Close, but not quite there. The problem is in turn around, not plane vilume. Pay clsoe attention to road races and PD vents. You'll get a feel for what can be done with good turnaround.
Part of that problem is the size of the planes. Smaller planes can get in and out faster. It is ridiculous to have a 747 sitting there waiting for people to board, then the people waiting for the plane to finish, and then finally take off --- when the passenger count is much less than half the capacity. Look back to the planes used in the WTC and Pentagon events. They were cross-country flights on large planes with a few dozen passengers.
Backups do nto happen when you have large numbers of planes, they happen when you have planes taking up the limited terminal resources. The longer the plane sits in a terminal getting refueled, loaded with people and cargo, getting food stores replenished, etc. the more backups you will have.
Further, smaller planes means we can use more airports; move away from the hub-spoke model. This is a form of load balancing, really. The "problem"
you claim of people wantign to go direct to their destination is actually the solution to the clogged hubs.
I've been told I'm crazy for predicting the re-emergence of small planes as the main personell air transportation method. But it is happening in Europe and it is starting to happen here as well. Remember that many of the big airlines were on the verge of bankruptcy BEFORE 9/11.
A wonderful side benefit is that smaller planes are less of a flying missile than larger ones. Further decentralizing of the air transportation system will lead to greater security of it as a network, and us since there is far less appeal to hijack the planes in the first place. The reason we don't see as many attacks as some would imagine is due to the terrorists wanting/needing "big ticket shows".
Controlling airplane traffic at an airport is a far simpler problem than trying to control automotive traffic on the streets.
so many PCs are sold with Linux but a pirated version of Windows quickly replaces it, etc.
And of course the opposite and more common thing to see is how many PCs are bought with a horked up Windows that is immediately replaced with a nice (legal) copy of Linux.
[obligatory "flame"] But you probably don't want to talk about that half, eh?;) [/obligatory "flame"]
Not to mention the number of OSX machines that are purchased for the HW; the OSX is immediately wiped and replaced with Yellow Dog. Or the dual boot OSX/Linux systems (about 3/4ths of the OSX machines I personally know of have had one of these two done to them).
As far as "debunked" the article you reference only says "This happened in 2003". It said that IDC placed Linux in number 2 in 2003. It didn't debunk the claim, merely said instead that it was "old news":
So, Fink doesn't get the satisfaction of watching his product push Linux past the Mac into the mainstream (because it's already there), but at least we Mac users get to revel in the fact that we're now so fringe we could pass for David Crosby's jacket.
As far as GZ, no it can't be trusted as "the best" measure since so many of the Open Browsers (and Opera) can be told tolie about what they are and what they are running on; and many do to get around stupid you must use this browser to access" javascripts. Another point against them is the use of tools that query google for you. This, too can skew results.
Each of those have already been done. Hell I haven't used a non-graphical tool to configure a printer in a couple of years. When I bought my digital camera I discovered the command line tools far after starting with the graphical tools.
In fairness, they are talking about a 30 day timeframe. According to all the complaints I heard from those in typing classes, 50 WPM in 30 days on a typewriter QWERTY layout is an accomplishment.
It is possible that after 60 days you may be to 65, and after a year you might be near 100WPM. I'd like to see longer use studies. They could send me one to try out, and I'd be happy to report my findings in a year.;)
Of course, whether they can actually get average joes to get 50WPM in 30 days is another matter.
Reading the page it says (and looks like) it is designed to be held by the pressure of two palms (or rest on the edges of the inner hand), not your fingers. Like the difference between gripping a coconut by the husk, and a basketball by the uhhh basketball.
As a supplemental control system it should serve various niche uses well. Those niches being gaming, laptop, console game systems, and those of us who like to kick back w/o being tied to a laptop or PC via keyboard cable.
Of course, it has to do all this w/o special drivers. Site is starting to slow down.
I don't see it as a replacement, but as another peripheral input device.
"You'd think that someone who is the spokeperson for the Patent Office would know the difference between discovered and invented."
as humorous as that comment is, it can (and has) be convincingly argued that there is no difference. The principles which underlie very "invention" exist prior to their "discovery" by an "inventor".
All an inventor does is to discover these principles. Indeed, this is one of the fundamental flaws of the modern concept of "intellectual property". The fact that on many, many occasions two people in different parts of the world w/no knowledge of the other (and thus their work) have come with the same thing (in many cases even exact duplicate implementations), is a testament to that.
As such the idea that any of us "create" something we call "intellectual property" and then have a moral right to prevent others who do that from benefiting from hard work is patently absurd (hehe).
It is one thing to copy another's work. But the idea that two people independently discover principles of the universe and whomever gets to the government office first gets to bar the other from reaping their rewards is quite another.
Accepting a license constitutes a contract. A "fishing license" is not a license in the sense the GPL. A fishing "license" is a permit.
Your analogy also fails in that a fishing license does not grant you the right/authority/permission to fish in *any* pond. The GPL grants you the right to use *specific" code.
Downloading a song for a trial listen it is not illegal. Many big commercial sites do this. The person offering MIGHT be in violation, but the person downloading it would not be. (US only, YLMV).
Actually, there are plenty of sue-for-specific-performance judgements in contract law. Further, the compensation you offer in exchange for use of the copyrighted material (the source) is your code. Therefore, a judgement forcing performance under the license is NOT unreasonable; it is just enforcing payment as agreed.
I have never heard of a copyright infringer being forced to lose rights to other IP of their own.
Have you ever heard of suing for contract enforcement? It's the otehr side of the coin. Most people look at ways to sue for endign of contract, but you can equally sue to enforce the conditions. That means you CAN sue to make the infringer abide by the license.
Have you ever heard of someone agreeing to pay XX amount of money for [access to source code], refusing to pay, and then being forced to pay up? Same thing.
The wording of the GPL actually (IMO) defines damages for failure to abide by it. By accepting the license (by using the code to create derivative works), you agreed your payment would be the modifications/derivative works code. At that point you are legally performing work for contract. The only thing that is different is the form of currency.
Additional damages could in fact be determined in teh case of "used for years" you mention; if it could be shown that your failure to abide by the terms of the license hampered the continued development.
Further, releasing the source code after "years" of not doing so, does not in fact absolve your violation of the license. yuou can in fct e fined for the time you did not abide by the licesne. just as if you agreed to pay 15K for access/use of the code and refused to do so for 2 years. If you do this only after refusuing to do so and getting a suit filed against you, you have provided clear evidence you had no intention of abiding by the licens, and liable for punitive awards by the courts.
If the plaintiff agrees to drop teh suit when you abide by it, that is their choice. They are otehrwise entitled to sue for damages -- whtever that may be. I ti snot hard to imagine reasonable damages.
Consider the case of a conmpany developing and relaeasing the source to a product under the GPL. You take that code, make certain changes and violate the GPL, making money from it. It coudl be shown (theoretically) that your violation of the license caused a drop in sales of the original product. It could also be shown that had you followed the agreement, the original company would ot then had to have spent more money to develop the modifications independently. In either case, they would have grounds for damages suit, regardless of the eventual releasing of the code to comply with the license.
in the end, GPl is merely a lciense, just as any "proprietary" license is. All actions that can tke place in the case of a violation of an NDA-type agreement are fully available in the case of a GPL violation. it just happens that in the cases so far, payment of some sort in exchange for the plaintiff's legal fees combined with source code release have been sufficient for those bringing the suit. That may not always be the case.
The GNU project was a good idea with a good mission, but specifically calling it "GNU's Not Unix" really backfired on them in this aspect because Unix as we know it today is now more popular than it's ever been among both geeks and the corporate world.
Which of course expains why LINUX is growing at the expense of UNIX. It also explains why UNIX companies are using LINUX in places they previously would have used their own proprietary version of UNIX in. It also explains why LINUX is in more homes than UNIX is (knowingly and unknowingly).
Ah yes the old "wasted vote" scam. You know what a "wasted vote' really is? One that is cast but not cast for whom the person wants to.
I live in Idaho, a state that has voted for Republican presidents for so long it's just assumed it will in the future. The margin is so wide that you can vote for eith Bush or Kerry and I could argue you wasted your vote. How so?
Easy.
Vote for Bush: yeah you and 80% of Idaho, big deal.
Vote for Kerry: yeah you and the other 20% that are not making a difference in who receives Idaho's few electoral votes.
So, voting for Kerry here is just as much of a "wasted vote" as anyone else.
Over half the states have similar situatuions. That's why they talk about teh "battelground states". You know what they mean? States that MIGHT vote one way or the other, they can't figure out which yet. If you do not live in one of these states, I can argue effectively that your vote is wasted by voting for either Bush or Kerry. After all, your state is a foregon conclusion.
Texas? Republican. New York? Democrat. California? Democrat Idaho? Republican.
The list goes on.
As far as voting AGAINST soemone in a "anybody but" scenario, history shows us that when that happens, the guy you get (if you change who wins) is usually worse.
What exactly would change Kerry Vs. bush? Who gets taxed changes. That's pretty much it. You see, what little difference there is comes down to "Which hand do you want chopped off, right or left?".
If you think Bush is responsible for the economic cyle, and that Kerry will make things right, you are dead wrong -- he can't. Those are not things a president has control over.
If you think Kerry will take us out of Iraq, you are dead wrong. So he claims he can get the help of the UN. Guess who makes up the majority of UN forces? Yup; we do. That is assuming he can; a mighty big assumption.
The terrorists decapitating people in Iraq will continue to do so even with the UN in charge. Why? It seems to be working for them. Those countries and companies that are capitulating to their demands wil continue to do so. That means these countries will not support the UN doing it either. Which means more US troops.
Indeed, given history with the UN, we would have *more* troops involved than we do now.
Voting on an "anybody but bush" idea is a wasted vote. Not voting, is a wsted vote (in the purest sense even). Voting for one party over the other on the mistaken idea that it will stave off the other, is a wasted vote in the vast majority of states.
Money doesn't make starships that can travel 3.5 light years in a reasonable time and ship construction. No wonder you've no clue what is being talked about. Building a starship is one thing. Building one that can travel the kind of distances you are talking about in a resonable amounts of time is a wholly different scenario. You need technology for that, not throwing money into a sink hole.
True, I don't find sending a probe to a remote star system that will not return data for at least 50+ years as exctigina as advancing technology through actually going places. Look at history. You'll find that advances in travel have always occured due to actually travelly places, not by sitting around and thinking about it until you conme up with the ideal situation.
You can fantasize about the rest of us wanting wormholes and warp drives, but it is pointelss, and inaccurate. I'm talking basic chemical reaction proulsion here. A few years to travel to Mars is reaonable. Indeed, I'd be happy to spend several years getting there, a couple years there, and a few years getting back. 50+ to the nearest start system is not reasonable to people who are looking to do more than sit at a computer and play explorer. I don't know what game you are talking about, I'm talking reality. Guess that's the primary difference here. You keep insisting on going to fantasy references as strawman arguments.
You've certainly changes you mind. You've gone from saying humans shouldn't explore because: "robots do more science" (robots simply gather data, and less than an in situ human can) to "ok so humans can do more but robots are cheaper" (only in short term , long term they are more expensive; and when comnpared by capabilities they are more expensive) to "Saturn is more novel" (by your own definition it isn't) to "it's more exciting to me personally".
If you'd have just said that in the first place instead of making up a bunch of fallacious arguments (mainly straw men and ad hominems) we'd all have had a much better time.
Putting people on Mars on a long term basis provides a means for more extensive exploration, both of Mars and for near Mars, or outer solar system exploration. Growing an industrial base on Mars capable of producing most of the components and materials needed for further explorations. Mars' gravity well is smaller and easier to get out of than Earth's. Deep space probes are more practical there. Due to lighter gravity, less stress would be put on probes, meaning they don't have to be built strong enough to escape 1g. Lighter probes can travel faster or further under power. (the same could be said of LEO, but there are other issues there --namely space construction).
Oh, and since you made a little stink about typographical errors... it is Churchill, not Chirchill.;) And check your comma usage in this one: I am not saying that putting people on Mars is a Fantasy, its certainly possible, obviously, just not as exciting to me, personally, as sending a probe to another star system.
Grammatically speaking, there are far too many commas in there.
And as I've said, I don't use the 15th century explorers analogies, I don't think they are appropriate. They didn't know where they were going, or what they'd face. We do.
Either way, 3 humans on Mars under the system referenced will accomplish more in 18 months than a dozen probes in that same time. They'll obtain a better knowledge of the geology, geography, and available resources (as well as other things) than the probes are capable of. By building the infrastructure in that way, future manned missions can get even further.
Oh and if you don't know what the costs are in space exploration, maybe you shouldn't say which method is cheaper.
But glad to know you think we already know all there is we need to know about Mars. That sure explains a lot. Exploring another world in th
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but not quite there. The problem is in turn around, not plane vilume. Pay clsoe attention to road races and PD vents. You'll get a feel for what can be done with good turnaround.
Part of that problem is the size of the planes. Smaller planes can get in and out faster. It is ridiculous to have a 747 sitting there waiting for people to board, then the people waiting for the plane to finish, and then finally take off --- when the passenger count is much less than half the capacity. Look back to the planes used in the WTC and Pentagon events. They were cross-country flights on large planes with a few dozen passengers.
Backups do nto happen when you have large numbers of planes, they happen when you have planes taking up the limited terminal resources. The longer the plane sits in a terminal getting refueled, loaded with people and cargo, getting food stores replenished, etc. the more backups you will have.
Further, smaller planes means we can use more airports; move away from the hub-spoke model. This is a form of load balancing, really. The "problem"
you claim of people wantign to go direct to their destination is actually the solution to the clogged hubs.
I've been told I'm crazy for predicting the re-emergence of small planes as the main personell air transportation method. But it is happening in Europe and it is starting to happen here as well. Remember that many of the big airlines were on the verge of bankruptcy BEFORE 9/11.
A wonderful side benefit is that smaller planes are less of a flying missile than larger ones. Further decentralizing of the air transportation system will lead to greater security of it as a network, and us since there is far less appeal to hijack the planes in the first place. The reason we don't see as many attacks as some would imagine is due to the terrorists wanting/needing "big ticket shows".
Controlling airplane traffic at an airport is a far simpler problem than trying to control automotive traffic on the streets.
so many PCs are sold with Linux but a pirated version of Windows quickly replaces it, etc.
;)
And of course the opposite and more common thing to see is how many PCs are bought with a horked up Windows that is immediately replaced with a nice (legal) copy of Linux.
[obligatory "flame"]
But you probably don't want to talk about that half, eh?
[/obligatory "flame"]
Not to mention the number of OSX machines that are purchased for the HW; the OSX is immediately wiped and replaced with Yellow Dog. Or the dual boot OSX/Linux systems (about 3/4ths of the OSX machines I personally know of have had one of these two done to them).
As far as "debunked" the article you reference only says "This happened in 2003". It said that IDC placed Linux in number 2 in 2003. It didn't debunk the claim, merely said instead that it was "old news":
So, Fink doesn't get the satisfaction of watching his product push Linux past the Mac into the mainstream (because it's already there), but at least we Mac users get to revel in the fact that we're now so fringe we could pass for David Crosby's jacket.
As far as GZ, no it can't be trusted as "the best" measure since so many of the Open Browsers (and Opera) can be told tolie about what they are and what they are running on; and many do to get around stupid you must use this browser to access" javascripts. Another point against them is the use of tools that query google for you. This, too can skew results.
They corrected that, and IIRC offered a replacement. Looks like you misse dout on that quite a while ago.
Each of those have already been done. Hell I haven't used a non-graphical tool to configure a printer in a couple of years. When I bought my digital camera I discovered the command line tools far after starting with the graphical tools.
In fairness, they are talking about a 30 day timeframe. According to all the complaints I heard from those in typing classes, 50 WPM in 30 days on a typewriter QWERTY layout is an accomplishment.
;)
It is possible that after 60 days you may be to 65, and after a year you might be near 100WPM. I'd like to see longer use studies. They could send me one to try out, and I'd be happy to report my findings in a year.
Of course, whether they can actually get average joes to get 50WPM in 30 days is another matter.
Reading the page it says (and looks like) it is designed to be held by the pressure of two palms (or rest on the edges of the inner hand), not your fingers. Like the difference between gripping a coconut by the husk, and a basketball by the uhhh basketball.
Read the linked features page. It is "gripped" between the palms of the two hands, not like you grab your ... joystick.
If the game controllers were like that long term console gaming would be far less painful.
They don't have to if the connector is USB.
As a supplemental control system it should serve various niche uses well. Those niches being gaming, laptop, console game systems, and those of us who like to kick back w/o being tied to a laptop or PC via keyboard cable.
Of course, it has to do all this w/o special drivers. Site is starting to slow down.
I don't see it as a replacement, but as another peripheral input device.
"You'd think that someone who is the spokeperson for the Patent Office would know the difference between discovered and invented."
as humorous as that comment is, it can (and has) be convincingly argued that there is no difference. The principles which underlie very "invention" exist prior to their "discovery" by an "inventor".
All an inventor does is to discover these principles. Indeed, this is one of the fundamental flaws of the modern concept of "intellectual property". The fact that on many, many occasions two people in different parts of the world w/no knowledge of the other (and thus their work) have come with the same thing (in many cases even exact duplicate implementations), is a testament to that.
As such the idea that any of us "create" something we call "intellectual property" and then have a moral right to prevent others who do that from benefiting from hard work is patently absurd (hehe).
It is one thing to copy another's work. But the idea that two people independently discover principles of the universe and whomever gets to the government office first gets to bar the other from reaping their rewards is quite another.
"That reminds me, this morning, I... my breakfast. "
...
You sick
Combined Plush Tank & Manhole
Ok just WTH is that supposed to be?
Accepting a license constitutes a contract. A "fishing license" is not a license in the sense the GPL. A fishing "license" is a permit.
Your analogy also fails in that a fishing license does not grant you the right/authority/permission to fish in *any* pond. The GPL grants you the right to use *specific" code.
but have you had *full* city-wide coverage. That's the point. Judging by the coverage maps, no you don't.
It still beats dial up. Just because you and I have brioadband, does not mean everyone does.
besides, for this and VoIP, you can fully eliminate your local phone company. For many, this is a Really Big Deal(tm).
If you are stuck in an apartment complex w/really old and crappy phone lines, this 256 will kick arse.
Downloading a song for a trial listen it is not illegal. Many big commercial sites do this. The person offering MIGHT be in violation, but the person downloading it would not be. (US only, YLMV).
Actually, there are plenty of sue-for-specific-performance judgements in contract law. Further, the compensation you offer in exchange for use of the copyrighted material (the source) is your code. Therefore, a judgement forcing performance under the license is NOT unreasonable; it is just enforcing payment as agreed.
No, it just means they were likely not applicable to the case in question.
I have never heard of a copyright infringer being forced to lose rights to other IP of their own.
Have you ever heard of suing for contract enforcement? It's the otehr side of the coin. Most people look at ways to sue for endign of contract, but you can equally sue to enforce the conditions. That means you CAN sue to make the infringer abide by the license.
Have you ever heard of someone agreeing to pay XX amount of money for [access to source code], refusing to pay, and then being forced to pay up? Same thing.
The wording of the GPL actually (IMO) defines damages for failure to abide by it. By accepting the license (by using the code to create derivative works), you agreed your payment would be the modifications/derivative works code. At that point you are legally performing work for contract. The only thing that is different is the form of currency.
Additional damages could in fact be determined in teh case of "used for years" you mention; if it could be shown that your failure to abide by the terms of the license hampered the continued development.
Further, releasing the source code after "years" of not doing so, does not in fact absolve your violation of the license. yuou can in fct e fined for the time you did not abide by the licesne. just as if you agreed to pay 15K for access/use of the code and refused to do so for 2 years. If you do this only after refusuing to do so and getting a suit filed against you, you have provided clear evidence you had no intention of abiding by the licens, and liable for punitive awards by the courts.
If the plaintiff agrees to drop teh suit when you abide by it, that is their choice. They are otehrwise entitled to sue for damages -- whtever that may be. I ti snot hard to imagine reasonable damages.
Consider the case of a conmpany developing and relaeasing the source to a product under the GPL. You take that code, make certain changes and violate the GPL, making money from it. It coudl be shown (theoretically) that your violation of the license caused a drop in sales of the original product. It could also be shown that had you followed the agreement, the original company would ot then had to have spent more money to develop the modifications independently. In either case, they would have grounds for damages suit, regardless of the eventual releasing of the code to comply with the license.
in the end, GPl is merely a lciense, just as any "proprietary" license is. All actions that can tke place in the case of a violation of an NDA-type agreement are fully available in the case of a GPL violation. it just happens that in the cases so far, payment of some sort in exchange for the plaintiff's legal fees combined with source code release have been sufficient for those bringing the suit. That may not always be the case.
The GNU project was a good idea with a good mission, but specifically calling it "GNU's Not Unix" really backfired on them in this aspect because Unix as we know it today is now more popular than it's ever been among both geeks and the corporate world.
Which of course expains why LINUX is growing at the expense of UNIX. It also explains why UNIX companies are using LINUX in places they previously would have used their own proprietary version of UNIX in. It also explains why LINUX is in more homes than UNIX is (knowingly and unknowingly).
and get 53 different answers.
1 from IBM and Novell and 52 from SCO.
Well it goes without saying that there is quite a ssmall probability for a card to get nailed somewhere.
/. readers...
Sounds like most
You can even make an autopatch program that will patch djbdns during make so that dumb users can handle the process
... but you did say "dumb users". ;)
Assuming that people have compilers, make, etc. on their production servers
Wouldn't large amounts of DNS traffic look suspicious? Especially if they originated from one machine.
Only if someone or something is checking for it.
Ah yes the old "wasted vote" scam. You know what a "wasted vote' really is? One that is cast but not cast for whom the person wants to.
I live in Idaho, a state that has voted for Republican presidents for so long it's just assumed it will in the future. The margin is so wide that you can vote for eith Bush or Kerry and I could argue you wasted your vote. How so?
Easy.
Vote for Bush: yeah you and 80% of Idaho, big deal.
Vote for Kerry: yeah you and the other 20% that are not making a difference in who receives Idaho's few electoral votes.
So, voting for Kerry here is just as much of a "wasted vote" as anyone else.
Over half the states have similar situatuions. That's why they talk about teh "battelground states". You know what they mean? States that MIGHT vote one way or the other, they can't figure out which yet. If you do not live in one of these states, I can argue effectively that your vote is wasted by voting for either Bush or Kerry. After all, your state is a foregon conclusion.
Texas? Republican.
New York? Democrat.
California? Democrat
Idaho? Republican.
The list goes on.
As far as voting AGAINST soemone in a "anybody but" scenario, history shows us that when that happens, the guy you get (if you change who wins) is usually worse.
What exactly would change Kerry Vs. bush? Who gets taxed changes. That's pretty much it. You see, what little difference there is comes down to "Which hand do you want chopped off, right or left?".
If you think Bush is responsible for the economic cyle, and that Kerry will make things right, you are dead wrong -- he can't. Those are not things a president has control over.
If you think Kerry will take us out of Iraq, you are dead wrong. So he claims he can get the help of the UN. Guess who makes up the majority of UN forces? Yup; we do. That is assuming he can; a mighty big assumption.
The terrorists decapitating people in Iraq will continue to do so even with the UN in charge. Why? It seems to be working for them. Those countries and companies that are capitulating to their demands wil continue to do so. That means these countries will not support the UN doing it either. Which means more US troops.
Indeed, given history with the UN, we would have *more* troops involved than we do now.
Voting on an "anybody but bush" idea is a wasted vote. Not voting, is a wsted vote (in the purest sense even). Voting for one party over the other on the mistaken idea that it will stave off the other, is a wasted vote in the vast majority of states.
So you don't understand the difference between
... it is Churchill, not Chirchill. ;) And check your comma usage in this one:
Money doesn't make starships that can travel 3.5 light years in a reasonable time
and ship construction. No wonder you've no clue what is being talked about. Building a starship is one thing. Building one that can travel the kind of distances you are talking about in a resonable amounts of time is a wholly different scenario. You need technology for that, not throwing money into a sink hole.
True, I don't find sending a probe to a remote star system that will not return data for at least 50+ years as exctigina as advancing technology through actually going places. Look at history. You'll find that advances in travel have always occured due to actually travelly places, not by sitting around and thinking about it until you conme up with the ideal situation.
You can fantasize about the rest of us wanting wormholes and warp drives, but it is pointelss, and inaccurate. I'm talking basic chemical reaction proulsion here. A few years to travel to Mars is reaonable. Indeed, I'd be happy to spend several years getting there, a couple years there, and a few years getting back. 50+ to the nearest start system is not reasonable to people who are looking to do more than sit at a computer and play explorer. I don't know what game you are talking about, I'm talking reality. Guess that's the primary difference here. You keep insisting on going to fantasy references as strawman arguments.
You've certainly changes you mind. You've gone from saying humans shouldn't explore because:
"robots do more science" (robots simply gather data, and less than an in situ human can)
to
"ok so humans can do more but robots are cheaper" (only in short term , long term they are more expensive; and when comnpared by capabilities they are more expensive)
to
"Saturn is more novel" (by your own definition it isn't)
to
"it's more exciting to me personally".
If you'd have just said that in the first place instead of making up a bunch of fallacious arguments (mainly straw men and ad hominems) we'd all have had a much better time.
Putting people on Mars on a long term basis provides a means for more extensive exploration, both of Mars and for near Mars, or outer solar system exploration. Growing an industrial base on Mars capable of producing most of the components and materials needed for further explorations. Mars' gravity well is smaller and easier to get out of than Earth's. Deep space probes are more practical there. Due to lighter gravity, less stress would be put on probes, meaning they don't have to be built strong enough to escape 1g. Lighter probes can travel faster or further under power. (the same could be said of LEO, but there are other issues there --namely space construction).
Oh, and since you made a little stink about typographical errors
I am not saying that putting people on Mars is a Fantasy, its certainly possible, obviously, just not as exciting to me, personally, as sending a probe to another star system.
Grammatically speaking, there are far too many commas in there.
And as I've said, I don't use the 15th century explorers analogies, I don't think they are appropriate. They didn't know where they were going, or what they'd face. We do.
Either way, 3 humans on Mars under the system referenced will accomplish more in 18 months than a dozen probes in that same time. They'll obtain a better knowledge of the geology, geography, and available resources (as well as other things) than the probes are capable of. By building the infrastructure in that way, future manned missions can get even further.
Oh and if you don't know what the costs are in space exploration, maybe you shouldn't say which method is cheaper.
But glad to know you think we already know all there is we need to know about Mars. That sure explains a lot. Exploring another world in th