Actually, Google for Nanug and you will find Nanug is the Inuit word for the polar bear, not gremlins.


[edited for violating forum rules - knreed]

The cost of wartime technologies has the cost of the war associated with it plus the cost of the development of the technology. If nitwits like Bush spent their time convincing people they need to spend more on peaceful research rather than lying to people about WMD and yellow cake that never existed, technology would grow faster and cheaper. And we would still have our sons and daughters to boot.

The problem with war mongers like George Bush is they believe the only good thing you can do with your neighbor is kill him and steal his money. And if he has some oil too, well hey, bonus, steal that too! After running 5 oil companies into bankruptcy before he got laughed out of the private sector, the nitwit knows he has no chance of finding/producing his own oil so now he just steals it.

The problem with the war mongers that have posted in this thread is they enjoy killing people and/or watching Bush kill people and they enjoy it so much they cannot see simple facts and do the simple kind of arithmetic associated with cost accounting. It's sad fools like that have the vote because democracy depends on educated people making decisions. Educated they obviously are not.

--Scientific Benefits of War
Do we need war to advance scientifically and technologically?

That is one opinion, now, before everyone freaks out. Let me state *MY* opinion.

War is not good, but it is not necessarily always wrong.

I am getting quite sick of all this alien b.s.

Hasn't anyone ever stopped to think that WE might be the super-advanced aliens? Just because there is life does not mean it is multi-cullular. Just because life is mult-cellular does not mean it is intelligent. Just because life is intelligent does not mean that the conditions are right for civilization. Just because there is civilization does not mean it has the capacity to become technological. It is quite possible that if there IS an alien civilization, these aliens live on a planet that lacks some of the key properties necessary for technology, such as say availible metals on or near the surface of the planet. If Stone Age man had not found surface copper deposits just lying around (or at least some other metal with a melting point low enough to allow melting with relatively primative tools, ie. not a metal requiring a blast furnace, etc.) we would have NEVER advanced beyond using stone tools into the Copper Age and onwards. It is quite possible that if there are aliens they are living in caves. The part of the Milky Way we live in is rich in heavier elements and rocky planets not basically toasted nearly molten by their suns, making OUR location one of THE MOST LIKELY LOCATIONS to find advanced civilizations.

Besides, if there was an alien civilization advanced enough to travel to Earth, it would have started an interstellar civilization, and would not be hard to find as a result. If there are any aliens, chances are they aren't all that more advanced than us, at best. In fact, chances are, we are the more advanced species.

And what's this silly idea about aliens having a cure for aids, or any human disease for that matter? IF THERE ARE ALIENS they will have THEIR OWN UNIQUE DISEASES, COMPLETELY UNLIKE OUR OWN. AIDS is one of TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of possible manifestations of contagious disease. Any alien civilization that would have the resources to be able to help us cure AIDS with relatively little effort (if it took them more than a couple of years, the aliens probably would not be willing to help) would be FAR more advanced than our won, which, as I already said, IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!