The private company Spacex is getting ready to move the passengers from Earth to Moon by the year 2025 and also he mentioned that they will move 1 Million people to Mars and create the first civilization of Mars along with himself.
Do you believe this will become possible in the next five year? Or just a sci-fiction story!
how can make civilization on mars ?? if the climate there is very extreme during the day and night. our earth already has everything that humans need. for me it was an impossible thing to do. Its not impossible, but not necessarily economical or sensical. What is cheaper? A colony: Underwater (Earth) Desert (Earth) Poles (Artic/Antartic) Orbit (Earth) Lagrange points (spots in space where you can park things like rotating colonies/stations) Orbit from different celestial objects (other planet/satellites) Moon surface/underground/poles Mars surface/underground/poles I don't say it should not be done, tried/experimented, but it is far from being optimal. Good science can come from it, for example the Antarctic experience can help in Mars, but don't expect "millions" of people thrilled with the idea, i don't see a million people living in McMurdo, the largest in Antarctica, let alone in space or another planet. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what i expect would be the possible "colonies", not too far in size from McMurdo (about a thousand people). Find out how much USA spends in keeping that place alive. Logistics alone, and that isn't space, its just the southernmost continent on Earth. There have been attempts to simulate enclosed colonies here on Earth, and they have failed. But in Mars (or Space) you can't call it quits and open the doors. One big problem Elon may face is, that while he may get the capacity, there will simply not be such a high demand. He has other more pragmatic ideas, such as suborbital flights of cargo and passengers, or even giving tours to rich people to Moon orbit. Mars still looks far away, beyond possibly a small research station. It is even cheaper to put a station in (Mars) orbit, or perhaps even needed for remote controlling construction drones in the surface before landing any humans. So yes, it looks far in time to me. Nothing wrong with the idea and vision tho. Yes, there is something very wrong with the idea and the vision. Musk asserts it's easy and quick, just five years off. I know it's a very long time off, with a hundred technologies to be tested and proven here on earth, then to be moved to Mars and implemented with robotics, and then the half that didn't work right redone here on earth, and long way down this difficult road we can move some people to Mars. This process, and the hundred technologies, with all the challenges of it is the reality of it. Not the promise of some circus huckster. |
|
|
|
.... When I was younger, I even considered having myself converted to Islam just because of legality for polygamy.  I know a woman who would like to join, assuming that she'd be able to get four or eight husbands. She would, right? what do you mean ? ""I know a woman who would like to join, assuming that she'd be able to get four or eight husbands."" _______ a wife must not have more than 1 husband. Islam forbids a wife from having two / more husbands. Logically, if Islam allows it to be like that, maybe a disease or HIV virus will spread everywhere. if you are a man you can have up to 4 wives (not more). even then you must be wise and fair to your wife. Wait, so the guys get four, but the woman doesn't? That's not at all fair. |
|
|
|
.... When I was younger, I even considered having myself converted to Islam just because of legality for polygamy. I know a woman who would like to join, assuming that she'd be able to get four or eight husbands. She would, right? |
|
|
|
It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."
Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.
As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'
So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha. What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof". What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.phpI mean, the logic is fine I guess. But the fact that you seem to think Trump doesn't smell but Biden does makes me think you're literally just interested in Democrats losing and Republicans winning regardless of ethics. Thanks. But that's not exactly true of what I think, although what I think is not really that interesting. Trump has always smelled. But that does not mean he's a typical corrupt politician. Not at all. Neither was he really a Republican. What we know is various Trump haters have been after him since Day One, and this latest scam of a Huge Wrongness In a Phone Call is no different. You know if it wasn't The Phone Call, it would be something else. Because that's what these people Do. That's how they do it. And that's grossly and ridiculously unfair. On the contrary, Biden would have faded away, and his corrupt past would never have been spoken of, but he didn't. He wanted a shot at the Big Win. But when anyone does that, all their warts and pimples come out and are under the microscope. |
|
|
|
It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."
Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.
As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'
So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha. What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof". What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters. Particularly at a moment in time when it's settled that there was no "Russian Collusion" on the part of Trump, but we sure have something there with Biden. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.php |
|
|
|
It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach. There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach. That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions. In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc. That is why... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClotureI'm not saying there aren't guidelines. There are. Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them. If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate. Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote. Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first. There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation. All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment. And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE. It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-caseYeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that. That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland. I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely. Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP. At least in the short term politically. I hadn't read about this ruling before: The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial. They just need to have one vote. So maybe it's not the same. Who knows. Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently. |
|
|
|
The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.
There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?..... For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia. Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof." WTF... So you're saying Zlochevsky bribed Biden and hired Bidens son as apart of it? Wow. Ok then. So please do tell/show me where there is anything that shows that's the case here. I'd love to see how all the US policy and everything was just an elaborate smoke screen so Biden could carry out the dirty work from the "bribe". That must have been some massive bribe for everyone to go along with that. It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof." Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example. As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."' |
|
|
|
The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.
There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?..... For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia. Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof." |
|
|
|
It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach. There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach. That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions. In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc. That is why... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClotureI'm not saying there aren't guidelines. There are. Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them. If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate. Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote. Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first. There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation. All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment. And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE. It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case |
|
|
|
....
I also don't understand the issue with burqas. Why, they can't remove it of their faces for a while to identify themselves? That's like the craziest thing I've heard this week.
Because then you'd see the space alien lizard creature. |
|
|
|
Cause why donate to someone directly when you can try to leach off the success and brand name of another to get a couple bucks? /S Why in gods fucking name are you doing this OP. You could've at least said something as to the coins usage, maybe if you're going to donate the money to AOC supported candidates around the country in order to promote change. Or that you're going to send the money to charities that promote green energy around the world. But no-- you say this on your site: The funds obtained are freely available to the owner. Pretty much means you're going to use the funds for your own use. Leach. ALSO: If you're going to scam, you couldn't even spend the extra $7ish and get a .com domain. Really? But there's something intrinsically RIGHT about a scam coin named after the scam lady, for which she never gets a penny. |
|
|
|
It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach. There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach. That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions. In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc. That is why... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture |
|
|
|
....AI is going to make voice recordings useless as proof and then deep fakes will finish it off for videos and we'll all be fucked.
No. We'll be back where we were before recordings, when a person's word as to what he saw or heard is proof. And the word of an AI is never trusted. |
|
|
|
....maybe after so many years from now, they will be able to invent some technology to use for the people who want to live in mars. we cannot say it's impossible because we see with our own eyes the things that people nowadays can do.
That's certainly true, but it only points to the huge amount of work in research and technology development that has to be done. And that has to be done here, on Earth, to build the support infrastructure that would be enabling for anything like a colony on Mars, the Moon, or one of the Lagrange points. |
|
|
|
|
It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
|
|
|
|
Where is the Joe Biden in there? |
|
|
|
Thats why we have taxes. A little money from a lot of people is a lot of money.
But a lot of people like me really don't trust you to handle our money. I do, though, trust you to handle yours. I believe that even if all you could give them was a $10 bill, they would really be impressed. I'm not asking anyone to trust me with their money. I'm not running for office. If people elect Yang, that means they trust his policies with their money. Thats how democracy works. But just think if a hundred people standing outside the prison, waiting for released prisoners to walk by, each gave them $10. The ex-con would have $1000. That'd buy a lot of crack. |
|
|
|
https://berniesanders.com/issues/real-wall-street-reform/As part of Bernie Sanders' Wall Street Reform, it includes auditing the federal reserve. Audit the Federal Reserve and make it a more democratic institution so that it becomes responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, not just the billionaires on Wall Street.
Sadly i fear if the fed were actually audited, it would be found to be insolvent and chaos would ensue in that regard, they can never allow it sadly. Which sux as the people need to realize the mess financially the US is. They owe China 12 trillion dollars, and an audit would show im sure way scarier things then even THAT! the fed will never be audited imo There is likely no meaning to a term such as "insolvent" for the FED. What I always thought the possible benefits of "auditing the FED" to be would be to open up the internal power structures and reveal whether they were something different than what we thought, or even against our interests. |
|
|
|
I like how they picked Knob Creek, the biggest most recognizable shooting event in the US. We do need more private 'shoot-guns/blow-stuff-up' organized, peaceful a d civil events here in the US. Now what's proven? CNN is stupider than dogshit and our shoot-ups for fun are more badass than Turkey attacking Syria? I might get confused here... |
|
|
|
Looks like the 900 was paid to a firm he had links or, or associated with, some sort of blurred connection like that. Much as I'd like for Biden to go away, that's not "personally paid." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
