Moontanman

No, chemo-synthetic organisms almost completely operate in the absence of free oxygen, the ones that do not can and do shift to oxygen metabolism if it is available, and as far as i know and can find out no biological chemo-synthesis would produce oxygen since chemo-synthesis is energy deficient and would not produce a more reactive chemical than it uses. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Actually there is reason to think the Earths atmospheric content of oxygen has been both higher and lower than 21% over the course of complex life. http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/201/8/1043.pdf

I think that what we are told and what we believe as kids has a profound effect on what we do and think as adults. I know that when I say the pledge of allegiance I take it seriously, i always have, it's why the "under god" part bothers me so much. I can bullshit with the best of them but when you take an oath or make a pledge it should be serious, you should do it with no qualms about it, if you can't do that due to someone else wanting you to pledge your self to the authority of god I think you have the right to take exception to it and have it changed. Our government is not supposed to force or coerce you into a position on religion. If this were a theocracy I wouldn't have a leg to stand on but this is not a theocracy, it specifically is not a theocracy. I do wish anyone who wants to pledge them selves to god all the success in the world except for the part of making me do it too. I see enough proselytizing in the country already, the government should not be a part of it. The words were put there as blatant support for a specific religion, they should be removed from it.

Whoa, the truth, it is often, ugly!

For your information a great many people care about and have cared about that word in the pledge, people cared enough to add it but fear of real reprisals in our society kept people from stating our objections. Now days we enjoy some protection from those fears but when it was injected into the pledge there was a real fear of jail and persecution if you had objected. Yes my opinion is colored by my lack of religion and i am quite sure most good god fearing people would take great offense to me going around promoting Wicca in the neighborhood, or in schools or anywhere else. Good save on the edit of extreme Christianity, I consider Mormonism and Jehovah's wittinesses to be both extreme and troubling and if you think people wouldn't give you a hard time I suggest you go to some neighborhood and start knocking on doors and asking people if they would like to reject god and Jesus and worship the religion of Wicca and become a witch, good luck, I'd wear a bullet proof vest if i was you. Rush Limbaugh is shit stirrer, he makes his living stirring other people up on issues that are often lies. Respect for my needs are just as real as anyone else's. I nor anyone else should be penalized for our beliefs or lack there of. In this case it is particularly insulting that i have to agree to the idea of a supreme being before I can pledge allegiance to my country. it's simply wrong to promote religion that way. I have never seen any religious person stand up and say Atheism is just as justified as their Christian God, on the contrary atheists are often considered a little "touched" and need to be saved from our selves, (if we are lucky) hence the idea of going around knocking on doors to ask me if I've heard the good news. The idea that God is a good thing to put in the pledge is simply tyranny of the majority religion, nothing less.

So pangloss, inserting God into the pledge is ok, but taking it out is wrong? Typical religious behavior, it's always ok to acknowledge god but going back to what the pledge originality said is bad? What if the pledge said Thor, or moon goddess or Gaea? it all boils down to "does our country promote a specific religion" and yes it does, it not only favors a specific religion it goes out of it's way to inject that religion into our lives and supports people with that agenda. Yes I could not recite the pledge just like I don't go to church or let Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons in my house on their weekly rounds of proselytizing. But why can't the pledge be non religious? Why does god have to counted when I pledge my allegiance to my country? why? Again if the pledge said Thor or Gaea or Satan can you imagine how many people would go bananas? Why is it ok to go with the Christian god and not others? why? It goes far beyond the simple pledge as well. If I wanted to teach religion in schools most people who be fine with it, in fact most people seem to think it's great idea as in "if we only put god back into our lives all of our problems would go away, I have heard that so many times when people talk about problems with unruly students in schools. But if i wanted to teach atheism in schools I'd be run out of town on a rail, if I was lucky, yes our government supports religion, a specific religion, and it frowns on people who do not get with that agenda. I think it's sad and it shows just how sad and small religion is, not god, but his followers who cannot allow dissent or competition and the need they have to make sure religion is shoved down everyone throat as much as possible. I can just about imagine what would happen if I went around in my neighborhood promoting Wicca, i would imagine i would be in deep trouble quite quickly, I would almost certainly be asked by the police to stop and if i didn't the laws that allow them to arrest anyone who is a nuisance would be invoked and I'd find myself in the back of a patrol car very quickly.

Pangloss, you don't understand, the pledge is not optional, if you don't say the pledge you are automatically equated with the godless heathens that hate our country, try this just one time, go to an event where you are noticeable and everyone is saying the pledge of allegiance and simply do not do it. Be prepared for a very bad reaction, try it is you are in the public eye as a leader of any type, run for some minor office and don't say the pledge, the repercussions can resonate even to your job, reflect on your kids, and cause you antagonism through your community. Just that one simple act can have a great negative influence on your life. Children are especially vulnerable to these negative effects. There is real coercion to saying the pledge and the very fact that "under god" was added after the fact is enough for me to see religious coercion in this. What is says is, if you don't say the pledge you are not an American and to be an American you have to give god his due. It's not right, it has nothing to do with me hating my country or not loving my country it has to do with me being expected to acknowledge God before I can acknowledge my country. This was specifically set up like this by 1950's era people who were doing their best to destroy everything America is about to further their own ends. It needs to stop, the phrase should be removed, there is no reason for it, if you want to acknowledge god do it in your own church, don't require me to do so before my behavior is judged correct.

My rule of thumb has always been never have sex with anyone who doesn't make you feel like your heart will leap from your chest and then back off and make sure you like them for other reasons before you have sex, sex is not something you do to get it over with or because it's time or any other reason but because you want to and it feels like you absolutely must. This is the same advice I gave my sons and if I'd had daughters I'd have given them the same. Find other friends, it might take awhile but i am sure there are lots of other people who will be your friend if you let them and the best of them do not require you to do anything but be their friend.

I think it should be pointed that "under god" was added by Mc Carthy era witch hunt types who wanted to show how superior we were to Godless communism. Most of God types forget that those of us who do not believe get more than a little but tired of being consistently trolled by the believers. You stand on street coners, the billboards are every where. Churches on every corner. God is injected in every single part of our existence, why in the name of the non extant God do we have to acknowledge god before we can acknowledge our love for our country? If i put up a billboard asserting that god was non-existent and that religion as a useless parasite on humanity how long would you think it would be up? About 15 seconds if you could find someone willing to put it up to begin with. Believe in your god, go to church, give them your money but do not try to make me acknowledge your god. I grew up hearing how our enemies were godless people, and how we were special because god loves us, all the way from the president to the local simpleton who runs the school board. I for one feel I've backed off enough, it's time to stand up and be counted, if you want god to run your life fine, but leave god out of the government and stop equating love of god and love of country, it's stupid and pointless.

lucktiger, how many forums you gonna troll with this stuff?

No one should ever have sex until "they" want to have sex, to have sex just to please someone else is simply wrong. If this person is really your friend she wouldn't be telling you this, it sounds like she has hidden agenda, at the very least she does not have your interests in mind. Tell her no, if she can't be your friend because you won't do what she says then she is not much of a friend. I am male, and god knows I've used many a line to get girls to have sex with me but this is about the most disingenuous line i have ever heard, tell your friend to have sex herself and leave you out of it, sex is not necessary on some external time frame, sex should be because you want it, not because someone else wants you to have or thinks you should have it. Stand up for yourself, tell her to mind her own business. This is the most important statement you have made, stick to your own agenda, don't allow others to make you do anything you are not ready for.

I don't know if nec209 visited the site i gave a link to but a nuclear light bulb rocket could out preform chemical rockets by a factor of 10, but as it says in the article to maintain reliability figure about 6 or 7 times the best chemical rockets. if you had read the link I provided you would have seen the idea of a rocket that could lift 8 times what the Saturn 5 moon rocket lifted in one shot, one stage ground to orbit, reusable and it can land under power. http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx There are ways to get into space that are far better than what we are doing today or in 1969. One thousand tons from ground to orbit in one reusable rocket is pretty impressive.

I had forgotten just how stupid the "John Titor" story really was, just another right wing conspiracy nut story. So far nothing he predicted has come true, I would have thought the law of averages might have allowed him to hit a few items. lol

John Titor can answer that http://www.johntitor.com/ John has all the answers but I know why his time machine could not possibly work He is quite convincing but he left out one small detail or two

Hmmm, has John Titor raised his head yet again?

I didn't mean to say it would be easier , it just means we don't need volatile chemicals or exotic materials, we can just use our factory slag as reaction mass.

You can use waste materials as mass to change your orbits, mag fields to use this mass in mass drivers. Are you sure you don't mean interplanetary space?

It all depends on how fast you need to come to the earth, from the asteroids to the earth is quite cheap if you don't mind the travel time being a couple of years. processed metals do not need life support or gravity, they can be transferred over time in slow efficient orbits. No one is coming out of interstellar space. and processing in space can use solar power, not to mention automation. But the real deal is making space habitats not bringing platinum to the earth although by that time the need for many metals by that time just might justify a very large price. And mining in space would be much easier that moving the stuff out of the earth.

No they do not, but taking mining and as much heavy industry as possible off planet certainly would ease the burden on the environment but over population is not really part of the reason for or against space travel. Over population is a separate issue and over population just might eventually result in the extinction of humanity but if we have many space colonies humanity will go on. Space colonies also have the possibility of providing places for various groups or even individuals who no longer feel comfortable on the earth, possibly those who want to live under various forms of government, say for instance a pure capitalist society or pure socialist or what ever from religious communities to anarchies, colonies might provide a place for such people to go. I predict societies that are nothing but human carcinomas to pastoral squalor will eventually live in space colonies and when they fail use free vacuum to sterilize them refit them and sell them to someone else. Sounds like a real estate developers Paradise Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I does not take $50 a pound to bring stuff to the Earth and atmospheric reentry is not as difficult as you seem to think. Bringing something to the Earth is quite cheap. I once read that a 10 mile nickle iron asteroid contains enough precious metals like platinum group metals, gold silver and such to make every man woman and child on the earth wealthy. of course it wouldn't work that way but it illustrates just how much "stuff" is out there.

Actually, no, we cannot control robots on alien planets, even at the distance of the moon, time delay due to the speed of light prevents any real control over robots.

No one is saying that space travel can be used to ease population pressure on the Earth any more than Spanish galleons could have been used to ease over crowding in Europe in the 15th century, even now it would be impractical to bring people from one continent to another faster than they could reproduce. However resources, raw materials and even manufactured goods (no i have no idea what could be manufactured in orbit better than on the earth) could be brought to the earth not to mention colonies could and probably would be built in free orbit around the sun in around and near asteroids, around the gas giants and in the Trojan positions of those planets. There is no way at this time to predict what theses colonies or even resources might contribute to the Earth but I am quite sure by then we will know.

I've been told there were several things in play that prevented me from feeling pain, shock, endorphins released by injury, and being underwater. Supposedly being under water over whelms your body's ability to feel pain. I have noticed at other times while scuba diving I have been slammed up against barnacle covered rocks or pilings and not realized I was injured until i left the water even though the injury was quite painful after leaving the water. I do know I felt no pain until i received a shot of morphine and then the pain went past any describable level.

Zolar, have you been following this thread? I have and it has gotten way off the original OP.

It seems to me this argument is bogus, providing social services does not make a government socialist, all governments provide socialist type services to their people. Socialist does not equal communist and a democracy is not threatened by offering social services to it's people.

No, it is not fusion, did you read think I provided about nuclear powered space craft? I have to admit I generally agree, waiting for the correct technology is simply too risky, if Columbus had waited for steam ship technology where would we be now? It might have been better for my people but the new world and everything that came from it would be drastically different if someone had told Columbus, aww just wait we'll have better technology in a few hundred years. Well be able to fly over the Atlantic instead of months by sailing ship. Anyway you look at it, research should not be stopped, the return on space technology has been tremendous, nearly our entire technological civilization depends on space related technology. Right now were spending a pittance on space travel, if we had spent just 20% of what we spent on killing each other since 1950 on space travel humans would already own the inner solar system and yes the resources of the inner solar system would make a big difference in our own lives.

Actually nec, the cost of space travel is quite small when compared to the money we spend on the military, the Iraq war cost more money in just a few days that the entire NASA budget for a year. Space travel is pitifully under funded.