|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 28, 2006 3:31:59 GMT -4
I think I would go t o Canada, since I have relatives who had succes stories of work there, and they tell about the goodness of the Canadian people. The only barrier would be cold weather. Althaugh I prefer Canada, this isn't to say that other relatives haven't had good experiences in Brazil. Actually huge number of Lebanese (9 million) went to Brazil, which is far exceeding the 4 million living here. Their life and buisness is very good, but I think Canada is more modern. Although I would not call any part of Canada "warm," there are some places where the climate is not harsh, such as Vancouver. But I consider Canada a very modern, pleasant, prosperous place, and it has been at or near the top of the UN Human Development Index rankings for a lot of years. . .
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 28, 2006 2:45:22 GMT -4
I did get a job outside of my homeland, in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 26, 2006 16:03:14 GMT -4
not to hizbollah and the Lebanese ppl. Hizbollah denounced the 9/11 attacks. The intended meaning of my statement was, no matter who you are, there exists someone else who thinks you are a terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 26, 2006 15:33:05 GMT -4
you should have understood that I am against terror from both sides, but it is not fair to claim all ppl of a certain race as terrorists while they are being killed and slaughtered. We're all terrorists according to someone. By the way, where have you been? You don't seem to participate a lot in the forum I went walkabout for a while. Not sure how long I'll be back. Arguing with moon hoax people stops being fun real fast, though. . .
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 26, 2006 9:35:54 GMT -4
Well, I figured I'd come through here for a little calm and fact-based discussion. Not being able to find any, I took a look at this thread instead. But, to the point: Why, the one whose political objective you do not support, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 20, 2006 22:19:30 GMT -4
What hapened to Bughead? He appars as "guest" now... Pete I was wondering that also... N
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 12, 2006 10:59:49 GMT -4
Definitely hate speech. Freedom of the press wasn't meant to protect expression of ideas with which someone might disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 5, 2006 7:16:34 GMT -4
We have the issue here that the missions were at different times, over a 20-something year period. So statistics such as X out of Y astronauts from space shuttle missions have died of other causes are going to be pretty hard to interpret; for some in the sample, that reflects a 20-year survival rate, for others, it reflects a 3-year survival rate.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 4, 2006 8:00:20 GMT -4
[If you are, let's say, 45 and in good health, your chances of dying in the next two years are much, much lower than one in ten. N. I think you misunderstood the death rate statistics. The are not fractions they deaths per 1000. So 10 is not 1 in 10 it's, 10 in 1000 or about 1% According to the more up to date statistics the rate in the US has fallen to 8.25 or 0.825% Len Actually, I had it right when I read the statistics, I just had a brain cramp when I typed the above statement. It should be immediately obvious that one in ten people do not die every year in the US. But in any event, the idea remains - the astronauts are not randomly chosen people from the general population, they are people presumably in good health and in an age bracket where there chance of dying is much lower than that of the general population. Just a quick and dirty calculation from life insurance rates suggests to me that for a good section of the age bracket from which astronauts are chosen, the probability of death would be less than 1 per 1000. N
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 3, 2006 10:48:33 GMT -4
But, to continue that logic, if it makes sense to quit the US space program (to go from 18 to 15,) it makes sense to move to Japan (to go from 15 to 10). Well, first, astronauts are not immune to other causes of death. Second, astronauts are drawn from a population that (apart from spaceflight accident) has a much lower chance of dying than the total population. I'm guessing if you're 80 years old with a history of heart disease, NASA probably doesn't want you... Regarding moving to Japan, that's one possible explanation for the results, but it's not the only one. The statistics may reflect a different age structure, for example; if you are at the median age in one country, and you move to another, your age doesn't change to be equal to the median age in the new country (well, maybe it does, depending on what the ages are and how long you take to get there...). It's not obvious that people moving from the US to Japan would automatically increase their life expectancy, at least not from this statistic. Agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 3, 2006 10:40:10 GMT -4
That is what the numbers suggest. If you are an American why not be an astronaut your chance of dying in the next 2 years are the same as dying in a mishap. Well, if you are an American who doesn't know how old s/he is, or what his/her health status is, that would be the case. If you are, let's say, 45 and in good health, your chances of dying in the next two years are much, much lower than one in ten. What's acceptable is subjective, so I don't see any point in debating that. But being an astronaut is bad for your life expectancy. If that's acceptable or not, each potential astronaut has to decide for him/herself. I certainly wouldn't characterize the risk as negligible, though.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 2, 2006 4:22:53 GMT -4
Here another way to look at it... There have been 992 people* launched into space, of which 18 have perished. This gives a death rate of about 18 per 1,000. Here are the annual death rates of some countries (1990 data): Japan...................10 United States........15 India.....................26 Nigeria..................43 * This is the total number of crew, not individuals. If one person flew twice, then this counts as two. This does support a claim that being a randomly selected astronaut for one mission entails less chance of dying than being a randomly selected person in India for one year. But, this is not the alternative fate of an astronaut who quits the space program... N
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 2, 2006 4:17:54 GMT -4
Bob B maintains a list of manned space flights here. Based either on proportion of missions or proportion of person-flights, you have about a 98% chance of returning from a space mission. Well as it would be a pretty rare scenario that only killed a part of the crew... Perhaps, but it is not inconceivable that missions with large crews might have a different mortality rate than missions with small crews, as different technologies support different crew sizes...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 4, 2006 7:26:14 GMT -4
MoonMan is a riot, stargazer is just a pain in the @$$. My lone vote for stargazer was anticipatory, as I thought he was going to have his Hiroshima moment very soon. But as he hasn't, I would like to switch my vote to MoonMan, but I can't... N
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 2, 2006 4:37:23 GMT -4
I bucked the trend and voter for stargazer, but that's largely based on my expectation that his meltdown will come soon, and will be a good one...
N
|
|