Slashdot Mirror
Remote Operated Aircraft Targets Hurricanes
burnin1965 writes "Usually news articles about remote operated UAVs involve blowing people up. NASA's application takes a different path and uses the utility of the aircraft for scientific research that will benefit humanity. I haven't read much about NASA's Global Hawk lately, but they have been busy providing up-close access to the recent string of hurricanes."
Finally?
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Now we'll have HAL on Earth. Yay.
Just wait until Stuxnet infects these things ..
fucktard! they are used for surveillance, firefighting, search and rescue and humanitarian missions besides sending ragheads to Allah!
Remote operated UAVs? As opposed to all the manned ones?
You forgot to add that the 8 corners of the timecube are false.
This post clearly shows that Slashdot is doomed. My Karma be damned for posting this. Someone had to say it, and if it results in a down vote (or whatever it is here) then, well so be it.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
They gather data that gets blended with numerical models to aid in track and intensity prediction, which provide quite a significant benefit to humanity.
Saving a few lives when 100x as many die every year to massive overpopulation?
The overpopulation problem seems to be fixing itself then.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
How does that provide "quite a significant benefit to humanity"? It provides some insight, sure. But it does not do what you claim it does.
Four! Four corners! What are you, educated stupid?
Yes, better warnings for hurricanes benefits nobody.
Sure, it benefits somebody. Just not humanity.
Exactly how many individuals does something have to benefit before you consider it beneficial to humanity?
Don't pay him any mind. Everyone else gets it, and he probably does too. He's just pretty much arguing and questioning it for the sake of douchebaggery.
By that logic, the fire department should just shut down. The lives and property they save are just a drop in the bucket.
your post made me think of this xkcd post:
http://xkcd.com/174/
you both forgot to add that you're both afraid, no demeaning retort intended.
Come on, NASA, let us queue up for 30 seconds of access to a live feed with the ability to move/aim/zoom the camera and fire a paintball! Charge for it and make millions!
You're a dumbass who has no comprehension of the subject, yet feels the need to announce his ignorant-pissed opinion to the world. Google hurricane prediction or something or some shit like that it shouldn't take you too long to figure it out.
Damn straight.... because there are 4 corner days 4 quads; cubic time cubes. That's 16 corners, not 8.
The 16 corners are the one true number.
4 days rotating simultaneously within a single rotation of earth. [sic]
etc etc etc [paraphrasing timecube.com]
The (former) little aussie that could :) - they have since been bought out by Boeing (Insitu).
Aerosonde has been doing it for a while, hence aero-sonde. I believe they started doing crazy weather stuff some time before they were the first UAV to cross the Atlantic in 1998.
The University of Colorado and University of Nebraska have been doing this to target severe thunderstorms for awhile. http://tornadochaser.colorado.edu/
Presently, Mississippi politicians have larded up the hurricane hunter fleet in Biloxi, MS.
The use of drones could eliminate the need for putting pilots and crew in harms way and shut down an over-expensive program. Its time the government began investing in technologies that will save money rather than just protecting political pork.
How can stopping hurricanes be a good thing? How do we know what adverse effects could occur if we interfered? Imagine we stopped volcanoes? Like all things natural; when we try stop them; something worse replaces them!
best xkcd ever!
The fire department doesn't claim it's benefiting humanity.
Check a dictionary sometime.
Again, the point is it's not cool or doesn't provide us with information. The point is that it does NOT benefit humanity. The utter amount of stupidity around here is shocking. As if my comprehension on the subject at all affects the utter misuse of a word. It makes me sad to see people dogging someone about their stupidity when they all seem to fail at comprehending English.
Here's a hint: If you find that everybody is doing something wrong and you're the only one who gets it right, that probably doesn't mean it is they who are wrong.
"Majority gets it wrong" is not proof that I am wrong. Welcome to logical fallacies as well. I really hope you enjoy failing at everything.
It clearly benefits humanity in the 2nd & 3rd meaning of the word. As for the 1st, that's a subjective call as to how many people need to benefit, and by how much, before it's a collective benefit.
How does it clearly benefit human nature and kindness? Throwing 'clearly' in front of something does not make it clear.
giving someone advance warning of an oncoming storm qualifies as kindness. I'm sincerely sorry if that is not clear to you.
Once again, advanced warnings may be kind. But it does not benefit humanity.
Once again, how many people need to be helped before you consider it a benefit to humanity? All of them? There's people who have never had antibiotics so you would not call antibiotics benefit to humanity?
Antibiotics help everyone and have the potential to help everyone. Advanced warnings of hurricanes do not. Apples and oranges, bro. Apples and oranges.
It is not proof, but it is a pretty strong indicator. Nobody was trying to build a logical proof.
It's not even a strong indicator. There are plenty of things MOST people get completely wrong.
Advance warning of storms are just like antibiotics in that they only help those who receive them when needed. Which is not everyone. But the more who do receive help, the greater the benefit to humanity. Which was kind of the point of my original pointed question, so this is getting tedious.
We're talking about the potential advanced warning of hurricanes and the prediction of their path. These impact very few people and those who would greatly benefit from this knowledge (those who lose homes and lives to them) are an even smaller and almost insignificant percentage of the population of this planet.
Contrast that with bacteria which affect EVERY single person on this planet. In most, bacteria even result in disease and sickness, and the availability of antibiotics to most people in the world benefits just about everyone. Your argument hinges on these not being readily available to most people but for instance a bar of antibacterial soap is incredibly cheap and lends itself a lot to the prevention of disease. Further, for those that cannot afford ingested antibiotics to fight off serious infection, the availability of antibiotics to them would almost certainly prove effective.
Now consider the absolute availability of predictive information for hurricanes. This information, even if totally pervasive and given for free to every single individual on the planet, would still benefit very few people. By your logic, it will greatly benefit humanity for our governments to make it illegal to inhabit areas hit hardest by hurricanes.
You were correct about a single thing: this is getting tedious.
Or so you like to tell yourself, rather than admit you're on the losing side of an argument.
What is this, 5th grade debate? "You're losing the debate" is not a valid argument in your favor, nor is it even factually correct. Try again. Your argument so far is "because people get it wrong, and you got it right, you must be wrong." Maybe you should think about that for a little while.
Wow, man. You're really getting into this. Is this a sensitive topic for you? Do you need a hug, sweetie?