As a result I think that good public policy would tell us that there needs to be a compelling reason to scrap what we've invested our time and money in over the past several years.
Compelling? Like an expert panel saying 'this won't work'? What's the point of assembling experts to make recommendations if we're not going to listen to them. I can't say I didn't expect it, but I think it's just pathetic that there apparently wasn't any serious discussion of the alternatives. There may be benefits to going back to the moon, but most of what I've read lately leans toward "I want to relive the glory days when space was new."
If this finally gets somebody to throw NASA some more funding, then I suppose that's something, but the cost of manned missions is staggering. There's so much interesting and useful science that could be done without having to spend (waste?) resources on consumables and redundant systems for supporting life.
I actually had high hopes that someone would listen to the recommendations... Reminds me of a poker player that doesn't know how to fold a hand. Sure, we have a chance to get something out of it, but I don't see that the pot odds are not worth it for manned missions right now.
(Sorry for the poker stuff... no car analogy came to mind)
Yeah, that annoys me too. The problem is that they're not going to unite under Valve and Steam or any other company/program. There would have to be a new standard for everyone to follow. Oh well.
What I'd really like to see is games that are tied into the major players in IM (imagine Pidgin or similar integrated into a game overlay like with Steam games. THAT would be handy.
Wow. I work with kids on a regular basis and either you're a troll or you've never had experience with kids.
A good parent interacts with his or her young child ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. It's more than a full time job if you're doing it right. Childrens' minds need constant interaction for their minds to develop properly. It's how they learn to interact with other human beings and otherwise function in society. As children get older, their friends and classmates start to take some of the load off the parents, but that takes years. The first several years of a child's life are critical and the parents are the major influence.
When I eventually have kids, I will do everything possible to make sure either I or the mother is home for at least the first several years of their lives. Not that it's impossible for a child to be well-adjusted without a full-time parent, but it's certainly harder. I see it all the time; the ones with active parents are, almost across the board, more attentive and better behaved. They tend to get along with other children better, too.
To summarize: It's not necessarily the physical work (though there's more to that than you're acknowledging). It's the interaction with the child that's important.
I know a number of people who insist they don't need more than a few hours of sleep, but I don't buy it. I've even thought that about myself occasionally, but that's mainly because I regularly go so long without a full night's sleep that I forget what it feels like to really utilize my brain.
Interesting stuff and I wouldn't mind being able to function effectively on less sleep, but I'm a bit skeptical at this point.
TV has ads? I haven't seen a hint of those since I switched to my MythTV box instead of the cable company's DVR. I also use Adblock and NoScript.
I'm not opposed to advertising per say, but almost all ads these days are just downright intrusive. Even if I see one that interests me, I very rarely click on it. I'll usually Google the product/company/whatever. I guess that makes me a terrorist who's trying to bring down civilization. Ouch. I can't be the only one like that, though, can I?
... what's to stop the microbes from evolving/adapting BACK to the lower output when they're placed in a rich environment (fuel cell, whatever) again? Stupid researchers... they forget that mutation doesn't only occur when they want it to occur and not only in the fashion they desire.
[sarcasm]You're right. All this research is useless. We should just give up.[/sarcasm]
I feel like I say this constantly, but I just can't help myself here...
Just because you don't see a benefit doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because the technology doesn't instantly save humanity from all of its mistakes doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. Even research that never directly leads to a useful commercial application is helpful. Tons of advances have come sideways out of unrelated research. (Also, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a choice many scientists make and there's nothing wrong with it.)
If you can't see past your own life, please get away from mine.
Seems valid enough, though I wonder if the sheer amount of waste at a large plant would make this setup hard to manage. It might simply make more sense to have decentralized handling of waste, akin to small communities where each house has its own septic system.
As someone who helps to design and manufacture medical devices, I have no doubt that they could be made safely. That said, I doubt I'd be first in line to get one. I think even our current battery technology is sufficient for most implants. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve.
If the technology works out, I do look forward to a home septic system that produces power for me AND saves me from tearing up my yard. (Wishful thinking, yes, but cool nonetheless.)
Anyway, regardless of whether this technology becomes a commercial success, this kind of stuff could/will be very useful down the road. Great work.
First, the earth has been warmer than even the most dire GW predictions.
Yes it has, and completely without mankind's help. The problem with that is that LOTS OF THINGS DIED WHEN IT HAPPENED.
Others have already picked apart your post, so I'll leave that alone, but mankind's effect on the world can't be ignored. Put your head in the sand if you like, but I'd prefer to understand what's happening and why. If it turns out we're wrong about man's effect on warming, I'll be ecstatic and not the least bit upset that we wasted time and effort figuring it out. Knowledge is never bad.
We don't really know what the exact effect will be or where it will occur. I merely listed warmer parts of the globe as potential locations.
Regardless, I am anything but an alarmist. You'd just have to be completely ignorant of anything resembling science to try to deny that mankind's destruction of the planet can be anything but bad.
Global warming doesn't just mean that things get a few degrees warmer. It also destabilizes weather patterns, potentially leading to very destructive storms and extended periods of extreme climate that could challenge our technology and ability to survive, even at our current state of development.
Even ignoring those potential issues, I think it would generally be bad for everybody if a significant part of the world (ie. the equator and surrounding area) became uninhabitable.
Slightly warmer MIGHT be okay, but it's a slippery slope and there's currently no end in sight to the warming. Not good.
The Northwest Passage through Arctic Canada is of course another such option, although some of its passages, even with warming, can remain clotted with thick ice.
From that sentence, he's somehow jumped to the US government supposedly trying to take over the world.
The Artic Archipeligo is Canada's. Ask permission first. Despite what the American government may think, there is no international waterway through the Artic Archipeligo.
This has nothing to do with US imperialism, despite your attempt to make it sound bad. The article merely mentions the possibility of passage through Canadian waters. If the ice melts and there is some benefit to its economy, Canada will work something out with its neighbors to allow access.
Regardless, passage through Canadian waters wasn't the main focus of the article...
I ran the Vista beta on an Athlon 64 3500+ with a GeForce 6800GS. Aero was perfectly smooth on that. Unless they've made a lot of performance-draining changes in Win7, it should work fine on any video hardware currently available (not necessarily onboard).
Yes, the F-22 is primarily an air superiority craft, and the F-35 is intended to fill a more all-purpose role. The F-15, however, is no match for either of the newer craft:
The JSF program was designed to replace the U.S. military's F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding F/A-18E/F) and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80% of their parts:
The F-35 is intended to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040, with close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.[5] The F-35 is required to be four times more effective than existing fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses â" all while having better range and requiring less logistics support.
Admittedly, Wikipedia is not the best resource, but it is the most easily accessible at the moment and the information is consistent with my knowledge of the craft.
Anyway, the F-22 vs. F-35 argument is one between people that want the absolute best craft they can get for the role they need to fill and more money/practicality-oriented people. Both sides have merit, but money is winning out in this case, I suspect largely because of the investment in the F-35 as an 'everything' craft.
Finally, of course you need multiple support levels for any combat-type situation. I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Not at all. If I recall correctly, the F-22 was designed specifically to be an air superiority craft. It is a production craft, just very expensive (because of its extensive capabilities and low production numbers).
The F-35 is meant to be an all-around craft. While it is capable of filling the air superiority role and is better than 4th generation craft, it can't compete with the F-22 in its primary role. They're sacrificing a little bit of their air superiority ability for a more generic craft that can fill multiple roles relatively cheaply.
Of course I don't know the specific capabilities of the two craft, but my understanding is that the F-35 is favored because its design is modular and significantly cheaper. It's not necessarily a superior craft from a combat standpoint.
You're missing the point. Just getting the fuel to burn isn't the goal here. The goal is getting it to burn completely and consistently. We can certainly make improvements in that area, which will help both power and fuel efficiency. True, lasers may not work, but research is never a bad thing.
GP is correct that there is no reason why a mechanic would need to be any more of an expert in lasers than he is now. Aside from some cleaning, how much maintenance will a laser take? When it breaks, you replace it, just like most other parts of the car. This technology won't become mainstream until the cost comes down to the point where that's feasible.
Slashdot Mirror
As a result I think that good public policy would tell us that there needs to be a compelling reason to scrap what we've invested our time and money in over the past several years.
Compelling? Like an expert panel saying 'this won't work'? What's the point of assembling experts to make recommendations if we're not going to listen to them. I can't say I didn't expect it, but I think it's just pathetic that there apparently wasn't any serious discussion of the alternatives. There may be benefits to going back to the moon, but most of what I've read lately leans toward "I want to relive the glory days when space was new."
If this finally gets somebody to throw NASA some more funding, then I suppose that's something, but the cost of manned missions is staggering. There's so much interesting and useful science that could be done without having to spend (waste?) resources on consumables and redundant systems for supporting life.
I actually had high hopes that someone would listen to the recommendations... Reminds me of a poker player that doesn't know how to fold a hand. Sure, we have a chance to get something out of it, but I don't see that the pot odds are not worth it for manned missions right now.
(Sorry for the poker stuff... no car analogy came to mind)
Aaannnd discussion devolves in UAC rants and Microsoft bashing in 3.. 2.. 1...
Oh wait... it's Slashdot. No devolution is required or possible.
Yeah, that annoys me too. The problem is that they're not going to unite under Valve and Steam or any other company/program. There would have to be a new standard for everyone to follow. Oh well.
What I'd really like to see is games that are tied into the major players in IM (imagine Pidgin or similar integrated into a game overlay like with Steam games. THAT would be handy.
Wow. I work with kids on a regular basis and either you're a troll or you've never had experience with kids.
A good parent interacts with his or her young child ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. It's more than a full time job if you're doing it right. Childrens' minds need constant interaction for their minds to develop properly. It's how they learn to interact with other human beings and otherwise function in society. As children get older, their friends and classmates start to take some of the load off the parents, but that takes years. The first several years of a child's life are critical and the parents are the major influence.
When I eventually have kids, I will do everything possible to make sure either I or the mother is home for at least the first several years of their lives. Not that it's impossible for a child to be well-adjusted without a full-time parent, but it's certainly harder. I see it all the time; the ones with active parents are, almost across the board, more attentive and better behaved. They tend to get along with other children better, too.
To summarize: It's not necessarily the physical work (though there's more to that than you're acknowledging). It's the interaction with the child that's important.
But does your brain function as well as it could if you got 8-9 hours of sleep?
I get 6 or less hours of sleep a night without drinking caffeine or getting sick, but that doesn't mean I should be doing that.
That had crossed my mind as well.
I know a number of people who insist they don't need more than a few hours of sleep, but I don't buy it. I've even thought that about myself occasionally, but that's mainly because I regularly go so long without a full night's sleep that I forget what it feels like to really utilize my brain.
Interesting stuff and I wouldn't mind being able to function effectively on less sleep, but I'm a bit skeptical at this point.
TV has ads? I haven't seen a hint of those since I switched to my MythTV box instead of the cable company's DVR. I also use Adblock and NoScript.
I'm not opposed to advertising per say, but almost all ads these days are just downright intrusive. Even if I see one that interests me, I very rarely click on it. I'll usually Google the product/company/whatever. I guess that makes me a terrorist who's trying to bring down civilization. Ouch. I can't be the only one like that, though, can I?
That's just a variation of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero argument. As others have said, a game is not the same thing as a sport.
I don't mean to fall into the Slashdot pattern, but XKCD says it pretty well.
That seems likely to be one of her few remaining options after this lawsuit. I certainly wouldn't hire someone who's so sue-happy.
I really hope you're kidding (I can't tell).
While I'm not an expert on the technology, I think I can pretty safely say that everything you said is a load of electrified crap.
... what's to stop the microbes from evolving/adapting BACK to the lower output when they're placed in a rich environment (fuel cell, whatever) again? Stupid researchers... they forget that mutation doesn't only occur when they want it to occur and not only in the fashion they desire.
[sarcasm]You're right. All this research is useless. We should just give up.[/sarcasm]
I feel like I say this constantly, but I just can't help myself here...
Just because you don't see a benefit doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because the technology doesn't instantly save humanity from all of its mistakes doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. Even research that never directly leads to a useful commercial application is helpful. Tons of advances have come sideways out of unrelated research. (Also, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a choice many scientists make and there's nothing wrong with it.)
If you can't see past your own life, please get away from mine.
Seems valid enough, though I wonder if the sheer amount of waste at a large plant would make this setup hard to manage. It might simply make more sense to have decentralized handling of waste, akin to small communities where each house has its own septic system.
As someone who helps to design and manufacture medical devices, I have no doubt that they could be made safely. That said, I doubt I'd be first in line to get one. I think even our current battery technology is sufficient for most implants. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve.
If the technology works out, I do look forward to a home septic system that produces power for me AND saves me from tearing up my yard. (Wishful thinking, yes, but cool nonetheless.)
Anyway, regardless of whether this technology becomes a commercial success, this kind of stuff could/will be very useful down the road. Great work.
First, the earth has been warmer than even the most dire GW predictions.
Yes it has, and completely without mankind's help. The problem with that is that LOTS OF THINGS DIED WHEN IT HAPPENED.
Others have already picked apart your post, so I'll leave that alone, but mankind's effect on the world can't be ignored. Put your head in the sand if you like, but I'd prefer to understand what's happening and why. If it turns out we're wrong about man's effect on warming, I'll be ecstatic and not the least bit upset that we wasted time and effort figuring it out. Knowledge is never bad.
We don't really know what the exact effect will be or where it will occur. I merely listed warmer parts of the globe as potential locations.
Regardless, I am anything but an alarmist. You'd just have to be completely ignorant of anything resembling science to try to deny that mankind's destruction of the planet can be anything but bad.
Global warming doesn't just mean that things get a few degrees warmer. It also destabilizes weather patterns, potentially leading to very destructive storms and extended periods of extreme climate that could challenge our technology and ability to survive, even at our current state of development.
Even ignoring those potential issues, I think it would generally be bad for everybody if a significant part of the world (ie. the equator and surrounding area) became uninhabitable.
Slightly warmer MIGHT be okay, but it's a slippery slope and there's currently no end in sight to the warming. Not good.
He's focusing on this, from the NY Times article:
The Northwest Passage through Arctic Canada is of course another such option, although some of its passages, even with warming, can remain clotted with thick ice.
From that sentence, he's somehow jumped to the US government supposedly trying to take over the world.
The Artic Archipeligo is Canada's. Ask permission first. Despite what the American government may think, there is no international waterway through the Artic Archipeligo.
This has nothing to do with US imperialism, despite your attempt to make it sound bad. The article merely mentions the possibility of passage through Canadian waters. If the ice melts and there is some benefit to its economy, Canada will work something out with its neighbors to allow access.
Regardless, passage through Canadian waters wasn't the main focus of the article...
No, he's clearly just become an archer multiple times. Re-archer. Duh.
I ran the Vista beta on an Athlon 64 3500+ with a GeForce 6800GS. Aero was perfectly smooth on that. Unless they've made a lot of performance-draining changes in Win7, it should work fine on any video hardware currently available (not necessarily onboard).
Yes, the F-22 is primarily an air superiority craft, and the F-35 is intended to fill a more all-purpose role. The F-15, however, is no match for either of the newer craft:
The JSF program was designed to replace the U.S. military's F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding F/A-18E/F) and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80% of their parts:
* F-35A, conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant.
* F-35B, short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
* F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.
The F-35 is intended to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040, with close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.[5] The F-35 is required to be four times more effective than existing fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses â" all while having better range and requiring less logistics support.
Admittedly, Wikipedia is not the best resource, but it is the most easily accessible at the moment and the information is consistent with my knowledge of the craft.
Anyway, the F-22 vs. F-35 argument is one between people that want the absolute best craft they can get for the role they need to fill and more money/practicality-oriented people. Both sides have merit, but money is winning out in this case, I suspect largely because of the investment in the F-35 as an 'everything' craft.
Finally, of course you need multiple support levels for any combat-type situation. I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Not at all. If I recall correctly, the F-22 was designed specifically to be an air superiority craft. It is a production craft, just very expensive (because of its extensive capabilities and low production numbers).
The F-35 is meant to be an all-around craft. While it is capable of filling the air superiority role and is better than 4th generation craft, it can't compete with the F-22 in its primary role. They're sacrificing a little bit of their air superiority ability for a more generic craft that can fill multiple roles relatively cheaply.
Of course I don't know the specific capabilities of the two craft, but my understanding is that the F-35 is favored because its design is modular and significantly cheaper. It's not necessarily a superior craft from a combat standpoint.
I have to wonder if those are actually suicides and not just female babies having 'accidents.'
You're missing the point. Just getting the fuel to burn isn't the goal here. The goal is getting it to burn completely and consistently. We can certainly make improvements in that area, which will help both power and fuel efficiency. True, lasers may not work, but research is never a bad thing.
GP is correct that there is no reason why a mechanic would need to be any more of an expert in lasers than he is now. Aside from some cleaning, how much maintenance will a laser take? When it breaks, you replace it, just like most other parts of the car. This technology won't become mainstream until the cost comes down to the point where that's feasible.
You're getting worked up over nothing.