Zombie

Too fast - grammar books are best Also he's wrong on some points, such as claiming that "effect" can only be a noun and not a verb when it can be both: to affect means 'to exert an influence upon,' and implies the action of a stimulus that can produce a response or reaction, whereas to effect means 'to bring about as a result' [online dictionary] and anyways , as we all know, there's no noun that can't be verbed

Laws can change social attitudes. Which in turn changes social behaviour - which is the desired outcome. Take seat belt laws - people resisted like crazy and resented being made to wear them. But everyone now knows they save lives and everyone wears them without complaint. Same with drink drive. It used to be a macho thing to get legless before getting behind the wheel - friends would encourage you to "have one more for the road" - but now the only people who do that are those with a serious drink problem. So it's not the principle of drink driving law that people have issues with it's where is it reasonable to set the limit. And that's a can of worms because everyone metabolises booze differently - some people get buzzed on a bag of wine gums

This is a very interesting blog on the culture of homosexuality within Native American tribes and their concept of gender variance - specifically, the idea of "two-spirit people". Sadly this widespread cultural acceptance and positive view of gender difference amongst native peoples has been affected by the malign effects of Christian influence but, encouragingly, there are signs that Native American tribes are returning to their traditional views on sexuality: As Joe Medicine Crow, a Crow traditionalist, told Walter Williams, “We don’t waste people the way white society does. Every person has their gift: http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/native-american-homosexuality/two-spirit-native-american-gay.html

No - but you can do it in your blog

Congrats Minnesota It might be useful to look at some facts about gay unions - and facts are above politics GAY MARRIAGE / UNIONS BEFORE 2001 Ancient world - Rome until Christianity - Mesopotania Middle Ages - Spain - some Middle East countries through to the early 20th century 20th century - Belgium [civil unions with full rights 2000] - Denmark [civil unions with full rights 1989 - first country in the world] - France [civil unions with full rights 1999] - Iceland [civil unions with full rights 1996] - Netherlands [limited civil unions 1979; full rights from 1998; full marriage from 2000] - Norway [civil unions with full rights 1993] - Sweden [civil unions with full rights 1995] - USA California [civil unions with limited rights 1999] - USA Vermont [civil unions with full rights 2000] GAY MARRIAGE / UNIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Nations / States where same sex unions are performed - Argentina [gay marriage: 2009 Tierra del Fuego; 2010 throughout Argentina] - Austria [civil unions with full rights 2009] - Australia [civil unions with full rights: 2008 ACT and Victoria; 2010 New South Wales; 2012 Queensland] - Belgium [full marriage 2003] - Brazil [civil unions with full rights 2011 - gay marriage: Alagoas 2011; four other states 2012; seven more states 2013] - Colombia [gay marriage 2009] - Canada [gay marriage: 2003 Ontario; 2004 Saskatchewan; 2005 throughout Canada] - Czech Republic [civil unions with full rights 2006] - Denmark [gay marriage 2012] - Ecuador [civil unions with full rights 2009] - Finland [civil unions with full rights 2002] - France [gay marriage 2013 - awaiting President signature] - Hungary [civil unions with full rights 2009] - Iceland [gay marriage 2010] - Ireland [civil unions with full rights 2011] - Luxembourg [civil unions with full rights 2004] - Mexico [civil unions with full rights: 2006 Mexico City; 2007 Coahuila - gay marriage: 2010 Mexico City; 2011 Quintana Roo] - New Zealand [civil unions with full rights 2005 - gay marriage 2013] - Norway [gay marriage 2009] - Portugal [gay marriage 2010] - Slovenia [civil unions with limited rights 2006] - South Africa [gay marriage 2006] - Spain [gay marriage 2005] - Sweden [gay marriage 2009] - Switzerland [civil unions with full rights 2007] - Tasmania [civil unions with full rights 2004] - UK [civil unions with full rights 2005 - same sex marriage is permitted under Gender Recognition Act also in 2005] - Uruguay [civil unions with full rights 2007 - gay marriage 2012] - USA California [gay marriage 2008 but banned 2009, the only time in modern history gay marriage reversed] - USA Colorado [civil unions with full rights 2013] - USA Connecticut [civil unions with full rights 2005 - gay marriage 2009] - USA Delaware [civil unions with full rights 2012 - gay marriage 2013] - USA DC [gay marriage 2009] - USA Hawaii [civil unions with full rights 2012] - USA Illinois [civil unions with full rights 2011] - USA Iowa [gay marriage 2009] - USA Maine [civil unions with full rights 2004 - gay marriage 2012] - USA Maryland [civil unions with full rights 2008 - gay marriage 2012] - USA Massachusetts [gay marriage 2004] - USA Michigan [gay marriage for Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians 2013] - USA Minnesota [gay marriage 2013] - USA Nevada [civil unions with full rights 2009] - USA New Hampshire [civil unions with full rights 2007 - gay marriage 2009] - USA New Jersey [civil unions with full rights 2004] - USA New York [gay marriage 2011] - USA Oregon [civil unions with full rights 2007] - USA Rhode Island [civil unions with full rights 2011 - gay marriage 2013] - USA Vermont [gay marriage 2009] - USA Washington [civil unions with full rights 2007 - gay marriage: for Suquamish tribe 2011; statewide 2012] - USA Wisconsin [civil unions with full rights 2009] Nations / States where same sex unions are recognised but not allowed - Israel [all foreign gay marriage recognised 2006] - USA California [gay marriage recognised 2009] Phew - looks like an unstoppable tide Recognising but not allowing same sex unions is interesting. It means gay unions are accepted as valid and therefore entitled to the same legal status as male / female unions even though not permitted within a nation / state. In the case of three US states, recognition has progressed to allowing gay marriage. And if you like analysing trends ... well, you can make up your own mind about the trend direction and when there will be a tipping point. It's human instinct to fear the unknown, but we're all global travellers now and as the numbers of same sex unions increase so their recognition is going to become a commonplace and ordinary activity in those nations / states that recognise them but don't allow them. And when something becomes commonplace and ordinary what is there left to fear?

Anji / Zhaozhou Bridge [Hebei Province, China] A simple, graceful, mathematically precise curve of 123 ft / 37 metres. Looks pretty modern doesn't it. Nope. It's over 1,400 years old. It was built between 595 and 605 AD and has survived eight wars, ten major floods and many earthquakes including a 7.2 magnitude in 1966. The bridge is still in daily use - only the ornamental railings have been replaced every few hundred years. It was built by people just using their brains, their labour, limestone and iron. Now we use computers and sophisticated materials, and we think we're pretty smart. But what modern structures will still be around in 1,400 years time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anji_Bridge

Yeah, going to the Moon was the proverbial walk in the park ~240 thousand miles and 4 days compared with ~36 million miles and over half a year to Mars. It's fantasy to think this is achievable by private enterprise any time soon. Of course it will happen, maybe in our lifetimes, but not with Nazi technology

Hey, nothing wrong in being enthusiastic. It's just that some things deserve enthusiastic support ... and others don't Believe me I've looked at the Mars One stuff but there's nothing there that shows this is a credible project. And I have to ask myself "why?". If they had a credible mission plan do you seriously think they wouldn't have published it? I'm not an aerospace engineer either, but I can read and understand things. So until Mars One publishes a plan detailing the mission challenges with credible engineering solutions, support can only be based on faith. And for me faith belongs to religion and cults not business and science.

No problem with you bringing up Mars One. It's directly on topic However, you're saying you "think it can work". But based on what evidence? Like a detailed technical plan? Comprising as a minimum: - all of the mission challenges that have been identified; - the proposed solutions to overcome each of those challenges; and - a collective team of credible engineers with a proven successful track record relevant to every one of the solutions proposed. That's what we're challenging - your enthusiastic support for a scheme which demonstrates none of the above, merely comprising a slick looking website with a FAQ page and some hypertext links to bland statements of intent

Hey, I simply left some meat on the bone for you

Erm, no, "they" aren't going to respond to this blog. So, as you've enthusiastically backed their claims, asserting "their plan can work" and is "very doable", it falls to you to show where we can see the evidence for this. And just to be clear, I am not referring to the funding challenges [which are huge to put it mildly - but the money will either be raised or it won't be raised] but I am referring to the formidable technical challenges of this proposal which you've been avoiding - specifically how they are going to meet those challenges.

Long may you continue enjoying each new day

I only mentioned Venus because it's the only planet with similar gravity to Earth not because I think it is a viable option. I think my original post made this very clear - that nowhere in our solar system is a viable option for colonisation. As for saying it could happen at some point in the future, well Ghostboy made this very point - anything is possible given time. But his point was we may not have the time needed to do these things if we continue as we are, damaging our environment, with the result that we unable to sustain ourselves as a species ... All things are possible, but to achieve those things you have to be able to show you have a credible plan. So I've had a look at the Mars One website. And there is no credible plan on the website - it's just puffery. So the ball's really in your court to show where that plan is, with technical details that can be assessed. Because I could also plagiarise someone else's book, set up a website selling merchandising and suckering in punters to give me money like Mars One has done. But there's a word for that - scam - and until you can direct me to where I can read and anlayse a technical plan I'm afraid that's what this thing looks like. Carl Sagan put it very well "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so the onus is on you to show the existence of a credible plan for Mars One that everyone can have a look at

OK, here are some criticisms of the way the Mars One project has been cobbled together referenced in Wiki: "The entire Mars One initiative appears to have been lifted from chapters which were published in the 2010 book, "The Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet", edited by Dr. Joel Levine, NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate, and whose authors included over 40 NASA scientists and engineers including men who walked on the moon. This book was basically a blue-print, a step-by step plan for establishing a colony of Mars; and in the chapter titled "Marketing Mars" included a marketing plan for raising over $100 billion dollars by selling naming rights and television rights including reality TV competition for would-be astronauts. The "Marketing Mars" financing plan received significant media attention and efforts were made to bring a bill before Congress to establish an official funding organization. The Mars One group basically lifted the "Marketing Mars" marketing plan and put their name on it and began charging applicants when they have absolutely no capability of placing anyone on Mars or even in space. The author of the "Marketing Mars" plan, Dr. R. Joseph, has accused the Mars One group of fraud. The Mars One group have also begun making claims and announcing plans which can be found in the chapter written by Dr. Paul Davies and Dr. Dirk Schulze-Makuch, "A One Way Mission to Mars". This plan was widely reported in the media, including the fact that over 10,000 people world-wide volunteered. [57] It is noteworthy that the Mars One group makes no mention of the Human Mission to Mars book, or the chapters by Drs. Davies, Schulze-Makuch, and Joseph even though they clearly have borrowed heavily from research, work, and marketing plans that others originated. Chris Welch, director of Masters Programs at the International Space University has said "Even ignoring the potential mismatch between the project income and its costs and questions about its longer-term viability, the Mars One proposal does not demonstrate a sufficiently deep understanding of the problems to give real confidence that the project would be able to meet its very ambitious schedule."[58] Space tourist Richard Garriott stated in response to Mars One, "Many have interesting viable starting plans. Few raise the money to be able to pull it off."[59] Robert Zubrin, advocate for manned Martian exploration, said "I don't think the business plan closes it. We're going to go to Mars, we need a billion dollars, and we're going to make up the revenue with advertising and media rights and so on. You might be able to make up some of the money that way, but I don't think that anyone who is interested in making money is going to invest on that basis — invest in this really risky proposition, and if you're lucky you'll break even? That doesn't fly."[60] Wired magazine gave it a plausibility score of 2 out of 10 as part of their 2012 Most Audacious Private Space Exploration Plans.[61]" The project seems like a triumph of marketing and unfounded optimism. I'd urge you not to sign up

I'll have another look at the plan. As for the muscle and bones, put it like this - human bodies have evolved under 1G so all our physiology - our shape, size, structure and so on - is "designed" [urgh, hate that word with the God connotation which I reject] for 1G. What you seem to be saying is their muscles will waste and their bones will get weaker but that'll be OK because their bodies won't need to be so strong. Things like cardiac function may be able to be maintained by regular strenuous physical activity on exercise machines and so on to maintain healthy hearts and cardiovascular systems, but we don't know - there may be adverse long term side effects. And things like joints need the continual stresses of 1G to remain healthy - continually moving around and daily living in 1G ensures that but one third G won't. And the long term effects on internal organs which function and are positioned largely due to 1G is not known. Problem is the whole thing is a giant experiment with the participants as guinea pigs because no-one knows exactly how this will impact on their body systems and with no medical support life could soon become painful and grim.

OK, thanks for the correction Musk says he wants to make a trip to the Red Planet affordable for an average American Family - like it'll be some space tourism kind of thing. Even if they get there this is not a plan for sustainable colonisation, it's sending people into space to die. But at least Musk understands rocketry. The man behind Mars One, Bas Lansdorp, has none of that experience or understanding and he wants to fund the whole thing from advertising and reality TV! Seriously, Pepsi are going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for their logo to be on a space coffin? The Red Planet has a fantastic grip on our imaginations and we'd all like to go there - but there is no credible plan here, financially or technically. And yes, people could exist on Mars for a time with environmental support. But as their bones dissolve and their muscles waste in the one third gravity they will without question become seriously physically impaired, and with none of the modern medical support we take for granted. Sounds like a slow painful death to me

I agree. Writing that sounds good when read aloud is always good writing. Which is why not all audio books work well

When I said "Elon Musk's ridiculous announcements", his Mars mission "plan" is exactly what I had in mind. This is the guy, remember, who tried to pick a fight with Jeremy Clarkson Nope, like many before him, he seems to have fallen victim to his own ego. I'm happy to discuss his "plan" further if you want to go through the details You're right, W_L, you can maintain around 1G on a large space wheel but you can't do that on a planet other than Earth or Venus. On Mars they could be working their tales off 8 hours a day and they would still be losing muscle and bone mass. You can do that for a few weeks, a few months even, but not years. Humans cannot live on Mars without becoming cripples, it's a romantic dream that denies all the physiological studies of the deleterious effect of reduced gravity on the human body. Star Trek type artificial gravity would be needed - and that doesn't exist outside sci-fi and websites about escaped Nazis building flying saucers inside the craters of extinct volcanoes in the jungles of Venezuela

The business world is Microsoft. That ain't gonna change any time soon

Maybe a bit off topic but an interesting point worth looking at so I've done a blog on Colonisation https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/504/entry-13492-colonisation/

Ghostboy posted a comment in "Gorilla Glass" "There is nothing that can be imagined that can't be accomplished. It might take a long time for some things to reach the point of viability, but it will happen. The only thing that worries me is there might not be enough time to do it all. One of the things that we seem to be failing at is maintaining the planet we depend on for survival. The big idea in that respect seems to be figuring out how to colonize other planets in time to save a few humans before the earth becomes unlivable. It's no fun imagining the earth as a big cemetery. Maybe, if people can pay attention long enough, we can still save our home. It's a thought. It's a dream. I hope it's a dream that comes true. " As Ghostboy says, Earth is our home in the Solar System. If we fuck it up then we do likewise to ourselves as a species. But what does this mean? People use phrases like "we're wrecking the planet". Well, no we're not. Earth will still be around. What we are doing is changing the incredibly complex and interconnected systems - which we do not fully understand either individually, or how they interact with each other - that enable us to sustain our existence on this ball of rock. So when we change these systems, for example by making species go extinct by destroying their habitats, or by emitting halon gases into the atmosphere, we risk changing the physical and biological environment that is necessary for us to survive and prosper as a species. Earth has seen millions of species go extinct through no fault of their own - and we are no different. Except we could also be the first species to go extinct because of our own fault Ghostboy raises an idea that some people hold that it's not so bad if we fuck up on Earth. If that happens - and some don't seem to care or be bothered - we just move somewhere else. What they probably mean is "we the privileged and very wealthy" can escape somewhere else. Sorry to disillusion you, guys, but "we're all in it together". Yes, that includes you, the privileged rich and wealthy. There is no "escape" option, for several reasons. First, despite Elon Musk's ridiculous announcements, we are not going to other planets any time soon. We are still in the stone age as far as space travel goes, using the technology of Nazi Germany. Second, if we can't even manage our own planet's environment why would we be any better trying to manage another planet's environment? Never mind successfully achieving the "terraforming" beloved by sci-fi story writers. Finally, even if we could overcome all those obstacles there's one we can't overcome, and that's gravity. Or rather lack or it. Gravity on the Moon is about one sixth Earth's, and on Mars it's about one third. Human bodies are not designed to live in low gravity, our bones dissolve and we would be literally crippled. Creating and maintaining gravity equal to the Earth's can only be done in one place - and that's here on Earth The only possible alternative planet in terms of gravity is Venus. And if you think global warming on Earth is a problem, turn your telescope to the lead-melting cauldron of Venus So there is no alternative. We have to understand our physical and biological planetary environment mechanisms much better than we do, and we have to change our collective attitude to what we do on Earth and how we treat it. Ghostboy is right - Earth is our home, and you don't shit all over your own home. Not if you want to be able to keep on living there.

Reading John Logie Baird's autobiography

Pre-WW2 Television This television - a 1936 Marconiphone - is claimed to be the oldest working electronic TV set in the world. It was bought in London at a cost of £100 - the price of a small car then. The BBC started its regular TV service in November 1936, the first in the world. The cathode ray tube and 70% of the electronics are original, the replacements are original spec and it was sold to only its third owner in 2011 for £16,800. The reason the screen is at the top and watched through a mirror is because the CRT is enormous and extends all the way to the cabinet base. Obviously the electron beam has to scan backwards to display the image correctly in the mirror. The BBC started its TV service in October 1936 as a trial between two competing formats - John Logie Baird's 240 line mechanical TV system, and EMI's 405 line electronic CRT system. In January 1937 the EMI system was declared the winner and adopted by the BBC so all those who'd bought Baird sets were left high and dry. Baird was devastated, but continued to develop his technology: [1940 photo of Baird's hybrid mechanical colour TV image] During WW2 Baird was using an electronic system and by 1944 had developed and demonstrated the world's first high definition 3D TV and "telechrome" colour TV at up to 1000 lines - "true HD". Baird tried to get his technology adopted for when TV resumed after the war but sadly, perhaps because of Baird's history with a failed mechanical system and a lack of interest in TV development, his advanced modern system was not taken up and Britain retained the 1936 black and white 405 lines TV system until the 1960s

There is a profound difference, though, between simply being bigoted in whatever unpleasant beliefs are held, and rabble rousing hate. The Bible Belt and radical Islam are frighteningly similar in their hate mongering. In my view "free speech" stops at the door of rabble rousing that is intended to incite societal hatred of any group within that society. The lessons of history should not have to be learned all over again.

I posted a thread a few weeks ago with the transcript of a BBC radio doc discussing the issues around transgenderism and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/36732-male-female-who-decides/ So you need to read up on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which, according to one contributor "is the state of the art Act in relation to this anywhere in the world". Based on what was said in the programme the minimum age in the UK for medical intervention was 12 in 2011: "Just under two years ago, approval was given in the UK to hormone blockers so that gender dysphoric 12 year olds can stop their bodies developing. At the age of 16, they can choose to start taking cross-sex hormones, and at 18, can have surgery. Last year, just over 200 children were referred for medical help ..." So for a nine year old in 2000, 2004 or 2013 the answer seems to be no. Bear in mind that, as one contributor points out: "Many children who present as transgender end up identifying as either lesbian or gay in later life and no longer identify as transgender. Definitely had I been taken to a psychiatrist when I was you know in my early teens and was being bullied because of living outside of gender rules, I may well have been given a diagnosis of being transgender and I could be sitting here talking to you as a male. So I think hormone blockers for children are a dreadful idea." Maybe the transcript will give you some other story plot line ideas from the points raised