Just because the idea exists before the shift wouldn't mean it isn't a paradigm shift though. I think the idea behind the paradigm shift concept is that it changes the way future problems are approached. Sure, before the supernovae evidence there were people saying "maybe this could explain it..." but after the shift dark energy became an essential tool when thinking about cosmology or at least something that needed to be acknowledged by all theories going forward. Suddenly it goes from being speculation, to excepted mantra, from an odd anomaly to being vital piece of the puzzle.
So can anonymous tips be used in investigation? How can it be known whether the information in a tip was collected legally if the police didn't collect it? And therefore how can any information discovered from following such a tip be allowed?
Legally it doesn't matter. If I break into someone's house because I think they have a big ol' stash of kiddie porn and confirm my suspicious and take evidence to the police they can use that evidence in court and/or to get an actual search warrant. As long as the police aren't involved with my illegal evidence gathering in any way it is admissible. I might get charged with breaking and entering and trespassing, but the evidence is still allowed.
it is patently absurd to expect to find a single, simple chemical cause for the myriad complex and varied set of behaviors which fall under the umbrella of "violent crime".
Not when that "myriad complex and varied set of behaviors" can all be linked to a single brain function: impulse control. Especially not when lead has repeatedly been show to directly affect impulse control.
Exactly! How could they be so stupid not to think of that!?
Oh wait. They did. They repeated the study in different countries that got rid of lead at different times. They repeated the study in different US states that phased lead out at different rates. They repeated the study at the city and even neighborhood level wherever there was accurate data on lead and crime levels. Then they tracked kids for decades, measuring lead levels and their rate of criminal convictions. And at all levels in all locations the correlations played out exactly the same. This is legitimate, serious research and the researchers did their jobs and collected a huge amount of data before publishing.
TLDR? Go read the article before yelling correllation != causation.
Except, as many, many people have pointed out already, relative damage is related to the per axle weight to the 4th power. Which means that 80,000lb truck is doing 31,000 times more damage per mile than a 3,000lb Prius. Since they are Oh so concerned that everyone pay their fair share, and since, apparently the fair share for a Prius is 1.5 cents per mile, that truck is getting one heck of a deal (by their own cost estimates, the 80,000lb truck should be paying 470 $ / mile).
We had this hit after my sister's wedding a few years ago. It is an insanely bad 12-36 hours; I personally lost more than 10 lbs over the course of 24 hours (most of it water weight, but still). It's vomiting and diarrhea the like of which only exists in horror movies and it is insanely communicable. If someone around you has a case you will get it yourself. Hand sanitizers don't kill it effectively, it survives 12 hours on solid rock and 12 days on fabrics, and the shear force of the vomiting ensures that every surface in the bathroom will have trace quantities of the virus. Fewer than 20 virus particles can cause infection and infected people will be shedding detectable amounts of the virus for weeks after their symptoms disappear. While making a vomiting robot may be funny, it was probably thought up in response to anecdotes like this:
126 people were dining at six tables in December 1998; one woman vomited. Staff quickly cleaned up, and people continued eating. Three days later others started falling ill; 52 people reported a range of symptoms, from fever and nausea to vomiting and diarrhoea. The cause was not immediately identified. Researchers plotted the seating arrangement: more than 90% of the people on the same table as the sick woman later reported food poisoning. There was a direct correlation between the risk of infection of people at other tables and how close they were to the sick woman. More than 70% of the diners on an adjacent table fell ill; at a table on the other side of the restaurant, the rate was still 25%.
Knowing how vomiting aerosols virus particles and how/how far they travel could be extremely important to providing new recommendations of how to handle situations where people vomit. Do you scrub the entire bathroom down, bleach all the towels and clothes, and take a shower after someone in your household vomits? Because according to this research, if you want to prevent the spread that is what you would have to do.
Yeah! I'm sure the Kahn academy is rolling in the dough from this arrangement! Wait- what's that you say? Kahn academy's courses are free? Oh... um... EVIL Government socialists! Get your hands off our (publicly financed, ran, and mandated) education!
High school is less about learning information than it is about learning how to learn. Learning from an online source is how a lot of people are going to continue their education after school and being able to learn in that environment is important to success. When you don't know how to code something, do you look at the local colleges for classes or do you Google around for a tutorial? I would encourage high schools to make every student take a self directed course of the student's choice, but there's no way they have the teaching manpower to do it effectively. This provides at least a glimpse of what real world (read: after high school/college) learning is about.
Well, that would be fine if x y z were 5% of the guy's code. The summary makes it sound much worse than that, and I don't think anyone is going to hear "can you completely change the way you're doing every single line of code to make my life easier?" and be like "yeah sure!"
This is "settle" in the layman's terms as opposed to legal terms. Technically, the case against Google hadn't even been brought yet. The FTC is walking away because they know they don't have a case because, quite fankly, a lot of the complaints were ridiculous. Oh, youtube is the first result? What a freaking surprise, it's the largest video site on the net by an order of magnitude. Not to mention that Google services often aren't the top result in searches for those services. There are legitimate issues with some of their API's and some of their ad selling, but nothing that comes close to warranting the kind of expenses that a federal anti-trust case would generate (both for Google and the FTC).
You think Google lost here? The FTC has been trying for half a decade to bring an anti-trust case against Google, and at the end of it Google has agreed (not even been ordered) to change a few business practices. Google won. And quite frankly, the fact that this is the best the FTC could do against them would indicate that the FTC simply didn't have a case.
"This is no worse than the dust bowl and that was almost 100 years ago! I suppose that was due to global warming too!?"
(Put in quotes in the hopes of avoiding Poe's Law taking effect)
This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.
Last I checked, there aren't groups of Romans saying they should really reconquer the Germanic regions. There's not many Frenchmen longing for the return of their military dictator. You know what there are though? Homophobes who would gladly see those laws put back on the books. Who would happily castrate anyone who performs a homosexual act. It's not just about apologizing, it's the government saying "what happened was wrong, and it will never happen again".
The point I was making is that 70 years isn't so far, the ideas and attitudes aren't that far removed from the present; in fact there is a significant minority who would see those laws reenacted if they could get their way. Think about it this way, there may not have been many people in power then in power now, but I can guarantee you that there are people who worked in those offices then that are running those offices now.
The government making an explicit declaration "the way we treated homosexuals was wrong, especially in the case of Turing" would go a long way toward cementing that view in the public's consciousness.
But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.
Queen Elizabeth was crowned the year Turing was convicted. Now, the monarch is certainly not all powerful, but you can hardly say that the crime was committed by a generation of people long dead and buried when the head of state at the time remains the head of state today.
As for what's makes Turing such a special case that he personally deserves attention against a background of crimes committed to millions: He was one of the smartest, most influential people of his age, he laid the groundwork for modern computing, there is no telling what kinds of advances might have been possible in the world of computers if we had his insight for another few decades. And more than that, Turing was a fucking war hero. His work in code breaking and computer engineering saved countless allied lives during WWII. And how did his country repay him? Prosecution, insults, public humiliation, and finally castration. Because he had a consensual relationship with another man.
Just the fact that they exist can tell us a lot about conditions of the very early universe, there was a time when we though galaxies would take much longer than 300 million years to form. So, any theory about the conditions of the early universe needs to allow for large, complex features such as these galaxies to form. I would think spectroscopy would also be able to tell you the ratios of elements that exist in those early galaxies, though I wouldn't expect any surprises there it's still worth taking a look.
I'm no astronomer; if I can come up with a couple thoughts I'm sure someone in the field would be able to dream up a dozen more.
Everyone seems focused on the potential for keylogging, but I see a lot of problems in trying to develop this exploit into a useful keylogger. It's not going to be easy and it's not going to be accurate, though that might change if the Windows surface products ever take off (though I do have to wonder if touch input in windows 8 would be vulnerable to this particular exploit).
I imagine how they are probably using the data is by collecting information from thousands of users on the same page, with the same ads. Enough people follow their eye's with their cursor that it will function as a crude vision heat map. It doesn't have to be particularly accurate for any one case, if you can get data from enough people it doesn't matter. If you can show the data is accurate enough, it becomes extremely useful for web designers and ad developers.
I could be wrong but I'd bet that mouse heat maps would line up with eye heat maps somewhat nicely. Not on any individual basis of course, but in the aggregate. If true, that would mean the information could be very helpful in identify what ads, images, paragraphs, design details, etc that people are looking at which would be a pretty useful piece of data if your profession is to get people to look at something.
Winsplit Revolution is pretty good for this and free. The default settings are ctrl-alt-numpad key moves the window to that section of the display (so 7 would move it to the top left taking up 1/6th of the screen). Hitting the same combo again gives the top left but going 2/3 of the way horizontal, again gives 1/3. The other number pad keys work similarly and the arrow keys move the current window between monitors. I think there's combos for maximizing and minimizing as well.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it.
This is the question though. I honestly don't think they will be 'just fine' without MS branded office. Look at how much effort OpenOffice (and it's derivatives) put into being compatible with MS Office and how badly they fail at it (and I'm sorry, but they really do fail at it). It's not their fault, the MS Office formats are screwed up and badly documented; to the point where many people think that it's intentional. When the CEO goes to open a doc and get's something that looks like crap that'll be game over, he'll give the ipad to his kid and tell his (new) IT guy something that works and when it comes time to roll them out to the other employees the Apple option will be off the table.
I think you mean a practical, reusable space plane that has never been man rated and never will be. That requires a whole other level of engineering, testing, reviewing, and documentation.
Your link isn't the same research as what the article is talking about though.
The article is about removing a patient's stem cells, using neutered HIV to deliver a payload to them that changes the immune system at a genetic level and then reintroducing the stem cells into the patient. The patient's immune system would then be equipped to kill the cancer. Your link discusses infecting patients with a virus that targets cancer cells preferentially, killing a cancer while at the same time giving the patient only mild symptoms.
On the one had, the article is talking about real, honest to goodness genetic engineering of a living human being which is, quite frankly, science fiction levels of amazing. But it almost universally causes a cytokinetic swarm in the patient as the immune system suddenly knows how to fight massive amounts of what it suddenly sees as infected tissue (actually tumors). The HIV is disabled the same way other viruses are disabled to create vaccines, and even if the patient got HIV somehow that would in fact still be preferable than dying immediately from cancer.
On the other, your article would indicate a cure that would be essentially zero cost to produce. The side affects are minimal but, and this is the proverbial "but" that is probably killing all research on the topic, you also have a virus that is capable of killing the vast majority of one tissue type (tumor) inside the human body. And that is quite frankly terrifying. Until you can quantify how likely or unlikely the virus is to target a different tissue type and how likely is it that the virus is communicable (or could mutate to become so) you won't be trying it out on anyone.
He was never in solitary confinement because Swedish jails do not have solitary confinement, therefore he couldn't have been in solitary confinement. No, regardless of if he was, in fact, confined to a cell barely larger than a twin sized bed. That's irreverent, because as I said, they don't do solitary confinement in Sweden. It's also immaterial that he was, in fact, kept out of contact with other people; that certainly doesn't mean he was in solitary confinement.
The sad thing is that I feel the need to add this disclaimer that I am making fun of the people who fail at logic so hard. I meant it to be woefully obvious parody, but in re-reading it I see little difference between it and what at least a few people have posted in all seriousness.
What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there? What could we learn from the moon or mars today that we couldn't learn from a robot?
Quite a lot actually. Now, part of that is simply the reality that a manned mission is going to be orders of magnitude larger and more complex, just by definition.
For instance, sample return is basically built into a manned mission. If you add a sample return objective to a robotic mission the cost numbers are suddenly much closer (still not close exactly, but closer). The rate of exploration is also much, much higher for a manned mission. The Mars rovers, for example, were designed to move just 600 meters over their lifespan. They've obviously exceeded that, Opportunity has driven 20km so far after all. Apollo 17, on the other hand, covered that distance in a matter of days. A prolonged human presence would allow us to explore a larger area in much more detail than would otherwise be possible. Not to mention the possibility of bringing a real chemistry lab along for the rid (as opposed to the 'lab on a single camera' setups that robotic missions use).
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the idea exists before the shift wouldn't mean it isn't a paradigm shift though. I think the idea behind the paradigm shift concept is that it changes the way future problems are approached. Sure, before the supernovae evidence there were people saying "maybe this could explain it..." but after the shift dark energy became an essential tool when thinking about cosmology or at least something that needed to be acknowledged by all theories going forward. Suddenly it goes from being speculation, to excepted mantra, from an odd anomaly to being vital piece of the puzzle.
So can anonymous tips be used in investigation? How can it be known whether the information in a tip was collected legally if the police didn't collect it? And therefore how can any information discovered from following such a tip be allowed?
Legally it doesn't matter. If I break into someone's house because I think they have a big ol' stash of kiddie porn and confirm my suspicious and take evidence to the police they can use that evidence in court and/or to get an actual search warrant. As long as the police aren't involved with my illegal evidence gathering in any way it is admissible. I might get charged with breaking and entering and trespassing, but the evidence is still allowed.
it is patently absurd to expect to find a single, simple chemical cause for the myriad complex and varied set of behaviors which fall under the umbrella of "violent crime".
Not when that "myriad complex and varied set of behaviors" can all be linked to a single brain function: impulse control. Especially not when lead has repeatedly been show to directly affect impulse control.
Exactly! How could they be so stupid not to think of that!?
Oh wait. They did. They repeated the study in different countries that got rid of lead at different times. They repeated the study in different US states that phased lead out at different rates. They repeated the study at the city and even neighborhood level wherever there was accurate data on lead and crime levels. Then they tracked kids for decades, measuring lead levels and their rate of criminal convictions. And at all levels in all locations the correlations played out exactly the same. This is legitimate, serious research and the researchers did their jobs and collected a huge amount of data before publishing.
TLDR? Go read the article before yelling correllation != causation.
Except, as many, many people have pointed out already, relative damage is related to the per axle weight to the 4th power. Which means that 80,000lb truck is doing 31,000 times more damage per mile than a 3,000lb Prius. Since they are Oh so concerned that everyone pay their fair share, and since, apparently the fair share for a Prius is 1.5 cents per mile, that truck is getting one heck of a deal (by their own cost estimates, the 80,000lb truck should be paying 470 $ / mile).
Yes.
We had this hit after my sister's wedding a few years ago. It is an insanely bad 12-36 hours; I personally lost more than 10 lbs over the course of 24 hours (most of it water weight, but still). It's vomiting and diarrhea the like of which only exists in horror movies and it is insanely communicable. If someone around you has a case you will get it yourself. Hand sanitizers don't kill it effectively, it survives 12 hours on solid rock and 12 days on fabrics, and the shear force of the vomiting ensures that every surface in the bathroom will have trace quantities of the virus. Fewer than 20 virus particles can cause infection and infected people will be shedding detectable amounts of the virus for weeks after their symptoms disappear. While making a vomiting robot may be funny, it was probably thought up in response to anecdotes like this:
126 people were dining at six tables in December 1998; one woman vomited. Staff quickly cleaned up, and people continued eating. Three days later others started falling ill; 52 people reported a range of symptoms, from fever and nausea to vomiting and diarrhoea. The cause was not immediately identified. Researchers plotted the seating arrangement: more than 90% of the people on the same table as the sick woman later reported food poisoning. There was a direct correlation between the risk of infection of people at other tables and how close they were to the sick woman. More than 70% of the diners on an adjacent table fell ill; at a table on the other side of the restaurant, the rate was still 25%.
Knowing how vomiting aerosols virus particles and how/how far they travel could be extremely important to providing new recommendations of how to handle situations where people vomit. Do you scrub the entire bathroom down, bleach all the towels and clothes, and take a shower after someone in your household vomits? Because according to this research, if you want to prevent the spread that is what you would have to do.
Yeah! I'm sure the Kahn academy is rolling in the dough from this arrangement! Wait- what's that you say? Kahn academy's courses are free? Oh... um... EVIL Government socialists! Get your hands off our (publicly financed, ran, and mandated) education!
High school is less about learning information than it is about learning how to learn. Learning from an online source is how a lot of people are going to continue their education after school and being able to learn in that environment is important to success. When you don't know how to code something, do you look at the local colleges for classes or do you Google around for a tutorial? I would encourage high schools to make every student take a self directed course of the student's choice, but there's no way they have the teaching manpower to do it effectively. This provides at least a glimpse of what real world (read: after high school/college) learning is about.
Well, that would be fine if x y z were 5% of the guy's code. The summary makes it sound much worse than that, and I don't think anyone is going to hear "can you completely change the way you're doing every single line of code to make my life easier?" and be like "yeah sure!"
This is "settle" in the layman's terms as opposed to legal terms. Technically, the case against Google hadn't even been brought yet. The FTC is walking away because they know they don't have a case because, quite fankly, a lot of the complaints were ridiculous. Oh, youtube is the first result? What a freaking surprise, it's the largest video site on the net by an order of magnitude. Not to mention that Google services often aren't the top result in searches for those services. There are legitimate issues with some of their API's and some of their ad selling, but nothing that comes close to warranting the kind of expenses that a federal anti-trust case would generate (both for Google and the FTC).
You think Google lost here? The FTC has been trying for half a decade to bring an anti-trust case against Google, and at the end of it Google has agreed (not even been ordered) to change a few business practices. Google won. And quite frankly, the fact that this is the best the FTC could do against them would indicate that the FTC simply didn't have a case.
"This is no worse than the dust bowl and that was almost 100 years ago! I suppose that was due to global warming too!?"
(Put in quotes in the hopes of avoiding Poe's Law taking effect)
This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.
Storing your gun with a round in the chamber would be against one of the "rules for guns" the person you are replying to is talking about.
Last I checked, there aren't groups of Romans saying they should really reconquer the Germanic regions. There's not many Frenchmen longing for the return of their military dictator. You know what there are though? Homophobes who would gladly see those laws put back on the books. Who would happily castrate anyone who performs a homosexual act. It's not just about apologizing, it's the government saying "what happened was wrong, and it will never happen again".
The point I was making is that 70 years isn't so far, the ideas and attitudes aren't that far removed from the present; in fact there is a significant minority who would see those laws reenacted if they could get their way. Think about it this way, there may not have been many people in power then in power now, but I can guarantee you that there are people who worked in those offices then that are running those offices now.
The government making an explicit declaration "the way we treated homosexuals was wrong, especially in the case of Turing" would go a long way toward cementing that view in the public's consciousness.
But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.
Queen Elizabeth was crowned the year Turing was convicted. Now, the monarch is certainly not all powerful, but you can hardly say that the crime was committed by a generation of people long dead and buried when the head of state at the time remains the head of state today.
As for what's makes Turing such a special case that he personally deserves attention against a background of crimes committed to millions: He was one of the smartest, most influential people of his age, he laid the groundwork for modern computing, there is no telling what kinds of advances might have been possible in the world of computers if we had his insight for another few decades. And more than that, Turing was a fucking war hero. His work in code breaking and computer engineering saved countless allied lives during WWII. And how did his country repay him? Prosecution, insults, public humiliation, and finally castration. Because he had a consensual relationship with another man.
Just the fact that they exist can tell us a lot about conditions of the very early universe, there was a time when we though galaxies would take much longer than 300 million years to form. So, any theory about the conditions of the early universe needs to allow for large, complex features such as these galaxies to form. I would think spectroscopy would also be able to tell you the ratios of elements that exist in those early galaxies, though I wouldn't expect any surprises there it's still worth taking a look.
I'm no astronomer; if I can come up with a couple thoughts I'm sure someone in the field would be able to dream up a dozen more.
Everyone seems focused on the potential for keylogging, but I see a lot of problems in trying to develop this exploit into a useful keylogger. It's not going to be easy and it's not going to be accurate, though that might change if the Windows surface products ever take off (though I do have to wonder if touch input in windows 8 would be vulnerable to this particular exploit).
I imagine how they are probably using the data is by collecting information from thousands of users on the same page, with the same ads. Enough people follow their eye's with their cursor that it will function as a crude vision heat map. It doesn't have to be particularly accurate for any one case, if you can get data from enough people it doesn't matter. If you can show the data is accurate enough, it becomes extremely useful for web designers and ad developers.
I could be wrong but I'd bet that mouse heat maps would line up with eye heat maps somewhat nicely. Not on any individual basis of course, but in the aggregate. If true, that would mean the information could be very helpful in identify what ads, images, paragraphs, design details, etc that people are looking at which would be a pretty useful piece of data if your profession is to get people to look at something.
Winsplit Revolution is pretty good for this and free. The default settings are ctrl-alt-numpad key moves the window to that section of the display (so 7 would move it to the top left taking up 1/6th of the screen). Hitting the same combo again gives the top left but going 2/3 of the way horizontal, again gives 1/3. The other number pad keys work similarly and the arrow keys move the current window between monitors. I think there's combos for maximizing and minimizing as well.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it.
This is the question though. I honestly don't think they will be 'just fine' without MS branded office. Look at how much effort OpenOffice (and it's derivatives) put into being compatible with MS Office and how badly they fail at it (and I'm sorry, but they really do fail at it). It's not their fault, the MS Office formats are screwed up and badly documented; to the point where many people think that it's intentional. When the CEO goes to open a doc and get's something that looks like crap that'll be game over, he'll give the ipad to his kid and tell his (new) IT guy something that works and when it comes time to roll them out to the other employees the Apple option will be off the table.
demonstrate a PRACTICAL, reusable space plane.
I think you mean a practical, reusable space plane that has never been man rated and never will be. That requires a whole other level of engineering, testing, reviewing, and documentation.
Your link isn't the same research as what the article is talking about though.
The article is about removing a patient's stem cells, using neutered HIV to deliver a payload to them that changes the immune system at a genetic level and then reintroducing the stem cells into the patient. The patient's immune system would then be equipped to kill the cancer. Your link discusses infecting patients with a virus that targets cancer cells preferentially, killing a cancer while at the same time giving the patient only mild symptoms.
On the one had, the article is talking about real, honest to goodness genetic engineering of a living human being which is, quite frankly, science fiction levels of amazing. But it almost universally causes a cytokinetic swarm in the patient as the immune system suddenly knows how to fight massive amounts of what it suddenly sees as infected tissue (actually tumors). The HIV is disabled the same way other viruses are disabled to create vaccines, and even if the patient got HIV somehow that would in fact still be preferable than dying immediately from cancer.
On the other, your article would indicate a cure that would be essentially zero cost to produce. The side affects are minimal but, and this is the proverbial "but" that is probably killing all research on the topic, you also have a virus that is capable of killing the vast majority of one tissue type (tumor) inside the human body. And that is quite frankly terrifying. Until you can quantify how likely or unlikely the virus is to target a different tissue type and how likely is it that the virus is communicable (or could mutate to become so) you won't be trying it out on anyone.
He was never in solitary confinement because Swedish jails do not have solitary confinement, therefore he couldn't have been in solitary confinement. No, regardless of if he was, in fact, confined to a cell barely larger than a twin sized bed. That's irreverent, because as I said, they don't do solitary confinement in Sweden. It's also immaterial that he was, in fact, kept out of contact with other people; that certainly doesn't mean he was in solitary confinement.
The sad thing is that I feel the need to add this disclaimer that I am making fun of the people who fail at logic so hard. I meant it to be woefully obvious parody, but in re-reading it I see little difference between it and what at least a few people have posted in all seriousness.
What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there? What could we learn from the moon or mars today that we couldn't learn from a robot?
Quite a lot actually. Now, part of that is simply the reality that a manned mission is going to be orders of magnitude larger and more complex, just by definition.
For instance, sample return is basically built into a manned mission. If you add a sample return objective to a robotic mission the cost numbers are suddenly much closer (still not close exactly, but closer). The rate of exploration is also much, much higher for a manned mission. The Mars rovers, for example, were designed to move just 600 meters over their lifespan. They've obviously exceeded that, Opportunity has driven 20km so far after all. Apollo 17, on the other hand, covered that distance in a matter of days. A prolonged human presence would allow us to explore a larger area in much more detail than would otherwise be possible. Not to mention the possibility of bringing a real chemistry lab along for the rid (as opposed to the 'lab on a single camera' setups that robotic missions use).
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.