Marvin

There have been a number of projects. You can read about some of them at Science Daily. You can also find a link to the following quote ... quote:Outer Space Treaty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Outer Space Treaty contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction. It limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers. The Treaty was opened for signature in North America, United Kingdom, and Russia on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. Info on a later project can be found at the following website.

quote:Originally posted by Vixef: one of my favorite hobbies is raiding pubs... and a couple of times a year, I go abroad doing just that. Well, here's an akvavit boilermaker to you. Cheers.

quote:Originally posted by Vixef: It was about Norways involvment in Iraq.What happened to all that Viking spirit?

Makes me wonder if maybe somebody else isn't trying to program that thing.

quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: Hopefully I didn't sound shrill. LOL, not at all.

quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: Oh let's see, we can feed our cows their own brains and cause mad cow disease. We can create genetically modified crops that are resistant to herbicides. Yet Bush and Company are against Stem Cell Research.Though I don't trust "official" statements, it's very likely the cattle with mad cow disease (BSE) did, indeed, come from Canada. How they got to Canada, I don't know. Supposedly, feed containing brain and spinal tissue is banned in the States. (Nonetheless, it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to ban Canadian cattle and, at the same time, complain about U.S. beef being banned elsewhere.) Genetically engineered food has been the stuff of science fiction since Verne wrote about Captain Nemo. The idea has always been to find ways of creating enough food to save the world. If the science is flawed, so be it. But it's a dream that's hard to abandon. As for stem cell research, the issue isn't with the science ... it's with the moral implications of using embryonic (ES and EG) cells. Mankind being what it is, the administration wonders how long it will take before "situation ethics" demands the use of all aborted fetal tissue.

Kalshion, It looks like the producers at CNN read your post of 13 January. quote:from LOU DOBBS TONIGHT DOBBS: The past 24 hours in Iraq have been auspicious, noteworthy, no reports of American casualties or deaths over the past 24 hours. A new Iraqi currency was introduced today. And there were large demonstrations by thousands and thousands of Iraqis. And those demonstrations were peaceful. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DOBBS (voice-over): Tens of thousands of people today demonstrated in Basra. They were calling upon Paul Bremer to old early elections. Both the Iraqi demonstrations and the notion of elections are remarkable evidence that Iraqis are beginning to embrace the idea of democracy. TOM DONNELLY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: I think it's a very good sign. It's a desire on the part of Iraqis to establish their own government, to run their own lives. And, in particular, it's a genuine democratic impulse. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: After three decades of brutality and oppression, Iraqis are slowly taking control of their circumstances. Some two dozen Iraqi Cabinet ministers now contribute leadership on a day-to-day basis to the business of the government. DOBBS: Huge challenges still face the Iraqis and the coalition. But there are important signs of progress. Today, cell phone service is available and a new Iraqi dinar is in circulation, washed clean of signs of the old regime; 42 of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis have been captured, killed or have turned themselves in. Attacks against coalition forces have declined by 50 percent since November. Weapons, explosives and ammunition have been seized or turned in by the truckload. Iraqi security force now number more than 200,000, as the newly freed citizens train to provide their own public safety. Great strides have also been made in education. Bill Evers just returned from five months in Iraq, trying to help revive the education system. BILL EVERS, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Children are going to school with a brighter sense that their achievements, rather than their political fate in the hands of a dictatorship, will shape their future. And so achievement means much more to them than it could in the previous situation. DOBBS: Nearly six million Iraqi children are now in school and their teachers are being paid at least five times their salary that they received under Saddam Hussein. (END VIDEOTAPE) DOBBS: And turning now to "Grange On Point." A question that goes to the heart of the Pentagon's war strategy: Was the war in Iraq a distraction from the global conflict with al Qaeda and radical Islamist terrorists? That critical question was posed this week by Dr. Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Army War College. Dr. Record said the strain of fighting two wars has pushed the Army almost to the breaking point. Joining me now, General David Grange. General, let's start out with the basic question. Was the war a detour? RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I don't think it was a detour. I think the war was necessary. Containment was only partially working. You were dealing with a regime that totally ignored U.N. mandates, supported terrorism by giving rewards for suicide bombers. But none of these states work by themselves. They work in partnership with other bad guys. And it was I think inevitable. Now, is it a distraction? Well, you have got to be able to do more than one thing at once. You have to think geometrically. You have to handle several contingencies. You can't take a linear, lockstep pace in this situation. DOBBS: As you and I have discussed here quite often over the course of this past year, the U.S. military is indeed under tremendous strain. The commitment on the part of our men and women in uniform is remarkable, because of the missions they have. Is it your judgment that more still needs to be done? Do you subscribe or agree with Dr. Record's views about the strain on the military? GRANGE: I think there's tremendous strain right now, especially on the ground forces, and in particular the Army, because they are carrying the heavy pack on their back in this commitment, especially on security and support operations and the need for boots on the ground around the world. So it is strained. It's just enough, I think, right now. But the problem is, the challenge is sustainment, sustainment for the long term, to have a strategy where you could continue with operations on homeland defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war against terrorists. That's a long-term commitment. DOBBS: And it is a daunting commitment, by any standard. Is it your judgment as we begin this new year that the U.S. military will be successful in a reasonably orderly fashion in both the global war against radical Islamist terror, succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq to the point that casualties will be as light as they possibly could be? GRANGE: I think that the military will be successful. I have no doubt about that. What you said earlier. It's a magnificent force. It is overstretched, it's overcommitted and the argument about, well, you know, it's a spike right now. We don't need more forces. That may be the case, what if the spike doesn't go down. You have to prepare now for the future. For the next conflict, which is sure to come. This is not the only thing the United States is going to be involved with. The strategic enemy thinkers, the terrorist groups want a catastrophic event this year. They want to continue the spike for a long term. I believe we have to look at the long term and build the force not only for tomorrow but well into the future. DOBBS: General David Grange, as always, thank you. Good job. Guess it's 'cause you're in the business.

Maybe NASA is hoping that, after the second one lands and does its stuff, they can sell both of 'em to Tech TV and use 'em as battle bots.

quote:Originally posted by Wolferz: The spelling and grammatical errors are most evident.Yes, they are.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: It's called delegating responsibility, and Bush does it well. I give up. I can't find any direct correlation between secret, closed-door meetings and "delegation of responsibility." Could you possibly provide a link? P.S. Cheney may have employed those tactics in the private sector but they are inappropriate when operating as Vice President of the United States. The American people are now paying his salary. Unless it's a question of national security (but then, these days, what isn't?), we have a right to know what's being planned, how much it's going to cost us, and who is going to benefit.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: the socalled surplus came from the Reagan economy, and the Republican congress keeping Clintons spending under control, now we have a Republican congress and a republican president who have learned what power feels like and they are being just as bad as the Democrats ever could have been.I really don't care where the money came from. But, from what you said, I assume you believe it was, nonetheless, real money. That being the case, how much of it do you think would've been placed in surplus if Clinton had never been President and, instead, we went from one Bush to the next? Be honest.

Jaguar, Im a little confused on a few of your points. If Clintons policy was tax and spend, where did the surplus come from? You know the one  Bush used it to initiate his global war. Was it, like the current economic growth, simply funny money? If so, how? You want no federal control over the (federation of) states or any states policies but, nonetheless, you want all states to comply with a federal bill of rights? How would the federal government enforce such a bill  without being hypocritical about it? And how could a gutted federal government enforce anything? How do we support the military? Or the CIA? Does each state build its own defense force? As for California, we could sell it to the highest bidding foreign country. The immediate revenue would give the U.S. a big boost  until Congress spends it all. Then we would be left with even a bigger problem, having sold off the goose that lays the golden egg (a lot of revenue comes from California  even if its limited to a 5% sales tax). But wait. If we did sell California, where would the money go? With no central bank, would you still maintain the Federal Reserve? Or do the states divide the gold and each state start printing its own money again? What about other federal offices? Naturally, you would remain President after your policies were put into law but, considering your emphasis on states rights, could one or more state governors circumvent your policies? Finally, what powers would the Supreme Court retain? Assuming the current Court didnt find your entire prescription to be unconstitutional (per item 6), what powers would they proscribe for themselves? Do you think theyd really give up anything?

If I remember correctly, our current federal income tax was set up to pay for the Civil War (according to The History Channel). So, if history does, indeed, repeat itself, look for another "temporary" tax to pay for the current war. What Jaguar says about both parties is true. Ralph Nader complained about the same thing (but for totally different reasons, obviously). Personally, I think it's all about the corruption of ideas ... the Constitution being the list of ideas that's most often corrupted. Social Security is another ... orignially set up as a hedge against another stock-market-induced Great Depression. Yet, with history forgotten, the fund's purpose has been distorted. Ironically, some oh-so-wise politicians even want to take that very hedge and put it in that very same stock market. And now Bush wants to shoot for the moon. Appropriate. As a Sci-Fif fan from way back, I'd love to see a colony on the moon ... far away from all our current troubles. I'd also love a high-definition wall-to-wall plasma video screen. But I'm not gonna hock my kids' college fund to get it.

This part has me wondering: quote:The review has been proceeding for nearly a year, involving closed-door meetings under the supervision of Vice President Dick Cheney, sources said. Why is it Cheney can't do anything out in the open?

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Okay, after reading all the comments above I'm still flipping a coin as to what's worse: Grabing new young Interns or Grabing new powers. It all boils down to how many people get screwed at one time.

quote:Originally posted by MIKE113: Whatever someone else is buying!!! If nobody is buying, then XXXX from Australia. Orion cost too much, even on Okinawa.

It will be interesting to see how Dick Cheney manages to keep this law from applying to himself.

OCs have limited ammo. When they run dry, they will often stay in the immediate area until recalled.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: ...only the meat not the brain and spinal cord was processed.That is correct. The brain and spinal cord are processed elsewhere, combined with other materials, and fed back to the cattle. During the BSE epidemic in Great Britain, the use of this type of feed was supposed to be banned. Consequently, American cattle ranchers have denied using "offal" and it wasn't until watching an interview on CNN yesterday that I heard otherwise. If it turns out our cattle are being fed brain and spinal cord, ranchers have nobody to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, taxpayers will most likely be forced to bail them out.

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: I commend you on actually posting links for this, but these links only make statements reguarding the monies Halliburton expects to make or past contracts it had. These have no tie to the statement that the war was fought to line chenny's pockets. For the most part, I added them to argue against the first part of your statement. But they also argue an old standing rule for public servants: If there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then resign. We don't need another Spiro in the White House.

quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: and i think leaving tom bombadil and the barrow wights (unless they were in the EE) out of the FOTR was a crime. the only person that was immune to the power of the one ring, and he gets left out lol.Hear, hear. I'll second that!

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: I also see no more proof that the war was fought for Iraqi oil than for your statement about it being fought to line Chenny's pocketbook. The following links were all on the first page of a very long Google search list: CNN Story -- Halliburton accused of stonewalling CorpWatch -- Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War NewsMax -- Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said For some background material, you can read a rather long article (with a few extra links) at the following website: Washington Post -- A Halliburton Primer

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: Please keep us posted on this Derek. I fear I may need to cancel my pre-order if they actually do ship it. I don't want to pay for a piece of useless software. Universal Combat was the first game I ever pre-ordered over the Net. If it gets here in Beta format, I'll frame it and hang it on the wall as a collector's item. And as a reminder to always do my shopping at Wal-Mart.

quote:Originally posted by Marvin: Will there ever be the option to use a custom avatar, like at the "old" (and this) forum? Disregard. I just checked at the new Prime Fleet forum and discovered the option is available once you've been accepted and then log in.

Registration completed, Sir. Will there ever be the option to use a custom avatar, like at the "old" (and this) forum?