Even if it doesn't get the guy fired at the time, it sure is a nice tool for management to use when they do want to get rid of him.
Besides, there's every chance they will know he installed, if not immediately, then sooner or later. I used to work at a place where each workstation was, in effect, periodically spidered to determine if any unauthorized software was present. If it was, it was removed.
I'm not certain if current space treaties actually deal with colonization, but treaties regulating the currently impossible are always easy to support. These treaties will be ignored/rewritten when space colonization becomes a practical reality. And, as always, no entity has the means and authority to enforce these treaties.
Health care is not free in Europe or elsewhere, and it would not be free in thr U.S. Whether you write a check to pay the doctor or a check to pay your taxes or a check to pay your health insurance, you're paying for your health care.
The real issue is to make health care affordable for everyone, while preserving the right to choose the people that provide your health care if you have the money to pay for their services. That's still possible in the UK, and elsewhere.
And, no, the costs of the war in Iraq pale compared to the cost of health care in the U.S.
>>...instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"
Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.
>> also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants.
Fine. Although I've been using Ubuntu and don't see any of their choices leap out as significantly different than any other Debian-based distribution. Besides, all those businesses are full of people. Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?
>> Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies.
Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?
>>..you do not understand the word "philosophy".
Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.
>> What's bad is when the image is such a lie that to believe the image is to welcome harm to one's self (such as with Sony or Microsoft--not that their images aren't at least partly (even mostly) accurate, but that they are directly contradicted by reality in ways that are detrimental to the consumer).
How can the advertising images of Sony or Microsoft harm anyone? I don't know what reality you're thinking of, but it is rather difficult for me to entertain the notion that the difference people notice between advertising and reality can harm them. It's just advertising.
>> Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.
Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.
>> (Ubuntu) is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world
Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning, how do you know? You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?
As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.
>>...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?
>>...you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible"...
You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing. What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design (as if you honestly believe they did not create that site with the express purpose of making you feel that way.) But, in any case, I still don't know what "human-centric" means.
>> "This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win."
Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.
Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.
Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)
You're also prompted to download and install one package that isn't installed by default (nvidia-glx).
This is a guess, but could it be that a distribution can actually ship with a proprietary Nvidia driver only if it has contracted with Nvidia to do that?
From my perspective, "news outlet" is the same as "news producer". News doesn't happen by itself. Someone has to create, produce, and publish it. How and where they publish it is their "outlet".
Slashdot is essentially a human-powered news aggregator that allows readers to post comments. Without the ability to point to news produced and reported elsewhere, Slashdot would not exist. Nor would any other news aggregators. There's no news production here. The only outlets to news on/. are links to work published elsewhere.
Someone at Google decides what sources to spider for their news page. The inclusion of a site in that list of URLs simply means that someone at Google put it there, not that the site is a bona fide news producer.
Slashdot has no reporters, produces no original content, does little apparent editing of reader submissions, and does little apparent factchecking of reader submissions. It needs to do all that, at a minimum, before it becomes a legitimate news site. (By the same token, I don't consider Google News as a news site. There's no journalism or news production there, just pointing to someone else's work.)
Slashdot may bill itself as a "news" site, but it neither collects or writes news. I doubt anyone bothered to verify tyhe bona fides of that Firefox submission.
Yes, I'd love to see/. begin to practice responsibile journalism. But they aren't do that now.
I don't comnsider Slashdot a news site. It is simply a BBS dressed up in web clothing. The/. staff doesn't engage in collecting or writing news, or any other kind of reporting. (We see ampole evidence every day that they don't even bother with simple editing.) They simply choose from story suggestions those items they believe will attract the most traffic.
So, as far as I'm concerned, questions about Slashdot's responsibilities are off target.
If/. did engage in journalism, then, yes, they should have conducted an investigation of 1.0 reliability and attempted. But, they are not journalists, so they did not. (Frankly, I doubt they even verified the authenticity of the original submission.)
Slashdot isn't a news outlet. The Slashdot staff doesn't collect or report news, or otherwise engage in journalism. They choose items to post from suggestions sent in by readers. Presumably, they choose items they believe will prompt the most traffic.
Yes, really. It doesn't matter that someone else may or may not have earlier cobbled together a telephonic device if that device was never developed, marketed, and used.
The League of Nations was the brainchild of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who made it a centerpiece of the peace negotiations at the war's conclusion. Later, back in the U.S., despite Wilson's efforts to rally support, the Senate rejected the treaty that would have authorized U.S. membership. In the U.S., treaties must be approved by the Senate; there is no recourse to their decision.
>>"...I'm not so sure about the significance of the content, what did they write/read in 19th Century? "
Presumably, everything you missed by not taking history.
In that timespan, the U.S. expanded to the Pacific; fought wars with Mexico and Spain; participated in World War One; prompted the formation of the League of Nations; built the world's largest railway network; invented the telegraph, telephone, electric light, and the airplane; developed mass production and the auto industry; produced inumerable works of literature (start with Sam Clemens); fought the Civil War and abolished slavery; spawned the movie, recording, radio and popular music industries.
>>"...no one should have tried to set up a scheduled friegt service using clones of the Wright Flyer..."
More to the point, no one would have been able to set up a scheduled freight service without the Wright Flyer's existence. The technology to sustain that service would not have otherwise developed. As I said, technological progress is not a steady-state exercise. The reason that we developed the infrastucture and technolgy that allowed scheduled air service is that the Wrights, and their successors, developed the technology that created the demand for that service. It just doesn't make sense to avoid doing what you are capable of doing because you want to wait for something else to come along. In most cases, that "something" won't come along. If we don't traveling in space using the capabilities we have today, no demand will exist to create better technology.
NASA's post-Apollo plans included use of nuclear-powered stages in Saturn follow-on vehicles. These would have provided the lift and the speed needed to reduce a transit to Mars to a few months. That's easily within tested human capabilities. These, and other vehicles, would have also supported and sustained a permanent lunar presence.
As for research and robotics, of course they are important and necessary. I did not say I am not "interested in finding anything out". That's a scarecrow argument you've fabricated. But the purpose of establishing a human presence in space is no more wholely research than was the purpose of peopling the planet. We live, and will live, where our technology allows us to live. (Without technology, humans would still be confined to equatorial Africa.) We conduct research to determine what our technology needs to do to support us. We also use research in purely scientific endeavors, i.e., Cassini. Doing one does not preclude the other.
The purpose of Apollo was not to do scientific research, or to satify a someone's curiosity. It was to send people to the Moon. If we had not walked away, there would have been plenty of science done on the Moon. And, btw, the guy was a professional geologist, not an amateur.
>>"...the Wright Flyer was not a real method of air travel. It was a point from which development could begin, but no one was going to start scheduled passenger or freight services using that technology."
One, you seem to be arguing that the Wrights should not have flown because 1903 technology wasn't capable of supporting scheduled service. Two, the ability to operate scheduled passenger/freight service is not a prerequisite for human space exploration.
Technology will not develop by itself; it does does not grow and develop at a steady rate. Something -- the Wrights or Apollo -- must drive interest and demand for that technology. E.g., absent the Wrights, scheduled service in large airliners would not have sprung magically to life decades later when the technology was ready. It wouldn't have happened at all because the technology would not have been developered.
>>"...we were 30 years development away from that point. We are perhaps 20 years away now...
The rest of this statement is difficult to parse, but if you are saying we lacked the technology in the 1970's to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, and to conduct a human mission to Mars in the 1980's, I fundamentally disagree.
>>"...you show an amazing lack of curiosity."
Just the opposite. How can research data transmitted by a machine compare with actually being there yourself? My curiosity is not satisifed by venture like Cassini or Spirit and Opportunity. Just the oposite. Everytime I see a finding or an image from one of those missions, I can't help but ask how much more we would learn, how much faster we would learn, if we had people there instead of these unthinking and incurious machines.
You apparently don't think Apollo was "real earth-moon travel". You also apparently agree that we had the capability to stay on the Moon, but only failed to do so thanks to a lack of will and intent. I agree that the Shuttle was and is a purposeless vehicle, but the fact that the Nixon admininstration chose it rather than to proceed with the post-Apollo Moon/Mars plans laid out by the Johnson administration is simply the manifestation of that lack of will and intent.
If we had the possessed the will, we could have had a Lunar base by in the 1970's, and a Martian expedition in the 1980's. There was and is no need to wait until we have developed the equivalent of the 747 before exploring space.
As for probes, they are no subsititute for a human presence in space. The exploration of space is not a research venture.
Well, you must have missed it. We've been to the Moon, 35 years ago. There were plans -- not dreams or idle wishes -- to establish a permanent presence and push on to Mars in the 1980's. The only reason that did not happen was a failure of political will and intent, especially in the Nixon administration.
As for you "crossing the Atlantic" schtick, are you arguing that Prince Henry and Columbus should have waited until they had the technology to build the Queen Mary, rather than go exploring with little wooden ships and no refrigeration?
Try again when you have a better notion of what you're talking about.
Says me. We've had the technology to base people on the Moon since the 1960's, as well as to travel to Mars. It's only lack of will and intent that's kept that from happening. There's no reasonto wait.
Curiosity had everything to do with it, but it is a curiosity that can't be satisfied with machines. The purpose of using automated probes is to learn, and the primary reason to learn about a new place is to enable people to travel to that place. If I want to live in a different country, that desire can't be met by flying an unmanned probe overhead.
This "We're Not Ready" attitude makes no more sense to me than one that would have seen the Europeans decide to stay in Europe until they invented air conditioning, indoor plumbing and the airplane. My ancestors took months getting fromn Europe to North America. I'm rather glad they did not wait.
Any engine that gets to escape velocity will send anything anywhere, given enough time.
The whole point of space exploration is to put people there, not treat it as some curiosity to be explored at great leisure with research probes. The speed we can travel in space needs to increase for the same reasons we work so hard to increase the speed of travel on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it doesn't get the guy fired at the time, it sure is a nice tool for management to use when they do want to get rid of him.
Besides, there's every chance they will know he installed, if not immediately, then sooner or later. I used to work at a place where each workstation was, in effect, periodically spidered to determine if any unauthorized software was present. If it was, it was removed.
I'm not certain if current space treaties actually deal with colonization, but treaties regulating the currently impossible are always easy to support. These treaties will be ignored/rewritten when space colonization becomes a practical reality. And, as always, no entity has the means and authority to enforce these treaties.
Health care is not free in Europe or elsewhere, and it would not be free in thr U.S. Whether you write a check to pay the doctor or a check to pay your taxes or a check to pay your health insurance, you're paying for your health care.
The real issue is to make health care affordable for everyone, while preserving the right to choose the people that provide your health care if you have the money to pay for their services. That's still possible in the UK, and elsewhere.
And, no, the costs of the war in Iraq pale compared to the cost of health care in the U.S.
>> ...instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"
..you do not understand the word "philosophy".
Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.
>> also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants.
Fine. Although I've been using Ubuntu and don't see any of their choices leap out as significantly different than any other Debian-based distribution. Besides, all those businesses are full of people. Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?
>> Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies.
Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?
>>
Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.
>> What's bad is when the image is such a lie that to believe the image is to welcome harm to one's self (such as with Sony or Microsoft--not that their images aren't at least partly (even mostly) accurate, but that they are directly contradicted by reality in ways that are detrimental to the consumer).
How can the advertising images of Sony or Microsoft harm anyone? I don't know what reality you're thinking of, but it is rather difficult for me to entertain the notion that the difference people notice between advertising and reality can harm them. It's just advertising.
>> Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.
...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
...you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible"...
Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.
>> (Ubuntu) is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world
Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning, how do you know? You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?
As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.
>>
I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?
>>
You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing. What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design (as if you honestly believe they did not create that site with the express purpose of making you feel that way.) But, in any case, I still don't know what "human-centric" means.
I checked with Novell Customer Service: NLD isn't marketed as a boxed retail package. Pity. I wanted to buy it.
>> "This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win."
Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.
Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.
Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)
You're also prompted to download and install one package that isn't installed by default (nvidia-glx).
This is a guess, but could it be that a distribution can actually ship with a proprietary Nvidia driver only if it has contracted with Nvidia to do that?
From my perspective, "news outlet" is the same as "news producer". News doesn't happen by itself. Someone has to create, produce, and publish it. How and where they publish it is their "outlet".
/. are links to work published elsewhere.
Slashdot is essentially a human-powered news aggregator that allows readers to post comments. Without the ability to point to news produced and reported elsewhere, Slashdot would not exist. Nor would any other news aggregators. There's no news production here. The only outlets to news on
Someone at Google decides what sources to spider for their news page. The inclusion of a site in that list of URLs simply means that someone at Google put it there, not that the site is a bona fide news producer.
Slashdot has no reporters, produces no original content, does little apparent editing of reader submissions, and does little apparent factchecking of reader submissions. It needs to do all that, at a minimum, before it becomes a legitimate news site. (By the same token, I don't consider Google News as a news site. There's no journalism or news production there, just pointing to someone else's work.)
Because Google's developers don't know real reporting from leeches? Because they want to attract traffic?
Are your judgement about what is or is not news determined by what a few developers put in a URL list?
Slashdot may bill itself as a "news" site, but it neither collects or writes news. I doubt anyone bothered to verify tyhe bona fides of that Firefox submission.
/. begin to practice responsibile journalism. But they aren't do that now.
Yes, I'd love to see
I don't comnsider Slashdot a news site. It is simply a BBS dressed up in web clothing. The /. staff doesn't engage in collecting or writing news, or any other kind of reporting. (We see ampole evidence every day that they don't even bother with simple editing.) They simply choose from story suggestions those items they believe will attract the most traffic.
/. did engage in journalism, then, yes, they should have conducted an investigation of 1.0 reliability and attempted. But, they are not journalists, so they did not. (Frankly, I doubt they even verified the authenticity of the original submission.)
So, as far as I'm concerned, questions about Slashdot's responsibilities are off target.
If
Slashdot isn't a news outlet. The Slashdot staff doesn't collect or report news, or otherwise engage in journalism. They choose items to post from suggestions sent in by readers. Presumably, they choose items they believe will prompt the most traffic.
Given the ballyhoo surrounding the release of 1.0, this is a legitimate issue for Slashdot. (Remember, its a discussion board, not a news outlet.)
A 1.0 release is supposed to be ready for primetime, not another in the seemingly endless testing releases common to open source.
Yes, really. It doesn't matter that someone else may or may not have earlier cobbled together a telephonic device if that device was never developed, marketed, and used.
The League of Nations was the brainchild of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who made it a centerpiece of the peace negotiations at the war's conclusion. Later, back in the U.S., despite Wilson's efforts to rally support, the Senate rejected the treaty that would have authorized U.S. membership. In the U.S., treaties must be approved by the Senate; there is no recourse to their decision.
>>"...I'm not so sure about the significance of the content, what did they write/read in 19th Century?
"
Presumably, everything you missed by not taking history.
In that timespan, the U.S. expanded to the Pacific; fought wars with Mexico and Spain; participated in World War One; prompted the formation of the League of Nations; built the world's largest railway network; invented the telegraph, telephone, electric light, and the airplane; developed mass production and the auto industry; produced inumerable works of literature (start with Sam Clemens); fought the Civil War and abolished slavery; spawned the movie, recording, radio and popular music industries.
For a start.
...Mr. Miller is, of course, purely coincidental.
Ahem....
>>"...no one should have tried to set up a scheduled friegt service using clones of the Wright Flyer..."
More to the point, no one would have been able to set up a scheduled freight service without the Wright Flyer's existence. The technology to sustain that service would not have otherwise developed. As I said, technological progress is not a steady-state exercise. The reason that we developed the infrastucture and technolgy that allowed scheduled air service is that the Wrights, and their successors, developed the technology that created the demand for that service. It just doesn't make sense to avoid doing what you are capable of doing because you want to wait for something else to come along. In most cases, that "something" won't come along. If we don't traveling in space using the capabilities we have today, no demand will exist to create better technology.
NASA's post-Apollo plans included use of nuclear-powered stages in Saturn follow-on vehicles. These would have provided the lift and the speed needed to reduce a transit to Mars to a few months. That's easily within tested human capabilities. These, and other vehicles, would have also supported and sustained a permanent lunar presence.
As for research and robotics, of course they are important and necessary. I did not say I am not "interested in finding anything out". That's a scarecrow argument you've fabricated. But the purpose of establishing a human presence in space is no more wholely research than was the purpose of peopling the planet. We live, and will live, where our technology allows us to live. (Without technology, humans would still be confined to equatorial Africa.) We conduct research to determine what our technology needs to do to support us. We also use research in purely scientific endeavors, i.e., Cassini. Doing one does not preclude the other.
The purpose of Apollo was not to do scientific research, or to satify a someone's curiosity. It was to send people to the Moon. If we had not walked away, there would have been plenty of science done on the Moon. And, btw, the guy was a professional geologist, not an amateur.
>>"...the Wright Flyer was not a real method of air travel. It was a point from which development could begin, but no one was going to start scheduled passenger or freight services using that technology."
One, you seem to be arguing that the Wrights should not have flown because 1903 technology wasn't capable of supporting scheduled service. Two, the ability to operate scheduled passenger/freight service is not a prerequisite for human space exploration.
Technology will not develop by itself; it does does not grow and develop at a steady rate. Something -- the Wrights or Apollo -- must drive interest and demand for that technology. E.g., absent the Wrights, scheduled service in large airliners would not have sprung magically to life decades later when the technology was ready. It wouldn't have happened at all because the technology would not have been developered.
>>"...we were 30 years development away from that point. We are perhaps 20 years away now...
The rest of this statement is difficult to parse, but if you are saying we lacked the technology in the 1970's to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, and to conduct a human mission to Mars in the 1980's, I fundamentally disagree.
>>"...you show an amazing lack of curiosity."
Just the opposite. How can research data transmitted by a machine compare with actually being there yourself? My curiosity is not satisifed by venture like Cassini or Spirit and Opportunity. Just the oposite. Everytime I see a finding or an image from one of those missions, I can't help but ask how much more we would learn, how much faster we would learn, if we had people there instead of these unthinking and incurious machines.
You apparently don't think Apollo was "real earth-moon travel". You also apparently agree that we had the capability to stay on the Moon, but only failed to do so thanks to a lack of will and intent. I agree that the Shuttle was and is a purposeless vehicle, but the fact that the Nixon admininstration chose it rather than to proceed with the post-Apollo Moon/Mars plans laid out by the Johnson administration is simply the manifestation of that lack of will and intent.
If we had the possessed the will, we could have had a Lunar base by in the 1970's, and a Martian expedition in the 1980's. There was and is no need to wait until we have developed the equivalent of the 747 before exploring space.
As for probes, they are no subsititute for a human presence in space. The exploration of space is not a research venture.
Well, you must have missed it. We've been to the Moon, 35 years ago. There were plans -- not dreams or idle wishes -- to establish a permanent presence and push on to Mars in the 1980's. The only reason that did not happen was a failure of political will and intent, especially in the Nixon administration.
As for you "crossing the Atlantic" schtick, are you arguing that Prince Henry and Columbus should have waited until they had the technology to build the Queen Mary, rather than go exploring with little wooden ships and no refrigeration?
Try again when you have a better notion of what you're talking about.
Says me. We've had the technology to base people on the Moon since the 1960's, as well as to travel to Mars. It's only lack of will and intent that's kept that from happening. There's no reasonto wait.
Curiosity had everything to do with it, but it is a curiosity that can't be satisfied with machines. The purpose of using automated probes is to learn, and the primary reason to learn about a new place is to enable people to travel to that place. If I want to live in a different country, that desire can't be met by flying an unmanned probe overhead.
This "We're Not Ready" attitude makes no more sense to me than one that would have seen the Europeans decide to stay in Europe until they invented air conditioning, indoor plumbing and the airplane. My ancestors took months getting fromn Europe to North America. I'm rather glad they did not wait.
Any engine that gets to escape velocity will send anything anywhere, given enough time.
The whole point of space exploration is to put people there, not treat it as some curiosity to be explored at great leisure with research probes. The speed we can travel in space needs to increase for the same reasons we work so hard to increase the speed of travel on Earth.