Leaderboard

Other then meeting my Mrs 41 years ago and the birth of our Son, my most unforgetable moment was in 1974, two years before my marriage. I had achieved 15 years service at the company I worked for, being with them from the day I left school and gaining a trade certificate in Fitting/Welding and Machining. I was due for 3 months long service leave and was looking for somewhere different and exciting to do. By chance I came across a small advertisment in a Sydney paper asking for guest crew for a British registered three masted square rigged Barquentine, which was leaving Portsmouth England in December '73 and arriving in Panama in January '74, then sailing across the Pacific and on to Sydney. The name of the boat was "Ëolus". After answering the ad, and being interviewed by one of the owners at Gosford 80kms north of Sydney, I found myself having four injections, yellow fever, small pox, Typhoid and Malaria, and flying over to Panama arriving there on Jan 20th '74. The canal zone officials had no information of its arrival so I caught a train to Cristobal on the Atlantic Ocean side of the canal and witnessed the arrival of the Eolus on Jan 26th. Thus commenced my 4 months of the best time of my life. The skipper was a Danish fella named Anders Jensen and someone who the 10 permanent crew and 30 guest crew all loved and respected...a true gentleman, and skilled navigator in every sense of the word. We sailed through the Panama canal, something quite interesting in itself, birthed at Panama city for the night, and then next morning set out across the Pacific Ocean. Crossing the equator one experiences the doldrums, an area 5 degrees either side where cyclones/hurricanes are non existent and any wind at all is rare. The sea is like a sheet of glass with the often seen blow hole of a whale, or seals and dolphins, along with a bountiful supply of sea birds of all varieties including a wandering Albatross. We threw some lines over the side, had one of the crew standing by with a shot gun, and climbed to the top gallant yard arms, and jumped the 50 to 70 ft into the Pacific. A thrill in itself. Our first stop was the Galapagos Islands, which straddle the Equator where we climbed an extinct volcano and looked down into the crater with the bluest blue lake one could ever see. After 4 days sailing to different Islands in that group (after obtaining permission from the Equadorian authorities) we set sail across the Pacific to the Marquesas Islands, a distant of 6000kms. The crossing took 26 days and towards the end of that fresh water was rationed. Throughout the journey each stood his assigned watch, and those that so desired in their spare time, undertook navigation via a sextant, sail making and repairing, climbing the masts setting and furling in sails (no safety harnesses either!) general seamanship and of course your turn at cooking...well assisting the French chef we had on board. I proudly became pretty sufficient at using the sextant and often took sightings on the Sun, Moon, Venus and Jupiter in plotting our course. When we reached the Marquesas we visited three Islands, named Hiva Hoa, Fatu Hiva and Nuku Hiva. These are the northern portion of French Polynesia and on one of those Islands we came across the grave of the French painter Paul Gaugan. From the Marquesas we set sail south to the Tuamoto Archipeligo group of mainly atolls, stopping at one named Manihi Atoll only 600 kms west of Muaroa Atoll where the French were once conducting their nuclear tests. From there west to the Tahitian Islands, and stops at Tahiti, Moorea and Borabora of "South Pacific"the movie fame. After much exploring drinking and having some fun, it was business again and further west to American Samoa and Pago Pago. Then onwards to the Friendly Islands or Tongan Islands stopping at Nukualofa and Aitutaki where we were invited to meet the King of Tonga Tua ahafu 4th and other Tongan VIPs. Further west to the Fijian Islands and Beqa, Kadavu and of course Viti Levu. Leaving Fiji we headed towards Australia and made a stop at Norfolk Island, home of some of the Bounty Mutineer descendants. After leaving Norfolk and only 1400 kms from the Australian coast, we encountered a fierce storm with gale force winds reaching force 8 and 9 on the Beaufort scale, along with 35 and 40 ft seas. Conditions strangely that I personally reveled in and a time when we were not allowed to use our galley and lived on tinned food for 4 days. Overdue and unable to establish radio contact, we were reported as lost by the Sydney coastal and port authorities. One more stop at Lord Howe Island, and then we entered Sydney harbour on the 31st May '74 welcomed by a flottila of craft and my very worried concerned parents. The Eolus was 150ft long, 26 ft beam, 90ft mainmast and could fly 16 sails on its three masts, four gibs'ls, the fores'l, lower tops'l, upper tops'l, lower top gallant, upper top gallant all on the foremast, then three stay's'ls between fore and main, then the mains'l and mains'l tops'l on the main mast, and mizzen s'l and mizzen s'l top s'l on the mizzen mast. Here are a couple of photos.... http://thanetonline.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/friggin-in-rigging.html I hope some find it of interest. I certainly did and still do even though now an old fart! Anyone else have any experience they would like to share?

Bingo

Of course there is. You think you can replicate the cause of a signal by feeding back in the same signal? Of course you can't. Generating the tiny signals EEG detects and sending them back in the other direction will have no effect at all, let alone reproduce the earlier brain state. And what difference would it make being connected to the internet or not?

I was going to suggest that he only felt right in Spring (so it was Stravinski,then ?)

For the same reason that everything falls towards the centre of the earth.

I suspect if I called you a cunt you'd find that unrepresentative of who you are as a human, and that my telling you to just be less of a snowflake wouldn't bring us any closer to the respect you'd prefer we show you. The term retard is equally unnecessary and unhelpful, and digging your heels in instead of simply acknowledging this remedial point suggests you're just trolling.

Area54. You have the highest horse. And you are missing the point. In a discussion such as this, the answer is not already existent. That is the point of the discussion. Regards, TAR Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. Area54, You want Gee to give you the answer. I want to, together, arrive at it. TAR

Why are you so hell bent on calling mass and energy, "information"?

The movie Gattaca was not supposed to be a documentary.

Because we're looking at a specific effect. States with no income tax have other taxes instead. Does a large number mean the state can care for more homeless? How many are minimum wage? $7.25 an hour doesn't mean you won't be homeless.

Why are you copying and pasting the same old thing. You are repeating your self, please stop repeating your self, and say some thing . Do you have degree in historian? Or genetics and evolution? If not may be best you do not reply to this thread again you are not contributing any thing . And base on your post history you like arguing and contribute nothing base on other threads. Or It does not matter if 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was real or not. And you did not even give any citation or source saying otherwise. Just spoon out same thing you reaped over and over. That some how eugenics is not science and scientist never believed in it. No citation or source. How many scientist have to believed in it to be science? How do you define science or what is science? I more likely to believe Francis Galton sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician.......... Knows more about eugenics than some anonymous poster like your self not even read one chapter out of book on it. Be the science of eugenics be futility or real or not or mixed. You have not shown any citation or source showing be it 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was science or not. And not discussing the paper the start of OP thread or eugenics you seem to be addicted to history on origins on eugenics if 1%, 3% scientist or 90% scientists believed in eugenics or some way shaping government policies. And still not ask what is science or how you define science? How do you define science? Is there some test proving evolution like Darwinism or eugenics? Or does eugenics like evolution like Darwinism suffer from same thing? no test and no proof? Where are the tests, studies and proof? Or is it theory? Is science not math base and running test to proof some thing?

One of my very best friends was my adopted Yellow Lab dog. I named her Goldie. Never could train her not to go out into the rural/remote woods of SW OR USA,.(42N, 123W, kinda) Once she caught a small possum and brought it into the solar homestead cabin through both doggie doors and laundry room airlock. Proudly she dropped it at my feet in the kitchen. The possum was playing possum. It was not dead. It came back to uninjured life thank you. In the kitchen. Quite the circus with me, Golder, (the dog) and the very pissed off very much alive possum. Pretty nasty animals when angry. Anyhow, with the dog, me and a kitchen broom we managed to herd the aforementioned possum out through the first doggie door. Then I locked that door and walked around the cabin with Goldie eagerly following ready for some more fun and games. After putting her back in the cabin I released the pissed off possum. Much fun for all of us. Related Kinda. Before the dog we had problems with mice and pack rats. I captured a huge bull snake and released it under the cabin. Problem solved? Almost. During cold or snowy weather that snake had the bad habit of crawling up into bed with us. Just trying to stay warm I guess. No problem. But rather disconcerting at first for my lady friend. She quickly got over it and the snake became a good pet. Kept the mice and rats away also. Years ago. Memories.

How much Delta V do you think is required? I mean, if you can find an asteroid weighing 1 kilotons, and attached a rocket to it, you'd need a certain amount of delta V to move it into orbit around earth. Now getting it from the asteroid belt seems like a bad idea to me because the Delta V required to get to there and then back to earth would be more then what it takes to get to the moon. Now, the interesting part about this is that the rocket will change in delta V as soon as it grabs the asteroid. SO you'd need to calculate how much Delta v is required to get the asteroid back before calculating how much you need to get there. For getting the asteroid back, if you disregard the billion or so people who will be really pissed with you for almost destroying life as we know it if you accidentally mess up, you could potentially use areobreaking to slow down the asteroid to help get it into orbit. That would reduce delta V required. Once you know how much delta V you need to return with the rocket, you then have to calculate how big of a rocket would be required to get to that asteroid, how much fuel it needs, etc. So the "payload" would have to be the rocket capable of moving the asteroid. Now it doesn't make sense to me to send this as one giant mission for a few reasons. 1. The size of the rocket goes up exponentially with the payload size. 2. Maneuverability will decrease if you only have 1 rocket in the back, compared to 6 different smaller rockets at strategic points. Now I think about 20 different rocket engines launched in maybe 10 launches would be much more helpful as I don't feel like asteroids are symmetrically inclined to work with rockets. So a lot of them would be required to control it. Now the problem with so many launches, is that the total cost of each launch will increase the price of the the system*. Additionally, at the end of that we'd have to build some kind of mining operation on the asteroid in orbit. But. If we did this with a big enough rocket we could potentially have enough water on the asteroid to make fuel for hundreds of years. We'd have to see though. In any event, having a refueling station in orbit means we could launch dry rockets into orbit and then refuel them. Meaning it will cost less then launching it as one big rocket. Additionally, in an emergency asteroid situation, we have more technology at our disposal. *Unless Elon Musk get's his butt moving on those reusable boosters. Then we can cut this cost down considerably. Simply change whats on the other end of the docking mechanism.

'Construct' would be better imo because it removes any negative connotations. 'Illusion' should only be used when the perceived image disagrees with the facts or what is commonly agreed to be seen, depending on context..

! Moderator Note This is closed. Anonymous Participant, your comments here regarding sexual orientation are absolutely unacceptable. Please review the forum rules before you post next time, (though the way this is going, 'next time' may never come).

John Cuthber, Evidently others also consider consciousness on a sliding scale. See the argument about our consciousness not being at the pinnacle of consciousness. If there is a better than or more or less conscious, then it is not an absolute, like being pregnant. And considering it in terms of evolution, there is something about our human consciousness that allows for tool use and language, philosophy, religion and poetry, along with writing and math and theories and such which exist to small degrees in some other mammals, but there is something that "happened" in the evolutionary chain that gave us a "leg up" on the other species. Maybe even something that humans had that Neanderthals did not. Some brain part, some connection, some ability to make analogies, or use symbols or something, that really does put us at the pinnacle (of Earth Based Lifeforms). Proof being that we control the place, not the weather or earthquakes or meteors, or solar flares, but we "control the streets." Regards, TAR

Unfortunately, I will be unable to get a lot of interviews lined up for a while, since my schedule has me in the middle of the ocean a lot for the next few months. You'll have to harp on Cap'n for more.

Wold you like to expand on that. For example would you like to cite something I have said which is actually wrong?

StringJunky; Welcome to iNow's thread. Although 'construct' would work in some instances and has no negative connotations, it is too objective a term for consciousness as there seems to be variations in the differing consciousnesses. Consider that if you take a dozen people, who have all witnessed the same thing, you can easily end up with half a dozen reports on what happened. If we use the word 'illusion' to describe these differences, then we also create doubt as to whether or not anything at all happened. This would be a little problematic for the police officer trying to make the report. If, instead, we use the term 'interpret' it can explain the differences and even help the officer. If four really short people 'interpret' the suspect to be really tall, most of the people 'interpret' the suspect to be average height, and two very tall people 'interpret' the suspect to be rather short, the officer can 'construct' their statements into a conclusion that the suspect was average height. Gee Area54; You might want to hold off on that idea. You see, I have not yet presented my "claim regarding the linking of evolution and consciousness" so any response to it would not really be a response to it. Why have I not yet presented it? Well, besides the many distractions from the thread's topic, I am have another problem. Consider the following: If you were going to have a discussion with six other people about math, and early in the discussion you discovered that the other people only had a vague idea of what numbers are, then could you discuss math? No. The only viable solution would be to explain numbers. But if one of the people thought that use of the Roman Numerals is better, and another thought that the symbols used for numbers should be changed, and another thought that the idea of 'one to one' association with objects and numerals should be investigated, and they wanted to argue about it, then what could be accomplished? Nothing. Since many of the people in this thread will not even acknowledge that all life is conscious to some degree, even after being informed that both, philosophy and science agree on this, then showing how consciousness and the evolution of species are connected is impossible. Gee No iNow. Shit is when people continually take a thread off topic to discuss: the great 'pinnacle' debate, Tar's writing skills, and illusion, while trying to bait me into other off-topic discussions. Shit is when people intentionally corrupt the meaning of my words in order to have something to argue about. Shit is when people lie in order to pretend that they are not doing the above. That is shit. When I say that communication is the core attribute of consciousness, that does not mean that consciousness is the core attribute of communication. This is just more of your nonsense and apparently a sincere need to corrupt everything that I state. Gee

Actually my goal is to force you the realization that what you think is science is in fact a new religion, and I abhor religious restraints being placed upon intellectual disciplines like science. We don't approach science with any preconceived notions about what we expect to find and staying within those parameters, and we don't exclude theories or hypothesis because they challenge our own religious beliefs, in your case atheism. I asked a question to induce thought and debate on the subject, and the result has been exposure of the fact that at least some people who call themselves scientifically literate are approaching the discipline within the context of a religious belief. The two are not compatible. Science has not led us to the conclusion that the universe is a random happenstance, an agenda within it be portrayed as science has attempted to place that crown of thorns on the head of science. . The ideas that espouse this belief are much more laughable and childish than the genesis version of creation, which I find to be nothign more than a reasonable child's fairy tale personally. The idea that the universe just sprang forth from nothing and created itself is not an adult, intelligent view, it is a pseudo intellectual view, as is abiogenisis. As scientists we approach ideas with probability based on evidence, and generally the simplest explainations are considered the more acceptable ones according to occams razor. The probability of abiogenesis resulting in the double helix DNA code through random happenstance has been calculated by credible biochemists to be something on the order of 1x10^-150. It's a theory without any empirical evidence, a non theory, as is the BB. There is no real explanation how life came into existence, the theory that it sprang forth from rocks is the origin of the abiogenisis belief. Another idea that I was exposed to in the public schools through required reading was the idea that lightning struck a mud puddle filled with organic compounds (Frankenstein?) and life sprang forth. No explanation, just a stab in the dark really, it isn't a theory. Big Bang evidence discarded It has just recently been admitted by NASA that the so called background radiation of the BB predicted by the BB theory detected by research satellites turned out to be coming from cosmic dust:. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result As predictably as the heroine's death in an opera, the biggest claim in cosmology in years has finally officially unraveled. Last March, cosmologists working with a specialized telescope at the South Pole called BICEP2 claimed direct evidence that in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe underwent a bizarre exponential growth spurt called inflation. The signs came in their study of the big bang’s afterglow, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). But now, in a joint analysis with cosmologists working with the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Planck spacecraft, BICEP researchers take back that claim and report no such signs of inflation, according to a press release issued by ESA. Like Mimi in Giacomo Puccini's opera La Bohème, the BICEP claim seemed doomed from early in the drama. "I would have been surprised if it had turned out otherwise," says Suzanne Staggs, an observational cosmologist at Princeton University. In September, the Planck team released data that suggested the BICEP signal was largely, if not entirely, an artifact of dust in our galaxy, which emits microwaves of its own. That is just an overpowering retort, you have me convinced!! WTF are you even babbling about anyway? Let me guess, you're "gay" as well as atheist? SO you DO have an agenda driven preconceived notion to bring to science, don't you? No need for morality or right and wrong if there is no purpose to our existence, is there? See where I'm coming from? I KNOW where you are coming from, your beliefs in science conform to your dealing with your own unnatural and what most consider deviant sexual habits and justifying them to others within the context of moral relativism . look, I don't care who you "do it" with as long as it is a consenting adult and you don't promote it to impressionable children using deceptive brainwashing tactics, keep sex behind closed doors where it belongs and not marching in the streets shoving it down peoples throats. Have you ever noticed a "gya pride" parade is always replete with objects, symbols and themes designed to be extremely attractive to children? unicorns, rainbows, and balloons may create a false image of what being "gay" really is in a child's impressionable mind, don't you think? How many kids do you think they would attract with the truth, a high incidence of violence, anal incontinence and disease FI? AN AMORAL AGENDA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL SCIENCE Why can't you just say it , you're a HOMOSEXUAL, you prefer sex with other men. Let the kids hear the truth and decide if they like it. Most children are instinctively repulsed and disgusted by the idea. they have to be tricked into accepting it, or in many cases FORCED. We are told by activists that homosexuality in nature is normal but I've never once seen a single youtube video of one animal "cornholing" another it just doesn't happen because animals act on natural instincts. A human being LEARNS this behavior, he's not born wanting to do it. If it had, it would be on youtube (lmao!). There IS a video of a chimp forcing a toad to engage in oral sex, BTW, but no cornholing in the natural world, because it isn't natural. I see every day kids being brainwashed to believe a "gay" person is just someone who loves people of the same sex. BULLCRAP. A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual relations with people of the same sex, all kids love people of the same sex one would hope, don't you think (or know) that is intentionally confusing them? Doesn't it open the door to pederasts in the minds of kids? Why is NAMBLA linked to the homosexual activist movement intrinsically, from the very beginning? Look, we both know there are two conflicting ideas here, one of us believes there is a purpose to our existence, and one of us believes there isn't. We both have our reasons for believing or wanting to believe that...BUT, neither of those BELIEFS has any place in science. We let the chips fall where they may, science isn't a predetermined destination we are traveling to, it is a journey filled with wonder, not knowing whee it will lead!

You first... I think I've argued with every senior member on this forum.

I see it a bit differently. Knowing something does not necessarily mean that it can be proven beyond doubt but that it has been proven beyond doubt. And to me, the existence of Jesus Christ has been proven beyond a doubt. Do I have such proof? It certainly is proof enough for me, for Christ makes himself known to people in different ways. But the question for you would seem to be, do you want proof and are you willing to follow Christ if he provides it? Most people just want the proof, but God only provides it to those who will follow him. For example, there is a question that the world has wondered about for ages. As a follower of God, I knew that he was the only one who had the answer. So I decided to ask him, not for proof that he existed, because I already knew that, but because I wanted to know the answer to the question. But I didn't hear a thing. I kept praying 2 times a day for months, and still no answer. I finally decided that I would keep praying until one of two things happened; either God would tell me the answer or I died, whichever came first. After about two and a half years of praying twice a day about this particular thing, God gave me the answer. He does not give up his secrets easily but his secrets are amazing. So if proof from God is what you want, then you must ask and not give up. And of course there are people like you and beecee who have decided for one reason or another that Christ simply isn't real. Tolerance is indeed a beautiful thing...well put.

Mate selection is a type of eugenics. The dispute is over another type. State eugenics. I was just clarifying terms. It helps to do that when debating people who can't write logically coherent sentences, let alone posts. Also, please stop putting line breaks between each sentence. It looks stupid. Now answer my question. Should retards be allowed to have ten children? What? Yes it is. More strawman nonsense. A marriage prohibition isn't "elimination from the gene pool". Obviously. They don't really know. It's some fashionable PC slogan relating to special interest groups desired immigration policy for the West (and only the West).

Your writing on that I classified as nonsense and ignored it. So much nonsense, you don't understand what heritability is for a start. The point isn't irrelevant. I'm aware that modern PC snowflakes are hyper offended by everything. Shrieking hysterically about random words is much easier than using logic. Everything is offensive. I get it. In special snowflake land nobody has any negative qualities and any words which suggest they do are offensive. Soon the word short will be offensive and we'll have to stop using dimensions in case anyone feels triggered. Unfortunately in reality some people are retarded. If you are unable to discuss the human condition without being offended feel free to go away. You have not supported your position. If you want to address the point go ahead. You do not get to tell me what I can or cannot say.

The difference being I'm not basing my "argument" on being "offended" by terms. You personalised this by claiming to be "offended". So necessarily I must describe your behavior. No more responses. Address the issue or go play in your safe space fantasy world with the other snowflakes. FYI this is the issue

No I read it. It's about reading signals, not feeding them back in. You're quite intensely stupid.

Lol. Virtue signalling pseudoscientist. I already explained why it's science. Science makes predictions using knowledge. It's trivially obvious it's science. But "science" to you means "agreeing with my fashionable SJW beliefs".

Liar

Good luck getting these PC clowns to actually answer a simple question. Perhaps the gallows is the only solution to their cockiness.