RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 11:24:53 AM)

Farg, Nasa did not write the paper you quoted,  but the paper you qouted used a NASA feasability study. 

Yeah I remember those unamned probes chrashing into Mars, working perfectly.

In my opinion this is one of those ideas like the Space Shuttle or the Solar sail.  The ION engine makes the entire Solar Sail Idea a huge waste of money, which was stupid from day one, but has a romantic appeal.  So trillions of dollars got spent on the retarted thing.

You have never adressed, my question of how you would defend the thing. 

And you never adressed the fact that it would be an offensive weopon, and the rest of the world might have a problem with us doing that.

And I still feel that a distrubuted system with several different sources is better, most simply for the all the eggs in one basket idea.  Also huge amounts of power would be lost in transmission from the ground stations to the end users.  It is a massive problem now, which would only get worse under your plan.

Before you said we could already have it, but your article says the exact opposite.  Could be a neat idea for a moon base, but as they have already found hydrogen on the moon not needed.

But hey you have already degenerated to attacking me, which I take as a concession of defeat in the realm of ideas.  Now we are just watching you twist to avoid admitting you had not considered the downsides. 

Let go of the hate and think clearly.



samboct -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 11:30:30 AM)

"In reality, we do need oil. It's still relatively cheap, as we can just pump it right out of the ground and then refine it a little bit with old technology and there you go. And don't fool yourself, oil is crirtical to modern life. Almost everything depends on it, and if it stopped flowing millions and millions would quickly die. It's absolutely critical."

If you'd change the word oil to liquid fuels in the above statement (and not have to pump it out of the ground)- I'd agree with you.  Otherwise, this sounds like oil company propaganda-fearmongering at its best.  Oil is merely the legacy of a heritage industry.  While liquid fuels are essential- oil pumped out of the ground is not- no more so than McDonald's could claim to feed the country-Without Big Mac's We's STARVE!!!

"Biofuels are not the answer. Poor people have already began rioting because the Maize that they've depended on for generations is now going to power cars instead of their very survival:"

Oil has been developed as a liquid fuel for over a century.  Biofuels have been developed for less than a decade.  Corn has been engineered over two centuries to be bred for a human foodstuff- of which there are few alternatives in the plant kingdom.  (The list of edible crops is miniscule compared to the vast numbers of botanicals.)  It's not surprising that it makes a lousy feedstock for a liquid fuel- but again, this was a political decision driven by companies such as Archer Daniels Midland which wanted to drive up the price of corn.  The number of possible biofuel crops is much greater than foodstuffs.  In Connecticut, UConn is working on fast growing poplars for biofuels. However,, lack of large and visible first customers, coupled with an uncertain regulatory environment, has limited investment in these new technologies- since as long as people believe that oil is effectively irreplaceable, there will be little progress in this country.

Note however, that Brazil is now an ethanol exporter- (based on sugar cane, a much saner crop for biofuels than corn- and  as an aside can we get rid of the subsidies for corn based sweeteners and put a tax on it instead?  Sugar is a much better sweetener- our bodies know when we consume it and know when to quit- high fructose corn syrup though, has probably spurred the obesity epidemic.) and most of their transportation is fueled by ethanol- not gasoline.

In Germany- a significant fraction of their total diesel consumption (and they use much more diesel than gasoline) is fueled by biodiesel, mostly from canola.  (think it's now pushing 8%, maybe higher.)

Your above comments fail to address the energy balance I brought up in my previous post- to whit- we can make liquid fuels by processing various crops.  Plants are some 60-70% efficient about turning photons from the sun into chemical energy- which means that mother nature does better than any photovoltaic we've built yet.  N.B.  choosing between biofuels and photovoltaics is neither necessary nor wise- different technologies, different applications.  Some trucking fleets are already using 100% biodiesel while B15 (15% biodiesel) is selling at cost competitive prices in states such as Washington and Oregon and is used in most diesel engines with little or no problems.

Summary- our technology, whether it's transportation, polymers, or heat, doesn't care where the oil comes from- whether it's pumped out of the ground, or refined from something green and growing.  Hence I reiterate- we don't need oil pumped out of the ground.  Nor will we suffer draconian consequences if we abandon this "holy grail"- I suspect our economy would do better (although oil company executives wouldn't, and GWB wouldn't have many friends left if these guys dropped dead) if we'd develop new technology to replace oil.

Sam




Real0ne -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 11:36:10 AM)



i dont see bio cutting it because figuring the time it takes to grow somehting vs how much power output becomes pretty inefficient process.

Ground solar yields about 1kwh per day roughly per sq m and most ptople can mount enough hardware on top of their homes to get the average usage of 2 kwh per day.

The problem with bio is the eff is further rtedused because the matter has to be put in a burnable form.

The thing that bothers me about all of this is that the tesla technology was never proven not to work.  Tesla claimed 10 horsepower to get 10,000 back in his wardencliffe tower.

Sandia labs are using if i remember correctly a few hundred kw to get somewhere upwards of 290Tw back.

Tesla was going to demostrate in ny what he had done in col springs but never got the chance.  the way i see it if tesla figured we had the resources to do it nearly 75+ years ago then why is it so difficult now to retrace his steps?  i mean aside from the fact he was a literal genius.

It seems to me until that technology is fully explored we are spinning our wheels supporting more red herrings with our tax dollars.



Real0ne -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 11:46:58 AM)

we reallyt do not need sugar cane sugars.

we can use a stevia xylol mixture to give very similar flavor and nearly the same texture and taadaa its healthy!  (but of course can only be sold as a health food in the us not a sweetner or sugar substitute).





luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 11:49:21 AM)

You all probably know I often disagree vehemently with Real.  And while I thinks he has overstated the reality of Teslas work in the past. 

I do think it should be seriously investigated, and deserves serious money for research.



farglebargle -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 12:00:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Farg, Nasa did not write the paper you quoted, but the paper you qouted used a NASA feasability study.


It used a lot of sources. I thought attributing the entire paper to NASA was incorrect.

quote:


Yeah I remember those unamned probes chrashing into Mars, working perfectly.


The follow on mission worked. This is a process, not a product. When the process is refined, you can commoditize it into a product.

quote:


In my opinion this is one of those ideas like the Space Shuttle or the Solar sail. The ION engine makes the entire Solar Sail Idea a huge waste of money, which was stupid from day one, but has a romantic appeal. So trillions of dollars got spent on the retarted thing.

You have never adressed, my question of how you would defend the thing.


Sure I did. You're at the top of the Gravity Well. You drop a ball bearing onto anything coming UP the Gravity well towards you.

quote:


And you never adressed the fact that it would be an offensive weopon, and the rest of the world might have a problem with us doing that.


The paper cited addressed that quite clearly. Simply put, the math makes it infeasable to use the Microwave Power beams as any sort of weapon. ( However you could power a defensive laser, with all that energy on hand... )

The inverse square law pretty much guarantees that dropping ball bearings ( kinetic kill ) is the way to go.

quote:


And I still feel that a distrubuted system with several different sources is better, most simply for the all the eggs in one basket idea.


Knock yourself out. Examine all the options. You wanna grow sugar cane, to make into molasses, and then ferment into rum, and then distill the rum, and burn the alcohol. Have fun. I think DRINKING the rum is a better use ( For some values of Rum )...

You wanna build some nukes? Sure. I'm all for that. The current-gen reactors are passively safe, and I don't see any reason not to maintain ( exactly like the communications industry ) both terrestrial and satellite resources.

However, you don't get moonbases if all you do is build nuke plants. Unless, I suppose, you're building them on the moon.

quote:


Also huge amounts of power would be lost in transmission from the ground stations to the end users. It is a massive problem now, which would only get worse under your plan.


I don't get that at all. We *already* have a national distribution grid. You plug in groundstations over the remains of decommissioned, obsolete generating plants, and wire them up.

quote:


Before you said we could already have it, but your article says the exact opposite. Could be a neat idea for a moon base, but as they have already found hydrogen on the moon not needed.


Yup. If NIXON didn't dismantle manned space, and if REAGAN hadn't wasted the opportunity, we'd be more than 1/2 way there.

We'd HAVE affordable heavy lift. We'd HAVE the x-programs, pilot-projects and demonstrators done. We'd HAVE people exploring Mars.

If it wasn't for all the short-sighted fools, we wouldn't be killing and dying for access to oil reserves.

quote:


Let go of the hate and think clearly.


What does me being pissed off about the people killed, lost opportunity and lack of return-on-investment of the current "Oil Fetishists", and their retarded supporters have to do with the reasoning of the National Space Security Office and authors of the cited paper?

How "Clear" is the mind unable to read only 75 pages BEFORE asking questions which were answered BY the paper?

Either this "Clear Mind" is incapable of the sustained effort, or this "Clear Mind" is *unwilling* to make the effort.

In either case, this "Clear Mind" is deluding itself that it's so "Clear". ( And isn't that the Scientologist's product anyway? )



luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 12:42:03 PM)

I don't see what dropping a ball bearing on a laser will do.  And a sattalite can only hold so many ball bearings.

I figured since the NASA study was about the feasability of the project, and we are discussing the feasability of the system, it was releveant, you don't.  OK.

So we would have just as many ground stations as we do now?  That is not how they seem to be laying it out to me.  And with fewer stations there would father to travel, hence more energy loss.  But as I already stated, it is currently a huge problem, which a decentralised system would improve.

Youu know I never bothered to read all 75 pages of a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY WEB site either.  I assumed that you being the expert and introducing it, would cite me the relevant parts.  Which you haven't.  Either you want to hold the knowledge from me and everyone else in an attempt to make me waste 15 minutes, or its not actually there.  I looked at the table of contents and there isn't a chapter on the security of the things.  The idea that a several Mw microwave laser(after atmospheric dissipation at the ground level, where the beam is recieved) could not  be used as an offensive weopon is nonsense. 

So you want to change what I said to a scientology term and argue against that, yet another concession on your part.

I really do not see what we are arguing about.  You think that Hate is a good thing to run on.  I don't.  I have already conceeded that it is a subjective thing, so I can't prove I am right.  I do see the hoops you are jumping around and the personal attacks as proof tht your reliance on Hate doesn't work.  Feel Free to disagree. 

You do not even bother to attempt to have any internal consistency to your argument.  You said it was 1987 technology, yet cite an article that says the 100% opposite.  You said we could have this system now if we had not gone to Iraq, again your source disputes this.  Did you just find this source durring the course of our argument.  You said our kids won't go to space except as chinese workers, and you say your kids will be selling the tickets.  You said the Solar sat system could be used as a weopon, now you say otherwise.  You say the article covers security and vulnerability of the system, yet there is no chapter on it.




farglebargle -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 6:45:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I don't see what dropping a ball bearing on a laser will do. And a sattalite can only hold so many ball bearings.


When you're making ball bearings, you can have a LOT of ball bearings. You can make them in 6#ers, too.

quote:


So we would have just as many ground stations as we do now? That is not how they seem to be laying it out to me. And with fewer stations there would father to travel, hence more energy loss. But as I already stated, it is currently a huge problem, which a decentralised system would improve.


Why not have a wide-range of ground stations. Imagine how 9/11 would have been different if we on 9/12 said, "The people who deliver up the Saudis who planned and financed this, get free electricity", in fact, our ALLIES, get groundstations at break-even, and our ENEMIES can buy oil on the open market, etc. That's what I was hinting at with the "State Department Diplomatic Credits", before.

quote:


Youu know I never bothered to read all 75 pages of a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY WEB site either. I assumed that you being the expert and introducing it, would cite me the relevant parts. Which you haven't. Either you want to hold the knowledge from me and everyone else in an attempt to make me waste 15 minutes, or its not actually there.


The whole paper is relevant to this discussion, as it is the most recent synthesis of all the data.

quote:


I looked at the table of contents and there isn't a chapter on the security of the things. The idea that a several Mw microwave laser(after atmospheric dissipation at the ground level, where the beam is recieved) could not be used as an offensive weopon is nonsense.


Yeah, that's what the whole READING part is about.

Page 26:
quote:


FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key
expressed concerns are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability
of the satellite, all of which must be addressed with education.

· Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be
beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per
area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be
significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage
allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy
density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small,
comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire.


HEREIN IS A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA CONTAINED IN A GRAPHIC, ILLUSTRATING THE PHYSICS

quote:


· The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale
make the beam very unsuitable as a "secret" weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the
geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power
concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it
requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the
microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cutoff
mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if
occurring would be extremely anticlimactic.
· Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of
energy infrastructure. However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to
attack an asset in geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery
or supertanker on Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar
redundant parts, so the attack would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving
antenna would probably be the least valueadded attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed
array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station
continues to operate. Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy
of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable
of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit.


quote:


So you want to change what I said to a scientology term


Just an observation. "Clear" is their product. I don't know if that's intentional on your part.

quote:


You do not even bother to attempt to have any internal consistency to your argument. You said it was 1987 technology, yet cite an article that says the 100% opposite. You said we could have this system now if we had not gone to Iraq, again your source disputes this. Did you just find this source durring the course of our argument. You said our kids won't go to space except as chinese workers, and you say your kids will be selling the tickets.


The point here, is our CHOICES in Nixon, ( well, we didn't choose Ford ), Carter, and Reagan administrations have prevented us from being well on our way today, and could have, in part avoided the entire Iraq invasion and occupation, the millions dead, the trillions wasted from the treasuries of the US and Iraq...

Yeah, "Ticket Agent's" a pretty shitty job, isn't it?

quote:


You said the Solar sat system could be used as a weopon, now you say otherwise. You say the article covers security and vulnerability of the system, yet there is no chapter on it.


Since you chose not to read it, the content of the POLICY AND LEGAL chapter just escaped you.

In your hatred of my argument, you made the classic mistake of NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK before raising objections covered IN THE HOMEWORK.

Hardly a testament for your advanced status among us unenlightened folk, when you're making questionable choices from your position of peace and tranquility.

So, there's an example of YOUR BAD DECISION made out of your antagonism towards my position, or me personally. No matter. It proves my point that those who profess to be "Clear", are just deluding themselves.

And if you *are* as "Clear" as you'd like me to believe, then you're proving that BAD DECISIONS are made by "Clear" people, too.





mnottertail -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/23/2007 7:11:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I don't see what dropping a ball bearing on a laser will do.  And a sattalite can only hold so many ball bearings.

I figured since the NASA study was about the feasability of the project, and we are discussing the feasability of the system, it was releveant, you don't.  OK.

So we would have just as many ground stations as we do now?  That is not how they seem to be laying it out to me.  And with fewer stations there would father to travel, hence more energy loss.  But as I already stated, it is currently a huge problem, which a decentralised system would improve.

Youu know I never bothered to read all 75 pages of a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY WEB site either.  I assumed that you being the expert and introducing it, would cite me the relevant parts.  Which you haven't.  Either you want to hold the knowledge from me and everyone else in an attempt to make me waste 15 minutes, or its not actually there.  I looked at the table of contents and there isn't a chapter on the security of the things.  The idea that a several Mw microwave laser(after atmospheric dissipation at the ground level, where the beam is recieved) could not  be used as an offensive weopon is nonsense. 

So you want to change what I said to a scientology term and argue against that, yet another concession on your part.

I really do not see what we are arguing about.  You think that Hate is a good thing to run on.  I don't.  I have already conceeded that it is a subjective thing, so I can't prove I am right.  I do see the hoops you are jumping around and the personal attacks as proof tht your reliance on Hate doesn't work.  Feel Free to disagree. 

You do not even bother to attempt to have any internal consistency to your argument.  You said it was 1987 technology, yet cite an article that says the 100% opposite.  You said we could have this system now if we had not gone to Iraq, again your source disputes this.  Did you just find this source durring the course of our argument.  You said our kids won't go to space except as chinese workers, and you say your kids will be selling the tickets.  You said the Solar sat system could be used as a weopon, now you say otherwise.  You say the article covers security and vulnerability of the system, yet there is no chapter on it.



LOL, thats why all you insane fuckers are so easy to dismiss (and god I love youse guys)

So, anysays, I was heavy into star wars, look it is the shotgun principle.........yes you can lift some heavy shit in the air, once you have it up there it is not a big deal to keep it up there, militarily same thing on the ground, I (as a techie american) can lay out a solid wall of lead you cannot withstand (any country on earth)  now, sattelites and warheads and missles and all the shit in space is made of lite shit, has enhancers (solar panels, collectors and circuit boards) and rather than throw a pumpkin slingerslug at the shit, you blast it with birdshot..........

Ah, fuck it............

That is how the chinese can lob up an old rocket and take out a specific sattelite, the thing is if the net is in the air, you only have to cripple (non-specifically) som one, two or three major nodes, and it is the difference between trojans and xian zhuing condoms up your ass.

SunZi-------------------------------asymetrical(LOL, as facechair didn't get)

Holding the shit is a different matter, and the chinese are not one that will projectile vomit over the idea of  winning that a thousand years from now.





luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 1:32:30 AM)

"Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities."

Consider what that means.  Better Space situational awareness capabilities means militarizing Orbit and siezing control of it.  Just like I said.  The world would go Apeshit.  It would require breaking several treaties, and likely causing a hot war.  Do you honestly think the Chinese or Russians would allow us to sieze Legal and millitary controll of Space?  And we at the same time would open everything to a full inspections regiem?  This is just science fiction. 

But it gets even better. 

"Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy
of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable
of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit."

  So untill we set up "A Cooperative International regiem", this thing isn't secure, according to your source.  Again the paper you cite disagrees with you completley, did you even read it, except just trying to proove me wrong or something?  You can't use it to reward and punish. Your article says so.  I always thought that if you dropped something in Zero gravity, it just floated along, & wouldn't 6# bbs just burn up in the atmosphere?  And there was no backing of your arguments on that stuff in your cited article.  Your article says pretty much the only way the thing would be safe is if no one wanted to mess with it.  Which requires a Cooperative International Regiem.  Just Sci fi.

As the NEW WORLD ORDER required to have this system, as your only source article asserts does not exist, it does not matter one IOTA what % of the technology exists (even if 100%), the system is not workable.  And every watt of energy we have needed since Nixon would still have been needed, as well as the energy we need tomorow and next year.

Diversity and redundancy is what I have advocated several times.  And this unsecure pie in the sky sytem is retarted in my opinion, despite the fact some Gov agents got paid to think and write a paper about it..  There are several great methods, Sinergy pointed out a few Tidal, Wave, and Wind, as well as Geothermal.  Much of our garbage can be converted into energy and should be.  Solar should part of the mix also.  I think converting the electricity from these method into hydrogen for fuel cell use makes the most sense, and ultimatley is what is needed.  And Real is right Zero Point Energy should be researched extensivly. 

Your only cited source disagrees with your original assertions on the security of the system, how it can be used, and the technical aspects. 

How exactly have I made a bad choice? 

You have tried to completely shift your argument, with out being man enough to admit you were mistaken about virtually evey aspect of the system you are advocating.  While I have maintained the exact same position, that while it could be built, there is no reason to do so, and reasons of all eggs in one basket (your source refers to that as diversity) and lack of security make it a bad idea(your source requires a New World Order).  It would be putting the cart before the horse in terms of technology, and pointless.  It would not accelerate our reach to the stars it would be a dumb idea like the Space Shuttle, and actually hold us back.  Something like this to power a Mars base perhaps, but I think we will have a far better method by the time we actually get around to having a Mars base.  Sci Fi, just like Scientology, which for some reason you want to interject into the conversation.

I do not hate your argument, I just think it is retarted, and clearly it does not agree with your only cited source.  I do disagree with your completely refuted argument.  Thats not hate.

Why do you assume your kids will be ticket agents for a Chinese Space comapany?  And that they as agents would have the power to refuse to sell a ticket to my kids?  It just makes no sense at all, yet it is part of what you are arguing.

I do wonder why you would leave Clinton out of your list. 


Ron, I am not interested in arguing the details of how you could cripple a system like Farg proposes.  That is can be done is my only concern.  So I guess you are agreeing with me, that a system like Farg proposed would be very vulnerable?  Its hard to tell sometimes.



farglebargle -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 2:38:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities."

Consider what that means. Better Space situational awareness capabilities means militarizing Orbit and siezing control of it. Just like I said. The world would go Apeshit.


The World can adjust.

quote:


It would require breaking several treaties,


How many Treaties has the US honored in it's history?

quote:


and likely causing a hot war.


Who can say?

quote:


Do you honestly think the Chinese or Russians would allow us to sieze Legal and millitary controll of Space?


IF we hold the High Ground, they can go fuck themselves, and they better pray we don't decide to play Thor, and drop some iron on their asses from orbit.

If we're going to give up on the Constitutional Republic thing and *be* an Empire, I'm ALL FOR a *Competent* empire. No Bush will ever deliver "Competent".

quote:


And we at the same time would open everything to a full inspections regiem?


I wouldn't. It's private property. Or Government Property. Or Government Owned, Privately Operated. Maybe Privately Owned/Government Operated. There's still a lot of room for discussion.

quote:


But it gets even better.

"Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy
of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable
of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit."


Desirability for the New Galactic Empire aside, is there any reason to exclude stakeholders. Do not forget the HUGE Diplomatic and Political benefits of being able to give people free power.

quote:


So untill we set up "A Cooperative International regiem", this thing isn't secure, according to your source.


That's one model. I've given my opinion about how it should play out.

quote:


Again the paper you cite disagrees with you completley,


Well, the fucking hippies put their UN-Centric spin on it, but the SCIENCE is solid, and all it disagrees on is the Policy and Structural details.

"Completely" is an overstatement.

quote:


I always thought that if you dropped something in Zero gravity, it just floated along, & wouldn't 6# bbs just burn up in the atmosphere?


Yes. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

You SHOOT the 6# Cannonball at the target. Maglev should work fine. It works for the roller coasters at 6-flags.

For terrestrial targets, you use a bundle of 20m Ceramic coated Iron Rod with built-in terminal guidance.

You keep dismissing things with "Science Fiction".

Well, buddy, it was 40 years ago that YOUR CELL PHONE was "Science Fiction".

Stop taking counsel from your fears. Some things are worth the risks. "Being Safe" is for the mentally incompetent and children. The world is a risky place.




mnottertail -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 5:57:10 AM)

Ron, I am not interested in arguing the details of how you could cripple a system like Farg proposes.  That is can be done is my only concern.  So I guess you are agreeing with me, that a system like Farg proposed would be very vulnerable?  Its hard to tell sometimes.


In this limited corridor we agree.  Nearly 3/4 or better of the countries in the world have the capability of making up some everyday good old style missles, (say 10 or so) loading them with 'shotgun pellets' and blasting US sattelites, effectively blinding the US Military. Since the battle plan of the US is endemically welded to eye in the sky technology.....we are vulnerable even now.

The ball bearing shotgun tube was the most effective and immediately workable thing that came out of Star Wars Research during the Reagan years. The Chinese did a proof of concept last year that showed just how easy it could be. This is the correct meaning of Assymetrical War.  This is akin to the Sumner and Callahan tunnels in Boston...... Works slick when everything goes right, but a clusterfuck of Star Wars proportions when a car dies in either one.

The Laser Star Wars StormTrooper Hoth Wonka shit is all well and fine, until you understand that even with relatively low tech opposition it can be rather successfully defeated.

Ron  



luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 9:50:52 AM)

Well Farg you were completely wrong on the technology required, how it can be used, and the security of the thing, at least according to your only source, that you are pretending agrees with you. And you have not the character to admit it.  Hate....



farglebargle -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 10:06:33 AM)

You stated that you had concerns about weaponization. I suggested that you should read the paper, as that contained the answer to your specific question, and addressed many other issues.

You went onto other topics after I pointed out your error. I suggested that the paper addressed those issues, also.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that that paper was ever intended to represent and support 100% of MY position regarding the topic.

That assumption is, of course, incorrect.

You made a BAD DECISION in not doing the reading before asking a question answered in that reading.

You made a BAD DECISION in your assumption that that reading wholly represented my opinions.

You're making all these bad decisions from your supposed superior position of "Clarity".

How is anyone supposed to take the hypothesis seriously?

Especially when your claims of "It's Science Fiction" are so easily countered by the practical existence of your cellphone, which only 40 years ago existed only as a literary device, a "Star Trek Communicator" or "Maxwell Smart Shoe Phone" from only 40 years ago.



luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 10:20:45 AM)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that that paper was ever intended to represent and support 100% of MY position regarding the topic.

I didn't I simply pointed out that it disagreed with your position on virtually every aspect.

Just because some sci fi has come true does not mean it all will.

Technically we could build this thing, but there is no reason to.   And there are several reasons not to.  And that your source actually agrees with me, not you, about the reasons not to build it. 



farglebargle -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 10:48:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I'm not sure where you got the impression that that paper was ever intended to represent and support 100% of MY position regarding the topic.

I didn't I simply pointed out that it disagreed with your position on virtually every aspect.


I dunno about "Virtually every aspect". They think it should be done. I think it should be done. Their summary of the science involved looks pretty comprehensive, and the only thing STILL getting in the way are the people who take counsel from their fears, and refuse to get to work and get the job done.

quote:


Just because some sci fi has come true does not mean it all will.

Technically we could build this thing, but there is no reason to. And there are several reasons not to. And that your source actually agrees with me, not you, about the reasons not to build it.


Do you really see challenges as a reason to avoid doing something which is difficult?

Are you of the belief that Americans *could not* do the job? ( Given the Shuttle/ISS, that might be more likely )

Should Magellan have just stayed home? Columbus? Should Chuck Yeager not have gotten into the X-1, and flown faster than sound?

Should John Glenn not have gotten into Friendship 7?

Maybe the X-15 program *was* just a waste of time. It's been almost 50 years, since we've FLOWN into space and we can't do it today...

And maybe Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins shouldn't have wasted all that effort going to the moon?

Is *ANYONE* without that pioneering spirit WORTHY of the legacy of these trailblazers?





luckydog1 -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/26/2007 1:29:13 PM)

Yep, virtually every aspect.  The system they describe is different than what you proposed.  You were wrong on the technology, it is not 1987 technology.  You are pretending it could be defended, when they disagree with you and say it would require a new different international regiem.  I was wrong your source does adress the security issue, in a rather meaningless way, which to me reamins unadresssed.  I do not see how we could militarize orbit and extend hegemony there with out other actors on earth reacting, and you have given absolutly no solutions to that issue, but pretend you have.

Thats a pretty lame 'inspiring speech', Magellan and John Glen?  Well, I guess you can't actually adress any of my concerns with the project, so there you go....

I am of the opinion, and feel free to disagree, that it would be a huge waste of money and resources which would set us back on the path to the stars, like the Shuttle and the ISS. 

But that's ok, we can disagree.  And everyone who read the thread can take note of how you have tried to shift your arguments and made a bunch of nonsense statements, instead of actually defending your position, all the while maintaining you were right the whole time.  I see that as indictive of your hate motivated thinking, feel free to disagree.



herfacechair -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/27/2007 5:54:27 PM)

mnottertail: LOL, thats why all you insane fuckers are so easy to dismiss (and god I love youse guys)

Insane? Like quoting what another poster said, removing the color and emphasis, making it look like that person intended something else, and commenting based on that deception instead of what that poster actually emphasized?
 
Sound familiar?
 
If you dismissed these “insane fuckers”, you WOULDN’T be responding to any of their posts at all.
 
And, assuming that I’m one of these “insane fuckers”, based on your taking a swipe at me in this thread . . . if you meant “dismiss” as in “prove wrong”, you didn’t do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

now, sattelites and warheads and missles and all the shit in space is made of lite shit, has enhancers (solar panels, collectors and circuit boards) and rather than throw a pumpkin slingerslug at the shit, you blast it with birdshot..........

Ah, fuck it............

That is how the chinese can lob up an old rocket and take out a specific sattelite, the thing is if the net is in the air, you only have to cripple (non-specifically) som one, two or three major nodes, and it is the difference between trojans and xian zhuing condoms up your ass.

SunZi-------------------------------asymetrical(LOL, as facechair didn't get)


. . . I “didn’t” get?

“Asymmetrical warfare combines both conventional and unconventional, traditional and untraditional, black and white as well as grey, etc into a bigger comprehensive strategy.” -herfacechair in a previous thread

As you were saying?

Your explanation of only having to cripple (non-specifically) some one, two, or three major nodes (as opposed to complete destruction with more sophisticated means), falls under “unconventional” and “untraditional” in the above statement.

Anybody reading my quote from the previous thread, and your current comment, would easily see that I DID get it.

Again, the Chinese didn’t do something that we didn’t do before. Back in the 1980’s, we took one of our own satellites out of the sky using an even more ingenious method.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 15 16 [17]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875