also technology is neutral and amoral
yeah, but a tiger in a jungle is high tech and makes me uncomfortable, unless i have technology, such as motion detect and a gun.. but not too much technology, such as AI that's better than both me and the tiger, which is amoral and neutral but if it decides I'm lunch i have no good ways to argue with it.. such as a good defensive weapon.. herein lies the eternal dilemma in pushing technology relentlessly forward, in hopes of a better world, but in fear of being hurt by it..
i still love and admire tigers and want to share the world with them.. just because one can sneak up on me in a jungle, and has faster reflexes than me when it attacks me, trying to turn me into his lunch.. that does not mean i want all tigers gone from the word, and similar things go for snakes, sharks, wolves, or pretty much any life form that depends on feeding on other life forms.. i like the multitude of life, the genetic diversity and richness as opposed to one species of say predators, and one species of photosynthetic benign life form used as food... yeah that's safe but who wants to live like that.. without the richness of beauty and love of nature? whoever does, they are welcome to go live on space stations, but please don't destroy the variety down here by ruthless extermination campaigns with things like pesticides and lawnmowers.. please leave the kitchen if you can't take the heat, i told you much of last year how to make it out there, in the nothingness of space, on a space station where you can finally be "safe", at least safe from diseases and other nontechnological life forms, not from other humans that can shoot you because you're a sitting duck, so you might wanna think about hiding on the other side of the Moon, at least.. ultimately nowhere is safe.. but you can be safe from the things that you're trying to relentlessly exterminate with pesticides and lawnmowers.. and leave my fucking grass alone

there is something great and awesome, in the sense of liberty, about anonimity on the internet..
but like with the money supply, there is a way to track originators and recipients..
on the internet it's called an ip address, and technically everyone is responsible for packets originating from them, in some abstract way
to find somebody, you need an ip address and a date time, and you can track who did what through isp logs.. if they are kept

however, it is possible to forge a packet, and pretend it came from Terroristan or Ungabungaville, pretending you are forwarding it from origin to destination. As the internet is based on multi path forwarding of packets, and they sometimes go round a couple times before reaching destination (which is silly, but the CIA or NSA loves tricks like that to make it confusing or hide their eavesdropping) it's hard to tell why someone from Antarctica or Greenland would be forwarding a packet coming from Terroristan, when there should be a more direct path between the different continents. Sometimes though cost of bandwidth fluctuates in various directions, and is purchased through off the beaten tracks like your internet protocol packet might end up in Antarctica before it goes to Asia from America, because the main pipes via the direct path are saturated. Kinda like off roads during a highway congestion, people take the route of least resistance. So the internet is very open and free environment, and you often wonder who's got your packet. If you worry about that, you can probably get a private dedicated telco line for an assraping fee, off and away from the internet. But the internet is the internet, aint nothing else like it, and anybody might have your packets, you hope not, but that's the way we live life.

in the end this is the pivotal point where the buck stops: it is not in the interests of powers that be that we have a safe and reliable internet, to where they can no longer make money by telling people they've got something better, more secure.. on the other hand it's also not in their interest to create such a devastating world where people stop using the internet altogether.. and just give up on technology for good, cutting their profit off hard.. so their profit scenario graph looks like a seesaw, a 45degree ramp with a sudden vertical precipice fall, where going that extra cent up the increased profit graph runs the severe risk of losing everything you're already making.. such as pimping minimum charges by utilities.. or DRM in the intellectual property world.. my attitude is that when you become abusive toward your customer like that, the customer is ultimately in charge, and he can bend over backward living his life down without having to put up with your bullshit, and cuts you off hard.. for instance i intend to never watch a DVD movie, because it has DRM.. yeah i know, they used to deal with piracy, and DRM helps them while it makes my life stink.. but ultimately I'm the fucking customer, and I decide how i live my life.. until Obama passes a law that makes me purchase a certain quota of Hollywood DVD's even if I don't feel like it.. like he does with his stupid fucking retarded insurance bullshit.. hey, all i know I don't owe anybody an existence fee, for being alive... nor do i owe anyone a dime for the breath of air I take, or the sunlight that I use to see.. these folks pent up on pushing the boundaries of what constitutes property just to they can sit back and collect, by claiming they own math, or air, or sunlight can all go fuck themselves with a huge cuke.. no it is not your air i'm breathing, you don't own the atmosphere, and if you say you invested a billion dollars into purchasing that atmosphere so you can own it, take care of and license it to me i call you a fucking retard.. same goes for the Sun, the Sun cannot be owned by a cartel making everyone pay for sunlight.. same goes for math, basic human knowledge is everybody's.. or organic chemistry.. yeah we had these intellectual property laws installed when the US was created, copyright of 14 years renewable to 28, and patents used to be 17 creeping up to 20, with excuses excuses excuses, and copyright just went from 70 to 90 years during the Clinton Mickey Mouse Act, but why stop there, why not have a 2000 year intellectual property protection?? huh? what about organic chemistry that all got developed after 1923, the last year of public domain writings.. do you deny me the right to know basic science and human culture, because you own it? that's fucking bullshit.. the goal of intellectual property is to spur creation of new material, not to hog and blackmail other people for access to basic needs in life, like math.. or computing.. as far as I'm concerned, extending copyright on Mickey Mouse from 70 to 90 years has very near zero effect of Walt Disney creating it for the world in the first place, and the corrupt law makers fucked up royally on passing that extension law, like they are fucking up royally on Obamacare..
but to return to the main topic, i'm never gonna get a smart phone, simply because that's an internet killer, or internet replacement per packet text message charging device, and i can live my life with paper books, without electronics, like in the old days, rather than putting up with the ass raping charges some people put up with.. like $1200/yr telecommunications charges.. that's too much money under the prevailing minimum wage/inflation and other price scenario.. they assume simply because i spent so much of my sick time on electronics and internet, that it's worth a whole lot to me.. au contraire.. i could be doing a whole lot of other things with my time.. just because i spend so much of my time on something, it does not mean that that activity worth insane amounts in my judgment.. right now I do spend 36/mo cable internet, which comes to $35.99x12=$431.88/yr, then I have a main prepaid cellphone, with a T-mobile sim card, usually able to drag $108 for 12 mos, and another with Verizon, that wants like $6/mo, so that's $72. I wish Verizon used sim cards where I could switch phones when one becomes defective, but only AT&T has sims besides T-mobile, and I have issues with AT&T such as sending me minimum charges back in the day as the long distance carrier even if I made no calls at all, I drop their fuckin ass and went with 10-10-811 and such without minimum charges, that was sold by them or similar anyway..
over monopoly abuse over taking the landlines, when they were told by We The People to split up into Baby Bells and compete, and my last day of having a landline was the day they bought SBC, after SBC bought Ameritech, landline that I used let me get dialup on for $5/mo, and it was great for playing games on igs, internet go server, or getting popmail, and I would even use it today simply for security reasons. My cable modem is getting hammered right now, and I have not used one of these hardware packet forwarding firewalls yet because they all seem to be hackable except some obscure ones might be less so, and even so the browser itself is a trojan horse backdoor into my computer, acting like i initiate a connection, and it's so huge on codesize and so complicated in what it does, that i cannot guarantee that it's safe and secure.. if anything there is a lack of enough genetic diversity in browsers, to try to get more obscure ones for security.. a monoculture in browsers sux.. one flaw takes the whole internet down at once, but if you had a genetic diversity of, say 200 different species of browsers, instead of 4 or 5 (gecko, ie8/9/10, safari/konqueror, opera) that each have different versions and vulnerabilities, but often backwards compatible with settings and configs from prior versions.. so increased genetic variability could ensure more safety, when one goes under the other 199 are still live and kicking, and only takes out 0.5% of the internet with its flaw. So a landline with 56K dialup would come in handy for me right now, because it would get popmail email, or let me play on IGS, and lessen the packet burden of the internet, and in case I get hacked, lessen the packet outflux. I wish cable isp's had a way of throttling bandwidth all the way to 300 bps (bit per second) from the 15,000,000 bps I'm sitting on right now typing this. I could get popmail and play go on IGS just fine on 300 bps, maybe even do off phone texting, true chaturbate and the like would not be possible, but then I could crank up bandwidth by manually setting a domain specifically for that. such as youtube, some specific porn sites, but not general news sites, like yahoo even. Like, wtf is wrong with yahoo, twitter, facebook and google+ running javascript garbage making my 10W HP Mini 210 crawl on its knees. I've looked at newer computers, none come at a say 3x speed and 1W total power consumption with an at least 10" screen. No smartphones with a per click charge are not the answer for me, neither are DVD's, and because of AT&T hogging landlines, I cannot get dialup either, because they are a monopoly, and my standard treatment of abusive monopolies is to tell them to go live your life, be happy, but you gotta do it without me.

the internet is expected to be
--either fully killed off if the bulk of the population signs up for smart phones and pay per click every packet has a phone number or sim id tagged at it.. fully trackable, no anonimity, including less dissent like this Slashdot posting at -1 terrible karma..
--or stay the way it is, with enough bullshit like news coming about banks or companies like home depot getting hacked and customer data stolen, to keep everyone in fear and constantly upgrading hardware and software, but not enough fear to where they completely abandon any further hardware and software purchases

those two above scenarios are in the best interest of big money, which controls and decides what happens in the world, other than being able to control individual customer choices, such as complete abandonment of a technology, unless they can pass laws to force people to buy smartphones, like they are trying to force people to buy insurance, at arbitrary prices they pull out of their asshole, and if anyone does not follow the law gets singled out, goes to jail and punished hard as a lesson for the rest of the herd for the consequences of not "following the stupid corrupt laws" they are trying to shove down everyone's throat

It changes my behavior. I speed on cameras while carrying a cellphone, so they know it's not a fluke, just because I know they can monitor it and want to send a message, like, look, you wanna see me go crazy? Trying all day desperately to piss me off at work. Here, I can do it, it's not that hard, I can act like a total idiot, do not assume you can keep pushing somebody to extreme limits because they are pussies and never stick up for themselves. If that subliminal monitoring were not in place though, there'd be no useful purpose to going nuts under camera and cellphone monitoring, while endangering anyone who running a red light right into your face when you're speeding through a green. I also sometimes leave my cellphone home while going shopping, or to work, sometimes on purpose, sometimes I simply forget. I have been sent home from work before simply over forgetting the phone at home, at least that's what my best guess was why I was sent home. Nowadays I even pull the battery from the cellphone sometimes, cuz I know them bitches eavesdrop even when powered off. I know some people who still don't have a cellphone, and there are pluses and minuses to that too.

I would never buy a house without a fully underground basement, because of xrays.
Other than that, I might be interested in one of these IKEA refugee things, and when asked what am I a refugee from, I'd be like, duh, I'm performing what's called "white flight" from inner cities to the suburbs, and my personal excuse would be constant personal attack with infections and having to recover all the time, as they trying to undermine me financially, to make me go on government aid too, and breed out of control on it too, like a bunch of inner city folk do. Hell no. Fuck all you.

Fuck Monsanto Labs. Fuck Roundup.
Fuck all biotech companies, infecting people with genetically modified diseases on purpose with secret antidotes, to make money.
Fuck Obamacare infecting people on purpose to scare them into buying, to make money.

Also there is no such thing as absolute security, only obstacles of varying difficulty. Like putting a lock on a door is not a guarantee. Like RC4, it's better than nothing, against casual entry, but it's not a castle surrounded by a pond with pull up bridges, which in turn is not as secure as a fort, like Masada, built on solid rock mountain top with vertical precipice surrounding, because a tunnel can be dug under the pond, and given enough dedication and effort, even Masada was taken by the Romans. I still lock my car and house, which is a defense equivalent to RC4, in hat it's or tamper proof, but an obstacle, that requires effort, and I live like that, without spending on armed security guards, because of cost.

Or more like, come on people, it's okay to misbehave and not worry about getting caught, the lack of recent terrorist events makes it unwarranted to oppress the people so much by surveying every last detail (well, except the Tsarnaev's, but they did it with the very deliberate purpose to sustain this surveillance, and keep other people down with it, because we lacked recent terrorist events.) So we repealed the Patriot Act, and we will no longer do surveillance of cell phones, so you should not keep them at home while you go shopping to not be tracked, nor should you watch your speed limit near traffic cameras, we stopped watching those too. Go ahead. Now it's okay to speed on traffic cameras, (those are gonna come down we just haven't got to it yet due to budget constraints, but we stopped watching those), or it's okay cheat on your wife with another woman, we will no longer snoop and tell who is with who by two cell phone's geolocation being at the same point at the same time inside some motel, hotel, or apartment.

If we all lived like yeoman farmers, self sufficient, making our own food, electric, sewer treatment, etc, and only engage in jobs and economic activity as far as necessary or we feel like, not being slaves to bills, then these above arguments would be irrelevant. Justice and liberty for all does not require jobs, nor automated machines that displace humans from jobs, because they will be irrelevant, because your ultimate existence is not dependent on having a job, or finding a way to peel another dollar out of a sucker (and there is a sucker born every minute), but you can always fall back to and exist just find self sufficient, without a job, or any bills. That should be like a human right. The right to exist DIY and without any bills whatsoever, or any job whatsoever. The way some Amish live comes to mind as closest to that ideal, except they too have to put up with property tax harassment, I think, but they don't have to pay social security, because they take care of their elderly and don't take out a pension when they retire, the community supports the elderly. They pull their own weight. It gets complicated though, and if you really want to fuck with somebody, it's easy to fuck anybody up given sufficient dedication and effort.

Ok, here we go, from M.O.P Marxmen:

I
Love myself
I ain't shit
Fuck yo' self
Cause you let fakes and snakes
And them impostors sit back and make an ass out ya
Fitzroy
Jamal ask about ya...
etc.

Fuck all you!

Hahaha. Monsanto is in the business of making money. I take any opportunity to bitch at them and their principle of no food shall be grown on this planet that we do not own and control, either via intellectual pushing the limits of what constitutes property, or via pimping infertile seeds and animals, genetically modified. As part of this quest we promote urban sprawl and relentless extermination of flowers, as every natural wild fruit and vegetable, which cannot be claimed as intellectual property, is based on pollinators and flowers, and their existence as a food source option endangers our quest to later blackmail the world by jacking up infertile seed prices that already drive failed farmers to suicide in poor countries like India. Also bioweapon creation, that's one mutation away from the antidote not working. To all this I say Fuck Monsanto, however I would not want them to go out business, such as from lawsuits, because they can and do create or have the potential to create good things too in the world, such as cheap insulin making lifeforms, or even, later, cotton that makes spider silk, or biodegradable plastic for shopping bags, like spider silk IS biodegradable, it's only how they go about their business what matters, the devil is in the details, and because of the threats they are dealing with, like nuclear or even more dangerous technology, their guiding principle as a business should be not maximum profit to th shareholders, but minimal interference and minimal genetic modification in the world, only as much as necessary, where the good in the world created by performing a genetic modification far outweighs the costs and simple risks of having such technology and tools and abilities at hand in the first place. The situation is analogous to the field of nuclear technology, if not even starker, where the most pressing topics on the minds of world leaders are a nuclear Iran, or North Korea, and even the Fukushima reactor accidents are almost a blessing, and nuclear power that's green and environmentally friendly but otherwise a great danger if a war erupts in a resource tense world, is only relied on as much as necessary, and if it could be replaced by renewables of solar and wind, by each household, and decentralized, we would not be having nuclear power plants for electricity generation in the first place and Iran would lose their arguments for wanting nuclear power plants for energy production purposes, because we could show the way that it's possible to live without it. For instance Monsanto does not need to create an infertile seed tomato that grows 10% larger or even 200% larger than preexisting tomatoes that are not genetically modified, unless making such a tomato non-infertile is acceptable and has no foreseen risks. They should only engage in genetic modification of the world around us at as minimum as possible, and only where such a change, or even having skills and technology in place to enact such a change, where the risks of such an alteration are compensated by a good created in the world above a certain imaginary thresh hold, greater than the free market is simply willing to buy it. It's like just because a hospital were willing to purchase a mini nuke station, and there is market demand, the risks involved suggests it may not be such a good idea, and any such activity should be supervised fully by the military, providing protection, and overruling and managing things only as far as necessities go, far and above any kind of free market and profitability considerations. Insulin, fertile spider silk biodegradable plastics creating cotton would be such things in my mind, while roundup resistant tomatoes and corn, ehh, and all this massive push for roundup as a weed killer for lawns, for mere purposes of beauty, and not for food production, not a matter of survival, exterminating wild flora and fauna, Fuck Monsanto for all that lawn mowing and brain washing people into what's pretty. Where are all the flowers? Where are all the butterflies? Kids growing up never catching a butterfly or watching one suckle nectar from a flower? Fuck Monsanto for that kind of "market and drive for increased profitability" activity. Like nuclear, biotech is a tool, and it can be used to create good, and bad, as far as necessities go, but its dangers are even higher than nuclear, and running rampant these days. In the businesses dealing with nuclear power, maximum market and maximum profitability is not the prime directive. Minimum market inasmuch as necessities go is. Whatever you can make with wind and solar don't make with nuclear. Whatever tomatoes you can grow without genetic modifications and feed okay with it, don't do it with infertile seed genetic modifications. Whatever you can achieve without insecticides, do it without them, and in that, it's okay to use insecticides to protect crops, but for mere lawn creations that seems like such a waste to me. If the city does not like the appearance of a lawn, they should, instead of coming out to cut the grass, and sending bills over, replace the lawn with flowers that never have to be cut, that are pleasing enough to the pedestrians or car traffic, and sustain native bugs, preferably the flowers selected from native plants local to the area, or from nearby states, to maintain genetic diversity around the world. That means no roundup for lawns, and no lawns as we have them today. You can use roundup for crops, or insecticides for crops, but even there alternatives, such as spiders to keep populations down without extermination, are preferable, compared to what goes down these days, a farmer sprays insecticides on his flowering crops, then hires a pollinating service with bees, and all the bees die from the insecticides. That is despicable.

And btw I've seen a purely yeoman farmer type world before, but it lacked abundance of good cars, technology, computers, phones, but you had TV's and radios, still, it's like you don't get the good thins in life without sustaining a parasite layer, like even the Aztec's with a booming irrigation culture sustained priests that invented zero and had the most accurate timekeeping and astronomical record in the world at the time they flourished, not to be surpassed until later in Europe post Renaissance, so it's like without trying to support priests or artists or car manufacturers similar other-than-yeoman-farmer people, you don't get the good life either. But it's a never ending battle between those on top, or their slave drivers saying look at these lazy union workers, they don't like to work, and the workers are like look at these bean counters up at corporate, they never have to work, and neither understands the other because they haven't walked a mile in each other's shoes. I bitch on here assuming I know what other people are sometimes thinking, but they are scared to show it, or speak up, because they worry about their own and kids safety, but without being told in the open the ones on top don't realize what's going on in people's minds, and they think they are smarter and they are getting away with some sneaky shit and other people are just dumb and stupid. No they are not. Millions of them all know, but are not crazy enough to say it or rebel as a group in unison, until the push or squeeze becomes stronger. And Da Man on top constantly thinks he's watching all traffic on camera, recording phone conversations and texts and locations, he knows who's cheating with whose wife, and he can push it to the limit of maximum profitability for himself when it comes to squeezing others, and controlling them, without any effects, and that's a very dangerous game to play. But they are like yeah, we know it, and we like dangerous. But when the shit hits the fan and the crying begins - I told you. What's so unexpected about it?

Monsanto does good things too, once in a while. Such as producing insulin by gene insertion into something else, whose supply previously was exclusively butcher shop guts - beef, pork, difficult to extract small quanties. That's a welcome addition to the world, and whatever sacrifice it demands it's more than worth it. However their attack on almost all life as a whole, especially the food sources first, and to intellectually own and provide only infertile seeds or farm animals, in the name of profit, together with pimping excessive lawn mowing as appropriate style of what's beautiful, is despicable. You can mow, just don't overdo it. Live and let live, is a first principle of Life, respecting the variety of the jungle. Cut only half of your lawn, leave the back of the lot for nature, if it's not a crowded city: wildflowers, butterflies, grasshoppers, birds, etc. Live and let live. Coexist with other life without constantly worrying about only harm can come from other life. Keep your distance. That's all.

How about some conduct, saying: Do something strange for a little piece of change and hop up on that dick for me. As long as movies and other people get away talking crap constantly, and freely viewable everywhere online, like pretty much all hip hop videos with big female ass shaking, constantly saying nigga this, nigga that, it's like literally quoting other people has become a crime, but I don't really see how they are gonna regulate speech other than based on color, and in that, if you're a colored person you get a free ticket to say anything, but everybody else watch your language.
How about the conduct of healthcare professionals and Obamacare about making a dollar by infecting people on purpose, or threaten them with it. On TV. Talking about how they are soft tissue experts, with a grin on their face how they are gonna make you sick. The Hippocratic Oath doctors take is "do no harm." Sick fucks, it's like they are hopeless of ever becoming a decent human being.

But it's like you gotta make it worthwhile to go to a nearby star, and the reason you'd go is to find matter in orbit, like lots of planets and asteroids, matter that you can make babies out of. No point going to a brown dwarf if it has nothing orbiting around it, might as well just stay in empty space and be limited by the total matter you already hoarded up and whatever star-light energy you're getting. Unless the brown dwarf emits usable amounts of energy, or you can even land on it and mine it for stuff like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, to make more babies out of. (Or cats, farm animals like Elephants, or plants like trees.) Or nuclear fuel to make artificial heat and lighting out of.

Well, it's like this. Mars is too small to hold a decent atmospher, but it's got a whole lot more rock than our Moon does, and we can rip that bitch to pieces and make comfy rotating space stations out of it and make it disappear, while we don't want to have our Moon disappear, because a lot of natural things are tied to it, like tides, or women pmsing go based on lunar cycles, and it's got to be controlled by whatever minor gravitational or light effect the moon has, at least in its origin, even if there might be a biological clock inside that does the actual counting. So you can take some material from the Moon - such as dig to the cold lava free nonmolten core and hope to find some gold, nickel and platinum you could dump to earth, or just use rocks from the surface to build a megagiga flippable solar panel shade system against global warming near the Earth-Sun Lagrange point, controllable via a remote down here, so that we can dump all the carbon back into the atmosphere from underground where it went during the carboniferous, jurassic and palezoic and the like, and give it back to lifeforms to use, via an increase of CO2 from 0.03% to say 0.1% in the air, which is like a limiting nutrient to all green plants growing, that filter their own carbon content - carbohydrate, fat and protein - directly from the 0.03% in the atmosphere and it takes a long time to filter huge volumes of air for a little bit of carbon, so global warming this global warming that we should dump all fossil fuels into the atmosphere as long as we can guarantee a shading over say the sahara or diffuse over some less reflective than sahara Ocean regions - and this means they'd have to flip open and close on the clock - so if we can drop temperatures back, you might even get things like the Levant becoming fertile grounds like it was 2000 years ago and it's pretty much desert these days, but of course the climate behavior of the Earth is complicated and all that, so it would be nice to have shades up there, as solar panels, as long as you can guarantee that if things go haywire and it naturally falls away from lack of yearly fuel delivery that keeps it up there, because some apocalypse took over down here, or the retards took over and they can't make a delivery, so you have to consider the ramifications of putting the carbon back into the atmosphere, so even before then the prime concern is self sufficient sustainable rotating cylinder space stations via full recycling from Moon materials, and a whole lot of people living in space sustainably, such as China is running out of room, but there is a lot of room in space, and they make great astronauts because of smaller body size and they are not heavy to lift up, so you can put a lot of people up there first, before you install shades, and you can do it from lunar materials - but you should keep most of the Moon intact and instead go for Mars (which is faaaaaaaaaar, but not too far), and you are welcome to rip Mars to pieces to make homes and space stations out of it and almost everyone could live down here on Earth if they get to keep the Moon intact, yet have not 7 billion, but 100 trillion humans living happily in outer space on space stations made from Mars, and 5 billion kept down here as a museum and natural reservation, while Venus is getting terraformed by a shade system, or by banging comets into it on their trip back from the Sun, over millions of years, to lift Venus higher into orbit away from the Sun, to make it naturally colder in case the shade system fails, but hopefully not interfering much gravitationally with the orbit of Earth by coming too close. If anything the shade system, which is required to be superhuge for Venus compared to modifying merely 1% or so of Earth's total solar dose, with Venus you're probably talking covering 30-50% or even more of the total surface area with shades before the sulfuric falls onto the ground as a big ocean, and Venus starts filtering and gabbing oxygen at 32, and oxygen reacted hydrogen as water at 18 on its surface, ultimately the sulfates ending up in rock as drywall, and water oceans covering Venus surface. It would take tiiiiime. But you'd get a 2nd livable planet as Venus with oceans on the surface that can house whales, something that may not be worthwhile on space stations, lest they be huge to give enough roaming room for whales to long distance communicate across half an ocean via low frequency sounds. Venus has good potential, moreover a thick atmosphere too that makes it uneconomical to lift objects from it into orbit compared to Mars with an atmosphere at a 0.6 to 1.1% of Earth's pressure, where wind resistance might be so little that you could shoot a fast enough cannon ball towards outer space, and it would actually go all the way into outer space orbit, because the atmosphere does not burn it up at its fairly low escape velocity, because Mars is so small. If you could hoard a lot of mini-debris and make it bigger, then it could be terraformed and contain an iceage planet, and hold water, but Earth's average temperature is already close to water's freezing point, so to both hold water gravitaionally and have it liquid too at the same time it would have to be close to Earth in both size and temperature, which means a huge Fresnel lens capturing and focusing extra sunlight unto its surface, and if you can come up with all that debris - such as stealing Jupiter's moons from its orbit, and stealing Saturn's ring (which has a lot of easy to get to debris) if you add all that up, go fish for Pluto and send that down plummeting into Mars too, combine a lot of rocks from the asteroid belt, then you could terraform Mars possibly easier than waiting for Venus to capture water and make the sulfuric disappear. Btw Venus sulfuric might disappear into rocks instantly, within a year or two if covered with a huge shade, and the planet have a rocky surface like Mars with good gravity, and a very low pressure of say 0.5 atmosphere of pure oxygen from on the ground electrolyzers in no time, or pure oxygen/CO2 mix, which is not breathable, but its better than nothing while you wait for the nitrogen and water to gather, so Venus might be easier to terraform than Mars, if all you want is a barren rocky planet to walk on, and even if you built up Mars to proper size that Venus already has, Mars would have to wait longer to gather all the nitrogen from the solar wind, because it's less dense that far away (any kind of flux from a sphere drops as 1/r-squared, magnetic, electric, gravitational, energy, or mass flow, because of conservation laws). But even on Mars you could have a temporary O2/CO2 atmosphere while people on it carry helium packs made from nuclear physics reaction helium, and recycled. You cannot have an O2/He atmosphere, it can only be O2/N2 to be breathable, because if helium is held by gravity/low temperature, at 4, that's too close to H2 hydrogen at 2, and you can only end up with an ever increasing in size gas giant like Jupiter, Uranus, Saturn and Neptune, and unlivable, even if you start with a seed the size of Earth or a bit bigger at a distance of Mars' orbit. So you will always have to provide a gravity/temperature that holds H2O at 18, N2 at 28 and O2 at 32 while at the same time boiling off H2 at 2 and He at 4, to keep it livable. Presently Mars' atmosphere is almost all CO2 at 44, with a bit of N2 at 28, meaning it's reducing, just like Earth was at the beginning before the appearance of photosynthetic lifeforms, and it probably has a lot of carbon and sulfur and metals like meteoritic iron (or even nickel) unoxidized that hog any oxygen that appears in its atmosphere. Conversely Venus is mostly H2SO4 at 96, with some CO2, but it's really really hot, boiling off even O2 and N2, even if its surface clouds have a lot of solar reflectivity. Venus needs a humongous shade system, probably put up by robots and very thin black shades, or silicon solar panel shades, and it's better to fuck with it first before you fuck with Earth, because even if you fuck up the shading of Venus, the planet itself is presently fucked and it cannot be fucked up any worse, so it's like you're not fucking up anything. But as I said, Venus would need a huuuuge area covered, counting that it's almost the same size as Earth at a much shorter distance, and say, it's half the distance to the Sun as Earth then it receives 2 squared equals 4 times the amount of solar energy per area, and to make it 1 again, 3 out of the 4 would have to be covered up, or 75% of total area shaded, or more like 75% of the solar input would have to be diffusely reflected or filtered away by silicon panels at red in orbit at its Lagrange point. Maybe heat engines that work between say 2000C focused solar concentrators in orbit and 600C red heat heat emitters (emitting away from Venus via a mirror block) into outer space cooling would be better than silicon solar panels as shade, that close to the Sun. Aluminum mirrors, aluminum being abundant, might work, except that aluminum melts at 660C or so, and even then it's not a good heat radiator because it's not black, and if molten it would want to coalesce into spherical droplets of molten aluminum floating at Venus' Lagrange point, so silicon with a much higher melting point and a darker color and high abundance in the Universe may be after all the best shade material, even if not very useful to make electric at that high temperature over there, while still being a shade. Near Earth the solar dose per surface are is much smaller, and the top temperature attained by solar panels must not be too hot else they would not be used on satellites. I should look up how much closer to the Sun Venus is than Earth and revise this post, but ehh, it's going under -1 karma so I'll be lazy won't bother. Yeah. Stuff like that. And while we're at it, fuck Obamacare (not Obama, just Obamacare, or more like just the penalty part of that whole bullshit, the rest, like helping people pay if they apply is fine), fuck Monsanto, etc, which will guarantee it stays at -1. :)