Re: The job of NASA

On 25 Nov, 03:51, ohara...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:46 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:





On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:51:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

BTW NASA is absolutely correct about its selection of astronauts, even
if it is incorrect to select any at all. You are not a team player and
you would be a liability if you had to do anything with anyone else.

Assuming that this is referring to me (one never knows, because you,
as is often the case, idiotically remove all context), I've worked on,
and am currently working on, many teams. None of them, fortunately,
have lunatics like you on them.

I connot see anyone in their senses employing you in any capacity. If
you slandered a colleague like that you could destroy any teamwork and
goodwill there was in an organization.

I haven't slandered you.

Even though I think it's been explained once, I'll do it again,
because you're apparently an idiot, and still don't get it (and
probably still won't even after I explain it again).

You committed a logical fallacy called a Complex Question, in which a
question is asked in such a form as to imply that another question had
already been asked and answered. It's also known more popularly as a
"trick question," or "loaded question."

Here are some web pages on it.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.h...

If you read them all, slowly and carefully, and think about it, very
hard, there's a slim possibility that you'll finally get the point.

The classic example is "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"
This implies, with no evidence, that the questionee is a wife beater.

You asked the group such an (idiotic) and loaded question. To wit (or
in your case, non-wit, or nitwit): "How is it that the Republican
party can live in the gutter?"

Since it has not been established that "the Republican party can live
in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so,
let alone that it *can*), then it's completely idiotic to ask us how
it can do so. If you'd like to argue that "the Republican party can
live in the gutter," then you should do that (though it's quite off
topic here), but we're not going to allow you to steal a rhetorical
base by just accepting your foolish assertion.

To make my point, I responded with a complex question of my own,
though not in the form of a question--it was in the form of a response
to your moronic question: "I'll explain that when you tell us why you
continue to engage in pederasty."

You see, this is what is called a "rhetorical device" (something else
with which you seem to be unfamiliar, being such a literal and
simple-minded bloke).

It doesn't mean that I literally believe that you do now, or have ever
engaged in pederasty (though I have to admit some amusement at your
guilty conscience in your response).

It also does not mean that I'm accusing you of that. I was simply
making a point about your idiotic question, which anyone with an IQ
above room temperature (leaving out, of course, you and Eric Chomko)
could see. I *didn't* claim to have evidence of your propensity for
young boys. In fact, the very point of a complex question is that it
is making an implication with zero evidence.

But your response that, because I used such a rhetorical device, I
must be a CIA agent, or am "hacking your personal life" is, to me,
indicative of someone with paranoid delusions. As I said, if I were
you, I would seek professional help.

Then again, if I were you, I'd be nuts, so maybe I wouldn't.

The amount of sheer lunacy here amazes me. In fact, I'd say the ratio
of sense to nonsense is far less than unity.- Hide quoted text -

I think you are dead right. There are a number of facts about Rand -
based purely on his postings. The first of these is that he made a
completely unwarranted personal slur against myself. I cannot just let
that go.

The second fact is that he makes an assertion in a posting. For
example in his last but one postings he repeated the slur. In his last
posting he denied it. Where are you? You simply cannot have a
discussion.

There are but 2 possibilities.

1) He is a psychopath - on reflection I think this is the most
probable.

2) He is in the CIA or some other intelligence organization. This is
in fact unlikely because even the Central Stupidity Agency would not
employ anyone quite so stupid. Let us take this slur. If it did come
from my conversation with Bassam al Kuwaiti as I first supposed,
Syrian Intelligence would be on to it like a shot. Nobody even in the
CSA could do that. BTW - Bassam has had a full run down.

Mind the habit Rand has of stating something and then promptly denying
that he said it is symtomatic of someone who is under authority not to
reveal certain things. However it is more probable that he is simply
confused as to what he has written.

There are many pschopaths in the US military. Indeed it seems to breed
them. We hear about Iraqis put on a dog leash, we hear about a hostage
who was shot in cold blood on his way to the airport. Do you imagine
that the "friendly fire" incidents are all accidents. Not a bit of it.
Indeed the general trigger happiness is a major reason for the
developing messes. This is so for Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Be careful if you go to Mars that when you step out on the surface
your spacesuit does not spring a leak. As I said NASA has probably
picked the right astronauts, always assuming it has any at all!

Indeed you are right there is a lot of lunacy, largely stemming from
Rand's smear campaign. This is another factor that leads one to
suspect the CIA. Smear is part of basic training - however do be
careful of Syrian Intelligence! However I just think he has a dirty
pschopathic mind. He isn't bright enough for anything else.

There is a question, not what the purpose of NASA is but a far more
fundamental question as to whether this forum is capable of even
getting to grips with the issue. You see you can't propose one thing
one day and sometrhing else the next day.

Getting onto the topic (for once) there is an obvious role for a NASA
in a private enterprise space set up, and that is as a regulator and
certifier. As I think one poster has rightly said a Von Neumann
machine and other forms of advanced robotics will be developed for use
on Earth regardless of what NASA (or anyone concerned with space)
does. Norally in a capitalist economy industry provides all the action
and government sets the rules of the game.

NASA should set the standards (along with ESA and Glavkosmos) for
space worthiness. A case in point is "New Horizons". Because of high
energy cosmc rays the computer has had to be rebooted 4 times. Now no
doubt the NH chips will work without a hitch in a Google server, but
in space there are problems. I have little doubt it will reach Pluto
as Jupiter has been passed, but there should be an acceptable level of
reboots to take a simple example.

Another purpose of NASA is that of acting as champion for genuinely
new technologies. An example of this being Space Solar Power. There
needs to be a focus to which new ideas can be discussed. NASA also has
a role in education.

NASA should emphatically NOT be doing the things that private
enterprise can do much better. The development of launchers being one.
Ares right or wrong? wrong I think. Rand however claims Ares does not
exist. How can we discuss it in this atmosphere? This is what I want
to know. Pure pschopath aiming to wreck the forum, or CIA agent having
to get approval? Chack your spacesuit for leaks, don't go too far from
atmospheric pressure and oxygen. Pun on atmosphere not intended!

Just look up what has been written. You will see what I mean.

I would like to make just one remark on tranmittting solar power to
Earth. It will without a doubt be done by a series of phase linked
attennae. It should be pointed out that the Russian Tor radar system
works in a very similar way. It works at a long wavelength
(stealthbusting) and then transmits encoded phase and amplitude to
another similar system. I have little doubt that shuch a system for M/
GEO is being worked on as I write.

Thus a relatively low power demonstration system whch still features
the full focussing technology of the full sized system is in reach. I
hope everyone is aware of this.


- Ian Parker
.

Relevant Pages