Irrevocably romantic, but I don't like it that way most of the time:) But, saying that, admit I can explore emotion without losing my grand anchor of logic!
Yes, lyrics are spot on. Some consider it naivete and illogical. It has always kept me from giving up:) Music! ah, my favorite emotional vehicle. Words and music together? BLISS! On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:35 AM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > "…Yes, an optimist to the core:)" – CB > > Yes, I hesitated because of the current feeling of 'hope'. However, I > know it is temporary. > A song came to mind for 'ya.' I remember when the musical first came > out. I liked this and the rest of 'em too. > > http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/southpacific/acockeyedoptimist.htm > > "…weaknesses in space, as we don't have enough research on it yet." – > CB > > While I do understand what you mean here, I disagree. The 'research' > to date all points one way. > > "…Just think how different that humanity would be...Spacers." – CB > > Again, while I love SF too, ………….. > > "…Syonara Blue Planet:)" – CB > > First, I didn't miss all of your 'if's used prior to this. Secondly, > even IF this were possible and humanity doesn't destroy itself soon, I > would draw an analogy with the leak at Sverdlovsk in 1979. > > "…my sweetest wish it to live long enough to see it all happen. Ah, > well:)" – CB > > Ahhh, a romantic too, eh?! : - ) > http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/southpacific/someenchantedevening.htm > > > On Nov 6, 9:05 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It does not matter if I like the answer - just that I get one:) Funny, > last > > week I would have agreed with you about the diminishing role of US in > > space. Now, I will take a rain check on it and see what gives in the > next > > four. Yes, an optimist to the core:) > > > > Woman in space? I know we can take higher sustained G's, but had not > > lent credence to proposed weaknesses in space, as we don't have enough > > research on it yet. Adaptation in space is buggers for anyone and only a > > generational route can make that adaptation feasible physically and > > psychologically. I mean, how are they going to get around bone density? > one > > avenue is genetic engineering to evolve a musculoskeletal human that can > > take deep space. Could never stand Earth G afterword though, so space > would > > be your home. Just think how different that humanity would be...Spacers. > > > > One thing that I hope develops quickly is this composite NASA has been > > working on (for years) that combats radiation. NO ONE is going to last > out > > there without that. If we ever see our way to artificial G's without > > rotation!!! Syonara Blue Planet:) > > > > Like Arthur C. Clarke, I believe many things are possible in space and my > > sweetest wish it to live long enough to see it all happen. Ah, well:) > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:51 AM, ornamentalmind < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "...What do you think of the future of space stations?..." CB > > > > > You may not like my answer. What I THINK about it is that their future > > > is very dire. And the role of the US will continue to diminish. > > > > > I also have a strange intuition about the overall future of 'wo/man in > > > space' being very dire too, something about not being able to adapt. > > > > > IF huwo/manity survives, a low probability, it seems our 'travel' may > > > have to take some other form than what is commonly thought of now by > > > most. > > > > > Thank you for asking! I don't think anyone has ever asked me this > > > before, yet I've been contemplating it for a long time. And no, my > > > time is not spent walking the streets with a sign saying the end is > > > near! : - ) > > > > > On Nov 6, 6:42 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Orn, > > > > > > Oh, I guess I jumped on any excuse to talk about aerospace/military, > no > > > > abuse intended to you. It is a shared hobby/career at my house, and > I > > > have > > > > met so many interesting people in that industry. As you can tell, I > am > > > > close to the military and have family and friends in most government > > > > agencies, and love to discuss them, good and bad. Space propulsion > is my > > > > favorite. > > > > > > Remember hearing about Avro Arrow but it was more for manned travel. > > > Geeks > > > > that designed it came out of Canada and started working for > NASA....yep, > > > 10 > > > > years later "walkin on the moon". Nice story:) You would like this > > > book... > > > > > >http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/Avroengineers.html > > > > > > What do you think of the future of space stations? Russia has a stick > up > > > its > > > > bum right now, so wonder how that will affect collaborations?? > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ornamentalmind < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > "...The original deployment system for North America..." - orn > > > > > > > Now I feel confused, used and perhaps abused. I was basing my > comment > > > > > on what I thought was a documentary film a few years ago as well as > > > > > some online research I did at the time. > > > > > Now it appears that, even though there remains much misinformation > > > > > about the company, planes and cause of demise, the information may > > > > > have been a bit of mythomania. Specifically, I am talking about the > > > > > Avro Arrow. As I remember it, there were reports, films and > > > > > discussions about it's capability to launch satellites into > space…now > > > > > I can't find the sources. So, will table it for now. > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 7:24 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Orn, I was referring to your own passage below in the reference > to > > > > > satellite > > > > > > delivery systems... > > > > > > > > <<<The original deployment system for North America was going > > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way.>>> > > > > > > > > that response I sent was directly pointed to this sentence. The > > > original > > > > > > deployment vehicles were always to be rocketry. Big, fast, and > ugly. > > > > > They > > > > > > used rocket delivery instead of aircraft for the obvious reasons, > as > > > I am > > > > > > sure you know. Mostly, I think, because we could test missile > > > > > capabilities > > > > > > simultaneously demonstrating how far our reach extended...on both > > > sides > > > > > of > > > > > > course. Cold War contest. > > > > > > > > very important stuff, those satellites. practical uses for > military > > > and > > > > > > civilians. This tech birthed GPS, which was only used by the > > > military > > > > > > until, what, the last 10 years? Not a bad innovation. > > > > > > > > Ode to Arthur C. Clarke:) > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > "... Flight delivery? ...not practical and not used until after > > > cold > > > > > > > war a bit.... " - CB > > > > > > > > > I don't know what you are apparently criticizing here, sorry. > > > > > > > > > And, when it comes to sputnick, I still remember the headlines. > I > > > even > > > > > > > bought a Revel model of it. And, in the late 50s, I was most > likely > > > > > > > one of the very few in Indiana to purchase and read magazines > from > > > and > > > > > > > about Russian rockets. Everyone else was afraid to be called a > > > 'Red' > > > > > > > if they even picked them up, let alone read them. > > > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:30 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > <<<You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite > > > technology. > > > > > Again, > > > > > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in > academic > > > > > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America > was > > > going > > > > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. > Of > > > > > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use > today > > > are > > > > > for > > > > > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology>>>> > > > > > > > > > > Satellite delivery and deployment at that time was rocket > based > > > > > mostly > > > > > > > > because everyone was worried about missile development and > using > > > > > rocketry > > > > > > > > just made one more workable link in the test system. Flight > > > > > delivery? > > > > > > > > ...not practical and not used until after cold war a bit.... > > > > > > > > > > this was the method similar to Russia's sputnik delivery... > > > > > > > > > >http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > CB, when I used the term cancer, it was an analogy in > response > > > to > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > (also hyperbolic and comparative as truth) post: > > > > > > > > > "…I know this little note is a spoof, but in a global > society > > > how > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > we Not police the planet? that is like letting the guy down > the > > > > > street > > > > > > > > > corner beat the shit out of his wife and kids in his front > yard > > > and > > > > > > > > > watching without response. Oh, yeah diplomatic > > > > > > > > > relations...sanctions...." – CB on 10-28 > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at my post in context, I didn't say that I was > 'against > > > > > > > > > anything military'. In general, I accepted the reality of > the > > > > > > > > > situation. "I do not deny that today, yesterday, tomorrow, > a > > > year > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > now as well as a hundred years ago there were, are and will > be > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > who wish to do harm to other people including the people > > > currently > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the USA. When this 'truth' is 'solved' by becoming State > > > Terrorists > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > a perpetual war, a greater 'truth' arises and that is that > 'we' > > > > > > > > > perpetually are attracting an even greater amount of ire. > This > > > > > 'truth' > > > > > > > > > has always been known." – Orn – 10-28 > > > > > > > > > > > I do find the Orwelian notion of perpetual war against a > method > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > than people for political purposes with obvious and well > known > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > to be as close to 'sin' as one who does not embrace the > notion > > > of > > > > > sin > > > > > > > > > can find. > > > > > > > > > > > Also, my direct observation about the two methods of: > > > > > > > > > 1. Agreement > > > > > > > > > 2. Force > > > > > > > > > …would seem to be reality based in this context too. > > > > > > > > > > > You continue with a list of organizations including > Homeland > > > > > Security. > > > > > > > > > Here, since even many within the organization think it was > at > > > the > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > best ill-conceived, and at the worst an impediment for > > > response, a > > > > > > > > > bloated and grossly expensive bureaucracy that in fact does > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > better, same people in functions etc. I question why you > even > > > > > > > > > mentioned it. > > > > > > > > > > > The Army Corp of Engineers are well known to emulate > beavers. > > > They > > > > > > > > > have built bridges for decades, many of which were not > > > necessary, > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > of which were poorly conceived and implemented. [see: New > > > Orleans > > > > > > > > > among a legion of other places] This is all well > documented > > > and > > > > > > > > > available for all to know. So, at least in this way I am > > > against > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know much about the National Guard, other than it > is > > > not > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > being grossly abused and misused, leaving the 'nation' at > risk > > > to > > > > > > > > > 'homeland' issues from natural disasters to the omnipresent > > > > > 'invasion' > > > > > > > > > across our boarders. > > > > > > > > > > > This leaves the Coast Guard. Again, since it is mainly > being > > > used > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the 'War on Drugs'….. And, how is that war going? (irony) > > > > > > > > > > > Little of the above criticizes the individuals in each > > > > > organization. > > > > > > > > > More to the point the different group functions, methods, > > > > > > > > > administration and leadership as well as how each is > directed > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > current regime, are more of what should be examined. > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to the Arctic, sadly this area is on the way > out. > > > Oh, > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > you reject global warming? If so, I'll have to support this > I > > > > > guess. > > > > > > > > > When it comes to the Antarctic, see: > > > > > > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/ > > > > > > > > > A WONDERFUL and informative movie. The clips alone are > worth > > > the > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > You say that deep-sea mapping wouldn't exist w/o the > military. > > > > > While I > > > > > > > > > don't know for sure, my guess is that either it would be > done > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > educational system, 'publish or die', scientific community, > > > other > > > > > > > > > countries or by the private sector IF it is in fact > worthwhile > > > in > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > objective sense. > > > > > > > > > > > You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite > technology. > > > > > Again, > > > > > > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in > > > academic > > > > > > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America > was > > > > > going > > > > > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the > way. Of > > > > > > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use > today > > > are > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology. > > > > > > > > > > > When one does a review of US history, we did quite well > without > > > a > > > > > > > > > standing army for quite a while. In fact, it was proposed > by > > > > > Jefferson > > > > > > > > > to explicitly outlaw one in the Constitution. A good > overview > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > situation and foundational ideas can be found here: > > > > > > > > >http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm > > > > > > > > > > > Next, you ask the Faustian question of "…Sanctions only > work if > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > are backed up by potential force. Would you privatize all > of > > > it?.." > > > > > > > > > > > First, we can do an analysis of 'sanctions'. However, since > > > there > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > thousands of 'em, I won't take the time to do so now. IF > you > > > have > > > > > > > > > specific ones you are interested in, we can do that. As to > > > > > privatizing > > > > > > > > > the military, that has already happened. Well, not every > last > > > > > person, > > > > > > > > > but everything from the mess tent to toilet paper, from > > > Blackwater > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > Haliburton. And, of course, the private sector is always > more > > > > > > > > > expensive. Articles about the cost of the war are > ubiquitous. > > > Here > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > one from a year or so ago: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
