<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>weren't you the one with Eddisons theory? <br>"in order to get ourselves to another planet we had to destroy this one"<br>An irresponsible approach to the situation unless we are going to collect on the insurance for destroying this planet.. Just think.. we may have been able to sell the aliens we oust .. this place if they let us have theirs or even clean swap.. We may by then have reduced this atmosphere to something more of their liking .. these are all conjectural possibilities ..but burning bridges was never smart.<p><hr></blockquote><p>you have mistaken me for someone else. i have made one post in this thread and i don't think i've ever addressed space travel and/or why or whether we'd every live anywhere but earth and i've never heard of Eddisons theory. i dont' agree with what you've written in the quote and, frankly, i hope we do all we can to save this planet including doing things that may not be scientifically 100% proven (as if anything ever is) -- e.g., i think we should have signed and stuck with the kyoto treaty even if some other countries weren't going to do it...i think we should still do what we can to protect the earth.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but i do agree that the starwars program is less worthy of expenditure than landing on Mars.<br>Even though there are some merits to having such systems in place for many reasons, some of them peaceful.<br>I do disagree that we should ever plan for future wars.<p><hr></blockquote><p>well, i it's the peaceful reasons that are most important to me. with people like dubya in power, i would hate to see more powerful tools of destruction available at his disposal. <br><br>
Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
apologies if i aimed wrong with that <br><br>peace<br><br>and sorry about my confusing quote<br><br> the therory was "in order to get ourselves to another planet we have to destroy this one"<br><br>"Today is a gift, that's why its called the present."
I don't know about you guys, but for me these pictures are pretty boring. Why did they land in an abandoned lake bed? They should've landed in a nice habitated neighborhood. Like Las Vegas so that we can have a peek at all the main points of interest on Mars in small scale. <br><br><pre>PMG5/1.8Ghz/1GBRAM, PBG3/400Mhz/768MBRAM, AirportX</pre><p>
_________________________ Check out my sites on ads and design.
Loc: Alexandria, VA
and we all know that the greatest likely hood is that of : what we see, we get.<br><br>Well, we have to "see" first in order to determine that - Mars Express is the first capability that we've had to find out what's beneath the surface to any significant degree - which is why it's such an exciting mission. And since we've never looked there before, nobody really knows what to expect - after all, many deserts here on Earth are not really "dry" if you are able to dig down a few meters to the water table =)<br><br>We aren't 100% sure whether what we have assumed to be water ice, is actually water ... yet.<br><br>No, it's been fairly well-established that the polar caps are composed of water and carbon dioxide (dry ice) ...<br><br>and I am aware that we cannot find out without taking samples. but it was assumed that i was not aware of this and that i did not think this was important.<br><br>Actually, based on what you've written, the assumption was (at least in my case) that you WERE aware of this and still did not think it very important - perhaps you would like to clarify your position on this in general, as right now you appear to be contradicting yourself ...<br><br>there is not a high probability of underground water though this could be possible.<br><br>Please provide evidence supporting this - nobody knows what the probability is, that is one of the reasons we are there to find out ...<br><br>water is far more likelyto be found on one of Jupiter's moons<br><br>Actually, since water ice has been detected on both bodies, I would say that the probability is fairly equal ;-)<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Loc: Yuba City, California
I find it incredible that a post as promising as this one started out to be, would turn in to a bunch of crap about not wanting to be misunderstood. Which is the way many good posts end up. Backpedalling and explanations.<br><br>I believe six truly wanted to provide a post for discussing the possibilities related to this momentous occasion for those following the story, but then someone throws out something based on their personal belief system and turns the post into one about themselves.<br><br>Highjacking a post in order to make it about you. Great.<br><br>Someone else prefaced their comment with a "Not to pee on anyones pumpkin, but... " and follows that with a "Am I the only one who doesn't give a crap? Yeeeshhh!<br><br>Stay off the post if it's one that doesn't interest you! Then again if you're truly interested in what anyone else thinks of the topic then start your own query and see if that dog will hunt? My guess is it will sink with a 0.<br><br><br><br>"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.