Space travel by humans is not possible now

jacob navia wrote:
:
:This is normal. People just do not realize how different the vast
:space ocean is from all other oceans that we crossed in the past.
:

Hogwash. From watching what you say, I would venture that everyone
here probably has a better and more extensive education than you do on
these matters.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

jacob navia wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :To find out more about Mars what we need is an agile rover that can
: :drill. We would want faster travel than the present rovers and we
: :would expect a large number of locations on Mars to be examined.
: :
:
: No, what you need is an agile intelligent rover that can replicate
: human vision and judgment, drill, fully analyze, and modify its
: program based on what it finds, traveling much faster than present
: rovers.
:
:
:We have one. The geologist behind the controls, sitting safely
:ON EARTH, without bothering about maintaining the life support
:system, bothering about protecting himself from the freezing cold,
:trying to avoid the lethal radiation, etc. He can safely focus
n exploring, without concern for all uninteresting aspects of
:exploration by humans in person!
:
:And if he is tired, he can pass the controls to someone else,
:and take holidays, to restart in a few weeks fresh again.
:

Won't work well. Too slow, the remote sensors aren't adequate, and
you can do a full analysis unless you bring the samples back. You
can't take samples, analyze them, and then change the program based on
what you learn.

Everything takes orders of magnitude longer your way and isn't as
effective even given that slowing.

: In other words, what you need is a geologist with a car, a drill, and
: a lab.
:
:
:Obvious. But we have those.
:

Obviously you don't, unless you send the men, the car, the drill, and
the lab. That is what you're opposed to doing.

:
:
: Without men on the scene, what you need is unobtainium.
:
:
:Both rovers have no humans. Dr Squyres sits safely on earth with
:his team of explorers. And they are working 4 years now,
:
:EXPLORING MARS!
:
:They are doing it TODAY, Mr. McCall. Not someday but TODAY.
:

Yes, and in the years they spend doing it they will learn less than
would be learned in a few weeks on scene.

:
:
: Rovers can't
: go fast because they'll miss things and wreck.
:
:
:Who cares?
:

Ask Dr Squyres how he'd feel about that.

:
:We are not in the F1 here. Advances in robotics have allowed
:to improve greatly the software and the machines are now much more
:autonomous than 4 years ago when they first landed.
:
:Better robots will follow.
:

And will still be inadequate and slow and you'll want to wreck them,
too. And everyone will care when you do. So you won't get the money
for your next one.

:
:
: Automated labs can
: only do automated tests. Lots of tests can't be done.
:
:
:You can do all the tests you want, if you carry them there. If you don't
:you can't do them, even if there is a human there.
:

What an abysmally ignorant statement!

You really don't know anything at all about this stuff, do you?

: :
: :BTW - A manned Mars expedition would in point of fact be confined to
: ne location. There would be immovable living accommodation and
: :exploration would be fitted round that.
: :
:
: And it would still cover a lot more ground than a rover could and do
: it in much, much less time.
:
:
:No. They would have to worry about their precious LIFE SUPPORT, their
:logistics, their energy needs.
:

Not a particularly big worry. Why don't you take a look at our lunar
experience? Manned is much better.

:Each mars robot survives now with only 300-800W per day. The life
:support machines for humans would need 3-4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more
:than that, just for avoiding astronaut freezing with
:night temperatures of -100 Centigrade.
:
:Not to speak about oxygen/CO2 recycling, food, waste disposal,
:etc!
:
:Solar energy can't supply that enormous amount of energy.
:Mars is farther from the sun than the earth. So you need
:enormous quantities of fuel.
:

Which you can make in situ. Store it in the vehicle. Cover ground
orders of magnitude faster than a robot rover can, even with
telepresence.

:
:ALl tjis makes astronauts much SLOWER than robots, since they could
:not go too far away from their air conditioning and that
:air conditioning/Life support is FIXED since it needs too much
:energy to be transported easily.
:

The preceding is merely counterfactual.

:
:
: Why ever would you use "the last stage of the rocket" for this? Where
: have you been through the rest of the discussion where I already
: suggested how easy this 'problem' was to solve simply dividing your
: mission into two pieces?
:
:
:1) Sending robots
:2) Sending humans
:

You don't read very well, do you? Not what was meant at all.

:
:We agree about (1). But why do we need (2)?
:

We don't agree about 1). We need 2) to actually do the real job.

: :
: :I notice that you are French. I am British, just the other side of the
: :sleeve (La Manche).
: :
:
: And I note that neither of you have any hope of a major manned OR
: unmanned program on your own, which explains much of what follows.
:
:
:No. We collaborate in a thing called "European union". And we have
:reached Saturn, Mars, Venus, and the moon with our machines. Obviously
:we do not have any manned plans besides the ISS that we do (as with the
:Saturn expedition) together with NASA.
:
:But of course you have never heared about that apparently.
:
:I would recommend you to inform yourself at
:
:http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html
:

I would recommend you smear yourself with clue musk and try to find
the clue mating grounds. You probably still won't be able to get a
clue...

: :
: :I have always felt that a scientific effort of any
: :sort should be international. I also feel that any large scale
: :commercial project should have international backing and support.
: :
:
: There you go 'feeling' again. Try that 'thinking' thing, instead.
:
:
:You should follow your own advice.
:

You should try pulling your head out. After all, you're the one who
refuses to think and insists that everything is an insoluble problem
that will require a century to address (just so long as it's a problem
with something you don't want to do).

You really are massively stupid if you believe planetary science
funding will continue in the absence of a manned program.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Paulf Foley wrote:
:
:I doubt that any kind of manned space exporation can be called
:"useful".
:

Then there isn't any kind of unmanned space 'exploration' outside of
Earth sciences that can be called "useful", either, and we should kill
it all now.


--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."

-- Confucius

jacob navia wrote:

:Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: Please provide a single example of someone who "thinks it is the
: same," or abandon your latest foolish straw man.
:
:Mr McCall for instance.
:

Wrong again. You've gone from merely stupid to outright dishonest.
Congratulations.

:
:Exploration was always done "in person" before robotics existed.
:Mr McCall fails to grasp what is the difference now, and naively
roposes sending people to explore, as if those people were going
:to some far away continent, not unlike earth.
:

You should really get someone else to do your reading for you. If the
preceding is what you've gotten as your 'interpretation' of what's
been said, you have a future in politics. It's the only field of
endeavour where your kind of 'spin' and outright lies are the usual
stock in trade.

:
:For instance
:
:quote
::
::The ISS needs a constant supply of
::materials from earth to keep it running. All that is impossible
::in a Mars trip.
::
:
:So you take it with you from the start. All that requires is
lanning.
:end quote
:
:The difficulties of hoarding 2-3 years worth of supplies
:for several people and the return trip fuel
:somewhere in Mars, when all mankind has been able to do to date
:is to land a few KILOGRAMS there, is completely beyond his
:grasp.
:
:Just put some people in a rocket and there you go.
:

Go compute the numbers. They aren't as overwhelming as you want to
claim.

:
:He wasn't even *aware* of the problem of landing on Mars for
:a really heavy spaceship loaded with a life-support system for 4 people.
:

What an ignorant ass you are. Why don't you go look back through the
archives. This was discussed in detail months and month ago, before
you even figured out how to type stupidity into Usenet.

:
:Nobody knows how to do that except Mr McCall of course, that just fires
:the rockets and lands...
:

Given sufficient fuel and proper design you CAN do that. You just
can't do it with a robot mission. Insufficient judgment.

You stupidly want to look for insoluble problems, so every problem is
viewed as insoluble. And they probably are, to people like you.
However, apply some people with a few brains and some education and
the problems tend to get a lot more soluble.

Hell, you're too stupid to even look at past funding cycles to see
what happens to funding for your 'toasters to the planets' wet dream
when funding for manned missions goes down.

Back in the old days we used to say, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

What your sort need to relearn is the converse of that lesson. "No
Buck Rogers, no bucks."


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

But those rad-hard robotics are w/o brown-nose, and not even semitic.
(that's not what our NASA is about)
- Brad Guth


jacob navia wrote:
Human space travel is a big source of profits for aerospace companies.

The advantages are that the scientific returns are very low or zero, so
there is no need to spend money paying scientists to gather and
understand data, all the profits go in building hardware that is
used for a few days/weeks and the thrown away.

In the ISS, for instance, billions have been paid to aerospace
industries for hardware that has produced not a single intersting
scientific result, and that has dwarfed the budget of science within
NASA.

Take for instance a mission like the Mars Rovers. After four years in
Mars, those machines are still working perfectly, returning scientific
data and allowing the exploration of Mars in an unprecedented scale.

The total budget of the Mars rovers was around 900 million, and it has
returned gigabytes of data, measurements, photographs, etc.

This is more or less what a single trip of the space shuttle costs.

In this group, one of the most vocal advocates of this "humans
into space and to hell with science" is Mr McCall, that will not
hesitate to insult anyone disagreeing with his views.

Mostly his arguments are just at the level of

"bull ****"

or

"stupid".

Personally I do not care, but facts are stubborn. Human presence
in space is unnecessary, even more so in the moon. The basic
groundwork is not there, in terms of working life support
systems that can stay in space for 4 years without any failure.

It can be argued that astronauts can "fix" a life support system,
and this is partially true, but it depends heavily on the type
of failu to repair a life support system you need a life support
system that keeps you alive.

There is an emergency escape frm the ISS. That choice is not available
halfway from the distance to Mars.

This is a basic UNSOLVED problem.

Space radiation is another, completely unsolved one. The experience
of the ISS is of no use since the earth magnetic field protects the
ISS, a protection that people in the way to Mars will not have.

This is another UNSOLVED problem.

Gravity effects (or rather its absence) is another problem. We just
do not know since we have no data about the long term effects on
the body of 2 years without gravity. It is a fact that exercise
and countermeasures do NOT work, and there is a continuous bone
mass loss in space.

This is another UNSOLVED problem.

You can say that "artificial gravity" etc, but the problems to solve to
put that to work are quite big.

Another unsolved problem is how to land in Mars, what is a very
difficult problem that is very complex to solve for small
mass vehicles and completely unknown for huge mass vehicles
like a spaceship with 4 people and its life support, supposing the
2-3 years supplies are previously sent to Mars by robots.

This host of problems (all of them unsolved) makes any proposition for
manned Mars missions just a waste of money.

All of this problems CAN be solved, and (I am sure) they WILL be solved,
but not before this century has finished.

A new society is needed to give the drive to go into space. A society
that cares about exploration and that is ready to pay make the effort
it will take to develop a life-support system that can take us to the
stars.

Before that life support system is there, all the things being
done here are just pipe dreams.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On 21 Jan, 00:39, Einar wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:17 pm, Paulf Foley wrote:





Einar wrote:
Hmm, I think humans need to get out there in the long run. However,
the emphasis ought to be on cost effective robotic crafts in the
nearterm. There is no reason for humans themselves to go beyond the
Earth/Moon system, for the next few decates.

Basigly, we need technological improvements as well as improved
reliability. As a result, I´m an advocate of going back to the Moon,
as it´s nearby and also because it´s hostile enough being there for
technological fixes applied there being applicaple once we begin to
emerge into deepspace from the Earth/Moon system.

In the meantime actual manned travel ought to be brief, and only done
when actually useful to do so. Eventually, going to Mars will be
useful...

Problem with going back to the moon is we've been there, done that. *I
see little political future for actually carrying out this mission,
paying the staggering cost in a time of budget deficit, a looming social
security crisis, and serious health care funding problems. *The best
possible outcome of Back to the Moon is repeating a past success, and
there is the real possibility of tragic and humiliating failure. *And
there's not even the incentive anymore of a space race against the
godless Commies.

Returning to the moon is supposedly a stepping stone to Mars. *If a
mission to Mars doesn't make sense, then there is no reason for the moon
mission.

Sure, there's bound to be technological improvements over the next
decades. *Most likely in electronics, communications, computers, AI,
remote sensing. *All stuff that underscores the logic of robotic
missions. *I doubt people will evolve much in the coming decades. *And
given the trouble we still have getting people into even low earth
orbit, I doubt rocketry will advance much in the coming decades either.

I doubt that any kind of manned space exporation can be called
"useful". *This is another misleading aspect of the Christopher Columbus
analogy. *He wasn't sailing the ocean blue for curiosity's sake. *He was
looking for a quick cheap trade route.

In short I don´t agree with you. We were there once, but what I´m
talking about is prencense, not a brief public relations exerzise. In
addition, Mars is just a destination among many.

What I´m talking about is to prepare humanity for space. For that the
Moon is ideal, because it´s nearby and it´s hostile enough for lessons
there to have a meaning.

The real breakthrough will come, and indeed can only come when
techniques are developed for exploiting the resources of space. We
need in essense to go to the Moon or an asteroid and extract some raaw
materials. Is this code for astronauts. Not a bit of it. The arguments
for astronauts/robots apply just as much to mining as they do for
science. Perhaps in many ways more so.

In terms of "preparing us for space", were you the person who
suggested that religious groups would be in the vanguard of space
colonists. In view of the current situation in the Middle East this
seems the craziest suggestion out.

If we can establish a manufacturing capability in space Earth will be
a much more habitable place. We can tell that that the extinction of
the dinosaurs was caused by a meterorite comes with the concentration
of Iridium. If we need more platinoid elements for catalysts etc. they
are available in space. There is Space Solar Power and the prospect of
being able to exercise fine climate control. The reason BTW for the
abundance of platinoids is that most of the platinoids on Earth are at
the center.

Let us look at people in space soberly and rationally. There is no
scientific or commercial need. Science and commerce are far better
served by robots, the technology of which is constantly improving. The
sole argument is a humanistic one. We do need adventure. A $60e9
(optimistic) price tag is rather a high price. If you could go to Mars
with money raised in sponsorship, speaking tours etc. then go. I do
not believe there is any disguising the fact that a vast tranche of
public money is required. Nobody says anything else.

Having established that we do not need a manned presence for climate/
weather control or SSP we can now start to look at the Earth. 90% of
the world's population live on 10% of the land. This simple fact tells
us that in the short/medium term at least there is little point in
space colonization. Space can indeed help us to make 90% of the
world's land habitable, principly through SSP allowing desalination
and the opening up of arid lands.

In addition, while the cold war is well past, other nations are
gearing up to do Moon missions of theyr own. If USA isn´t going, that
doesn´t mean human kind isn´t going. Mind you, I wont mind terribly if
USA chooses to stay home when the others choose to go. But, on
ballance I´d prefer the USians to be there as well.

That´s the big change really. That´s what will give USA the impetus to
go, i.e. they´ll not want to be left behind.

Anyhow, the expence isn´t going to be so huge that social security or
the economy, or the other thing you mentioned, is going to be
substantially affected one way or another.

The arguments I have put forward indicate that manned spacelight is
not a good idea for anyone. As far as social security, the economy
etc. being affected is concerned, any item of government expenditure
is likely to benefit from $60billion. Spending is a matter of
priorities. With the Cold War over (sometimes I doubt it is the way
Russia is behaving) prestige pure and simple is no longer a
justification.


- Ian Parker

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:52:12 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Let us look at people in space soberly and rationally.

Based on all of your posts here, for years, you don't know how to look
at *anything* rationally.

There is no scientific or commercial need.

Your simply stating your foolish assertions doesn't make them true.

Science and commerce are far better
served by robots, the technology of which is constantly improving.

Again, Ian Parker making an idiotic assertion doesn't render it valid.

The
sole argument is a humanistic one. We do need adventure. A $60e9
(optimistic) price tag is rather a high price. If you could go to Mars
with money raised in sponsorship, speaking tours etc. then go. I do
not believe there is any disguising the fact that a vast tranche of
public money is required. Nobody says anything else.

Many people say else, including me.

Having established that we do not need a manned presence for climate/
weather control or SSP we can now start to look at the Earth.

No one, including you, has established that, no matter how many times
your ignorantly repeat it. Simply making mistaken and unsupported
assertions is not the same as "establishing" them.

90% of
the world's population live on 10% of the land. This simple fact tells
us that in the short/medium term at least there is little point in
space colonization.

No, it doesn't tell anyone that, except loons, who are unfamiliar with
logic.
..
The arguments I have put forward indicate that manned spacelight is
not a good idea for anyone.

You have yet to put forward *any* actual arguments. They are merely a
series of unsupported and ignorant assertions. An argument is a
series of premises, with a conclusion supported by the rules of logic.
In your "arguments," there are occasionally premises, but they are
almost never supported, and usually wrong, and your conclusions rarely
follow from them.

Have you ever noticed that no one here ever agrees with you (other
than, occasionally, your fellow loons)? This is a clue that you're
not making arguments at all, let alone convincing ones.

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Let us look at people in space soberly and rationally.
:

Yes, let's.

:
:There is no scientific or commercial need.
:

Oh, I guess you didn't mean it and just wanted to continue your usual
whine.

:
:The arguments I have put forward indicate that manned spacelight is
:not a good idea for anyone.
:

Ian, you don't put forward arguments. You make statements of
ill-informed opinion as if they are dicta.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 21 Jan, 13:16, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:52:12 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Let us look at people in space soberly and rationally.

Based on all of your posts here, for years, you don't know how to look
at *anything* rationally.

There is no scientific or commercial need.

Your simply stating your foolish assertions doesn't make them true.

How can there be? Robotics and AI are developing faster than anything
else. I reckon we will have an agile robot long before even Ares is
certified. If you have a robot with human manual dexterity what
possible scientific or commercial use does manned space flight have?

Science and commerce are far better
served by robots, the technology of which is constantly improving.

Again, Ian Parker making an idiotic assertion doesn't render it valid.

I have news for you , you idiotic smearer. Lots and lots of people
have this view. It is the majority view.

The
sole argument is a humanistic one. We do need adventure. A $60e9
(optimistic) price tag is rather a high price. If you could go to Mars
with money raised in sponsorship, speaking tours etc. then go. I do
not believe there is any disguising the fact that a vast tranche of
public money is required. Nobody says anything else.

Many people say else, including me.

I have asked you how tyou would do itr. You have always been evasive.

Having established that we do not need a manned presence for climate/
weather control or SSP we can now start to look at the Earth.

No one, including you, has established that, no matter how many times
your ignorantly repeat it. *Simply making mistaken and unsupported
assertions is not the same as "establishing" them.

It may seem a tall order, but it isn't half such a tall order as a
space colony. Lets look at the mass requirements.

1) A space colony.
2) Desalination of an O'Neill sized piece of desert on Earth.

It just does not bear compasrison.

It is of course quite possible to do a lot terrestrially. Several
O'Neill sized colonies could be established in the desert by simply
putting panels on the rooves in Damascus. This however underlines
rather than invalidates the basic point.

If you have a set of mirrors you can control the amount of sunlight
arriving on the Earth. Again mass high by todays stansards, but a lot
lot less than what we are talking about.

90% of
the world's population live on 10% of the land. This simple fact tells
us that in the short/medium term at least there is little point in
space colonization.

No, it doesn't tell anyone that, except loons, who are unfamiliar with
logic.
.

Smear, smear, smear. I am simply saying that there is plenty of space
in arid areas.

The arguments I have put forward indicate that manned spacelight is
not a good idea for anyone.

You have yet to put forward *any* actual arguments. *They are merely a
series of unsupported and ignorant assertions. *An argument is a
series of premises, with a conclusion supported by the rules of logic.
In your "arguments," there are occasionally premises, but they are
almost never supported, and usually wrong, and your conclusions rarely
follow from them.

Have you ever noticed that no one here ever agrees with you (other
than, occasionally, your fellow loons)? *This is a clue that you're
not making arguments at all, let alone convincing ones.

I represent the majority opinion of scientists. There are very few who
would say that human manual dexterity will result in a period
considerably less than 20 years. are you seriously saying that this is
wrong. You seem to me to be a closet creationalist. I am not even
postualating all human intelligence, I am just talking about manual
dexterity. I cannot understand why anyone doubts it.

In fact I don't really think you do. You are a military man - you must
be. You smear like the military. Loons round Phoenix saw UFOs. In fact
they turned out to have a very terrestrial origin. They were stealth
aircraft. Since radars are now being developed that can nullify
stealth, one wonders why everyone had to be slandered anyway.

You are clearly not a scientist, scientists conduct their arguments
very differently. You seem to have some knowledge of rocket
technology, although quite frankly your descriptions of control theory
make me cringe.

I feel the miliary gives its "Beni al kalb" (sons of dogs) this sort
of training. You have to be "al kalb" to be in the military. Bints
(arb pl binat) get more severe treatment than beni as was the case at
Abu Ghraib. People wonder why you never win "hearts and minds". It is
easy for anyone to see why.

You pooh pooh unmanned aircraft. Are you aware of what Boeing is
doing? Sonetimes I wonder whether you say what you really know or not.
You have frequently called me names and lo and behold, not only was I
right, but you knew I was right all the time.

I think everyone should know you for what you are.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 21 Jan, 13:16, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

[Long, rambling Ian Parker Artificial Stupidity System (ASS) spew
elided.]

:
:
: Have you ever noticed that no one here ever agrees with you (other
: than, occasionally, your fellow loons)? *This is a clue that you're
: not making arguments at all, let alone convincing ones.
:
:
:I represent the majority opinion of scientists.
:

Then science is in much more trouble than I thought.

:
:There are very few who
:would say that human manual dexterity will result in a period
:considerably less than 20 years.
:

Which has little, if anything, to do with anything.

:
:are you seriously saying that this is
:wrong. You seem to me to be a closet creationalist.
:

You seem to me to be a closet ASS.

:
:I am not even
ostualating all human intelligence,
:

That's good, because you don't seem to be equipped with human
intelligence.

:
:I am just talking about manual
:dexterity. I cannot understand why anyone doubts it.
:

I haven't seen anyone in particular do so. What they 'doubt' are the
loony inferences you draw from there.

:
:In fact I don't really think you do. You are a military man - you must
:be. You smear like the military.
:

You're an idiot -- you must be. You fixate on false irrelevancies
like an idiot.

:
:Loons round Phoenix saw UFOs. In fact
:they turned out to have a very terrestrial origin. They were stealth
:aircraft. Since radars are now being developed that can nullify
:stealth, one wonders why everyone had to be slandered anyway.
:

All wrong. Just a few hints...

Hint: Groom Lake is nowhere near Phoenix. It is, in point of fact,
in an entirely different state.

Hint: There is no evidence for your claim that anyone saw 'stealth
aircraft'. Please provide a CREDIBLE (look it up) cite for this
claim.

Hint: There is no evidence that anyone 'slandered' anyone, even if
you assume anyone saw anything real.

:
:You are clearly not a scientist, scientists conduct their arguments
:very differently.
:

You are clearly not a scientist, scientists actually conduct arguments
rather than making unsupported loony remarks.

Hint: Scientists don't keep thumping their chests and talking about
how other people "aren't".

:
:You seem to have some knowledge of rocket
:technology, although quite frankly your descriptions of control theory
:make me cringe.
:

I don't believe I've ever seen Rand give any "descriptions of control
theory".

[More loony A.S.S. spew elided]

:
:You pooh pooh unmanned aircraft.
:

No he didn't. It was just another case of you not being able to read.

:
:Are you aware of what Boeing is
:doing? Sonetimes I wonder whether you say what you really know or not.
:

I used to wonder whether you knew anything. After long trails of
evidence from your keyboard I'm certain you don't.

:
:You have frequently called me names and lo and behold, not only was I
:right, but you knew I was right all the time.
:

Ian, I've never seen you be right. In this even a broken clock is
better than you.

:
:I think everyone should know you for what you are.
:

I think you make it obvious to everyone what you are.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine