et pet

In what Post did I state any "objections to the actions of the current American Government" ? AGAIN : OP = Why is alcohol legal ? (in U.S.) ?? = The people responsible for deciding/making the laws relating to legality of alcohol (in U.S.) can have Alcohol delivered to their Offices for consumption while deciding/making those same laws.

OP = Why is alcohol legal ? ?? = The people responsible for deciding/making the laws relating to legality of alcohol can have Alcohol delivered to their Offices for consumption while deciding/making those same laws. !! = So, if you had Football, Basketball and Baseball Players responsible for deciding/making the laws relating to legality of Pro Sports,do you suppose those Players would make Pro Sports illegal?

I do not know whether she does or not I have not claimed she drinks

Too true, Phi for All. And like I said, for whatever reason, it appears that Alcohol just may be a "necessity" in that walk of life at least. from : https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/us-economy-foreign-policy-tatters-pelosi-s-new-capitol-caterer-delivers-booze-directly-office/ " Nancy Pelosi has a history of ridiculous statements and positions. Now, with the US economy and foreign policy falling apart, she’s making it easier for lawmakers to access liquor at the US Capitol. Now Nancy and her comrades don’t have far to go to get their drinks. The Daily Wire reports: Members of the House of Representatives may now order beer, wine, and spirits and have them delivered directly to their offices, a new development that could help lubricate those late-night budget negotiations. The perk is courtesy of Capitol Hill’s new caterer, hospitality services giant Sodexo, and was first reported by Fox News Channel’s Chad Pergram. 2) Wine and beer was often available at catered receptions on Capitol Hill. But now booze can go directly to a Member’s office. And, they can order in bulk. Fox is told that this can be paid with private money or a campaign funds. " links to peruse : https://t.co/P5HmEv5xGV https://thehouse.misofi.net/menugrid.asp?mode=p&a=13&cg=22&intOrderID=&intCustomerID Capitol Hill Drinks on Demand and Quick FixDrinks on DemandView All Check Date Availability Drinks on Demand (Bulk Orders) Drinks by the Case Drinks ready for pick up or delivery to your office. Call us at 202-225-1403 with any questions. Price Varies DETAILS Beer - Same Day A variety of beer selections sold per case of 24 packs. Price Varies DETAILS Liquor - Same Day A variety of liquor selections sold per 750 ml bottles. A variety of sauvignon blanc wine selections sold per 750 ml bottles. Price Varies DETAILS *"dictates"

Not quite sure that society already "dictates Alcohol as a social necessity in all walks of life", although if "Pelosi is {really?} opening a liquor store in the House where Members can buy alcohol with their taxpayer-funded MRAs." See : https://twitter.com/AustinScottGA08/status/1525215777032482816?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Then, it appears that it just may be a "necessity" in that walk of life at least. So? Note the Hours that the Alcohol is available for purchase.

Thanx, Green Plus+ again, Thanks

Can anyone cite any case where torture actually produced actionable intelligence that led to a positive result, ie child rescued from pedophile or bomb found before detontion? not from tv or movies! IF...any conspirators were to actually set a bomb to kill thousands of people, do you suppose that those same conspirators might have a FAIL SAFE of any kind? Say, possibly that in the event that one of them might be caught, they have a ready response in the event of TORTURE? like it may be that under duress, they give up a location that when acted upon, lets the other conspirators know that one of them has been captured, or it may be an address that when accessed automatically detonates that bomb? as far as the pedophile/s, it may be an address that is near the real address so as to let the other pedophile know that the authorities are closing in? what do you suppose will happen to any child after that? peterkin seems to be the only poster that has really contemplated the question and answered honestly

quite telling

bad click

The paper was only 13 pages, real science examines all evidence in its entirety, right? and Objectively, right? From the introduction of : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf "Long-term collaborative efforts, like the ITER fusion reactor [4], are nevertheless more often than not accompanied by continuous controversies concerning the ultimate effort to utility ratio, with a central reason being the rational to discount future rewards [5]. It is hence unlikely that explorative space missions taking centuries or even millennia to complete would ever survive the initial cost-to-benefit evaluation. The situation may however change for endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values. This will be the case, as we argue here, for Genesis missions aiming to establish an ecosphere of unicellular lifeforms on potentially habitable but hitherto barren exoplanets." Let me get this straight, the author, Claudius Gros, actually states that he sees the "Genesis missions" as "endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values" Your take is : "I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.", right? Peterkin, dimreepr, Ken Fabian and others, including the author, Claudius Gros, have examined the evidence critically, objectively, in essence Scientifically and have concluded that the "Genesis missions" are "not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values", you claim" I also believe I have no baggage, other then science and the scientific method" , yet you Post this : "I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.", right? Science, right? "no baggage, other then science and the scientific method" dimreepr seems to be onto something : "Then you're fooling yourself, we all labour under the baggage of 'our/individual/unique' life, sometimes it light enough that we don't notice we're lugging it around; strict adherence to a method of lugging it around, doesn't mean you're not lugging baggage..."

Science? I tried to spoon feed you an honest to goodness example of an actual real science experiment being carried out by real scientists for real scientific reasons. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/is-space-a-bad-influence-on-good-bacteria An experiment to see if zero gravity and radiation has the same effect on beneficial bacteria as it does on harmful bacteria NASA made these cephalopods spacefaring, thus allowing real scientists to conduct this real experiment. https://www.sciof.fi/science-fiction-squid-in-space/ science? then you greater folk know all about this "Scientific Study Concludes Octopuses Could Have Come from Space" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientific-study-concludes-octopuses-could-have-come-from-space/vi-AASf3VJ and of course you greater folk have already read this "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

Nonsense, and as already mentioned previously and reproduced below, I have read those hypotheticals, as oppossed to scientific theories, which most reputable scientists reject. It is nonsense to suggest that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities, and we have no evidence to suggest they are Alien, and which most reputable scientists reject. But et pet, I must now ignore you for reasons known by yourself and myself regarding past interactions elsewhere and your reputaion. Hope you understand. Thank you. "I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds." seriously? It may be that you need to practice real Science, and carefully read the entire Paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf You know, like actually look at the evidence, objectively Just maybe? and this is just pushing a STRAWMAN ? - "suggest(ing) that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities". that is merely a poor attempt at erecting a STRAWMAN, that is not Science! it may be that you should try and practice some real science and look into the reality of "space faring cephalopods" maybe even check with NASA actually discuss science and possibly learn something or continue to be ignorant of real science, that is entirely up to you

What do you suppose it is "essentially about"? I actually read the ENTIRE PAPER seems the Authors consider the "Genesis missions" as "endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf you do realize that there are "spacefaring cephalopods", right? you know that there are Scientists that Theorize that "spacefaring cephalopods" may have arrived on Earth Hundreds of Millions or even Billions of years ago, right?

what is the paper about? have you read the paper? what do you want addressed about the paper? you could address what I posted :

after reading these Posts, anyone suppose it may be that Space Faring Cephlopods (Octopuses?) Panspermized the Earth? it may be that hundreds of milions or even billions of years ago Octopuses were a "Space Faring Species" that somehow gave "the old reverse panspermia a go" and the Earth got seeded it just may be could be maybe a theory

A primer of sorts was done some years back by Brandon Weigel you should be able to just GOOGEL something like " Dyson Spheres / Brandon Weigel "

We both guilty of Selective Perception, zapatos?

Sorry, I did not know that Scientists had studied Dark Matter to the point of knowing all of it's properties. It may be that assuming (and maybe even Fiction) is part of Science to some. Like and agree with your Posts, BTW!!!

Yep, seems like. And if truth be told, that single data point is not really from a space fairing species. A thought though If true 95% of everything is Dark Matter and something we can't witness? Like maybe only One in Twenty space fairing species will ever be regular Matter like us?

In the U.S. you can park in a driveway and drive on a Parkway.

Yes, your order, (32, 1; 2, 31)..., would be correct if the print job were to be set up for a Front to Back/Left to Right pamphlet or book. However, I continued using the order that studiot had provide in his first 3 Posts, {1, 32; 2, 31}, {3, ?; 4, ?}, {?, ?; ?, ?} , ... The order might also be (1,32;31, 2)...,for a Back to Front/Right to Left pamphlet or book. For example, a Japanese Manga : https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-read-manga/

{1, 32; 2, 31}...{3, 30; 4, 29}...{5, 28; 6, 27} on to {15, 18; 16, 17} 8 sheets of paper to be printed on both front and back, then to be folded in the middle of the sheet 16 print jobs 1st sheet : 1st print job are pages 1 and 32, 2nd print job are pages 2 and 31 so..."{1, 32; 2, 31}" 2nd sheet :3rd print job are pages 3 and 30, 4th print job are pages 4 and 29 so..."{3, 30; 4, 29}" 3rd sheet : 5th print job are pages 5 and 28, 6th print job are pages 6 and 27 so..."{5, 28; 6, 27}" ... 8th sheet : 15th print job are pages 15 and 18, 16th print job are pages 16 and 17 so..."{15, 18; 16, 17}"

The above does not seem to relate to the 3 Possibilities Listed in the Link : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/ , (I posted the wrong Link in my previous Post!) Once again, may I inquire, What are your thoughts on : "Clearly, something here is amiss. WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW By definition, the process of science can never reveal objective truths about the universe. Every new discovery really only tells us how things appear to be to us, not how things really are. This means that every observation is subject to interpretation. So here are a few possible interpretations of our observation of HD 140283: Possibility #1 - One or more of our observations could be wrong. Possibility #2 - Our models of cosmic evolution could be wrong. Possibility #3 - The laws of physics may have changed over time. " - https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/

Yes, like it says in the article : https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html , clearly something is amiss. What are your thoughts on Possibility #1, #2 or #3?

Have you ever heard of or researched the star that is Officially named HD 140283, that many of us astronomers have nicknamed the "Methuselah" star? It has been known as one of "oldest" stars discovered for some time now(pun intended!) and has been studied quite heavily in the last few decades. It is easily researched on the internet if you like. The following is from a few years back written by Dan Levesque and published on Death by Cosmos : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/ " WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HD 140283 Mainstream cosmological models theorize that the first Population II stars didn't form until several hundred million years after the big bang. But HD 140283 presents us with a unique challenge—it appears to pre-date the big bang by about half a billion years. Initial observations had estimated Methuselah to be around 16 billion years old, plus or minus two billion years. In order to resolve this apparent discrepancy with the age of the universe, astrophysicists employed the Hubble Space Telescope to look at HD 140283 with far greater accuracy than any Earth-based telescopes were able to do. With the data gathered from Hubble, astrophysicists published, astrophysicists published a more accurate estimate of Methuselah's age: 14.46 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. At the lower range of this uncertainty value, HD 140283 could be as young as 13.66 billion years old—which means that it would have formed just 160 million years after the big bang. Unfortunately, that timeline doesn't fit our cosmological models. In a recent study, astronomers using ESA's Planck Satellite determined that the first light from the earliest star formation likely happened 560 million years after the big bang. This means that, while our observations of HD 140283 suggest that it could have formed as early as 13.66 billion years ago, our observations of the cosmic microwave background of the universe suggest that the earliest stars didn't form until 13.26 billion years ago. The numbers simply don't add up. In a follow-up study, astrophysicists analyzed dating methodology by cross-referencing data from Methuselah with other observations of Population II stars that are 10+ billion years old (though none of these conflict with the apparent age of the universe). Upon refinement, astrophysicists published a new paper with an even more precise age for HD 140283: 14.27 billion years, plus or minus 380 million years. Here, the uncertainty was attributed primarily to distance-related precision alone. Having failed to 'solve' the problem, the researchers stated that: The most likely explanations for these difficulties, which would impact our results for the other subgiants as well, are (i) the absolute oxygen abundance that we have determined is too low, (ii) the adopted temperature is too low, (iii) the isochrone Teff scale is too high, or some combination of these possibilities. Alternatively, it remains a remote possibility that HD 140283 truly is older than 14 [billion years], and that current estimates of the age of the universe are too low. Clearly, something here is amiss. WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW By definition, the process of science can never reveal objective truths about the universe. Every new discovery really only tells us how things appear to be to us, not how things really are. This means that every observation is subject to interpretation. So here are a few possible interpretations of our observation of HD 140283: POSSIBILITY #1: One or more of our observations could be wrong. The laws of physics are being refined and expanded upon all the time, and this gradual evolution of theory does tend to make past theories seem silly. For example, less than a century ago, most astronomers though that the Milky Way galaxy was the only galaxy in the whole universe—now, recent estimates show there could be as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. Because of this tendency towards increased knowledge and more accurate theories, scientists are generally really careful. Astronomy is a slow and methodical science by necessity; in many cases, astronomers must literally wait for stars to align in order to collect the data they're after. It's unlikely that any of these observations are wrong, but there remains the possibility that the very act of observation and analysis may be missing some important information. POSSIBILITY #2: Our models of cosmic evolution could be wrong. This is perhaps the most likely culprit, though it would also come as a shock to the scientific community—as has every such paradigm shift that's ever happened. The problem with this possibility is that we don't even know what we don't yet know. There's the implication that something is missing from our physics models (though something is always missing), but we can't grasp what that might be—if we could, then it probably wouldn't be missing. The solution to this one is just a function of time. In due time, it may turn out that our observations were correct, but that our assumptions about the age of the universe or the way in which the first stars formed were incorrect. Or, it may turn out to be a mixture of both. Either way, all we can do is wait and, in the meantime, admit that we just don't know. POSSIBILITY #3: The laws of physics may have changed over time. Shortly after the big bang, the universe looked unrecognizable compared to the cosmos of today—could its physical laws also have been different? Evidence has gone both ways: some observations seem to confirm that the same physical laws existed 10+ billion years ago as exist today, while others show quite the opposite. But would it be so naive to think that we should spend more time thinking about how the physical laws got the way they are in the first place? Acclaimed physicist Richard Feynman takes up this line of thought in the following video, beginning at 7:53 When considering the current state of physics, Feynman states: "It's as though we're doing a Chess game again, and we're working on the rules but we're not worrying about how the pieces are supposed to be setup on the board in the first place." He then goes on to pose a very profound question: could the laws of physics also evolve over time? "It's interesting that in many other sciences, there's a historical question. Like in Geology, they question 'how did the Earth evolve to the present condition?' In Biology, 'how did the various species evolve to get to be the way they are?' But the one field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is Physics. 'Here are the laws,' we say. 'Here are the laws, today'. How did they get that way in time? We don't even think of it that way. We think of, well, that was that way forever." " There is more at : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/