Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
they had something to believe in. a soldier today has to look for something to believe in.....just glad some of them find it
Beautiful
- Thread starter cannabineer
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Yah the Liberator was one of the great airframes of that war.
And the Buff ... truly a majestic beast. I always got a shiver when I saw or heard one.
My mother rigged B-17s during WWII at the Douglas plant in Long Beach, CA.
@GreatwhiteNorth up here they are testing the retooling of the engine nacelle to carry the TF-33 engine. The old BUFF continues to flap it's wings for freedom.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I heard tell that they want to keep the B-52 flying 'til 2060.
For someone who grew up with military types lasting a few years max before being made obsolete by the next generation ... an airframe that'll be on active duty for a century is amazing.
It illustrates that the large subsonic jet has been a fairly mature technology for about 60 years now. The developments are incremental. Except in avionics but that is a modular subsystem ...
Also jet engine tech, hence the retool to carry the TF-33 (the newly redesigned TF-33)
@cannabineer here ya go: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/12/22/air-force-solidifies-options-for-b-52-engine-replacement/
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
people dream about a lot of stuff, but i think we're approaching a technological plateau. we've made some insane discoveries, and learned many useful things. now it's time to develop the maturity to be able to use those discoveries and that knowledge without wiping ourselves out.
we can manipulate the genetics of a human being in vitro...but is that still a human being? once you make a genetic change to something, does that not make it something else? do we have the right to change a person's genetics before that person has an identity? how can they consent to something before they're aware? isn't the changing of a person's genetic code something they should be consulted about?
so, maybe we should answer a few existing questions before we go wallow in "science" any more......
(by the way, it's national "shallow tangent" day....so be prepared for a lot of slightly disjointed rants)
we can manipulate the genetics of a human being in vitro...but is that still a human being? once you make a genetic change to something, does that not make it something else? do we have the right to change a person's genetics before that person has an identity? how can they consent to something before they're aware? isn't the changing of a person's genetic code something they should be consulted about?
so, maybe we should answer a few existing questions before we go wallow in "science" any more......
(by the way, it's national "shallow tangent" day....so be prepared for a lot of slightly disjointed rants)
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
we were at U, but now we're almost to X
Science exists outside of morality. The discoveries are up to others to moralize and decide upon usage. Science is about not vetting data because all data is valuable.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
depends on the data your looking for
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
so do you teach an infant to light matches? do you teach a two year old how to turn on the stove? that's data for them.
value and safety are not the same thing.....dynamite is very valuable if you have to remove tree stumps, but that doesn't mean i'd like to keep a couple of sticks in my back pocket.
the knowledge to cure disease in the womb is very valuable, the knowledge to alter the human genome to make it "better".....valuable and very, very dangerous....
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
What do any of these activities have to do with the prosecution of science? How is science or the absence of it even a factor?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
all data is valuable....i don't deny that...the point i was trying to make is that just because it's valuable doesn't mean we have the maturity to handle it safely....it would be better if some of this knowledge was set aside till we gained the wisdom to be able to use it responsibly
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not one of the concerns you just brought up is a valid critique upon science. You bring moral questions that demand a response on a moral basis. To tar "science" with the brush of right and wrong is the sort of thing that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake. I oppose your inappropriate crossing of a border belonging to what Gould so brilliantly named "nonoverlapping magisteria".
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i'm not attempting to critique science. science isn't a living thing, it's a school of thought, a method of discovery, a way to find proofs of the universe around us.....i'm critiquing what we do with science......i'm critiquing our colossal arrogance....Jean de Rozier and Francois D'Arlandes were the first men to make an untethered balloon flight, on November 21, 1783, in Paris, France, in a balloon created by the Montgolfier brothers. that's 235 years....we've gone from horses, chained to the earth, to the moon...in 235 years.
and during that 235 year we've also "invented" plastic, artificial intelligence, commercial flight, modern sanitation systems,refrigeration, automobiles......and we haven't stopped once to consider the implications of it all.....until now, when those implications are about to crash down around our shoulders..how about stopping to do a little consideration before we decide to play god some more
Before going any further, please give us your definition of what science is, so we can continue this discussion in a fruitful manner.
