Honestly, I can't even figure out who is voting the idots in at this point. Everyone I talk to hates every single politicain they know by name. I can't figure out who the hell is actually marking the ballot boxes next to incumbents' names anymore, D or R.
I really wish the U.S. had kept prototyping those things. Nuclear material is the only energy source with a high enough energy density in space to be useful on large-scale spacecraft. (No, at Earth distance and further out, solar energy does not count as "high energy density.")
They could have shown up at his apartment, explained to him that if he kept playing with toxic crap he would be charged with something like reckless endangerment, and told him he had 24 hours to dispose of the toxic material in one of the follwing safe manners (complete with some sort of list drafted up by a hazmat team about how it could be disposed of properly).
I understand he was being irresponsible and his judgement was probably a little bit off, but does he really need to be arrested when a house visit and a strongly worded cease and desist letter probably would have deterred him just fine?
Is the world so black and white nowadays that you have two options in law enforcement: suspected innocent = no arrest, possibly guilty = arrest.
What happened to the days of the police being friendly and working with their communities/neighborhoods?
For the record, NASA didn't say anything. Satellites that NASA successfully designed, launched, and is currently operating collected a lot of useful data that one scientist analyzed to come to the conclusions discussed in the article.
If I design a camera, take some pictures with it, and post them online, does that mean that anyone who claims my pictures are proof that aliens exist are speaking on my behalf?
Awwwww. People being civil on Slashdot after disagreeing on a political science matter? Well whether the Earth is going to keep warming or cooling may be up in the air, but one thing is for sure, Hell is freezing over as we speak.
Interesting. Thank you for the links. One of the most intriguing parts of the article you linked to on live science, in my opinion, was:
"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.
I think that may be one of the best summations of United States politics regarding any matter these days. Whether we talk about space exploration policies, banking policies, spending policies, social policies, and so on, it seems like the debate always comes down to whether or not politicians should sink their fingers into a particular field or not. Based on their track record, I'm at the point where I don't think they should most of the time with regards to private individual matters (social issues) but often should with regards to large public institutions (oil companies, telecommunications companies, media companies, etc.). Still, it certainly does highlight one of the major problems with U.S. politics today: people speaking with authority on matters they know very little about.
Ah well. Once again, thanks for the links, very informative.
Apparently I have very feminine text messages/tweets, as I use excessive emoticons, exclamation points, and affectionate pet names (though those are directed towards females). And here I thought I had solidified my masculinity when I burnt all my pink shirts.
Then again, the nickname probably isn't helping either...
... but that does not change the fact that our belief in latest science developments are not more grounded than were the beliefs of the past.
Wake me when the beliefs of our ancesotrs in the past allow us to land a spacecraft on the moon.
See, the problem with your post is that it completely ignores the fact that humans have undeniably progressed since when we believed the Earth was flat. That progress is evident in the fact that our "belief" in modern science has allowed us to do things like design commercial air liners, cure smallpox, provide electricity to every home in most first world countries, and talk to other humans on the other side of the world instantly via the internet.
Having "faith" in science is not a matter of faith at all. It is an observation of the reality which exists around us, and realizing that without science no part of our modern society would exist.
So, no, keeping up with science is not a belief, it's a recognition of reality.
I'm not going to waste my time this morning trying to dig up a specific example with links, but your assertion that the GOP has never contributed to science is a pretty broad brush to paint with. The GOP, more often than not, is very in favor of Department of Defense spending and other military-esque type spending bills. The GOP members often funnel off, literally, billions of dollars to various defense contractors like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, L-3, etc.
Whether or not I think those companies, the DOD, or the military are "good" or "bad" entities is irrelevant. What I can say, for certain, is that each of those entities have previously, and continue to, contribute to science, research, development, and engineering. Hell, the internet was a Department of Defense project. PGP was developed in the U.S. Navy if I recall correctly. Lockheed and Boeing have continued to push the envelope in aeronautics and astronautics.
So yes, in general, the GOP often takes a Luddite-style stance on science when it involves social issues (teaching creationism as science, etc.). But to say the GOP never contributes to science is pretty wrong. The GOP often back some of the largest government expenditures to various institutions that do, in fact, advance science.
I, too, am looking forward to the first time SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft penetrates Bigelow's orbital shelter. For us space nerds, the geek porn doesn't get much better than that.
There is no rush to send humans before developing much more effective remote-manned and robotic systems.
Speak for yourself. There are a number of us working in the space industry who are eager to take part in human exploration of space because being trapped on this single rock for the rest of our lives is just plain boring.
Yes, unmanned. Flying multiple ISS rendevous missions for cargo only (unmanned) will help build up a flight history of the Dragon that SpaceX can point to and say, "See, we haven't blown anything up yet! Let us put humans on it too!"
Of course, if SpaceX does start blowing stuff up, that will have some effects on how they are percieved by the public, NASA, and Congress (who already mostly hates them).
Do you even know what you are talking about? The Dragon Capusle is a spacecraft that sits, mounted, on top of a Falcon 9 rocket. The Dragon can't do shit withouht the Falcon 9 vehicle. The Falcon 9 vehicle can launch payloads other than the Dragon, to be sure. However, for its first few demonstration and test flights (like that mentioned in the article) it will be flying with Dragon prototypes so that SpaceX can test out two systems at once and save itself money.
I really don't understand why or how you are comparing the Dragon and the Falcon, as they are two completely separate vehicles that do two completely separate things. The Dragon Capsule is not a launch vehicle. The Falcon rocket (or rockets, if you count the Falcon 1) is not an orbiter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that makes sense, because order and patterns never show up in randomly generated data anywhere else in reality. /sarcasm
Good Christ is this really what passes for critical thinking in creationist philosophies?
Those commercial businesses all have licenses to fly to space/moon/whatever issued by an appropriate regulatory agency. Next question?
Honestly, I can't even figure out who is voting the idots in at this point. Everyone I talk to hates every single politicain they know by name. I can't figure out who the hell is actually marking the ballot boxes next to incumbents' names anymore, D or R.
Should we change that phrase to Googwin's Law now?
...sell you targeted items based on your 'likes and dislikes' or anything of the sort. It is truly a social network.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what G+ is doing.
I really wish the U.S. had kept prototyping those things. Nuclear material is the only energy source with a high enough energy density in space to be useful on large-scale spacecraft. (No, at Earth distance and further out, solar energy does not count as "high energy density.")
They could have shown up at his apartment, explained to him that if he kept playing with toxic crap he would be charged with something like reckless endangerment, and told him he had 24 hours to dispose of the toxic material in one of the follwing safe manners (complete with some sort of list drafted up by a hazmat team about how it could be disposed of properly).
I understand he was being irresponsible and his judgement was probably a little bit off, but does he really need to be arrested when a house visit and a strongly worded cease and desist letter probably would have deterred him just fine?
Is the world so black and white nowadays that you have two options in law enforcement: suspected innocent = no arrest, possibly guilty = arrest.
What happened to the days of the police being friendly and working with their communities/neighborhoods?
For the record, NASA didn't say anything. Satellites that NASA successfully designed, launched, and is currently operating collected a lot of useful data that one scientist analyzed to come to the conclusions discussed in the article.
If I design a camera, take some pictures with it, and post them online, does that mean that anyone who claims my pictures are proof that aliens exist are speaking on my behalf?
So where's the beating? I haven't yet seen a refutation of the data in the study. Just a bunch of lame terminology like "climate change deniers."
This guy did a pretty good job. (Follow his links, they are important).
Awwwww. People being civil on Slashdot after disagreeing on a political science matter? Well whether the Earth is going to keep warming or cooling may be up in the air, but one thing is for sure, Hell is freezing over as we speak.
"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.
I think that may be one of the best summations of United States politics regarding any matter these days. Whether we talk about space exploration policies, banking policies, spending policies, social policies, and so on, it seems like the debate always comes down to whether or not politicians should sink their fingers into a particular field or not. Based on their track record, I'm at the point where I don't think they should most of the time with regards to private individual matters (social issues) but often should with regards to large public institutions (oil companies, telecommunications companies, media companies, etc.). Still, it certainly does highlight one of the major problems with U.S. politics today: people speaking with authority on matters they know very little about.
Ah well. Once again, thanks for the links, very informative.
I try to keep it professional on slashdot. I have no idea why that is.
Money helps too. :)
Apparently I have very feminine text messages/tweets, as I use excessive emoticons, exclamation points, and affectionate pet names (though those are directed towards females). And here I thought I had solidified my masculinity when I burnt all my pink shirts.
Then again, the nickname probably isn't helping either...
I know! Some people will even argue over which pictures of Joe Biden are prettiest!
Got it.
Or maybe he is just young and trying to find a way to learn some stuff. But hey, don't let alternate possibilities belay your condescension at all.
... but that does not change the fact that our belief in latest science developments are not more grounded than were the beliefs of the past.
Wake me when the beliefs of our ancesotrs in the past allow us to land a spacecraft on the moon.
See, the problem with your post is that it completely ignores the fact that humans have undeniably progressed since when we believed the Earth was flat. That progress is evident in the fact that our "belief" in modern science has allowed us to do things like design commercial air liners, cure smallpox, provide electricity to every home in most first world countries, and talk to other humans on the other side of the world instantly via the internet.
Having "faith" in science is not a matter of faith at all. It is an observation of the reality which exists around us, and realizing that without science no part of our modern society would exist.
So, no, keeping up with science is not a belief, it's a recognition of reality.
I'm not going to waste my time this morning trying to dig up a specific example with links, but your assertion that the GOP has never contributed to science is a pretty broad brush to paint with. The GOP, more often than not, is very in favor of Department of Defense spending and other military-esque type spending bills. The GOP members often funnel off, literally, billions of dollars to various defense contractors like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, L-3, etc.
Whether or not I think those companies, the DOD, or the military are "good" or "bad" entities is irrelevant. What I can say, for certain, is that each of those entities have previously, and continue to, contribute to science, research, development, and engineering. Hell, the internet was a Department of Defense project. PGP was developed in the U.S. Navy if I recall correctly. Lockheed and Boeing have continued to push the envelope in aeronautics and astronautics.
So yes, in general, the GOP often takes a Luddite-style stance on science when it involves social issues (teaching creationism as science, etc.). But to say the GOP never contributes to science is pretty wrong. The GOP often back some of the largest government expenditures to various institutions that do, in fact, advance science.
This probe is far enough out that it shouldn't be dicked with anything from the solar system.
You're wrong. The Pioneer is still within the Sun's gravitational sphere of influence. Good luck with your lunacy though.
I, too, am looking forward to the first time SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft penetrates Bigelow's orbital shelter. For us space nerds, the geek porn doesn't get much better than that.
There is no rush to send humans before developing much more effective remote-manned and robotic systems.
Speak for yourself. There are a number of us working in the space industry who are eager to take part in human exploration of space because being trapped on this single rock for the rest of our lives is just plain boring.
Yes, unmanned. Flying multiple ISS rendevous missions for cargo only (unmanned) will help build up a flight history of the Dragon that SpaceX can point to and say, "See, we haven't blown anything up yet! Let us put humans on it too!"
Of course, if SpaceX does start blowing stuff up, that will have some effects on how they are percieved by the public, NASA, and Congress (who already mostly hates them).
Do you even know what you are talking about? The Dragon Capusle is a spacecraft that sits, mounted, on top of a Falcon 9 rocket. The Dragon can't do shit withouht the Falcon 9 vehicle. The Falcon 9 vehicle can launch payloads other than the Dragon, to be sure. However, for its first few demonstration and test flights (like that mentioned in the article) it will be flying with Dragon prototypes so that SpaceX can test out two systems at once and save itself money.
I really don't understand why or how you are comparing the Dragon and the Falcon, as they are two completely separate vehicles that do two completely separate things. The Dragon Capsule is not a launch vehicle. The Falcon rocket (or rockets, if you count the Falcon 1) is not an orbiter.
What's the difference human beings and parasitic worms?
How much shit they're willing to eat.