Save Arecibo

[Arf]

I don't think we should spend more money on this particular telescope; scientific funding would be, I think, better spent in other places, developing new and better systems.
It may be a nice piece of our astronomical history, but don't let that stand in the way of progress.

i agree, newer and better systems, maybe even use the funds to expand the ISS or even begin colonizing the moon, there are so many other things to spend money on where the end result will be a trickle down effect that will benefit more people everywhere.

[Lidge Farkley]

three-ply toilet paper[/size]

Woooooaaah.... they make that stuff?
I seriously thing that would clog a toilet!

Besides... strong one-ply works greeeat!

[Lidge Farkley]

trickle down effect

Hold the horses!

Trickle Down Effect?
Effect?
Trickle?
Buzz word catch phrase bullmalarkey?

Seriously, if this "effect" were so commonplace, then I don't think we would be writing about it, because everything would be "trickling" already.

Also, that malarkey is old stock like the communists saying there system is best because it benefits all people equally.
I have yet to see communism "work right" like they keep insisting it will, just as "trickle down" hasn't worked either.

malarkeyson.

[RedneckNoob]

The world will ALWAYS have a portion of the population with less than others, until there is a SIGNIFICANT change in social and mental attitude. And that's not the sort of change that will come about by throwing money at it.

Even with significant mental and social change, there will still be people with less than others.  I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to completely destroy poverty, because no matter what there will those who lose and those who win.  It's impossible for everyone to win.  Those who lose end up in poverty, while those who win live for another day.  It's depressing sometimes, but it's how things work.

A really simplistic concept that I created, that's humorous to me, is with body condition.  Most people would like to be physically fit.  Some are more fit than others, thus requiring some to have less fitness than others.  The one who's more fit would be the winner, the one who's less fit would be the loser.

Another is height.  Some people have more height than others, some have less, and depending on the perspective this is coming from, it determines the winner or the loser.

This is probably limited by my biased view of the world, but it's what I've been able to think of myself through contemplation.

Please point out any flaws in this if you see them; I enjoy criticism.

[Arf]

trickle down effect

Hold the horses!

Trickle Down Effect?
Effect?
Trickle?
Buzz word catch phrase bullmalarkey?

Seriously, if this "effect" were so commonplace, then I don't think we would be writing about it, because everything would be "trickling" already.

Also, that malarkeye is old stock like the communists saying there system is best because it benefits all people equally.
I have yet to see communism "work right" like they keep insisting it will, just as "trickle down" hasn't worked either.

malarkeyson.

WOW  :vikings:  JUST KILL ME, KILL ME NOW :wtf: i know i am a dreamer, but then  aren't we all?  

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams...  Willy Wonka

[Kyrie]

Even with significant mental and social change, there will still be people with less than others.  I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to completely destroy poverty, because no matter what there will those who lose and those who win.  It's impossible for everyone to win.  Those who lose end up in poverty, while those who win live for another day.  It's depressing sometimes, but it's how things work.

I agree completely, and that's the over-all idea that I was trying to get across. But I also think that with significant social/mental change we can collapse the amount of difference between winners and losers. You'll always have those on top and those on bottom, but if the bottom is almost as high as the top, it doesn't matter as much.

It can never happen in today's world, there are dozens and dozens of books and writings delving into thought experiments and whatnot that deal with this idea: the changes needed, the possibility of it existing today, the possibility of it in the future, etc.

Only in a world where no one desires to be above another, can this be possible, but in that world, there will be no progress: progress is driven by people seeking to improve themselves and their status to the level of or beyond their neighbors. It can't happen, improving yourself beyond your neighbor is a process of evolution.

[imphasing]

If your priorities lie in fighting a battle that cannot be won, then all resources and manpower will be wasted. Homelessness? It can be slightly reduced. Terrorism? Hah, it's here to stay. Scientific progress? That's something that deserves to be maximized in every possible way.

It's a total waste of money and resources to concentrate on eliminating homelessness. The resources for someone to stop being homeless are already available, but the problem lies in the mentality of the homeless. We can only become a truly enlightened culture by striving to increase our knowledge of the unknown, not wasting time on pointless endeavors.

(Note: All opinions expressed herein are just that; opinions. Mine, and only mine. Don't throw a malarkey fit.)


Alex

[Lidge Farkley]

trickle down effect

malarkeyson.

WOW  :vikings:  JUST KILL ME, KILL ME NOW :wtf: i know i am a dreamer, but then  aren't we all?  

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams...  Willy Wonka

Let me express an opinion in a method that might make this clear in a way unforeseen:
The resources needed to give the earth's majority an "increase in the quality of life" is not with in the grasp of any single nation of self contained resource gathering to support the advances in science which make life "better" for any one.  If it were, there would not be the need to collect resources from outside of one's nation.

In addition, the proclamation that some advance in science will ultimately advance a quality of life holds water like a paper bag, simply because each person measures their quality of life in a different manner. I, for example, find computers to be a major inconvenience in many ways.  (though I use them because they are every where in this country)

As for this derailment of the thread... you're welcome.

To the topic at thread subject:
It is an interesting object and it would be cheapest to let it lay still, but the intrigue of the waves it receives does make for an interesting, though needless, reason to keep it around.
My own thought is that it can not be eaten or used to grow food.. so it is not very important.

[RedneckNoob]

We can only become a truly enlightened culture by striving to increase our knowledge of the unknown, not wasting time on pointless endeavors.

I hate it when people mention "Enlightened cultures" without defining "Enlightened", since there are so many different definitions of what qualifies as being "Enlightened".  If you're using the Buddhist definition of "Enlightened", then is it really probable for an entire culture to be "Enlightened"?  I highly doubt it.  Some people would consider us an "Enlightened" culture if we didn't have the death penalty.  Others consider us an "Enlightened" culture if we have no crime.

Basically, don't equivocate and define what you see an "Enlightened culture" as.

[Arf]

My own thought is that it can not be eaten or used to grow food.. so it is not very important.

yay

[Lidge Farkley]

We can only become a truly enlightened culture by striving to increase our knowledge of the unknown, not wasting time on pointless endeavors.

I hate it when people mention "Enlightened cultures" without defining "Enlightened", since there are so many different definitions of what qualifies as being "Enlightened".  If you're using the Buddhist definition of "Enlightened", then is it really probable for an entire culture to be "Enlightened"?  I highly doubt it.  Some people would consider us an "Enlightened" culture if we didn't have the death penalty.  Others consider us an "Enlightened" culture if we have no crime.

Basically, don't equivocate and define what you see an "Enlightened culture" as.

Aye.
Given the topic of this thread, this italic part does seem to be a complete contradiction to itself, eh?
increase our knowledge of the unknown, not wasting time on pointless endeavors
This individual spake it like a true "new age" hippie person, complete with the contradiction.
Also, we could mention that "pointless" has an enormous scope depending on who is asked.
Unfortunate.

[imphasing]

I don't know, a large telescope that helps further astrophysical research seems fairly pointed to me.. Reverting to calling me a hippy already seems a tad sudden, but I guess if you're not the debating type, then who cares about valid arguments, right?

If you read what I posted, I put a disclaimer at the end, which sort of denotes that the scope of "pointless" was in my own personal opinions. Seems like a pretty small range of possibilities to me.

As far as defining what "enlightened" means, I doubt many people, when referencing cultural progress, consider the Buddhist definition of the word. If you do a quick google search, I'm sure you'll be able to rustle up the meaning of the term somewhere. If you still can't find it, it generally means societal evolution, into a more refined and educated culture. IE, Rome was an enlightened culture when compared to say, a Neanderthal culture. In the context I was using, enlightened would mean some sort of cultural progression in which, through better understanding of the causes, society's problems could be solved. Homelessness, racism, bigotry, etc. Pouring money into something seldom helps, and usually makes it worse. It wouldn't be that hard to stop being so pedantic, and infer the definitions of my words through the context, but hey, maybe some people aren't into that.


Alex

[RedneckNoob]

I don't know, a large telescope that helps further astrophysical research seems fairly pointed to me.. Reverting to calling me a hippy already seems a tad sudden, but I guess if you're not the debating type, then who cares about valid arguments, right?

If you read what I posted, I put a disclaimer at the end, which sort of denotes that the scope of "pointless" was in my own personal opinions. Seems like a pretty small range of possibilities to me.

As far as defining what "enlightened" means, I doubt many people, when referencing cultural progress, consider the Buddhist definition of the word. If you do a quick google search, I'm sure you'll be able to rustle up the meaning of the term somewhere. If you still can't find it, it generally means societal evolution, into a more refined and educated culture. IE, Rome was an enlightened culture when compared to say, a Neanderthal culture. In the context I was using, enlightened would mean some sort of cultural progression in which, through better understanding of the causes, society's problems could be solved. Homelessness, racism, bigotry, etc. Pouring money into something seldom helps, and usually makes it worse. It wouldn't be that hard to stop being so pedantic, and infer the definitions of my words through the context, but hey, maybe some people aren't into that.


Alex

You completely missed the point I was making.  First you say to Lidge that valid points mean something to the debating type, yet you never try to correct the fallacy you made of equivocation.  You keep telling me that I can define it, but what I wanted was to better understand the point you made.  You say societal evolution, yet you don't specify which problems will be fixed for enlightenment to occur.  You just add "etc." after listing a few, allowing me to substitute anything I want in here, based on my ideas.  I could say that gas prices are the only problem facing America, and once they go down we'll be an Enlightened culture, according to your definition you just gave.  You were too broad in your definition.

Also, you call Lidge for making an ad homonym attack and then you go and make it yourself by saying that I don't care to read through context.  I did read through context, it's just that you didn't set it up properly and the definition still wasn't clear on the terms necessary for an Enlightened Culture to occur.

You state that if I just went to google and searched I could find a good definition of Enlightened Cultures, and it wouldn't refer to the Buddhist definition, yet if you were the "debating type" you wouldn't say that you would have given me a specific definition with sources to back it up.

Your disclaimer means nothing when we can't read your mind, but I guess you couldn't figure that out yourself.

When you post your opinion, expect to see feedback.  Because it's your opinion, more people will attack you.

[imphasing]

You're missing the point of what I said as well. I didn't say that problems need to be fixed for enlightenment to occur. Rather, I was suggesting that the pursuit of enlightenment would lead to better understanding of the problems, and a subsequent fix for said problems.

If you demand that every term I use be defined outright, this is going to be a very frustrating little chat. I'm not about to define the entire range of society's problems that could be fixed with better understanding of the cause. That would be a massive undertaking, so just use your imagination. Can you think of anything that could be improved if we, as a culture, were able to understand it better? The broad range of possibilities here doesn't matter, it's an abstract notion that doesn't need to be strictly defined. I already defined the rules, (Understand problem, fix problem, repeat) so substitute your own ideas in there. Enlightenment isn't some sudden moment, it's an ongoing process.

As far as my "ad homonym" attack, I guess I'd better apologize for that one. It wasn't meant to defame in any way, I'm just sort of a sarcastic person, so I tend to do things like that.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start some internet debate club here, I was just voicing my opinions. I figured most people would be able to get my meaning, but if you actually care to know a larger set of my opinions, I'll gladly elaborate.


Alex

[RedneckNoob]

The thing is, since you stated your opinion, and I can't read your mind, you can't just be throwing around terms like "Enlightened Culture".

As a debater myself, I used to do something called Lincoln-Douglas debate, which is value debate.  We were constantly debating abstract concepts, and even then you still have to strictly define it in order for proper understanding to be attained.  You decided to speak up and put your opinion on a forum (i.e. internet debate club) and you will find people like me ready to attack and argue your opinions.  I normally only act like this when someone mentions something I find extremely stupid, like the phrase "Enlightened Culture".