The problem is by failing you'd mess it up for everyone else, by contaminating Mars with Earth micro-organisms, you have no idea how valuable a Pristine Mars with probably independently evolved life is potentially for science and for humanity. If you could somehow colonize Mars with humans without bringing their micro-organisms along as well, but no-one knows a way to do that.
There is a way around that too, to explore Mars telerobotically to start with. Why such a rush to land humans on the surface when the surface is cold as Antarctica, near vacuum, and far less habitable than the coldest driest deserts on Earth (the McMurdo dry valleys in Antarctica and the Atacama desert are both far more habitable for humans than Mars)? Is easier to supply and maintain a colony in orbit, the Molniya orbit is easier to get to in terms of delta v than the Moon. Then you can control telerobots on the surface instead.
See:
http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/ten_reasons_not_live_mars_great_place_explore-118531
See http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/blog/how_valuable_pristine_mars_humanity_opinion_piece-115954
Yes and asteroid retrieval actually combines well with telerobotic exploration of the Moon. The asteroid woud be returned to an L1 or L2 position around the Moon if I understand right, From there, you can do good telerobotics control of missions on the surface of the Moon, which is a cost effective way to explore the Moon if you are interested in the science return.
Thanks, really helpful especially, when you explain in ground state means can't extract energy from the rotation in any way which is intuitively bizarre:)
Yes I was in a similar situation, actually was a neighbour with OCD who got up frequently in the night to wash his hands for hours on end - and the bathroom was right next to my room so I heard all the noise he made. I had a continuously running loop playing the sound of running water - you could also use sound of the sea. Better if it is natural and continually varying sound, because if it is steady you can filter it out and hear the sounds through it but if the sound is just interesting enough to be continually varying, relaxing and natural sounding - but not so much that it keeps you awake - that's ideal. Water has lots of sort of "popping" noises in it and so a few more sudden noises in the background can just get lost in the mix.
You can play it over headphones, though it is a bit tricky to keep headphones on while you sleep. Or play it over loud speakers close to your bed - it is an unobtrusive sound for those outside your room so not likely to get complaints to run it over night especially if you explain why you are doing it to anyone who wants to know.
It wasn't a perfect solution, I still got woken up occasinally - but it let me get some uninterrupted nights of sleep when I was exhausted and tired all the time and very much needed some sleep after being woken up so many times in the middle of the night.
It is also very likely to be far away because the gamma ray burst is thought to be generated along the axis of the rotating star. So the chance that a nearby star will happen to point exactly towards us is very low indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
One that might be a danger at some point apparently is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 but most likely it is angled more like 30 degrees to us so not a danger (just summarizing the info you find on wikipedia about them)
There are 204,784 active developers right now, so that's $34,182 average per developer. Since most developers are probably earning next to nothing, some must be earning serious amounts of money from the App store.
You can also divide by the total number of apps, 1,039,518 apps so that makes an average income of $6,733 per app.. Again a serious amount of money.
It would be interesting to know what happens to those averages if you remove, say, the top 100,000 apps and the top 10,000 developers from the list, to give a better idea of what it is like for most developers.
That can't be quite right, because some spores on Earth are viable after hundreds of thousands of years. What makes a difference is that they have self repairing DNA, some claimed to still be viable even after millions of years. If there is life on Mars now, it might remain dormant most of the time in spores of some form or other, and waken when conditions are better even just every few hundred thousand years - or could germinate when good conditions are encountered on present day Mars. Both are reasons to possibly find spores even on the surface of Mars, viable spores, perhaps it's those that they are targeting, or anything else like that. The life itself might not be on the surface especially near the equator - but the spores might be.
You can look at the history of the article, and there's an extensive discussion of the article there too, case of a small human error on the part of one wikipedia editor, not a failure of wikipedia policies, and the whole thing is very understandable - both sides - the biographer didn't engage in any discussion at least on the talk page - you can understand that from a human point of view but it's best to talk to the other editors of the article especially when editing an article about yourself or the person you are the official biographer for, to help deal with some of the confusions.
Have you looked at the wiki article - quite a storm in a teacup, nothing much really happened and it's all fixed now, with a long discussion about it - it seems it dates to an incident where his official biographer edited the article and a wiki editor reverted the edit, doubted his claim to be the biographer. The biographer then reverted the edit again, and the wiki editor reverted it back and and put in lots of supporting references to the other POV from published material. The biographer apparently made no more edits and didn't engage in any discussion on the talk page. You can understand both from a human point of view one of those misunderstandings that can easily happen - the biographer you can well understand giving up no-one likes it if someone else doubts that you are who you are - and the wiki editor you can understand some scepticism about it since anyone can claim to be anyone and you get lots of "sock puppets" on wikipedia people claiming to be something different from who they are - though their reaction violates the wiki guidelines to "not bite the newbie". If it happens to you the thing to do is to talk about it on the talk page and engage in discussion. And it is okay to edit your own biography in wikipedia - to correct facts like your date of birth, or other things like that, it's just a guideline about not editing pages about yourself and is meant to stop you from putting in things like critical appraisals of your own work e.g. saying how good you are at what you do, or just putting in lots of extra material that no-one else is interested in - it's hard to have a neutral point of view. But you can go in and edit and correct facts, and if someone reverts your edit, explain on the talk page and engage in talk with the other editors and it should work out fine.
Future technology - magnetic flux pinning - this has been suggested for construction of spacecraft in the future completely bolt free - I suppose the higher the temperature of the superconductor the more feasible it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning
E.g. if in one year they can do the same thing another coder would take ten years to do, and can foresee future problems so that the code is future proof and is also pretty much bug free, and typically the programs they release never need to be updated.
Yes - that type of code is limited to the working lifetime of the coder. As long as he is alive and part of the company then he can continue to do updates of the code. After that then no more updates are possible, and even simple bug fixes may be hard to do.
Which may be fine in some situations. Just so long as you recognise the situation.
Good point. First thought: after your first space habitat you have gravity to make new space habitats. So first one would be the hardest, maybe many components would need to be supplied from Earth but you could get the heaviest stuff from NEOs. Also remember you can often have plastic too, or glass or indeed maybe things that work like concrete, in place of steel.. So might need to develop new ways of working with materials and new materials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing#Manufacturing
Surely much easier to create space habitats. Yes with self replicating robots you could make planets, but there isn't enough material in the asteroid belt, you would have to get material from the Oort cloud or from other planets e.g. Jupiter. - and what's the point since you can have many more humans and other life-forms living in a rotating habitat than on the surface of a planet, especially if the whole thing is artificial anyway.
Depends, if e.g. it is a super efficient fast fourier transform that has been honed to perfection over years, and is as fast as the programmer can make it, but is poorly documented, and doesn't need to be changed, you don't want to refactor that even if you don't understand in detail how it works. Or if it is some very specialist code that requires advanced understanding of high level maths or physics to understand. There are things that researchers might program that a programmer without specialist understanding of their field might find hard to reproduce, depending on the field and whether the researchers have a natural talent for programming.
But if it is spaghetti code that just does stuff that is bread and butter programming, re-implementing a search and replace say, or a binary tree, or handling gui input and pre-parsing it for the meat of the program, or things like that, then it's best to refactor it if you can.
Surprisingly in a way,an easy way to trick these online bots is often to ask some simple maths questions in ordinary language I find. So with Eugene:
Me: "What is the next number after 1?"
Eugene: "Errrr... Frankly, I didn't get your question. Wonna ask me something more?"
Me: "Can you count?"
Eugene: "Do you think I am so pathetic one that I even can't count? I can, believe me!"
Me: "So what's the next number after one?"
Eugene: "Damn! Are you going to ask me about all apparent things in the world? Read the "Encyclopedia for kids". I know you are supposed to trick me."
Though I suppose on-line bots are probably lower power than the ones in competitions?
I do a bit of editing of Wikipedia, trained as a mathematician, keen interest in astronomy all my life, and do music software programming particularly to do with microtonal music. So several areas of expertise, in those areas I find it works reasonably well, don't contribute much just a bit from time to time. It works pretty well I find, nothing like the issues you get in politics and the like.
The only issue I have had is similar to the one you found, when you add something that's accurate and it gets deleted.
The thing there that helps I find is to make sure you have lots of references. You can usually turn stuff up quickly with a google in Google Scholar or on-line textbooks or the like depending on the subject. Add a few references to on-line papers to most of your sentences or paragraphs and that shows it's not original research and anyone editing it to change what you are written should go and check up those references first. That helps the casual wiki editors who just delete stuff they don't understand and don't recognise, and lets the experts check things up if they have doubts about what you wrote.
If you look at it from their side, then wikipedia keeps getting stuff added to it all the time that's speculative or just nonsense. Luckily there are as many people going around patrolling it and removing all the nonsense again. So - you want them to do that of course, but you also want to make things easier for them. So adding lots of citations to your article means when they get there it is obviously a contribution by someone who has done his or her research, and it's not original material.
If they are very thorough they might chase up a couple of your citations and make sure they look like genuine original articles.
I did a bit of patrolling of the "proposals for deletion" just a few times to help out, after one of my articles was suggested for deletion - after adding citations then it was a swift discussion and the result was "keep".
So anyway for this patrol, you see a lot of nonsense added to wikipedia every day, but amongst that also you get lots of articles that are fine, but got this "proposal for deletion" added to them mainly because they don't have any citations and the subject is a bit obscure. If you do a google you find the subject is notable and not original research. They have these "proposals for deletion" added to them obviously by a wiki editor who didn't have enough time to chase up references for them which can take a bit of research to find.
So - when you undo an edit like that, add a citation to it, or give some way for them to verify what you say. Or indeed just put a comment in the wiki source code to say "don't delete this if you don't understand" - for instance in the "orders of magnitude" page at wikipedia there is a comment on each one about the "long scale" naming system
<!-- if you don't know what "long scale" means, don't edit this line. It is not a mistake. -->
So you can do stuff like that too if you get the same edit over and over and have to keep reverting, explain in a comment that they see when they edit the wiki code, to say it's not a mistake and that they shouldn't remove the content unless they understand it.
It's the edge rank, see here: http://edgerank.net/I create a special facebook
I generally see just a few posts from some of my fb friends. My fix is to make special "Friends" groups of particular groups of people I want to follow, e.g. I have a special one for my relatives.
Also if you want to see all the facebook posts from someone particular then you can go to their own page on facebook and read their wall.
One fun sci fi story might be parallel worlds with Red, Green, Blue and Black versions of Mars. The black one would be the one with the black mould in it. The blue one would be one where water is liberated and shallow oceans form at least temporarily. The red one would be for humans that are highly conservation orientated and preserve the planet until it is really needed (maybe in future when Earth becomes too hot to be habitable possibly millions of years or more from now). The green one would be one with plant life all over it. Then explore all those versions of Mars forward a few million years or whatever and see what happens to them.
The only way to rule out the possibility that we delivered the life is to not go there in person. Machines may be okay if carefully sterilised. Otherwise, leave the planet alone until we can do it safely. There has been lots of discussion of using life for terra-forming of planets, so that gives an idea of the potential power of life - and so also - the danger too. If you could potentially use life to liberate the CO2 and then transform it into an Earth like atmosphere at least temporarily - then you could equally well use lifeforms to make the whole planet poisonous to Earth life. Or - e.g. like many people are allergic to black mould - suppose the entire planet gets covered with a kind of black mould that all humans are highly allergic to, and creates a fine dust so that there is no way to live there safely without heroic measures to remove the mould, just to give one sci fi. type idea - someone should write a story based on that idea. The sci fi stories I remember were 1. a story by Asimov where space explorers exploring a planet with near vacuum conditions find a life form that can survive in near vacuum conditions around a spacecraft, I can't remember the details but it was dangerous because of that. The other is a story about an explorer who found an amazing new life form on one of the planets of our solar system, but left his excrement on the planet wrapped in a plastic bag, when he came back again then the life was extinct destroyed as a result of penetrating the plastic and releasing his excrement. But those are old stories from decades ago before e.g. we knew how resilient spores were and before we knew so much about extremophiles that can live in the most amazingly hostile environments on Earth. I think nowadays there is little doubt that some forms of Earth life could survive on Mars pretty much just as they are now.
Yes exactly it's impossible, so don't do it, find some other approach or wait until you have methods that work. E.g. use robots instead, very carefully sterilised. You could explore by tele-presence perhaps from orbit around Mars sufficiently far away so no risk of crashing into Mars.
The very top few inches of Mars is pretty hostile but below it isn't. Life might be able to survive all over the warmer areas of Mars just below the surface - or inside stones - as they do in antarctica for instance. Also though hostile to living organisms, dormant bacterial spores are incredibly resistant. They can survive for hundreds of thousands of years or longer. Mars is especially risky because of the sand storms, spores will spread over the entire planet very rapidly as soon as they find conditions where they can reproduce and with ability to get close enough to the surface and be disturbed by the wind.
There's a good reason why current robotic spacecraft are carefully sterilised. Why do so many think it is okay to throw all those precautions out of the window as soon as human astronauts are involved? I can only think it is wishful thinking combined with influence of movies. But movies and sci fi writings for that matter are often scientifically inaccurate and no-one knows enough to write a scientifically accurate movie script or novel about this scenario. Someone should though. I do know of at least a couple of Sci Fi. stories that describe exactly this scenario - they should be made into a blockbuster film, that might make a difference!
Also a planet seeded with Earth life could be dangerous or make it unable to support our plants! Think of it - an entire planet, billions upon billions of microorganisms covering it within a year or two of exponential growth - zero or minmimal competition from any other form of life - it's a recipe for very fast evolution of new life forms, an experiment we could never duplicate on Earth with simulated Mars environments because we just can't duplicate the scale of it, enormous difference between a planet and a few square meters of simulated Mars environment.
Anything could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is by failing you'd mess it up for everyone else, by contaminating Mars with Earth micro-organisms, you have no idea how valuable a Pristine Mars with probably independently evolved life is potentially for science and for humanity. If you could somehow colonize Mars with humans without bringing their micro-organisms along as well, but no-one knows a way to do that. There is a way around that too, to explore Mars telerobotically to start with. Why such a rush to land humans on the surface when the surface is cold as Antarctica, near vacuum, and far less habitable than the coldest driest deserts on Earth (the McMurdo dry valleys in Antarctica and the Atacama desert are both far more habitable for humans than Mars)? Is easier to supply and maintain a colony in orbit, the Molniya orbit is easier to get to in terms of delta v than the Moon. Then you can control telerobots on the surface instead. See: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/ten_reasons_not_live_mars_great_place_explore-118531 See http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/blog/how_valuable_pristine_mars_humanity_opinion_piece-115954
Yes and asteroid retrieval actually combines well with telerobotic exploration of the Moon. The asteroid woud be returned to an L1 or L2 position around the Moon if I understand right, From there, you can do good telerobotics control of missions on the surface of the Moon, which is a cost effective way to explore the Moon if you are interested in the science return.
Thanks, really helpful especially, when you explain in ground state means can't extract energy from the rotation in any way which is intuitively bizarre :)
Try computers for africa http://www.computers4africa.org.uk/
Computers for Africa accept P4s according to their website: http://www.computers4africa.org.uk/give/index.php?page=Accepted%20Equipment
Yes I was in a similar situation, actually was a neighbour with OCD who got up frequently in the night to wash his hands for hours on end - and the bathroom was right next to my room so I heard all the noise he made. I had a continuously running loop playing the sound of running water - you could also use sound of the sea. Better if it is natural and continually varying sound, because if it is steady you can filter it out and hear the sounds through it but if the sound is just interesting enough to be continually varying, relaxing and natural sounding - but not so much that it keeps you awake - that's ideal. Water has lots of sort of "popping" noises in it and so a few more sudden noises in the background can just get lost in the mix. You can play it over headphones, though it is a bit tricky to keep headphones on while you sleep. Or play it over loud speakers close to your bed - it is an unobtrusive sound for those outside your room so not likely to get complaints to run it over night especially if you explain why you are doing it to anyone who wants to know. It wasn't a perfect solution, I still got woken up occasinally - but it let me get some uninterrupted nights of sleep when I was exhausted and tired all the time and very much needed some sleep after being woken up so many times in the middle of the night.
It is also very likely to be far away because the gamma ray burst is thought to be generated along the axis of the rotating star. So the chance that a nearby star will happen to point exactly towards us is very low indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst One that might be a danger at some point apparently is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 but most likely it is angled more like 30 degrees to us so not a danger (just summarizing the info you find on wikipedia about them)
There are 204,784 active developers right now, so that's $34,182 average per developer. Since most developers are probably earning next to nothing, some must be earning serious amounts of money from the App store.
You can also divide by the total number of apps, 1,039,518 apps so that makes an average income of $6,733 per app.. Again a serious amount of money.
It would be interesting to know what happens to those averages if you remove, say, the top 100,000 apps and the top 10,000 developers from the list, to give a better idea of what it is like for most developers.
You can get the up to date figures here (may be changed by the time you read it)
http://148apps.biz/app-store-metrics/
That can't be quite right, because some spores on Earth are viable after hundreds of thousands of years. What makes a difference is that they have self repairing DNA, some claimed to still be viable even after millions of years. If there is life on Mars now, it might remain dormant most of the time in spores of some form or other, and waken when conditions are better even just every few hundred thousand years - or could germinate when good conditions are encountered on present day Mars. Both are reasons to possibly find spores even on the surface of Mars, viable spores, perhaps it's those that they are targeting, or anything else like that. The life itself might not be on the surface especially near the equator - but the spores might be.
You can look at the history of the article, and there's an extensive discussion of the article there too, case of a small human error on the part of one wikipedia editor, not a failure of wikipedia policies, and the whole thing is very understandable - both sides - the biographer didn't engage in any discussion at least on the talk page - you can understand that from a human point of view but it's best to talk to the other editors of the article especially when editing an article about yourself or the person you are the official biographer for, to help deal with some of the confusions.
Have you looked at the wiki article - quite a storm in a teacup, nothing much really happened and it's all fixed now, with a long discussion about it - it seems it dates to an incident where his official biographer edited the article and a wiki editor reverted the edit, doubted his claim to be the biographer. The biographer then reverted the edit again, and the wiki editor reverted it back and and put in lots of supporting references to the other POV from published material. The biographer apparently made no more edits and didn't engage in any discussion on the talk page. You can understand both from a human point of view one of those misunderstandings that can easily happen - the biographer you can well understand giving up no-one likes it if someone else doubts that you are who you are - and the wiki editor you can understand some scepticism about it since anyone can claim to be anyone and you get lots of "sock puppets" on wikipedia people claiming to be something different from who they are - though their reaction violates the wiki guidelines to "not bite the newbie". If it happens to you the thing to do is to talk about it on the talk page and engage in discussion. And it is okay to edit your own biography in wikipedia - to correct facts like your date of birth, or other things like that, it's just a guideline about not editing pages about yourself and is meant to stop you from putting in things like critical appraisals of your own work e.g. saying how good you are at what you do, or just putting in lots of extra material that no-one else is interested in - it's hard to have a neutral point of view. But you can go in and edit and correct facts, and if someone reverts your edit, explain on the talk page and engage in talk with the other editors and it should work out fine.
Future technology - magnetic flux pinning - this has been suggested for construction of spacecraft in the future completely bolt free - I suppose the higher the temperature of the superconductor the more feasible it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning
E.g. if in one year they can do the same thing another coder would take ten years to do, and can foresee future problems so that the code is future proof and is also pretty much bug free, and typically the programs they release never need to be updated.
Yes - that type of code is limited to the working lifetime of the coder. As long as he is alive and part of the company then he can continue to do updates of the code. After that then no more updates are possible, and even simple bug fixes may be hard to do. Which may be fine in some situations. Just so long as you recognise the situation.
Good point. First thought: after your first space habitat you have gravity to make new space habitats. So first one would be the hardest, maybe many components would need to be supplied from Earth but you could get the heaviest stuff from NEOs. Also remember you can often have plastic too, or glass or indeed maybe things that work like concrete, in place of steel.. So might need to develop new ways of working with materials and new materials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing#Manufacturing
Surely much easier to create space habitats. Yes with self replicating robots you could make planets, but there isn't enough material in the asteroid belt, you would have to get material from the Oort cloud or from other planets e.g. Jupiter. - and what's the point since you can have many more humans and other life-forms living in a rotating habitat than on the surface of a planet, especially if the whole thing is artificial anyway.
Depends, if e.g. it is a super efficient fast fourier transform that has been honed to perfection over years, and is as fast as the programmer can make it, but is poorly documented, and doesn't need to be changed, you don't want to refactor that even if you don't understand in detail how it works. Or if it is some very specialist code that requires advanced understanding of high level maths or physics to understand. There are things that researchers might program that a programmer without specialist understanding of their field might find hard to reproduce, depending on the field and whether the researchers have a natural talent for programming. But if it is spaghetti code that just does stuff that is bread and butter programming, re-implementing a search and replace say, or a binary tree, or handling gui input and pre-parsing it for the meat of the program, or things like that, then it's best to refactor it if you can.
Surprisingly in a way,an easy way to trick these online bots is often to ask some simple maths questions in ordinary language I find. So with Eugene:
Me: "What is the next number after 1?"
Eugene: "Errrr... Frankly, I didn't get your question. Wonna ask me something more?"
Me: "Can you count?"
Eugene: "Do you think I am so pathetic one that I even can't count? I can, believe me!"
Me: "So what's the next number after one?"
Eugene: "Damn! Are you going to ask me about all apparent things in the world? Read the "Encyclopedia for kids". I know you are supposed to trick me."
Though I suppose on-line bots are probably lower power than the ones in competitions?
I do a bit of editing of Wikipedia, trained as a mathematician, keen interest in astronomy all my life, and do music software programming particularly to do with microtonal music. So several areas of expertise, in those areas I find it works reasonably well, don't contribute much just a bit from time to time. It works pretty well I find, nothing like the issues you get in politics and the like.
The only issue I have had is similar to the one you found, when you add something that's accurate and it gets deleted.
The thing there that helps I find is to make sure you have lots of references. You can usually turn stuff up quickly with a google in Google Scholar or on-line textbooks or the like depending on the subject. Add a few references to on-line papers to most of your sentences or paragraphs and that shows it's not original research and anyone editing it to change what you are written should go and check up those references first. That helps the casual wiki editors who just delete stuff they don't understand and don't recognise, and lets the experts check things up if they have doubts about what you wrote.
If you look at it from their side, then wikipedia keeps getting stuff added to it all the time that's speculative or just nonsense. Luckily there are as many people going around patrolling it and removing all the nonsense again. So - you want them to do that of course, but you also want to make things easier for them. So adding lots of citations to your article means when they get there it is obviously a contribution by someone who has done his or her research, and it's not original material.
If they are very thorough they might chase up a couple of your citations and make sure they look like genuine original articles.
I did a bit of patrolling of the "proposals for deletion" just a few times to help out, after one of my articles was suggested for deletion - after adding citations then it was a swift discussion and the result was "keep".
So anyway for this patrol, you see a lot of nonsense added to wikipedia every day, but amongst that also you get lots of articles that are fine, but got this "proposal for deletion" added to them mainly because they don't have any citations and the subject is a bit obscure. If you do a google you find the subject is notable and not original research. They have these "proposals for deletion" added to them obviously by a wiki editor who didn't have enough time to chase up references for them which can take a bit of research to find.
So - when you undo an edit like that, add a citation to it, or give some way for them to verify what you say. Or indeed just put a comment in the wiki source code to say "don't delete this if you don't understand" - for instance in the "orders of magnitude" page at wikipedia there is a comment on each one about the "long scale" naming system
<!-- if you don't know what "long scale" means, don't edit this line. It is not a mistake. -->
So you can do stuff like that too if you get the same edit over and over and have to keep reverting, explain in a comment that they see when they edit the wiki code, to say it's not a mistake and that they shouldn't remove the content unless they understand it.
It's the edge rank, see here: http://edgerank.net/I create a special facebook I generally see just a few posts from some of my fb friends. My fix is to make special "Friends" groups of particular groups of people I want to follow, e.g. I have a special one for my relatives. Also if you want to see all the facebook posts from someone particular then you can go to their own page on facebook and read their wall.
One fun sci fi story might be parallel worlds with Red, Green, Blue and Black versions of Mars. The black one would be the one with the black mould in it. The blue one would be one where water is liberated and shallow oceans form at least temporarily. The red one would be for humans that are highly conservation orientated and preserve the planet until it is really needed (maybe in future when Earth becomes too hot to be habitable possibly millions of years or more from now). The green one would be one with plant life all over it. Then explore all those versions of Mars forward a few million years or whatever and see what happens to them.
The only way to rule out the possibility that we delivered the life is to not go there in person. Machines may be okay if carefully sterilised. Otherwise, leave the planet alone until we can do it safely. There has been lots of discussion of using life for terra-forming of planets, so that gives an idea of the potential power of life - and so also - the danger too. If you could potentially use life to liberate the CO2 and then transform it into an Earth like atmosphere at least temporarily - then you could equally well use lifeforms to make the whole planet poisonous to Earth life. Or - e.g. like many people are allergic to black mould - suppose the entire planet gets covered with a kind of black mould that all humans are highly allergic to, and creates a fine dust so that there is no way to live there safely without heroic measures to remove the mould, just to give one sci fi. type idea - someone should write a story based on that idea. The sci fi stories I remember were 1. a story by Asimov where space explorers exploring a planet with near vacuum conditions find a life form that can survive in near vacuum conditions around a spacecraft, I can't remember the details but it was dangerous because of that. The other is a story about an explorer who found an amazing new life form on one of the planets of our solar system, but left his excrement on the planet wrapped in a plastic bag, when he came back again then the life was extinct destroyed as a result of penetrating the plastic and releasing his excrement. But those are old stories from decades ago before e.g. we knew how resilient spores were and before we knew so much about extremophiles that can live in the most amazingly hostile environments on Earth. I think nowadays there is little doubt that some forms of Earth life could survive on Mars pretty much just as they are now.
Yes exactly it's impossible, so don't do it, find some other approach or wait until you have methods that work. E.g. use robots instead, very carefully sterilised. You could explore by tele-presence perhaps from orbit around Mars sufficiently far away so no risk of crashing into Mars. The very top few inches of Mars is pretty hostile but below it isn't. Life might be able to survive all over the warmer areas of Mars just below the surface - or inside stones - as they do in antarctica for instance. Also though hostile to living organisms, dormant bacterial spores are incredibly resistant. They can survive for hundreds of thousands of years or longer. Mars is especially risky because of the sand storms, spores will spread over the entire planet very rapidly as soon as they find conditions where they can reproduce and with ability to get close enough to the surface and be disturbed by the wind.
There's a good reason why current robotic spacecraft are carefully sterilised. Why do so many think it is okay to throw all those precautions out of the window as soon as human astronauts are involved? I can only think it is wishful thinking combined with influence of movies. But movies and sci fi writings for that matter are often scientifically inaccurate and no-one knows enough to write a scientifically accurate movie script or novel about this scenario. Someone should though. I do know of at least a couple of Sci Fi. stories that describe exactly this scenario - they should be made into a blockbuster film, that might make a difference!
Also a planet seeded with Earth life could be dangerous or make it unable to support our plants! Think of it - an entire planet, billions upon billions of microorganisms covering it within a year or two of exponential growth - zero or minmimal competition from any other form of life - it's a recipe for very fast evolution of new life forms, an experiment we could never duplicate on Earth with simulated Mars environments because we just can't duplicate the scale of it, enormous difference between a planet and a few square meters of simulated Mars environment. Anything could happen.