| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
13 Jul 2005 12:55:07 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
From CNN main page:
The launch of the space shuttle Discovery will go ahead as scheduled
Wednesday after technicians fixed tiles damaged near the spacecraft's
tail Tuesday, a NASA spokesman said. The tiles were damaged when a
cover panel on the No. 7 cockpit window fell off as the orbiter sat
on the launch pad, officials said.
Hmmn. :-/ I'm sure they know what they're doing and all, but it
sounds a little bit strange to me. If parts are just sort of "falling
off" while it's just sitting there on the launch pad, does it _really_
seem like such a good idea to announce that you're going ahead with
the launch as scheduled anyway? Yeah, sure, there was a hurricaine,
but those winds are nothing to what it will encounter as it launches.
They probably know how reliably the damage has been fixed and all, but
you'd just think, I dunno', maybe in the interest of "good PR" or
something, they'd try to seem a little more concerned. Maybe it's
just me. :-?
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
\~------------0-0-0-O-o*O*o*O*o-O-0-0-0------------~/
There are two main things we must concern ourselves
with in life: Our "to Do" list and our "do-do" list.
/~------------0-0-0-O-o*O*o*O*o-O-0-0-0------------~\
.
|
|
| User: "Tak" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 02:46:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:06:59 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnddcq6g.h1o.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode, <wWhBe.431$3F4.13@trnddc03>, the lovely and
talented DianaC broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndda2pv.bfs.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Wait a minute. I think you live around here. Did you see the
bit on one of last night's local newscasts about the East Texas
Babtist preacher who went out to perform hocus-pocus on every
piece of a body that fell from the sky? I mean the NASA guys
would stand around until he got there to sprinkle Holy-Moley on
everything.
And that affects YOU how, exactly?
What if the NASA guys were being paid by the hour?
What if? Or more accurately, SO WHAT???
He hates people, the downside of liberalism "i am neither liberal or
conservative" sadly is a hatred for the heroic, the achiever or the
individual. Hardly universal in them, but a trait that runs through
the more santimonious ones.
He "knows" the cure of ALL social ills and they can only occur if you
are right "just like him". And human endeavor has no place in his
world.
He can't take his eyes off his own feet therefore to him only fools
look at the sky.
These are the same peple who 100 years ago thought powered flight was
a waste of miney.
This guy was laughing at shutttle technical problems, he thought they
were FUNNY. He probably thougt it was a hoot when Columbia burned.
Tak
a#344
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 03:18:33 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<rnfdd1d4m94sspvpng2cekmc2dfrtt2rei@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Tak
broadcast on alt.atheism:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:06:59 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrnddcq6g.h1o.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode, <wWhBe.431$3F4.13@trnddc03>, the lovely and
talented DianaC broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndda2pv.bfs.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Wait a minute. I think you live around here. Did you see the
bit on one of last night's local newscasts about the East Texas
Babtist preacher who went out to perform hocus-pocus on every
piece of a body that fell from the sky? I mean the NASA guys
would stand around until he got there to sprinkle Holy-Moley on
everything.
And that affects YOU how, exactly?
What if the NASA guys were being paid by the hour?
What if? Or more accurately, SO WHAT???
He hates people, the downside of liberalism "i am neither liberal or
conservative" sadly is a hatred for the heroic, the achiever or the
individual. Hardly universal in them, but a trait that runs through
the more santimonious ones.
I got over Ayn Rand when I was eleven.
He "knows" the cure of ALL social ills and they can only occur if you
are right "just like him". And human endeavor has no place in his
world.
And it doesn't have a place in my world to go all ad hominem
over a difference of opinion among friends.
He can't take his eyes off his own feet therefore to him only fools
look at the sky.
Looking at the ground might convince you to take care of the
planet you have got rather than dreaming of getting a new one to
trash.
These are the same peple who 100 years ago thought powered flight was
a waste of miney.
And of course we all know it is much easier and cheaper to fly to
enlightenment today than it was to walk to it 100 years ago.
This guy was laughing at shutttle technical problems, he thought they
were FUNNY. He probably thougt it was a hoot when Columbia burned.
It is true that irony amuses me and it always has.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"Men will never be free until the last king is
strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
--Denis Diderot
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 03:49:40 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndddi1h.iho.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<rnfdd1d4m94sspvpng2cekmc2dfrtt2rei@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Tak
broadcast on alt.atheism:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:06:59 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnddcq6g.h1o.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode, <wWhBe.431$3F4.13@trnddc03>, the lovely and
talented DianaC broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndda2pv.bfs.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Wait a minute. I think you live around here. Did you see the
bit on one of last night's local newscasts about the East Texas
Babtist preacher who went out to perform hocus-pocus on every
piece of a body that fell from the sky? I mean the NASA guys
would stand around until he got there to sprinkle Holy-Moley on
everything.
And that affects YOU how, exactly?
What if the NASA guys were being paid by the hour?
What if? Or more accurately, SO WHAT???
He hates people, the downside of liberalism "i am neither liberal or
conservative" sadly is a hatred for the heroic, the achiever or the
individual. Hardly universal in them, but a trait that runs through
the more santimonious ones.
I got over Ayn Rand when I was eleven.
Too bad. Something tells me that you would boo the hero of "Anthem"...
He "knows" the cure of ALL social ills and they can only occur if you
are right "just like him". And human endeavor has no place in his
world.
And it doesn't have a place in my world to go all ad hominem
over a difference of opinion among friends.
He can't take his eyes off his own feet therefore to him only fools
look at the sky.
Looking at the ground might convince you to take care of the
planet you have got rather than dreaming of getting a new one to
trash.
Looking only at the ground can cause you to run into things. Like trees. And
interstellar spacecraft.
These are the same peple who 100 years ago thought powered flight was
a waste of miney.
And of course we all know it is much easier and cheaper to fly to
enlightenment today than it was to walk to it 100 years ago.
Why do you insist that this is about 'enlightenment'? That's YOUR religion.
As far as I am aware, it's all about learning things. If enlightenment
happens along the way, fine...but that's not the aim.
This guy was laughing at shutttle technical problems, he thought they
were FUNNY. He probably thougt it was a hoot when Columbia burned.
It is true that irony amuses me and it always has.
Irony is Jonathan Smith's " A Modest Proposal". Having the space shuttle
explode and enjoying it because it seems to prove you right is, well, not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tak" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 07:38:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:49:40 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Irony is Jonathan Smith's " A Modest Proposal". Having the space shuttle
explode and enjoying it because it seems to prove you right is, well, not.
We agree on something, wonderrs will never cease. :)
Tak
a#344
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
13 Jul 2005 08:19:10 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in alt.atheism
the lovely and talented Elroy Willis broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in alt.atheism
the lovely and talented Elroy Willis broadcast on alt.atheism:
Does the next generation of space shuttle still have tiles in the
designs?
On no! Don't tell me there is yet another generation of manned
spacecraft. This really chaps my butt.
Putting people in space is dangerous and expensive. It is much
cheaper and more efficient to send machines. There is no reason
to send people into space now. There may never be a good reason
to do so. If there is some unobtainium on one of the planets of
this star system, machines can find it faster and cheaper.
The reasons to believe that people will ever travel faster than
the speed of light are exactly the same as the reasons to
believe in a big sky daddy. Humanity is NEVER, *never*, not
ever, going to another star system. Don't replace one
irrational religious belief system with Star Trek. They are
really both just wishful-thinking fantasies.
Just because we can't travel faster than light doesn't mean that we
should give up the manual exploration of our own solar system, does
it?
It is fucking expensive. Let the machines find the unobtainium.
Then if people want to go get, let them try.
I'd rather see $1000 of my tax money go towards peaceful space
exploration than see it go towards building bombs and planes which
carry bombs to blow people up, but that's just me...
Lots of people are willing to risk their lives in order to get a
bird's eye view of our own planet from space, or to explore other
planets, so why not let them, if they willingly want to do so?
Let them do it on corporate rockets.
So your beef is with your tax dollars being spent on things which end
up killing people, even though those people voluntarily signed up and
were willing to die in the pursuit of exploration?
We can feel sad for those who die in the process, but they
knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed
up. Nobody's putting guns to astronauts heads and forcing
them to go into space, are they?
Yeah, but if you don't pay for it, the IRS will freeze your bank
account faster than you can say "Turdblossum treason."
Some checkboxes that each person could check regarding how much of
their tax dollars they want to go to certain programs would be nice.
The only box available on the most recent tax forms is about whether
to contribute to some "Presidential Election Campaign" fund, which
is only $3.
If there was a box which said, "Do you want $3 of your taxes to go
towards space exploration, I'd certainly check it.
If there was one which said, "Do you want $3 of your taxes to go
towards building bigger and better smart bombs to kill people, I don't
think I'd check it, personally...
Wait a minute. I think you live around here. Did you see the
bit on one of last night's local newscasts about the East Texas
Babtist preacher who went out to perform hocus-pocus on every
piece of a body that fell from the sky? I mean the NASA guys
would stand around until he got there to sprinkle Holy-Moley on
everything.
I didn't see it. Do you have a link?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
13 Jul 2005 08:35:58 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<li3ad11kouie6f1vmg0u3mjd01l9if1k0t@4ax.com>, the lovely and
talented Elroy Willis broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner < > wrote in alt.atheism
Wait a minute. I think you live around here. Did you see the
bit on one of last night's local newscasts about the East Texas
Babtist preacher who went out to perform hocus-pocus on every
piece of a body that fell from the sky? I mean the NASA guys
would stand around until he got there to sprinkle Holy-Moley on
everything.
I didn't see it. Do you have a link?
Here a link to KXAN -- I'm in my text browser so I didn't see if
there was a link to the video:
Linkname: KXAN.com - Providing Comfort To The NASA Families
URL:
<http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3585874&nav=0s3dc3Z6>
And here is a print story from Santone Express (Raney is the
guy's name in case you want to "find"/search down to him)
<http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA071105.1A.shuttle_easttexas.5840b3fb.html>
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --John Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
13 Jul 2005 08:15:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:03:57 -0500, Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
In our last episode,
<mqu9d1ho0lkdp84cp16l7s9n4dfruuc04i@4ax.com>, the lovely and
talented Elroy Willis broadcast on alt.atheism:
Does the next generation of space shuttle still have tiles in the
designs?
On no! Don't tell me there is yet another generation of manned
spacecraft. This really chaps my butt.
Putting people in space is dangerous and expensive. It is much
cheaper and more efficient to send machines. There is no reason
to send people into space now. There may never be a good reason
to do so. If there is some unobtainium on one of the planets of
this star system, machines can find it faster and cheaper.
Lars, have you ever read about the training of the Apollo 15 crew?
The previous crews to land on the moon had been given very little
training in geology. So they gathered samples almost at random,
bringing back hundreds of kilos of basalt. Well, that's great, but we
knew about the basalt already.
So for Apollo 15, they actually trained the crews in field geology -
the skill mof going out and rockhounding. They taught them what to
look for, how to recognize original crustal material, and what kind of
thing the scientists were hoping for.
The result? Apollo 15 brought back a bounty of samples that are still
being analyzed today. Orignal lunar crust, metallics, meteroitc
fragments.. amazing stuff.
This happened because trained humans were on the scene, able to
evaluate and act.
Now the rovers on Mars are great, but they can only go a few feet a
day and have very limited tool sets. Put a geologist on Mars and he's
be able to pick things up, select sites, and use all his tools to
answer some questions about Mars' wet past.
The reasons to believe that people will ever travel faster than
the speed of light are exactly the same as the reasons to
believe in a big sky daddy. Humanity is NEVER, *never*, not
ever, going to another star system. Don't replace one
irrational religious belief system with Star Trek. They are
really both just wishful-thinking fantasies.
Who says we need to travel FTL? Generation ships, or simple getting
close to light speed using fusion rockets would make the trip
possible.
People also said that man would never fly.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
13 Jul 2005 08:47:04 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> drunkenly proclaimed the following
The reasons to believe that people will ever travel faster than
the speed of light are exactly the same as the reasons to
believe in a big sky daddy. Humanity is NEVER, *never*, not
ever, going to another star system. Don't replace one
irrational religious belief system with Star Trek. They are
really both just wishful-thinking fantasies.
Who says we need to travel FTL?
Exactly. I think Lars is being simple-minded or short-sighted or
something...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 10:40:00 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now the rovers on Mars are great, but they can only go a few feet a
day and have very limited tool sets. Put a geologist on Mars and he's
be able to pick things up, select sites, and use all his tools to
answer some questions about Mars' wet past.
Sure, budget for several orders of magnitudes the sum of unmanned Mars
missions to date, wait a decade or two and we can put a man on Mars
who can walk a few hundered feet a day - provided we encounter no
mishaps on a very dangerous round trip.
No matter how romantic you feel, it's not practical or worth it. For
the money a manned mission would cost, you can put thousands of
robotic rovers which can each go for miles per day. And you need not
worry too much about losing any one of them.
It seems to me that when you imagine the advantages of a manned space
mission, you conveniently forget sbout the huge costs and
disadvantages. If we ignore all of those, sure, it is nice to dream of
instantly replacing the Mars rover with an astronaut in a buggy. But
it doesn't work that way: Reality is a *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 09:26:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:40:00 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now the rovers on Mars are great, but they can only go a few feet a
day and have very limited tool sets. Put a geologist on Mars and he's
be able to pick things up, select sites, and use all his tools to
answer some questions about Mars' wet past.
Sure, budget for several orders of magnitudes the sum of unmanned Mars
missions to date, wait a decade or two and we can put a man on Mars
who can walk a few hundered feet a day - provided we encounter no
mishaps on a very dangerous round trip.
Ah. It's scary and hard, so we shpuld stay home and hide under the
beds? Is that what you advocate?
Go learn something:
http://www.marssociety.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
No matter how romantic you feel, it's not practical or worth it. For
the money a manned mission would cost, you can put thousands of
robotic rovers which can each go for miles per day. And you need not
worry too much about losing any one of them.
And they won't be as good as a single geologist on the ground.
It seems to me that when you imagine the advantages of a manned space
mission, you conveniently forget sbout the huge costs and
disadvantages. If we ignore all of those, sure, it is nice to dream of
instantly replacing the Mars rover with an astronaut in a buggy. But
it doesn't work that way: Reality is a *****.
Oh, ***** you. By education, I'm a planetary astronomer. I worked on
probes in my student days. If you really think they are that much
cheaper, you are dreaming.
Have you designed a Mars ship? The Mars Society has. With today's
off-the-shelf technology. Not a quick visit, but a long-term
scientific mission to study Mars.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 07:45:25 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Go learn something:
http://www.marssociety.org/
Wow. If they put a page on the web, they must be smart and rational.
Oh, ***** you. By education, I'm a planetary astronomer.
That explains it. Only somebody under the illusion of knowing could be
so irrational.
Have you designed a Mars ship?
Yes, when I was 4 or 5 I believe.
The Mars Society has.
Bastards! It looks like they stole my design!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 08:28:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:45:25 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Go learn something:
http://www.marssociety.org/
Wow. If they put a page on the web, they must be smart and rational.
Did you actually read it? You can order their books, which are
peer-reviewed and written by engineers and scientists.
Oh, ***** you. By education, I'm a planetary astronomer.
That explains it. Only somebody under the illusion of knowing could be
so irrational.
Right, because scientists are legendary for illogical thinking.
Have you designed a Mars ship?
Yes, when I was 4 or 5 I believe.
Cool. So, you were a rocket engineer at 5?
The Mars Society has.
Bastards! It looks like they stole my design!
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 11:19:15 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
I have but to remind you that you are the (Romantic) Luddite since you
are of the position that humans aren't replacable by technology. I am
proposing doing valid science and exploration, much more in both
volume and quality by making most use of advanced technology. I am all
for unmanned science and exploration in space. If we scratch silly
manned projects of romatics and politicians, we will have more funds
for valid science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 06:50:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:19:15 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
I have but to remind you that you are the (Romantic) Luddite since you
are of the position that humans aren't replacable by technology. I am
proposing doing valid science and exploration, much more in both
volume and quality by making most use of advanced technology. I am all
for unmanned science and exploration in space. If we scratch silly
manned projects of romatics and politicians, we will have more funds
for valid science.
Technology makes humans more effective. Technology on its own is
pretty ineffective.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
16 Jul 2005 09:06:22 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Technology makes humans more effective. Technology on its own is
pretty ineffective.
Luddite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 08:48:59 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<hgefd193ppprbe3ilalhd3il4m07j6c2k7@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Douglas Berry
broadcast on alt.atheism:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
Hey, space cadet! We can call names, too.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 10:48:14 AM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnddffi7.4o3.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<hgefd193ppprbe3ilalhd3il4m07j6c2k7@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Douglas Berry
broadcast on alt.atheism:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
Hey, space cadet! We can call names, too.
"Luddite" is a classification of belief, not an ad hominem. If you want to
associate bad things to it, that's your problem. But you ARE a Luddite.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 06:49:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:48:59 -0500, Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
In our last episode,
<hgefd193ppprbe3ilalhd3il4m07j6c2k7@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Douglas Berry
broadcast on alt.atheism:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue, being
a Luddite and all.
Hey, space cadet! We can call names, too.
Space Cadet and proud of it. You exhibit all the attributes of Ned
Ludd. You hate the future and hope, prefer to be chained to the
status quo.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
18 Jul 2005 06:58:35 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:otigd1p4j57fr99j2cuvatmq824udh98hf@4ax.com:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:48:59 -0500, Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
In our last episode,
<hgefd193ppprbe3ilalhd3il4m07j6c2k7@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Douglas Berry
broadcast on alt.atheism:
I see that you are incapable of actually discussing this issue,
being a Luddite and all.
Hey, space cadet! We can call names, too.
Space Cadet and proud of it. You exhibit all the attributes of Ned
Ludd. You hate the future and hope, prefer to be chained to the
status quo.
We Space Cadets are the reason the luddites get to use the technology
they use to call us names.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
21 Jul 2005 06:55:16 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> flattered himself so:
We Space Cadets are the reason the luddites get to use the technology
they use to call us names.
Was it you who invented the Internet? And to think all this time I
believed it was Al Gore!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
23 Jul 2005 02:44:38 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:n33vd15p4v0or08dputflg29ni0n2sgd5a@4ax.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> flattered himself so:
We Space Cadets are the reason the luddites get to use the technology
they use to call us names.
Was it you who invented the Internet? And to think all this time I
believed it was Al Gore!
Your poor comprehension noted.
If I include myself in a group of people with similar beliefs and then
claim that group is primarily responsible for an advancement, that is
not the same as my claiming credit for the advancement.
As a computer geek with a host of friends that are also computer geeks
and who strongly believe in manned space missions, whom you would label
as Space Cadets, I suspect that most of those that initiated the design
and expansion of ARPANET were not only computer geeks, but 'Space
Cadets'.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
23 Jul 2005 03:31:32 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<Xns969C8C014A791GaryBohn@209.135.99.21>,
the lovely and talented Gary Bohn
broadcast on alt.atheism:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:n33vd15p4v0or08dputflg29ni0n2sgd5a@4ax.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> flattered himself so:
We Space Cadets are the reason the luddites get to use the technology
they use to call us names.
Was it you who invented the Internet? And to think all this time I
believed it was Al Gore!
Your poor comprehension noted.
If I include myself in a group of people with similar beliefs and then
claim that group is primarily responsible for an advancement, that is
not the same as my claiming credit for the advancement.
As a computer geek with a host of friends that are also computer geeks
and who strongly believe in manned space missions, whom you would label
as Space Cadets, I suspect that most of those that initiated the design
and expansion of ARPANET were not only computer geeks, but 'Space
Cadets'.
You could open a book. The history of the development of the
internet is not a state secret.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of GodŽ -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"Religion has no place in public policy. " --Barry Goldwater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
26 Jul 2005 09:39:40 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in
news:slrnde5a4q.51c.eighner@goodwill.io.com:
In our last episode,
<Xns969C8C014A791GaryBohn@209.135.99.21>,
the lovely and talented Gary Bohn
broadcast on alt.atheism:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:n33vd15p4v0or08dputflg29ni0n2sgd5a@4ax.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> flattered himself so:
We Space Cadets are the reason the luddites get to use the
technology they use to call us names.
Was it you who invented the Internet? And to think all this time I
believed it was Al Gore!
Your poor comprehension noted.
If I include myself in a group of people with similar beliefs and
then claim that group is primarily responsible for an advancement,
that is not the same as my claiming credit for the advancement.
As a computer geek with a host of friends that are also computer
geeks and who strongly believe in manned space missions, whom you
would label as Space Cadets, I suspect that most of those that
initiated the design and expansion of ARPANET were not only computer
geeks, but 'Space Cadets'.
You could open a book. The history of the development of the
internet is not a state secret.
I read the history and in fact used the internet in the mid '80s.
The history will not tell us who does nor who does not believe in manned
spaceflight among those instrumental in the development of the internet.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 12:39:42 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:c81dd19arf45ruahgf7a1j7ok35a8lpg8d@4ax.com:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now the rovers on Mars are great, but they can only go a few feet a
day and have very limited tool sets. Put a geologist on Mars and he's
be able to pick things up, select sites, and use all his tools to
answer some questions about Mars' wet past.
Sure, budget for several orders of magnitudes the sum of unmanned Mars
missions to date, wait a decade or two and we can put a man on Mars
who can walk a few hundered feet a day - provided we encounter no
mishaps on a very dangerous round trip.
No matter how romantic you feel, it's not practical or worth it. For
the money a manned mission would cost, you can put thousands of
robotic rovers which can each go for miles per day. And you need not
worry too much about losing any one of them.
It seems to me that when you imagine the advantages of a manned space
mission, you conveniently forget sbout the huge costs and
disadvantages. If we ignore all of those, sure, it is nice to dream of
instantly replacing the Mars rover with an astronaut in a buggy. But
it doesn't work that way: Reality is a *****.
It will be interesting to see how the 'ultra cheap' react when China
builds a base on the moon and starts chucking rocks at the US.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 09:03:19 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn
It will be interesting to see how the 'ultra cheap' react when China
builds a base on the moon and starts chucking rocks at the US.
ROTFL! You spaceheads are so pathetically funny :D
ICBMs are thousands of times cheaper and thousands of times more
effective than moonrocks. Better yet, economic warfare through cheap
labor and high tech will do the job cleanly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
14 Jul 2005 10:31:39 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:o56ed195prmp8q3h92131h9h612r0u5orq@4ax.com:
Gary Bohn
It will be interesting to see how the 'ultra cheap' react when China
builds a base on the moon and starts chucking rocks at the US.
ROTFL! You spaceheads are so pathetically funny :D
ICBMs are thousands of times cheaper and thousands of times more
effective than moonrocks. Better yet, economic warfare through cheap
labor and high tech will do the job cleanly.
More effective? My remark was more or less in jest, but you seriously
underestimate the energy available in a chunk of rock thrown from that
height.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 07:35:31 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
More effective? My remark was more or less in jest, but you seriously
underestimate the energy available in a chunk of rock thrown from that
height.
Height? :D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
15 Jul 2005 06:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:35:31 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
More effective? My remark was more or less in jest, but you seriously
underestimate the energy available in a chunk of rock thrown from that
height.
Height? :D
How about this?
Assume a 100 meter chunk of iron, moving at 72m/sec, impacting the
Capital Mall at a 90 degree angle. You are watching from the
Arlington Heights, about 10 km away. Here are the effects:
(From http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/)
Energy:
Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.09 x 1019 Joules = 2.59 x 10^3
MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth
during the last 4 billion years is 4.7 x 10^4years
Atmospheric Entry:
The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 37,300 meters =
122,000 ft
The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of
projectile strikes the surface at velocity 68.4 km/s = 42.5 miles/s
The impact energy is 9.80 x 1018 Joules = 2.34 x 10^3MegaTons.
The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of
dimension 0.249 km by 0.249 km
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible
mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation
period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
Crater Dimensions:
Crater shape is normal in spite of atmospheric crushing; fragments are
not significantly dispersed.
Transient Crater Diameter: 5.04 km = 3.13 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 1.78 km = 1.11 miles
Final Crater Diameter: 6.26 km = 3.89 miles
Final Crater Depth: 0.514 km = 0.319 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 0.0872 km3 = 0.0209
miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average
thickness is 4.37 meters = 14.3 feet
Thermal Radiation:
Time for maximum radiation: 0.0626 seconds after impact
Visible fireball radius: 4.27 km = 2.65 miles
The fireball appears 97.1 times larger than the sun
Thermal Exposure: 4.67 x 107 Joules/m2
Duration of Irradiation: 55.6 seconds
Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 839
Effects of Thermal Radiation:
Clothing ignites
Much of the body suffers third degree burns
Newspaper ignites
Plywood flames
Deciduous trees ignite
Grass ignites
Seismic Effects:
The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 2 seconds.
Richter Scale Magnitude: 6.9
Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 10 km:
VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction;
slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable
damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys
broken.
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable
damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage
great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks,
columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
Ejecta:
The ejecta will arrive approximately 45.2 seconds after the impact.
Average Ejecta Thickness: 5.77 m = 18.9 ft
Mean Fragment Diameter: 17.4 m = 57.1 ft
Air Blast:
The air blast will arrive at approximately 30.3 seconds.
Peak Overpressure: 1.32e+06 Pa = 13.2 bars = 188 psi
Max wind velocity: 887 m/s = 1980 mph
Sound Intensity: 122 dB (Dangerously Loud)
Damage Description:
Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme
frame distortion, incipient collapse.
Highway truss bridges will collapse.
Highway girder bridges will collapse.
Glass windows will shatter.
Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and
will require rebuilding before use.
Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches
and leaves.
That's 6 miles from ground zero. With a chunk of iron. And I had to
keep the speed artificially low because the program is designed for
natural events! Speed up the projectile, and you get an even bigger
boom!
And no nasty radiation posioning, no clouds of fallout circling the
globe.. a nice clean extinction.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
18 Jul 2005 06:56:53 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:k1igd1d5d1b5n8s0i55iikigg2ap69jffm@4ax.com:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:35:31 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
More effective? My remark was more or less in jest, but you seriously
underestimate the energy available in a chunk of rock thrown from
that height.
Height? :D
How about this?
Assume a 100 meter chunk of iron, moving at 72m/sec, impacting the
Capital Mall at a 90 degree angle. You are watching from the
Arlington Heights, about 10 km away. Here are the effects:
(From http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/)
Energy:
Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.09 x 1019 Joules = 2.59 x 10^3
MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth
during the last 4 billion years is 4.7 x 10^4years
Atmospheric Entry:
The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 37,300 meters =
122,000 ft
The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of
projectile strikes the surface at velocity 68.4 km/s = 42.5 miles/s
The impact energy is 9.80 x 1018 Joules = 2.34 x 10^3MegaTons.
The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of
dimension 0.249 km by 0.249 km
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible
mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation
period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
Crater Dimensions:
Crater shape is normal in spite of atmospheric crushing; fragments are
not significantly dispersed.
Transient Crater Diameter: 5.04 km = 3.13 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 1.78 km = 1.11 miles
Final Crater Diameter: 6.26 km = 3.89 miles
Final Crater Depth: 0.514 km = 0.319 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 0.0872 km3 = 0.0209
miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average
thickness is 4.37 meters = 14.3 feet
Thermal Radiation:
Time for maximum radiation: 0.0626 seconds after impact
Visible fireball radius: 4.27 km = 2.65 miles
The fireball appears 97.1 times larger than the sun
Thermal Exposure: 4.67 x 107 Joules/m2
Duration of Irradiation: 55.6 seconds
Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 839
Effects of Thermal Radiation:
Clothing ignites
Much of the body suffers third degree burns
Newspaper ignites
Plywood flames
Deciduous trees ignite
Grass ignites
Seismic Effects:
The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 2 seconds.
Richter Scale Magnitude: 6.9
Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 10 km:
VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction;
slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable
damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys
broken.
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable
damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage
great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks,
columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
Ejecta:
The ejecta will arrive approximately 45.2 seconds after the impact.
Average Ejecta Thickness: 5.77 m = 18.9 ft
Mean Fragment Diameter: 17.4 m = 57.1 ft
Air Blast:
The air blast will arrive at approximately 30.3 seconds.
Peak Overpressure: 1.32e+06 Pa = 13.2 bars = 188 psi
Max wind velocity: 887 m/s = 1980 mph
Sound Intensity: 122 dB (Dangerously Loud)
Damage Description:
Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme
frame distortion, incipient collapse.
Highway truss bridges will collapse.
Highway girder bridges will collapse.
Glass windows will shatter.
Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and
will require rebuilding before use.
Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches
and leaves.
That's 6 miles from ground zero. With a chunk of iron. And I had to
keep the speed artificially low because the program is designed for
natural events! Speed up the projectile, and you get an even bigger
boom!
And no nasty radiation posioning, no clouds of fallout circling the
globe.. a nice clean extinction.
Thanks for doing all that work for me. You made my point extremely well.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Shuttle problems - trouble brewing? |
21 Jul 2005 06:51:27 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:35:31 GMT, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> drained
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
More effective? My remark was more or less in jest, but you seriously
underestimate the energy available in a chunk of rock thrown from that
height.
Height? :D
How about this?
[...]
Seems like you missed it completely.
1. "Height" is inappropriate. Moon isn't "higher" than the earth.
2. Your projectiles on the moon is sitting in a gravity well. Huge
energies would be wasted to catapult them to earth. Not to mention the
longer flight time available for counter measure. Launch from earth
orbit is a lot more cheaper and effective. Better yet, ICBMs with
nuclear warheads are proven technology and easier to accomodate (on
your own soil/ships) and protect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
