Err..cold fusion, michae1ange1o?

I thought they'd proved the experiments were flawed?

I think it would be quite easy to invent something that was more powerful than a pie-in-the-sky form of power...say a hamster-in-a-wheel?

I like your ideas on the needs we have to fulfill before we can explore space in a decent manner.

Suicidal pilots in control of what could be the most powerful explosion people have ever produced... 8O

I'm not poking fun, just making observations here...

Anyway, I find it odd the way that people think that technology is progressing so fantastically. When you stop and think about it, technological progress has essentially ground to a halt!

When you think technology, what do you think of? Mobile phones? Computers? The internet?

Now think about the choices you have made. What do they all have in common?

Electronics!

Our technological progress in the last 30 years has been largely based on the advancement of electronics, not the advancement of technology as a whole.

As an example, think of the Moon landings. (I can assume you all know what the craft looked like, right?)

Now think about NASA's "new" Moon lander...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/123121main_docked_full.jpg

Or even the Rockets that will send it to the Moon...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/123126main_rockets_full.jpg

Notice anything familiar?

Sure, they have 'improved' since the original Moon landings, afterall, they are new designs!

All of the improvements are based on electronics though. Better computers, better cameras, better flashing lights.

All that NASA has really managed to do technology-wise, is get a bit more thrust from its Rockets. (If you think it is strange that i'm focussing on NASA, i'm doing it coz they are the biggest and most well-known space agency, and I have to focus on space, right?)

Now if anyone has any criticisms on my points, there is something that I should tell you first: the points that I have just mentioned are NOT my own!

These points have actually been raised by NASA itself! It was on Horizon I think a few weeks ago. (Horizon is a sciencey program in the UK)

Now if something like NASA says we haven't progressed that much in the last 30 years, what do you guys think now?

*Edit - if people wanna know more about NASA's new Moon landings, here's ta link:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html*

well i need to put in my $0.05

I saw the website this forum is so active about, probaly about 3 or 4 years ago. At the time everything mentioned by the time traveler (im just using the name he quoted himself/herself with) was based losely on things that could happen and might happen, however where imposible at the time to prove as it will happen, mostly because all the events where things that didnt happen yet.

I dont remember everything from the site, it does make a while, but a few vaige things i recall are there would be a war in the east that the us would participate in, a civil war would start in the us (i believe in late 2005 or early 2006), and a nuclear war in 2015. Of course at the time back in 98 (when it was first posted) these where all things that would/could happen in the future.

Now im not saying it is true or not, im staying impartial on this.
All i do want to point out is one thing not known about time traveler, he/she started the posts in the fall of 98 (im not sure the exact time, but i believe its in the website), and he/she posted only for 2 or 3 months on that forum. On his last post he claimed he would be returning to his time, and since then no-one that i know of has claimed to be time traveler. (note i said as far as i know of, it is posible there are other posts i dont know about).

Granted he also claimed that simply by being here "in the past" he changed our future, however would still go back to his time. This makes sense, in star trek (and real science), there is the multile worlds theories. That simply means that everything that can happen does, and each time it makes a new reality. Its posible that if time traveler does exist (and im not saying he does or not), but if he does he may be from an alternate future.
From his point of view he might have changed our future, while returning to his time without affecting his time.
Actully.....in his posts i believe he mentions something like that.

I really dont know, it could be true, could be a bunch of bull, we may never know.

Tielee

ya from what tielee said, i noticed he kept going on about our worldline instead of time line, so not only does he travel through time he also skips through dimensions with the greatest of ease

ya got me wrong matress, i said a power source that OUTSTRIPS cold fusion, in other words ohhhhhhh lets say the romulan singularity power source for example or for stargate fans the zero point module.

zpm science is real but only in theory.
science has improved vastly in the last 30 years, i no from experience material science has exploded, what about genetic science? The only reason were still using rockets is that we havnt got the anti grav scieence yet. which is along way away....

gahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm sorry, but that is THE most pathetically stupid comment I have ever read. And believe me, it has some stiff competition...

That is so stupid, it is actually quite brilliant.

im unsure how to take that, i was a history student at london uni so i know my stuff, buddy

you what?

you should get a refund on your tuition fees then, or either that, complain enough to ensure your lecturer is sacked.

that statement is akin to saying the problem with apples is that they aren't like oranges ffs...

No, i dont think you understand, Communisn and Capatalism are opposites, in Communism you cannot choose your own leaders, or at very least so far no communist state has allowed thier people too. Yo can have democracy and communism, albiet a strange mix it would be. Dont be so quick to judge.

I'm not saying I am an expert on communism or anything, but in a perfect communistic society I don't think they have leaders, at least not in the sense we are used to. At least I think so...none of the communist powers have ever had true communism, communism doesn't have a dictator. Anyway, I am glad some of you know what communism is, when I talk about communism in liberal central USA, they always accuse me of being a communist and say communism is evil, etc. maybe for fun, but in a very ignorant way. I think communism is the perfect society, but for robots. I like communism as long as everyone does their job.

Oh, and about space travel, there are alternatives to what you are talking about. I'm not refering to what is portrayed in Star Wars, but hyperspace is a real thing...well theoretically I mean, and if we can find a way to open holes in hyperspace, we can get from point A to B without traveling so fast. That eliminates some of the barriers of space travel. Don't worry, I'm going into physics to invent it so soon you can have that vacation on Mars you've been wanting!!! Don't hold your breath waiting...

So, you guys mind enlightening me, a poor eastern european, on communism?
Why did you, Scatter, laugh at Carrot when he mentioned a lack of democracy in communism? Did you mean that the two were so contradicting that it's stupid to compare them, or something else? In any case, write more than just one-liners to make fun of others. I'd really like to know what you mean.

Now, I know some things about it, but going in depth, I'm pretty oblivious to the whole communism-socialism thing. If you guys don't mind giving a few views on it...
I have heard some discussion on these matters amd I'm not really sure what to think... What is the difference between communism and socialism, the basic flaws ect.

Unless the Pink one thinks this is inexcuseable spam, in which case, I will shut up.

I will elaborate some on it, CVN. Communism in fact are two things. First is a vision. A way of live and a perception on how things should be in this world. Paradise. The other is a government form and is an attempt (originally written by Karl Marx) to bring that vision into practice.

Marx never lived out to see that happen anywhere in the world, and thus we will never know how he, himself, would have implemented his system. The only thing which is certain is that Vladimir Lenin implemented his own version of it in Russia which didn't quite work out that well.

Marx' idea was as followed: during a period of "Proletarian Dictatorship" the population will be prepared for a communistic state. During this period, money will lose its value and people will lose their possessions. In theory, a man is unable to "own" anything. All food and objects are shared with the community. After a while, the dictatorship itself will not be needed anymore and will naturally dissolve.
In a sense, Smith is right. According to Marx, there is total equality between every human being, so there are no leaders whatsoever. This was his first vital mistake.

Lenin understood this perfectly and once he obtained his totalitarian rule, he would never give it away again. Same is true for his successor Stalin and those who followed. They implemented communism as an oppressive system and hold his citizens under totalitarian rule only to satisfy his own lust for power and control resulting in million deaths due to starvation, murders, executions, etc.

So much for the history lesson. Bottom line is that the very core of communism is the one thing every "communistic" country in the world failed to implement until now: Equality. This does not mean that no one should be in charge! Companies need leaders, countries need leaders. But communism and democracy are NOT, I repeat: NOT, mutualy exclusive.
So what is this core I speak of: quite simple, it means that all goods in a state are for the use of all of its citizens. This means that everyone should be able to have access to all sorts of food.
This means no more money and that in theory you can walk into a "supermarket" and take whatever you want and go out. Does this mean chaos? No, as long as there are enough supplies for everyone.
This means that everyone can get a car and can learn how to drive.
This means that everyone will be able to have a house and a place to live.
This means that everyone will have to work. Work and not get paid for, since everything is free anyway, but we do need people to make it that way.

The list goes on and on.

Now finally, will this work? The answer to that question is, unfortunately: No. For the simple reason because people will find it unfair that a doctor has the right on the same things as a supermarket employee.
Which I think is a stupid thought, but well. That's the way it works in this world.
Perhaps in about 300 years, when we invented the replicator and such

That's similar to how I interpreted some of the things I've heard. A good idea, corrupted by those who used it to sieze power. Thanks Var'Din

Not yet, I would say It came too soon.

Yeah, the main problem with communism is it provides absolutely 0 incentive to go into fields of work that require extra study, practice, hard work, etc... like say... doctors, physicists, chemists, physical labor, constuction... I mean, why do that if you're going to get the same benefits as someone who doesn't study anything and just cleans floors and empties the trash for a living? Human Beings, like any animal on Earth, are essentially lazy, and each individual will do the least amount of work possible to meet whatever it considers to be it's needs and wants.

Given human nature, and the lack of incentive to go for the more difficult (mental or physical) jobs, the jobs, or rather the qualified workers for said jobs, would slowly disappear - leading to sortages of goods produced, services offered, etc... until you're basically all equal in squalor. It's not an economic system that will work until you have robots and/or replicators making and maintaining everything, or until humans have some major change in their natural tendencies, which isn't going to happen... probably ever.

because it was using a popular generalisation to back up a point. never mind that the point was redundant, and the generalisation is absurdly wrong.

for starters, the misconceptions. it is a popular misconception that communism is a form of government. it's not. just like capitalism isn't a form of government. they're both economic principles.

the misconception is often brought about because the only political party in the USSR post 1922 was called the communist party. but that would be like saying the united states is a republic because the republicans currently hold power.

up until the bolshevik revolution in 1917, russia was ruled by a feudalistic monarchy. in 1922 after the end of the civil war, the soviet union was formed, and through various guises that bordered on outright dictatorship, the union was essentially a socialist state trying in vain to implement SOME of the communist economic ideals.

the idea that communism cannot be implemented in a social democracy is patently wrong. and the majority of discussions you see about what style of government the UFP is in the trekiverse that put forward communist state and therefore exclude the idea of a social democracy because of this are patently wrong. the united states (and just about every other country in the western world) are currently capitalist social democracies. that is, the economy is driven by a free market where the individuals acquisition of wealth is the primary driving force behind the operation of the economy, whilst also enjoying civil liberties and universal suffrage.

it is completely possible - and highly likely - that the UFP is a social democracy with a communist economic model. that is, the individual has civil liberty, universal suffrage, but everyone works 'for the state' and everyone is equal type philosophy.

to even further make Carrots point a rather stupid one, is the fact that the soviet union operated under a system of proportional representation - not totally indifferent to a large number of social democracies elcetion rules today. for example, in australia and the uk, the populace votes for their local members in an election. the political party with the highest number of elected members then forms a government. it should be noted that said patry chooses it's own leader, and in reality, the constituency has no real say on who that leader is. that is democracy by proportional representation.

the soviet union also implemented the exact same model, with one majorly important difference - the choices at the grass roots level all came from the one party. you merely had the choice between which member of the communist party you wanted to vote for. those elected would then vote on the council of ministers (a kind of all powerful committee), and that council of ministers would then elect a leader - the secretary of the party - from within its ranks. again, that is democratic by proportional representation.

people often confuse democracy with civil liberty. an example. if 100 people are stranded on an island, and 51 of them vote to kill off the other 49 in order to use them for food. that is democratic. the fact that it impinges on the 49s civil rights is another issue altogether.

You see this is why i dont usually put you normal posts cus people this this Pr**K love to flame. What i said was my opinion, i never said it was fact i never said i was 100% wrong, its a tad big headed of some of you to assume your right on such issues, and if you knew anything you knew its such a broad subject its hard to actually be wrong on this.

At first, Mister Carott, Scatters post was no flame at all. It was a clear and elaborate explanation as to why your "opinion" is false. You are free to give another response to his post to further explain your motives and defend your opinion. This phenomenon is called a discussion.
Now if you are unable to participate in such a thing, unable to stand and see that there happen to be people who disagree with you, and most of all unable (and unwilling) to defend your own view in a mature and civilised matter, why the hell have you even joined up on this forum?!

(NOTE: Now, THIS is a flame)


Scatter, you put it in an even better way than I did. I totally agree. Except on one point. Communism was designed to be a government form. The original ideas from Marx exactly describe how a dictatorship will rise to force the people to acknowledge the new system (as he probably knew there will be some resistance) After that, the ultimate goal (originally) is to have no government whatsoever.
Of course, the original pilosophy can be changed as much as we need it to. Lenin and Stali also improvised a bit to make it "work"

eh??? EH????

gentle reminder time is it?


heh... nice try son. please play again.

lol, "false" communism is a broad doctrine, not that i care anyway, it is not a good political doctrine and is flawed in so many ways. You can all gang up like you usually do and do the "im so much more intelligent than you" thing, but in politics and history there are few right or wrongs.

I hate to contribute to this fire, and I hope I'm not, but the idea of communism is written down by its creators in this book. There are different books made by different publishers, but I'm assuming the content is relatively the same. If you want to know about it yourself, you can go ahead and get it. It's actually quite interesting.

the thing is smith (can we call you smithers? please!? ), the communist ideal as written by marx and engels in the manifesto never really saw the light of day. it's sorta like the base model for communism if you like. every other model that was actually implemented differed drastically. for example the 'communist' regimes of castro, mao zedung, kim jong il, lenin and stalin are almost nothing like what was envisioned by marx.

that's why a lot of scholars will refer to it as marxism rather than communism, because the communist principle has been debauched so badly...

nb - i don't think marxism/communism is at all practical or workable. it's a pipedream, and a flawed one at that.

Like you said Scatter, it's a dream, and you can't stop people from dreaming!

Under Communism, all people are supposed to be equal, blah blah blah...has anyone thought how that sounds oddly similar to the American Constitution? 8O

(That one principle, anyway)

Just a thought...

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan

Couldn't agree more

Humans always need a leader. Though i agree that in a perfect world, everyone should be equal and should share eachothers wealth, thus creating the perfect society to live in. But that is not possible as is it is now at the moment.

I won't interefere with your discussion, I just have one thing to say. There is a huge difference between the "equality" in the US and Communism. In the US people are equal in front of the law and are supposed to have equal chances to succeed, of which the last one is bull. In Communism people are equal economicaly as well - in our country we never had Communism although Rusia wanted us to have it and there was almost war. We had sociolism. At that time the difference between the maximum payment and minimal wage was 1:4. The managment in a firm got only 4 times more salary than their workers! The workers had enough money to buy luxuries*, go on vacations and worked only 40 hours per week. And everyone had a job.

We had a carismatic leader at that time which held together a number of nations and didn't give in to Rusian demands, and had our country be neutral in the cold war (that is why we almost got war with them, their troops we're already placed at our borders once.) Yes, our leader was a president for life, but the funny thing is, after he died his family was left without anything. Everything he owned was never his, he GAVE everything to the country - even the numerous gifts he receaved from foreign diplomats. He didn't own any yahts, no palaces, nothing - everything was owned by the country, which was torn apart after his death, and today we have leaders with astronomical salaries, buying big houses, while in some parts 40% of the folk have no job.

Anyway, Communism could never have worked. It's a good idea with a flaw. Marx forgot the human factor. People are kids for life I feel. We always want more toys and we don't want to share them with anybody...


* the same luxuries the managment could buy, but they had to save for it of course.

In the US, people are not equal. Perhaps in the last few decennia they made some advancements, but back in the 60s and 70s being black was almost a criminal offense.
Even now, things are the same. But now it isn't the black people who are the victims, but arabians or Muslims. I won't say it is different where I come from (the Netherlands), I am only saing that in our current system there is a looooong way to go before all humans are truely equal. Possibly, it will never happen until we implemented some other system.

I'll agree with you yes, blacks were discriminated against in the 60s and 70s and even before. It would be next to impossible to prove otherwise. What you mentioned with arabians and muslims I am not convinced of, however. I live in the US and where I am, I have never seen discrimination against any group, At least not obvious discrimination. Maybe they are discriminated against in New York, I don't know, but the US is a big place and lots of stuff happens here. I won't argue that somewhere it is happening, but most likely somewhere whites are being discriminated against as well. Basically I'm trying to say I don't think it is as bad as you would make it seem.

IOIO, sounded like an idea place, I'm sorry you lost it. Also as a sidenote, the Russia your refering to was not actually called Russia I dont think, but the USSR. I guess it might be like calling Europe the Roman Empire.

i disagree entirely. the fundamental problem with marxism isn't the idealism regarding leadership, it's the idealism regarding the labourforce.

using myself as an example - where is my incentive to put myself through four years of uni to learn my profession when at the end of the day my take home pay is going to be equal to some uneducated kid who drops out of school and spends his career asking "would you like fries with that?"

marxism was written for a pre-industrial society. when the vast majority of the labour force was working the land, and the next largest labour group were menial labourers and slaves (in russia they were serfs).

marxism as a feasable ideology died with the industrial revolution.

you say that as though the ratio has gone up, when i think it is much more likely that the ratio has in fact come down.

in most western societies the level of income that defines the poverty line is actually rising, which means that real wages are rising as well.

i can't speak for anywhere else, but your average white collar wage in australia is around the 50k mark, and for line managers, probably around the 80k mark. there is no way that the average executive wage is over 320k. granted, national managers of the large multi-nationals are earning near seven figures, but they are few and far between, and serve only to push up the overall average for an executive wage.