Darnok

There are only 3 dimensions and you can measure them. Fourth dimension is just concept invented by us to calculate some things easier. It is like in Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoras added one more dimension to be able to solve problem (single dimension problem). But his problem should be solvable with just single dimension, since he wanted to calculate length only. Other problems should be solvable with maximum 3 dimensions.

Natural selection is what drives progress Why person with less efficient idea should have same chances as person with better ideas? Check others work and try to came up with something better, cheaper for manufacture or hire your self in patent office and steal some ideas like some very famous Albert probably did

You should read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect This can help you to make silent rotor

Probably will be cancelled and replaced by private intentions or by foreign services. There is small chance that Orion will be used to resupply Moon space station if this station gets funding and won't be cancelled.

Then we should have mini-manager to manage new stages from sub-assemblies. Two options should be enough "merge with existing stages" (and we pull all stages from sub up or down to match their position with existing stages) and "add as new stages".

And all those links should lead me to what conclusion? You think you are educated peson yet only solution you can suggest is mordern global slavery to save not "the World", but your style/standards of life... and you can't see it is only for short time, as long as there will be some slave force to power up your country economy. Also you accused me of using WWII German ideology, but you have no idea about this ideology. You think that more developed country and its people have rights to order poorer countries about how to manage their resources and lands. That would means that life of person from richer country has more value than life of person from poor country... since poor person have no rights to make decisions about their life or resources. Which is exactly what Germans believed during war.

I define things by logic, not other people definitions. Because they may intentionally name/define things wrongfully.

You are twisting my words... I've asked how many devices do we really need? Because IMO we are wasting all that CPU power in smartphone, pc, game consoles, tablets and tv (unless we play KSP), so maybe it would be better to have less, but more universal, devices. And I am sure it would be better for environment if we would produce less boxes as garbage. People should do whatever they want with their land and resources, right now they are not allowed to do that. And that is problem, because everyone should start to talk about punishments for countries that are and were consuming most of Earth resources. Punishment solves many problems, if you punish child for doing something wrong it won't do it again. But if you say to that child "don't do it, it is bad" it won't listen. What is more important for you... independence or forcing people to agree with you? Of course people should be educated, but their views shouldn't be narrowed. You think you know solution for climate change issue, but what if your way of thinking is wrong? Each country should be allowed to develop its own solution for this problem. Countries are not children, they shouldn't be dependent from "parents" (more developed countries), they should try to solve their own problems like adult people. And be able to decide how to use their resources in best way for them. You can't build sustainable economy transferring tons of money away from your country That would destroy your industry, make huge unemployment and make your country dependant on richer and more developed exporters of new technologies. Also clean energy is not sustainable source of energy, so that is double no. You are building foundations for dependant colonies with lots of uneducated and unemployed poor people. You are talking about creating economical dependencies that would allow rich countries sell expensive technologies to poor countries. What is leading to rich become richer and poor wasting their money and slowing down progress. That includes having less money on education, health care, own industry or even developing new technologies, since their funds are transferred to foreign companies. Rich countries should sell "clean energy" technologies and patents, or better free those patents, not sell only manufactured products. That would allow poor countries to develop its own industry, reduce unemployment and improve standards of living and education. That is only help that poor countries needs right now. People should be educated by teachers with many views and each person should be able to decide on its own what to choose. BTW @PB666 started this Godwin argumentation not me. I am only showing you where you both are close to those views. You ignored some of my questions from previous post

You have really serious issues with looking at real world... if you consider Greece or Estonia more developed than China OECD is just organisation created by Western countries and they are accepting members that obeys their rules, it has nothing to do with level of development. Same as BRICS, this is just organisation with some mutual agreements and businesses, not something anyone should consider as "standard" of any kind.

Never said things about banning devices. No, we should make to pay countries that made mistakes. That would be fair approach. We shouldn't punish countries that didn't do much harm so far. In law system in my country punishment comes after crime, not before. Education is key, not forcing people to do what you think is best for them, unless you want to act like WWII German people. Since they are TOP1 industry with space program and many new technologies I wouldn't call them developing country Who is developed for you if China is still developing? EDIT: ohh and China is independent from "clean energy" of any other countries, so they are not colony, they are colonizer. That was the key of their growth... independence and ignoring limits of CO2 emissions?

I think you and @PB666 can't understand simple thing... If rich and developed country is selling expensive products (developed from new technologies) like solar panel or wind turbines to poor countries, they are making this poor country dependant from their support! New technology is expensive, so rich country get lots of money from poor country... even with subsidies it is huge amount of money. And now people poor country are going to pay for energy more, than they should, so they will have less money for education, health care or for developing their own industry... since their money are transferred to rich country. This increases economical gap between poor and rich countries, but that is not the worst part. Transferring money from poor to rich also cause lack of jobs on poor country, because people in that country, people have less money to pay for beef or any other products. Large part of their money is going for payrolls of people who are working in rich countries, right? So, industry is going down and people are losing their jobs, so they are going to be even poorer. You are following me, so far? But this is not worst part yet. By doing all this poor country is being dependant from rich country will and technology, poor country becomes colony. That is unable to develop its own technology and industry faster than this rich country. Because if they would try to do it faster then rich country is going to stop them by increasing costs of support or limiting shipment of new products. That is what makes things unfair, because poor country, even supported with subsidies will NEVER be able to grow faster and larger than rich countries that are selling "clean energy". If international society is allowing to create such unfair law.. then try to imagine where does it lead.

Most of China industry is in fact US industry... so who should pay for this? You really like to scare people... while I have simple economical perspective. Poor country of poor people with health issues and low life standards means you have more dangerous jobs and less time for living. Rich country with rich people with better health care and those people have more time to take care about their health and more time to educate and find better jobs. And you want to rest of the World to pay for US and Western Europe ignorance, so poor countries would be poor longer by spending more money that they, actually have to spend, on energy. You still didn't count in that one in your "potential analysis" You are ignoring economy of poor countries!

So how those rich countries become rich? If not by pulling more and developing their industry faster than others? Excuses to justify slavery and ignore nation independence... nice approach. Very diplomatic. They are going to need education AND cheap energy, not expensive. So why others have to pay for US ignorance and mistakes?

Example with house and garden was only "example" to show you how much lands we have on Earth. And don't forget we have much more oceans than lands, so there is no overpopulation problem. People that owns houses are making more reasonable decisions that those in cities. Because they understand how much resources you need for heat in winter, or how much water you need to make your garden green. People that owns nothing than a flat, doesn't care and doesn't know anything about it. Right and lots of traffic makes people to burn less oil and save time? You shouldn't care about distance, but about time... if you would have a choice to travel 100km with 15 minutes or 20km with 40 minutes, what would you choose? OUR? You mean poor countries, since developed countries are developed and life standards in there is comfortable. I don't want to force people, of course piece of land should receive only those who wants to. Burn as much fossil fuels as developing countries need to catch up developed countries. No, I said how many devices people really need, that is not the same. Yes, but how many 2nd Class passengers were rescued? More than 1st Class? Or maybe most of 1st Class passengers were first on boats? When climate changes it affects all, yes, but developed countries have more resources and better technology to support their style of life. While poor countries have nothing... so you want to condemn poor people? I want to make their chances equal, just like we all have fair chances in nature... while fossil fuel limits disrupts those fair chances. You mean force them, so they would waste more money on expensive energy? But you are denying them luxury you have by making limits for their development rates. And this problem is larger when you make laws where poor country have to pay more So making them being poor for longer time is going to help them, how? You can't see solutions, I gave you few. One more is to expand beyond Earth, but for this you need competitors in new technology and you won;t have that with few rich countries and many poor. I want to remove limits from poor countries and I want to respect their independence. They should have right to do what they want with their lands. While you want those limits to keep going, making poor people poor longer... and you think you have rights to order other nations what they should do with their resources... so how I am forcing anyone to anything? Communism or collectivism is not going to solve any problems... and once again you are saying OUR and WE. There is no WE if you are ignoring different nation independence.

Why you refuse to answer so simple questions... You want poor countries to be poor for longer period of time and force them (abusing their independence) to pay more for "clean energy".. while, developed countries like US, won't have to lower their style of life? So simple YES or NO?

More nonsense... so why you want to force countries that are on level of 19th century US to use more expensive fuels than US did at this level of their development? This is fair according to you? Some countries are way smaller than US was back then, why you want to limit them? Read my post about independence... it is fair to abuse it? You didn't answered my simple questions.. about what do you want to solve and how? Right now you condemn poor countries with low life standards to be poor for much longer period of time. Laws should be fair worldwide, so if US in 19th and 20th century was allowed to burn cheap fuels, same law should apply today for all countries that are on those levels of development... unless it is pure hypocrisy and way of being TOP1 World industry by slowing down growing competitors.

Can you answer me those simple questions... forcing limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life? OR they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil? What problem you want to solve? Economical in poor countries? You want clean air all over the World at cost of poor people lives? Because making limits, because of global warming, leads to poor people being poor for longer period of time. And this leads to less competition on new technologies, what means we have slower scientific progress and we are going to burn fossil fuels longer and we emit more CO2 and even worse pollutions. So that is what you want? Or you want fast technological progress and end of "fossil fuel" era as soon as possible?

So you want to FORCE people to use technology you allow them to use, in their own countries? And you want to forbid them to use resources that are available in their countries? So they would have to pay more for "clean energy" and be poor for longer time? What about freedom and independence? Are we going to forget about those values, because today America doesn't need them.. today America needs clean air... so it is time to enslave people? Now imagine how USA would react if someone would try to force them in 20th century to use technologies that were not profitable... You would get few nukes on your face just for saying that on public

Last time I've checked in Australia was enough space for everyone to live in small house with small garden, so taking rest of the World as farms would be enough. Also changing style of life means less consumption... how many thing you really need? iphone? tablet? pc? tv? We don't really need so many devices. Reduction doesn't work in long term... so it is wrong way. And I said not every piece of land is good for farming... which means we would need people with different skill sets. Like right now it would be different. That is empty statement and reason where things started to go wrong way. Since global corporation started to produce so many not needed products and tons of garbage and pollutions. You can solve this problem going back to local societies. So you wouldn't oppose if someone would told you what you can buy/build/or manufacture? We should, in first place, respect independence of each nation. Then we should worry about climate or we end up in world full of slaves. So when this apocalyptic flood is going to start? Is it going to be at same time all over the world? And making limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life? Or they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil? I want solution that would allow poor countries to develop faster and cheaper... which will improve life standards of those poor people. Meanwhile most of you wants to use, just like you said, early 20th century ideologies to FORCE them and put limits on their developing rate. Because you are part of smarter and better developed society and you have RIGHTS to say what those poor people are allowed to do on their land and with their resources. That is totally WWII German ideology, back then Germans also thought they are smarter than other nations in Europe and they have rights to all lands they want... and they have rights to create laws for all nations.

That is because most of people do not understand what they are fighting for. They are saying they want to save humanity, but in fact they want to save their style of life. That is impossible in changing environment and with limited resources. Once majority notices that changing style of life, regime and way of thinking can save humanity... well we will be saved. Those who refuse to change will extinct and that is basic law of nature, not some statistical study or artificial opinion created by scientists. EDIT: editor doesn't allow me to merge posts... sorry.

I like your arguments Neanderthal was metaphor to describe people that adapt slower than others. If you are not Neanderthal then adapt and try to think about way how we can adapt instead of trying to save your style of life. You have to be independent to be able to do what you want, not what others want. That is why I said we shouldn't go path where empires are making colonies, once again, and are affecting laws in developing countries. If developing countries would be allowed to do what is best for them (independent decisions) then over few decades we would have many competitors that would push scientific progress forward much faster, than current dominant countries. Of course not every piece of land is good for farming, but maybe you would be lucky and you would have oil or gold on your land or other useful resource that would be enough to provide enough income to sustain your needs. Because scientists needs to eat and behind both it huge business and huge money.

You can call it as you like, but you are trying to look at this from wrong side, that is why you won't be able to see any solution, other than fighting against nature. You don't understand that laws and what people can own and what they can't is affecting their way of thinking. If you would give people land, they would learn how to not destroy it, so it would give them income. Climate is change since Earth was formed and you won't stop that, all you can do is to adapt or die. I see you don't want to adapt, so you will die, either from economical issues or wars that comes. If people would have some land, they could produce food for them selves. Food prices are controlled by governments, but on free market farmers should earn fair prices... problem is how to take control from governments Why do they started from that? It is pure "hail to our authority", which is against science. If any of this would be true then article would start from arguments. http://www.inquisitr.com/2550786/nasa-warns-earths-magnetic-field-weakening-pole-shift-imminent-reversal-could-have-caused-neanderthal-extinction/ (I was reading about this on NASA page... but can't find link, I think I used it also on this forum once) Neanderthals will die once again, and by Neanderthals I mean people that can't or don't want to adapt. As for magnetic field, how much more heat, radiation and energy is delivered to us when field is getting weaker? How much more energy and radiation was delivered to Earth when we had ozone layer issues? How much those things can increase global temperature?

But that is not overpopulation issue, that is the problem of overcrowding. Which is caused by taking/buying lands from common people, after that those people are going to cities to search jobs, because they have no other options. Give them (each person) land and problem will be solved.

China also burns lots of coal to power up US industry located in China. Explain please. If education can't help them, that means they are too stupid to understand nature... so just let natural selection do its job. Also we still have 1-2 generations, so some people should change their minds during education, but we have to tell them now. Everyone deserves to have same things. Why developed countries like US, UK, France or Germany were allowed to burn more coal in past and do not pay for that in "climate tax", but today developing countries has to pay? That is not fair. The way how things are taxed should be more fair. People should pay taxes for what they own, not how much they earn per month. This would change their way of thinking and they wouldn't use many useless devices that use power (burn coal). Countries should pay tax for how much they consume natural resources, not for emissions during production, because production is progress and consumption over some limit is harmful. Well yes, but how many countries were trying to invent fusion reactors? Two, three? Once "climate change tax" economical limits would be gone, more countries would try to invent it. Now you can't have fusion, since some countries main income is from exporting natural resources like oil or coal. And those countries are using their position in negotiations, which is slowing down new technologies, by cutting down investments in that sector. Imagine what would happen if German fusion reactor would work today? In next 10-15 years half of Europe would buy less oil, gas and coal from Russia... what would lead to economical collapse of Russian market, since 60-70% of their export is from those resources. You have to consider such dependencies when it comes to "why we still don't have X technology?" question. It is only matter of time, so I would say when, not if. Not really, if alternative energy sources would be so profitable we wouldn't had to pay for them extra money from taxes. And if those technologies are not profitable means we are wasting money on things that are slowing down our economy. Since spending money in stupid ways that will not return the investment costs... is slowing down our progress. So why cities have so limited space? Why we have to build so high? Lots of lands belongs to very rich people and they want to keep it that way? Crisis is inevitable, because rich people wants their profits on same or even higher level than they have now. Which means even if we would have fusion today, they would have to tax us with something... like drinkable water? or air? In western economical model society can't have free air, free water and free energy at same time. Because that would lead us, common people, to be able to produce whatever we want to in amounts that would satisfy our needs... so we wouldn't need corporations any more. That is why we are going to have free, or at least super cheap, energy once we start to pay new taxes for water or air.

1. Some organization are trying to harm independent countries refusing to pay "climate tax", so no, we shouldn't go this way. Each country should do whatever its people wants to do, if one wants to try to reduce emissions that is fine, but if other wouldn't want to do that... that is those people right to do what they want on their land. 2. Educate them about adaptation and natural processes, instead of "pay money - it will be good" education we have today. 3. No, that is not all we can do. And no, we are not reducing emissions since population is growing and it is population of poor people. It doesn't matter what advance faster, once we jump to next level of energy sources and industry we are going to clean it up. One thing you can be sure, the more money you spend on emissions reduction the less money you have for science, space exploration and development. We as species must expand our territory to survive, just like any leaving organism we know does the same. Species that were unable to expand were replaced.