Whoa, I knew we were a little better than the conservatives, but that one chart about who people trust. "Mostly Conservatives only trust Fox News" (at least >50%) and then "consistently conservatives trust fox... and then three individual talk show hosts. At least the majority of "Mostly Conservatives" don't actually trust those fuckers.....Someone explain to me how the republicans, with such a narrow chokepoint on their news intake, elected a political outsider 2008 democrat?
And while you're at it, how democrats with such a broad set of input went with the boring known establishment choice. Is that like design by committee? So many voices squash all creativity?
No, it doesn't have an effect on the FCC's IT support, but politics DOES have an effect on how people react to said IT support.
If you hate the FCC you claim they're incompetent for confusing traffic with a DDOS.
If you love the FCC you blindly trust them when they claim it's a DDOS and then you blame Trump supporters or Russian hackers for trying to tear down something John Oliver pointed people to.
Eh, I'd say that the comeback is "and the majority of conservatives take their news from angry talk show hosts". Trumps twitter is a recent thing. This has been going on for decades.
It's not like... the ONLY news source most of them get is either news comedy or new... rage-induction? Some sure do, but most people on both sides probably get their news from a variety of sources....But those sources ALSO include comedians and hate-mongers.
It's honestly hard to change your views on something, so the first time you hear about a topic is the most vital when it comes to bias and presumptions in all later development.
Some people got violent over whether Ann Coulter would speak at Berkley....as reported by www.glennbeck.com/.. www.theblaze.com/.../ Breitbart News https://townhall.com/....Uhh huh. oh hey, this happened just last April. Yeah, ok, I'm not up to date.
But yeah, I'd denounce planned violence over having that shitbag speak. Bad mojo right there.
I didn't say they changed as a culture, but the whole religion is based on changing as individuals,
Because the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party got going in 1792. 5 years after we had the constitution in 1787. And there weren't so much "plenty of parties" so much as "There was George Washington".
Learn some history yo.
Other than that, I agree and that's a mostly good idea.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that progressives don't encourage actual anarchists. Most of us are older than 15.
Likewise, I'm not really accusing conservatives of being defined by the immigrant hating, pro-violence, alt-right movement. Both parties will have wing-nuts and extremists which take ideals too far. I mean, if you want a flavor of reddit right-wing hate-mongering, here you go.
Well considering I've never heard of either antifa or antefa before, I'm not a fan of jackboot thugs, and I've never seen civvies marching around in black uniforms... I'm going to go out on a limb and say I haven't really cozzied up to that lot.
The rioting political activists are indeed a problem, although I certainly haven't seen them as any sort of orgainized. Certainly not enough to have uniforms. Is this a European thing?
The sort of anarchists I associate with progressivism would be the Occupy Wallstreet lot, which were... well... laughably unorganized. Which is sadly what you're going to get with real grassroots movements. They weren't that violent, and indeed they were the ones getting curb-stomped by jackboot thugs.
Funny, I heard "We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's Christianity."
BAWHAHAHAHA, what? Christianity? Changing? They're the definition of old-stogies. The religious right is rooted in conservatism, as in conserving the old ways and or going back to the old ways. Woo, that's a hoot. Sigh, anyway, there are plenty of progressive christians, but holy cow are they a quiet minority here in the states.
I'm sure many progressives have their heart in the right place, but then so did many right-wing religious whackos.
Oh for sure. Everyone just has their own views of the best way to go about things. Until you have actual jack-boot fascists (or the whatever-ante version) marching in the streets punching up people, it's really just a disagreement about how to do things. Some people honestly believe that christianity is the best way forward and we should elect priests and shit.
Yes. Realize that the other side ALSO want anarchy, at least they want to tear down the government, deregulate everything, and trust the anarchy of the free market to rule in it's place. They want the government out of business. Our flavor of anarchists want the government out of our personal lives.
antifa
Who?
Is that anti-fascism? As in, Woody Guthrie? That guy with the "This machine kills fascism" guitar? If so, then yes. Bob Dylan has some good stuff too.
Am I supposed to be supporting fascism? Did I not get that memo?
and riot?
Sigh, yeah. That's a problem. I highly prefer the peaceful protest marches. And I could say something about there being plenty of violence on the other side of the fence. Or that the bulk of rioters are probably apolitical and just partaking of a crime of opportunity... but I have to admit that as far as cozzying up to bad tactics and asshats, that's been a problem.
We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's progressive.
As a progressive, Bernie-voting, liberal democrat... "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it".
We try to self-police this sort of bullshit witch-hunting, but portions of the party have gotten out of hand. At least we didn't cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.
I have, but it's a philosophical argument. The vast majority of philosophical arguments are a pointless waste of time.
Adding to the pointless waste of time: I'd argue that the guy in the room doesn't know Chinese, but the book does. The book contains a solution to the Turing test. It contains a list of instructions that adequately replicates something as complex as a human mind. Just one that speaks Chinese. If that's not intelligence, then nothing is.
You can cry a river about "Hard" AI vs "soft" AI or "narrow" AI vs "General purpose" AI. But you lot have always been moving the goalpost and some of you will NEVER be satisfied. "Artificial Intelligence" is a term people use in reference to a certain sort of thing. The media hype might get it wrong a lot, but that doesn't mean the term is meaningless. Just because you're not satisfied with the state of AI, or you want to put humanity on some special pedestal, it doesn't give you the right to try and redefine what the term means.
Even with the strictest definition, Artificial Intelligence is the aspect of computer algorithms modifying themselves to complete a non-arbitrary task.
No, there's nothing all that fundamentally different between the neural networks of the 60's and the ones they have now. They were indeed AI in the 60's and they're most certainly AI today.
Get a collection of known recordings, and let the neural nets learn what sound is what word and it will be able to identify the majority of future recordings of said words. If learning a spoken language doesn't make it intelligent, then humans aren't intelligent either.
The voice recognition part of Alexis was developed with AI. It learned how to recognize speech. There's really no way you can refute that without sounding crazy.
I think it's an important distinction when talking about new tech when people flaunt about the mystical and magical A.I. tag that
1) A lot of AI is not all that impressive. Mario Goombas have an AI. It's like 3 lines of code, but it's there. If you want to become an all high'n'mightly Scotsman and say that REAL AI is self-learning, then a lot of AI simply isn't.
2) A lot of new tech is MADE with AI, but is not itself really AI. Liiiiike, the stream-lining of a car chassis. Some automated portions of trial and error might have found "the best" shape given a set of requirements... but is the resulting chunk of steel a form of AI? No. Same way with... medical diagnosis flowcharts. The flowchart might have been made with a really advanced big-data AI, but the output is just a "dumb" flowchart.
Or this might be a more appropriate. One of those intros to AI deep neural nets uses handwriting as an example. You feed it each pixel of an image with hand-writing, and it can learn to identify letters. WOO! The AI part, the learning part, is how it changes the configuration of the neural net. Once it's done, the neural net is like a mathematical model that does a job. But without more training, it's static and won't learn any more. You might get updates from the author, and that author might even get feedback from your usage, which really does put your guy in the loop. It's most certainly AI, but... your voice activated toaster doesn't learn and adapt. Not locally anyway.
3) The interfaces to these systems, whether they're made by hand or made by an AI, are going to be well-polished or an abysmal clusterfuck entirely depending on how much effort the makers decide to put into it. And that's what this guy is bitching about. Not the tool, but how easy it is to USE the tool.
And if he follows up, and pushes for a NASA budget, and makes NOT going to Mars political suicide, then he'll get congress to pass a proposed budget with the funds to pay for it. It'd be great if that happened. So if he's not going to pay for it... now... but he's buttering up congress to get ready to pay for it. That would require him to actually continue pushing for it, right? Do you think he's going to do that? Or was this just a flippant remark on TV? Was he just fucking with people's minds? He could do ANYTHING and his supporters like you will claim either it's part of some grand scheme he now unveiling or it's just political machinations to "keep his opponents on their toes".
No, of course you have no idea what Trump is going to do. You have no idea what you elected to office and no one is sure what's sarcasm and what's policy.
Oh, and demagogues have been long-studied and are well known. Get the workers to vote for you by blaming a minority and promising prosperity. We've been here before.
Consider for a moment that you're blindly trusting a politician. Good luck with that.
Yep, that's right. Kennedy had NOTHING to do with funding NASA. It was all congress. Distance yourself and your boy from this issue. Run for the hills. Point blame elsewhere. Deflect! Spin! If only CONGRESS would do something about it.
Oh wait, congress is controlled by Republicans too. Remember when it was so easy for them to say "no" in harmony?
Alright. After avoiding the question so many times, I'm calling it. You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission. So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
Peggy Whitson doesn't have a team. She's not NASA's administration. She's an astronaut aboard the International Space Station. This was a PR stunt. (which, hey, is totally acceptable for both sides of this equation. It's just not the place or the person to push for major policy change.)
...perhaps with Bigelow habitats
...Do you realize that plugs into the ISS? Do you think they're going to push the ISS into Mars orbit?
Maybe you could use a modified SpaceX Crew Dragon to land on Phobos and return to the habitat,
Do you realize that Mars is a planet with gravity? You're not getting off the surface of mars without a rocket. You are not going to modify a crew module to become a mars launch rocket. I know you're thinking of the Apollo mission where the top of the lander takes off and gets back into orbit. That's not happening on Mars.
In terms of national prestige projects it wouldn't even cost that much.
Warm up that ol' "It turns out this is harder than expected" line, because it's about to get used some more.
Of course, you made sure to say "per megawatt hour", but I'm not sure how many megawatt hours per gallon of gas my Mazda generates. Furthermore, you'd expect new and promising industries to get subsidies to help them get started while you'd hope established industries like oil and gas would be able to support themselves. Especially while making record profits. I get that it's a strategic resource and making it cheap helps out everyone, but it's also polluting, which hurts everyone. Something something free market.
They want to say that there's more solar and wind grid power generation instead of coal. They REALLY don't have to swaddle that blurb with bullshit metrics. It might make them sound smart to the dumb fuckers out there, but to anyone with critical reading skills it just makes us mad. Comparing that metric between grid power and transportation is just weird and extra bull-shitty.
Yes. Yes it is. It's as adorable as his jerky handshake. As adorable as his proposed fix to immigration of "building a wall". And that Mexico will pay for it. As adorable as his one-page budget plan. As his prospect of reforming obamacare. As his prospect of making a trade deal with Germany and only after 13 tries accepting that he has to make a trade deal with the EU. And it's adorable that the fucking German chancellor had to explain that to him.
And in case English isn't your first language or you're really tone deaf, "Adorable" in this case is being used sarcastically to imply his plans are small, childish, and hopeless. As if made by a child.
And yes, it's adorable that he thinks he'll get a second term.
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
Yes I agree. Hurzzah for common ground.
So do you think he's going to pay for it? Because at this point it'll have to start with the 2019 budget, because it's not in his 2018 budget request. Do you really think NASA can get a human on Mars in one year?
His proposed budget for NASA has it escaping cuts, which is nice, but the 0.4% increase it's NOWHERE NEAR the boost needed to get our ass to Mars. Woo, keeping up with inflation.
So far Trump isn't hostile to space. That's good. I like that. But from everything else I've seen of the man, I imagine it's simply because he hasn't thought too much about it. It's definitely a line-item in the budget, so it's certainly nice to see he hasn't axed it flat-out. Once he realizes that it won't get him a hotel on Mars during his term, I worry that he'll just fire everyone.
Just like healthcare reform, the middle-east, and getting better trade deals, what do you think he's going to do once he finds out it's a lot harder than he imagined? (But hey, props to him for getting China to take action against N. Korea, let's hope it turns out alright).
NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1958 and built off the earlier efforts by the Air Force. Kenedy gave his speech in 1961, so hey, close enough.
NASA is certainly further along, but the trip to Mars is likewise a larger task to tackle by a factor or two. We DO have a space industry, and heavy rockets, and have placed a robotic workforce on Mars. Really, the only hard part is keeping people alive that long in space, like the ISS, and getting them back. Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
No, he hasn't said anything about the JWST. I'm not even sure he knows it exists. This far along in the project it's unlikely that he could disrupt it. But it's a worry. It's not so much "projecting" so far as spotting the trend. He's done his best to dismantel the EPA and the FCC. I imagine that he'll get frustrated that Peggy failed to speed it up, and he'll fire NASA. Yes, that sounds ridiculous and idiotic, but that's the president we've come to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, I knew we were a little better than the conservatives, but that one chart about who people trust. "Mostly Conservatives only trust Fox News" (at least >50%) and then "consistently conservatives trust fox... and then three individual talk show hosts. At least the majority of "Mostly Conservatives" don't actually trust those fuckers. ....Someone explain to me how the republicans, with such a narrow chokepoint on their news intake, elected a political outsider 2008 democrat?
And while you're at it, how democrats with such a broad set of input went with the boring known establishment choice. Is that like design by committee? So many voices squash all creativity?
Great article though, thanks.
No, it doesn't have an effect on the FCC's IT support, but politics DOES have an effect on how people react to said IT support.
If you hate the FCC you claim they're incompetent for confusing traffic with a DDOS.
If you love the FCC you blindly trust them when they claim it's a DDOS and then you blame Trump supporters or Russian hackers for trying to tear down something John Oliver pointed people to.
Politics man, it's all in the how you spin it.
Eh, I'd say that the comeback is "and the majority of conservatives take their news from angry talk show hosts". Trumps twitter is a recent thing. This has been going on for decades.
It's not like... the ONLY news source most of them get is either news comedy or new... rage-induction? Some sure do, but most people on both sides probably get their news from a variety of sources. ...But those sources ALSO include comedians and hate-mongers.
It's honestly hard to change your views on something, so the first time you hear about a topic is the most vital when it comes to bias and presumptions in all later development.
It really is Idiocracy territory.
Like Reagan?
Cute.
Well lemme see here:
Some people got violent over whether Ann Coulter would speak at Berkley. ...as reported by www.glennbeck.com/.. www.theblaze.com/.../ Breitbart News https://townhall.com/ ....Uhh huh. oh hey, this happened just last April. Yeah, ok, I'm not up to date.
But yeah, I'd denounce planned violence over having that shitbag speak. Bad mojo right there.
I didn't say they changed as a culture, but the whole religion is based on changing as individuals,
Spin baby.
Early on, there were plenty of parties that participated, and won elections
. . .You mean for the first 5 years?
Because the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party got going in 1792. 5 years after we had the constitution in 1787. And there weren't so much "plenty of parties" so much as "There was George Washington".
Learn some history yo.
Other than that, I agree and that's a mostly good idea.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that progressives don't encourage actual anarchists. Most of us are older than 15.
Likewise, I'm not really accusing conservatives of being defined by the immigrant hating, pro-violence, alt-right movement. Both parties will have wing-nuts and extremists which take ideals too far. I mean, if you want a flavor of reddit right-wing hate-mongering, here you go.
Well considering I've never heard of either antifa or antefa before, I'm not a fan of jackboot thugs, and I've never seen civvies marching around in black uniforms... I'm going to go out on a limb and say I haven't really cozzied up to that lot.
The rioting political activists are indeed a problem, although I certainly haven't seen them as any sort of orgainized. Certainly not enough to have uniforms. Is this a European thing?
The sort of anarchists I associate with progressivism would be the Occupy Wallstreet lot, which were... well... laughably unorganized. Which is sadly what you're going to get with real grassroots movements. They weren't that violent, and indeed they were the ones getting curb-stomped by jackboot thugs.
Funny, I heard "We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's Christianity."
BAWHAHAHAHA, what? Christianity? Changing? They're the definition of old-stogies. The religious right is rooted in conservatism, as in conserving the old ways and or going back to the old ways. Woo, that's a hoot. Sigh, anyway, there are plenty of progressive christians, but holy cow are they a quiet minority here in the states.
I'm sure many progressives have their heart in the right place, but then so did many right-wing religious whackos.
Oh for sure. Everyone just has their own views of the best way to go about things. Until you have actual jack-boot fascists (or the whatever-ante version) marching in the streets punching up people, it's really just a disagreement about how to do things. Some people honestly believe that christianity is the best way forward and we should elect priests and shit.
anarchist
Yes. Realize that the other side ALSO want anarchy, at least they want to tear down the government, deregulate everything, and trust the anarchy of the free market to rule in it's place. They want the government out of business. Our flavor of anarchists want the government out of our personal lives.
antifa
Who?
Is that anti-fascism? As in, Woody Guthrie? That guy with the "This machine kills fascism" guitar? If so, then yes. Bob Dylan has some good stuff too.
Am I supposed to be supporting fascism? Did I not get that memo?
and riot?
Sigh, yeah. That's a problem. I highly prefer the peaceful protest marches. And I could say something about there being plenty of violence on the other side of the fence. Or that the bulk of rioters are probably apolitical and just partaking of a crime of opportunity... but I have to admit that as far as cozzying up to bad tactics and asshats, that's been a problem.
We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's progressive.
Whooooaaaaaa..... Slashdot just has the two now? msmash and BeauHD?
The bullshit article about "Carbon Intensity is Falling in Industrial, Electric Power Sectors" was another one of msmash's turds.
As a progressive, Bernie-voting, liberal democrat... "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it".
We try to self-police this sort of bullshit witch-hunting, but portions of the party have gotten out of hand. At least we didn't cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.
I have, but it's a philosophical argument. The vast majority of philosophical arguments are a pointless waste of time.
Adding to the pointless waste of time: I'd argue that the guy in the room doesn't know Chinese, but the book does. The book contains a solution to the Turing test. It contains a list of instructions that adequately replicates something as complex as a human mind. Just one that speaks Chinese. If that's not intelligence, then nothing is.
You can cry a river about "Hard" AI vs "soft" AI or "narrow" AI vs "General purpose" AI. But you lot have always been moving the goalpost and some of you will NEVER be satisfied. "Artificial Intelligence" is a term people use in reference to a certain sort of thing. The media hype might get it wrong a lot, but that doesn't mean the term is meaningless. Just because you're not satisfied with the state of AI, or you want to put humanity on some special pedestal, it doesn't give you the right to try and redefine what the term means.
Sod off coward.
. . . It's a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
He might not be a troll in the sense that he doesn't honestly believe his argument, but his argument is shit.
Even with the strictest definition, Artificial Intelligence is the aspect of computer algorithms modifying themselves to complete a non-arbitrary task.
No, there's nothing all that fundamentally different between the neural networks of the 60's and the ones they have now. They were indeed AI in the 60's and they're most certainly AI today.
Get a collection of known recordings, and let the neural nets learn what sound is what word and it will be able to identify the majority of future recordings of said words. If learning a spoken language doesn't make it intelligent, then humans aren't intelligent either.
The voice recognition part of Alexis was developed with AI. It learned how to recognize speech. There's really no way you can refute that without sounding crazy.
I think it's an important distinction when talking about new tech when people flaunt about the mystical and magical A.I. tag that
1) A lot of AI is not all that impressive. Mario Goombas have an AI. It's like 3 lines of code, but it's there. If you want to become an all high'n'mightly Scotsman and say that REAL AI is self-learning, then a lot of AI simply isn't.
2) A lot of new tech is MADE with AI, but is not itself really AI. Liiiiike, the stream-lining of a car chassis. Some automated portions of trial and error might have found "the best" shape given a set of requirements... but is the resulting chunk of steel a form of AI? No. Same way with... medical diagnosis flowcharts. The flowchart might have been made with a really advanced big-data AI, but the output is just a "dumb" flowchart.
Or this might be a more appropriate. One of those intros to AI deep neural nets uses handwriting as an example. You feed it each pixel of an image with hand-writing, and it can learn to identify letters. WOO! The AI part, the learning part, is how it changes the configuration of the neural net. Once it's done, the neural net is like a mathematical model that does a job. But without more training, it's static and won't learn any more. You might get updates from the author, and that author might even get feedback from your usage, which really does put your guy in the loop. It's most certainly AI, but... your voice activated toaster doesn't learn and adapt. Not locally anyway.
3) The interfaces to these systems, whether they're made by hand or made by an AI, are going to be well-polished or an abysmal clusterfuck entirely depending on how much effort the makers decide to put into it. And that's what this guy is bitching about. Not the tool, but how easy it is to USE the tool.
And if he follows up, and pushes for a NASA budget, and makes NOT going to Mars political suicide, then he'll get congress to pass a proposed budget with the funds to pay for it. It'd be great if that happened. So if he's not going to pay for it... now... but he's buttering up congress to get ready to pay for it. That would require him to actually continue pushing for it, right? Do you think he's going to do that? Or was this just a flippant remark on TV? Was he just fucking with people's minds? He could do ANYTHING and his supporters like you will claim either it's part of some grand scheme he now unveiling or it's just political machinations to "keep his opponents on their toes".
No, of course you have no idea what Trump is going to do. You have no idea what you elected to office and no one is sure what's sarcasm and what's policy.
Oh, and demagogues have been long-studied and are well known. Get the workers to vote for you by blaming a minority and promising prosperity. We've been here before.
Consider for a moment that you're blindly trusting a politician. Good luck with that.
Yep, that's right. Kennedy had NOTHING to do with funding NASA. It was all congress. Distance yourself and your boy from this issue. Run for the hills. Point blame elsewhere. Deflect! Spin! If only CONGRESS would do something about it.
Oh wait, congress is controlled by Republicans too. Remember when it was so easy for them to say "no" in harmony?
Alright. After avoiding the question so many times, I'm calling it. You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission. So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
oh, because the English language sucks. Sorry about that.
Peggy Whitson doesn't have a team. She's not NASA's administration. She's an astronaut aboard the International Space Station. This was a PR stunt. (which, hey, is totally acceptable for both sides of this equation. It's just not the place or the person to push for major policy change.)
...perhaps with Bigelow habitats
...Do you realize that plugs into the ISS? Do you think they're going to push the ISS into Mars orbit?
Maybe you could use a modified SpaceX Crew Dragon to land on Phobos and return to the habitat,
Do you realize that Mars is a planet with gravity? You're not getting off the surface of mars without a rocket. You are not going to modify a crew module to become a mars launch rocket. I know you're thinking of the Apollo mission where the top of the lander takes off and gets back into orbit. That's not happening on Mars.
In terms of national prestige projects it wouldn't even cost that much.
Warm up that ol' "It turns out this is harder than expected" line, because it's about to get used some more.
In total values, fossil fuels receive about half the subsidies that renewable do. At least back in 2013.
Of course, you made sure to say "per megawatt hour", but I'm not sure how many megawatt hours per gallon of gas my Mazda generates. Furthermore, you'd expect new and promising industries to get subsidies to help them get started while you'd hope established industries like oil and gas would be able to support themselves. Especially while making record profits. I get that it's a strategic resource and making it cheap helps out everyone, but it's also polluting, which hurts everyone. Something something free market.
They want to say that there's more solar and wind grid power generation instead of coal. They REALLY don't have to swaddle that blurb with bullshit metrics. It might make them sound smart to the dumb fuckers out there, but to anyone with critical reading skills it just makes us mad. Comparing that metric between grid power and transportation is just weird and extra bull-shitty.
Yes. Yes it is. It's as adorable as his jerky handshake. As adorable as his proposed fix to immigration of "building a wall". And that Mexico will pay for it. As adorable as his one-page budget plan. As his prospect of reforming obamacare. As his prospect of making a trade deal with Germany and only after 13 tries accepting that he has to make a trade deal with the EU. And it's adorable that the fucking German chancellor had to explain that to him.
And in case English isn't your first language or you're really tone deaf, "Adorable" in this case is being used sarcastically to imply his plans are small, childish, and hopeless. As if made by a child.
And yes, it's adorable that he thinks he'll get a second term.
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
Yes I agree. Hurzzah for common ground.
So do you think he's going to pay for it? Because at this point it'll have to start with the 2019 budget, because it's not in his 2018 budget request. Do you really think NASA can get a human on Mars in one year?
His proposed budget for NASA has it escaping cuts, which is nice, but the 0.4% increase it's NOWHERE NEAR the boost needed to get our ass to Mars. Woo, keeping up with inflation.
So far Trump isn't hostile to space. That's good. I like that. But from everything else I've seen of the man, I imagine it's simply because he hasn't thought too much about it. It's definitely a line-item in the budget, so it's certainly nice to see he hasn't axed it flat-out. Once he realizes that it won't get him a hotel on Mars during his term, I worry that he'll just fire everyone.
Just like healthcare reform, the middle-east, and getting better trade deals, what do you think he's going to do once he finds out it's a lot harder than he imagined? (But hey, props to him for getting China to take action against N. Korea, let's hope it turns out alright).
8 years. Adorable.
NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1958 and built off the earlier efforts by the Air Force. Kenedy gave his speech in 1961, so hey, close enough.
NASA is certainly further along, but the trip to Mars is likewise a larger task to tackle by a factor or two. We DO have a space industry, and heavy rockets, and have placed a robotic workforce on Mars. Really, the only hard part is keeping people alive that long in space, like the ISS, and getting them back. Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
No, he hasn't said anything about the JWST. I'm not even sure he knows it exists. This far along in the project it's unlikely that he could disrupt it. But it's a worry. It's not so much "projecting" so far as spotting the trend. He's done his best to dismantel the EPA and the FCC. I imagine that he'll get frustrated that Peggy failed to speed it up, and he'll fire NASA. Yes, that sounds ridiculous and idiotic, but that's the president we've come to know.