PDA

View Full Version : NASA Astronaut Charged With Attempted Murder



Fraser
2007-Feb-06, 09:07 PM
As you've probably heard by now, NASA astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak was arrested this week, and charged with attempted kidnapping. Nowak, who flew on board the space shuttle Atlantis just last July, was captured by police when she attempted to confront rival Colleen Shipman over the affections of a third astronaut: ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/02/06/nasa-astronaut-charged-with-attempted-murder/)

Nivek Lodar
2007-Feb-06, 09:20 PM
I don't know anything about the woman or the situation, but the picture you posted shows a ring on her left hand. Is she married or engaged to someone else? Maybe she was when the picture was taken, or the picture could have been reversed and that is really her right hand. Whatever, I can't stand stories like this, but the picture made me wonder. Why would a married/engaged woman be fighting for the affections of the other astronaut in the first place.

Fraser
2007-Feb-06, 09:22 PM
She is married and has 3 children.

Occam
2007-Feb-06, 09:30 PM
That's a mighty fall from grace

Josh
2007-Feb-06, 09:32 PM
Looks like NASA's psych assessments went well here.

The worrying thing about this is ... this is probably the best PR/advertising NASA has had in years.

Nivek Lodar
2007-Feb-06, 10:11 PM
Yeah, maybe the psychologist is the same guy who checks the "O" Rings on the shuttle before launch.

Delvo
2007-Feb-06, 10:21 PM
Why would a married/engaged woman be fighting for the affections of the other astronaut in the first placeAre you asking for an annoyed rant about women's lack of loyalty and habit of doing such things in general? ;)

Delvo
2007-Feb-06, 10:27 PM
Looks like NASA's psych assessments went well here.Ya, this kind of thing is so uncommon in the general population that, given the small number of astronauts, even the SAME likelihood of something like this happening per capita would still round off to zero cases in the astronaut population... so the fact that we got one instead means astronauts actually now have a HIGHER rate of this behavior than ordinary people... even though they should, given the selection process, have a LOWER rate.


The worrying thing about this is ... this is probably the best PR/advertising NASA has had in years.And that's after an assortment of famous goofs in the last several years.

Doodler
2007-Feb-06, 10:38 PM
Looks like NASA's psych assessments went well here.

The worrying thing about this is ... this is probably the best PR/advertising NASA has had in years.


That depends on when she got hot for the other astronaut. People aren't incapable of dramatic change when circumstances change around them.

TuTone
2007-Feb-06, 11:13 PM
Must be all the radiation in space that messed her up.
Sad that a lady of her status would allow something like this get in the way of her career; she messed up and should've relaxed and thought about what she was doing and if it was logical.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Feb-07, 01:25 AM
The Orlando Sentinal says she's been let go on $25,000 bond.
She was warned to stay away from the "rival" and fitted with a tracking device on her ankle.

I figure that she probably had a mental collaspe. She reached a high point in her life, and now experienced a crash as the rush wore off. So, she wound up doing this.

That's just my assesment. May be as wrong as can be, but it's plausible.

llarry
2007-Feb-07, 04:06 AM
Instead of following the gory details I'll let Fox News cover this one while I read something interesting.

Larry

Mars_Admirer
2007-Feb-07, 07:43 AM
When I read the news reports in the daily this morning, I got an impulse to reach this website and post a "See-I-told-you-so-and-I-stand-vindicated" message promptly.

But then, I held myself back. Mass media content (like news reports) are not the whole truth. At best, they are not even part of the truth. They are subjective, selective interpretations, perceptions and superimposed notions on certain happenings. So, I would not rush in to condemn or condone the people concerned.

All I can reiterate is this: know the purpose of life in human form. In the ultimate analysis, it does not matter how many orbits you made round the earth, how many stars you discovered, how many telescopes you put in space, how many artificial satellites you destroyed in space using missiles.

What matters in the ultimate analysis is how much progress you had made on the scale of spiritual evolution, using the human body, mind, intellect and one lifetime afforded/gifted to you; and whether or not you used those precious gifts to overcome jealousy, envy, anger/hatred, lust, greed, delusions, illusions, attachments, recklessness, cheekiness.

Any activity that does not help in this regard, and worse, fosters those traits, is fit to be trashed.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Feb-07, 01:12 PM
Save the philosophy, Mars_Admirer.

This proves nothing about what you rant on about.

It has everything to do with possible marriage problems and a need for her to seek out a pychologist.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-07, 01:17 PM
...I got an impulse to reach this website and post a "See-I-told-you-so-and-I-stand-vindicated" message promptly.

How would this obviously emotionally disturbed woman's arrest vindicate you??


What matters in the ultimate analysis is how much progress you had made on the scale of spiritual evolution, using the human body, mind, intellect and one lifetime afforded/gifted to you; and whether or not you used those precious gifts to overcome jealousy, envy, anger/hatred, lust, greed, delusions, illusions, attachments, recklessness, cheekiness.

So those who progress through this "spiritual evolution" are completely uneffected by emotional distress/disturbance?

Sounds like a pretty naive way of thinking to me.

satori
2007-Feb-07, 01:27 PM
one day we will all end up with those shackles around our feed
enjoy your freedom

John Mendenhall
2007-Feb-07, 01:41 PM
That's a mighty fall from grace

That's a mighty fall from space.

On a more serious note, Fraser, I liked your summary, and you're right, this is going to drag on for months, and it will probably bring out the worst cheap cheesy aspects of news reporting. Personally, I think I'll just stick to that paragon of truth and responsible reporting, the Weekly World News. Where else can I find out what the aliens are doing?

briklink
2007-Feb-08, 04:33 AM
I'll bet this chick's a firecracker!

Josh
2007-Feb-08, 04:53 AM
As much as I loathe to think it. This could actually be "good" for NASA. The American public seem to like knowing the seedier sides of people's lives. It endears them to the subject ... or so it seems from over here. What do people think?

Mars_Admirer
2007-Feb-08, 09:11 AM
How would this obviously emotionally disturbed woman's arrest vindicate you??



So those who progress through this "spiritual evolution" are completely uneffected by emotional distress/disturbance?

Sounds like a pretty naive way of thinking to me.

1. Please refer to my previous posts in other threads, where I presented an argument for meaningful, sensible, accountable scientific pursuits that are aligned with mankind's priorities and purpose of life in human form. I was challenged then. This latest case sort of vindicates why we need to be concerned about dealing with deeper, underlying causes, rather than superficial symptom-relief measures (like visiting a psychologist) that are projected as panacea by vested interests and accept as such by the gullible, unsuspecting majority.

2. Spiritually evolved people do not get emotionally distressed/disturbed at all. So the question of they remaning unaffected by emotional problems does not arise. Emotion becomes a problem for spiritually under-evolved people. Spiritually evolved people transcend emotion. It is not that they don't have emotions. It is that they have better ways of dealing with them. One of the ways is to transcend emotion and attain equanimity.

If this sounds "pretty naive" to you, it is because you never had the chance to think about this with an open, objective and dispassionate mind.

You need detached overview. You got to disengage from whatever identity you have created for yourself (American or English or Aussie or whatever, White, Christian, Scientist, Westerner, Rationalist, Educated, etc).

It also needs courage to appreciate and accept that Western civilizations in the last 200 years have abused their own people, dumbing them down, forcing them to live in a make-believe world shaped by abused science and technology, lies, full of superficiality and illusions, and intellectual emasculation in the name of science and knowledge. All the technological progress has come at a great cost that does not justify the 'progress'. In the name of solutions, they have created more problems. And in the name of solutions to new problems, they are still creating more problems. No one tells you about the cost while the so-called technological marvels are glorified out of proportion. And because you folks have been already intellectually disabled, you are unable to see through the game, caught up in your own inside-out perspective. What you need is outside-in overview.

One of the illusions created is that the so-called abused science is the greatest achievement of mankind. You really got to step out of your comfort zone and consider others' model/concept of life, their approach to it, in a totally objective, dispassionate, open-minded way. Then, you will probably succeed in overcoming notions of 'naivete' that you see in others. You will probably realise others' concept of life is much deeper and richer and real. You will also probably chide yourself for being so naive, blinkered and prejudiced all these years as to blindly believe whatever your own civilization asked you to believe.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 12:49 PM
MarsAdmirer,
you are raising some very good points here....but:
you are arguing against your own premise.
you are not showing the emotional detachement which you postulate as achievable.
the human condition is sad and you are well observing yourself that things tend to follow a course of their own, neither the intended way of a sworn group of mighty individuals nor the way of the true benefit of mankind.
you will have to find a way to come to terms with your state of relative powerlessness as we all have to.
Try to transcent your earth(l)y nature as good as you can. This is a worthy cause! But don't think you could truly "slip the surly bonds of Earth" as long as there is flesh on your bones.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-08, 01:40 PM
Mars_Admirer...perhaps your opinions would be best served on a philosophy board.

Remember that this is a science board, and not a spiritual board of a metaphysics board.

Doodler
2007-Feb-08, 02:53 PM
As much as I loathe to think it. This could actually be "good" for NASA. The American public seem to like knowing the seedier sides of people's lives. It endears them to the subject ... or so it seems from over here. What do people think?

If this breakdown had been strictly about her domestic issues, the odds are she'd have had more support from this country than she'd know what to do with. Especially if the triangle had involved her husband and another woman, THAT would have been something completely different than this.

I can't say I'm judgemental about her having an outside relationship considering her marriage was disintegrating around her (better a marriage than a space shuttle, I suppose, but still...), but she crossed the line when she got possessive of the new guy.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 03:22 PM
As much as I loathe to think it. This could actually be "good" for NASA. The American public seem to like knowing the seedier sides of people's lives. It endears them to the subject ... or so it seems from over here. What do people think?

It could be good for NASA indeed, if they stood back and eventualy cut back on the (wo)manned part of their activities, especialy this silly mars adventure. Since the days of the moon race NASA is sadly more in selling human drama than true blue science. If looked upon from this angle, the unfolding Nowak story would indeed make a good sell.....
When will the American people grow aduld enough to value the nutritious meal knowledge over fast food and spice?

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-08, 03:30 PM
It could be good for NASA indeed, if they stood back and eventualy cut back on the (wo)manned part of their activities...

Why would it be "good for NASA" if they were to start behaving in a sexist manner?

Doodler
2007-Feb-08, 03:56 PM
It could be good for NASA indeed, if they stood back and eventualy cut back on the (wo)manned part of their activities, especialy this silly mars adventure. Since the days of the moon race NASA is sadly more in selling human drama than true blue science. If looked upon from this angle, the unfolding Nowak story would indeed make a good sell.....
When will the American people grow aduld enough to value the nutritious meal knowledge over fast food and spice?

Troll much?

As far as repurcussions to the manned program, I'm pretty sure this isn't going to alter course an iota. Lets face it, you've got a little over 100 candidate astronauts who are quite probably, though secretly, kinda happy that a new flight slot is opening. I'm sure NASA does all it can to maintain a collegial/family atmosphere in the astronaut corps, but lets face it, you've got a hundred alpha personality types competing for a small set of seven man flights, soon to be only four man flights. The jockeying for position has to be somewhat ruthless, if subdued.

I don't think they wish ill on Nowak, but if she's washed from the program, you can bet the farm that the astronaut that gets bumped up to flight status isn't going to regret the promotion through attrition much in the long run. NASA has a LOT of bench strength, losing one, maybe two, astronauts through this kind of ordeal isn't a problem. They've lost several active duty astronauts to non-space oriented issues before without missing a beat.

John Mendenhall
2007-Feb-08, 04:01 PM
It could be good for NASA indeed, if they stood back and eventualy cut back on the (wo)manned part of their activities, especialy this silly mars adventure. Since the days of the moon race NASA is sadly more in selling human drama than true blue science. If looked upon from this angle, the unfolding Nowak story would indeed make a good sell.....
When will the American people grow aduld enough to value the nutritious meal knowledge over fast food and spice?

Probably shortly after they learn to spell, or at least use a word processor with a spelling and grammar checker. Your believability is greatly increased if your text is not filled with howlers.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 04:15 PM
RAF,
are you intentfuly mistaking me?
Isn't this genderNEUTRAL kind of wording "(wo)manned" called for in your PC- concious quarters (i.e. U.S.).
You set your eye on a maybe clumsy wording and missed the gist of my post.
To make it quite explicite, I called for a paradigm shift : away from (hu)manned space flight and on to robotic space exploration. Any person I know, who is out of her/his romantic developemental phase, would favour this approach.
This was my point.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 04:25 PM
Are you really this superficial John, as to make the value of an argument dependent on its orthographical soundness ?
Was your intent to offend me, or wished you to friendly inform me about a foible, I'm acutely aware of ?
In the latter case I had to friendly inform you about some lack of decorum on your part.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-08, 04:33 PM
RAF,
are you intentfuly mistaking me?
Isn't this genderNEUTRAL kind of wording "(wo)manned" called for in your PC- concious quarters (i.e. U.S.).

No...it wasn't intentional. I thought you were making a comment about women astronauts...my apologies.

However...


I called for a paradigm shift : away from (hu)manned space flight and on to robotic space exploration. Any person I know, who is out of her/his romantic developemental phase, would favour this approach.

So those of us who see manned spaceflight as essential are in some sort of "romantic phase"?


This was my point.

So your "point" was to be insulting??

satori
2007-Feb-08, 04:55 PM
I wouldn't deem the epithet "romantic" as slanderous.
I could certainly not have meant to offend you personaly, as I am only just now informed about your position concerning the right approach to space exploration!
I would grant that I am in no way qualified to give an final answer to this well known nagging problem/conflict.
I just wanted to weigh in for what I personaly would think right.
I am neither uninformed about this question nor uninterrested and I therefore thought, I was allowed to such a statement.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-08, 05:55 PM
I wouldn't deem the epithet "romantic" as slanderous.

The implication I gathered was that those who did not agree with you were "stuck" in a certain mindset that was unreasoned/unreasonable, ie., it didn't strick me as if you were paying a compliment.

Aside...if you would like to discuss manned vs. unmanned space missions perhaps you should start a thread on the appropriate forum as this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 06:24 PM
i just intended to convey in condensed form, that i indeed would see developemental phases in humans, which are strongly related to respective interrests, preferences moods world views.... one could expand endlessly....
One surely tends to find the romantic (in a knightly, adveturous vain I mean) temperament more with the younger folks. Older people are normaly less in this conquest thing, tend to be more setteled down or boring if you will.
concerning your latter point. I don't intend to continue on this . My original statement was only meant as an aside observation. (another aside : after a flaming start the Nowak threads have groud to a hold. So i don't see me as a highjacker)

appendum: as you insist on a compliment. I like the choice of your avatar. Dreary old moon has much to do with our privilidged position here in space and time...also is Luna my favourite night companion.

ToSeek
2007-Feb-08, 07:44 PM
She is married and has 3 children.

News reports are saying she and her husband separated a few weeks ago.

ToSeek
2007-Feb-08, 07:45 PM
Ya, this kind of thing is so uncommon in the general population that, given the small number of astronauts, even the SAME likelihood of something like this happening per capita would still round off to zero cases in the astronaut population... so the fact that we got one instead means astronauts actually now have a HIGHER rate of this behavior than ordinary people... even though they should, given the selection process, have a LOWER rate.


Well, it goes along with the Concorde going from being the safest passenger airplane to the most dangerous passenger airplane after just one accident since the Concorde has very few flights compared with, say, a 747.

satori
2007-Feb-08, 08:07 PM
very apt observance

Mars_Admirer
2007-Feb-08, 09:52 PM
Hi Folks,

I have noticed others' messages on this thread, the rancour and sharp and sarcastic exchanges, and some people taking recourse to the cliched defense of "this is a science forum, not for philosophy, spirituality, blah blah blah, etc."

I wonder: what exactly is the difference between the NASA astronaut and us? I'm not talking in gender terms, mind you.

I mean, we've been dragging what are essentially personal life details into public space without an iota of inkling of what we've been doing. As if we are qualified to do so, as if we've some divine right merely bcz we have access to some online space and we can key in some top-of-the-head opinions. As if we are superior to the NASA astronaut.

Our messages call our bluff.

Also, perish the thought that philosophy and spirituality are not sciences. If anything, they are the ultimate sciences. The Mother of Science, if you will.
We seem to be so enamored by technology (which is the subverted, abused manifestation of science for short-term, expedient considerations, caring two hoots for long-term consequences) that we are drifting away from fundamentals.

And bcz technology-lovers have a vested interest, they portray the fundamentals as pre-historic, outdated, primitive, uncivilised, uncultured, so on. The funny thing is, the consequences of technology-driven life are all there around us and within us. And solid proof of enduring, stable nature of pre-technology civilizations is also there. And yet, we somehow trick/deceive ourselves into believing what we are led to believe is "true progress".

Someone has implied, rightly, that I am spiritually under-evolved since I too get emotional in my messages. Agree. I, however, am aware of the distance that I, and we, need to travel. But I wouldn't exhort anyone to take me seriously. It's for you to decide. All I would say is, yes, it is difficult to slip by the pull of earth as long as there is flesh in us. But whoever said we were made to do merely easy things?

The moment you realise that the biggest science is spirituality, and the biggest challenge is overcoming our lower nature (not technology feats), you will have made that crucial paradigm shift -- so necessary in this age.

Also, given a choice BETWEEN a happy, stable, pure, spiritual life AND tech-driven lifestyle, space flights, 'scientific' achievements, stress and consequent messed-up life of jealousy, greed, lust, crime, police case, which one would the NASA cosmonaut pick? Had she been given this choice decades back, which one would she have chosen? No prizes for guessing the right answer.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Feb-08, 09:59 PM
Hi Folks,

I have noticed others' messages on this thread, the rancour and sharp and sarcastic exchanges, and some people taking recourse to the cliched defense of "this is a science forum, not for philosophy, spirituality, blah blah blah, etc."

I wonder: what exactly is the difference between the NASA astronaut and us? I'm not talking in gender terms, mind you.

I mean, we've been dragging what are essentially personal life details into public space without an iota of inkling of what we've been doing. As if we are qualified to do so, as if we've some divine right merely bcz we have access to some online space and we can key in some top-of-the-head opinions. As if we are superior to the NASA astronaut.

Our messages call our bluff.

Also, perish the thought that philosophy and spirituality are not sciences. If anything, they are the ultimate sciences. The Mother of Science, if you will.
We seem to be so enamored by technology (which is the subverted, abused manifestation of science for short-term, expedient considerations, caring two hoots for long-term consequences) that we are drifting away from fundamentals.

And bcz technology-lovers have a vested interest, they portray the fundamentals as pre-historic, outdated, primitive, uncivilised, uncultured, so on. The funny thing is, the consequences of technology-driven life are all there around us and within us. And solid proof of enduring, stable nature of pre-technology civilizations is also there. And yet, we somehow trick/deceive ourselves into believing what we are led to believe is "true progress".

Someone has implied, rightly, that I am spiritually under-evolved since I too get emotional in my messages. Agree. I, however, am aware of the distance that I, and we, need to travel. But I wouldn't exhort anyone to take me seriously. It's for you to decide. All I would say is, yes, it is difficult to slip by the pull of earth as long as there is flesh in us. But whoever said we were made to do merely easy things?

The moment you realise that the biggest science is spirituality, and the biggest challenge is overcoming our lower nature (not technology feats), you will have made that crucial paradigm shift -- so necessary in this age.

Doodler
2007-Feb-08, 10:17 PM
As this is a science board, we tend to work from observed and derived data. From the observations of her behavior and information derived from her background, Captain Nowak went a little loco.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-08, 11:48 PM
The moment you realise that the biggest science is spirituality...

How does this relate to the topic of this thread??

Actually, I should rephrase...what you have posted has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

ToSeek
2007-Feb-09, 03:00 AM
Hi Folks,

I have noticed others' messages on this thread, the rancour and sharp and sarcastic exchanges, and some people taking recourse to the cliched defense of "this is a science forum, not for philosophy, spirituality, blah blah blah, etc."

I wonder: what exactly is the difference between the NASA astronaut and us? I'm not talking in gender terms, mind you.

I mean, we've been dragging what are essentially personal life details into public space without an iota of inkling of what we've been doing. As if we are qualified to do so, as if we've some divine right merely bcz we have access to some online space and we can key in some top-of-the-head opinions. As if we are superior to the NASA astronaut.

Our messages call our bluff.

Also, perish the thought that philosophy and spirituality are not sciences. If anything, they are the ultimate sciences. The Mother of Science, if you will.
We seem to be so enamored by technology (which is the subverted, abused manifestation of science for short-term, expedient considerations, caring two hoots for long-term consequences) that we are drifting away from fundamentals.

And bcz technology-lovers have a vested interest, they portray the fundamentals as pre-historic, outdated, primitive, uncivilised, uncultured, so on. The funny thing is, the consequences of technology-driven life are all there around us and within us. And solid proof of enduring, stable nature of pre-technology civilizations is also there. And yet, we somehow trick/deceive ourselves into believing what we are led to believe is "true progress".

Someone has implied, rightly, that I am spiritually under-evolved since I too get emotional in my messages. Agree. I, however, am aware of the distance that I, and we, need to travel. But I wouldn't exhort anyone to take me seriously. It's for you to decide. All I would say is, yes, it is difficult to slip by the pull of earth as long as there is flesh in us. But whoever said we were made to do merely easy things?

The moment you realise that the biggest science is spirituality, and the biggest challenge is overcoming our lower nature (not technology feats), you will have made that crucial paradigm shift -- so necessary in this age.

I have to say I find the thread here rather callous myself, but the phrase "Bunch of arrogant, prejudiced morons????" is insulting and a violation of the rules of this forum. Another such violation, and you'll be banned.

satori
2007-Feb-09, 01:05 PM
Mars Admirer,
I for one have got your point...

The moment you realise that the biggest science is spirituality, and the biggest challenge is overcoming our lower nature (not technology feats), you will have made that crucial paradigm shift -- so necessary in this age.

Also, given a choice BETWEEN a happy, stable, pure, spiritual life AND tech-driven lifestyle, space flights, 'scientific' achievements, stress and consequent messed-up life of jealousy, greed, lust, crime, police case, which one would the NASA cosmonaut pick? Had she been given this choice decades back, which one would she have chosen? No prizes for guessing the right answer.
....and I am sympathizing with you with regard to just that part, which I quoted.
I would think you would be welcome here as critic of science and technology, if you would abstain from your hot blooded brought sides, and would instead seek a form of "constructive engagement kind" of dialogue.
Science is not just a slave of technology for technology's and greed's sake, but also dedicated to the pursuite of true knowledge. That must be seen as one of the noblest pursuites we could ever aspire to.
You are objective in your realization, that there is culture of "technology serving greed serving technology" out there, but you couldn't take on this hydra head on! It simply wouldn't vanish! So the best thing to do for you were to simply lead a peacefull, enlightend life. According to budhism (as opposed to christianism) you should first and foremost save your own soul ! And that sounds reasonable to me.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Feb-10, 09:25 AM
I see your point. Quite valid too. Yet, a bit unfounded and misplaced in one context.

You ought not 'sympathise' with a viewpoint, but understand it with an open mind, and accept it if you think it is right; or disagree if you are unable to accept it. But by all means, you must try to understand it, stepping out of your comfort zone and going beyond familiar ways of perceiving and understanding. If you disagree, state why, articulate -- rather than being dismissive, accusive.

I don't see myself as a critic of science and technology. If you see me that way, that is your perception. It reflects your mind and your belief system -- not mine.

But I certainly agree with you that I should be more restrained, calmer and more unemotional while engaging in online discussions and while responding to what my mind perceives as other members' needless sarcasm, misplaced condescension, utter ignorance, sheer intolerance and obstinacy about holding on to one's tunnel vision. Rest assured, I shall eneavour to do so, and shall appreciate others who tread the same path.

If you carefully review my posts on this as well as other threads, you will discern that I am all for science and technology, but one that is in tune with the priorities of the majority of people and purpose of life in human form.

I am definitely against populist, extravagant science and technology -- let's call it Bad Science & Technology, or, 'BSAT' -- merely because they could be pursued. I am also definitely against those who wittingly or unwittingly support 'BSAT' pursuits, not knowing the difference between good, desirable science and 'BSAT'. If space explorations have proved anything so far, it is this: that this universe is immeasurable/infinite. You don't have to splurge billions of dollars to realise this simple truth known to man since time immemorial.

Why not? Simple. Global warming is a big issue now. The Western countries that triggered this crisis through 'BSAT' now realise their folly, and want global awareness. They also want other countries like China not to worsen the situation. This has been the theme all along. "We will do this, but you should not do it. We will have nuke stockpiles, but you should not have them." Get what I mean? Then there are lies. When China smashed the satellite with a missile, someone said, all those pieces of debris floating about in space are dangerous, they could destroy other satellites, blah blah blah. But what about thousands of satellites that have been abandoned or out of control?

This space and astronomy pursuits belong to BSAT class. If you could connect the dots in the context of global warming, why can't you connect the dots here? I mean, think of the whole chain of origin to end-use of money (budgets for BSAT). Trace the entire chain. Then you will realise that just like in global warming, everything is interconnected and intertwined. Money being spent on BSAT is not coming out of thin air. Write the cost-benefit equation. Get the facts and figures about number of people on this planet, their needs, the purpose of life in human form, so on.

It is not as if science and technology exist in a vacuum. They have to be aligned with the needs of the majority. An audit for all the money spent so far and benefits derived is necessary for a proper perspective and review. The paradigm shift has to result in changed priorities. Merely because science suggests that something is possible, we ought not to blindly rush in where angels fear to tread. What will happen if we do? Look no further than the global warming crisis to know the answer.

I really wish that every sci & tech project proposal henceforth would have a mandatory clause about the objective, the purpose, in the context of cost-benefit equation and priorities of mankind. The authorities who approve such projects and grant funds should insist on such a clause. Let the researchers and explorers state it upfront. And then be accountable. Let them show the results after their indulgences. That's the only way to plug meaningless, extravagant pursuits, to nip BSAT in the bud. Mass media like UT could also play a proactive role. I had suggested earlier about ratings for every article published.

By the way, who says this BSAT is a hydra? It is an impostor. A pretender. A bandicoot in the guise of hydra. Good science is something like the one that all but eradicated polio, cholera, malaria. People thought polio was a hydra too, once upon a time. Now people think AIDS, cancer, brain diseases, avian flu are hydra. Some think BSAT too is a hydra. Some thought the British Empire was a hydra.

You quoted Buddhism and Christian tenets. They are good thoughts. They are of relatively recent origin, a rehashed version of timeless, eternal truths. "Simply lead a peaceful, enlightend life," you said. Nice advice!

Now, listen to the timeless tenet: proactive resistance to evil is your responsibility. For, if you don't discharge that responsibility, you will be failing in your duty. Worse, if you collude with the evil, or support it out of ignorance, eventually, you, or your children, will pay the price. Like we are doing now in the context of global warming for the follies of our forefathers.

What was their folly? They "simply led a peaceful, enlightened life" even as the genie of industrialisation, that *******-child of BSAT, was let out of the domain of discrimination, common sense and long-term vision. When the evil grows out of proportion, the first thing it will destroy is your soul. So, you are therefore right that it is the first and foremost duty to save one's own soul? But save from whom? The evil of BSAT, howsoever tiny it may be right now (or howsoever seemingly hydra-like it may appear). How could one save one's soul? By proactive resistance to evil. If you fail in this duty, you have nothing else to save, my dear.

Some food for thought, from today's newspapers:

Example of bad science:

German scientists are spending huge budgets to invent computers that can read your mind, scan your brain, like in the movie Minority Report. The next-generation lie-detectors, if you will. Professed objective: to empower wheelchair-bound patients with ultra-modern, thought-driven vehicles. What will be the applications: no more need to log in to key in email. Just think the thoughts inside your brain; the computer will detect and interpret your thoughts and will do the needful. Some more applications: preempt enemies; spying; surveillance. End-result: outsourcing of human brain functions to machines. So what will human want to do eventually?

This is what I call BSAT. Merely because something is possible by science, you don't simply rush in spending huge money, invent, go ahead. Look at Internet. It's a great concept. They went ahead. What do we have now? A potential hydra, if you will. You could argue that life itself is a paradox, that divine and diabolical forces co-exist always. Perhaps. But, with some clarity of mind, we could minimize the inequity, if not eliminate it altogether right away.

* * *

Another thought-provoking news item, that could reflect the purpose of life in human form:

A taxi driver in New York returned a black bag carrying 31 diamond rings to a passenger who had earlier given him a tip of 30 US cents on a US$11 ride.

Hours after Mr Osman Chowdhury, a native of Bangladesh, had dropped off the passenger, he tracked her down through a flurry of phone calls and returned the bag, which she had left in the taxi's trunk.

The woman, who said she was a jeweller, offered him a US$100 reward.

Mr Chowdhury reluctantly accepted the money to cover the fares he lost while tracking her down.

He told the media that he never thought of keeping the gems.

"I'm a hard worker," said the soft-spoken cabby, who is single.

"I enjoy my life. I'm satisfied. I'm not going to take someone else's money or property to make me rich. I don't want it that way.

"When I find something left in my cab, and I can return it to the owner, I feel very happy. I feel proud," he said.

* * *
Contrast the cabby with the NASA cosmonaut, the imperialist colonial powers of yesteryear, the marauding superpower of today, and the heartless bad sci & tech community and its supporters today. You get what I mean, don't you?

The cabby certainly is "simply leading a peaceful, enlightend life", by proactively resisting the evil of greed, dishonesty, etc, and by sticking to the fundamentals.

(By the way, doesn't the jeweller's reward to the cabby remind you of a certain scene in The Titanic, when Jack saves Rose from slipping off the ship, and Rose in turn saves Jack later from security guys who mistake Jack's actions, and whose perceived noble gesture is sought to be bought off by her fiance with a similar reward?)

Parting shot:

A short story by Kahlil Gibran, titled THE ASTRONOMER.

* * *
In the shadow of the temple my friend and I saw a blind man sitting alone. And my friend said, "Behold the wisest man of our land."

Then I left my friend and approached the blind man and greeted him. And we conversed.

After a while I said, "Forgive my question; but since when hast thou been blind?"

"From my birth," he answered.

Said I, "And what path of wisdom followest thou?"

Said he, "I am an astronomer."

Then he placed his hand upon his breast saying, "I watch all these suns and moons and stars."

* * *

Excerpted from 'The Madman', published by William Heinemann Ltd, London.

satori
2007-Feb-10, 04:35 PM
MarsAdmirer,
I have studied your lines, which has added to my understanding.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Feb-10, 08:38 PM
Mars_Admirer,

Since you appearently are against science and technology related to space, then may I ask what prompted you to become a member of a forum that is related to space science?

Here, the majority of people are space enthusiasts. Do you think you can alter their mindset to one similar to yours?


Contrast the cabby with the NASA cosmonaut, the imperialist colonial powers of yesteryear, the marauding superpower of today, and the heartless bad sci & tech community and its supporters today.

First off, it's "astronaut".
A cosmonaut is from Russia. NASA is based in America.
Second, it seems you are suggesting that astronauts don't care about the Earth or its peoples. Is that the point you are trying to convey? If so, it's rather big leap, considering an Apollo astronaut once said "We came all this way to explore the Moon. What we found was the Earth."


(By the way, doesn't the jeweller's reward to the cabby remind you of a certain scene in The Titanic, when Jack saves Rose from slipping off the ship, and Rose in turn saves Jack later from security guys who mistake Jack's actions, and whose perceived noble gesture is sought to be bought off by her fiance with a similar reward?)


So now you must use a fictional example to prove your point?
I might as well use examples from Star Trek to show how space explorers can benifit the Earth, just to disprove your points.

Show us how space exploration is evil. Show us the folly in spending mere millions for projects for space, though social programs get about a trillion worth in money.
And if you don't mind, show us this in another section of the forum. It does no good to hijack other threads.

The main folly I see in your thinking is to expect Universe Today to speak against space exploration, as you would like it to do.
Might as well employ Dr. Aldrin to do the same.

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-10, 09:38 PM
MarsAdmirer,
I have studied your lines, which has added to my understanding.

Perhaps you could help the rest of us understand just what MA's "ramblings" have to do with the subject of this thread???

satori
2007-Feb-10, 11:07 PM
RAF
please don't chalenge MEEEEE!!!
I am just a nice regular fellow who whishes to see every body happy!
( and please try to read my posts with a more sympathetic eye (and more scruteny also) then you might perhaps gather the true purport of my utterings)

If a strange bird has mistakenly flown in my dwellings (as happens) I don't reachfor the backloader...

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-10, 11:21 PM
RAF
please don't chalenge MEEEEE!!!

Challenge youuuuu???

I asked you to explain what MA's posts have to do with the subject of this thread.

If you don't know, then simply say so.

satori
2007-Feb-11, 01:12 PM
O k, RAF(rough), you will only be satisfied if I own explicitly to the premise of your question : Yes, the MA post IS off topic indeed (and constitutes a serious case of highjacking furthermore )
You could by the way have gathered this judgement of mine by simply reading through my reply to MA's first post! (As I proposed!) In doing so, you would have spared me the task of typing this. Likewise, if you were versed a little bit more in the fine art of the double entendre you could have read from my second reply on what the "understanding" of mine could have meant to relate.
Well now, you have preassured me to spill the beans and to get plump...what I detest.
In all our communication so far, you were just shooting from the hip, whereas I sought to explain myself in carefuly set words!!!
MarsAdmirer must at least be given the benefit of a heart felt cause and the pains he summoned to lay it out for us to see.
NO GREAT HARM DONE

R.A.F.
2007-Feb-11, 03:30 PM
Why does it anger you so that I insist on you being precise in the wordings of your posts???

The only "tool" I have to understand you are your words. If I must "read between the lines" to undertand what you mean, then this discussion is unworthy of my time.

01101001
2007-Feb-11, 04:48 PM
O k, RAF(rough), you will only be satisfied if I own explicitly to the premise of your question : Yes, the MA post IS off topic indeed (and constitutes a serious case of highjacking furthermore )


Oh. Thanks.

Hey, many of us like to write creatively, but when it's not working, some clarity and precision is in order. Don't take it hard. Don't detest it. If one person expresses confusion, it's probably safe to assume other more silent readers are also confused.

satori
2007-Feb-11, 05:15 PM
RAF,
If you are true to yourself, you surely would have to agnowledge, that you are decided to find this discussion a waste of your time a long while allready. Why else should you insist with such fervor and continouance on getting this deviating exchange of ideas aborted? ( So here would be a lack of precision on your part)
But I won't be accused of lacking in precission any longer!
My last post was surely precise to the degree of outright plumpness and I did that explicitely on your very special demand.
Dear RAF, I told you that I wouldn't shoot on a strange bird. And that's because I consider myself to be one....
So if there is to high a measure of twistedness in my personal style of phrasing, I would kindly advise you to overlook my pieces alltogether!
A last exercise in linguistic finetuning : It is true that I was angered by your posts but I won't harbour a grudge against you....Have A Good Day!

satori
2007-Feb-11, 05:19 PM
oiiioioooiiiiiooooiioioiiiooiio, you are wellcome

Buttercup
2008-Dec-05, 05:51 PM
http://www.local6.com/news/18210857/detail.html

What in the world is taking so long? This incident is nearing 2 years ago and I figured it'd be a pretty much open/shut case. Nowak's a psycho.

There's been scant media coverage. Are astronauts to be treated with deference and kid gloves? They're just NOW admitting her car into evidence?

Sure she "just wanted to talk to" Colleen Shipman. Yeah, it's so normal to stalk and don a disguise and spray mace into peoples' faces...what a way to get their attention! :sick: