When I have read in the past about the discovery of the cosmic
background radiation by researchers using the Bell Lab horn antenna at
Crawford Hill it has always been said that the researchers were
puzzled by inexplicable background noise and ultimately found that it
was coming from "the sky". This article states that -
"One of the most prominent Soviet physicists was Yakov B.
Zel'dovich who was a professor of astrophysics at Moscow University
and director of the theoretical group at the Institute of Physical
Problems at Moscow. Zel'dovich was a member of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences and a foreign member of both the Royal Society of London and
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Zel'dovich was one of those who
first theorized the existence of the microwave background radiation of
the Universe. He carried out the calculation that showed that in order
to explain the observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, and deuterium
in the Universe, it must have started in a hot Big Bang and have a
temperature of a few K today. Another Soviet researcher, Yu N. Smirnov
calculated a background temperature in the range of 1 to 30 K and
jumping off of Smirnov's calculations, A.G. Dorshkevich and I. D.
Novikov wrote a paper discussing the implications of various existing
radio astronomy measurements in terms of microwave background. They
concluded that the best antennae in the world for a search for this
radiation was the Bell Lab antennae at Crawford Hill, and they
suggested that it be used for this purpose."
>A fascinating and extensive recounting of the technical achievements of the
>Soviet Union and of what was lost due to its demise.Worth looking at.
>
> www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion.html
> & http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion2.html
>From the site:
"People that express happiness over the end of the Soviet Union are unaware
of the achievements of the Soviet Union and that these achievements will not
continue in the bankruptcy and chaos of the new Russia or the post-Cold War
world."
Not to start a flame war or anything... but one should not forget the cost
of these achievements, and ask oneself: "were they worth it?"
"People that express happiness over the end of the Soviet Union are unaware of the achievements of the Soviet Union and that these achievements will not continue in the bankruptcy and chaos of the new Russia or the post-Cold War world."
Not to start a flame war or anything... but one should not forget the cost of these achievements, and ask oneself: "were they worth it?"
Nice thought although I think the 'American problem' is deeper than just to think in Soviet Union...
The things that we see the people that we live outside United States, can hardly be seen by the U.S. inhabitants. Only a few "can see the light"... the information is just not available for everyone. I have relatives there and they always tell us that the information that come on the news is really 'censored'... the 'official discurse' reaches everyone ... a free country where anyone has FBI eyes on them? looking at their mails all the time with the so called 'carnivorous' software?
Yes.. the ego make Americans to run faster to reach the moon... but now ... American ego is to try to 'free the world of dictators and terrorists'?
Its fun to see that only terrorist live in irak... and now it seems to be that they live in venezuela... precisely two of the biggest oil reserves of the world... What about africa? what about guatemala? what about nicaragua? what about colombia? isn't there violation to the human rights everyday? and iran? and north corea? and china? and pakistan? and india? So... I don't want to write more because this topic can be really extensive and I have to continue working but I do think that Soviet Union has a few things to do on the '2005' American way of seeing the world...
---------------------------------
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
Abrí tu cuenta aqu
> "People that express happiness over the end of the Soviet Union are
> unaware of the achievements of the Soviet Union and that these
> achievements will not continue in the bankruptcy and chaos of the new
> Russia or the post-Cold War world."
>
> Not to start a flame war or anything... but one should not forget the
> cost of these achievements, and ask oneself: "were they worth it?"
Probably not (but that's in the realm of non-fact, and therefore I stop
here :). But I think there are two separate issues: one is that these
achievements will not continue to be achieved in the way they did before,
and in some respects that's a good thing.
But I guess it's a sad thing that so many achievements that already have
been achieved are getting lost. OTOH that's IMO not a result so much of the
chaos of the post-Cold War world but of the extreme high mortgage the Cold
War USSR took out on the country. That's what they are paying now, and
while sad, it was and is probably inevitable.
BTW, I'm not sure how someone can call the post-Cold War world more chaotic
than the Cold War world. I think you'd have to have lived far, far away
from the Iron Curtain to be able to see it that way.
> The things that we see the people that we live outside United States,
> can hardly be seen by the U.S. inhabitants. Only a few "can see the
> light"... the information is just not available for everyone.
Oh yes, it is: they only would have to watch BBC every now and then (if
they only speak English) -- available in most places :)
Gerhard wrote:
>> The things that we see the people that we live outside United States,
>> can hardly be seen by the U.S. inhabitants. Only a few "can see the
>> light"... the information is just not available for everyone.
>
> Oh yes, it is: they only would have to watch BBC every now and then (if
> they only speak English) -- available in most places :)
Not to mention the Internet, especially the Blogosphere. ;-)
I also watch news on Telefutura, Telemundo, and Univision (during my
sporadic attempts to learn Spanish) -- and I must admit that I think it's
true that they make CNN and Fox looks somewhat one-sided (US-centered).
However, IMHO that is an issue of supply/demand, and has nothing to do with
censorship.
WOT: I also noticed that US news agencies prefer an "objective" style -- "we
report, you decide (SM)". Russian reporters, on the other hand, almost
always inject their opinion into the story.
There's a book (ISBN: 1402200455) whose authors claim that the French also
prefer "subjective" style, and are even suspicious of the American style of
reporting.
The U.S.S.R.was based on fear and brainwashing, the U.S. on just plain
bribery,you really CAN have it NOW. Both methods are turning and biting
their creators in the *rse. Politics will become irrelevant
when the world is too wrecked to live in; until then sanity will be
in distant second place after profits.Cynic or realist?WYSIWYG
{Original Message removed}
Steph Smith wrote:
> The U.S.S.R.was based on fear and brainwashing, the U.S. on just plain
> bribery,you really CAN have it NOW. Both methods are turning and biting
> their creators in the *rse. Politics will become irrelevant
> when the world is too wrecked to live in; until then sanity will be
> in distant second place after profits.Cynic or realist?WYSIWYG
It seems that some people like to bash the USA every chance they get.
*Sigh*.
There been two types of societies or mix in history
- ruled by money ( more money you make the higher you placed )
- ruled by power ( more violent you are the higher you moved )
Third type certainly is missed.
Ruled by different type of scientiests. Knowledge, reasons,
preventing things rather than waiting and fighting the results,
common knowledge ( most about everything ) shared by everyone.
I don't believe in stories about mad scientiests :)
Any system has to have self-healing mechanisms against destructive
inviduals regurdless who is on top : politic, military or academic
guy.
The answer maybe is that system ( society, state? ) that supports
everyone ( it is no doubt more beneficial in many reasons to be
part of bigger structure than performing basic needs by yourself )
has to be distributed by its nature. As soon as there is any concen-
tration / centralization abuse of power is beginning.
What is the point of "critical" power allowance ? :)
>
> A fascinating and extensive recounting of the technical achievements
> of the Soviet Union and of what was lost due to its demise.Worth
> looking at.
>
> www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion.html
> & www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion2.html
>
> RM
> ________________
>
> When I have read in the past about the discovery of the cosmic
> background radiation by researchers using the Bell Lab horn antenna at
> Crawford Hill it has always been said that the researchers were
> puzzled by inexplicable background noise and ultimately found that it
> was coming from "the sky". This article states that -
>
> "One of the most prominent Soviet physicists was Yakov B.
> Zel'dovich who was a professor of astrophysics at Moscow University
> and director of the theoretical group at the Institute of Physical
> Problems at Moscow. Zel'dovich was a member of the Soviet Academy of
> Sciences and a foreign member of both the Royal Society of London and
> the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Zel'dovich was one of those who
> first theorized the existence of the microwave background radiation of
> the Universe. He carried out the calculation that showed that in order
> to explain the observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, and deuterium
> in the Universe, it must have started in a hot Big Bang and have a
> temperature of a few K today. Another Soviet researcher, Yu N. Smirnov
> calculated a background temperature in the range of 1 to 30 K and
> jumping off of Smirnov's calculations, A.G. Dorshkevich and I. D.
> Novikov wrote a paper discussing the implications of various existing
> radio astronomy measurements in terms of microwave background. They
> concluded that the best antennae in the world for a search for this
> radiation was the Bell Lab antennae at Crawford Hill, and they
> suggested that it be used for this purpose."
>
>
>
> There been two types of societies or mix in history
> - ruled by money ( more money you make the higher you placed )
> - ruled by power ( more violent you are the higher you moved )
Is it possible that the first is simply a layer of abstraction built on the
second? E.g. "I have so much money I can hire someone to do violence on my
behalf." Sort of like each dollar is backed not by gold but by some small
token of violence. Flicking the ears of the kid on the bus is $1 worth of
violence. And so on up to murder for a few thousand.
"Who can destroy a thing, owns a thing." And so... You own a thing because
you can destroy it. Money is a representation of violence.
In the end, it all boils down to "Ug" with a big stick who can bop you over
the head and take your food. Then someone figured out that if they gather
enough food to keep Ug happy then anything more can be retained for
themselves; they just have to give Ug his part first. Pretty soon, everyone
gives Ug a little bit and goes off to eat in peace. "Protection money" is
the first monetary system. Ug figures out that they can't feed him if they
are fighting amongst themselves and rule of law is born. Ug figures out that
food doesn't keep well and he can't save up tribute and so markers are
developed and we have money.
We live in a "non-violent" society because we pay others to do our violence
for us. The police, FBI, CIA, Military, etc... all get paid to "keep the
peace" and how do they do this? Well, men with guns come for the people we
don't like and...
Gas prices have dropped again.
So in the end, it is still violence. The last refuge of a very, very
incompetent species. Just a little less incompetent than all the other
species farther down the tree because we manage to place an abstraction over
our violence.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rose-colored-glasses...
Strangely original gathers didn't reverse Ug's tactics back to himself.
So I assume we all driven by greed after all ? :)
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
> In the end, it all boils down to "Ug" with a big stick who can bop you over
> the head and take your food. Then someone figured out that if they gather
> enough food to keep Ug happy then anything more can be retained for
> themselves; they just have to give Ug his part first. Pretty soon, everyone
> gives Ug a little bit and goes off to eat in peace. "Protection money" is
> the first monetary system. Ug figures out that they can't feed him if they
> are fighting amongst themselves and rule of law is born. Ug figures out that
> food doesn't keep well and he can't save up tribute and so markers are
> developed and we have money.
> There been two types of societies or mix in history
> - ruled by money ( more money you make the higher you placed )
> - ruled by power ( more violent you are the higher you moved )
> Third type certainly is missed.
There have been other forms of the 3rd type, but they tend to be
subsumed by the first two you list. Various religious and
philosophical grouips have formed reasonably successful societies. For
example, the Essenes, who were not, in any normal meaning of the
terms, ruled by power or wealth.
Scientists do not seem to be especially free from the normal human
drives alas. Scratch a Nobel Laureate and you're as likely as not to
find the normal or worse measures of ambition, pride, and the rest.
> Gerhard wrote:
>>> The things that we see the people that we live outside United States,
>>> can hardly be seen by the U.S. inhabitants. Only a few "can see the
>>> light"... the information is just not available for everyone.
>>
>> Oh yes, it is: they only would have to watch BBC every now and then (if
>> they only speak English) -- available in most places :)
>
> Not to mention the Internet, especially the Blogosphere. ;-)
Yes... few excuses left for not being informed by balanced sources :)
> [...] and I must admit that I think it's true that they make CNN and Fox
> looks somewhat one-sided (US-centered).
>
> However, IMHO that is an issue of supply/demand, and has nothing to do
> with censorship.
I agree with it not being (centralized) censorship. I'm not sure about
supply and demand, though. It's a theory, but I suspect it's more a
cultural issue than a real supply/demand question. The economic theory
about the auto-regulation of supply and demand presumes the ideally
informed customer making rational decisions...
> WOT: I also noticed that US news agencies prefer an "objective" style --
> "we report, you decide (SM)". Russian reporters, on the other hand,
> almost always inject their opinion into the story.
I think it's more a question of style than fact. I don't think US news (I
still have access to some channels) are any more factual than other places'
news. (Don't know Russian news, though; I don't speak Russian.) To me the
drift on Fox News is so strong that it hurts; I can't consider that a "news
channel".
> There's a book (ISBN: 1402200455) whose authors claim that the French
> also prefer "subjective" style, and are even suspicious of the American
> style of reporting.
The problem may be that it may create an illusion of objectivity that the
unsuspecting viewer may believe. (It doesn't create that for me, but it
seems to do it for some.) And if this is true, this /is/ dangerous.
<rant>
Fact is that there is no objective news. Every news you hear/see has been
filtered. The mere selection of what to report and what not causes a
distortion. The angle of the camera causes a distortion; have you ever
thought about how little of a scene you actually see on TV (compared to you
being there)? There is no objective camera angle; it always shows what the
camera man/producer/reporter wants to show, what she thinks is important.
To me, there's always a lot of questions after every news bite I hear or
see on TV; many more questions raised than answered. Watching TV, you don't
have the time to pursue that; most people seem to go along with what seems
to be implied by the "news". Which is by definition always non-factual. And
so on...
</rant>
James Newton said :
>Money is a representation of violence.
Money is the sign of peaceful cooperation. Money is simply a
two-steps barter system. You sell your flour, apples, services - and get
money in exchange. Using that money you 'buy' - exchange money for services.
Barter again - the circle closes.
If I offer you $1 (or $10, or $10000000) to kill your neighboor and
you accept the contract, you're guilty, not the money.
So, current oil prices are not market prices. To link oil, war and
money is a straw man attack. The moment you use force to modify a price, the
free-market vanishes.
Also for people interesed in the achievments of the Soviets in the
area of Human Rights, here's some information :
Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>Money is a representation of violence.
> Money is the sign of peaceful cooperation. Money is simply a
> two-steps barter system. You sell your flour, apples, services - and get
> money in exchange. Using that money you 'buy' - exchange money for
> services.
> Barter again - the circle closes.
>
> If I offer you $1 (or $10, or $10000000) to kill your neighboor and
> you accept the contract, you're guilty, not the money.
Amen. Money is just like any other tool or technology in this regard.
> So, current oil prices are not market prices. To link oil, war and
> money is a straw man attack. The moment you use force to modify a price,
> the
> free-market vanishes.
I agree with each one of the three statements above (taken separately), but
I don't understand what is your point.
> Money is the sign of peaceful cooperation. Money is
> simply a two-steps barter system. You sell your flour,
> apples, services - and get money in exchange. Using that
> money you 'buy' - exchange money for services.
> Barter again - the circle closes.
>
> If I offer you $1 (or $10, or $10000000) to kill your
> neighboor and you accept the contract, you're guilty, not the money.
>
> So, current oil prices are not market prices. To link
> oil, war and money is a straw man attack. The moment you use
> force to modify a price, the free-market vanishes.
>
>
> Also for people interested in the achievements of the
> Soviets in the area of Human Rights, here's some information :
>
>
>
> www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm
>
Read the text of the link you quoted at the end of your post, then re-read
what you said at the beginning of your post. Yes, Money is the sign of
peaceful cooperation. But what does the money represent? Ownership of
property? Sale of goods? Again, "who can destroy a thing, owns a thing" Or
in the words of Allen Parsons / Egar Allen Poe "What price the crown of a
King on his throne, when your chained in the dark all alone?"
As I said, in the end, it is Ug or Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler who owns it
all. In a system with money, we agree that the ownership is divided up among
us all according to how much we have in the bank. We are now the Ug. How we
spend our money decides who rules. But violence trumps our agreement. When
someone is desperate enough, the price we ask for our goods means nothing.
In that case, we have to pay one Ug to protect us from the other Ug.
To ensure that our "gentleman's agreement" remains in place, we must all be
ready to pay Ug (police, etc...) or we must be ready to BE Ug. Violence does
NOT go away. It is NOT replaced by money. It is perhaps /mostly/ replaced by
money, which, as Billy Crystal will tell us, "is not the same thing at all."
In my (never humble) opinion, refusing to see that the basis of our monetary
system is related to violence, just as life is with the "lower" animals,
sets us up for people like Stalin, et all to step in with a harsh reminder.
Ah well... Perhaps this is becoming a religious argument? If so, I
apologize. I see this clearly, but find it hard to convey. Perhaps I am
wrong, or perhaps it is just not something that can be known.
I said:
> So, current oil prices are not market prices. To link oil, war and
>> money is a straw man attack. The moment you use force to modify a price,
>> the free-market vanishes.
Vitaly said:
>I agree with each one of the three statements above (taken separately), but
>I don't understand what is your point.
It seems to me (but I may be wrong) that James goes from oil to
money and from money to war.
Oil companies get rich - once they are rich, they use money to buy
violence. So, money is the root of all evil.
That is, IMO, a misrepresentation of facts.
James asks :
>But what does the money represent? Ownership of property?
Earned money (as opposed to stolen) represents services rendered.
You did something for Peter and got paid - so now you can offer your 'money'
in the market to get a service back. Isn't that fair ?
If you build a house with your own hands, is the house yours ?
If you work as an engineer, get paid, and use the money to get a
house built, is the house yours ?
Now, if you don't 'believe' that whatever you produce is yours, then
I must stop arguing because this will surely turn into what you call
'religious arguments'
>Again, "who can destroy a thing, owns a thing"
Yes, in a very restricted way. You can destroy your neighbour's
house. Do you then own it ? Can you use it/sell it/morgage it ? I don't
think so. You can merely destroy the property of your neighbour. You can not
transfer it to you! If you kill him, you won't get his life transfered to
you. More likely, you'd be killed in turn...
You seem to be arguing that violence is all powerful...it is not. It
can only destroy life and wealth. It obiously can't create them.
>As I said, in the end, it is Ug or Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler who owns it all.
1) How many people can ONE man, unaided, kill ? So, Stalin was evil,
but what about the soldiers who made it possible for him to rule ? It's the
same point again. Who is guilty/guiltier ? The one who gives the 'order' ?
Or the one who physically commits the crime ?
2) Notice that you cited the 'leaders' of communist or nationalist,
socialist societies. Those societies considered private property, money, and
individual freedom as the most wicked things on earth...and acted accordingly!
>In a system with money, we agree that the ownership is divided up among
>us all according to how much we have in the bank.
Yes, IF it's not 'stolen' money. Otherwise, ownership is a scam.
>How we spend our money decides who rules.
Yes, but our 'ruling' consist merely in, say, buying a computer
instead of a car. If everybody prefers computers to cars, then car
manufacturers go belly up. So, have we 'destroyed' the car manufacturers ?
No. Car manufactureres were not useful for their customers, so they had to
give up that activity and do something else.
Now, car manufacturers can surely declare a war on their customers,
go to the govt. and ask for subsidies....and if you don't pay taxes (wich go
to the car manufactureres in the form of subsidies), the police shoots you.
A very real civil war.
>To ensure that our "gentleman's agreement" remains in place, we must all be
>ready to pay Ug (police, etc...)
I don't think so. The police is always on the side of the govt. Take
a look at how property is transfered via taxes and tell me if you really own
what you earn or if 50% of your income 'belongs'/is taken to/by the police.
Some people may behave 'well' because of fear, but fear is not the
basis of society.
>Ah well... Perhaps this is becoming a religious argument?
I hope not! :)
I apologize as this message turned out quite longer than I intended to.
And sorry for discusing 'political' matters, but it's as usual
Russell's fault...:)
I would say you are very good theoretician no more nor less.
Real life is something different in many situations perhaps.
> It seems to me (but I may be wrong) that James goes from oil
> to money and from money to war.
> Oil companies get rich - once they are rich, they use money
> to buy violence. So, money is the root of all evil.
> That is, IMO, a misrepresentation of facts.
It is solid fact by itself. Big Money creates more money and eliminate
everything on its way that prevents it doing so. Forget the morale and
humanity, it doesnt exist in that scale. That's the nature of it.
> >But what does the money represent? Ownership of property?
> Earned money (as opposed to stolen) represents services rendered.
> You did something for Peter and got paid - so now you can offer your 'money'
> in the market to get a service back. Isn't that fair ?
How do you differ earned money ( which is fair and small ) and stolen money
( which is violent and huge ) Money doesn't smell according to Romes :)
Money became creature of itself, pursued purely by certain people who believe
that money will provide everything especially the more amounts you can handle.
> If you build a house with your own hands, is the house yours ?
> If you work as an engineer, get paid, and use the money to get a
> house built, is the house yours ?
If you are within for example Morgan family enterprise and standing behind
of federal reserve system you don't need to "build the houses" :) Money can
be "borrowed" from the air as much as you want and loaned to everybody else
for certain percentage thus creating income from nowhere and no work gets
done. Why in many countries there is no more gold backup behind the national
currency? ( USA included ) Things became too relative and abusive
in the past century.
> >Again, "who can destroy a thing, owns a thing"
> Yes, in a very restricted way. You can destroy your neighbour's
> house. Do you then own it ? Can you use it/sell it/morgage it ? I don't
> think so. You can merely destroy the property of your neighbour. You can not
> transfer it to you! If you kill him, you won't get his life transfered to
> you. More likely, you'd be killed in turn...
In a straight way. You can kill your neighbour family, burn his house and
give his belongings to everybody else. And nobody will be secure that next
day it is not his own turn. Everybody wants to survive (1st basic instinct )
Think about that or rather carefully study 2nd world war, hitler and stalin
regimes. ( I don't wish that to be repeated to anybody even in nightmares )
> You seem to be arguing that violence is all powerful...it is not. It
> can only destroy life and wealth. It obiously can't create them.
When you can loose your life or especially life of your children
you don't think much about wealth believe me.
> >As I said, in the end, it is Ug or Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler who owns it all.
> 1) How many people can ONE man, unaided, kill ? So, Stalin was evil,
> but what about the soldiers who made it possible for him to rule ? It's the
> same point again. Who is guilty/guiltier ? The one who gives the 'order' ?
> Or the one who physically commits the crime ?
You never been in concentration camp regurdless stalin or hitler regimes thus
please stop theorize about how powerfull person you can be in given situation.
When you have a choice to be executed yourself or you have to shoot as many
of your neigbours as you told to in order to save your life, I can tell you
there are many people who will do whatever is required to stay alive.
Violence and fear are extremely dangerous and effective things in that matter
and agree with James on that. Until violance isn't declared out of law every-
where it has to be taken into account seriously.
> Disculpame que te moleste....
>
> ¿ Estas enterado de cuantos 'ciudadanos' sovieticos murieron en
>campos de concentracion sovieticos durante el reinado sovietico ?
>
>
>
Si me molestaste.... de donde sacas estas cosas? acaso yo dije algo de
que los del ex-gobierno soviético eran unos santos?
Por favor, que manera de poner frases en boca de uno!!! Por suerte todo
esto está escrito y registrado y en ningún momento dije tal cosa o
insinué lo dicho.
Yes, you bother me.... where did you get those stuff? Did I said the es
soviet gobernors were saints?
Give me a break, nice way of pointing me phrases I didnt write!!.
Luckily all I said is written and i never said or insinuauted such a
thing....
> ¿ O sos el tipico producto en masa de la 'educacion' publica
>argentina ?
>
>
Se nota que no me conoces ... Solo te respondo : A esto se lo llama
'prejuzgar'....
Its clear that you don't know me......... I will only answer: That's
called to be prejudiced....
> De paso, no estoy defendiendo al welfare-warfare-state de los
>social-democratas norteamericanos...En general los comunistas tienen un gran
>problema para poder diferenciar entre 'el estado' y la sociedad civil (i.
>e. el mercado), asi como tienen un gran problema para diferenciar violencia
>y cooperacion.
>
>
>Saludos,
>J.
>
Ahora me pienso expresar en mi idioma.....
La verdad todo esto ha sido un mal entendido.....
Lo que quise decir, es lo siguiente... y espero esta vez quede más claro
Hacen falta guerras para que la tecnología avance más rapidamente?
aparentemente si...
Hace falta una 'guerra fría' para que la tecnología espacial avance a
pasos agigantados?... aparentemente si....
Si el país con el poder para hacer estos sueños realidad no invierte
dinero real a científicos para impulsar más areas como energías
alternativas o la conquista del espacio, o el mejoramiento genético de
los alimentos, o la conservación de la selva del amazonas... o la
reducción de la polución mundial, o controlar 'de cerca' las reales
amenazas como el que un dictador coreano se haga de armas nucleares que
además amenaza con usarlas?
En cambio el Gobierno de Bush se dedica a invertir sus fondos en guerras
para destruir paises por el petróleo para luego negociar su
reconstrucción con sus amigotes.. O invierte su dinero en escanear mails
para tapar la ineptitud de otras áreas? o se dedica a estar de
vacaciones cuando un huracán arrasa gran parte de su país?
Como dije antes, conozco varias personas de los Estados Unidos, y
afortundamente he encontrado en ellos un alto nivel de respeto al
prójimo y que son personas realmente muy educadas... sus gobernantes por
otra parte... no lo son (y me refiero a Bush & company)...
Creí haber sido claro sobre que hablaba del presidente no de los
ciudadanos...
En ningún momento hablé y defendí a la Unión Soviética
Este era mi punto... cuando hablé de porqué no se avanza en la carrera
hacia el espacio, la luna y marte....
Hay un cuento de Asimov que relata algo similar... como la humanidad con
las guerras avanza mucho más veloz que sin ellas.....
Now I'll express myself in my language
I think this has been a misunderstanding.
What i meant to say was this... and I hope this time I express myself
clearly.
Are wars necessary for technollogy advance rapidly? Apparently yes...
Is necessary a 'cold war' for spacial tech advance fast? Apparently yes...
If the country with the power to make this dreams come true... does not
put the money on real cientist to develop areas as alternative energies,
space conquer, food genetic improvement, preservation of the amazonas
or the reduction of world's polution, or to control 'real threatens'
like a corean dictator who is developing nuclear weapons and threatens
to use them?
On the other hand, bush goverment invests money to destroy construis for
oil and to catch the business of rebuilding it with his big fellows
Or he invests his money to scan mails to hide the uncapability or the
will to hide 'something' ?
Or he is just woried about his vacations when a hurricane destroys a
piece of his own country?
As I said before, i know many people from the US, fortunately i found in
them very polite and with a high respect to their neighbours, their
gobernonrs on the other hand.... are not (and Im talking about Bush and
company).
I though i was clear about talking about the US president, not about his
citizens...
I didn't speak or defend the Soviet Union on any moment.....
This was what i meant to say, when I said my opinion why the space race
to the moon and mars... is stopped.
There's an Asimov story, that talks about a similar concept : how the
humanity tech progress faster with wars than without them...
Vitality, also thanks for your time, I hope I've been clear. I wasn't
comparing freedom of US and Soviet Union...
My appollogies for my bad english
___________________________________________________________ 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
maksimov.org> escribió: >A fascinating and extensive recounting of the technical achievements of the 
