Terraforming will most likely take centuries. There's plenty of time to study the barren rocks and their chemistry.

Now if they are not barren, some delay for additional study time may be warranted.

Personally I think we'll see habitats on moons and asteroids before we see planet wide terraforming. The economics of various activities and industries may prefer low G / micro G. There will probably be plenty of time for scientific expeditions to the gravity wells during all this.

The point is not having mars support some sort of life. The point is so that we (literally us, or our descendants) can go there. Given a sufficient amount of genetic tinkering and you have something that is not "us", and mars would seem to require quite a bit of tinkering.

The confederacy engaged in armed rebellion. Their defeat ended in military occupation. Their natural leadership mostly legally guilty of treason. The end of military occupation, the large scale pardoning of confederate leaders and officers so that they could hold governmental offices and positions, required these concession.

Actually the authoritative declaration is on of a moral low ground for the confederacy.

Did something about
"generally not"
in
"The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. "
confuse you?

Yeah, I recall reading such arguments from history. Thanks for the reminder.

The right to secede was only considered necessary in order to protect slavery. The northern aggression was the move towards nation-wide abolition. State's rights did not include the right to decide if a state will be slave or not, half the states added to the union must be slave states. Except for possibly loyalty to one's citizenship, which in those days was often considered state based not national based - even in the north, nearly every "cause" cited for the war was just camouflage for slavery or just a misdirection to get Johnny Reb to enlist.

Again, it doesn't really matter what the personal opinions and motivations of Johnny Reb may have been. He volunteered for an army that was created to protect a government that in turn was created to protect the institution of slavery. The army is the instrument which through force of arms slavery was to be protected. Service in such an army inherently protects slavery. The army's flag inherently symbolizes the protection of slavery.

Plus there is also the racist thing. Racism was common north an south, but some poor whites in the south took some satisfaction that there was a permanent slave underclass beneath them. Some willing to fight to maintain their elevated status, legal equality for the "negroe" something they could not personally accept. This continued after the war with the "night riders" and KKK, and admittedly some took up this fight outside of confederate territory. And when these folks wanted a symbol of white superiority and racism in the 1960s during the civil rights movement where did they turn? The confederate flag, it already represented white superiority and control over the "negroe race". Going from a symbol for the defense of slavery to a symbol for the defense of segregation was a small step.

What the confederate flag represented in the 1860s, the 1960s and today in 2015 is the same thing. We have 150 years of murderers wrapping themselves in that flag for a very appropriate reason.

Well yeah, the earth is 97% terraformed, we just need to get it a few degrees cooler. :-)

We can't have a technological solution to global warming, we can't have climate engineering, that doesn't forward the political agendas of centralization of authority and redistribution of wealth. Only political/social solutions to global warming are acceptable. We can't just keep using science and engineering to escape malthusian(-like) catastrophes.

Anyone who read the various southern state's secession documents know. Secession and the creation of the confederacy was absolutely and unambiguous about defending the institution of slavery. Its their words written at the time, that's how we know.

The resurgence of the confederate flag in the 1960s was as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, a symbol of the support for segregation. So at best it drops slavery and still represents hatred and bigotry even in its modern incarnation.

And their are many other flags to choose from, flags without the baggage of slavery, racism and bigotry. Pick any of the numerous revolutionary war era flags being used for such purposes. People who choose the confederate flag are choosing to be associated with that baggage.

While individual confederate soldiers had a wide range of beliefs and opinions one can not evade the simple fact that they volunteered for an army that was created to defend a government that was itself created to defend the institution of slavery. That army existed to by force of arms enact the government's defense of slavery. The flag inherently represents this army and slavery's defense. Its a poor choice to represent a soldier who did not believe in slavery, its a good fit for one who did believe in slavery.

The U.S. government was create for reasons other than slavery but grudgingly accepted slavery as a concession necessary to form the government in the first place. A concession believed not set in stone but one to be revisited in the future, and one which in fact was revisited over and over again in the legislature. This is quite different than the confederate government that was created to defend the institution of slavery.

My point is that there are deniers of history and that their opinions can be discarded. The confederate flag was created in the defense of slavery, it was resurrected in the defense of segregation.

You can however read the secession documents written by southern leaders 150 years ago where they clearly and unambiguously state that they are acting in the defense of the institution of slavery.

Well if their heritage is defense of the institution of slavery so be it. The flag of an army dedicated to the defense of a government that is dedicated to the defense of slavery is an army dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any other meaning is delusional. While individual confederate soldiers may have had a wide variety of motivations and beliefs their army and their government had a clear motivation, the defense of slavery

The American Revolution was about political differences. Those can be reconciled. When a war is about the defense of slavery there is no reconciliation with the pro-slavery argument.

No problem. The debate is merely about rebranding a symbol of the defense of slavery as something else. You can't even argue that its modern meaning has evolved. It didn't begin flying all over government grounds until the 1960s as a symbol of segregationist opposition to civil rights.

Perhaps failing to recognize that the battle flag represents a defense of slavery by force of arms has something to do with it. When the national government is inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery, their words in their secession documents, then the army of that government is also inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery. The thoughts and opinions of an individual soldier does not change these facts.

This flag is a poor choice to remember the soldier by, assuming of course that the soldier did not believe in perpetuating slavery.

No. The confederate national flag was too similar to the US flag. On the battlefield units were being misidentified as friend or foe. So a confederate battle flag was created motivated by the need to a distinctive differentiated look compared to the US flag.

OK. The confederate national flag represents a government that was created to defend the institution of slavery. Their words in their secession declarations proves this. So the confederate battle flag only represents those who fought to defend a government dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any non-slavery motivations an individual soldier may have had does not change the fact that he ultimately fought to defend slavery. The confederate battle flag is inherently a symbol of the defense of slavery by force of arms.

You know who was a big advocate of gun rights in the south when confederate flags were being resurrected during the 1960s civil rights era? Southern blacks.

Besides blacks, you know what another big market for guns is? Non-racist whites.

Yes but is there any discretion applied or is it a complete ban? Declining to publish a racing game with a car with a big confederate flag on it is one thing. Declining to publish a military strategy game that uses a historical setting like Gettysburg where Confederate troops on the field of battle are carrying a Confederate flag is something else.

In other words is there any consideration for historical context and historically accurate use?

The Texas state flag predates the Confederacy. The Confederacy was created to defend the institution of slavery, the Confederate flag represents that defense of the institution of slavery. The Texas flag does not inherently represent such a defense of slavery, like many other Southern state flags, where the people of the state misguidedly decided to defend the Confederate government.

Of course I am referring to the state flags of old, not those modern state flags that embed the confederate flag.

The US flag flew in the United Kingdom during WW2 in the camps and on the bases of US soldiers, sailors and airmen.

See, when one has a war over a political disagreement an amicable reconciliation is possible. Unlike when a war is fought over the defense of the institution of slavery.