. pours to defence every goddamn year.

Anyway, space programs are facing enough flak as it is, without accidents like the destruction of Columbia. In today's world filled with useless, crappy causes, those aboard the shuttle died for the only worthy cause left: The advancement of human knowledge and the conquest of the final frontier. At least they died with their boots on. No dementia and geriatric institutions for these people.

[State of the union speech]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 31 2003,13:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">heh , the world did see another little corporal , and this corporal started a war ... but he was german ......<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I think that is the whole point of the song (it is Done With Bonaparte by Mark Knopfler).

But it is not important whether it is a corporal or a general or an oil-executive who captivates the hearts of men and then points towards the foreign shore...

[State of the union speech]

We've paid in hell since Moscow burned

As Cossacks tear us piece by piece

Our dead are strewn a hundred leagues

Though death would be a sweet release

And our grande arm¨¦e is dressed in rags

A frozen starving beggar band

Like rats we steal each other's scraps

Fall to fighting hand to hand

Save my soul from evil, Lord

And heal this soldier's heart

I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord

I'm done with Bonaparte

What dreams he made for us to dream

Spanish skies, Egyptian sands

The world was ours, we marched upon

Our little Corporal's command

And I lost an eye at Austerlitz

The sabre slash yet gives me pain

My one true love awaits me still

The flower of the aquitaine

Save my soul from evil, Lord

And heal this soldier's heart

I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord

I'm done with Bonaparte

I pray for her who prays for me

A safe return to my belle France

We prayed these wars would end all wars

In war we know is no romance

And I pray our child will never see

A little Corporal all again

Point toward a foreign shore

Captivate the hearts of men

Save my soul from evil, Lord

And heal this soldier's heart

I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord

I'm done with Bonaparte

[State of the union speech]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning.

<span id='postcolor'>

I guess he forgot to mention that organ cloning would save countless lives.

Anyway, if hydrogen cars make U.S. less dependant on foreign energy sources, I'd like to know where Bush intends to get the hydrogen from? It does not grow in trees (which Bush wants to cut down anyway), but it has to be generated by electrolysis of water, which requires ENERGY. How is all this ENERGY going to get produced while cutting 70% of power plant emissions? With cold fusion?

[Do u believe people are basically good?]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 26 2003,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">would you say that information ( in the scientific sense of the word ) necessitates or presupposes.

- a sender? which implies:

- a plan and thus a person planning?

- semantic content (= a message). semantic content is foreign to matter.

- information serves a purpose. the quality of a purpose-serving invention demonstrates the genius of the inventor.

- matter by itself doesn't create concepts. (a bridge doesn't span itself across a river just because a few folks want to get to the other side.)

- the building blocks of matter don't have any psychic properties. they don't plan and don't think. they don't create goals and then pursue them. only intelligent beings, capable of using information, can do that.

let me simplify:

before you is a pile of boards and nails.

what is necessary to build a hut out of those?

- the will to do it,

- the strength,

- the time,

- and an idea of what kind of hut you want to build.

now look at a car consisting of 10.000 pieces?

what do you need to create that?

more of the above:

- more tenacious will

- more power

- more time

- a more specific plan

a space shuttle?

more of the above.

what do you need to create a supercomputer consisting of roughly 15 billion pieces, 300.000 miles of cable, gazillions of random access and long term storage memory, water cooled, weighing 3 pounds / 1.5 kg?

(I'm talking about the human brain.)

what do you need to arrive at a product like that?

nothing - and long time periods?

no. not according to the established laws of science.

you need more of the above: greater willpower, more energy, more time..., you get the drift.

since matter by itself is not self-organizing, who told it to organize the way it does? <span id='postcolor'>

I really don't want to get into this argument, since you're obviously pasting from something written by Jack Chick. But I guess I'll have to.

I have witnessed evolution, it happens every day: I have observed how strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by simple means of mutation+selection=evolution. I am also pretty sure that even you have heard about insects becoming immune to pesticides = evolution.

I have also used a technique called artificial evolution myself. We introduce random mutations and recombinations to a DNA strand encoding a protein we want to improve. Then we select for improved proteins. After some rounds of enrichment, we have a bank of improved sequences. Does this mean man has become god?

What comes to your long attempt to assign "godly" properties to information: If you cannot see the flaws in your reasoning, I doubt I can make you see them.

Why can't you just believe in your god and leave him out of the earthly matters?

[Do u believe people are basically good?]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 23 2003,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe in degeneration, btw, not evolution. the whole thing is a hoax. remember the piltdown man?<span id='postcolor'>

Hhmh. Having witnessed evolution first hand, it is a little hard for me to call it a hoax.

Overally, the universe is degenerating all the time, since overally entropy is increasing. However, local evolution does happen (like on Earth), but at the cost of more entropy increase somewhere else (namely the sun in our case).

[Do u believe people are basically good?]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 21 2003,21:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll have to say that I believe a person is born innocent, which qualifies as good in the context of my worldview.

but every person arrives at the age of accountability sooner or later, usually around age 9 to 12, and invariably does something evil, knowing full well, that the act is bad.

in that moment something dies in that person. it is sort of like a personal fall.

subsequently an inner development downward - a moral deterioration - sets in, unbeknownst to the person - he might actually think he's merely coming of age and losing his naiveté. truth is: the person is becoming bad.

the world suddenly looks colder than it used to.

the person knows what is good, but doesn't have the desire or the energy to do it; he or she actually finds him- or herself frequently doing wrong things, totally unable to stop himself - but doesn't want to own up to his or her helplessness in the matter, of course. so that person starts to make excuses and finds scapegoats for his shortcomings, rather than taking responsibility, which would be a step towards personal liberty.

all those conflicting thoughts coming from the conscience of such a person - affirmations of good, rejections of those affirmations, consciousness of guilt, desire for innocence, denials of guilt, excuses , etc - weave a tangled web, in which somebody can get so caught up, that in his striving for moral equilibrium - innocence, actually - a person in the end works himself into such absurd notions as "good is bad" and vice versa, or that good is altogether relative.

(indeed helped by the "social conditioning" many of us constantly refer to.)

how do you get back out of that - doubtlessly subliminal - self-weaved choke-hold your thoughts have on your perception of the real truth?

I see that many suffer from inner ailments, sublime and slick as soap; there are repressed angers, nebulous feelings of bondage, but folks have no clue as to how to get rid of them.

MY answer is easy: accept God as a reality, and acknowledge that you're not perfect - I mean, just say it! accept that you need a guideline for your life. then accept that God's Word - by that I mean the bible - is true, and use it as your guide.

the effect, in my experience, is... liberating.

by the way: the first words the devil said in the bible are: "has God really said...?" (Genesis 3, 1.)

he questioned God's Word.

what are you doing?<span id='postcolor'>

So you claim that knowing that your act is bad but doing it anyway is the sign of you becoming bad? And that children are not naive, but good?

That's a pretty naive claim.

[Doped pilots]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite Oligo. They are very different. Spiders have ganglions which are much more primitive then our neural nets. The biggest difference is that the ganglions are hard coded, i.e no learning is possible. It just maps sensory input to motoric movement without anything inbetween.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes of course, but in the molecular level (where the drugs take effect) our wiring looks quite the same.