". . . with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. . . . "

So Began the introduction every time the Science Fiction television series called, "The Outer Limits" came on. But isn't that how television always was? There was no way to jump in the screen and add your input or comments. It was just there. But this isn't television - It's the internet. Input back and forth is available, unless the content side refuses to allow it.

I can understand having some filtering of comments which are insulting or inflammatory in a personal manner. Sure. But I don't want to be forced to always listen to this or that person's opinion or theory. There's a box with news I can turn on for that. Thomas Jefferson once said he would rather deal with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the bigger problems of too little. How about you? When you read someone's opinion that you disagree with, do you stay calm and thoughtful . . . or get steaming mad and upset because other people read it and they might get 'converted' from what you believe? Remember, some of these people you consider trolls, may also be on other sites where 'people like you' are considered trolls when you post your opinion. Do they allow you to post when you post thoughtful opinions? Then maybe you should do the same. Let's use the internet as the internet and not as a TV - - as much as possible.

"We now return control of your television set to you. Until next week at the same time, when the control voice will take you to – The Outer Limits.

"[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith."

If so then it is also true: "Faith Challenges evolution"

And though I absolutely agree with evolutionists that those dinosaur bones are indeed very old - yes, much older than 5,000 years, I have yet to find a place where a number of years is placed on the first verse of the Bible- the one where it says he created the heavens and the earth. In the original, verse two says it "became" without form and void, not "was". Something cataclysmic happened between v1 and v2. Day one through seven fixing the earth started after that."

To each his own choice of what to believe. And more power to you to have your own belief! But keep in mind Freedom of speech came about because many of the Colonies started when persecution of religeous 'heresy' forced people in Europe to come to America. Stagnant religeon politically connected tried to shut people up. They left. Again we see the same thing. IMO, Evolutionists sometimes show just as much venom about not permitting doctrinal 'heresy' in the schools. And I'll bet tax dollars from the Christians far exceed tax dollars from agnostics. Why not allow both? Let the kids debate and consider the merits and problems of both! Isn't that one thing our country has in its Constitution that is so excellent? "

Seriously, if evolution continues to be forced as teaching in the schools, "blow back" of one type or another may become the expected result. IMO, it doesn't have to be that way.

LMFAO. Yeah, and I'm sure 'claiming the land' was not at all the original intent. The claim by flag was meant just in humor.

But if they ever do figure out how to fuse H3 and the moon is a big moneymaking resource. . . . I'm not sure I want to be around to witness the kind of war that could happen over H3.

There may be pros and cons about mining Helium 3 on the moon. It would be a dangerous business if humans are involved. But until fusion with Helium 3 has been successfully done, it's all cons. The cost of space mining by nature is ridiculously expensive - filling balloons with extra light helium just won't put this business in the black.

The only thing that I would consider logical as an "international law" concerning the use of the moon would be to ban the use of the moon in advertisements. If we get to where we can move large amounts of ore through space, someone might also find a way to darken or blacken moon dust over a selected area until letters or pictures are formed that could be seen from earth, either by telescope or the naked eye. At that point it becomes "pollution" on earth.

"it would seem that we would need to know who owns the moon? Does it belong to the first one who gets there? "

Who's flag is that on there, baby!? At the very least we lay claim to the Sea of Tranquility!

Back in the dot com boom, a friend told me about a company he had worked for that built up a number of software products that represented the company's intellectual property. When the dot com went bust the company went bankrupt. When the writing was on the wall, the management of the company formed another company and bought up the best of the IP. Then they started again.

No, it's not right. The Investors should be the owners of the property or at least compensated rather than managers sneaking in and grabbing it. Maybe there should be laws or something to stop this. But it does happen and it is what it is.

'Unprincipled Leaking' will still be protected.

Suits: Hello. We're from the EPA. Afraid your spaceflight launch will need to be cancelled indefinitely. Apparently it will be coming in contact with the moon's atmosphere and our public sources from Slashdot and elsewhere have identified it as being, "extremely tenuous and fragile".

NASA: But it's the moon! It's not earth!

Suits: [smiles] Now. Now. You knew this was going to happen. Just because it's the moon doesn't mean that the regulatory arms of the US government can't reach. If your rockets can reach it - why so can we. And since the atmosphere is fragile and tenuous, it may also harbor a similarly fragile and tenuous ecosystem.

NASA: Ecosystem?

Suits: Yes! Ecosystem. You engineers need to show a little more imagination. Think a little more outside the box. But we're quite certain that with the small number of atmospheric molecules around the moon, the percent pollution from a few rockets would be horrendous! Anything that might possibly be living would be affected. Eventually, it would get Maia upset.

NASA: Who is Maia? Someone in your office?

Suits: Uh, Maia is a half finished idea. We thought it would be nice to have a Gaia for the moon, so we changed the 'G' to an 'M' for the moon, see? Now we have Maia.

NASA: So when can we launch?

Suits: Now you're getting it.

Agreed. And I'm not going to judge Bradley Manning on his personal life one way or another. Attacks and slander on a person's sex life seem to always come up when someone goes against big people. Assange himself seems to have also (what a coincidence!) been accused of perverted behaviour. But far as judging what Manning did in releasing classified files, all sides seem to agree that he did it because in his conscience he felt the stuff had to be exposed. And who did it hurt. . . . really? The people who had decisions that were morally or ethically dark they wanted to hide. Ooops!

With no previous history on this before now, plus holding him for several years, naked, with torture - - - do they have anything they could use against him (ie. blackmail)? To get this kind of confession from him after being sentenced makes little sense. And if the army were to say he had gender emotional problems before he was sentenced. . . . well if that is the case, why did they hire/put him in such a sensitive position? A lot of stuff doesn't make sense here.

I've put this in once already - and it appears to have gotten taken out for some reason. interesting. Here it is again. . . a full quote from Bradley Manning to the president, asking for a pardon. Doesn't sound like the same person. Here is a quote you might not have seen: "When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission." Manning's statement, in full:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.

It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.

We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.

I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

Actually, I heard that the following statement was made by Bradly Manning and picked up by the Associated Press. He made it to the President in a request for a pardon. In my opinion, these two statements don't sound like they came from the same person. With as much embarrassment and/or trouble as the Bradley Manning case has caused the government, adding a little spicy twist on the story in the end doesn't sound unlikely.

Associated Press — FORT MEADE, Md. — The text of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s statement that will be sent to the president, as read by defense attorney David Coombs following Manning’s sentencing Wednesday, below:

--------

Manning's statement, in full:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.

It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability. In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.

I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

It runs slower.

That's right! And if they saw something naughty going on from a TV in a bedroom, I'm very thankful no security analysts who work in Our Country would ever watch that sort of stuff while on the job! Whew! Man, if those kinds of people worked at the NSA, heck, they could copy it to YouTube or something for a laugh. Then you or someone you know might run into it.

"Hey, NSA, How'd that video of me and 'XXX' get on YouTube?"

"Sorry Citizen, that's National Security. Stop asking questions. "

One of their top executives got to be one of Obama's advisors. Then, as things got competitive in the power plant industry in Texas, they built a plant nearby in Mexico. And wouldn't you know it, federal regulations approved by said advisor forced American power plants out of business but didn't bother the new GE plant(s).

But no, I didn't say that and forget how it sounds. They were really only just trying to help the environment.