Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 259

Thread: Musings of an old man....

  1. #201
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    So, I was thinking, humanity has been looking at the stars for a few hundred years now. By now we should have a pretty good grasp of how the universe is constituted, I.e. what all materials basically exist and what everything is made of. We also have a good idea how stars are formed, how planets come together, how left over stuff exist thru out the solar system and galaxy. Basically, we really aren't going to gain any material benefit from finding out what a particular asteroid is made of. We might send more probes to Mars to see if there is any signs of ancient life having existed there, but really, what material benefit would we get from it? As far as that goes, would knowing it now or twenty years from now change anything?

    What I'm saying is that everything we are doing right now is just adding to "book knowledge", but nothing practical to humanity on a whole. Billions of dollars just to add a couple of bits of info to the text books, when we basically know most of the answers. Isn't it time we changed things up and put that money to good use?

    Why don't we take all that money we spend sending out probes and put it into a program to start putting man out into space?

    Start out with an Earth surface to low orbit crafts, like envisioned by Reaction Engines Ltd, and their Skylon ship; a reusable ship like the shuttle, but capable of hauling increased tonnage into orbit. Build an assembly plant and habitation facility in orbit. Then use that facility to build a ship capable of ferrying enough material to the moon, with personnel to construct a basic moon base. Then just keep using that ship, and build others, to ferry more material and personnel to the moon. Begin to mine the moon for material to fabricate infrastructure on the Moon, and to send back to Earth.

    At the same time, start up a program, like the Troy project of Reaction Engined to send exploratory crews to Mars to survey for best sites to colonize on Mars. Once we have the Moon progressing nicely, and a permanent colony supply raw materials to Earth, and a respectable transport fleet, plus the expertise of colonizing a foreign planet, we can implement the next step by going to Mars and founding a permanent presence/ colony there.

    How long would this take? We aren't doing nothing now, so at this pace it will take forever. So if it takes 25 years to get to Mars, is that not a better schedule than never getting there?

    By the time we are making Mars and Moon part of a permanent part of humanity's home, we should be well fixed to keep moving out to other planets or their moon's.

    Of course, we can't depend on NASA/government to do this, so it would be up to private enterprise to get it done...at least till the crooks in D. C. saw the profits in it and had to jump on board.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  2. #202
    Senior Member jet3534's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West VA
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    So, I was thinking, humanity has been looking at the stars for a few hundred years now. By now we should have a pretty good grasp of how the universe is constituted, I.e. what all materials basically exist and what everything is made of. We also have a good idea how stars are formed, how planets come together, how left over stuff exist thru out the solar system and galaxy. Basically, we really aren't going to gain any material benefit from finding out what a particular asteroid is made of. We might send more probes to Mars to see if there is any signs of ancient life having existed there, but really, what material benefit would we get from it? As far as that goes, would knowing it now or twenty years from now change anything?

    What I'm saying is that everything we are doing right now is just adding to "book knowledge", but nothing practical to humanity on a whole. Billions of dollars just to add a couple of bits of info to the text books, when we basically know most of the answers. Isn't it time we changed things up and put that money to good use?

    Why don't we take all that money we spend sending out probes and put it into a program to start putting man out into space?

    Start out with an Earth surface to low orbit crafts, like envisioned by Reaction Engines Ltd, and their Skylon ship; a reusable ship like the shuttle, but capable of hauling increased tonnage into orbit. Build an assembly plant and habitation facility in orbit. Then use that facility to build a ship capable of ferrying enough material to the moon, with personnel to construct a basic moon base. Then just keep using that ship, and build others, to ferry more material and personnel to the moon. Begin to mine the moon for material to fabricate infrastructure on the Moon, and to send back to Earth.

    At the same time, start up a program, like the Troy project of Reaction Engined to send exploratory crews to Mars to survey for best sites to colonize on Mars. Once we have the Moon progressing nicely, and a permanent colony supply raw materials to Earth, and a respectable transport fleet, plus the expertise of colonizing a foreign planet, we can implement the next step by going to Mars and founding a permanent presence/ colony there.

    How long would this take? We aren't doing nothing now, so at this pace it will take forever. So if it takes 25 years to get to Mars, is that not a better schedule than never getting there?

    By the time we are making Mars and Moon part of a permanent part of humanity's home, we should be well fixed to keep moving out to other planets or their moon's.

    Of course, we can't depend on NASA/government to do this, so it would be up to private enterprise to get it done...at least till the crooks in D. C. saw the profits in it and had to jump on board.
    Radiation is the issue. NASA had an RFP on the street years ago for radiation shielding for a Mars trip. They probably got no responses to this RFP.

  3. #203
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Happy Easter to one and all.

    For those of you having bacon and eggs this morning, remember to give thanks that Jesus was a Christian and not a Jew ...otherwise you couldn't eat bacon today. This proves that Jesus not only saved our souls, but He also saved our bacon.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  4. #204
    Senior Member JTHunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,322
    N/A - I don't believe the Moon could ever be a self-sufficient base as there is probably too little water there. Even if they use a nuclear reactor for power and use that power to break down the little water there to O2 & H2, supplies are limited and finite, even more finite than oil on Earth. Also, with no atmosphere, cosmic rays and meteoroids would be a severe hazard, even if the Moon residents live in the underground lava tubes.
    Mars wouldn't be much better but it does have a slight atmosphere that would limit the smaller meteoroids. Humans might not have to live "underground" as on the Moon but any habitat would need to be covered with Martian "soil", much like we make earth-sheltered homes here. There is also more water on Mars but combined with other chemicals like perchlorate that would need to be separated. Mars gravity would also be more comfortable and better for human bones.
    “I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted. The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American’s guarantee of freedom.” - - President Harry S. Truman, “Years of Trial and Hope”

  5. #205
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    No place humans first explored and colonized made them self-sufficient in the begining. It took many years. It will be the same in space.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  6. #206
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    No place humans first explored and colonized made them self-sufficient in the begining. It took many years. It will be the same in space.
    But, on earth, the resources were there. They were mostly unusable because either human technology wasn't advanced enough to use them then, or there were too few people to spare for their gathering them.

    On the moon or Mars, technology won't be much of a problem, but whatever resources are there would be too limited no matter how many people try to find and use them.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  7. #207
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Bah humbug!! No wonder the statist are winning. No one has the spirit any more.
    Geeze,......
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  8. #208
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    Bah humbug!! No wonder the statist are winning. No one has the spirit any more.
    Geeze,......
    Sometimes, realty sucks.....but we keep moving on regardless....
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  9. #209
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Yeah, but your idea of "reality" is not realistic. Do some research on it; see what has been proposed and thought about.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  10. #210
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    Yeah, but your idea of "reality" is not realistic. Do some research on it; see what has been proposed and thought about.
    What is unrealistic about having too few resources to sustain a certain level of population? If the resources are not there, they can't be created out of thin air.

    If there are enough resources and population hasn't advanced far enough technologically to use those resources, then the population will remain fairly static until people develop the technology to gather them and put them to use.

    With unlimited resources, the population is unlimited. If any necessary resource is limited, then the population is limited, too.

    Look at Africa. They have vast amounts of resources, but they lack the technology to gather them and use them. That's why they have to rely on other countries' aid to sustain what growth they have. Before White men came, they were able to meet their needs with the resources, however limited they were by today's standards, they had. They survived on their own. Their populations were stable and in balance with their resources. Now, their population far exceeds the resources they can gather. This leads to misery, disease, and death.

    The resources are there, but they can't use them and they are living well above the balance of their technological advances.

    Resources can be gathered only if their are there in the first place. The moon and Mars do not have to resources needed to create a viable human colony. If humans do travel and set up colonies on these places, then they are going to have to import vast amounts of resources to sustain them.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  11. #211
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    You're lacking any imagination.
    To colonize any place, you first have to explore it, map it, discover what resources it has and what you need. Then you have to accept that you have to invest a lot of labor and wealth to get infrastructure built to continue the colonizing/settling. We can't go up and have an independent colony on the Moon in two years; it will take time and investments.

    If this nation wasn't fighting everyone else's wars, wasn't giving handouts to everybody, we would have enough to colonize the Moon, Mars and anywhere else we wanted go. Along the way, as time went by, we would also be advancing technology, making space travel cheaper, easier and more profitable.

    There's water on the Moon and Mars. There's "dirt" on the Moon that could be improved to make "soil" which would be the foundation for building green houses. There's plenty of things on the Moon to sustain a colony. We don't have to build a New York City up there, just a colony big enough to run a space port as a jumping off point for farther travel into space.
    One of the things I read recently said the biggest obstacle to space travel was getting a ship off Earth with enough fuel to get it to go somewhere and come back. With a space port on the moon to refuel ships, a ship/rocket would only need enough fuel to get off Earth and to the Moon. The fuel saved would mean more cargo could go up, replacing the weight saved by needing less fuel.

    There's nothing technology impossible about moving into space. Just the will to do it.

    We can't just say there's not enough resources on the Moon to sustain a colony, as we have no idea of just what is on the Moon. It's like Columbus coming back after his first voyage and saying we can't go back because there is no gold there. He had no idea what was or wasn't in the new world. We are in the same boat as concerns other places in space.

    The reason we haven't gone back is because we've wasted all our resources on wars and handouts.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  12. #212
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    You're lacking any imagination.
    Nope, you're wrong here.

    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    To colonize any place, you first have to explore it, map it, discover what resources it has and what you need. Then you have to accept that you have to invest a lot of labor and wealth to get infrastructure built to continue the colonizing/settling. We can't go up and have an independent colony on the Moon in two years; it will take time and investments.

    If this nation wasn't fighting everyone else's wars, wasn't giving handouts to everybody, we would have enough to colonize the Moon, Mars and anywhere else we wanted go. Along the way, as time went by, we would also be advancing technology, making space travel cheaper, easier and more profitable.

    There's water on the Moon and Mars. There's "dirt" on the Moon that could be improved to make "soil" which would be the foundation for building green houses. There's plenty of things on the Moon to sustain a colony. We don't have to build a New York City up there, just a colony big enough to run a space port as a jumping off point for farther travel into space.
    One of the things I read recently said the biggest obstacle to space travel was getting a ship off Earth with enough fuel to get it to go somewhere and come back. With a space port on the moon to refuel ships, a ship/rocket would only need enough fuel to get off Earth and to the Moon. The fuel saved would mean more cargo could go up, replacing the weight saved by needing less fuel.
    You'd save more fuel by just putting a space station in space and launch from there. Why go 240,000 miles when 1,000 miles would be easier? The ship wouldn't need to go to the moon to refuel. Saves time and money.

    Now, if you just want to go back to the moon to explore it, then that's something else entirely. Maybe they would find the resources to sustain a colony there, but to go to the moon as a jump off point into deeper space isn't necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    There's nothing technology impossible about moving into space. Just the will to do it.

    We can't just say there's not enough resources on the Moon to sustain a colony, as we have no idea of just what is on the Moon. It's like Columbus coming back after his first voyage and saying we can't go back because there is no gold there. He had no idea what was or wasn't in the new world. We are in the same boat as concerns other places in space.
    Maybe, maybe not. At least with Columbus, whether he found gold on his first trip, or not, is irrelevant. He knew people could live there because people were living there. Actually, they had a larger population than most European countries had at that time. So, it wasn't a matter of gold or no gold; it was a matter of colonizing the New World. He knew it could be done because people had already found enough resources to sustain life. Gold was only one resource and it wasn't one of the necessities for life. Actually, the Indians used gold more for ornamentation and cookware, than for anything really valuable. It was too soft and heavy to use as weapons and a blade made of gold didn't hold an edge very long. The Indians were far more interested in the metal tools and weapons the Europeans brought with them.


    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    The reason we haven't gone back is because we've wasted all our resources on wars and handouts.
    Can't argue that point.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  13. #213
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    If you refule at a space station, then you will burn up fuel getting to the same orbit the moon is in, which means your fuel supply is already deplenished to a degree. If you refuel at the Moon, or in orbit of the Moon, then you leave with a full tank.

    Moving on to other mudane things ....

    There are a few nations whose name ends in 'land'. Greenland, because it was green with foilage many years ago. Iceland, because it's frozen everywhere. Take the Irish: they are a surly, grumpy, irritable, mad fuckers. Thus we call their nation Ire(land). Even the State of Maryland, named after Mary, Queen of Scots. For that matter, all those Scots live in Scot(land).

    So, knowing these "lands" we named after something, tell me, WTF is an Eng, or a new/old Zea? And what did they name the 'Fin' after?
    Things that make you go hmmmm?




    If, as some people day, chili doesn't have beans, only meat, then why do we have chili con carne? Much like we stipulate chili con queso for adding cheese, we say chili con carne for adding meat.
    It's understood that frijoles are not added to "red" chili, according to the International Chili Assoc., or something. Regular chili has beans



    Want to leave your guns to your kids when they die, but don't want a record of it for the government to see? Don't leave them in a will for probate court to file. Give them to your kids before you die. No muss, no fuss.


    Move along now
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  14. #214
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    If you refule at a space station, then you will burn up fuel getting to the same orbit the moon is in, which means your fuel supply is already deplenished to a degree. If you refuel at the Moon, or in orbit of the Moon, then you leave with a full tank.
    Actually, no. The moon has 1/7 the gravity of the earth. A space station has 0 gravity.

    To leave the moon, you burn fuel to get away from the moon's gravity (even though it's not as much as the earth's).

    To leave a space station, you only need enough fuel to move it on its course to Mars, or wherever. So it uses less fuel to get it on its way.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  15. #215
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    No, it still has to leave Earth's gravity, and burn fuel to obtain the higher orbital altitude the moon is in. It will burn the same amount of fuel to get there. The Moon is in Earth's gravity also. Weird as it may sound to you, it is far better to go only with enough fuel to reac the Moon, thus not having to power a full load of fuel up to that distance. Then, fill up on fuel and go from higher orbit and have a weaker pull of Earth's gravity.

    You can burn up a quarter tank of fuel getting to the higher orbit and keep going with only three-quarters a tank of fuel, or you can save fuel by launching with less fuel, and thus less weight and then fill up with fuel at the higher orbit. Thus you can leave with a full load of fuel, not three-quarters load.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  16. #216
    Senior Member Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    345
    Astrophysics. Could a post human species evolve technology to construct a computer simulation within we live?

  17. #217
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    https://medium.com/teamindus/why-lau...s-30bba878e9d8


    Going from the Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) requires a delta-v of 9.4 km/s. A further delta-v of 3.2 km/s is required if the spacecraft has to free itself of the Earth’s gravity well. Notice that the Moon exists in the outer part of the Earth’s gravity well.

    Combined with the Moon’s low gravity, the delta-v required to escape the Earth’s gravity well from the lunar surface is just 2.64 km/s, which is even less than what is required from LEO.
    Last edited by N/A; 04-22-2019 at 11:43 PM.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  18. #218
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    11,620
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    Moving on to other mudane things ....

    There are a few nations whose name ends in 'land'. Greenland, because it was green with foilage many years ago. Iceland, because it's frozen everywhere. Take the Irish: they are a surly, grumpy, irritable, mad fuckers. Thus we call their nation Ire(land). Even the State of Maryland, named after Mary, Queen of Scots. For that matter, all those Scots live in Scot(land).
    It's the exact opposite. When the Scandinavians went exploring, they landed in Greenland first. Since Greenland is little more than a massive ice sheet, they kept exploring and came to Iceland, which had a much milder climate and plants.

    When they discovered this, they decided to make sure no one else would be interested in coming to their new homeland, so they pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes ever created on a map. They decided to name the frozen land, Greenland, and they one with the nicer climate, Iceland. This would fool any other explorers as they would go to Greenland first and discover it was covered with ice. Then, they figured if the map makers had called this land Greenland, one had to wonder how cold Iceland had to be. So, they stayed away from Iceland.

    The Scandinavian's joke worked and Iceland was left alone. Icelanders didn't have to worry about any explorers or invaders after that.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

  19. #219
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    https://www-thevintagenews-com.cdn.a...and-iceland%2F


    Ever wondered why Greenland, three-quarters of which are covered by the only permanent ice sheet outside Antarctica, has in its name the adjective “green”? On the other hand, Iceland, consisting of the words “ice” and “land,” seems a bit too green to live up to that name.

    Well, one internet theory claims that this was indeed intentional―the



    https://relay-nationalgeographic-com...rom%20%251%24s

    Thus, Iceland was named by a sad Viking and Greenland is the slogan of a medieval marketing scheme.

    The Facts
    Over 80 percent of Greenland is covered in ice, but its grass was probably greener back in the summer of A.D. 982, when Erik the Red first landed in the southwest of the island. Sheep and potato farms still flourish in that same southwestern corner of Greenland, which sits at a more southerly latitude than neighboring Iceland.

    Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped. Lower temperatures meant fewer crops and more sea ice, forcing the local Norse population to abandon their colonies.
    Last edited by N/A; 04-23-2019 at 04:15 AM.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  20. #220
    Senior Member JTHunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,322
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    No, it still has to leave Earth's gravity, and burn fuel to obtain the higher orbital altitude the moon is in. It will burn the same amount of fuel to get there. The Moon is in Earth's gravity also. Weird as it may sound to you, it is far better to go only with enough fuel to reac the Moon, thus not having to power a full load of fuel up to that distance. Then, fill up on fuel and go from higher orbit and have a weaker pull of Earth's gravity.

    You can burn up a quarter tank of fuel getting to the higher orbit and keep going with only three-quarters a tank of fuel, or you can save fuel by launching with less fuel, and thus less weight and then fill up with fuel at the higher orbit. Thus you can leave with a full load of fuel, not three-quarters load.
    If the space station were to be put at one of the LaGrange Points, it would NOT have to contend with the Earth's gravity, just the Sun's.
    Last edited by JTHunter; 04-23-2019 at 10:29 PM.
    “I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted. The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American’s guarantee of freedom.” - - President Harry S. Truman, “Years of Trial and Hope”

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •