Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


Bush now thinks he owns space too...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner
Author Message
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3871

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:

I would strongly support a two pronged, government+church ad campaign promoting the idea of having two children or less in your lifetime. None of this, "two cells is a baby, God hates condoms, go forth and multiply" jazz.


The problem is that the church knows the best way for them to get lifetime members is to get to people from childhood, conversions are just not doing it for them anymore.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Nesta13Maldini wrote:

Well I don't think I'm on the same page here but what I was talking about was owning things that could orbit around the world in space. Space + Weapons = Control of Virtually Everything. They wouldn't allow anyone else to build anything in space so that's why I said everyone will be fu**ed.


Wouldn't work that way.

If it came to blows, the space race would be over quickly. A single large nuclear warhead detonated at a high altitude could knock out most, if not all, of the satelites in orbit. Not from the explosion, but from the electromagnetic radiation.


In theory, as we are not completly sure how a nuke would work in all its technicalities, in space.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
I liked how the other day on news they called it "space debree".

That's a nice way of saying "the shit that's collected from us going into space".


Its comparable to everytime you go in the ocean you take a piss.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
Lester wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Lester wrote:
Theres a whole bunch of stuff you don't pay for, especially in the space area, most of the last few space launches have been almost completely funded by other countries. America thinks it's a waste of money, because you know, the worlds doing just fine as it is, it'll sustain us for another million years... NOT. I doubt it will sustain us for another hundred.


yeah, and moving our entire population to Mars is the most efficient solution to THAT problem.


not the entire population, about half of it or something like that.

but your right, it's not the most efficient solution, the most efficient solution is free contraceptives for all and programs like China has for overpopulation.


You just gotta line everyone up

in an equality, and kill everyother person


Well, thats not the most efficient way because you' inevitabley kill some top of the field scientists and stuff, and then we'd have to wait to teach more.

It's also not Chinas program, they just place big taxes on families with over two children.

Stop listening to the church people! I mean really, six point six billion people and your *still*

screwing??


heh.

But you do understand earths population is stable, as in most of our pop is in the baby boomer range. Hint one reason SS is pennyless, massive retired class. The US and Europe pop is gonna see a drastic decline, and in another 100 years Chinas pop will be cut in half. Very few families actually in the US and Europe have more then 2 children. Stop barking up an empty tree.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:
Not from the explosion, but from the electromagnetic radiation.

In theory, as we are not completly sure how a nuke would work in all its technicalities, in space.


The theory is sound. Very sound.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:
Not from the explosion, but from the electromagnetic radiation.

In theory, as we are not completly sure how a nuke would work in all its technicalities, in space.


The theory is sound. Very sound.


Its sounds, but when you move away from gravity weird things happen. Also things get wacka wacka in the presence of ultra kool super horny space radiation. Did I mention the "alien" factor?

Laughing

Theories sound, but there are always exceptions. Like when we first tested the nuke, it was all theory.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
I liked how the other day on news they called it "space debree".

That's a nice way of saying "the shit that's collected from us going into space".


Its comparable to everytime you go in the ocean you take a piss.


Except that piss would continue to move in and out with the tides, take solid form, and fly into your leg at 600mph if it happened to touch you next time you got in. There's not enough of it to be a problem now, but it is actually possible to eject enough debris to cause problems.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:

The theory is sound. Very sound.

Its sounds, but when you move away from gravity weird things happen.


No, no they don't. Electromagnetism works the same on the ground as it does in orbit, and we understand the ionozphere and van allen belt and all that jazz more than well enough to make accurate predictions.

Quote:

Also things get wacka wacka in the presence of ultra kool super horny space radiation. Did I mention the "alien" factor?


Huh
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:

The theory is sound. Very sound.

Its sounds, but when you move away from gravity weird things happen.


No, no they don't. Electromagnetism works the same on the ground as it does in orbit, and we understand the ionozphere and van allen belt and all that jazz more than well enough to make accurate predictions.

Quote:

Also things get wacka wacka in the presence of ultra kool super horny space radiation. Did I mention the "alien" factor?


Huh


I understand my physics very well. But nukes do work differently in space, in theory. The EM is almost identical to in atmosphere.. matter actaully.. doesnt affect it.. so if you in air or ground.. I don't understand that comment. And the alien factor was my little joke = ).

99.9% chance that the theory is correct. (I just felt like brining up the other end) but the chances that back from our primal soup that life started, the chance and probility, would be about 99.9% that there would be no life, and .01% that there is. Hey it happened.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:

99.9% chance that the theory is correct. (I just felt like brining up the other end)


It needs no bringing up, due to its near certainty. If you were to get stingy about your probabilities, you'd end up doing a lot more weighing in life than is necessary. Nothing is ever certain, so it's okay to make due with really, really close.

Quote:

but the chances that back from our primal soup that life started, the chance and probility, would be about 99.9% that there would be no life, and .01% that there is. Hey it happened.


That scenario is not similar to our own. The odds of life popping up in one place are slim, but since there are so many planets in the universe, the odds got plenty of chances to play themselves out.

Moreover, the odds of life happening, as you and i are speaking of them, are not based on the odds of a particular physical theory being correct; they're based on the right conditions existing for life to occur.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:

99.9% chance that the theory is correct. (I just felt like brining up the other end)


It needs no bringing up, due to its near certainty. If you were to get stingy about your probabilities, you'd end up doing a lot more weighing in life than is necessary. Nothing is ever certain, so it's okay to make due with really, really close.

Quote:

but the chances that back from our primal soup that life started, the chance and probility, would be about 99.9% that there would be no life, and .01% that there is. Hey it happened.


That scenario is not similar to our own. The odds of life popping up in one place are slim, but since there are so many planets in the universe, the odds got plenty of chances to play themselves out.

Moreover, the odds of life happening, as you and i are speaking of them, are not based on the odds of a particular physical theory being correct; they're based on the right conditions existing for life to occur.


OH yah I know, the thread was getting a little deal, so I decided to wander into the WHAT IFS. And no matter the scenario, numbers are numbers.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3871

PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
Lester wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
Lester wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Lester wrote:
Theres a whole bunch of stuff you don't pay for, especially in the space area, most of the last few space launches have been almost completely funded by other countries. America thinks it's a waste of money, because you know, the worlds doing just fine as it is, it'll sustain us for another million years... NOT. I doubt it will sustain us for another hundred.


yeah, and moving our entire population to Mars is the most efficient solution to THAT problem.


not the entire population, about half of it or something like that.

but your right, it's not the most efficient solution, the most efficient solution is free contraceptives for all and programs like China has for overpopulation.


You just gotta line everyone up

in an equality, and kill everyother person


Well, thats not the most efficient way because you' inevitabley kill some top of the field scientists and stuff, and then we'd have to wait to teach more.

It's also not Chinas program, they just place big taxes on families with over two children.

Stop listening to the church people! I mean really, six point six billion people and your *still*

screwing??


heh.

But you do understand earths population is stable, as in most of our pop is in the baby boomer range. Hint one reason SS is pennyless, massive retired class. The US and Europe pop is gonna see a drastic decline, and in another 100 years Chinas pop will be cut in half. Very few families actually in the US and Europe have more then 2 children. Stop barking up an empty tree.


When the baby boom in the west ended the baby boom in the east rose up and the population continued to rise, it is the nature of a species to multiply, when there is nothing to crub the population, adnt here isn't, they just go on and on and on and on.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
it is the nature of a species to multiply, when there is nothing to crub the population, adnt here isn't, they just go on and on and on and on.


Doesn't work that way in humans. As a nation's economy gets more advanced, its birth rate goes down.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3871

PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Lester wrote:
it is the nature of a species to multiply, when there is nothing to crub the population, adnt here isn't, they just go on and on and on and on.


Doesn't work that way in humans. As a nation's economy gets more advanced, its birth rate goes down.


Sure, mebbe the multiplication in one area might go down, but there are far more third world countries than first world, and even in first world countries, families of more than two are quite common.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:

Sure, mebbe the multiplication in one area might go down, but there are far more third world countries than first world,


Not to worry. They're on their way; we have plenty of time left before we have to seriously start worrying about overpopulation.

Quote:

and even in first world countries, families of more than two are quite common.


The replacement birth rate is around 3. Which might not make sense at first, but it's the truth; not every pair of people has children, so other couples have to have more children to pick up the slack.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites