|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#801
|
|||
|
|||
Why post on usenet? (was: Why Colonize Space?)
On Aug 12, 1:33 am, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:12:16 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde wrote: Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is no reason for humans to post on usenet. Are all arguments for sharing thoughts and other postings on usenet really that weak and irrelevant? In your cases, unquestionably. ah ha! I feel we are on to something here. So there is no reason in my case for sharing thoughts and making other postings on usenet BUT you felt the need to tell me this. I could of course brush this off as your shortcoming which it obviously is but lets assume I could compensate for our failure to communicate. Could we build say the equivalent of a space elevator to make my vast space of knowledge more accessible from your little world? The idea here is of course for me to learn something new. I mean, you are already sharing your thoughts with me in self proclaimed irrelevance. We might as well put you to good use. How can humans shamelessly suggest we should not visit other places? What are we still doing on this planet? Why cant we talk about this? What is wrong with the humans? Here are 2 pictures. http://www.kokogiak.com/solarsystemb...n200miles.html http://rocksfromspace.open.ac.uk/images/ssmap.jpg There might be oil there. *laughs* What is up with this "why" question? Is it something to do with "the real world"? The real world seems highly insignificant and unimpressive. We are that dot there. I know you usenetties, proud to be uninspired. You actually believe dreamers are people to laugh about. Shamelessly playing the "why" card. Size of Earth compare with stars http://blog.go-here.nl/7815 Then say "why go there?" *laughs* On Aug 12, 2:18 am, Uncle Al wrote: gabydewilde wrote: Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is no reason for humans to post on usenet. [snip rest of crap] One empirically observes subhumans are FOB ollie ollie oxen free. On Aug 12, 2:25 am, "Giggy Higgs" wrote: Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is no reason for humans to post on usenet. As a google-poster with a gmail address, your opinion is completely irrelevant, and further postings are entirely unwelcome. Zero creative thought, zero empathy, no dreams, no vision, totally uninspired.... and proud of it. Then try to convince yourself you are all that. HAHAHAHAHAHA But I don't need your conscious minds, those aren't in charge of anything anyway, meaningless nuance. They can be bypassed quite easily. And no, lies aren't going to save you this time. Due to a life support malfunction, Buck Rogers logic is accidentally frozen for 504 years from watching to much fox news, before the derelict mobile home is discovered in the year 2491. The combination of propaganda and advertisement that froze his body coincidentally comes close to the formula commonly used in the 25th Century for cryopreservation, and his rescuers are able to revive him. So, it is written in the Holly Wood prophecy thus so it will be. [crip snap] ______ http://blog.go-here.nl/spacetravel |
#802
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Aug 2, 12:56*am, (William December Starr) wrote:
In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said: Fair enough, but frankly whatever you think it will most likely happen. *After all president Bush Jr (not normally a favorite of mine) commited the US to this. No he didn't. *He just said things, all of which sounded nice and none of which committed the nation to anything even _during_ his time in office, let alone afterwards. -- wds that was the year before he promised to get the steriods outof baseball, wasn't it? or was it the year after? mission accomplished in triplicate. |
#803
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, (William December Starr) wrote:
In article , "Giga" said: [...] but it still avoids the question of *what* would be more useful to mine in space or on a non-terrestrial planet in the Solar system than here on Earth. HE3 AFAIU, And how far is that? Moon. No, I meant "How far is the 'far' in that 'AFAIU'?" Why do you think that Helium-3 would be useful -- as in, cost-effective -- to mine from the Moon, if it's to be found there? asteroids as well. What do you think is more useful to mine from asteroids than here on Earth? Its not what I just think, there are companies already looking into it. "Looking into it" not= "it will be more useful to mine X from asteroids than here on Earth." *It just means somebody's thinking about it (assuming that *a given company isn't just a shell designed to raise money from gullible investors and then vanish). *You* don't seem to have answers as to why anyone should, economically, want to invest in space colonization or exploitation. [...] Also you almost certainly need green-houses etc as well. None of which require preliminary slower-than-light colonization of the Solar system to develop. Colonisation of other planets would not be useful experience for colonisation of other planets? That statement cannot make sense even to you? Ah, you mean as practice for extra-solar colonization when/if a working faster-than-light drive is invented? *(I thought you were talking about hydroponics or something for use _on board_ an FTL but still years-long journey.) A good idea, except for the fact that it boils down to "We should colonize the Solar system just so we'll be ready *in case* an FTL drive is ever invented." Look, I'd really, really, really like to believe that there's a secret to breaking the speed-of-light limit out there just waiting for to be discovered, and that mankind is going to go to the stars and all that, but I'm not going to *assume* that it's going to happen and then bootstrap an "And *because it's going to happen, we'd better start getting getting ready for it *right now*" onto that. -- wds and of course, the old question: if intrastellar travel is possible, then where the hell is everybody? we're the only species in the galaxy capable of potentially figuring it out? |
#804
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Jul 23, 3:11*pm, ericthetolle wrote:
On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end) wrote: "William December Starr" wrote in ... In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said: That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet! I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially." -- wds : ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just waiting for us, shame to just settle for just one planet. You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet! COME! *COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! *COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! *THE RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! *POTENTIALLY WE CAN MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND! Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. *But if you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****. Eric Tolle- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible |
#805
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Aug 12, 3:31*am, z wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, (William December Starr) wrote: In article , "Giga" said: [...] but it still avoids the question of *what* would be more useful to mine in space or on a non-terrestrial planet in the Solar system than here on Earth. HE3 AFAIU, And how far is that? Moon. No, I meant "How far is the 'far' in that 'AFAIU'?" Why do you think that Helium-3 would be useful -- as in, cost-effective -- to mine from the Moon, if it's to be found there? asteroids as well. What do you think is more useful to mine from asteroids than here on Earth? Its not what I just think, there are companies already looking into it. "Looking into it" not= "it will be more useful to mine X from asteroids than here on Earth." *It just means somebody's thinking about it (assuming that *a given company isn't just a shell designed to raise money from gullible investors and then vanish). *You* don't seem to have answers as to why anyone should, economically, want to invest in space colonization or exploitation. [...] Also you almost certainly need green-houses etc as well. None of which require preliminary slower-than-light colonization of the Solar system to develop. Colonisation of other planets would not be useful experience for colonisation of other planets? That statement cannot make sense even to you? Ah, you mean as practice for extra-solar colonization when/if a working faster-than-light drive is invented? *(I thought you were talking about hydroponics or something for use _on board_ an FTL but still years-long journey.) A good idea, except for the fact that it boils down to "We should colonize the Solar system just so we'll be ready *in case* an FTL drive is ever invented." Look, I'd really, really, really like to believe that there's a secret to breaking the speed-of-light limit out there just waiting for to be discovered, and that mankind is going to go to the stars and all that, but I'm not going to *assume* that it's going to happen and then bootstrap an "And *because it's going to happen, we'd better start getting getting ready for it *right now*" onto that. -- wds and of course, the old question: if intrastellar travel is possible, then where the hell is everybody? we're the only species in the galaxy capable of potentially figuring it out? If we go to another planet the smart thing to do would be to build a base a few km underground. This should also explain where everybody is. *laughs* Our keepers did investigate the response to disclosure. People panicked -.- So now when you see an object in the sky to far away to identify it means you are crazy. Such logic gives the humans a warm fuzzy feeling inside. _____ http://blog.go-here.nl |
#806
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Aug 12, 3:36*am, z wrote:
On Jul 23, 3:11*pm, ericthetolle wrote: On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end) wrote: "William December Starr" wrote in ... In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said: That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet! I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially." -- wds : ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just waiting for us, shame to just settle for just one planet. You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet! COME! *COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! *COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! *THE RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! *POTENTIALLY WE CAN MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND! Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. *But if you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****. Eric Tolle- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible There are many rocks up there made of 'exotic' materials. As that we don't need human labor anymore building things is also much easier without gravity. Energy is also abundantly available. For radiolysis you only need a radioactive source. There is plenty of that up there. The most important components for the vision are the self replicating machines. We only need a very small amount of multifunctional harvesters and construction bots. Then can just order a space ship and they will make one for you. If energy and natural resources isn't an issue the only resources required are time and thought. Artificial intelligence will continue to expand, quantum computing may arrive soon. Then the only thing left will be time. One or two generations and the Legacy humans can be disposed of. A compiler, an emulator and an interpreter. A chip with everything humans documented in their brief existence. Additionally we will build mind uploading technology. Hooking peeps up to quantum computers is probably the first time humans are aware of anything. We can get rid of the primitive interfaces. :-) ____ http://blog.go-here.nl |
#807
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:16:37 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
wrote: exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible There are many rocks up there made of 'exotic' materials. We have no real reason to think that is true. The table of elements is the same no matter where you go. |
#808
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
Sean O'Hara wrote
Rod Speed wrote jmfbahciv wrote The Dark Ages were dark because trade was constrained to local geographical areas. No it wasnt. Most obviously with the crusades. "The Dark Ages" refers to the early Medieval period -- end of the Western Empire to about 900 or 1000 AD. Wrong. The term was invented by Francesco Petrarca for the time prior to his time of 1330s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages The Crusades didn't start until well after that. Pity there was plenty of trade outside local geographical areas even at the time you listed, most obviously with pilgrimages etc. And those were in fact the reason for the crusades, because so many of those pilgrims to the middle east were ****ed over there when they attempted to do that. And there were plenty of wars etc in the time you listed too, and plenty like the vikings got up to raids over their entire known world and quite a bit of their unknown world too. Jim's claim is just plain wrong. |
#809
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
Sean O'Hara wrote
Rod Speed wrote Sean O'Hara wrote Rod Speed wrote jmfbahciv wrote The Dark Ages were dark because trade was constrained to local geographical areas. No it wasnt. Most obviously with the crusades. "The Dark Ages" refers to the early Medieval period -- end of the Western Empire to about 900 or 1000 AD. Wrong. The term was invented by Francesco Petrarca for the time prior to his time of 1330s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages Nobody uses it in that sense anymore, Wrong, as always. as the very article you cite notes: Increased understanding of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages in the 19th century challenged the characterization of the entire period as one of darkness. Thus the term is often restricted to periods within the Middle Ages, namely the Early Middle Ages, though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase. Pity I rubbed your nose in the FACT that even in the early middle ages, those unspeakable vikings were rampaging over their entire known world and quite a bit of their unknown world too, so Jim's original is just plain wrong about even just the early middle ages. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. That was the time when the vikings and other barbarians were rampaging over their entire known world and quite a bit of their unknown world too, so Jim's original is just plain wrong about even just the early middle ages. In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay. The term "Dark Ages" is now rarely used in scholarship, and when used, it is often restricted to the Early Middle Ages. Irrelevant to Jim's claim about whatever you want to call that time. If you tell a Medieval history or lit professor that the 13th Century (the greatest of Centuries) was part of the Dark Ages, you'll be laughed out of the room. In spades with your mindless pig ignorant silly **** about Western Empire to about 900 or 1000 AD and even just the vikings alone. In spades with the Normans that did a hell of a lot more than just 'trade was constrained to local geographical areas' in the time you are pig ignorantly proclaiming about. Jim was just plain wrong and you are in spades. |
#810
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
On Aug 12, 4:36*am, z wrote:
On Jul 23, 3:11*pm, ericthetolle wrote: On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end) wrote: "William December Starr" wrote in ... In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said: That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet! I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially." -- wds : ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just waiting for us, shame to just settle for just one planet. You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet! COME! *COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! *COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! *THE RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! *POTENTIALLY WE CAN MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND! Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. *But if you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****. Eric Tolle- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible As Heinlein said-it is not a good idea to keep all our eggs in one basket. There is also the fact that the Earth can't sustain human growth indefinitely,and we can find more resources and room for growth in space,and the possibilities for scientific exploration. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bill Stone is determined to colonize outer space | [email protected][_1_] | Policy | 4 | July 2nd 07 12:25 AM |
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes | G. L. Bradford | Policy | 33 | April 1st 06 07:02 PM |
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes | G. L. Bradford | Policy | 3 | March 31st 06 02:22 AM |
Let's Colonize the Universe | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 21 | March 23rd 04 09:04 PM |
Best asteroids to colonize? | Hop David | Technology | 3 | August 14th 03 07:12 PM |