NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:51:52 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 3:35:41 PM UTC+1, wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:01:49 AM UTC-4, oriel36 wrote:



On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:17:11 PM UTC+1, wrote:







"Because he took a long time to come up with an answer, that answer

was logically correct and yet completely useless!"







My turn !. You got the 'bot' thing from Peterson who,on meeting me face

to face,commented and concluded that I was actually a human being.







Your meeting with Peterson is irrelevant in that it does not preclude

the high probability that a 'bot is creating the vast bulk of the Oriole36 trash.







If you are indeed typing out all of that drivel by yourself, then

consider that a 'bot will save you some effort and, as an added benefit,

improve the quality of your posts.





Listen son,when you replied to me in that post what you effectively did

was undermine whatever contention you had therefore it says more about

yourself than it does me. Here is what you do,post something on astronomy

and I will take care of the rest so that,despite the apparent

differences,you empiricists are all alike apart from the fact that your

posts are effectively unanswerable.



Learn your lesson and chatter away with political inanities so that you

do yourself no further harm.



Those who love astronomy will see it emerge as a force once more and they

may even enjoy seeing the words of the great astronomers appear once more

along with imaging and graphics to support or modify their perceptions.



You've upset Oriel now!

When he's upset he goes into patronising mode and starts calling people

'son'.

I don't do personal if you haven't noticed Collins,you live and die in this forum based on historical and technical details of astronomy so the other guy is excused as possibly the dullest contributor to this forum.

The unfortunate guy replies to me a few days ago and then talks about worthless 'bots' so he is best left to his own devices. Your statement is surprising but that is your choice .

Now back to astronomy and terrestrial sciences.

On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:40:19 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:45:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:48:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:

http://www.wpr.org/global-civilization-headed-collapse

All the writer of that article has to do to survive the "collapse" is to be
living on a hippie commune somewhere. In the meantime he will still have to rely on "unequal wealth distribution" to provide him with the latest electronic gadgets, designer clothes & glasses, hybrid SUVs, coffee flavorings, etc.

So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet, that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.

I have no definition of the terms "enough money" or "ultra-wealthy." Maybe you do?

Keep in mind that some would think that you already have "too much money" by whatever definition they pull out of their nether regions.

The board game Monopoly is a good way to understand how society can devolve if the only rule is to accumulate as much wealth as possible. Eventually there is only one winner. In that game there is no mechanism to spread the wealth - it eventually goes to one person.

Monopoly is hardly a good representation of reality. It is highly biased towards rent-seeking behavior, rather than the production of goods and services which drive a real economy.

If society does not have a good way to spread wealth, we will simply go back to the gilded age.

The gilded age was actually a prosperous time for workers. The railroads, utilities, communications and infrastructure were greatly expanded. The stage was set for even more prosperity, invention, increases in living standards, and life expectancy. The presidents were mostly Republicans.

On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:40:19 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:45:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:



On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:



On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:48:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:



http://www.wpr.org/global-civilization-headed-collapse



All the writer of that article has to do to survive the "collapse" is to be

living on a hippie commune somewhere. In the meantime he will still have to rely on "unequal wealth distribution" to provide him with the latest electronic gadgets, designer clothes & glasses, hybrid SUVs, coffee flavorings, etc.



So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet, that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.



I have no definition of the terms "enough money" or "ultra-wealthy." Maybe you do?



Keep in mind that some would think that you already have "too much money" by whatever definition they pull out of their nether regions.



The board game Monopoly is a good way to understand how society can devolve if the only rule is to accumulate as much wealth as possible. Eventually there is only one winner. In that game there is no mechanism to spread the wealth - it eventually goes to one person.



Monopoly is hardly a good representation of reality. It is highly biased towards rent-seeking behavior, rather than the production of goods and services which drive a real economy.



If society does not have a good way to spread wealth, we will simply go back to the gilded age.



The gilded age was actually a prosperous time for workers. The railroads, utilities, communications and infrastructure were greatly expanded. The stage was set for even more prosperity, invention, increases in living standards, and life expectancy. The presidents were mostly Republicans.

Monopoly is a very good representation of where we are headed. here is what Krugman says about wealth inequality:

"For the past couple of decades, the conservative response to attempts to make soaring incomes at the top into a political issue has involved two lines of defense: first, denial that the rich are actually doing as well and the rest as badly as they are, but when denial fails, claims that those soaring incomes at the top are a justified reward for services rendered. Don't call them the 1 percent, or the wealthy; call them "job creators."

But how do you make that defense if the rich derive much of their income not from the work they do but from the assets they own? And what if great wealth comes increasingly not from enterprise but from inheritance?"

So in this age more money is being made from assets rather than from work. We also tax work far more than asset accumulation.

Here is what the conservative Brooks has to say:

"Politically, the global wealth tax is utopian, as even Piketty understands.. If the left takes it up, they are marching onto a bridge to nowhere. But, in the current mania, it is being embraced.

This is a moment when progressives have found their worldview and their agenda. This move opens up a huge opportunity for the rest of us in the center and on the right. First, acknowledge that the concentration of wealth is a concern with a beefed up inheritance tax.

Second, emphasize a contrasting agenda that will reward growth, saving and investment, not punish these things, the way Piketty would. Support progressive consumption taxes not a tax on capital. Third, emphasize that the historically proven way to reduce inequality is lifting people from the bottom with human capital reform.."

Although the above have contrasting views on what would fix inequality, BOTH of these gentlemen do acknowledge that wealth inequality is bad for society. We now have almost half of all Americans who do not make enough to even pay federal taxes, and the poverty rate among children is as high as some 3rd world nations. Is that really the America that we thought we would be in this 21st century?

Personally I would not want to live in the gilded age when British officers sipped tea while sending their footsoldiers running into enemy machine gun fire.

On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:18:05 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:54:11 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So if a headhunter, intent on collecting a trophy, were to chase you through the jungle then you would be violating his "right of an adult in his society" if you turned around and shot him?

No.

He was only exercising his "right" to collect a trophy and YOU interfered his his exercise of that "right."

I'm quite certain that their society also recognizes that people
have the right to protect themselves.

Really!? Then from where does that right come?

Nothing prevents different
rights from being in conflict.

Actually, the natural right to life trumps any "right" to practice headhunting. (Headhunting, BTW has been largely eradicated for over a century on Borneo.)

Would it be OK for you to then shrink his head and keep it is a trophy?

I expect that if I were a member of that society, it would.

But you AREN'T a member of that society, so would it still be OK?

It's
certainly not accepted behavior in mine.

That has nothing to do with the question.

On Friday, April 25, 2014 2:21:03 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 4/25/14 8:54 AM, wsnell01 wrote:

Would it be OK for you to then shrink his head and keep it is a trophy?

Only if you traded it to the pale strangers, so it may eventually be
displayed in the parlor of a Victorian home.

Peterson could use a good headshrinking.

A miserable ****
wrote in message
...



That has nothing to do with the question.
================================================== =====================
****wits of your ilk want to deny Kelleher his civil right to post whatever
he pleases.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:49:32 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

EDITED

Although the above have contrasting views on what would fix inequality, BOTH of these gentlemen do acknowledge that wealth inequality is bad for society.

Strange that they didn't say WHY.

We now have almost half of all Americans who do not make enough to even pay federal taxes,

We agree that is a problem but probably differ on WHY.

and the poverty rate among children is as high as some 3rd world nations. Is that really the America that we thought we would be in this 21st century?

Most children in poverty in America are better off than many upper class kids elsewhere.

Personally I would not want to live in the gilded age when British officers sipped tea while sending their footsoldiers running into enemy machine gun fire.

What exactly does the gilded age in America have to do with the British military?

On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, The Dork of Midway wrote:

Wits of your ilk want to deny Kelleher his civil right to post whatever
he pleases.

I suspect that if Kelleher keeled over tomorrow, the Oriole garbage would continue unabated for quite some time.

oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:51:52 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 3:35:41 PM UTC+1, wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:01:49 AM UTC-4, oriel36 wrote:



On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:17:11 PM UTC+1, wrote:







"Because he took a long time to come up with an answer, that answer

was logically correct and yet completely useless!"







My turn !. You got the 'bot' thing from Peterson who,on meeting me face

to face,commented and concluded that I was actually a human being.







Your meeting with Peterson is irrelevant in that it does not preclude

the high probability that a 'bot is creating the vast bulk of the Oriole36 trash.







If you are indeed typing out all of that drivel by yourself, then

consider that a 'bot will save you some effort and, as an added benefit,

improve the quality of your posts.





Listen son,when you replied to me in that post what you effectively did

was undermine whatever contention you had therefore it says more about

yourself than it does me. Here is what you do,post something on astronomy

and I will take care of the rest so that,despite the apparent

differences,you empiricists are all alike apart from the fact that your

posts are effectively unanswerable.



Learn your lesson and chatter away with political inanities so that you

do yourself no further harm.



Those who love astronomy will see it emerge as a force once more and they

may even enjoy seeing the words of the great astronomers appear once more

along with imaging and graphics to support or modify their perceptions.



You've upset Oriel now!

When he's upset he goes into patronising mode and starts calling people

'son'.

I don't do personal if you haven't noticed Collins,you live and die in
this forum based on historical and technical details of astronomy so the
other guy is excused as possibly the dullest contributor to this forum.


I don't find his posts dull.

The unfortunate guy replies to me a few days ago and then talks about
worthless 'bots' so he is best left to his own devices. Your statement is
surprising but that is your choice .

Now back to astronomy and terrestrial sciences.

oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 9:51:59 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

The evils of the transatlantic slave trade were a singularly unpleasant

example of unbridled capitalism that saw the unfortunate African slaves

treated as nothing more than subhuman expendable beasts of burden to be

worked hard until they dropped and then replaced. The Puritan slave

owners even cited The Bible in support of their inhuman actions.


In the mid 19th century they did to evolutionary sciences what they did
previously to astronomy in the late 17th century by inserting the idea
that creation is driven by exploitation and national interests are served
by considering others races to be weak,in short,they borrowed from
inhumanity and imposed it into nature as a 'law'.


Almost exactly the same. Clear thinkers replaced the superstitions and
muddle headed misinterpretations of the past by reasoned and measurable
science.
Darwin and Newton were two of the best scientists of all time. Darwin was
probably the greatest ever experimental scientist.
Superstition and muddle headed thinking are your Forte. However the
strongest motivator of your view of the world is wishful thinking.
The idea of "nature red in tooth and claw" makes you feel a bit queasy so
you retreat into a world of make - believe.
The Catholic Church was so impotent in it's efforts to deny Darwin that
they had to invent papal infallibility.



"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also.. because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin 1876

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus 1798



"Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find
the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance
along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted
living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the
danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave
nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area--viewing this latter
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics--between our
historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence" Mein
Kampf


Nobody has,as yet,seen the dangerous nature of the aggressive strain of
empiricism that obscured the productive line of inquiry that began with
Steno,Smith and so on but was hijacked and a 'cause' to evolution imposed
on people. How these crowd justify the appearance of trees and planet
life is anyone's guess but that is a road nobody has to take.