Robots could do that was well. We just need to design them and send them.
When you are talking about comparing costs. Right now we send robots for dist cheapo. If we sent robots with the same budget we would need to send people, then drilling and digging can be done.
I wan't people to go to Mars. I think the is a lot of value there. I don't want them to go there knowing they will be dead in a month. Send some support infrastructure, send some automated system get it set up, then send people.
"You object? Don't go. It's just that simple." I really think people who say that cannot understand the their is a world outside their arm reach.
"There's a CHANCE of survival beyond the first 72 hours, and probably much longer." what are you basing that on?
" I'd have jumped on it." I doubt it. "Hey, you want to go to Mars and then die in a week for no good reason?" It' easy to think that you would when it's not an actual decision. To put in another way: "Hey, you want to take a one trip to the bottom of the ocean where you will die shortly after getting there?"
Not true. If mars could support life, then there would be no issue with a one way trip. You get there, you are independent, you can build you home, breath the air, easily find food.
People on Mars will be dependent on people on Earth to send supplies in order to even breath.
Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions. Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors. I like how the article you linked only links to itself and not to any actual reference to the court case.
*sometime justifiable, but all too often I've seen them do things to American car they don't do to non American cars.
Have you been in one? Man, they are beautiful, fun as hell to drive, great acceleration. I wish I could afford one. I didn't see the 60 minutes piece, but I can't think of anything practical to complain about.
It was probably as reported, but was around during the cold war, so part of me still wonders. IT's an irrational part of my, but then a childhood full of fear of nuclear hell leaves a mark.
The cities are part of a state and the state responsibility. The military is a federal organization. The government of Michigan is letting those people down, not the feds.
Actually, it's easier to manipulate comfortable people who feel safe. When was the last time a government was overthrown because it's populace was secure and well fed? The PATRIOT act was easy because of 9/11. Not becasue states won't take care of their cities.
It was. The chain of event that follow the assassination were a pretty rapid and unlikely chain of events to have happened without that assassination.
If you are curious, reading the account of what was happening the day the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated is a comedy of errors.
It's also highly unlikely the WWII would have happened without WWI, since there would not have been the poverty and economic status Hitler used to gain power.
I haven't forgotten, I also haven't forgotten the backlash, protest and change. I was pissed, and I let him know, like millions of others. Like OKCupid is doing with Eich.
great questions. For the record I have resigned a job over issues. Also for the record: IF CEO's couldn't use corporations to wield political power, it would be a non issue for me. Sadly we don't live in that world. My first response is to let the board know that there will be a PR backlash. Start shopping around. If there are rambling and I think something might happen, I stick around. If not, I find new work.
"If not, then are you remiss in your moral and political duty?" ah, the tough choice of reality. If I had to work to put food in the mouths of my loved one? yes I would keep working. I would look for wether work, but sometimes you ahve no real choice. Like prisoners of war making weapons.
I have a problem with anyone fighting to take basic human rights away.
There were protest and the President was called on it. And he changed his view.
If the decision cause a company to loose money, the board will remove the CEO. Money is the only weapon we have against companies. Wit you argument, no on would ever make any decision. I can't change deodorant, someone might loose a job.
Actually I presented a fact that counter her absurd claim.
In this case, Jane is going on claiming that wanting to end bigotry is intolerance, when clearly it is not. Which is what the link supports.
Since I actually addressed the issue, it was not an Ad Hominem. Frankly, it was an opinion. If someone can't understand the context of a discussion, then they are pretty useless in a conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Robots could do that was well. We just need to design them and send them.
When you are talking about comparing costs. Right now we send robots for dist cheapo. If we sent robots with the same budget we would need to send people, then drilling and digging can be done.
I wan't people to go to Mars. I think the is a lot of value there. I don't want them to go there knowing they will be dead in a month.
Send some support infrastructure, send some automated system get it set up, then send people.
Going to Mars to die advances nothing.
"You object? Don't go. It's just that simple."
I really think people who say that cannot understand the their is a world outside their arm reach.
"There's a CHANCE of survival beyond the first 72 hours, and probably much longer."
what are you basing that on?
" I'd have jumped on it."
I doubt it. "Hey, you want to go to Mars and then die in a week for no good reason?"
It' easy to think that you would when it's not an actual decision.
To put in another way:
"Hey, you want to take a one trip to the bottom of the ocean where you will die shortly after getting there?"
Not true.
If mars could support life, then there would be no issue with a one way trip. You get there, you are independent, you can build you home, breath the air, easily find food.
People on Mars will be dependent on people on Earth to send supplies in order to even breath.
Easy to say of you have never killed anyone.
"We all die."
prove it.
Many people have died so far is all you can prove.
No, its an ethical dilemma for the people launching the astronaut into space as well.
Shifting is fun, and it give a sense of control.
Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.
Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors.
I like how the article you linked only links to itself and not to any actual reference to the court case.
*sometime justifiable, but all too often I've seen them do things to American car they don't do to non American cars.
Have you been in one? Man, they are beautiful, fun as hell to drive, great acceleration.
I wish I could afford one.
I didn't see the 60 minutes piece, but I can't think of anything practical to complain about.
ANd I hope it is. BEcasue once it starts, it will get cheaper and then I can be a bio engineered super civilian.
Why else would you embrace it?
to buy my first Gooputer
It was probably as reported, but was around during the cold war, so part of me still wonders. IT's an irrational part of my, but then a childhood full of fear of nuclear hell leaves a mark.
No link, just a quote. tsk. tsk.
Anyway, how to you disable a radio signal being broad cast to a 1/4 of the world to a small subsection?
Anyways, 2000 was 14 years ago and literally in the 20th century, like the poster said.
The cities are part of a state and the state responsibility. The military is a federal organization.
The government of Michigan is letting those people down, not the feds.
Actually, it's easier to manipulate comfortable people who feel safe. When was the last time a government was overthrown because it's populace was secure and well fed?
The PATRIOT act was easy because of 9/11. Not becasue states won't take care of their cities.
It was. The chain of event that follow the assassination were a pretty rapid and unlikely chain of events to have happened without that assassination.
If you are curious, reading the account of what was happening the day the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated is a comedy of errors.
It's also highly unlikely the WWII would have happened without WWI, since there would not have been the poverty and economic status Hitler used to gain power.
There is always an excuse when you make a mistake.
Should I respond to your error with a rant on spelling?
SO what?
Those people have no right to force their views on others.
I wasn't aware Obama was running OKCupid...
I haven't forgotten, I also haven't forgotten the backlash, protest and change.
I was pissed, and I let him know, like millions of others. Like OKCupid is doing with Eich.
great questions. For the record I have resigned a job over issues.
Also for the record: IF CEO's couldn't use corporations to wield political power, it would be a non issue for me. Sadly we don't live in that world.
My first response is to let the board know that there will be a PR backlash.
Start shopping around.
If there are rambling and I think something might happen, I stick around. If not, I find new work.
"If not, then are you remiss in your moral and political duty?"
ah, the tough choice of reality.
If I had to work to put food in the mouths of my loved one? yes I would keep working. I would look for wether work, but sometimes you ahve no real choice.
Like prisoners of war making weapons.
I have a problem with anyone fighting to take basic human rights away.
There were protest and the President was called on it. And he changed his view.
If the decision cause a company to loose money, the board will remove the CEO. Money is the only weapon we have against companies.
Wit you argument, no on would ever make any decision.
I can't change deodorant, someone might loose a job.
Her claim is that the left wanting to end bigotry,and call bigots out is somehow intolerance.
Calling someone on there intolerance is not intolerance.
And the left has been doing the since before she was born... assuming she is under 50...or so.
Actually I presented a fact that counter her absurd claim.
In this case, Jane is going on claiming that wanting to end bigotry is intolerance, when clearly it is not.
Which is what the link supports.
Since I actually addressed the issue, it was not an Ad Hominem. Frankly, it was an opinion. If someone can't understand the context of a discussion, then they are pretty useless in a conversation.