Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 22. (Read 80438 times)
Whoever wrote this ^^^^ should never have children.
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, SLATE.COM STYLE
Mother’s Day is a day of appreciation, of gratitude, and of guilt. Guilt for all the things I put my mother through over the years. A time to say I’m sorry, and to recognize how much she did for me. This Mother’s Day I’d like to apologize for what is probably the worst thing I’ve ever done to my mother. And you did it to your mother, too.
Dear Mom: I’d like to say I’m sorry. I’m sorry for manipulating you, stealing from you, taking control of your blood supply, and consuming part of your body. I, like everyone else alive today, did all this before I was even born, with an organ I no longer possess. Of course, I wasn’t consciously doing these things to you, in the same way I’m not consciously controlling my liver. It just sort of happened.
It all started when I was a zygote. I was floating through your uterus when I bumped into your uterine wall. I’m not proud of what I did next, but I really wasn’t thinking. (That’s not an excuse—I was just a clump of cells.) I used my outer layer of cells to invade and destroy parts of your uterus. This outer layer consisted of my trophoblast cells, and I used them like a horde of ravenous snakes: winding through your uterine wall, killing your cells, and sucking up your nutrients. With my trophoblasts I burrowed into your uterine wall like a parasite until I was completely embedded in your tissue.
Then I went a little psycho on you. In good embryo fashion, my trophoblasts grew into clumps that fused with your blood vessels. I grew hollow spaces within these clumps, and these spaces filled with your blood. Together, all these blood-filled spaces became my placenta, one of the strangest organs on Earth. The blood inside these clumps was all yours, but the tissue that surrounded them was grown from my cells. Because your blood vessels fused with my trophoblast clumps to create these blood chambers, my placenta was a hybrid organ made from both of us. (We shared an organ together—attachment and bonding!) I then grew wriggly little projections into these blood chambers. These projections were filled with blood vessels from my umbilical cord that let me pass my waste into your bloodstream and soak up oxygen and nutrients from your body.
Just when you thought I couldn't get any more demanding, I started actively invading your blood supply. This is where humans are especially destructive. No other animal is so ruthless in its invasion. For most animal species, Mom’s blood vessels remain safely hers, but humans are not like most animals. My cells began surrounding the arteries you used to fill my placenta with blood. These arteries provided your blood to the chambers of my placenta, and thus provided me with much-needed oxygen and nutrients. Slowly my cells began to replace your artery walls, effectively taking your placental arteries under my control. Once I had control of your arteries, I widened them to increase the amount of blood that entered the blood chambers, which increased the amount of oxygen and nutrients passing through my placenta (and thus to me). But that was just small-scale control—I wasn’t done yet.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/science_for_mother_s_day_disturbing_biology_of_the_human_placenta.html
********************************************************************************************
A reminder. We are not off topic. Even with the first colony on Mars, Everyone will still hate environmentalists and feminists
********************************************************************************************
Thank you for your attention
WTF is an 'internal gravity anomaly'? I'm not defending the poster who produced the BS that you enumerated, but I'm just sayin'
Think in terms of heavy metal asteroids impacting the Moon and creating local mass concentrations.
Affects orbits, obviously.
It's not obvious to me. Intuitively I would think that an orbit would be established around a centroid (of sorts) irrespective of internal differences in density. I could, with effort, visualize some harmonics if the orbit was not synchronous and the orbit was close I suppose. Especially if the anomalies were significant (and I would not thing they would be on our moon.)
I have to admit though I can't even see the logic in the entire scheme. Somehow put an asteroid into lunar orbit so that Astronauts can go to the moon and look at it??? We can put robots and sensitive instrument packages on asteroids and gather boatloads of information, without needing to move the asteroid at all. The base concept had to be that for men to get to the asteroid it had to be anchored somewhere closeby, ergo, lunar orbit. Better would have been L4 or L5 point, but still....it's all about getting meatspace cans to the rock.
That I agree with.
Since we are well off-topic...I read of an idea of changing the earth's orbit (say, to effect the global climate) by appropriating a large body then cycling it around one of the larger planets and Earth. This to effectively transfer energy from (or to) Earth. I did a few wild calcs and it seems like it would take many many many thousands of years to have much of an effect though. And I suspect we'd have some tides of biblical proportions
Fun thought experiment anyway.....I thought that some moons of some of the larger planets had satellites of their own. I don't see any description of them in a brief search, however, so maybe I am wrong. But anyway, if such a thing is impossible in principle (because, say, the largest body will steal the smallest) then it seems that we ourselves would have no moon because the sun would have nailed it long ago?
Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
The Moon has internal gravity anomalies, creating an orbit that lasts a couple of years is very difficult and like "threading a needle". Can be done, couple years is the most. Look at the LRO mission for example. That's not a "stable orbit".Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
WTF is an 'internal gravity anomaly'? I'm not defending the poster who produced the BS that you enumerated, but I'm just sayin'
Think in terms of heavy metal asteroids impacting the Moon and creating local mass concentrations.
Affects orbits, obviously.
I have to admit though I can't even see the logic in the entire scheme. Somehow put an asteroid into lunar orbit so that Astronauts can go to the moon and look at it??? We can put robots and sensitive instrument packages on asteroids and gather boatloads of information, without needing to move the asteroid at all. The base concept had to be that for men to get to the asteroid it had to be anchored somewhere closeby, ergo, lunar orbit. Better would have been L4 or L5 point, but still....it's all about getting meatspace cans to the rock.
....I thought that some moons of some of the larger planets had satellites of their own. I don't see any description of them in a brief search, however, so maybe I am wrong. But anyway, if such a thing is impossible in principle (because, say, the largest body will steal the smallest) then it seems that we ourselves would have no moon because the sun would have nailed it long ago?
Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
The Moon has internal gravity anomalies, creating an orbit that lasts a couple of years is very difficult and like "threading a needle". Can be done, couple years is the most. Look at the LRO mission for example. That's not a "stable orbit".Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
WTF is an 'internal gravity anomaly'? I'm not defending the poster who produced the BS that you enumerated, but I'm just sayin'
....I thought that some moons of some of the larger planets had satellites of their own. I don't see any description of them in a brief search, however, so maybe I am wrong. But anyway, if such a thing is impossible in principle (because, say, the largest body will steal the smallest) then it seems that we ourselves would have no moon because the sun would have nailed it long ago?
Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
The Moon has internal gravity anomalies, creating an orbit that lasts a couple of years is very difficult and like "threading a needle". Can be done, couple years is the most. Look at the LRO mission for example. That's not a "stable orbit". Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
Somehow I feel bad for liking the post in the OP. 
We all do...
I feel bad for having to trump space.com and their midget friends at NASA.
From your link-
The space agency's plan aims to bring a 23-foot-wide (7 meters) space rock into lunar orbit using a robotic space lasso. Once the asteroid is in a stable orbit around the moon, astronauts can visit as soon as 2021 using NASA's Orion space capsule and the giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
There is no Orion space capsule.
There is no giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
Maybe if we all kicked in a few BTC there could be. "Let's roll!"
I love ignorant people like you, it just makes it so much easier for me to make money and I realised this thread has derailed a bit, but it was getting boring anyway
...
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
...
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
...
Maybe if we all kicked in a few BTC there could be. "Let's roll!"
That's what they said about cell phone connectivity in airborne commercial aircraft at altitude. How wrong they were. Anyway...
I'm not up on my celestial mechanics, but I thought that some moons of some of the larger planets had satellites of their own. I don't see any description of them in a brief search, however, so maybe I am wrong. But anyway, if such a thing is impossible in principle (because, say, the largest body will steal the smallest) then it seems that we ourselves would have no moon because the sun would have nailed it long ago?
Also, I remember that in the case of our lunar expeditions, the LEM descended while the main spacecraft went into orbit around the moon until the guys came back. That would seem to indicate that it is possible for an orbit around the moon to be stable enough to accomplish some sorts of missions at least.
I feel bad for having to trump space.com and their midget friends at NASA.
From your link-
The space agency's plan aims to bring a 23-foot-wide (7 meters) space rock into lunar orbit using a robotic space lasso. Once the asteroid is in a stable orbit around the moon, astronauts can visit as soon as 2021 using NASA's Orion space capsule and the giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
There is no Orion space capsule.
There is no giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
Maybe if we all kicked in a few BTC there could be. "Let's roll!"
I feel bad for having to trump space.com and their midget friends at NASA.
From your link-
The space agency's plan aims to bring a 23-foot-wide (7 meters) space rock into lunar orbit using a robotic space lasso. Once the asteroid is in a stable orbit around the moon, astronauts can visit as soon as 2021 using NASA's Orion space capsule and the giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
There is no Orion space capsule.
There is no giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
Maybe if we all kicked in a few BTC there could be. "Let's roll!"
I feel bad for having to trump space.com and their midget friends at NASA.
From your link-
The space agency's plan aims to bring a 23-foot-wide (7 meters) space rock into lunar orbit using a robotic space lasso. Once the asteroid is in a stable orbit around the moon, astronauts can visit as soon as 2021 using NASA's Orion space capsule and the giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
There are no "stable lunar orbits".
There is no Orion space capsule.
There is no giant Space Launch System mega-rocket.
For whatever reason, there seems to be a correlation between Bitcoin fans and those mesmerized by outer-space travel fantasies. Who knows why that is. A while ago someone was trying to get people to send him BTC for an outer space mission which he was working on in his spare time because his day job was 'setting the standard' in ASIC Bitcoin mining.
Somehow I feel bad for liking the post in the OP.
Quote
About 'space flight' we disagree. It is absurdly wasteful to put the life support systems needed to sustain human life into space. Even if the human life is expendable it would still be the case. The cost/benefit simply isn't there from an engineering perspective at this point in our development of technology. IMO.
People who say that kind of thing about space flight simply haven't done their research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm
Quote
The most detailed study of an asteroid shows that it contains precious metals worth at least $20,000bn
Space flight not worth it? My arse, one space mission to get one of these asteroids could easily pay for several, forget selling them, the materials alone could be used hugely in construction efforts.
I'm sure the materials on it are worth it but is it technically feasible and cost effective not to mention actually even safe to actually land on an asteroid and mine it? Seems like a momentous task on all fronts.
Anyway, most things that can be said about an asteroid can be said about the Moon. But there are always, always exceptions and there could be some particular rock out there that was of major interest....
The difficulty of mining an asteroid versus Moon would be orders of magnitude harder.
There's other stuff in space besides gold and silver, oh and then there are the distant planets with possible atmosphere that have been found and then there's the water on Mars and the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potential_habitable_exoplanets - < Only a matter of time before we find a planet with other beings on it or a whole new planet to colonise that just has animals in it
Amazing even with all this evidence there are still people who would argue against space flight at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potential_habitable_exoplanets - < Only a matter of time before we find a planet with other beings on it or a whole new planet to colonise that just has animals in it
Amazing even with all this evidence there are still people who would argue against space flight at all
Quote
About 'space flight' we disagree. It is absurdly wasteful to put the life support systems needed to sustain human life into space. Even if the human life is expendable it would still be the case. The cost/benefit simply isn't there from an engineering perspective at this point in our development of technology. IMO.
People who say that kind of thing about space flight simply haven't done their research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm
Quote
The most detailed study of an asteroid shows that it contains precious metals worth at least $20,000bn
Space flight not worth it? My arse, one space mission to get one of these asteroids could easily pay for several, forget selling them, the materials alone could be used hugely in construction efforts.
I should have been more clear and said 'manned space flight'.
There are a variety of reason to explore and exploit space, and somewhat less so, matter other than what is currently classified as planet earth. Mining gold is NOT one of them. The main reason gold has anywhere near the value it has today is because it is scarce. If you hop into your spaceship and come back to earth with a golden asteroid in tow, gold would not be scarce and the value would go down to a tiny fraction of it's current value.
Mining silver (no matter where) is a lot more promising since it is a much more generally useful element. Even so, most people are wholly out of touch with the technical and economic issues associated with working in space (and the general physics of such an endeavor...or the physics of pretty much anything else for that matter.) Watching 'Alien' does not really help people develop a good understanding of such things.
Jump to: