I got bored at work one day and brewed a pot of coffee with 3 times the amount of grounds we normally put in a pot. I have to admit watching my coworkers bounce off the walls for the next hour and half had me giggling for days. If I turned any of them into addicts though, I will have to work hard on feeling guilty. I can't decide if that would make the joke better or worse....
Mccainistan and Palingrad eh? Yeah because its not like any of us had any other choice. I suppose we were morally obliged to vote for a BSing charismatic liberal or a spineless old man who sold out on everything he fought for as a congressman. Its not as if there was a candidate (or candidates) that fought hard and made quite a ruckus in the name of curtailing the powers of the federal government. Nor were there any other third-party options during the '08 election. In fact, they just put that "Write-In" section on the ballot so you can take notes on which major candidate you want to run for.
Its this exact kind of, "Well at least its not...." thinking that has screwed this country royally for the past however many decades you want to count. Frankly, we (not just Americans, but humans in general), do know when politicians are sleazy wanks and we still convince ourselves to vote for them because, "Well at least its not...." The only way any real 'change' is ever going to take place in this world is when people stop settling for survivable and start betting on good. Until you (and everyone else) are really willing to stand up and vote (fight, rally, and or call for) the kinds of change so many of us know needs to occur in this world, our society is going to continue to stagnate and rot. Dynamic progress only evolves from betting on something with quality, not from something that "at least is not...."
While I think achieving superluminous speeds may certainly be possible as our understanding of physics develops, it seems like it could be a moot point.
The idea for traveling large distances within the universe which involves folding space/time into a higher dimension seems both more efficient and generally better understood today. As was noted above, working with something like superluminous velocities is going to inevitably require analysis involving two of our most powerful models of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, which at this point still don't play well with each other (at least not in every circumstance).
However, it seems like the general trend towards the theory of everything research continues to lean to higher dimensions as an accurate model. That being said, ideas that have been expressed that involve folding and or dropping out of the space/time continuum and reentering at a different location/configuration in the universe seems like it might still be a more viable option for traveling large distances.
Still though, superluminous speed does seem like it would be cool...
What is anyone supposed to think of NASA after such a stunt? Is the whole organisation composed of people who base their ideas on TV shows and loopy ideas instead of hard theory? Considering the organization's continued stance on the Space Elevator concept, despite its proven absurdity over the course of over 50 years, I would have to say that, yes NASA is composed of juveniles who have their heads in the clouds and no idea how to get their actual bodies up there.
I feel I should point out that I work in the space industry and to answer your question regarding the people who compose NASA, yes. Most of the folk who work in these technological fields (astrodynamics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. etc. etc.) were inspired to get into their respective fields by shows like Serenity, Star Trek, and Star Wars. Granted, once said folk made it through college, they often probably realize the absurdity of the technology depicted in these shows. Nonetheless, these shows (and books and other media relating to the sci-fi category) still remind them of fond dreams and good times. So of course they are going to want to make a sci-fi allusion publicly.
Furthermore, NASA is a very serious organization which works on very serious projects that take years of planning, design, development, and minute attention to detail that can drive anyone crazy. Thus, having an opportunity to insert a joke in such serious work (like naming something after a small niche sci-fi show) is often exploited because frankly, the nerds at NASA are proud of their nerddom and want the world to know, "Hey, we earned our spot here amongst the stars, look what we get to do now!" (such as naming their complex projects after science fiction niche shows rather than some pop-culture item).
Frankly, I think they are fully justified in trying to name their node Serenity, hell, NASA and many other space agencies in the world have worked collaboratively to develop and implement the technology to let humans LIVE IN SPACE FOR MONTHS. If that doesn't earn them the right to name their projects something silly that references their own enjoyable past times and hobbies I don't know what the hell does.
(Though I do agree keeping the name Colbert would probably be decent PR).
It is interesting to me that this is conveyed as a "robot" controlled by a human interface. It always seemed to me that the field of robotics generally tended to slide towards autonomy, not control by human interface. I would be more likely to dub this an achievement for a cybernetics or biomedical field than a robotics field. Of course, since few people seem to agree on what makes a robot a robot and whether autonomy is a requirement or not, I suppose I could just be picking at words...
Slashdot Mirror
I got bored at work one day and brewed a pot of coffee with 3 times the amount of grounds we normally put in a pot. I have to admit watching my coworkers bounce off the walls for the next hour and half had me giggling for days. If I turned any of them into addicts though, I will have to work hard on feeling guilty. I can't decide if that would make the joke better or worse....
In fact, they just put that "Write-In" section on the ballot so you can take notes on which major candidate you want to run for.
Change "run" in the above to "vote."
Mccainistan and Palingrad eh? Yeah because its not like any of us had any other choice. I suppose we were morally obliged to vote for a BSing charismatic liberal or a spineless old man who sold out on everything he fought for as a congressman. Its not as if there was a candidate (or candidates) that fought hard and made quite a ruckus in the name of curtailing the powers of the federal government. Nor were there any other third-party options during the '08 election. In fact, they just put that "Write-In" section on the ballot so you can take notes on which major candidate you want to run for.
Its this exact kind of, "Well at least its not...." thinking that has screwed this country royally for the past however many decades you want to count. Frankly, we (not just Americans, but humans in general), do know when politicians are sleazy wanks and we still convince ourselves to vote for them because, "Well at least its not...." The only way any real 'change' is ever going to take place in this world is when people stop settling for survivable and start betting on good. Until you (and everyone else) are really willing to stand up and vote (fight, rally, and or call for) the kinds of change so many of us know needs to occur in this world, our society is going to continue to stagnate and rot. Dynamic progress only evolves from betting on something with quality, not from something that "at least is not...."
While I think achieving superluminous speeds may certainly be possible as our understanding of physics develops, it seems like it could be a moot point.
The idea for traveling large distances within the universe which involves folding space/time into a higher dimension seems both more efficient and generally better understood today. As was noted above, working with something like superluminous velocities is going to inevitably require analysis involving two of our most powerful models of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, which at this point still don't play well with each other (at least not in every circumstance).
However, it seems like the general trend towards the theory of everything research continues to lean to higher dimensions as an accurate model. That being said, ideas that have been expressed that involve folding and or dropping out of the space/time continuum and reentering at a different location/configuration in the universe seems like it might still be a more viable option for traveling large distances.
Still though, superluminous speed does seem like it would be cool...
What is anyone supposed to think of NASA after such a stunt? Is the whole organisation composed of people who base their ideas on TV shows and loopy ideas instead of hard theory? Considering the organization's continued stance on the Space Elevator concept, despite its proven absurdity over the course of over 50 years, I would have to say that, yes NASA is composed of juveniles who have their heads in the clouds and no idea how to get their actual bodies up there.
I feel I should point out that I work in the space industry and to answer your question regarding the people who compose NASA, yes. Most of the folk who work in these technological fields (astrodynamics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. etc. etc.) were inspired to get into their respective fields by shows like Serenity, Star Trek, and Star Wars. Granted, once said folk made it through college, they often probably realize the absurdity of the technology depicted in these shows. Nonetheless, these shows (and books and other media relating to the sci-fi category) still remind them of fond dreams and good times. So of course they are going to want to make a sci-fi allusion publicly.
Furthermore, NASA is a very serious organization which works on very serious projects that take years of planning, design, development, and minute attention to detail that can drive anyone crazy. Thus, having an opportunity to insert a joke in such serious work (like naming something after a small niche sci-fi show) is often exploited because frankly, the nerds at NASA are proud of their nerddom and want the world to know, "Hey, we earned our spot here amongst the stars, look what we get to do now!" (such as naming their complex projects after science fiction niche shows rather than some pop-culture item).
Frankly, I think they are fully justified in trying to name their node Serenity, hell, NASA and many other space agencies in the world have worked collaboratively to develop and implement the technology to let humans LIVE IN SPACE FOR MONTHS. If that doesn't earn them the right to name their projects something silly that references their own enjoyable past times and hobbies I don't know what the hell does.
(Though I do agree keeping the name Colbert would probably be decent PR).
It is interesting to me that this is conveyed as a "robot" controlled by a human interface. It always seemed to me that the field of robotics generally tended to slide towards autonomy, not control by human interface. I would be more likely to dub this an achievement for a cybernetics or biomedical field than a robotics field. Of course, since few people seem to agree on what makes a robot a robot and whether autonomy is a requirement or not, I suppose I could just be picking at words...