Worthy of survival

Bob Kolker wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

That is one theory and no doubt backed by certain examples. Others
exist as well like drug dealers which create businesses where they
don't get taxed. Do you support the notion of illegal markets like
racketeering and drugs?

Drugs should be decriminalized.

All drugs? Heroin? Steroids?
And you do realize that the main reason to legalize is to get tax
revenue, right?

And racketeering is extortion and
battery. That is already illegal. So I don't want business to be done
violently or under threat of violence (that is how the government does
business by the way). Markets should be as free as possible consistent
with public safety.

Drugs were criminalized in this country in 1906. Before that one could
purchase laudinum at the local apothecary. The blue-noses could not bear
the thought of someone getting pleasure.

Or they realized that a stoned populace didn't work.

Eric

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

Yet the place with the happiest govt. employees is NASA.

You are aware that NASA isn't just manned spacelfight out of Houston
and Florida, right? I think you might have an "Apollo 13 view" of NASA
and don't realize all the other work, espcially when you make a
comparison of NASA to the DOD WRT efficiency.

I sit corrected. NASA did launch the satellites for GPS. Thank goodness
they work..

NASA's manned projects suck lemons. Their unmanned work is much better.

Good, then you should support the Democrats beacuse their states
primarily do the unmanned space stuff.

The high point of NASA manned projects since Apollo has been ISS better
known as ****can-alpha which is yet to produce any great science for the
forty billions spent on it. It only went over budget by a factor of ten.

Then blame the Republicans as their states do most of the manned
spaceflight.

Eric

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:


Sounds like you hate anyone that isn't like you.

Fascinating the statist aspect of the military, of which you appear to
be blind to, yet you give that whole system a pass.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The enemy is anyone that the military and the politicians say it is.
McCarthyism and all that!

Right now our army is killing Muslims.

Only the radical ones. Do you realize that Pakistan and Turkey are our
allies?

Not as many as I would like, but every dead Muslim adds to my
life. As long as our troops are killing Muslims, I root for them.

Spoken like a true fascist. Right now our military is fodder for
roadside bombers.

You appear completely clueless about how the defense industry became a
Wall St. entity after WWII complete with bottom lines and ecomonic
forecasts. Consider yourself a useful idiot for that industry.

Eric


Bob Kolker

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:29:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, Bob
Kolker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:


No. That's a different issue. I was simply addressing "Citizen
Bob"'s unfactual statements. I'm certainly not a defender of NASA
(other than when it's attacked for nonsensical reasons).

Nonsensical reasons like:

1. Its management has grown corrupt and incompetent

2. Its policies are determined by the prospects of funding by Congress.

3. Its manned space programs have been nowhere as scientifically
productive as the unmanned programs.

4. It has ceased to become "cutting edge"

5. The Management outright lied about the cost effectiveness of the STS
as a cargo moving system. The "Ace Trucking Company" canard originated
with NASA.

6. The Management outright lied in its evaluation of the risks in flying
STS missions.

Those nonsensical reasons?

No.

Are you completely unable to follow a thread? I was describing the
non-factual and nonsenical things that "Citizen Bob" was saying (e.g.,
Columbia was destroyed because of bad tile glue, NASA is doing
research for the military with its Mars program, etc.).

I was not defending NASA. I can't imagine what mental deficiency
would cause you to think I was.

C'mon, "consultant" is a polite term for whore and if NASA is a paying
customer, then you're defending.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 27 Oct 2006 14:11:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:45:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, Bob
: Kolker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: Also keep in mind that Bert Ruytan built a space ship with money from
: his own pocket.
:
: No, he didn't. It was funded by Paul Allen.
:
: Keep in mind that Hubble discovered the expansion of the cosmos using a
: telescope funded privately.
:
: Just to clarify to idiots like Eric, you're referring to the
: astronomer, and not the NASA space telescope.
:
: Rand not only do I know who Edwin Hubble was I bet I understand the
: concept of redshift better than you do.
:
: It seems unlikely.
:
:You making dumb statements like "greater infinity", I suspect you're
:wrong.

Hint for Eric: There is a whole field of study called 'transfinite
arithmetic'. All infinities are not created equal.

So infinity + infinity = 2infinity?

What is 1/infinity then?

Eric


--
"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

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Bob Kolker wrote:

:Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: Go read what Vinton Cerf said about Al Gore. Go ahead, Freddy, do it...
: You DO know who Vinton Cerf is, right?
:
:I am acquainted with Robert Kahn. Who is Vinton Cerf? And Gore did not
:-invent- the internet. He might have supported its funding, but he did
:not -invent- it.

Vinton Cerf - Father of the Internet.

He wrote the TCP/IP protocols. What of Leonard Kleinrock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Kleinrock


As for El Chimpo's silly remarks (you can always tell when he knows
he's on his ass going in - he immediately tries to segue to personal
attack), I'd suggest he (and you) might want to read:

Personal attack?!? Are you accusing me of personal attack? That is the
foremost example of the pot calling the kettle black on the whole
Internet today! Freddy, you are a personal attack!!


http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

"Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often
referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that
as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be
as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround
it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well
before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977."


But they never came into the private arena until Gore got into office.

As for what Vint said about Al Go

http://web.archive.org/web/200001250...904/vcerf.html


Right which is EXACTLY what I stated. Thanks for providing the
reference.

Eric

--
"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

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 31 Oct 2006 10:41:49 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

I was not defending NASA. I can't imagine what mental deficiency
would cause you to think I was.

C'mon, "consultant" is a polite term for whore

And apparently "Eric Chomko" is a polite term for classless juvenile
moron.

Ease up Rand, can't you even take a joke? Man I knew I get a reaction
out of you but no need to go ballistic.


and if NASA is a paying customer, then you're defending.

If NASA is a paying customer (it never is, directly), I'm keeping
silent. I'm not paid to be a NASA flack.

How is NASA not a paying customer? Are you saying Congress is the
customer? Surely NASA has a budget that it uses to pay contractors,
etc. What do you mean by not directly?
To you maybe...?

Eric

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :... the internet just happened to pop into place without
: : ... Al Gore.
:
: Al Gore?
:
: snicker
:
:Go read what Vinton Cerf said about Al Gore. Go ahead, Freddy, do it...
:You DO know who Vinton Cerf is, right?

Perhaps you should go read it for understanding. Please provide a
cite where Vint says that Gore was *necessary* to the invention of the
internet.

Invention? Never said that. Turning it from a publically funded entity
into a privately funded entity? Yes, Gore was instrumental in doing
just that.

Clear now, Freddy?

Eric


--
"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 Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:10:14 -0500, in a place far, far away, Bob
Kolker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:


If NASA is a paying customer (it never is, directly), I'm keeping
silent. I'm not paid to be a NASA flack.

Do you work for a firm that contracts to the government and is paid in
tax-collection loot?

Sometimes.

Unless your activity is directly connected with
national defense, law enforcement or operation of the courts you are
aiding and abetting mishcief.

shrug

rest of nutty hyperlibertarian rant snipped

Wayne Throop wrote:
::: So these airplanes simulate microgravity?

:: In the same sense that a shovel allows you to simulate a hole in the ground.

: "Eric Chomko"
: As opposed to a natural hole in the ground like a crater.

Yes, exactly like that. Note that most people don't say "you *dug*
that hole, it's only a *simulated* hole, not really a hole at all".
Just as most people don't say "you *intentionally* *flew* along a
freefall trajectory, so you only got *simulated* microgravity, not real
microgravity".

So basically, bottom line, if you produce the actual, true thing, it's
not a simulation, unless you are using the term "simulation" in a very
strange way that most people won't recognize. What you get when you dig
a hole is an actual, genuine, hole. And what you get when you
intentionally fly along a freefall trajectory is actual, genuine,
24 carat, certified, true, microgravity. And it doesn't matter if you
have to plow a bunch of air out of the way to do it, and it doesn't
matter if you're doing it at less than 100 km altitude, and it doesn't
matter if you can only keep it up for a couple minutes. It's still
microgravity, the real deal.

NASA says so. So there. Nyeah.

Yes, yes, Wayne. See my thread entitled: Microgravity - I stand
corrected.
No need for the childish rand, err, rant...

Eric



Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw