 | | Re: space policy backgrounder
|
|
Why the moon/mars idea was presented wrong and why it's actually a good idea (URL) Bush proposal has less to do with a vision of man's destiny than with a totally dysfunctional government agency. NASA gave us the glory of Apollo, then spent the next (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Marine Lawyer: Guantamano Military Tribunals fundamentally "unfair"
|
|
(URL) doesn't have "the slightest concern" about this. My view (repeated): while we cannot expect our citizens to be treated by our standards, or even fairly, when they are elsewhere, and they don't have the right to expect us to intercede on their (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the conspiracy theorists out there?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HrwFCF.Dzo@lugnet.com... (...) (URL) (...) I agree.. the green men did it because US invaded Mars. ( and are planning their first McDonalds there). (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | For the conspiracy theorists out there?
|
|
(URL) it's the Iranians that are responsible for 9/11? My money's on little green men as being ultimately responsible but hey. (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Heck, It's An Election Year
|
|
(...) I've not watched them all yet, but I loved the simplicity of "DESKTOP"! Scott A (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Heck, It's An Election Year
|
|
O-T.debate is a place I'll browse once in a while but this time I felt I had to pass this along. (URL) NOTE: If you disapprove of Bush, then you'll get a kick watching this stuff (I sure did!). Adr. (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) We don't yet have fusion reactors, much less ones that use He3, so He3 doesn't yet help us much. Yet. I'd rather stick to tech thats closer to proven (though I acknowledge bootstrappable manufacturing facilities aren't yet in commmon use I see (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Speaking of which, (URL) here's> an interesting tidbit I've found. I don't know about the accuracy of the details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the discussion. Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
|
|
(...) I thought it wasn't legally possible to trademark generic terms. This would be like McDonalds tradmarking the term 'hamburger'. Allister (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
|
|
(URL) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of space exploration. I'm an even bigger fan of universal state funded healthcare & education. Who in society will benifit most from a manned trip to Mars? Who in society benifits most from a lack of universal state funded (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) *SIGH* Did you even read the cite I gave in that post? My comment referred to that fact that a lot of legitimate criticism of the Israeli right is simply labelled as "anti-Semitism" by blind supporters of Sharon. Neither the term (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk (Scott A) wrote in <Hrs768.1LwG@lugnet.com>: (...) In view of your response somewhere else in this topic, [quote] JO: I think the correct phrase should be "Anti-Israelism", and not JO: "Antisemitism". SA: I prefer the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) *Sigh* The item cited above is the result of an academic study which was published in a peer reviewed journal by a respected academic. Do you have something similar to support your argument, or are you just "shooting from the hip"? Scott A (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) I prefer the term "pro-justice". (...) Indeed; not content with suppressing free speech in the occupied territories, Sharon is now using the call of “anti-Semitism” to curtail it (URL) elsewhere>. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | You know, I'm not altogether convinced that this is a terrible idea.
|
|
(URL) could become a libertarian paradise! Well, it has these things going for it: * Unequal distribution of money -- those with larger families can pool their resources and thus have an advantage over their inferior (e.g. infertile or gay) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
