|
>It never ceases to amaze me how many experts we have on this >forum that lack any knowledge at all about a subject under >discussion. I guess ignorance never stopped anyone from >having the solution to every problem. At least not in any >bar I have ever been in.
The original poster asked you to remember for them a certain post you made. The thread then wandered as threads do, to varied topics, one of which I commented on. I know what and from where the name "Soylent Green" sprung. And though it was a movie, it spoke to the future, which is what we all were speaking to. Again you use you position to bully and denigrate. At some time, you too ought to temper your comments. As to my comment: the original "subject under discussion" was your post the writer asked you about. "Ignorance" is your comment, itself out of context to the subject at hand.
> >For your information, Bush is the first president since >Johnson that has effectively increased NASA's budget. That >is about the only good thing I can say about W. Clinton >repeatedly reduced spending on the space program, to the >point that it probably began impacting flight safety.
An "effectively increased NASA budget" is still a drop in the bucket compared to their real budgetary needs.
>Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green. >That was fiction. Thankfully, most of us live in the real >world, but that world has real problems that will not be >solved by stopgap measures like taking away personal >freedom, or reassigning the money for the space program. >Congress is perfectly capable of squandering NASA's entire >budget in a single session on pork projects. > The long term solutions lie in the new knowledge and >technologies that we can barely imagine today. Where are >these to come from? Certainly not from folding our tent >and regressing to past paradigms. The future belongs to >those people and nations with the will, determination, and >courage to press forward into new fields of human knowledge. > No matter how we forecast the future, the hard cold fact is "Space" costs too damn much money. Who is going to pay for those Halcyon dreams of "Star Trek" worlds? Not one of my associates can even imagine this world (the US to be specific), getting along much longer with the finite water supply we have. Can't make water... that should be the thrust of our scientists, recovering and new processes for utilizing our finite water supply. There is one community in California that is using recycled waste (sewage) water. Think we can avoid that scenario all over this country? The greatest cities in the ancient world died for the lack of a potable water supply. I can only guess which of our cities will be the first to die because they could not find or process enough water for their burgeoning citizenry? The future holds more people than even our great producing country can comfortably support. That, plus the marginal water supply was the basis for the movie "Soylent Green." (Think about having to drink processed waste (sewage) water (a type of "Soylent Green" no?)every day for the rest of your lives).
>If I were to die tomorrow it would be with the knowledge >that we will return to the Moon, we will go to and >eventually live on Mars and beyond, and from the new >knowledge we gain in the process, we will solve the problems >of Earth. And that belief was what drove the seven >astronauts who died yesterday.
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained" goes the saying. But the reality is someone has to pay for that dream. As the world of space exploration now stands, all we have is the unfinished "Space Station", the ostensible first step to Mars and beyond. And if we don't build new Shuttles, and have to depend on the three we have for all our space explorations, how long will it be before we finish that "stepping stone"? Ever?
Ed I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!
*One thing struck me as odd: a TV commnetator was ticking off the techniological benefits of space: miniturization of electronic devices, micro-surgery etc. All those wonders from space have been boiled down to the "wireless generation" of thousands of different cellphones/PDAs/Laptops-etc., most of which are used to trasmit not useful data, but stupid instant messages, or to play games. The "wireless generation" is eviscerating their and their parents budgets because overindulgent parents buy their kids cellphones and the kids immediately run up bills sometimes totaling in the thousands of dollars before the phone company shuts them off. >It never ceases to amaze me how many experts we have on this >forum that lack any knowledge at all about a subject under >discussion. I guess ignorance never stopped anyone from >having the solution to every problem. At least not in any >bar I have ever been in.
The original poster asked you to remember for them a certain post you made. The thread then wandered as threads do, to varied topics, one of which I commented on. I know what and from where the name "Soylent Green" sprung. And though it was a movie, it spoke to the future, which is what we all were speaking to. Again you use you position to bully and denigrate. At some time, you too ought to temper your comments. As to my comment: the original "subject under discussion" was your post the writer asked you about. "Ignorance" is your comment, itself out of context to the subject at hand.
> >For your information, Bush is the first president since >Johnson that has effectively increased NASA's budget. That >is about the only good thing I can say about W. Clinton >repeatedly reduced spending on the space program, to the >point that it probably began impacting flight safety.
An "effectively increased NASA budget" is still a drop in the bucket compared to their real budgetary needs.
>Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green. >That was fiction. Thankfully, most of us live in the real >world, but that world has real problems that will not be >solved by stopgap measures like taking away personal >freedom, or reassigning the money for the space program. >Congress is perfectly capable of squandering NASA's entire >budget in a single session on pork projects. > The long term solutions lie in the new knowledge and >technologies that we can barely imagine today. Where are >these to come from? Certainly not from folding our tent >and regressing to past paradigms. The future belongs to >those people and nations with the will, determination, and >courage to press forward into new fields of human knowledge. > No matter how we forecast the future, the hard cold fact is "Space" costs too damn much money. Who is going to pay for those Halcyon dreams of "Star Trek" worlds? Not one of my associates can even imagine this world (the US to be specific), getting along much longer with the finite water supply we have. Can't make water... that should be the thrust of our scientists, recovering and new processes for utilizing our finite water supply. There is one community in California that is using recycled waste (sewage) water. Think we can avoid that scenario all over this country? The greatest cities in the ancient world died for the lack of a potable water supply. I can only guess which of our cities will be the first to die because they could not find or process enough water for their burgeoning citizenry? The future holds more people than even our great producing country can comfortably support. That, plus the marginal water supply was the basis for the movie "Soylent Green." (Think about having to drink processed waste (sewage) water (a type of "Soylent Green" no?)every day for the rest of your lives).
>If I were to die tomorrow it would be with the knowledge >that we will return to the Moon, we will go to and >eventually live on Mars and beyond, and from the new >knowledge we gain in the process, we will solve the problems >of Earth. And that belief was what drove the seven >astronauts who died yesterday.
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained" goes the saying. But the reality is someone has to pay for that dream. As the world of space exploration now stands, all we have is the unfinished "Space Station", the ostensible first step to Mars and beyond. And if we don't build new Shuttles, and have to depend on the three we have for all our space explorations, how long will it be before we finish that "stepping stone"? Ever?
Ed I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!
*One thing struck me as odd: a TV commnetator was ticking off the techniological benefits of space: miniturization of electronic devices, micro-surgery etc. All those wonders from space have been boiled down to the "wireless generation" of thousands of different cellphones/PDAs/Laptops-etc., most of which are used to trasmit not useful data, but stupid instant messages, or to play games. The "wireless generation" is eviscerating their and their parents budgets because overindulgent parents buy their kids cellphones and the kids immediately run up bills sometimes totaling in the thousands of dollars before the phone company shuts them off.
|