|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 24, 2019 2:27:56 GMT
I didn't say I believed they did contribute anything: I was asking the simple question to you so you could lucidly respond to gadreel's claim that the space program contributed satellites. I'm sorry. I get you two mixed up when both of you are here. I have no idea why. You obviously have different user names and avatars. No problem.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 24, 2019 2:33:47 GMT
Wikipedia is like an Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia are repositories of facts, not of analysis. However, Wikipedia often cites analysis from other people as I've noted from reading several pages on music, film, and literature. Besides, this debate was not over any analysis, but over whether space programs contributed anything to mankind beyond Tang. That's a matter of fact, not analysis. In real life if you try to use "IMDb" as a source you will be met with peals of derisive laughter. About the same thing will happen if you use Wikipedia analysis for anything other than movies. Movies are totally a matter of personal preferences so you are safe there. Donald Trump is certainly no scientist, but if Democrats think they can beat him with Joe Biden they simply have no idea what is really happening. They are mindlessly repeating some narrative they do not understand, which is all you ever do. By "IMDb" do you mean this board, or do you mean the old/actual IMDb that's literally a database of movie information? Because I assure you you would not be met with "derisive laughter" for using IMDb as a source for facts about movies. Likewise, "Wikipedia analysis of movies" are typically just quotes from critics and academics about movies, and there's much more to film analysis than "personal preferences." If you think otherwise then that means you know nil about what happens in film academia. I challenge you to read anything David Bordwell and tell me it's all about personal preferences. I have no idea why you're bringing politics into a discussion about science and the value of Wikipedia; but segueing into complete non sequiturs is all you ever do.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 24, 2019 4:37:38 GMT
In real life if you try to use "IMDb" as a source you will be met with peals of derisive laughter. About the same thing will happen if you use Wikipedia analysis for anything other than movies. Movies are totally a matter of personal preferences so you are safe there. Donald Trump is certainly no scientist, but if Democrats think they can beat him with Joe Biden they simply have no idea what is really happening. They are mindlessly repeating some narrative they do not understand, which is all you ever do. By "IMDb" do you mean this board, or do you mean the old/actual IMDb that's literally a database of movie information? Because I assure you you would not be met with "derisive laughter" for using IMDb as a source for facts about movies. Likewise, "Wikipedia analysis of movies" are typically just quotes from critics and academics about movies, and there's much more to film analysis than "personal preferences." If you think otherwise then that means you know nil about what happens in film academia. I challenge you to read anything David Bordwell and tell me it's all about personal preferences. I have no idea why you're bringing politics into a discussion about science and the value of Wikipedia; but segueing into complete non sequiturs is all you ever do. Lower case "b" is the old site, Internet Movie Database. IMDB is Internet Media Discussion Boards.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 24, 2019 12:37:32 GMT
There's a lot of that going around, so much maybe no one will notice. Here's an interesting movie, Contact. Jodie Foster plays Eleanor Arroway a woman whose interest in space probably depends on her father's interest in ham radio. An exciting thing about Sputnik was that ham radio operators in the United States could pick up its signals. There was no "space program" till a year later. This helps illustrate the point that communications on Earth were the driving force behind satellites that cannot do anything else really. I suppose it can always be amusing when retarded atheist kids on the internet argue on Wikipedia. The Russian space program started in the 1930's, Sputnik was launched in 57. Maybe you should be sure you know things before you comment on them. You have an amazing capacity to miss the point. There have been very distinct uses for rockets. The first was probably to deliver bombs such as the V2. Communications satellites are something else entirely different from bombs. Manned missions in space have no use for communications satellites and are yet another entirely different use for rockets. To say that communications satellites owe their development to such space missions as the ISS or other manned missions (which use radiotelescopes) is much the same as saying they owe their development to bomb delivery systems. You might also say that communication satellites owe their development to the communist revolution. As I have maintained all along that might well be your opinion and there might well be some very loose connection to the price of tea in China also. But no, these are not facts. However when I describe things developed along side the space program I do not count anything that obviously had its own impetus as owing anything to for example the ISS. You are probably too young to remember the world before transoceanic communications by satellites. Ham radio was a very big deal back then since it was the only way to communicate across the oceans. It was difficult to maintain schedules because the height of the ionization layer used to bounce radio waves varies dramatically between sunlit and dark areas and shifts with time leaving short and undependable windows of opportunity for long distance communication. Still, it was very valuable and small fortunes were spent experimenting with improving the art. I believe communications satellites were inevitable whether people themselves went into space or not. You can perhaps be forgiven for not realizing it because of your stunning ignorance of the history of science. It is sad how many atheists attempt to take all credit for any science. Military grunts also try to take all credit as well, but for the military atheists foremost. They do not understand how there can be any order in the world unless they threaten death to all who oppose their concepts of order. They do not understand, value or succeed much in communication. That's why they wave guns. They are probably as certain as you are that there would be no communications satellites were it not for V2 rockets. It is the Soldier by Charles M. Province
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 24, 2019 13:31:59 GMT
In real life if you try to use "IMDb" as a source you will be met with peals of derisive laughter. About the same thing will happen if you use Wikipedia analysis for anything other than movies. Movies are totally a matter of personal preferences so you are safe there. Donald Trump is certainly no scientist, but if Democrats think they can beat him with Joe Biden they simply have no idea what is really happening. They are mindlessly repeating some narrative they do not understand, which is all you ever do. By "IMDb" do you mean this board, or do you mean the old/actual IMDb that's literally a database of movie information? Because I assure you you would not be met with "derisive laughter" for using IMDb as a source for facts about movies. Likewise, "Wikipedia analysis of movies" are typically just quotes from critics and academics about movies, and there's much more to film analysis than "personal preferences." If you think otherwise then that means you know nil about what happens in film academia. I challenge you to read anything David Bordwell and tell me it's all about personal preferences. I have no idea why you're bringing politics into a discussion about science and the value of Wikipedia; but segueing into complete non sequiturs is all you ever do. Movies are very different. Comparing them to each other is like comparing apples to oranges to snowshoes to raspberry strudel to fence posts to oil pans. There's no point comparing. I said something like that on the old board. If you want history, there are history classes. If you want science, there are science classes. If you want to distract children to keep them out of trouble there are movies.
|
|