dragonstar57

money is nothing it's just paper the resources that they represent are whats important, and even if we send a ship to space the only tangible resources lost to the earth is the ship which is worth far less as scrap metal. as long as we use us goods it might not even damage the us economy. after all the money would go directly back into the economy through the people supplying the resources

then by that logic if we were to travel 300kms we would be able to see another 300kms as we would be closer to the object (as insignificant as 300kms are in stellar terms)? and if this were true why does NASA not attempt to place A telescope in orbit of one of the outer planets to achieve extended range?

why would it? if nasa allowed people to buy "space bounds" than we would have no economic problems getting to mars

lol or they open nasa to public donations...or even offer to sell services to compinies such as etching a logo into the martian surface or instead of saying "one small steep for man..." saying "5....5 dollar foooooot looooonggg"

because for a space program to get to another star we're going to need travel faster than we can now. even if we just get used to the idea of traveling for 100 years we still need to go faster than we can now. nasa looks into it because no matter how far fetched it is because it's almost the only thing that could make an inter stellar mission possible

I predict a maned mission to the mars will happen ten years after some president doubles the nasa budget

i did a ppt about how to do a Vigenère cipher and a caesars shift cipher and i asked someone YA the next method to try and they said RSA. so i was hoping someone could explain how to use the RSA algorithm without the use of a computer? I have been showing the class ciphers that can be used with just a pen and paper. I guess if you have a better idea for the method than i guess that's ok to ps i want to do this one because i have an interest in the subject (it's one of my few interests) and haven't been able to learn any thing new about it because of the mathematics is a little beyond me (i'm about to finish an algebra one class for my high school)

a maned mission to mars by 2010 no longer seems likely

then you could hit the asteroid with something very large moving very fast the American way

the frighting thing is that creating a stable black hole might earn them a Nobel prize

the idea is to have a small high explosive that can be smuggled/hidden. an explosive that can be easily hidden but also has a relatively high yield would be a valuable weapon weather (idk if i used the right weather here) it be for a lighter faster missile or for a tactical sabotage

when/if a major development in antimatter occurs would it fit the requirements of such speeds?

so that's the reason? so if some major breakthrough in energy occurred than .25c would be no problem?

according to the theory of relativity nothing can move faster than light. so then why has a craft that moves a substantial fraction of the speed of light been so elusive (such as .05) or even .25)?

capitalistic economies run on the 2 ideas that 1 people want to own their own things and 2 people want to be members of an elite ruling class and if that class is abolished it removes their dream. but people need to realize that our current form of capitalism is evil we need to drop the fear of communism so we can serve the basic needs of our people. the entire economy is going poorly companies should not be making record profits (just talking about the us)

let's face it the point of hiring more workers is to make more money (ergo they are tacking more money out of the economy than they give) ans as soon as they have as much money as they want they can just fire all their workers and move to Hawaii

I believe that the idea is that random shifts in genetic code of individuals bring about new traits and that when the random shifts produce a trait that makes the organism more likely to survive it will be passed on. I do not think that there is any theory that to gain traits to not be eaten one has to be eaten. what would be a better question (what i think you might have been intending to ask) is "how does an organism survive before it evolves a necessary trait to it's own survival" while it is an interesting question it seems that many people seem to think you are pushing some kind of creationist agenda if you ask a question about exactly how a particular trait occurred or for a more specific explanation of evolution.

can a standard laser pointer cause vision damage? amusing a significantly delayed blink reflex (2.5x normal)?

sarcasm is usually can only be identified by a tone of voice we can't hear your tone so we have to assume that you are being serious because there is no indication otherwise *from what i have read about it....* depends what u mean by "next Chernobyl" do you mean will this be as serious as Chernobyl probable not as it seems they have kept the fuel in the reactor and there is a containment building (i have heard rumors that there is a large crack in the containment but not verified yet) but it is imposable (i think) for the exact same thing to happen in japan with these reactors idk why they don't just do what the Russians did about the Chernobyl and build a concrete dome around it after all there is no hope of ever using the reactors again right?

and if the person had some kind of headset you could run another connection that would go to some kind of hat that could have solar panels on it

but do you think that the company took the funds it saved by not building a higher sea wall and used them for road safety or invested it into clean coal? it seems only reasonable to say things like "there probably wont be a tsunami this high but we should built this wall a little higher just in case" or "we probably wont see a hurricane higher than category 3 hit these levies but maybe we will so we should make them stronger and higher" or "this room is kind of important maybe we should put a water tight door on it" or "things might go wrong here but if we spend a little more it is less likely.

i would but idk how exactly how to word it...

i never understood cost effective risk assessment and it doesn't seem to work very well. the only way that we can have a less accident prone world is to start using the "mega paranoid" risk assessment (at least where nuclear reactors are concerned) why is money more important than reducing the risk of disaster from improbable to impossible after all no matter the odds this was bound to happen eventually

a friend of mine told me that they can now turn soda into gasoline which i guess makes some sense i know some basic hs chem so i hypothesized that that reaction might look something like this c6h12o6--------->3ch4+3CO2 is something like this possible? to convert a carbohydrate into a hydrocarbon? and could it be used as a fuel?

i remember when happy holidays thing being on the news a lot in 2003-2005 and that was because people were offended by merry Christmas i think part of Christians dislike for the phrase is that they feel like merry Christmas should just be taken less literally after all it's just a holiday greeting Christmas is just the speakers preferred holiday no need to get upset about it and they start to feel as if people are atempting to deChristianize things as a way of attacking Christianity