16 minutes ago, martin-w said:

All of those elements are present on Mars. Some in lesser amounts than here on the Earth but they are all there.

So it's worth going then? 

Hang on, oxygen?

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by Ron Attwood

Oxygen would come from the carbon dioxide.

Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth and contains only 2% nitrogen. Would that present any problem for nitrogen supply?

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by dmwalker

7 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

And not likely to return as AWS shut them down and no one wants to "pick them up" for obvious reasons.  Many corporations are no longer funding such activity as it's clearly dangerous to propagate false information.  One particular nut job Lawyer is being sued for $1.3B by a certain company for defamation ... she isn't going to find "donations" to help her battle the reality of spreading false information.  There are consequences and "Freedom" doesn't mean one can say and do whatever they want, not in a society and anarchists haven't really been able to survive without a society (aka rule of law).

Cheers, Rob.

Does this admonition that it's dangerous to spread false information apply to everyone equally?  If so, then are you ready to censor about 75% of the politicians and 80% of the media?

Who exactly should be the ultimate arbiter of what is the truth? 

I'm fine with you censoring yourself and choosing not to watch, read, or listen to whatever/whomever you wish, but please don't infringe on the rights of everyone else to decide for themselves just because you personally consider something "false information".

The founders of the United States made freedom of speech the first amendment for a reason.  You personally may consider some speech false or even abhorrent, but as long as it is not inciting violence or putting people in real danger, then it should be permitted.

I suggest you read 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 to get a good primer on what it means to silence people with whom you disagree.

Dave

 

 

8 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Your argument is circular as you make the assumption facts/truth doesn't exist.  In a society based on the rule of law, NO, you can't say anything or do anything.

No circular argument at all on my part.  I made it clear that there are limits on free speech.

What you said is that "false information is dangerous", and then justified the censoring of information that you personally don't like and deem to be "false".

One day, if this biased, unfair censoring is not stopped, it won't just be people that you disagree with being silenced, but you as well.

 

"No man escapes when freedom fails,

the best men rot in filthy jails,

and those that cried 'appease, appease!',

are hanged by men they tried to please.

-Hiram Mann

 

Dave

 

11 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

One particular nut job Lawyer is being sued for $1.3B by a certain company for defamation ... she isn't going to find "donations" to help her battle the reality of spreading false information.

No, not directly, but you did say what is quoted above.  This, along with the rest of your post, implies that you think it is OK to censor certain entities who say things that you believe to be false.  Did I misunderstand?

I'm not talking about any messages on Twitter, Parler, Facebook, etc. that incited people to commit unlawful acts and/or violence.  Those should be censored. 

I'm talking about other speech that has been routinely censored over the past year or so by a few very powerful companies who claim to be neutral, however, there is voluminous evidence that they have not been even-handed in their censorship.

Look, all I know is that whichever side wins, a 51% majority, or 55%, or 60%, should not dismiss or vilify the other 49%, 45%, or 40%.  This is known as the tyranny of the majority, and it is not healthy for any nation.  We must sit down together, talk to each other, and compromise. 

This winner take all attitude that I've been seeing on both sides for 20 years now is destructive.

Dave

I think we can all agree that there’s definitely a strong bias in media and the tech industry and they don’t even try to hid it any longer.

It’s apparent when people go on live tv interviews and say one thing to sway opinion then testify to exactly the opposite when under oath, but people will believe what they want to believe, even if the ending conclusion doesn’t fit the narrative they been supporting.

Having said that, this topic has drifted too far into the political realm for Avsim so I’m locking it. Plenty of other places to discuss this stuff, if the tech oligarchs haven’t banned you or shut you down yet for having dissenting opinions.