Worthy of survival

EvilBill wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Historically, we've seen that such things only tend to embolden
the winners, not pacify them. It'll be somewhat like the Pope's
situation on a national scale. We won't be able to apologize to, or
appease them
enough. I don't have an answer, but that ain't it, either.

I have an answer: Genocide. Or more accurately Ethnocide since being
Muslim is not a racial thing.



So the answer is to murder a billion people just because a few thousand are
giving us problems?

Yes. We cant separate this people from the mass. So kill the mass.

Google cathar heresy Beziers for a history to this approach.

Kill them all and let Allah carry of the good ones to Paradise.



Hmmm, so maybe we should wipe out the entire population of the US because
Bush stole the election? Or every Irish person just because Ian Paisley
won't shut his bigoted mouth.

Not comperable. The Muslims are out to get us.

Bob Kolker

in article , Fred J. McCall at
on 10/4/06 9:10 PM:busted out this wacky ****:

"Marcovaldo" wrote:

:"Elvis Gump" wrote in message : : Yeah but
the only resources we have in abundance are lawyers, guns and : money so who
will fan the **** if we send 'em all to Mars? : :I like the idea of sending
all the lawyers to Mars. This idea alone could :reinvigorate the space
program.

Yeah, but we'd still have all those hairdressers and telephone sterilizers....

What a terrible attitude to have about your planet's forefathers!
--
"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency.
An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."
-- Eugene McCarthy

Bob Kolker wrote:

Do you know of any non-fission mode of triggering a deuterium or tritium
bomb?

If the US knew of such a method they would keep a very firm lid on it.
--
Stephen Fairchild

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:50:26 -0500, Elvis Gump
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:18:37 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

It has no magnetosphere. It is wide open to solar radiation.
There is no free water on the planet. It is deader than a corpse. How
are earthlings supposed to grow food there?

Bring in water and air from the Kuiper Belt. If Mars's atmosphere
were made a little thicker than Earth's, the surface temperature at
low latitudes would be warm enough for open-field agriculture, and the
radiation issue would largely go away.

Me wonders if your engineering goes as far as changing a flat tire.

Please explain what part of what I propose will never be feasible from
an engineering standpoint, and why.

Can the area around the Dead Sea be made self sustaining. It cannot.

Sure it can.

Every bit of potable water and food has to be brought in.

Nah. It's just politics.

Have you MET our politicians?

Not yours, maybe, but a number of ours.

Interplantary
travel is so limited and so expensive only the bare minimum can be
carried in and that can sustain life for only a short time.

The same could be said about the Vikings' settlements in Greenland and
Newfoundland. They failed, but only because they were small,
half-hearted, private efforts. If you send one ship, you are likely
to fail. If you send one a week, sheer weight of numbers and learning
from experience makes it much more likely you will succeed.

Well, there it 'tis. We just use the old "baffle them with bull****"
method.

The situation in question is _not_ entirely unlike all previous
history.

The only
good thing I can say about Mars is that Venus is worse.

It is. But Mars is actually eminently terraformable.

Now all we need is a couple hundred thousand boys in bubbles to get
things rolling.

Or whatever works. Which is not likely to be that.

-- Roy L

Bob simply disagrees on the feasibility of space colonization. He's just not
that in to it.

Mars doesn't need terraforming to be colonized in its more "tropical" zones
which are like Earth's arctic zones temperaturewise, using current
technology. Oxygen and water is frozen on the ground and minerals are
available for future building materials. Given the thin atmosphere and
higher radiation, colonies would probably be best in underground bunkers
with smaller radiation shield observatories. Plus simply seeding the planet
with plantlife, given its high levels of carbon dioxide, would eventually
raise the level of oxygen--if only to provide a natural source of oxygen
other than from ice.

Just because the technology currently exists doesn't mean the political or
financial will does also--which it doesn't. Even sending tiny robot rovers
are debated by some.

-- Ken from Chicago

"T C MCKEAN" wrote in message
news:AWUUg.7175$vT1.3860@trndny03...

snip

We will not find any profit until humans are a regular part of the space
exploration. Yes computer robots can do it cheaper and more efficiently
right now. But we humans are the only ones who can find unique solutions
to interplanitary travel and living in space and other planetary bodies or
astoroids. We may not be able to build an engine fit for intergalactic
travel because on earth it would be too cost prohibitive and with the
abundance of minerals in space it could be done cheaply eventually. This
does not mean we should not consentrate effort to solve problems here on
earth but we will never get out their and find a way to explore and live
unless we start somewhere. Human life is always searching for challenges
and like the explorers and pioneers of our own America we long for the
need to search the next mountain and to live and thrive in the new
environment. Space exploration is thaqt next mountain and I would gladly
give my life to pursue and live in that environment ..if only I could.
Tina

Humans would be a part of robotic space exploration--the brain / control
parts, just like we've been part of the robot exploration of Mars for the
past several years. Humans have been devising various solutions since rovers
and robots have landed on, flown by and orbited various planets in the solar
system.

-- Ken from Chicago

"Frank Glover" wrote in message
news
Bob Kolker wrote:

wrote:


Bring in water and air from the Kuiper Belt. If Mars's atmosphere
were made a little thicker than Earth's, the surface temperature at
low latitudes would be warm enough for open-field agriculture, and the
radiation issue would largely go away.


Bull****! Mars has no Magnetsphere. Solar Radiation will "sandblast" any
atmosphere we can put in place. Keep in mind the Sun is very mean and
dangerous. It only seems benign to us because we have a magnetosphere
protecting us. When or if that goes away, prepare to use 2000 sun
blocker.


I've seen that argument presented, I understand the logic behind it,
yet I keep thinking: "And what of Venus, closer to the Sun, also no
magnetosphere, less massive than Earth, hotter than Earth (which is also a
factor in atmosphere loss) and yet a denser atmosphere than Earth."

Not that I expect you to have the answer either, but I've not seen
anyone ask it. Until then, I suspect that the situation may have more to
it than that.


--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

It's easier to insulate against arctic cold than to cool from volcanic heat.
Excessive cold is much better for machines than excessive heat.

-- Ken from Chicago

Atlas Bugged wrote:

If you leave economics out of the discussion, Bob clearly looks like some
sort of Luddite (and he is, in fact, among the Baddest Apes In The Monkey
House,) but once you add in the economic aspect, he's clearly right. The
bottoms of the oceans and the barrenness of the deserts are infinitely less
hostile than any known extra-Earthly spot, and a thousand times easier to
get to.

Bottom of the Ocean? Your Hab would be under several atmospheres of
pressure and Ocean water can be very corrosive. While a hab in space
only has to keep 1 atmospher or less of pressure in. Vacuum is not
corrosive. Radiation can be delt with by burrying your hab under 2-4m
of regolith. So from an engineering standpoint it would be easier to
design a hab for Moon/Mars/Space than the bottom of the Ocean.


Just my $0.02

Space Cadet


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go
beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a
space based civilization. Everything else are details.

Gary Gray 11/9/2005

Bob Kolker wrote:
EvilBill wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Historically, we've seen that such things only tend to embolden
the winners, not pacify them. It'll be somewhat like the Pope's
situation on a national scale. We won't be able to apologize to, or
appease them
enough. I don't have an answer, but that ain't it, either.

I have an answer: Genocide. Or more accurately Ethnocide since being
Muslim is not a racial thing.



So the answer is to murder a billion people just because a few
thousand are giving us problems?

Yes. We cant separate this people from the mass. So kill the mass.

Google cathar heresy Beziers for a history to this approach.


I'm familiar with the Cathars and the crusade carried out against them. I
also hoped the human race had grown beyond that sort of barbarism in the
last 800 years. But then, given the actions of a certain one-testicled git
from Austria and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocents at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and now the hundreds of thousands of civilians dead
in Afghanistan and Iraq, I guess not.

Kill them all and let Allah carry of the good ones to Paradise.


Question: what makes one group of people any more worthy of survival than
any other? As soon as we start going down that way of thinking, we're no
better than the Nazis.


Hmmm, so maybe we should wipe out the entire population of the US
because Bush stole the election? Or every Irish person just because
Ian Paisley won't shut his bigoted mouth.

Not comperable. The Muslims are out to get us.


So if all the Muslims are out to get us, how come there've only been 3 major
bombings attributable to Islamic extremists in the Western world since 2001?

That's right, because most of them are targeting our illegal occupation of
Iraq. They're not out to destroy us, just to get us out of their homelands.

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

Frank Glover wrote:
EvilBill wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:

EvilBill wrote:


Well, here's a radical idea: we could always call a ceasefire with
the people we're currently involved in slaughtering by the
thousands and stop spending so much on weapons and foreign wars.
Then there'd be more cash to go around.

The Muslim fanatics will not reciprocate. Any attempt to call a
truce will be interperted as weakness and spur them on to carry out
the Will of Allah to conquer and subjugate the dar al Harb. They
declared war on us, not we on them. WTC 1993 and 9/11 are
declarations of that war.


Actually their anger at the West is due to our continued support of
Israel and our interference in Middle Eastern politics. Not to
mention there's more and more doubt emerging about who was actually
responsible for 9/11. (Oh, and the FBI reckon Bin Laden's been dead
for nearly 5 years, too...) If we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and
stop lending active
support to Israel, 90% or more of what our governments refer to as
'terrorism' will stop.


That's certainly what they want in their heart of hearts, but to
assume that acheiving it would lead to some sort of peace (and just
wohat would Israel do in that scenario? Roll over? Or become more
desperate?) is nonsense.


Well, I figure, Israel can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they
leave us out of it. We need to clean our *own* houses before we start
getting involved in the affairs of other countries, IMO. Considering how the
US economy is in a state of free-fall and crime, pollution, political
corruption and religious nutcases are rampant in the US and Britain, we
desperately need to fix our own problems before we can even think about
anyone else's.

Historically, we've seen that such things only tend to embolden the
winners, not pacify them. It'll be somewhat like the Pope's situation
on a national scale. We won't be able to apologize to, or appease them
enough.
I don't have an answer, but that ain't it, either.

Well I figure if we tell them something along the lines of 'you leave us
alone and we'll leave you alone, you and Israel can blow each other to hell
for all we care, just don't involve us' most of them will listen. And the
few who don't can be taken care of by a well-trained surgical strike force.
All this bombing and massive invasions and stuff, it's like using a
bulldozer when one should be using a scalpel. Not to mention that since the
invasion of Iraq especially, the occupations, the torture, the endless
killing, it's made even the peaceful Muslims very angry at the West.

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

Bob Kolker wrote:
EvilBill wrote:


Let the Israelis respect the 1967 borders, then a solid framework
for peace can be established.

Well Hamas hasn't, why should the Israelis. Besides the Israelis won
the West Bank in a war they did not start. Neither did Jordon or
Syrian. Every other nation gets to keep territory they won in a war,
why not Israel.

Respecting the 1967 borders is tantamount to national suicide.

The Israelis were ready to accept the U.N. partition in 1946 and the
neighboring nations attacked them. Israel has no good reason for
playing nice.


If memory serves, Israel wasn't created until 1948.

Besides, we basically told millions of people who'd lived on that land for
1500 years, that they had to pack up and get out. And then the ones we
replace them with try to grab even *more* of that land. Is it any wonder the
Palestinians and their friends are ****ed off?

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk