I am alive and well, and occasionally checking Hubski out. I don't don't really post much anymore or do the social site stuff for a variety of reasons, but do occasionally take a peak at Hubski. I got married in October of last year, found out my wife was pregnant the following month, and am expecting a baby girl pretty soon here in early August. Plus it's summer time Minnesota, which means wedding season photography and lots of yard/house work. How are you TNG? Been awhile. Yes, but it would take a lot of money and has practically zero ROI unless he can get a government to pay for the ride, and all of the R/D that lead to all of the technologies that would be needed. I say that's doubtful. That being said, I think there is a possibility Elon Musk is eccentric enough to possibly just foot the bill with hopes of breaking down some barriers and getting himself a very large mention in the history books along with a bunch of statues, monuments, and exhibits in museums. They are working on the Red Dragon which would be a version of the Dragon capsule capable of soft landing via retro rockets. The Soyuz already does this to an extent, as it lands on land and not in the sea like the previous US capsules. That's really the ONLY piece of technology that I've read about from them that has applications to a manned Mars landing. AND, they are talking about a NASA first flight of it in 2022 for a landing mission for a possible drill probe and also proving that a lander of this nature would work for humans. So I don't see them turning around and 4 years later putting people down after using this thing for the first time... even if that first time stays on schedule and right now it's just a rough proposition that recently came out. But then there's the whole journey there, the habitats, food, water, radiation protection, and the biggest question; Once you land on Mars... how do you get those men back into orbit for a docking with the cruise stage, and back to Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_%28spacecraft%29 The best window for Mars puts people on Mars for well over a year, the smallest ideal window that has rare occurrences could have them there and back in a little under a year. Because you have to wait for the ideal line up to launch from Earth to Mars, then wait on Mars for everything to line up again, with us leaving Mars as is leads ahead of Earth in orbit. Each way we would essentially fly towards the orbit path and the target planet would come up on us, instead of us burning after it. I would love to believe Musk and say 2026 can happen, but I'm super skeptical about it all. There's so much tech needed. Falcon Heavy hasn't even flown yet, Red Dragon is still on the drawing board, there is a lot of other tech needed that really hasn't been addressed yet, and currently there is no customer to fund what would be the most expensive and risky manned space mission ever. While Musk is rich, I don't think he could even fund something like this with every penny he has. We'll see, but I say doubtful. My guess for people on Mars would be late 2030s, but I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. US will only pay for a Mars trip when Russia or China starts getting serious about it.how are ya AlderaanDuran?
"is this feasible?"
You're missing out, personally I love them and find them so inspirational. Perhaps you've already seen some of the stuff I'm going to ramble about below, but maybe others will find it interesting. :) Some of the final shuttle launches almost brought me to tears, even though I think it was right to retire it and move onto something else, and long over due. It was just kind of sad, because the space shuttle was such a huge focus of my whole life, and is what got me into space/astronomy as a hobby. Last Shuttle Launch: STS-135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... Did you watch the Curiosity rover landing? While not a launch, it was pretty amazing, and they broadcasted it live in the middle of the night. The night of the Curiosity rover landing, no joke, I teared up a bit and had to choke back some tears. When they finally announced the landing was successful and said "Wheels down on Mars", and everyone in the control room lost it, I couldn't help but feel happy for them and humans in general. An Overview of the landing, so that the second video make sense, and you can get an understanding of how complicated a landing this was. Atmospheric breaking, parachute deploy, powered flight, sky crane dropping it onto the surface... just so many things that could have failed but didn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU The Landing: A little dry at first, but keep in mind every thing they are seeing is 14 minutes behind. So the probe had already landed and was safe before they even got confirmation it was entering the atmosphere. It goes through cruise stage separation, atmospheric breaking, parachute deploy, powered flight, and then the sky crane landing, and then they even got pictures right away, which they weren't expecting because they weren't sure if the other probe in orbit would still be in line of site to transmit (they use it like a relay). I linked to a point in the video that starts at the atmosphere entry phase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... Depending on how old you are, you'll get to see NASA/SpaceX or SOMEONE land people on Mars. The things these people do, from launches, to landings, it just amazes and inspires me. Just imagine what it's going to take to put people, supplies, and vehicles onto Mars. Personally, I'm going to completely lose my shit. I <3 space exploration.
I feel like I'm the only one on the internet who doesn't care lately. I can still watch youtube videos, and I've never commented there nor intend to. It hasn't really changed my experience at all. I have never touched my G+ account and don't really care about it, it could be telling the world I eat poop for all I care right now, and I couldn't be bothered to login and stop it. I only use youtube for clips that get linked, looking up a song here and there, and watching project related instructional videos for around the house type stuff. That's it. Again, I'm not saying I'm FOR it, because like all of you I really don't see the benefit to them doing this. It's just a grab to try and force more people into using G+ and hopefully adopting it more so they can pull some of those revenue streams (people) away from Facebook. But it certainly doesn't seem to make the experience better for anyone who uses youtube. So I get why people are upset, but I also get why Google is doing it. Meanwhile I just really haven't been personally affected by it or had my internet experience altered in anyway whatsoever, so I simply "don't care". I am really surprised how the internet mob has mobilized against Google all of a sudden. I personally enjoy a lot of Google products, and some of their projects are pretty cool, and it seemed that was kind of the common opinion. But now this happens and the torches and pitchforks are in hand, and Google is now "one of them", one of those evil companies out to quash the proles. I've been more in awe of that, than the actual youtube/G+ fiasco itself. I feel like this will all be forgotten by next week, and I'd bet G+ actually picks up a bunch of users, not because of the force, but actual users who develop their profiles and check it out. No matter how much hate they get, I feel it's just temporary. I just don't see the "forced down my throat" sensational crap. I can still watch Youtube videos, and I still don't use G+. What's the big deal!?
Buddha had no master. He sat under a fig tree. Yet Zen practice - traditionally - would say you need a master, but it's open to interpretation. I practice Zen as well and sit zazen daily, and have been since about 2006. I would say no, it does not require a master, plus you have to think of the quality of master you would be able to find in the US. There are many other sects of Buddhism that do not require a master. There are even a few sects that pretty much say "everyone is already Buddha and has Buddhahood inside them", and that you just need to practice to unlock it. Again, Buddha had no master, no scriptures, no texts, no nothing. He sat quietly and meditated, and eventually became enlightened one day under a fig tree, after vowing not to leave until it happened. I read up on lots of Mahayana buddhism in general, and wouldn't call myself a strict Zen practioner. I find Buddhism in general very interesting, but I tend to stick with Mahayana because it seems more my style. I only follow for the practices and the writings/scriptures/koans, I do not take any of the mystical/spiritual/deity like portions to heart. But many sects would say you do not need a master. Take Nichiren Buddhism for example, which would say... Many other sects of Buddhism, even within Mahayana, would consider this kind of a cop out. Nicheren's argument was that you don't need to treat a new buddhist pupil like a child, and spend all this time wasting on silly riddles and questions that have no answers, and that one can go straight to the Lotus Sutra where the actual knowledge is spelled out and more apparent, which makes sense to me. So I've read a few books from Nicheren teachers and that various associated texts with it. Personally, I would say yes, Buddhahood can be attained by ones self, because Buddha himself did just that. To say that everyone else after him has to do it differently and under the watchful eye of a master is silly. Depending on what texts you read, most would say it took him six years to attain enlightenment, but it was extreme practice, and austerity of pretty much all things that lead him there. If he did it in six years without a master, I think the rest of us should be able to at least do it in our lifetimes. I seek to emulate the practices and would love to be enlightened, but I don't see enlightenment ever happening in my hectic life. I simply don't think my modern lifestyle would allow enlightenment, but the practice can still bring me close, and bring a lot of value of mindfulness to my life. I've also taken removing vanity and ego as much as possible from my life, down to the point that I shave my head weekly as a part of my practice. That's what I seek, the practice and dedication to it. So I guess it's up to you, what you seek, and how you need to get there. For me, it's the journey, not the destination. The dedicated practice itself is the enlightenment. Good luck, fellow Bodhisatta.But is it necessary if buddhahood can be attained by one's "self?"
"that all people have an innate Buddha nature and are therefore inherently capable of attaining enlightenment in their current form: “…the attainment of Buddhahood in one’s present form is limited to the Lotus Sutra alone”. According to Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra is “the direct path to enlightenment"
But going the complete polar opposite and calling them a "terrorist organization" as this article did is a-o-kay? That makes it easier to pretend this guy is a hero to you? Labeling the people you see as bad "terrorists"? What makes you and the author any better than the government who labels anyone they disagree with a terrorist? Those TSA employees are stills sons, daughters, brother, sisters, fathers and mothers. They are still people working shit jobs they don't enjoy just to get by. Or is this anarchist author so deluded that he thinks everyone who works for the TSA takes some secret vow to be a terrorist and keep American citizens down everyday? This article was disgusting for me to read. I'm not taking the media's side, or the side of this article. I think both sides are on extreme polar ends and neither are being intellectually honest about what happened. But at least the media isn't pretending some whack job who killed people just doing their jobs is some hero. Those TSA employees are just doing their job, what they have to do is determined by the policy makers. Pointless death. Now we can just look forward to another security checkpoint even before we get to the TSA screening area!"TSA = Hero."
He shot terrorists, and ONLY terrorists, with no “collateral damage.”
It's just sharing it with others because you think it should be read, not that you agree with the article or its content. In fact I'd prefer if the share button did NOT become a "I Agree" button, because that's one of the bigger problems with other content aggragator sites like Reddit, and Digg before it. You end up with only one type of material, the type that everyone agrees with and can circle jerk over. That's not what I want in my news or things I read. I want to read the good, the bad, and the not-so-pretty. But like others have said, if I see you share something, I just assume you want other people to read it because it's a good article, or has interesting content. I never assume the person sharing it endorses or fully agrees with the sentiment of the content though.
I watched the whole video, but with that 25 minutes of my time, also comes some of my thoughts about it: I don't like how he talks about the gift culture, because if we all lived this way, there wouldn't be anyone to give gifts or hand such things out. It's not sustainable for an entire culture to live this way. He also says he takes from people's fields, which I think is rather minor, but think about that for a minute. He gives up money, but has no problem accepting gifts and taking from other people. That's not "natural", nor would I consider it really giving up money. He's just choosing not to spend it himself, and is still relying on society and other peoples money and work. Again, works for him just fine, but not sustainable for an entire culture to live this way. He also directly compares the way raspberry bushes function to humans. He also says "worry is contrary to the laws of nature", which is another point I just don't buy. He'd be worrying quite a bit if he didn't have the kindness of strangers and dumpsters to feed him. He also talks about how people who are apart of society suffer from medical conditions more and that nature does a better job of keeping things healthy. No, it doesn't. Sure, people didn't used to have chronic diseases... because everyone was already dead by the time they hit 30. We're living longer, which is the main cause of what he talks against. He focuses a lot on "eliminating worry and challenges", but also talks about being pretty dependent on others and brings up "gifting" constantly. And he acts like no one can value nature or show gratitude for it in life as long as they use money. I consider myself a Buddhist, and am grateful of many things on a daily basis. The sun, water, nature, animals, insects, everything. I don't need to live without money to appreciate those things, I'm not an awful person because I have a job and earn a paycheck, and I don't worry or really feel any challenges that I don't put in front of myself on purpose. I dunno, I know you're crazy about this guy, so I don't want to poo-poo him too hard. But in my honest opinion this guy is an idealist. He's interesting to listen to, he seems happy doing what he's doing, and that all seems great. But what he talks about isn't sustainable for our whole culture or all humans. He's entirely dependent on gifting and handouts and gleaning, and mentions he tried living off the land but that it didn't really work for him. Not everyone needs to give up money to appreciate life, and not everyone working a job is a slave or incapable of appreciating the same things he appreciates. And many of us, can give back to nature, and more importantly, can give back to people like him with our "evil money". :)
That's one of the reasons Pluto was removed from planet status, and it's size makes it more of a dwarf planet as well. It was determined to be one of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt. Step 3 of the IAU resolution for determining a planet was what I was referencing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#2006:_IAU_classification One of the many ways we can search for new planets around other stars is looking for cleared paths of dust/debris. So if we see a disk of dust/debris from UV/IR telescopes, and there's a "path" carved out of it, we can assume there was a larger object, probably a planet, that had cleared it's local orbit even if we can't see the planet itself. Here's a picture of one such example... The disk is at an angle almost going up an down, but you can see the elipse that has been cleared by a possible planet/s.In fact I didn't know that this was a defining characteristic of a mature planet.
The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':
1.The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2.The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
3.It must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
