Sayonara

I improved an article one time (and I do mean improved), and the guy who wrote the section I edited must have had it on his watch list because he came back and restored it, leaving a snotty comment on the changelog. I couldn't be arsed after that. Oddly enough this weekend I have been going through a particular set of pages and noticed all sorts of factual errors, ignored conventions, and so on. I was going to correct them, then thought "actually no - I am putting together a competing resource and with all these errors on Wikipedia, mine is better." So there you go

What do you think would happen to your bike if the spokes vanished?

Getting back to answering the original question... it depends what you mean by "allow for". If you mean do scientific laws prohibit those things, then no. Unless they are defined with attributes that are contrary to those laws. If you mean do scientific laws account for those things, then no - that's not their job. If you mean can scientific laws be used to investigate such things, then "conceivably", but these things first require definition within the domain of useful scientific enquiry, which rather defeats their nature. Like Atheist, I was under the impression that "magic" means forces which are, by definition, beyond science, so in that particular case it's "no" for that last scenario too. For things like ghouls, it is much more sensible to look at the source of the folklore and decide from that how you wish to explain them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoul Considering the dietary habits of hyenas, it is not really surprising that ghouls are most often "seen" in this form.

As is the case with most of the requests in this thread, we don't get enough posts on those subjects to warrant another sub-forum. As per usual, if posts on those subjects increase enough, they'll be accommodated in their own corner.

About half of our bulbs are compact flourescents, although they were here when we moved in so I don't think you'd call it a "switch" as such. Most people just buy the bulbs, not a place to use them.

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the arguments we are having here would very likely drive cohesive forces between a cluster of Martian societies?

Yes, but you made the statement in a dispute with the context of chimps and humans having the capacity to reach Mars (or, as applicable, failing to have that capacity). In direct reply to someone who was discussing the "space travel mastery" of chimps vis-à-vis reaching Mars. If we are going to discuss the state of human space travel technology in general, surely that is a whole other thread? I don't believe time is the limiting factor, and I'd be impressed if you can show evidence that it is. The limiting factor is, in my opinion, the cold hard fact that Earth has resources that Mars will need and cannot duplicate. And it always will. And assume Earth gives Mars everything they need on a continuous basis (which is unlikely, but go with it). Even fully terraformed, with a human population living in the open and safely between the sustainability threshold and the carrying capacity, compared to Earth Mars will always be a second-rate planet struggling to achieve goals that are ridiculously far beyond it. That being said, I am sure there will be some novel products and thoughts, after all these are usually generated wherever you see adaptations and the Martians will certainly be doing a lot of adaptation. (Oddly enough, this may be where the Martians find a commodity that they can use in trade with Earth. Mars-inspired technology may be useful to certain kinds of researchers, for instance. And there will doubtless be a market for Martian literature and art.) The notion of Mars as a thriving planet that independently produces thinkers and technology to rival those of Earth or any other Imperium world is - I'm sad to say - far more romantic than it is realistic. Getting back to the point though, I would like to see the logical deduction that Mars can be freed from resource demands on Earth in action. Essentially, I ask this because it directly opposes the logical deduction that Mars cannot be freed from a resource requirement scenario in which it requires resources that it cannot produce itself. Like plutonium, for example. Or the latest cancer research findings. Or the specialised machinery required to fabricate all the novel materials that good old Earth science comes up with after Colony 1 leaves for Mars. Please also remember that information is a limiting resource, and this includes education, industrial/engineering specifications, scientific findings, and so on. Although some nations do currently duplicate effort in these areas, the Martians will have such (literally) other-wordly pressures on them as to make that kind of behaviour a highly wasteful luxury. The advance of society might be linked to resources and information, but it doesn't guarantee their availability. You can't extrapolate your way to things that just aren't there. It seems to me that you have omitted all actual reasoning, and simply stated what you would like to believe. This would appear to be at odds with your intention for this thread, since you asked us about the sociopolitical dynamics of a colonised Mars and that is what I am trying to discuss. If you disagree, fine, but it seems disingenuous that you would simply state vague conclusions supported by a paragraph of pseudo-waffle, instead of refuting the highly visible arguments I have made. "We cannot predict technological advances therefore technology will bridge the resource gap" simply won't do. I also fail to see the logic in bridging a resource gap by invoking advances in energy conversion technology, the research and development of which surely would be one of the first casualties of said gap. Note that "Earth can give us the technology" is, in itself, a resource dependence. You being sure is as valid an argument as "infinity" is a valid time period. In any case, over such long time scales as the ones you are proposing, it is far more likely that social pressures will avert independence and possibly even subvert self-sufficiency. This is, of course, assuming no disaster befalls the Martians (let's not forget the chances of this increase within an increased time period).

It's actually a chimp. The name is coincidental. Or is it?

Turns out the answer is in the article you linked to: I was right - it's a ROM chip. But it obviously won't work on older laptops that aren't fitted with recovery chips, only the disc-installed tracking software will work on those and that won't survive a format. Good job they are publicising all the details so that crooks know which parts to remove.

It could be stored in a ROM chip on the mainboard, the same way that BIOS is stored. But I don't see how if it's installed from disc on any laptop...

Having looked at their web site, I actually do have some concerns. I don't know if you have anything in the USA that is similar to the Data Protection Act, but if those guys are operating in such a way as to perform their "services" on servers in the UK, then I cannot imagine they are doing so lawfully. [edit] also, it sounds like a great company to work for if you are a paedophile or serial killer.

No, but people don't act ethically if it suits them to avoid it. I imagine that is why we have legislation. I would not worry about this company. The kind of person who is fool enough to use their services is usually going to be the kind of person who only has trash talk posted about them on web sites in the first place because of their own ignorance or stupidity (I think you can guess what I mean), so they will only go and get themselves fired eventually anyway and this "past destruction" will make no difference.

Yes, that is right. What I just disagreed with was your claim that "you guys are assuming that you need to take everything with you for colonization". Errr... in what way will Earth "need imports"? You say "in fact", but you do not show why this is a fact. I have provided many good reasons why Mars will need Earth, and you have failed to address the vast majority of them. And rightly so, for the reasons I already stated, and the hundeds (if not thousands) I didn't think of. As I am sure they will. But they will never duplicate Earth, and they will never surpass Earth, unless Earth actively engages in a concerted effort to achieve such events.

When I say "rampant zombism", I do ACTUALLY MEAN rampant zombies, rather than 9-to-5 syndrome.

- Earth, it's Mars again. The chimps have arrived and... well... they brought guns. We didn't think of that. Can we have some of yours? - Mars, this is Earth. The affairs of other sovereign states are not our concern. Good day.

Well quite. But the difference between the Martian situation and any other declaration of independence that we have ever heard of is that all those other societies had alternative avenues to explore. Mars will never be in a position where they can afford to risk their import sources (and bear in mind that "import" refers to information, genetic stock, and humanitarian aid, as well as material commodities), and therefore they will never be able to stand alone politically.

I am still going with "never". I imagine the space phone calls to go something like this: - Call for you sir, it's Mars. Again. - Good morning, this is Earth President Blair. - Good morning Mr President, this is the Superking of the Martian Independent State. How is the weather there? - Homely. What do you want? - Well, we've had an outbreak of... something. We don't know what it is, quite frankly. Any chance you could shore up our cod supplies? - We've been through this before. Earth has its own problems with cod depletion in all of our oceans. - Oh pleeeeease. - What do you propose to exchange for these cod? - Errrr... what would you like, Mr President? - You have nothing we want, Mars. - Charity then? Throw a young imp of a planet a bone? - No. You should have thought about that before you declared independence. Good day. - But... - I said "good day" Sir. Yes, as opposed to the difficulties of landing on a moon, setting up a low-gravity drilling rig, extracting the required ores (which may not even be there - organically derived ones sure as hell won't), getting it back to Mars, and refining it. Yes, they probably won't want drugs or sanitary products. Exactly what we are saying. Hence not self-sufficient and not a good idea to go about claiming independence. No, we are not making the case that you need to take everything with you for colonisation (although it would certainly help!) We are making the case that - as I stated several posts ago, and you disputed without reasoning or evidence - a Martian civilisation would always require imports from Earth. It is not the same thing.

Not to mention that if an area turned out to be not quite to their exact requirements, they could up and move without having to worry about things like food, air, and radiation shielding. Simpler, cheaper, and let's not forget "possible". Shipments of some kind will always be needed, which is why Mars will never be independent, whether the colonists want to "declare" it or not. As you obviously understand, there is a big difference between independence as a political ideal, and independence as a fact of reality. This is all very true, but none of it addresses the points I made. Specifically, it does not show how informational, educational, material, or alleviatory demands placed on Earth by Mars could ever be handled "in house". Personally I don't think "pretty self-sufficient" will be quite good enough. However, since we are discussing the control of territory across an entire colonisation attempt (which I take to mean that the attempt is a success, and therefore that we should be considering post-colonisation Mars as well), then we should probably just take the availability of air as a given. I am quite aware of this concept. I don't think it has a bearing on any point that I raised. I made no such claim. I am sure that would be an important energy source for the primary colonisers (assuming they can access it, of course). Whether or not it would support the independence of a civilisation is another matter. Whether or not you are sure that there are plenty of metals laying about the place does not mean that colonists would find (or rather, find AND be able to extract and process) everything they need. You do realise you have just upped the technical and fuel requirements by an order of magnitude, without presenting any evidence that Phobos and Deimos can provide all the same resources as Earth? No, cellulose could be used to make certain types of plastics, with limits on their usefulness. Not to mention the assumptions that you have the means to manufacture cellulose films, and the plant material to spare (which would be on top of your oxygen generation and food requirements). I don't believe I stated that to be a requirement. However since you mentioned it, because we will be using organisms and biology from Earth, and not brokering the future of Mars on made-up ecological models, it does seem likely that it would go that way. I really don't see where this is going. Not only is that more difficult and expensive (and therefore less likely to occur, since humans follow the path of least resistance and failing that the path of least cash release), but it in no way supports the claim of Martian independence being possible, which appeared to be your bone of contention. Yes -- by eating the food that was laying about the place, multiplying in its natural habitat.

It's about exposure versus returns. Anyone can look at the moon (well, except for the blind, the exceptionally photosensitive, and people who are kept in windowless rooms. Oh, and Morlocks) but in the big picture few people will drive past that billboard at the corner of Maple and Seventh. Getting back to the thread topic though... a private community worked really well for the Umbrella Corporation in "Resident Evil: Apocalypse". Afaik the rampant zombism and the subsequent nuclear detonation were nothing to do with the underlying social concept...

Yes I can. It's all pretty much self-evident, in fact. Unless you propose that moving to Mars makes people have babies which know everything you could ever need to know, and that Mars has magical properties that let one wish up vital commodities such as milk, insulin, antibiotics, and computer chips. You do realise that neither colonisation nor terraforming will magically bestow Mars with uranium, gold, tin, copper, aluminium, zinc, phosphor, calcium, or any number of other vital metals and minerals? Not to mention the fossil fuels required for plastics and petrodistillates. The American colonies were "self sufficient" because they were begun in a verdant and plentiful land. They did not have to terraform the Americas, and they had significant trade opportunities which they used. You aren't self sufficient just because you have political independence from one particular nation state. It's a mistake to base predictions for Mars colonisation off the colonisation experiences in the Americas. The situations are entirely different. Self-sufficiency after 50 years? Come on.

Isn't this contradictory? If other nations can set up other colonies, why should we assign high probability to the USA establishing the first one? If anything, the seasonal fickleness of the USA's political structure is a massive handicap, and the more direct approach taken by monolith societies such as China means they are much more likely to go the distance. I agree that primary colonisation will happen before terraforming is complete (in fact, it has to - just not necessarily by humans), however I don't see why the conditions on Mars should prohibit population expansion in these circumstances, because the circumstances require artificial habitats which mitigate or avoid the effects of adverse conditions. If we can send a colonisation force to Mars, there is no technical barrier whatsoever to sending a consignment of expandable modular habitats along with them. I am not really sure what makes you think that colonists would want to live in underground cities - that seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to me. Again you contradict yourself - you state that internal politics is not predictable, then predict the political stance of a declaration of independence. Mars will always be totally physically dependent on Earth, because: - Earth has material commodities which Mars will require, however the reverse is not the case. - Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities. - Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome. - Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected. - Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

Convenience. :s

LCARS display panels are informally known as "Okudagrams"

Oooh, that's a bit embarrassing. I wonder if Fermilab will be made to pay compensation?

This is not a very helpful analogy. The technology required to physically get to Mars is not beyond us, in fact it is now dated by several decades. It doesn't have to be "whooooosh, and we're there", it only has to work. Perhaps we cannot warp a cityship to Mars in under half a second, but we can actually go there if we decide to invest the resources. This is more than the Alliance of Chimp Nations will be doing any time soon. However, getting back to the purpose of the thread, the technology to colonise a planet is not "space travel technology" at all, it's more in the arena of ecosystem manufacture (albeit massively so), and this will be the limiting factor on how well the first invaders are able to secure and exploit unclaimed territories. Our theories and models for describing and predicting primary colonisation and succession scenarios are very strong; where we fall short is at the point where we need to start thinking about deployment on a planetary scale. I would expect that early attempts to colonise Mars would involve highly localised terraforming attempts which - by necessity - must be coordinated with similar attempts at different sites. Since no single nation or corporation will ever be able to afford so many separate installations, co-operation will be required for any chance of success.