Well it really does depend on the market, and how popular things get. I mean, we're extracting oil from tar sand in frigid northern Canada.
But the magic is in development for a space elevator to be built. Powering the climber is another challenge, but with something to hang onto, the cost of getting into space could drop by a factor of 10 to 100.
And for twice the length, you can get slinged into deep space. Mining the moon or mars have that gravity well to deal with, while the asteroids are just kinda floating around. Push them towards Earth and they'll get there eventually.
It's, you know, an "out there" idea. But if you want people to leave, they need a reason. If you want people to invest cash into the possibility, then they're going to have to have some sort of return.
And in an attempt to steer this thing back on topic, this just goes to show that we need to reduce the cost of entry into space so businesses can make a buck there. Say, a space elevator to mine asteroids for rare-earth to ship to Japan.
Uh, that sort of statement is probably narrow minded and ignores a lot of really bad shit that went down. I mean, sure the british built some railroad and canals in India, but they also gave birth to the East India Company. Who did a lot of really bad shit. I mean, the opium wars with China? There's no way you can be proud of that and still be a good person.
So there's a lot of history there and a lot of it's really fucked up. You could say something like the British did more good then bad during the height of their power and that would be debatable, especially the imperialistic parts.
But to say you're proud of the empire and what it did? You've got some blind nationalism going on and that never leads to good places. Ew dude, go read some history. Go look what happened to the majority of your colonies. There's good and there's bad. Ignoring either makes you an ass.
First, get some work in a salt mine. But not in America. You should hunt down a third world salt mine, preferably one with an oppressive regime and bosses whose lives are tied to production.
Once you get used to the hours, the whips, the festering wounds, and the ubiquitous taste of pain, then you will have proven yourself capable of dealing with the game development atmosphere, and it's time to go get some technical skill.
Of course, that's assuming that you want to go into "the industry" and get a paycheck. If you just want to make games, then go be an indie developer, learn by doing, and STARVE (unless you strike gold).
Uh, before we get into the nitty gritty of how we knock up women in a generational space-ark, maybe we should try to use nukes as a propellant first. You know, see if we can smack a probe into the next solar system and still have it function in some method. The Orion Project is a neat idea, but so far it's ONLY an idea. I'm just saying, before we build an ark, how about we see if we can get something to float?
But it's hardly unreasonable that with all the radiation that humans emit that some of it would be in terms of IR close enough to the visible spectrum that some people would be able to see it.
I guess that's not unreasonable, except for the part where any such emission would also be detected by recordable sensors. Oh look. They haven't. So what you're claiming is that your eyeball can sense thing which no other device can. To which, I call bullshit.
You only think Randi is an asshole because he shows how full of shit you are.
Well yeah. Anything that's REAL is science. Anything that IS NOT REAL is woo woo.
(Also, woo woo? Really? Where the fuck did this one come from?)
Anyway, that "not supported by evidence" part isn't trivial. It means it doesn't really exist. It means it's a shame. That people pushing said crap are themselves full of crap. And anyone buying their bullshit are sheep that deserve to be flim-flamed like the gullible rube that they are.
There are no auras, the crystals do nothing, and you'll never be able to follow the queen of diamonds because the hustler has it up his sleeve.
But Randi's challenge money was ALWAYS impossible to those who could follow logic. DUH!
Uh... maybe she won't be a grunt laborer then? Maybe she'll sell out her artistic ability?
Did you know that there are people online who live off of donations in exchange for regular updates? It's a mysterious world called webcomics. I suggest you check it out.
(and having successfully distracted my foe for the foreseeable future, I'm now claiming victory).
Did you miss the part where they put out 1.5 million laptops?
Yeah, a $100 target would have been better. Twice as good in fact.
Sticking strictly with open and free is debatable. If they can wheedle a few million out of MS in exchange for some empty promices, so much the better.
The product that they want IS the XO. It has a lot of nice features that other cheap laptops don't.
Do they really need a tablet version? Shrug, I dunno. But to say that the OLPC project went nowhere is a bold faced lie. Just because you don't see them in walmart doesn't mean much. (but yeah, I'd like to see them in retail too.)
Yeah, we'll never be a hive-mind, but we already do agree on a lot of things. Like:
For one thing, it's a fairly inefficient method of food production.
Yeah, like I said, meat is simply more expensive, and we pay for the flavor. There is PLENTY of food to go around though.
Low intensity farming, grazing, is a perfectly viable way to raise animals. But farmers can make an extra buck with feedlots, and so they will. And let me make that clear, feedlots are more efficient then butchering cows right out of the pasture. You simply get more meat.
If you go out of your way to find entirely grass fed beef, for instance I think you will be able to see the difference in quality -- on all cuts.
As far as taste, I have have to disagree with you there. "Grazing" cows don't taste as good as the usual feedlot meat. It has a flavor to it I'm sure about. But then again, I also like Kraft mac'n'cheese to the "real" stuff. I might simple be used to it. Free-range chickens do taste delicious. A lot better then the typical store stuff. And supposedly the quality of pork as degraded since my parent's time. More water then taste. Shrug.
As for environmental damage, feedlots stink, but it's has no more long-term damage to the environment then crop farming. That said, there's a reason that Europe measures their topsoil in inches and the midwest measures it in feet.
I also agree with you on the fishing side though. That really is a problem. I'm not sure what the solution would be other then to stop eating so much fish, but I'm already doing my part.
So from a health perspective it seems clear that as a society it would be wise to cut down "a lot" on meat consumption.
Have you been keeping up with the dietary trends of the USA at all? We are FAT! We eat WAY TOO MUCH. We are engorged with calories. In 2003, the average calorie intake was 2,757, I doubt it's gotten better. If you're going to try to get people to eat healthier, then the first thing you need to say is EAT LESS, YOU FATTY! Not, as you say, eat a more balanced diet. Eating a mountain of veggies isn't going to counter-balance the triple-burger and jumbo fries. But yeah, veggies are important. I just think there's a bigger problem right now.
Perhaps if you have had a pet before,
I'm a cat person myself.
But I'm not arguing that farmers should be giving their cattle low doses of anti-biotics. That's the article. I'm questioning the quest against meat.
Anyway, you're probably right about the stress thing leading to disease. If they can't make a buck using feedlots without hosing them with anti-biotics, then they'll probably stop. Or compartmentalize. Or some other alternative solution.
Some people really don't care about the suffering of animals other than humans.
I care. But most cows in feedlots aren't suffering, it's just unpleasant, like cows in trailers. Yeah, they don't like that. It ain't natural and they haven't had enough experience with it to acclimate. That is indeed "stress". Tough. Now, that said, some feedlots do whatever they can to butcher the cows. Even the sick ones that should be rejected. That sucks, and I'd support better enforcement.
They work bloody hard and get paid almost nothing.
Uh...... Huh? Yeah, farming is complicated. You have to be equal parts businessman, mechanic, and an actual farmer. But farming is a big business. They can make a shit-ton of profit. But just like all the other industries, there are the haves and have-nots. Usually it depends on if you own the land/vehicles/whatnot that you're using.
I'm not, you know, a ravenous lunatic that can't be reasoned with. But I have some basic knowledge about farms, biology, food, and economics, and the argument I saw against meat didn't seem to stack up. Your argument, on the other hand, is mostly against feedlots, mostly correct, and it's even more on topic.
Because instead of being killed, maimed, and/or TERRIFIED, people were inconvenienced and possibly put out of a few sales, for a while.
Jaywalking is not an act of dissent due to it's scale. It's just not serious enough to qualify. A DDOS, to a music store, does not terrorism make. Even if they had thrown a brick into their window, it's still not terrorism.
Dude, if they can simply side-step a massive social issue that was holdup research, then more the power to them. Honestly, I'm pissed that Bush got elected on the backs of dead babies.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Yes, but the freaks are freaks. They're beyond hope. But this whole abortion thing got people like aunt Bev, a life-long democrat, to vote for someone who had completely opposite views then her, other then this one issue.
If you can make stem cells without the abortion thing, then the majority of that social pressure will be removed.
Remember, society is a bell curve.
Sooooooo when you buy my crap at the garage sale, I shouldn't thank you but rather your employer... your employer's clients... your employer's clients' employers... uh.... I think your economic model needs work
I guess I have to chuck in my own version of:
Huh?
First, we need to reduce the amount of meat we consume, and we need to consume better meat when we do.
Uh, why reduce meat intake? You never really explain that part.
"Better" meat? There are the good cuts and the bad cuts. If you had said we need to eat healthier food, or even just eat less, then oh yeah, I'd totally agree. But better meat? Chuck roast or pigs feet is just as healthy as T-bone. You only get so much t-bone out of a cow and that comes along with a certain amount of rump.
This diet that America has of eating a big bucket of meat and cheese from Denny's is just ridiculous, and it's killing us on multiple fronts.
Yes, the "big" modifier in there is making us fat. And, arguably, the fact that it's from Denny's. But eating meat and cheese is not the problem here.
Eating smaller portions of meat,
Again, eating smaller portions is what's needed. But I'm still not seeing why you're blaming the meat. Eating a bucket of pasta is equally unhealthy.
Factory farming has got to go, it's horrible on so many fronts. I'm not a foodie, and I don't have vegan super powers, and I recognize that people are on a budget, and can't shop for organic at whole foods (hell, I can't afford to, and I have a decent job). But we have to figure some kind of practical way forward, because we can't keep packing animals in to dark crates, standing in their own filth and pumping them full of drugs and then call that dinner.
Ah! Here we go.
1)"meat is expensive, good meat doubly so". This is true. Livestock simply has additional costs. And we pay for the flavor. The delicious juicy flavor. The good parts of the livestock really are that much more expensive. But hey, it's our money to spend.
2)"animal cruelty is bad". Meh. They're animals. I'm not a fan of animal cruelty, but their lives will not be glamorous. There will always be the bleeding hearts who will never be happy with any form of livestock, here and now, farms aren't all that bad. "dark crates"? meh. "standing in own filth"? Yeah, pig pens are dirty. It's really only cruelty if it leads to disease. (which, in sudden burst of on-topicness really could lead to cleaner livestock practices if superbugs become a big issue).
3)"Pumped full of drugs" Like antibiotics to keep them healthy? Or you're probably talking about hormones to make them fatten up. Yeah, that's been debated. There might be an issue where those hormones are seeping into the human populous, maybe. But chemicals and drugs are not evil. "Natural" is not synonymous with "healthy" or even "good". Snake venom will kill you just as easily as cyanide, and nature really only plans to keep you around till your kid can start hunting.
So, while your post ran parallel to a few good ideas, you didn't really take it in a good direction. Blaming meat where there is no reason to blame it simply dilutes your whole argument, and the argument for dietitians everywhere. You're the reason that there are those old republicans who spew nonsense about the damned hippies taking away the meat from the grocery store. Either point out the real negatives to the livestock industry, or tell the fatties to stop eating so damn much.
bwaaa?
For, like, accounting programs and business apps, sure. And GA/GP would be a real bad idea for things like that. But if you need a better weather predictor, or a better fluid mechanics simulator, or a better algorithm for playing the stock market, then genetic programming could work. And HAS worked, as people have used this process to get better designs. Or, if you don't know what you're doing, a massive waste of time and money.
And, uh, it doesn't take millions of years, it takes millions of generations, which happen about as fast as your computer can crunch numbers. Which is pretty fast now a days.
If we could have code as elegant as the cell , dna , etc that would be awesome.
Except for that part where it isn't elegant at all. It's a huge mishmash of "works well enough", "let's see what fucking around with this variable does", and isn't human readable in the least. Most of it doesn't even appear to do anything at all. It's prone to defects and security holes abound. Hell, it even looks like there's planned obsolescence after the next generation gets going.
Some people have used a similar process to write code, but it isn't suitable for most problems.
What are these "commercials" they speak of?
Also, I'm quickly forgetting what "TV" is, as what few shows I watch aren't on a television, don't come over broadcast, don't come from television companies, and in which I don't watch any commercials. That's how others see them I guess, but meh.
So I guess the only aspect of "TV" in the shows I watch are an arbitrary time factor and some highly circumvented decency rules.
In the long term, yes, I'd agree wholeheartedly. It's perhaps the most important thing that humanity will ever do. Maybe even for all life on Earth. But it ain't gonna happen any time soon. You're talking about sustainable, independent, life. You need to create an ecosystem for that. We had problems making that happen ON Earth. So, for this decade, we aren't going to have moon colonies. Hope and dream all you want, it just ain't happening. What we can do is explore space, learn more about the universe, and maybe build a space elevator out of carbon nanotubes.
Learning about space can be done with probes. And until it's cheaper to escape the gravity well, every ounce counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how much you willing to bet that one of your fore-fathers was a crook of some sort?
Well it really does depend on the market, and how popular things get. I mean, we're extracting oil from tar sand in frigid northern Canada.
But the magic is in development for a space elevator to be built. Powering the climber is another challenge, but with something to hang onto, the cost of getting into space could drop by a factor of 10 to 100.
And for twice the length, you can get slinged into deep space. Mining the moon or mars have that gravity well to deal with, while the asteroids are just kinda floating around. Push them towards Earth and they'll get there eventually.
It's, you know, an "out there" idea. But if you want people to leave, they need a reason. If you want people to invest cash into the possibility, then they're going to have to have some sort of return.
And in an attempt to steer this thing back on topic, this just goes to show that we need to reduce the cost of entry into space so businesses can make a buck there. Say, a space elevator to mine asteroids for rare-earth to ship to Japan.
Actually I think one is a subset of of the other... beast.
Uh, that sort of statement is probably narrow minded and ignores a lot of really bad shit that went down. I mean, sure the british built some railroad and canals in India, but they also gave birth to the East India Company. Who did a lot of really bad shit. I mean, the opium wars with China? There's no way you can be proud of that and still be a good person.
So there's a lot of history there and a lot of it's really fucked up. You could say something like the British did more good then bad during the height of their power and that would be debatable, especially the imperialistic parts.
But to say you're proud of the empire and what it did? You've got some blind nationalism going on and that never leads to good places. Ew dude, go read some history. Go look what happened to the majority of your colonies. There's good and there's bad. Ignoring either makes you an ass.
Gracious.
First, get some work in a salt mine. But not in America. You should hunt down a third world salt mine, preferably one with an oppressive regime and bosses whose lives are tied to production.
Once you get used to the hours, the whips, the festering wounds, and the ubiquitous taste of pain, then you will have proven yourself capable of dealing with the game development atmosphere, and it's time to go get some technical skill.
Of course, that's assuming that you want to go into "the industry" and get a paycheck.
If you just want to make games, then go be an indie developer, learn by doing, and STARVE (unless you strike gold).
Uh, before we get into the nitty gritty of how we knock up women in a generational space-ark, maybe we should try to use nukes as a propellant first. You know, see if we can smack a probe into the next solar system and still have it function in some method. The Orion Project is a neat idea, but so far it's ONLY an idea. I'm just saying, before we build an ark, how about we see if we can get something to float?
But it's hardly unreasonable that with all the radiation that humans emit that some of it would be in terms of IR close enough to the visible spectrum that some people would be able to see it.
I guess that's not unreasonable, except for the part where any such emission would also be detected by recordable sensors. Oh look. They haven't. So what you're claiming is that your eyeball can sense thing which no other device can. To which, I call bullshit.
You only think Randi is an asshole because he shows how full of shit you are.
Well yeah. Anything that's REAL is science. Anything that IS NOT REAL is woo woo.
(Also, woo woo? Really? Where the fuck did this one come from?)
Anyway, that "not supported by evidence" part isn't trivial. It means it doesn't really exist. It means it's a shame. That people pushing said crap are themselves full of crap. And anyone buying their bullshit are sheep that deserve to be flim-flamed like the gullible rube that they are.
There are no auras, the crystals do nothing, and you'll never be able to follow the queen of diamonds because the hustler has it up his sleeve.
But Randi's challenge money was ALWAYS impossible to those who could follow logic. DUH!
ugh, it's a sad day when rationality is modded as flamebait.
verily.
Uh... maybe she won't be a grunt laborer then? Maybe she'll sell out her artistic ability?
Did you know that there are people online who live off of donations in exchange for regular updates? It's a mysterious world called webcomics. I suggest you check it out.
(and having successfully distracted my foe for the foreseeable future, I'm now claiming victory).
Did you miss the part where they put out 1.5 million laptops?
Yeah, a $100 target would have been better. Twice as good in fact.
Sticking strictly with open and free is debatable. If they can wheedle a few million out of MS in exchange for some empty promices, so much the better.
The product that they want IS the XO. It has a lot of nice features that other cheap laptops don't.
Do they really need a tablet version? Shrug, I dunno. But to say that the OLPC project went nowhere is a bold faced lie. Just because you don't see them in walmart doesn't mean much. (but yeah, I'd like to see them in retail too.)
it's unlikely the two of us will really agree
Yeah, we'll never be a hive-mind, but we already do agree on a lot of things. Like:
For one thing, it's a fairly inefficient method of food production.
Yeah, like I said, meat is simply more expensive, and we pay for the flavor. There is PLENTY of food to go around though.
Low intensity farming, grazing, is a perfectly viable way to raise animals. But farmers can make an extra buck with feedlots, and so they will. And let me make that clear, feedlots are more efficient then butchering cows right out of the pasture. You simply get more meat.
If you go out of your way to find entirely grass fed beef, for instance I think you will be able to see the difference in quality -- on all cuts.
As far as taste, I have have to disagree with you there. "Grazing" cows don't taste as good as the usual feedlot meat. It has a flavor to it I'm sure about. But then again, I also like Kraft mac'n'cheese to the "real" stuff. I might simple be used to it. Free-range chickens do taste delicious. A lot better then the typical store stuff. And supposedly the quality of pork as degraded since my parent's time. More water then taste. Shrug.
As for environmental damage, feedlots stink, but it's has no more long-term damage to the environment then crop farming. That said, there's a reason that Europe measures their topsoil in inches and the midwest measures it in feet.
I also agree with you on the fishing side though. That really is a problem. I'm not sure what the solution would be other then to stop eating so much fish, but I'm already doing my part.
So from a health perspective it seems clear that as a society it would be wise to cut down "a lot" on meat consumption.
Have you been keeping up with the dietary trends of the USA at all? We are FAT! We eat WAY TOO MUCH. We are engorged with calories. In 2003, the average calorie intake was 2,757, I doubt it's gotten better. If you're going to try to get people to eat healthier, then the first thing you need to say is EAT LESS, YOU FATTY! Not, as you say, eat a more balanced diet. Eating a mountain of veggies isn't going to counter-balance the triple-burger and jumbo fries.
But yeah, veggies are important. I just think there's a bigger problem right now.
Perhaps if you have had a pet before,
I'm a cat person myself.
But I'm not arguing that farmers should be giving their cattle low doses of anti-biotics. That's the article. I'm questioning the quest against meat.
Anyway, you're probably right about the stress thing leading to disease. If they can't make a buck using feedlots without hosing them with anti-biotics, then they'll probably stop. Or compartmentalize. Or some other alternative solution.
Some people really don't care about the suffering of animals other than humans.
I care. But most cows in feedlots aren't suffering, it's just unpleasant, like cows in trailers. Yeah, they don't like that. It ain't natural and they haven't had enough experience with it to acclimate. That is indeed "stress". Tough.
Now, that said, some feedlots do whatever they can to butcher the cows. Even the sick ones that should be rejected. That sucks, and I'd support better enforcement.
They work bloody hard and get paid almost nothing.
Uh...... Huh? Yeah, farming is complicated. You have to be equal parts businessman, mechanic, and an actual farmer. But farming is a big business. They can make a shit-ton of profit. But just like all the other industries, there are the haves and have-nots. Usually it depends on if you own the land/vehicles/whatnot that you're using.
I'm not, you know, a ravenous lunatic that can't be reasoned with. But I have some basic knowledge about farms, biology, food, and economics, and the argument I saw against meat didn't seem to stack up. Your argument, on the other hand, is mostly against feedlots, mostly correct, and it's even more on topic.
Because instead of being killed, maimed, and/or TERRIFIED, people were inconvenienced and possibly put out of a few sales, for a while.
Jaywalking is not an act of dissent due to it's scale. It's just not serious enough to qualify. A DDOS, to a music store, does not terrorism make. Even if they had thrown a brick into their window, it's still not terrorism.
Ease up on that trigger grandpa.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Yes, but the freaks are freaks. They're beyond hope. But this whole abortion thing got people like aunt Bev, a life-long democrat, to vote for someone who had completely opposite views then her, other then this one issue.
If you can make stem cells without the abortion thing, then the majority of that social pressure will be removed.
Remember, society is a bell curve.
Sooooooo when you buy my crap at the garage sale, I shouldn't thank you but rather your employer...
your employer's clients...
your employer's clients' employers...
uh.... I think your economic model needs work
You know what else works?
Bacon.
Huh?
First, we need to reduce the amount of meat we consume, and we need to consume better meat when we do.
Uh, why reduce meat intake? You never really explain that part.
"Better" meat? There are the good cuts and the bad cuts. If you had said we need to eat healthier food, or even just eat less, then oh yeah, I'd totally agree. But better meat? Chuck roast or pigs feet is just as healthy as T-bone. You only get so much t-bone out of a cow and that comes along with a certain amount of rump.
This diet that America has of eating a big bucket of meat and cheese from Denny's is just ridiculous, and it's killing us on multiple fronts.
Yes, the "big" modifier in there is making us fat. And, arguably, the fact that it's from Denny's. But eating meat and cheese is not the problem here.
Eating smaller portions of meat,
Again, eating smaller portions is what's needed. But I'm still not seeing why you're blaming the meat. Eating a bucket of pasta is equally unhealthy.
Factory farming has got to go, it's horrible on so many fronts. I'm not a foodie, and I don't have vegan super powers, and I recognize that people are on a budget, and can't shop for organic at whole foods (hell, I can't afford to, and I have a decent job). But we have to figure some kind of practical way forward, because we can't keep packing animals in to dark crates, standing in their own filth and pumping them full of drugs and then call that dinner.
Ah! Here we go.
1)"meat is expensive, good meat doubly so". This is true. Livestock simply has additional costs. And we pay for the flavor. The delicious juicy flavor. The good parts of the livestock really are that much more expensive. But hey, it's our money to spend.
2)"animal cruelty is bad". Meh. They're animals. I'm not a fan of animal cruelty, but their lives will not be glamorous. There will always be the bleeding hearts who will never be happy with any form of livestock, here and now, farms aren't all that bad. "dark crates"? meh. "standing in own filth"? Yeah, pig pens are dirty. It's really only cruelty if it leads to disease. (which, in sudden burst of on-topicness really could lead to cleaner livestock practices if superbugs become a big issue).
3)"Pumped full of drugs" Like antibiotics to keep them healthy? Or you're probably talking about hormones to make them fatten up. Yeah, that's been debated. There might be an issue where those hormones are seeping into the human populous, maybe. But chemicals and drugs are not evil. "Natural" is not synonymous with "healthy" or even "good". Snake venom will kill you just as easily as cyanide, and nature really only plans to keep you around till your kid can start hunting.
So, while your post ran parallel to a few good ideas, you didn't really take it in a good direction. Blaming meat where there is no reason to blame it simply dilutes your whole argument, and the argument for dietitians everywhere. You're the reason that there are those old republicans who spew nonsense about the damned hippies taking away the meat from the grocery store. Either point out the real negatives to the livestock industry, or tell the fatties to stop eating so damn much.
Actually "organic" has a clear definition, particularly in the realm of the food industry.
...
I'm not sure exactly how it applies to meat,
I tried to look up exactly what organic meat was through through the USDA website however didn't make much progress.
uh....
bwaaa?
For, like, accounting programs and business apps, sure. And GA/GP would be a real bad idea for things like that. But if you need a better weather predictor, or a better fluid mechanics simulator, or a better algorithm for playing the stock market, then genetic programming could work. And HAS worked, as people have used this process to get better designs. Or, if you don't know what you're doing, a massive waste of time and money.
And, uh, it doesn't take millions of years, it takes millions of generations, which happen about as fast as your computer can crunch numbers. Which is pretty fast now a days.
If we could have code as elegant as the cell , dna , etc that would be awesome.
Except for that part where it isn't elegant at all. It's a huge mishmash of "works well enough", "let's see what fucking around with this variable does", and isn't human readable in the least. Most of it doesn't even appear to do anything at all. It's prone to defects and security holes abound. Hell, it even looks like there's planned obsolescence after the next generation gets going.
Some people have used a similar process to write code, but it isn't suitable for most problems.
What are these "commercials" they speak of?
Also, I'm quickly forgetting what "TV" is, as what few shows I watch aren't on a television, don't come over broadcast, don't come from television companies, and in which I don't watch any commercials. That's how others see them I guess, but meh.
So I guess the only aspect of "TV" in the shows I watch are an arbitrary time factor and some highly circumvented decency rules.
In the long term, yes, I'd agree wholeheartedly. It's perhaps the most important thing that humanity will ever do. Maybe even for all life on Earth. But it ain't gonna happen any time soon. You're talking about sustainable, independent, life. You need to create an ecosystem for that. We had problems making that happen ON Earth. So, for this decade, we aren't going to have moon colonies. Hope and dream all you want, it just ain't happening. What we can do is explore space, learn more about the universe, and maybe build a space elevator out of carbon nanotubes.
Learning about space can be done with probes. And until it's cheaper to escape the gravity well, every ounce counts.