Forums> USER>

Posts

11-01-2008, 05:28 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

Ohhh, THAT John Edwards!!! LOL, oh yeah he's a douche too. Oh his name is "John Edward". No 's' at the end. You can't talk to the dead, if you are talking to something claiming to be dead you should kill it and prove it wrong.

11-01-2008, 05:23 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

John Edwards is such a douche...I cannot believe people didn't figure that out by just looking at his douchy grin and douchy hair. The first time I ever saw this douche I knew he was a douche. I think that's the problem with liberals, they don't have a douche detector. ...There have been a few republican douches though. Larry Craig... the last governor of Alaska that Palin defeated.... the CEO of Enron Kenneth Lay was a douche ...who else who else? Dan Quayle certainly looked the part of a douche, but I'm not sure if he was or not. Anyone? Dan Quayle a douche or no?

11-01-2008, 05:00 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

Everything I've read all seems to look for a way for time travel to be possible...but we are a long way off from answering this definitively. We don't even know what gravity is or why its is there, let alone time and traveling in it! We can describe gravity's behavior perfectly, but we don't know what causes it. It is particles? Is it waves? Is it really a like a thin rubber sheet with objects suspended in it? What's pulling those objects down into the sheet?

But I think it's impossible. Time travel is just not in the cards. I can't prove it, but if it were possible than we would have discovered it in the future and traveled back by now. This proves it doesn't happen, or that mankind dies out before it is discovered.

11-01-2008, 04:44 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

Well obviously you have to regulate rocket launches, but that is not a sufficient argument for continuation of the goverment run monopoly. Where there is private enterprise to fill government shoes, it should ALWAYS be privatised. That's basic economics. However, there are areas where the government should prop up, subsidize, and even begin whole new enterprise when national security demands it. I'd say that was the case with NASA until recently. Also, you are correct about humans wanting to explore. We explore to find things for material gain, to satisfy our curiosity, and to stake our flag in new territory. For there to be sufficient ROI to drive space exploration, this "space utopia" idea must be thrown out like all Earthbound ones have been. Space exploration is a race for territory and resources, just like every other past exploration. That is the reality whatever high minded idealism currently occupies this area. There is not enough need or even ability to start a true space race, or we would already see one. But the day will come when it will be deemed worthwhile to start mining the moon for something, and that is when NASA will be in the WAY OF real space exploration. PS - If countries want to coordinate efforts and share spoils, that is great.

10-23-2008, 10:02 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

Here is an interesting article about a sudden freeze 8000 years ago, which followed the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. This freeze was brief and intense, and resulted in a sharp decrease in snowfall on Greenland. http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/earth_news/2007/04/elaine_meinel_s_5.html

10-23-2008, 09:50 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

We've all heard about the phenomenal properties of newfound carbon molecules. I feel I read about them first about 20 years ago, and there's been nothing wonderful out of them yet. The new kid on the block is Buckypaper: Ten times lighter and 500 times stronger than carbon steel sheet blah blah blah... But of course, its only possible to make tiny amounts in the lab. Here is an article: http://www.designnews.com/blog/Engineering_Materials/1869-Buckypaper_May_Soon_Be_Ready_for_Prime_Time.php I'd like to start a brainstorming session on how to manufacture this and other fullerenes. Any ideas?

10-23-2008, 09:14 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

I've heard arguments against evolution theory that say the Earth is not old enough, and mutations not frequent enough, to account for the bio-diversity we observe. Has anyone ever read this, and what is the rate at which DNA mutates???

10-23-2008, 09:05 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

I read recently that certain personality traits are more common in first borns, middle children, and the youngest siblings. These traits affect our careers and success in life. Here is a better article I found: http://developmental-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_birth_order_changes_your_life I'm a middle child, and have always noticed a difference between only-children/firstborns and later siblings. I always thought they were more bossy and confident, even when wrongheaded:) Let's say they are less apt to use clear judgement on things. LOL, now where's a comeback from some firstborns? What does everybody think about this?

10-23-2008, 08:36 AM

Edit

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

I tend to agree, its much too impractical to fly humans around the solar system at this juncture. I'm actually leaning toward privatising NASA. Break it up and sell it to the highest bidders. Let the free market drive space exploration. If it doesn't, then there are higher priorities for mankind right now.