jackson33

beantown; you best bet would be to google *terraforming* and go from there. that is the idea which could make any planet or moon habitable for the human. if your talking short term colonies, then what gravity that is would do for some periods of times. this would not require terraforming either. domed or underground facilities would work, for say scientific exploration. if your gravity idea is centrifugal force, the idea has been dropped. for actual or accepted gravity increase you would need to add mass. the assignment suggest a desire for a novel idea to create gravity, which you would have to make up.

my goodness; no...never crossed my mind. if anything the US goes to far the other way... any nation under Islamic Rule, radical or not, teaches dominance over others. as you go further out toward radical, it becomes matter of fact. genocide of the infidel a worthy goal...

am not in the mood today for WWIII. however that are some leaders of National Governments and/or their clergy which not only applaud genocide but promote the idea. its not possible to protect all these folks, call their enemy.

actually the *Mom and Pops* are doing very well. i would agree globalization has been benefited a great deal by computer technology, but far from the cause. in short is the need for business to expand. from a capitalist viewpoint, policing the planet is a non-productive process when interest served are not ours. from the humane viewpoint any genocide is not acceptable. this includes Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq. the problem is what we call genocide is the foundation of some religious or government policy. not only is the US obligated to the UN, its obligations through treaties are worldwide.

doing quick math i blew that statement; Enc. Wik, does say 5 billion years at minimal, but the authors give a much bleaker attitude on survival of anything. the thought is even a near miss would bring a Loop reaction, reforming both our spirals into a large elliptical. much as your point, what may happen in a billion years, would seem useless energy spent when so much else could happen, either good or bad.

yes, the sun will begin the dieing process and its expected in about a billion years. prior to that however, we have a couple little dwarf galaxy that our Milky Way is expected to absorb, in about 25 thousand years and then a real problem in less than 2 million years when the very large Andromeda Galaxy and ours are given a high probability to collide. any of these alone could wipe our life on little old earth. oh! yes the moon is moving away a couple inch per year but this gradual effect, may still exist in a billion years. we could extend life on the planet if around when the sun starts to burn out much easier by manipulating the atmosphere. we couldn't survive today if nature had not done this for us. the theory mentioned relates to or comes from the one being explored to alter an orbit of one on those rocks now heading our way, think due in 2029 and return in 33. the idea is to send a craft to create enough gravity to alter this meteors path enough to change its eventual course around the sun and its returning to collide with us...

Globalization of the worlds economies have given new meaning to world powers. most all the major US corporations are not only world wide but in nations that do not particularly care for western ideas. then we have treaties and/or obligations with many nations, which require to some degree a presence. this works both ways however and many foreign nations have interest in the US and obligations to our country. as for the oil producing nations the worldwide implications are obvious, but the are other interest with just as complicated as oil. a world health epidemic, an unruly government with intents to destroy others, just a couple.... in the process of having the title, Single Super Power, comes the advantage of having an internal standard of living others still dream of. what i think your addressing is being the police of the world, which i do wish could be cut back on.

Islamic law does not treat women very well. the religious rhetoric even worse. your trying to get me into attracting old age religion, which i will not do as i feel they were in general all bad. when it comes to modern day differences of the various factions, unless the nation is set up under western law or if you prefer are under Islamic Law, then they are the same. Iraq under Saddam, in the later years was under the western law system. if keeping the peace, means destruction of groups or as in Saddam, then i oppose the notion.

the obvious answer is we have no idea, if there is even different sizes. another possible solution, would be to equate the photon, with the wave and frequency of the energy (EME). energy really is absorbed in some manner, opposed to colliding and energy absorption is determined by those factors.

my response to you was on you first post. your current post and the first would seem to me, be from different people... after WW II many things changed, for obvious reasons. i am sure your aware of Germany being split and many countries being told what and whom they were part of. Israel, i guess your problem, was established and given national status. treaties were made between countries and even an international entity formed to give voice to all nations. the Palestinian people, were part of many nations in the mid-east and still are. the arguments with in the Islamic Nations are not concerned with any peoples rights. they for reason of ideological or religion, want the Jewish people gone, or trying to upset what was established 60 years ago. the actual reasonings pre-date WW II or for that matter WW I. Islam and all religions that formed early in history preached and practice terrible acts on others. IMO, all but the Islamic fundamentalist have moved on into the current social structure. Of the 1.3 to 1.5 BILLION, i worry just what number are in that group and it could be more than most think...if i am understanding you, you feel the rightful heirs to the original Islam are these terrorist, then i have no answer.

contingency plans are part of the system. our government has such plans lined up for just about any possible negative possibility. i find it interesting you say "secret", when giving the program. maybe you should run for president if you see into the future. then again maybe you should study up a little more on the Vietnam War. you will find the same undermining of policy as today and in many cases, by the same people. as for Iraq, i find no comparisons for cause, execution or outcome of events. the War to liberate Iraq, was over years ago, like it or not we one that little conflict. we are however in a war on terror, or i prefer to say War on Radical Islam. we stay in Iraq, to allow time for government of that country to stand on its own. this is not a new policy, and we remain in a good many places around the world, for the same purpose. in these places, it was no less turbulent and the outcome will in the end be the same.

there are five elements in the living cell, which make up most life. the process for growing, functions and many things require different elements in different life forms. this is the way i read it and why i suggested a google site.

Dak; if everything said needed to be corrected was corrected and the temperatures continued to fluctuate, which they will, what would the next step be. by this time we would all be walking around, in our birthday suits, eating berries, and sleeping in straw piles. at some point the needs to correct have to end. if on the other hand, we continue with the biggest boom to mankind's style and standards of living, nothing happens from the norm, we have the chance to become rulers of our environment to some degree through technology.

joe; google *elements for life* and several sites available. very complicated... if your looking for a comparison of humans to animals, why not go to the genetics. genetically many primates are 97-99% identical to humans.

most people who argue MAN is not responsible for the GW, figure GW is not happening to begin with. what is going on is a very common phenomenon which has happened a thousand times to extremes well beyond the current changes. these have occurred with no humans on the planet and many times when we were. the last thing i fear is blame for something non-existent. you might place your fear factor on the pro-stance. to instill fear is the purpose of the pro-arguments; the idea that if i don't do this or do that the world will change in some manner to cause life to become whatever. then if we elect this person or that we are doomed. if Exxon Mobile doesn't do this and that we are doomed. if some species dies off, we are doomed. if the water levels increase 10 inches we are doomed. you know i could go on for hours giving you all the scenarios for doom and gloom...

Skeptic; you might google *human instincts* and find many now feel there are very few or none. the word emotion has replaced this notion to some degree and pleasure you made referance to very common. little kids, say 1 to 10 have no desire to hurt anything. not long ago i would have said to 15 or 16, but i something is changing. this tells me emotions are learned, if not all and the ones manifesting violence are known to be progressive. that is a boy may lightly pop a girl on the head and feel an emotion, which over time moves up to real harm. perceived rejection is another problem, which until recently merely resulted in attempted or real suicide. this form also has also gained attention in the developing, bad persons mind. some now have some desire to take others w/o the maturity to understand either their problems or the problems created from actions. i have read many many articles on the ideas of man and the aggressive natures being inherent genetic trait from the past. generally along the sexual attitude and the submissive attitudes of many women. unfortunately there is evidence that societies create their own problems. Societies which do not tolerate any form of womens rights and those that do seem to say the less rights the less killing. this too, tells me its learned via emotions. by the way much of that theory was originally used to explain mans need to hunt, which has since been thrown out...

the killing of one person by another, group or not, is not always murder. in fact its the exception; accidental taking of another life, probably the most common. auto the obvious majority, however there are many accidental deaths every year. man slaughter the next, when a killing happens but never intended. often this happens in protective mode, but just as often in performance of another criminal act. justifiable the term to clean up many such acts. second degree murder; generally one which was not premeditated or expected by the person accused. most murders are in this act. first degree or pre-meditated (planned) killing of another is very rare. its also the least accepted and most solved crime in the US. the military, under its own laws define killing as self defense. this include, in theory anyway, both sides in an action. after the completion all prisoners of war, although having killed are returned to there nation or ours. the direct question "why", is we simply do not intend the results and are for reasons oblivious to the possibility. temper, rage or what have you is instinctive, not taught or normally instilled in the mind. since so much is currently in the news on child predators killing their young victims, some people are just bad, sick people.

one more time; CO2 concentrates in our atmosphere have not spiked or done much of anything in at least 50 million years. weather patterns on the other hand have had dramatic changes, but nothing outside of what humans could exist in. lets try an extreme; nothing indicates CO2 as been below 200pmm, or above 400ppm during those 50 million years. the actual said increase is 80ppm during the past 150 years. but lets says its spiked the full 200 in the past 107 years. that an increase of 200ppm or .0002% of the total contents of the atmosphere. hardly a spike...once again this tells me mankind has has very little effect on the atmosphere since mans presence or populations are up 3 fold, as are animals and plant life. we are effecting nothing, couldn't correct it if we had and no amount of changing life style would change the outcome. personally and this another again, i am not opposed to changes in efficiency, even types of energy or even encouragement of groups with this in mind. however, as long as the blame is mis-placed for the reasons well discussed and with the interest of some issue which has nothing to do with GW, then i will oppose any pro-Gore philosophy on how bad the human race and especially the American people are....

the idea, that man creates CO2 to cause changes in weather patterns needs to explain to me, just what man did the thousands of times weather patterns have changed in the past. then lets talk CO2, which seems to be the villain. an analogy to this increase is to take a tanker full of water to the shore and dumping it into the ocean, thinking it will flood the world. CO2 makes up a very tiny bit of all our atmosphere. its given 300 or 350 particles per MILLION of all that makes up the atmosphere. its degradable and easily broke down in a number of ways. that means 999,650 to 999,700 ppm are not CO2. additionally i can find you places where at a given time its much more or much less, even find a place where its steady at those figures. currently i have no doubt the east and west coast in the US, via forest fires are recording alarming increases. in nature these fires would burn themselves out, in many places they do but we now put them out.

know you all have moved on, but i need to correct my correction; google *products from crude oil* four or so items down find *imoga.com* link and this will take you to an informative chart. what i said was correct only to the point of total fuels produce and when i said little waste, there is no waste. by volume there may be a little more that that 55 gal... of a gal of crude...45% gasoline, 10.7 jet fuels, 27.7% diesel fuels (which is the same as heating oil) or a total of 84.2% or 46.2 gals of the 55 total. ALL the rest are by products which are used as chemical or in the process to make other items. there is NO waste...

i stand corrected; a 55 gal. barrel has that 6-7 gal waste and does produce only about 25 gallons gasoline, a little more diesel. the other 23 gal are by- products which are used in many products... sorry!!! see re-correction below...

the US has only one company (Valero) which has any ability to refine thick crude. only sweet can be refined in all the rest. think currently crude is refined to meet 58 different levels of refinement to fit mandated requirements of States and even a couple city governments. these requirements differ by season. refineries, especially the old ones in the US, require maintenance which along with these variations in mixtures take refiners off line. this is our current US problem today, not the crude availability. there is a slight world wide surplus today in crude but the refinery capacity in the US and the cost to ship refined product into the US from overseas refineries increases the pump price... for the record, Exxon Mobil's profits which give people problems were from 70% overseas sources and 30% from the US customers. all in all however there profits around 9 to 10 %, are dwarfed by government imposed taxes which are about 50 cent per gallon in the US and up to 5.00 per overseas. in the US thats about 17% profit for doing absolutely nothing in the production of the product.

a barrel of crude oil is 55 gallons and produces 47 or 48 gallons of gasoline. there is a by product which is used in several oil based products. there is little waste to that total 55 gallon barrel...

my comments were somewhat gratuitous, since i didn't want to research the problem. google *illiteracy of High school graduates* where there are several articles and in particular an article by Alvin Toffler. i used the 4th grade level reading ability, only to compare the two groups. 50-60's and current. although its unlikely any got through HS, reading at that level in the 60's, the fact is 700,000 in 1995 could not read at all but received diplomas. at a 4th grade level, i have heard figures up to 50% of todays graduates cannot do this. there are many who feel the college level degree today is equal to a HS diploma of the 50's. i wouldn't go quite that far, but in making a point, Public Schools, have been a total failure...IMO.

the students graduating in the 50-60's, were 99.5% literate. the current figure for HS graduates is about 65%, to the fourth grade reading level. many subjects that were taught in the 50-60's were extensive or deep into the material. today history, economics, science among others are elective after a certain point or non-existent. since i am one that feels, understanding how to find material is equal to actually knowing it is of importance, the problems could be in process for self correction. your point was our workforce was less educated. my reply this could not be. to work at most any level of business, even the military you have to have a HS diploma or its equivalent. for the most part management now requires degrees from higher level education.