JamesHackerMP

Geeze, dude: one flaw doesn't create a banana republic. Your PM is practically a dictator compared to a U.S. president. Yes, I said it. That's the flaw in the Canadian parliamentary constitution. But it's one you have to live with in order for parliamentary democracy to function. You see? You must take the good with the bad. That doesn't make a banana republic, it just means the constitution was written by human beings. Those who live in glass houses, etc.

A flaw in a constitution doesn't make a country a banana republic, Wilber. Seriously, you're being a little jingoistic.

It also keeps an executive branch in power WITHOUT the legislative (parliament) to restrain it.

We're not a banana republic. We have federal/state constitutions with some flaws in them. Name one country that doesn't. And if you say Canada, I'll reach for the bottle of maple syrup.

Americans would find that a constitutional flaw. But it's one you have to live with in a parliamentary democracy, just as a lame duck Congress/legislature is a flaw you have to live with in a presidential one.

I have to agree with you there. But that doesn't sound like something that can happen (to my limited knowledge) under my state's constitution. And there's nothing in the federal constitution that would allow Congress to do to an incoming president what MI and WI did to their incoming executives. It's obviously a flaw in those state constitutions that needs to be repaired. Every constitution has stuff in it that they didn't think about, flaws that need to be fixed, and so forth. Before calling the United States a "banana republic" I'd look around a little more, first.

It's due to the fact that the president cannot "dissolve" Congress before the election (or a governor cannot dissolve the state legislature). The legislative branch does not go out of existence just because there's an election. If it did, it would give too much power to the presidency (or governorship of a state). The flaw of course is that it leaves a "lame duck" legislature/Congress in power. Some states have done things to their constitution to prevent this, some haven't. At the federal level, the President can only call the lame duck Congress back into session if there's an important matter to attend to. (But he cannot actually tell them what to do once they're sitting). As for the states, I guess it varies from one state to another. Nonetheless, he could possibly abuse the privilege.

May I ask, does the Canadian constitution specifically ban gerrymandering? I'm wondering how Canada hasn't fallen into the same trap. Not everything is written into a constitution that is good or bad. Sometimes it's a matter of what the politicians choose to do, so I'm wondering if this has been a choice by Canadian politicians not to gerrymander or whether it's something in your constitution.

And another topic turns into a troll-fest.

Welcome to the topic, James. Do you own a telescope? (doesn't matter if you don't; we're just talking astronomy here.)

I've never understood why we arm Egypt like that. Most Americans don't.

Sure, no problem lol

Kickass! I've only seen Mars a couple of times through my telescope. Even under 150-ish magnification it's very very small. Rather disappointing. I think you have to get used to viewing it to really get what it looks like.

japan is armed to the teeth, believe it or not, but they never participate in wars. The constitution forbids the use of War "as an instrument of foreign policy".

No, you're wrong about that Altai. You might want to look up the US Japan Mutual Security Treaty, for starters. There are plenty of foreign interests in Japan. We practically rebuilt them after the war, under the watchful eye of Gen. MacArthur, the American Shogun. Also, not all terrorism in the world is created by the United States. Sorry.

Amazing! One wonders how far away we are from a colony. I think the people who have so far reserved "seats" on a potential Martian mission are jumping the gun, though.

Thats going awfully fast! Do they use some sort of technique like the "aerobraking" in 2010?

So there's always the possibility of contamination? Sux. But I'm sure there are ways a probe could see through the ice at its thinnest portions, so we would not have to drill through. One of the better threads I have started! (Probably more interesting than a discussion on parliamentary democracy I'll admit lol)

Aren't our space probes made in a "clean room" so that that sort of thing doesn't happen?

OK, something must have smacked into it. It's a different material. Anywho, back to Titan & Europa. But before we proceed, have any of you observed Neptune or Uranus in your 'scopes?

I think a probe descending to Europa would get more support. There's the possibility of life in its ocean, supposedly. That would make (at least a few) congressmen say "ooh, neat" who might usually balk at the kind of mission they're proposing to Titan. But either mission would yield scientific paydirt, I'm sure. Not to change the subject, but what about Iapetus? What is on Iapetus that causes one side to be extremely bright and reflecting, the other, to be dark? I was wondering about that. In "2001" the book it was a reflective surface put on there by aliens around the big monolith. I'm wondering what it was in reality that causes the bright/dull effect depending on its position around Saturn. Wait a sec, maybe I should look it up on Wikipedia LOL. I'm such a lazy bastard. I'll get back to y'all.

I've read a bit about Titan. I've also seen the documentary The Farthest voyager in Space about the Voyager mission, and they mention Titan. They said it was like looking at the Earth as it was billions of years ago, before life started to transform the atmosphere. Too bad all I can see through my telescope is just a tiny point of light, basically all anybody could see before the Voyager probes. I think Cassini-Huygens extensively photographed Titan in several fly-bys.

Have any of you seen or read 2010?

That would be cool if there really were life forms under the ice of Europa!

These are some amazing shots! I've been wanting to get a wide-angle lens, someone suggested that some objects are easier to see with them, particularly larger ones like the Andromeda Galaxy (so I am told). Pity the human eye cannot see the color in most of them. Any other accessories I ought to get? I have a small selection of different-powered lenses (which are parfocal so I don't need to refocus). They're the celestron X-cel series. It shoudl magnify at most 200x, but that I understand is contingent upon atmospheric conditions. I have a light pollution reduction filter, though that's not as necessary where I live as it would be closer to Baltimore or Washington. I have a lunar filter that has only gotten a little bit of use. The thing about my Nexstar is making the thing track once I have an object centered I want to keep it on. I don't know why, really.