|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
: :Ian Parker wrote: : : No I really meant the sort of bacteria that are ubiquious on Earth. : You would in fact feel ill if the fauna of your gut disappeared. : Indigestion is indeed a side effect of the oral adminisration of : antibiotics. : : :Ian, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt to hysics, : I'm not. He doesn't know **** about virtually everything he bleats about. : :... but it's quite clear you're an absolute _dolt_ in the :area of microbiology. You obviously know nothing about e- :donors, acceptors or shuttles and even less about bacterial :metabolism or proteomics. : o yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all :doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion. : Far too late for that, Deirdre. His problem has been obvious for a long, long time.... -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
"Fred J. McCall" wrote: Ian Parker wrote: :The richness of terresrial bateria means that considerable care needs :to be taken on a aseptic space surface. This is what I meant. Nothing :about Al-Qaeda. Why? I seriously doubt we're going to be running about bare faced on Mars, Ian. Even if we did, the likelihood of an epidermal bacterium species finding its metabolic needs met on a plantary surface are so small as to make no odds...thermal needs alone would condemn it. Even assuming it could mutate fast enough to use a mineral based e- acceptor, what the hell would it use as a e- donor? _This_ is why discussing science with a tabloid edu- cated laymen is a waste of time, Fred...you notice he's never yet answered the question regarding his peer- reviewed bona fides for physics and now he wants us to believe he can speak intelligently on microbiology. Deirdre |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
: :_This_ is why discussing science with a tabloid edu- :cated laymen is a waste of time, Fred...you notice he's :never yet answered the question regarding his peer- :reviewed bona fides for physics and now he wants us :to believe he can speak intelligently on microbiology. : I'd settle for him being able to speak intelligently about ANYTHING. If he could he might actually have something of value to say once in a while. But he can't. He has 'strong interests' where what he actually needs is KNOWLEDGE. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
On 21 Feb, 15:25, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote: Ian Parker wrote: On 21 Feb, 00:40, kT wrote: Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote: Ian Parker wrote: Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert. Contamination by _what_? Zombies. Zombie stowaways are the worst. Be sure to check all your flight lockers to make sure no zombies are hiding in there, and check for any Al Queda operatives as well. It's better to be safe than free, especially in space. No I really meant the sort of bacteria that are ubiquious on Earth. You would in fact feel ill if the fauna of your gut disappeared. Indigestion is indeed a side effect of the oral adminisration of antibiotics. Ian, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt to physics, but it's quite clear you're an absolute _dolt_ in the area of microbiology. * You obviously know nothing about e- donors, acceptors or shuttles and even less about bacterial metabolism or proteomics. Do yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion. So you can gurantee non contamination. I just don't believe you. - Ian Parker |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
On 21 Feb, 16:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: :On 20 Feb, 22:39, Fred J. McCall wrote: : Ian Parker wrote: : : :On 20 Feb, 18:56, Deirdre Sholto wrote: : : : : : Lovely...does that mean you'll no longer be presenting : : to an empty room? : : : : : :I think the conclusion must be that sci.space.policy is totally : :lacking in constructive ideas. This should have been obvious a lot : :earlier. : : : : No, I think the conclusion must be that the Artificial Stupidity : System (A.S.S.) known locally as 'Ian Parker' is too bloody thick to : have an idea, constructive or otherwise. : : : : :All they seem to want to do is put panspermia from Eareth into : ractice. Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert. : : : : As is contamination from any unmanned expedition, apparently. : : Is this your latest 'cause', Ian? *Given up on AI, von Neumann : machines, and all the rest of your usual claptrap to now claim manned : flight is bad because of possible contamination? : : It goes without saying that you're a bloody moron. : : :Look, those are the areas NASA is now investigating. : But they're not. *SOME of them are being looked at, but not as "We have to have this to go on" things, as you insist they are. : :We have indeed reached the end of the road. : Well, thank Ghu! *I assume that means you're going to now shut up and slink away. : :NASA will find you inceasiningly irrelevant - and your girlfriend. : No, Ian. *They'll just continue to ignore idiots like you. You know, I posted some serious discussion in response to one of your articles several days ago. *That reply has been met by a deafening silence on your part. I think you stand revealed for what you are by that, A.S.S. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine I've never seen anything. May have been a bit in piles of ****. Fact remains how do you view NASA's contribution to Kurtzweil's university? Nobody has EVER answered that question. I would have thought it was a perfectly straightforward one. Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad? - Ian Parker |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
Ian Parker wrote: Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad? No, he's saying he thinks _you're_ mad. And I suspect there are a lot of folk who think he's right. Deirdre |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Americans - Insane in the Membrane
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad? No, he's saying he thinks _you're_ mad. And I suspect there are a lot of folk who think he's right. Oh, this is rich. Let's put Ian's 'madness' into a little perspective. There are some who think Americans are so butt ****ing dumb, they would elect George W. Bush and his cronies, TWICE, and let them walk away with trillions in war profits, while violating the United States Constitution and killings hundreds of thousands of innocents, if not MILLIONS of innocent people. There are some who think Americans are so butt ****ing dumb that they would pin all of their space hopes on a bureauacracy so illiterate that they would come up with a rocket as idiotic as the Ares I, and continue with its development AS IF NOTHING WERE WRONG WITH IT, and no complain. There are some who think Americans are so ****ing stupid that they would rather forget that any of this happened, is happening, or even worse, deny its occurrence altogether. Americans - dumber than ****, insane in the membrane. Do you get it now, bitch? |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Americans - Insane in the Membrane
kT wrote: Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote: Ian Parker wrote: Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad? No, he's saying he thinks _you're_ mad. And I suspect there are a lot of folk who think he's right. Oh, this is rich. Let's put Ian's 'madness' into a little perspective. [gibbering elided] Do you get it now, bitch? Dear me, yet _another_ nitwit? What have any of your political dibblings to do with Ian's inability to discuss science in a meaningful manner? From under which rock did you and your ADD slither? Deirdre |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Americans - Insane in the Membrane
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
What have any of your political dibblings to do with Ian's inability to discuss science in a meaningful manner? The science pales in significance to your problems, mammal lady. From under which rock did you and your ADD slither? From under the water soaked rocks of the planet Earth. Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE. Why are you even bothering? |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Valeev is by no means the worst offender
On 21 Feb, 15:25, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote: Ian Parker wrote: On 21 Feb, 00:40, kT wrote: Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote: Ian Parker wrote: Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert. Contamination by _what_? Zombies. Zombie stowaways are the worst. Be sure to check all your flight lockers to make sure no zombies are hiding in there, and check for any Al Queda operatives as well. It's better to be safe than free, especially in space. No I really meant the sort of bacteria that are ubiquious on Earth. You would in fact feel ill if the fauna of your gut disappeared. Indigestion is indeed a side effect of the oral adminisration of antibiotics. Ian, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt to physics, but it's quite clear you're an absolute _dolt_ in the area of microbiology. * You obviously know nothing about e- donors, acceptors or shuttles and even less about bacterial metabolism or proteomics. Do yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion. These are all nano issues. Very, very interesting to be sure but not something you have discussed before. If you are really serious I would have thought that the time and place was after the NASA/Singularity announcement. I don't think you are looking for a serious answer though. I think you have used the Honeywell Buzzword Generator. What you said is extremly relevant to NASA, Kurtzweil and what they are trying to achieve, but not really relevant to my comments on contamination, where I really simply wanted to illustrate the ubiquity of bacteria. Nano in many respects represents a region intermediate between the organic and inorganic. What happens in a silican solar panel? What happens in phtosynthesis. The quantum mechanics is the same in both cases. In the case of silicon we have a voltage, we can if we have enough devices drive an air conditioning system. Even drive one of Google's servers! They have promised to be carbon neutral. In the case of photosynthesis we have a kind of redox reaction where an intermediate product of some sort is formed. In fact a number of Krebs cycles are required to produce sugars, starches etc. Genetic engineering can be used to provide hydrogen as one of the end products. Nano will enable redox reactions. Thinking about things a little bit deeper perhaps the extraction of Platinum is not so way out after all. Platinum, after all has its place on the electrochemical series. What is needed therefore for any mineral is the correct redox potential. This is not that different in principle from selectively extracting metals in electrochemical cells. However I suspect that the last thing you want is a proper discussion of the poteial of nanotech. As I said I suspect you were going with Honeywell. That is a typical Al-kalb technique. KT is wrong you are not a bitch merely the daughter of one. - Ian Parker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Try claiming the road's unique offender and Abdul will reply you! | Norma | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 15th 07 08:26 PM |
~ * Morning Wood means Ways & Means, Too ~ ! | Twittering One | Misc | 0 | May 2nd 05 06:58 AM |
Copyright means NOTHING in the real world ( GPL means NOTHING in Germany!) | Kelsey Bjarnason | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 11th 03 03:38 PM |