Because they aren't possible? becasue they have populated the other half of the galaxy? becasue they don't need to grow that fast? becasue they have all been wiped out be a variety of event. Specifically wiped out faster then they can be built?
It's like getting a thimble of water from the ocean and asking "where are all the fish?"
Is quitting something you do whenever things get tough? hard project? quit. Takes effort to change? quit! Painting the house is hard? Quit and sell the house!
Maybe it you generation of whiners and quitters that's the problem?
You nee to compare that to the cost of research and discovery. You would need to send 100s of robots to even come close to what 1 human could do in a day.
Frankly, it s a silly argument. It's not Human v Robots. It's humans and robots.
TI's funny when someone uses an irrational and flawed argument but has Sagan and randi.org in their sig.
not no it's dangerously hot. as in put you in the hospital for a week hot.
Seriously if you order a coffee would it be a reason expectation that it would be so hot that if yo dropped it in your lap you would be in the hospital for a week(may have been 10 days)
Ironically, you posting that is more of an example of what you are trying to show.
We have laser guns, but more importantly they didn't use LASER guns in Star Wars.
I sit next to a person who LITERALLY has a droid in his pocket that can act as a translator. I have one, but it's nexus and not a droid. So it would only figuratively be one.
All out nuclear war will kill everyone on the planet. The math is pretty simple. ALso, there would eb a lot of glowing embers for a while; which is what the poster was eluding to.
"Hiroshima took a direct hit by a nuclear weapon." no. atomic weapon, not nuclear.
"How long did it take before it was perfectly save to live in Hiroshima after the nuke hit?Answer: a couple of months. "
years before it was safe, not months. Of course, you are comparing a tiny air burst atomic weapon to modern nuclear weapons. Amateur mistake.
Will we literally destroy the earth? as in a hunk of rock floating around a star? no, not literally. Can we figuratively destroy the earth? yes. Run away greenhouse can kill everything on this planet eventually. I'd call that destroyed earth. Just like if you took a Lego building and destroyed it. sure, you still have all the pieces, but it sure as hell isn't the building you had made.
NASA never lost it's way. NASA lost it's budget. IN spite of budget reductions, NASA has done amazing things, just without humans sitting in a flight deck.
"-NASA is a Government agency," ug, that bogey man.
While pork is an issue, the biggest reason is the NASA does a shit done more stuff.
NASA is not bloated. Most government agencies are not bloated. Disagree? site some actuals, budgetary, and long term reports and studies, then we can talk. What's that? you haven't read any and done comparative analysis? well I have. so STFU until you educate yourself.
Because NASA did all the heavy lifting. SpaceX build on what NASA did. SpaceX does 1 thing. SpaceX still doesn't have a viable way to make a profit. SpaceX is still at least a decade from getting someone to ISS.
It's like asking why Ford doesn't have the same operating costs as a mechanic shop.
Except it isn't true at all. Looking at the budgets. government programs are more effcient and produce better results the the private sector by a large margin.Just look at the budget reports, and EOY financials.
NO, it's not true at all. I'm sorry, but I know too any poeple working at NASA.
You got problems with NASA, talk to congress about getting them proper funding to accomplish what ever big goal you have in mind.
NASA generates a ton of revenue for the country. If they got all the tax dollar from industries the created, we would have outpost all through out the solar system ad probably be 2 decades ahead in technology.
"getting history or political science degrees?" funny how the article says STEM, but when people need to find examples no one uses a STEM career as an example.
" I've said for years the real money lies in being a welder, plumber, or an electrician. nope. facts do not bare that out at all.
Nope. College is about an education, not 'job'. The only problem is people are under the delusion that any degree will pay 6 figures and then get an easy degree. Afterwords they are shocked, Shocked I tell you, that someone who spent 4 year learning music means they get to be a barrista.
It's fine to get a music degree, just don't whine when you have no plan on applying it.
Having a liberally educated populace is good for everyone. well, cost is an issue to, but I'm a democratic socialist, so I think education should be paid from society. The benefits of this for society is very high. Or at least a series of colleges that are funded via tax system.
" Invest in trade schools and weed out the seat-fillers so you actually graduate capable people." so people who don't adapt the they way high school works should just be cast out into the snow.
You're an evil SOB.
I had a really hard time in HS. Fortunately, unlike you, the school system isn't so lazy it just throws their hands in the air and threw me out.
Any student who walks out of high school in the USA can find an apprenticeship, and get paid and learn. We don't need it in the school system.
The openly problem is with people who seem to think a BS degree in a subject not in demand means they get to make a lot of money.
I don't know any STEM graduates that don't have work. When the media started whipping the 'college degree isn't worth anything' hysteria, every person that was out of work they interviewed would have something like 'liberal art and I studied american ghost stories and not I can't find a job!'*
"I would definitely jump onto the skills market again if I were coming out of High School and not all into STEM degree. That's fine, but you wouldn't have made nearly the same money. Also, you can learn any of those trades now.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they aren't possible? becasue they have populated the other half of the galaxy? becasue they don't need to grow that fast? becasue they have all been wiped out be a variety of event. Specifically wiped out faster then they can be built?
It's like getting a thimble of water from the ocean and asking "where are all the fish?"
why would it last forever? Why would it be within our solar system?
answer: Space is really big.
A race could have populate half the galaxy's out there and we still wouldn't know.
Is quitting something you do whenever things get tough? hard project? quit. Takes effort to change? quit! Painting the house is hard? Quit and sell the house!
Maybe it you generation of whiners and quitters that's the problem?
You nee to compare that to the cost of research and discovery. You would need to send 100s of robots to even come close to what 1 human could do in a day.
Frankly, it s a silly argument. It's not Human v Robots. It's humans and robots.
TI's funny when someone uses an irrational and flawed argument but has Sagan and randi.org in their sig.
are you high? try 55+ million per launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
not no it's dangerously hot. as in put you in the hospital for a week hot.
Seriously if you order a coffee would it be a reason expectation that it would be so hot that if yo dropped it in your lap you would be in the hospital for a week(may have been 10 days)
Ironically, you posting that is more of an example of what you are trying to show.
Nerd smack down!
BEGIN!
We have laser guns, but more importantly they didn't use LASER guns in Star Wars.
I sit next to a person who LITERALLY has a droid in his pocket that can act as a translator.
I have one, but it's nexus and not a droid. So it would only figuratively be one.
END!
All out nuclear war will kill everyone on the planet. The math is pretty simple.
ALso, there would eb a lot of glowing embers for a while; which is what the poster was eluding to.
"Hiroshima took a direct hit by a nuclear weapon."
no. atomic weapon, not nuclear.
"How long did it take before it was perfectly save to live in Hiroshima after the nuke hit?Answer: a couple of months. "
years before it was safe, not months. Of course, you are comparing a tiny air burst atomic weapon to modern nuclear weapons. Amateur mistake.
Will we literally destroy the earth? as in a hunk of rock floating around a star? no, not literally. Can we figuratively destroy the earth? yes.
Run away greenhouse can kill everything on this planet eventually. I'd call that destroyed earth. Just like if you took a Lego building and destroyed it. sure, you still have all the pieces, but it sure as hell isn't the building you had made.
Absolutely we know that.
There was no driving factor for private interest.
NASA never lost it's way. NASA lost it's budget. IN spite of budget reductions, NASA has done amazing things, just without humans sitting in a flight deck.
"-NASA is a Government agency,"
ug, that bogey man.
While pork is an issue, the biggest reason is the NASA does a shit done more stuff.
NASA is not bloated. Most government agencies are not bloated.
Disagree? site some actuals, budgetary, and long term reports and studies, then we can talk.
What's that? you haven't read any and done comparative analysis? well I have.
so STFU until you educate yourself.
Because NASA did all the heavy lifting.
SpaceX build on what NASA did.
SpaceX does 1 thing.
SpaceX still doesn't have a viable way to make a profit.
SpaceX is still at least a decade from getting someone to ISS.
It's like asking why Ford doesn't have the same operating costs as a mechanic shop.
That's stupid, ignorant and wildly inaccurate.
Fucking morons.
Woman is just a subset of mankind. A subset of better people :)
He's another attention starved twit. I suspect an improper amount of praise from his mother.
Except it isn't true at all. Looking at the budgets. government programs are more effcient and produce better results the the private sector by a large margin.Just look at the budget reports, and EOY financials.
NO, it's not true at all. I'm sorry, but I know too any poeple working at NASA.
You got problems with NASA, talk to congress about getting them proper funding to accomplish what ever big goal you have in mind.
NASA generates a ton of revenue for the country. If they got all the tax dollar from industries the created, we would have outpost all through out the solar system ad probably be 2 decades ahead in technology.
"getting history or political science degrees?"
funny how the article says STEM, but when people need to find examples no one uses a STEM career as an example.
" I've said for years the real money lies in being a welder, plumber, or an electrician.
nope. facts do not bare that out at all.
average incomes:
welder - 32K
plumber - 26k
electrician - 39K
software - 71k
software engineer - 90k
electrical engineer - 83k
civil engineer - 78k
social scientist - 86k
way less money. You still have that pesky thing where you may have to kill people.
Nope.
College is about an education, not 'job'. The only problem is people are under the delusion that any degree will pay 6 figures and then get an easy degree.
Afterwords they are shocked, Shocked I tell you, that someone who spent 4 year learning music means they get to be a barrista.
It's fine to get a music degree, just don't whine when you have no plan on applying it.
Having a liberally educated populace is good for everyone.
well, cost is an issue to, but I'm a democratic socialist, so I think education should be paid from society. The benefits of this for society is very high.
Or at least a series of colleges that are funded via tax system.
" Invest in trade schools and weed out the seat-fillers so you actually graduate capable people."
so people who don't adapt the they way high school works should just be cast out into the snow.
You're an evil SOB.
I had a really hard time in HS. Fortunately, unlike you, the school system isn't so lazy it just throws their hands in the air and threw me out.
False.
Any student who walks out of high school in the USA can find an apprenticeship, and get paid and learn. We don't need it in the school system.
The openly problem is with people who seem to think a BS degree in a subject not in demand means they get to make a lot of money.
I don't know any STEM graduates that don't have work. When the media started whipping the 'college degree isn't worth anything' hysteria, every person that was out of work they interviewed would have something like 'liberal art and I studied american ghost stories and not I can't find a job!'*
"I would definitely jump onto the skills market again if I were coming out of High School and not all into STEM degree.
That's fine, but you wouldn't have made nearly the same money. Also, you can learn any of those trades now.
*actual quote.
programmers make 500K a year, and don't work OT
Oh, not all programmers, but no welder I know make over 100k, much less 150k.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/W...
http://www1.salary.com/Welder-...
You are making 150k a year as a welder, you are working 60+ hours a week.
going to a 4 year college makes it more likely they will be successful. Of course, they needs to be smart about what they do.
Going into a trade is trivial to do. In many cases it's as simple as walking into a union shop and asking about apprenticeships.
anything taught in shop can be taught in 3 months, tops. Usually through an apprenticeship program.
Nothing is STEM can be.
STEM promotes critical thinking, and exploration. Trades do not.
High School Education is NOT about making money. It's about getting a wide education that you can apply.
Learning STEM helps with the trades. The trades do not help with STEM.