Hey! I maximize all my windows and have a desktop full of icons, you insensitive clod!
Of course, I do image and layout editing and printing for a living, and my desktop truly is a desktop workspace, with the files going back into their storage folders when a project is complete. It's much easier to visually organize like files for a publication on the desktop than from inside a bunch of file folders, kinda like how a jigsaw puzzle is much easier to finish by spreading the pieces on a table than pulling out a handful at a time from various drawers.
For anything technical or launching applications, I still use the start button, quick launch, and Windows key as much as the next guy.
"Fetch me pizza."
"Deposit my paycheck."
"Repair my credit."
"Get me laid."
If only we'd been focusing all our efforts on command line improvements instead of gui "improvements"; maybe we'd have evolved the commands above instead of given ourselves carpal tunnel.
I still use a Quick Launch toolbar I created, and an address bar toolbar I created to accept standard windows commands. There are 3 rows of 8 icons for the apps I commonly use, but the moment all 24 icons aren't visible, it's useless to me for exactly the reason you point out. Anything beyond that 24 just stays in the start menu (I could go to 4 rows but my taskbar is pretty tall as it is).
From a physical standpoint, it makes sense, too; my quick launch is on the lower right of my screen, next to my system tray, and the address bar is just to the left of that, which is good for right handed clicking or dropping a cursor into the address bar for a quick system search/command/web search. My start button is at the default lower left, so I do it all with a left handed stroke of the Win key. This is the most efficient way I've ever used Windows, and I love it.
While I see what you're saying, I don't think the basic sentiment was malicious. Conservatives typically do lean toward less governmental restrictions on businesses, and liberals typically do lean toward sanctions on businesses they perceive as taking advantage.
To be clear, both the conservative and liberal vantage points were extremist (admittedly, the conservative vantage point did have more words), which was used to drive the point home, which was "Politically neutral folk don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut."
I'm not going to deal with the technical or financial issues here, and there are many. Attempts to set up a self sustaining biosphere even here on nice, comfortable earth have failed, for one.
They're planning 2023 at the very earliest, not next week. It would be prudent, when funding this project, to insure proper production and testing is done prior to launch. While there are fewer people willing to take the risk as the probability of failure increases, there are people or are less risk-averse who'll still want to go. For me, the minimum benchmark would be being able to build a self-sustaining 1000 m3 quarters on earth (or underwater), testing contingency after contingency until I was certain repairs could be made on Mars when the inevitable problems arise, and in the case of impossible repairs, being able to fall back to a smaller section of the facility. Of course there's risk of total disaster, but there always is.
There's a big difference between jumping on a grenade to save your buddies and deliberately planning, preparing and setting off on a very elaborate journey knowing you are going to die miserably at the end of it.
I know for a fact that there are people willing to accept certain death for a good cause. Sometimes this decision is made over a long time (martyrs hanged at the end of a long imprisonment but refusing to renounce their cause, anyway) or it is a snap decision (grenade, drowning baby, raging inferno). History proves this over and over, but apparently you disagree, so I'll agree to disagree.
The above disagreement is irrelevant to a MarsOne debate, since guaranteed premature death in the project is (of course) not the goal of the mission. The goal of the mission is to send explorers to another planet to begin the very early stages of colonization. These explorers aren't planning their deaths any more than a soldier who goes on an extremely high risk mission is; they'll do everything they possibly can to try to survive and complete the project/mission. Since new astronauts will be arriving every 2 years, survival on Mars for just over 2 years is really the lowest benchmark of success.
If you're arguing that living on Mars for a year or 5 and then dying is a miserable death that nobody would choose; well, you're mistaken. I'd gladly trade earth years for mars years, at, oh... a ratio of 20 to 5. I don't fear a shorter lifespan, if I'm accomplishing more with less years., I've looked right into death's face too many times to still think 5 years is any shorter than 40. Death comes when it comes. As far as how crummy life on Mars would be; well, I already live in a miserable shit-hole, complete with Kardashians and Snookis and spam and traffic, and while I do alright for myself, I don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. The vast majority of us don't matter much.
At least if I go to Mars, I have a shot at creating something special and important and permanent; especially when you factor in being remembered as one of the 4 most important explorers that the human race has ever produced, for centuries and centuries. My point about the early explorers/emigrants is they were making this same trade. They didn't know if they'd survive the trip, didn't know what to expect when they got there, and very likely lived much shorter and less comfortable lives in their new homes than their old, yet the decision to risk it was the right one, for them.
Besides, we're talking about 1000 m3 facility, with all the work you could possibly ever want to accomplish laid out in front of you, with every moment being a moment you rely only on yourself for survival; not dumbass bosses or colleagues or doctors or lawyers. What kind of retarded rat in a maze would that NOT appeal to?
KNOWING for a fact you're not going to make it as a result of your decision is not the same as a high risk mission.
While you're correct in this, it's a matter of perspect
Uh. Yeah, I do sincerely believe the original post was an interesting, informative, amusing and mildly sarcastic jab at how both conservatives and liberals would view the settlement, followed by a pointed reference to the politically neutral crowd seeing this story as a complete non-starter. Girlintraining came through loud and clear for me, sans tag.
Right!? Geez, it's good to hear from another one of the non-existent people who'd have to be batshit insane or suicidal to want to do this. People just don't see the parallel that exploration into the unknown has NEVER been (or included the promise of survival).
Ah, but the freak free love hippie sex would totally make up for it.
Joking aside, I just don't get people's negativity toward this project. "You're sending them out to die!!!!" Uh, a) I'm gonna die HERE someday. b) it'd be pretty damn sweet to be the first dude buried on Mars, when you consider you're gonna die someday anyways. c - i) all those things you listed.
Well said. I have to wonder at all these comments poo-pooing the project. Are the the same dumbasses that yell "why'd you kill the space shuttle!" or "we need to get past LOE!" or "we have to get off this rock to save the species!"?
Either support the project, or don't, but at least it's a project with some sort of gameplan. Nobody's asking YOU to go OR fund the project, so shut up and let the men work.
Nobody sets out knowing they were going to die in the process except suicide bombers.
Right. Tell that to the guy who's buddy jumped on a grenade to save his life, or the family of a firefighter who dies trying to save a kid, or the father who continues to work in an unsafe coal mine or oil rig to support his family. People willingly risk (or even embrace) death for causes all the damn time. There are people who are willing to embrace the strong possibility of death - or living out the rest of their lives far from home with very slim to no chance of return - for a cause they believe in. We're all gonna die someday; why not do it on (or on the way to) Mars? Hell, I might consider it if I had the correct training and no family to need me here. There's something strongly appealing about being the first to do something, one who risks everything on the chance to do something that might truly matter in the millennial long run. Sure beats dying alone from a heart attack after one too many french fries.
Also, perhaps you've not read the project's FAQ? Here you go, if you haven't: http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en. The intent is for the first 4 explorers to hit Mars, set up a base with power, oxygen and water generation, set up a greenhouse for food, and pave the way for future landings in order to set up manufacturing facilities for further expansion. Sure, they're risking death with no immediate chance to come home, but they're not intending to just walk out the airlock and die the moment they land. From a "risking death" or a "never coming home" standpoint, how is this worse than sending a ship across an unmapped ocean to explore or colonize an unknown landing site an unknown distance away, under unknown conditions, hoping the provided provisions are enough to survive on until a self-sustaining system is set up? Just like so many amazing people have done throughout human history?
We've all gotten so used to puttering around a globe with very few frontiers left that we've forgotten what it's like to truly venture into the unknown. My original point stands: there's historical precedent for a certain type of people that would WANT to live out the rest of their lives on Mars, for it is a cause they believe in, so ethics are not in question.
http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/death.html is just one list of explorers who died while out and about, explorifying. What' more: that list doesn't include trips specifically intended to settle an unknown landing site (one-way), and, I'm sure, is not all-encompassing. On top of that, none of the exploration ventures I listed are "safe", meaning there were people looked death straight in the face and said "I'm going anyway." These are the type of people who'd sign up to go to Mars.
You may be arguing that many of these explorers intended to come home, but that really doesn't change much. Even in those cases, explorers knew not all of their men would come home, and the ones who survived wouldn't be back until years after they left, yet they (and their men) went anyway.
Regardless, my point is there are people who will do this willingly, and rather than seeing it as a death sentence, they'll see it as a chance to explore the unknown, facing dangers to break the trail for future explorers. Return trip and long term survival would be nice, but optional.
The ethics are actually pretty well set for this type of thing. People have been venturing into the unknown for millennia; the only differences this time are distance and the fact that we know exactly how inhospitable the destination is before we set out.
People have killed (or almost killed) themselves by traveling into the cold north/south, across oceans, into deserts, jungles, into tundras, up mountains, down canyons, under lakes, oceans, low earth orbit, the moon, etc.
Many of these early ventures were known to be one-way trips, but a tiny percentage of people will do it willingly in the name of exploration.
If it's a one way trip, then once they break orbit they have all they're gonna get.
Fixed that, a little, for ya. Even MORE of a reason to say "yeah, screw this, let's yank the cables, eat all our rations, have an end-of-the-world orgy, giggle about how nobody gets to watch us, and then go outside for a stroll. Let those dumbasses wonder what happened for decades."
Eh, I can see doing it to be the documented first, the one who pioneers the way, the guinea pig, one who advances the science. Though I'd have to a) convince myself and my family why this is important and worthwhile enough to justify the sacrifices involved (assuming it actually was worth it to me; it isn't), and b) my family would need to be set for life - college educations, annuities, etc for losing me. By accomplishing both of those things, you could actually improve the future for your family, their kids, grandkids, etc. Sorta like a dude that "accidentally" drives off a cliff to give the life insurance claim to his wife; but actually accomplishing something lasting, too.
While Mars would be orders of magnitude worse, justifying the trip isn't as much different from sailing to the "New World" as you'd think. Most of those dudes never went home, either, and the landing sites were NOT inherently hospitable, though they did, of course, have breathable air, flowing water, and allowed you to walk about outside of your transport vehicle. In one or two ways, the New World was actually worse; at least on Mars, there's (probably) not indigenous folk who are PISSED you're there, and regular communication with the homeland is possible.
All that said; yeah, a one-way space trip is a very tough pill to swallow.
Your lego people are also behaving pretty darned silly, killing each other for the Great Snapper's affections, pretending they'll grow up to shed their Lego and simply be people, if only they follow His 10 legommandments, and writing novels about how in the beginning the Great Snapper created the legoverse in precisely 6 minutes, and then afk'd for a bio during minute 7. Oh, and not all the lego men agree on who the Great Snapper is, or whether the great-lego-factory-in-the-sky is in Anaheim or Boston, so they kill each other for that too. And sometimes they kill each other because the Great Snapper could only be yellow, never black or white, oh, and they kill each other for chilling with the Duplos, an inferior block race that the Great Snapper snapped poorly out of punishment.
This is all a brilliant situation for the Great Snapper, since if the legomen were to start working together to advance their knowledge scientifically, they might eventually determine which factory the Legoman race originated from. This wouldn't do, as Great Snapper would then have to grumpily flush them all down the toilet and beg His mom to buy new ones, since He behaves like a 5 year old kid with ADD.
NOBODY can speak authoritatively about the creation of the earth, but many, many, many learned people can speak authoritatively about how old it is. There are infinite unprovable assertions your lego men could dream up about who created their plastic arms, but if legomen had the equipment and skills we do today, they'd certainly be able to determine how long they've had them. Besides, it's much better for the legomen to just be the happiest legomen they can be, advancing happiness and knowledge of the legoverse, instead of dreaming up thousands of years of nonsense about why and how the Great Snapper snapped their snaps so snappily.
You bring up a pretty good point. People *should* care about the distinction between evolution (the process), and creationism vs abiogenesis (the catalyst/beginning of the process).
If creationists wanted to argue that Mr. God:
-kicked the whole thing into high gear, setting into motion all the processes of existence, from gravity to attraction forces to evolution
-made these processes to follow observable and reliable patterns that we can experiment with and document
-allows for new data and theories to explain existence, instead of magically warping data and theory based on what the Bible or other lore says
-allows us to verify information through experimentation and the general scientific method, rather than forcing us to make leaps of faith or un-provable assumptions
-does not or cannot muck with the way existence works now, like a cosmic game of keep-away
-didn't set faith-based processes into play that muck with existence on His behalf
-set up the rules for existence, flashed out a big ol bang, and is now bound by those rules Himself
-is just chilling somewhere (maybe with a galactic beer?) watching his experiment unfold, but not actively modifying it supernatural ways
that's just fine with me. All of the above means we can discuss theory and facts without faith and belief getting in the way, ever, which is the major issue with anything supernatural. In regards to a scientific research, it's much easier for me to accept someone's belief that God created everything, but plays by the rules of his own game, than to accept someone's belief that God has the ability to screw with natural laws at His discretion, for reasons only He knows (incidentally: modifying 6000 year old dino-bones to look like they're hundreds of millions of years old, and placing them into tar pits to find later, is something I've gleefully done to bully my brothers when I was 12).
Unfortunately, all of this effectively removes God's supernatural abilities, making His existence irrelevant to our daily lives, so it probably means not many creationists are gonna want to take this stance. It seems that having an "all-powerful" god is somehow appealing; though why anyone would *want* this is something I don't understand, for the life of me.
The idea behind creationism stuff is relatively clever, in theory. It's almost an "if you can't beat em, join em" attempt. The idea is to get "God's Plan (TM)" all science-ified, in order to make friends of "creationism" and "science" instead of having them polar opposites.
In practice, though, the reasoning just falls apart pathetically with even rudimentary critical thinking.
While you're 100% correct, there is nothing wrong with providing access to the material. Remember; this kid is 8. I highly doubt he's concerned with how uncool Daddy is yet. I'd recommend he take his son to the local library (a fun event in any case) and let him pick out all the books that sound neat to him, but gently steer him to the science fiction area, too. This can be as easy as "Hey son, wanna see some of the books Daddy likes to read?"
Regarding selling kids on things: I agree totally that this isn't the right way to go. On the other hand, if there's interest in a project, there's nothing wrong with supplying some motivation when the going gets tough. My daughters both played soccer for a couple of years (at their choice, we found a list of summer programs they could take part in). At first, they didn't much like the practices; learning was hard, as was meeting new friends, getting up on Saturdays, etc. We went a few times, anyway, and they came to look forward to practices and games. One has moved on to ballet now, and the other decided karate was more her thing. I fully expect them to move on to other things many times in the future, too, and I welcome it; I have no vested interest in them doing any specific thing. I do try to instill a little bit of responsibility and pride in the things they want to do, though.
My kids ARE at that "You're embarrassing me, Daddy!!" age. I'm not allowed to hang out and watch practices, but I'm allowed to come to recitals and competitions. I'm not allowed to congratulate them for doing a good job (when did high-fives and fist bumps get uncool, anyway?) until we get a few blocks away. Yes, I'm a 'pretty cool dad', for the most part, but only because I save the mushy parenting stuff for home, and treat them like the young adults they want to be in public, so long as they earn that treatment. I'm young enough to remember what I wanted, and am willing to provide that, to a point.
I think that you're spot on with a parent experiencing what their kids want to do; I have no interest in doing any of these things myself, but it's fun because THEY love it. It's simply valuable to participate in projects as a family, whenever possible. The easiest way to tell if your kids have a spark of interest in a project you enjoy is to mention it, and then simply listen to them. Conversely, the fastest way to tell if your kid has lost interest with a project is when they pick a new one to replace it.
My kids still love playing video-games with me, and they like watching many of my geek TV shows on lazy Netflix Sundays, though they'd never admit it to their friends, and I'm ok with that. I only get 5 more years until college, so I'm taking what I can get.:)
To expand your point: Anybody that doesn't release the first generation of an item is playing catch-up. The catch-up game is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to bring something new to the table. Maybe a squishy keyboard will do it, maybe it'll be Aero, maybe it'll be price (doubtful; Apple has been masterful in convincing us $500 is cheap, and anything below $500 is shit). Maybe it'll be a free car with every purchase. Who knows?
Regardless, catch-up is competition, even if unsuccessful, and competition is always good for consumers. It's like watching chicks mud-wrestle for your affections; just because the blond arrives late doesn't mean it won't be just as fun.
This is the biggie. I would have happily tried out a Zune, but I already had 3 separate iPods in my house, and some shitty $10 chinese knockoff thing for my youngest daughter. My family knew how the iPods worked, had iTunes finally set up the way they wanted, and were happily destroying duplicates and jamming out.
I wanted to try a Zune, I really did, but I didn't want to buy one online, and my local retailers wouldn't let me see a demo... so I said screw it. I'm sure many folks were in a similar spot, and then seeing how silly the product was becoming (nearly a meme) made me give up on it completely.
I do remember a big ad campaign for a couple of months, actually, but what folks needed was to poke at it, like we could with an iPod before purchasing. Apple certainly did that right, seeding their shops and tossing out iPods like they were candy, just so people could see the damn things. To this day, I haven't seen a real, live, out-of-the-box Zune (and in likelihood, never will).
I wonder if there are other uses for this technique:
"You were spotted leaving the scene of the crime! What have you stolen and hidden away, thief!?"
"I am unable to tell you or anybody else that information, officer, because it would violate the victims' privacy. I mean, what if I stole 14 dildos? Sick! But see? Then you'll know it's sick, and someone might be embarrassed about all those dildos I may or may not have taken from an alleged panty drawer. Of course, it's natural to assume I stole somewhere between 0 things and all the things ever, inclusive, but since you can't pin it to an exact number or even what kinds of things, let's just call it good. You can trust that the potential loss of items I may or may not have stolen won't be a problem for the possible previous owners."
"What the fuck are you talking about?"
"Privacy, of course. Shhhhhh..... whelp, anyways, we've clearly established there's nothing to see here, so I'll be moving along. I gotta go steal another indeterminate number and type of things now. Gonna be working tonight? Great! I may or may not have stolen the coffee I'll bring in for ya."
Well, this is all balanced out by FEMA, which only spies on a hole in the sand, and the DOJ, who's spy, Justice, cannot see. I figure that, once all agencies completely are averaged out, the government can look right at my big, sweaty, hairy ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! I maximize all my windows and have a desktop full of icons, you insensitive clod!
Of course, I do image and layout editing and printing for a living, and my desktop truly is a desktop workspace, with the files going back into their storage folders when a project is complete. It's much easier to visually organize like files for a publication on the desktop than from inside a bunch of file folders, kinda like how a jigsaw puzzle is much easier to finish by spreading the pieces on a table than pulling out a handful at a time from various drawers.
For anything technical or launching applications, I still use the start button, quick launch, and Windows key as much as the next guy.
"Fetch me pizza."
"Deposit my paycheck."
"Repair my credit."
"Get me laid."
If only we'd been focusing all our efforts on command line improvements instead of gui "improvements"; maybe we'd have evolved the commands above instead of given ourselves carpal tunnel.
I still use a Quick Launch toolbar I created, and an address bar toolbar I created to accept standard windows commands. There are 3 rows of 8 icons for the apps I commonly use, but the moment all 24 icons aren't visible, it's useless to me for exactly the reason you point out. Anything beyond that 24 just stays in the start menu (I could go to 4 rows but my taskbar is pretty tall as it is).
From a physical standpoint, it makes sense, too; my quick launch is on the lower right of my screen, next to my system tray, and the address bar is just to the left of that, which is good for right handed clicking or dropping a cursor into the address bar for a quick system search/command/web search. My start button is at the default lower left, so I do it all with a left handed stroke of the Win key. This is the most efficient way I've ever used Windows, and I love it.
Sounds like you'd better duck then, or he's gonna blast the hydrogen right off your face.
While I see what you're saying, I don't think the basic sentiment was malicious. Conservatives typically do lean toward less governmental restrictions on businesses, and liberals typically do lean toward sanctions on businesses they perceive as taking advantage.
To be clear, both the conservative and liberal vantage points were extremist (admittedly, the conservative vantage point did have more words), which was used to drive the point home, which was "Politically neutral folk don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut."
I'm not going to deal with the technical or financial issues here, and there are many. Attempts to set up a self sustaining biosphere even here on nice, comfortable earth have failed, for one.
They're planning 2023 at the very earliest, not next week. It would be prudent, when funding this project, to insure proper production and testing is done prior to launch. While there are fewer people willing to take the risk as the probability of failure increases, there are people or are less risk-averse who'll still want to go. For me, the minimum benchmark would be being able to build a self-sustaining 1000 m3 quarters on earth (or underwater), testing contingency after contingency until I was certain repairs could be made on Mars when the inevitable problems arise, and in the case of impossible repairs, being able to fall back to a smaller section of the facility. Of course there's risk of total disaster, but there always is.
There's a big difference between jumping on a grenade to save your buddies and deliberately planning, preparing and setting off on a very elaborate journey knowing you are going to die miserably at the end of it.
I know for a fact that there are people willing to accept certain death for a good cause. Sometimes this decision is made over a long time (martyrs hanged at the end of a long imprisonment but refusing to renounce their cause, anyway) or it is a snap decision (grenade, drowning baby, raging inferno). History proves this over and over, but apparently you disagree, so I'll agree to disagree.
The above disagreement is irrelevant to a MarsOne debate, since guaranteed premature death in the project is (of course) not the goal of the mission. The goal of the mission is to send explorers to another planet to begin the very early stages of colonization. These explorers aren't planning their deaths any more than a soldier who goes on an extremely high risk mission is; they'll do everything they possibly can to try to survive and complete the project/mission. Since new astronauts will be arriving every 2 years, survival on Mars for just over 2 years is really the lowest benchmark of success.
If you're arguing that living on Mars for a year or 5 and then dying is a miserable death that nobody would choose; well, you're mistaken. I'd gladly trade earth years for mars years, at, oh... a ratio of 20 to 5. I don't fear a shorter lifespan, if I'm accomplishing more with less years., I've looked right into death's face too many times to still think 5 years is any shorter than 40. Death comes when it comes. As far as how crummy life on Mars would be; well, I already live in a miserable shit-hole, complete with Kardashians and Snookis and spam and traffic, and while I do alright for myself, I don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. The vast majority of us don't matter much.
At least if I go to Mars, I have a shot at creating something special and important and permanent; especially when you factor in being remembered as one of the 4 most important explorers that the human race has ever produced, for centuries and centuries. My point about the early explorers/emigrants is they were making this same trade. They didn't know if they'd survive the trip, didn't know what to expect when they got there, and very likely lived much shorter and less comfortable lives in their new homes than their old, yet the decision to risk it was the right one, for them.
Besides, we're talking about 1000 m3 facility, with all the work you could possibly ever want to accomplish laid out in front of you, with every moment being a moment you rely only on yourself for survival; not dumbass bosses or colleagues or doctors or lawyers. What kind of retarded rat in a maze would that NOT appeal to?
KNOWING for a fact you're not going to make it as a result of your decision is not the same as a high risk mission.
While you're correct in this, it's a matter of perspect
Uh. Yeah, I do sincerely believe the original post was an interesting, informative, amusing and mildly sarcastic jab at how both conservatives and liberals would view the settlement, followed by a pointed reference to the politically neutral crowd seeing this story as a complete non-starter. Girlintraining came through loud and clear for me, sans tag.
Free-market conservative type of guy here. Just not a dumbass like the ones you conjure up.
True. You are definitely more of the "Brain-rage shorts out sarcasm filter upon reading the word 'conservative'. " kind of dumbass.
Right!? Geez, it's good to hear from another one of the non-existent people who'd have to be batshit insane or suicidal to want to do this. People just don't see the parallel that exploration into the unknown has NEVER been (or included the promise of survival).
Personally i would be missing for a good steak!
Ah, but the freak free love hippie sex would totally make up for it.
Joking aside, I just don't get people's negativity toward this project. "You're sending them out to die!!!!" Uh, a) I'm gonna die HERE someday. b) it'd be pretty damn sweet to be the first dude buried on Mars, when you consider you're gonna die someday anyways. c - i) all those things you listed.
Well said. I have to wonder at all these comments poo-pooing the project. Are the the same dumbasses that yell "why'd you kill the space shuttle!" or "we need to get past LOE!" or "we have to get off this rock to save the species!"?
Either support the project, or don't, but at least it's a project with some sort of gameplan. Nobody's asking YOU to go OR fund the project, so shut up and let the men work.
Nobody sets out knowing they were going to die in the process except suicide bombers.
Right. Tell that to the guy who's buddy jumped on a grenade to save his life, or the family of a firefighter who dies trying to save a kid, or the father who continues to work in an unsafe coal mine or oil rig to support his family. People willingly risk (or even embrace) death for causes all the damn time. There are people who are willing to embrace the strong possibility of death - or living out the rest of their lives far from home with very slim to no chance of return - for a cause they believe in. We're all gonna die someday; why not do it on (or on the way to) Mars? Hell, I might consider it if I had the correct training and no family to need me here. There's something strongly appealing about being the first to do something, one who risks everything on the chance to do something that might truly matter in the millennial long run. Sure beats dying alone from a heart attack after one too many french fries.
Also, perhaps you've not read the project's FAQ? Here you go, if you haven't: http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en. The intent is for the first 4 explorers to hit Mars, set up a base with power, oxygen and water generation, set up a greenhouse for food, and pave the way for future landings in order to set up manufacturing facilities for further expansion. Sure, they're risking death with no immediate chance to come home, but they're not intending to just walk out the airlock and die the moment they land. From a "risking death" or a "never coming home" standpoint, how is this worse than sending a ship across an unmapped ocean to explore or colonize an unknown landing site an unknown distance away, under unknown conditions, hoping the provided provisions are enough to survive on until a self-sustaining system is set up? Just like so many amazing people have done throughout human history?
We've all gotten so used to puttering around a globe with very few frontiers left that we've forgotten what it's like to truly venture into the unknown. My original point stands: there's historical precedent for a certain type of people that would WANT to live out the rest of their lives on Mars, for it is a cause they believe in, so ethics are not in question.
Yeah, they were:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/death.html is just one list of explorers who died while out and about, explorifying. What' more: that list doesn't include trips specifically intended to settle an unknown landing site (one-way), and, I'm sure, is not all-encompassing. On top of that, none of the exploration ventures I listed are "safe", meaning there were people looked death straight in the face and said "I'm going anyway." These are the type of people who'd sign up to go to Mars.
You may be arguing that many of these explorers intended to come home, but that really doesn't change much. Even in those cases, explorers knew not all of their men would come home, and the ones who survived wouldn't be back until years after they left, yet they (and their men) went anyway.
Regardless, my point is there are people who will do this willingly, and rather than seeing it as a death sentence, they'll see it as a chance to explore the unknown, facing dangers to break the trail for future explorers. Return trip and long term survival would be nice, but optional.
The ethics are actually pretty well set for this type of thing. People have been venturing into the unknown for millennia; the only differences this time are distance and the fact that we know exactly how inhospitable the destination is before we set out.
People have killed (or almost killed) themselves by traveling into the cold north/south, across oceans, into deserts, jungles, into tundras, up mountains, down canyons, under lakes, oceans, low earth orbit, the moon, etc.
Many of these early ventures were known to be one-way trips, but a tiny percentage of people will do it willingly in the name of exploration.
If it's a one way trip, then once they break orbit they have all they're gonna get.
Fixed that, a little, for ya. Even MORE of a reason to say "yeah, screw this, let's yank the cables, eat all our rations, have an end-of-the-world orgy, giggle about how nobody gets to watch us, and then go outside for a stroll. Let those dumbasses wonder what happened for decades."
Eh, I can see doing it to be the documented first, the one who pioneers the way, the guinea pig, one who advances the science. Though I'd have to a) convince myself and my family why this is important and worthwhile enough to justify the sacrifices involved (assuming it actually was worth it to me; it isn't), and b) my family would need to be set for life - college educations, annuities, etc for losing me. By accomplishing both of those things, you could actually improve the future for your family, their kids, grandkids, etc. Sorta like a dude that "accidentally" drives off a cliff to give the life insurance claim to his wife; but actually accomplishing something lasting, too.
While Mars would be orders of magnitude worse, justifying the trip isn't as much different from sailing to the "New World" as you'd think. Most of those dudes never went home, either, and the landing sites were NOT inherently hospitable, though they did, of course, have breathable air, flowing water, and allowed you to walk about outside of your transport vehicle. In one or two ways, the New World was actually worse; at least on Mars, there's (probably) not indigenous folk who are PISSED you're there, and regular communication with the homeland is possible.
All that said; yeah, a one-way space trip is a very tough pill to swallow.
Not if you die.
At which point all you'll have left is alimony. Sweet, sweet justice!
Your lego people are also behaving pretty darned silly, killing each other for the Great Snapper's affections, pretending they'll grow up to shed their Lego and simply be people, if only they follow His 10 legommandments, and writing novels about how in the beginning the Great Snapper created the legoverse in precisely 6 minutes, and then afk'd for a bio during minute 7. Oh, and not all the lego men agree on who the Great Snapper is, or whether the great-lego-factory-in-the-sky is in Anaheim or Boston, so they kill each other for that too. And sometimes they kill each other because the Great Snapper could only be yellow, never black or white, oh, and they kill each other for chilling with the Duplos, an inferior block race that the Great Snapper snapped poorly out of punishment.
This is all a brilliant situation for the Great Snapper, since if the legomen were to start working together to advance their knowledge scientifically, they might eventually determine which factory the Legoman race originated from. This wouldn't do, as Great Snapper would then have to grumpily flush them all down the toilet and beg His mom to buy new ones, since He behaves like a 5 year old kid with ADD.
NOBODY can speak authoritatively about the creation of the earth, but many, many, many learned people can speak authoritatively about how old it is. There are infinite unprovable assertions your lego men could dream up about who created their plastic arms, but if legomen had the equipment and skills we do today, they'd certainly be able to determine how long they've had them. Besides, it's much better for the legomen to just be the happiest legomen they can be, advancing happiness and knowledge of the legoverse, instead of dreaming up thousands of years of nonsense about why and how the Great Snapper snapped their snaps so snappily.
You bring up a pretty good point. People *should* care about the distinction between evolution (the process), and creationism vs abiogenesis (the catalyst/beginning of the process).
If creationists wanted to argue that Mr. God:
-kicked the whole thing into high gear, setting into motion all the processes of existence, from gravity to attraction forces to evolution
-made these processes to follow observable and reliable patterns that we can experiment with and document
-allows for new data and theories to explain existence, instead of magically warping data and theory based on what the Bible or other lore says
-allows us to verify information through experimentation and the general scientific method, rather than forcing us to make leaps of faith or un-provable assumptions
-does not or cannot muck with the way existence works now, like a cosmic game of keep-away
-didn't set faith-based processes into play that muck with existence on His behalf
-set up the rules for existence, flashed out a big ol bang, and is now bound by those rules Himself
-is just chilling somewhere (maybe with a galactic beer?) watching his experiment unfold, but not actively modifying it supernatural ways
that's just fine with me. All of the above means we can discuss theory and facts without faith and belief getting in the way, ever, which is the major issue with anything supernatural. In regards to a scientific research, it's much easier for me to accept someone's belief that God created everything, but plays by the rules of his own game, than to accept someone's belief that God has the ability to screw with natural laws at His discretion, for reasons only He knows (incidentally: modifying 6000 year old dino-bones to look like they're hundreds of millions of years old, and placing them into tar pits to find later, is something I've gleefully done to bully my brothers when I was 12).
Unfortunately, all of this effectively removes God's supernatural abilities, making His existence irrelevant to our daily lives, so it probably means not many creationists are gonna want to take this stance. It seems that having an "all-powerful" god is somehow appealing; though why anyone would *want* this is something I don't understand, for the life of me.
The idea behind creationism stuff is relatively clever, in theory. It's almost an "if you can't beat em, join em" attempt. The idea is to get "God's Plan (TM)" all science-ified, in order to make friends of "creationism" and "science" instead of having them polar opposites.
In practice, though, the reasoning just falls apart pathetically with even rudimentary critical thinking.
While you're 100% correct, there is nothing wrong with providing access to the material. Remember; this kid is 8. I highly doubt he's concerned with how uncool Daddy is yet. I'd recommend he take his son to the local library (a fun event in any case) and let him pick out all the books that sound neat to him, but gently steer him to the science fiction area, too. This can be as easy as "Hey son, wanna see some of the books Daddy likes to read?"
:)
Regarding selling kids on things: I agree totally that this isn't the right way to go. On the other hand, if there's interest in a project, there's nothing wrong with supplying some motivation when the going gets tough. My daughters both played soccer for a couple of years (at their choice, we found a list of summer programs they could take part in). At first, they didn't much like the practices; learning was hard, as was meeting new friends, getting up on Saturdays, etc. We went a few times, anyway, and they came to look forward to practices and games. One has moved on to ballet now, and the other decided karate was more her thing. I fully expect them to move on to other things many times in the future, too, and I welcome it; I have no vested interest in them doing any specific thing. I do try to instill a little bit of responsibility and pride in the things they want to do, though.
My kids ARE at that "You're embarrassing me, Daddy!!" age. I'm not allowed to hang out and watch practices, but I'm allowed to come to recitals and competitions. I'm not allowed to congratulate them for doing a good job (when did high-fives and fist bumps get uncool, anyway?) until we get a few blocks away. Yes, I'm a 'pretty cool dad', for the most part, but only because I save the mushy parenting stuff for home, and treat them like the young adults they want to be in public, so long as they earn that treatment. I'm young enough to remember what I wanted, and am willing to provide that, to a point.
I think that you're spot on with a parent experiencing what their kids want to do; I have no interest in doing any of these things myself, but it's fun because THEY love it. It's simply valuable to participate in projects as a family, whenever possible. The easiest way to tell if your kids have a spark of interest in a project you enjoy is to mention it, and then simply listen to them. Conversely, the fastest way to tell if your kid has lost interest with a project is when they pick a new one to replace it.
My kids still love playing video-games with me, and they like watching many of my geek TV shows on lazy Netflix Sundays, though they'd never admit it to their friends, and I'm ok with that. I only get 5 more years until college, so I'm taking what I can get.
To expand your point: Anybody that doesn't release the first generation of an item is playing catch-up. The catch-up game is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to bring something new to the table. Maybe a squishy keyboard will do it, maybe it'll be Aero, maybe it'll be price (doubtful; Apple has been masterful in convincing us $500 is cheap, and anything below $500 is shit). Maybe it'll be a free car with every purchase. Who knows?
Regardless, catch-up is competition, even if unsuccessful, and competition is always good for consumers. It's like watching chicks mud-wrestle for your affections; just because the blond arrives late doesn't mean it won't be just as fun.
This is the biggie. I would have happily tried out a Zune, but I already had 3 separate iPods in my house, and some shitty $10 chinese knockoff thing for my youngest daughter. My family knew how the iPods worked, had iTunes finally set up the way they wanted, and were happily destroying duplicates and jamming out.
I wanted to try a Zune, I really did, but I didn't want to buy one online, and my local retailers wouldn't let me see a demo... so I said screw it. I'm sure many folks were in a similar spot, and then seeing how silly the product was becoming (nearly a meme) made me give up on it completely.
I do remember a big ad campaign for a couple of months, actually, but what folks needed was to poke at it, like we could with an iPod before purchasing. Apple certainly did that right, seeding their shops and tossing out iPods like they were candy, just so people could see the damn things. To this day, I haven't seen a real, live, out-of-the-box Zune (and in likelihood, never will).
I wonder if there are other uses for this technique:
"You were spotted leaving the scene of the crime! What have you stolen and hidden away, thief!?"
"I am unable to tell you or anybody else that information, officer, because it would violate the victims' privacy. I mean, what if I stole 14 dildos? Sick! But see? Then you'll know it's sick, and someone might be embarrassed about all those dildos I may or may not have taken from an alleged panty drawer. Of course, it's natural to assume I stole somewhere between 0 things and all the things ever, inclusive, but since you can't pin it to an exact number or even what kinds of things, let's just call it good. You can trust that the potential loss of items I may or may not have stolen won't be a problem for the possible previous owners."
"What the fuck are you talking about?"
"Privacy, of course. Shhhhhh..... whelp, anyways, we've clearly established there's nothing to see here, so I'll be moving along. I gotta go steal another indeterminate number and type of things now. Gonna be working tonight? Great! I may or may not have stolen the coffee I'll bring in for ya."
Well, this is all balanced out by FEMA, which only spies on a hole in the sand, and the DOJ, who's spy, Justice, cannot see. I figure that, once all agencies completely are averaged out, the government can look right at my big, sweaty, hairy ass.