Keep the geeks away from the customers!
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
One time my boss was out sick so they sent me in to represent our department at a large meeting with the customers. I think I was picked because I happened to be wearing slacks and a button-down shirt (even though it wasn't mandatory). The customer was upset because the product was late and was demanding to know why. I told the customer what I thought the real due date for the product would be (about 4 times what he had been told by management). After that I didn't get invited to any more meetings with the customers.
I did not say that it was cheaper to send a manned flight. I said that a manned flight would be able to perform more tests and perform those tests more thoroughly. Overall, it certainly would be cheaper to send a robotic probe, but the best robotic probe couldn't work as well as the best manned mission. The point was that once the greater expense of running a manned mission was taken care of, the cost of each additional test would be comparatively less than each additional test added to a robotic probe. Thus, chances are that once a manned mission was decided on there would be more tests.
Let's say your atmospheric scooper grabs some Venusian life forms. How long before you want to have human scientists examine them? 10 hours or 10 months? They might not survive a trip back to earth. For the flexability to observe a new life form in its environment I believe it would be best to have people there. Admittedly, most if not all of the critters will be microscopic and a sufficiently advanced robotic probe might be able to record some living behavior, but by making it a manned flight you will be able to fit more tests on board overall because the engineering necessary to allow for human flight will eliminate the need for complex automation. In other words, once the greater expense of sending humans is taken care of it is easier to throw in more equipment for experiments.
I would like to see an unmanned probe sent out first to confirm life. If life is found and the ecosystem sufficiently complex I believe sending human scientist is justified.
We should be looking to send a manned mission to Venus before sending a manned mission to Mars. Venus is 10 million miles closer to Earth than Mars is. A Venus mission wouldn't have a landing so it would be much cheaper. And then there's the possibility of finding life in the atmosphere.
I know, I know, people want to have the excitement of astronauts walking around on the surface of another planet. They also want to be able to see the surface of the planet from orbit. But think about it, for considerably less cost we can have humans exploring (from orbit) another world with an atmosphere and possible life. We can have probes enter the atmosphere and return samples to the orbitting spacecraft, which could then be brought back to Earth. A manned mission would have the flexibility and resources to make an exhaustive examination of the atmosphere. It makes more sense to have this be our first manned interplanetary expadition than the more expensive and difficult mission to Mars.
If you assume that a "day" really means "day" in the Bible for the first 7 days (and why wouldn't you?) and then add up all the ages of the people listed from generation to generation, you get a fairly conclusive age for the universe according to the Bible. (I don't know if off the top of my head, but I know it's there) Now, you could argue that a the first 7 days in the Bible are actually billions of years long. But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to believe in and interpret the Bible however you want.
Keaton portrayed someone who was damaged. You could see in him someone who was uncomfortable dealing with the niceties of his high society surroundings, someone who knew that there was a dark thing writhing in the city that could only be fought against by something equally dark. The other players of Batman treated him as a one dimensional heroic figure.
I thought the first Batman movie was excellent. If only Jack had been 20 years younger he would have been the perfect Joker. He still pulled off a fine job.
The second movie introduced some nearly over-the-top performances (Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken) that seemed to give permission to the people who produced the next couple of movies to return to the campiness of the television series. The formula that is the theme of Batman (person is emotionally and physically wounded, person puts on a mask and exacts revenge on the rest of the world) is made truely formulamatic in the last few films. Tim Burton realized that such a formula could be made into camp unless you had actors with depth who could flesh out the struggle of dual persona. That is where Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Michelle Pfeiffer succeeded.
It seems to me that there's a lot of hardware in orbit and that our modern complex society is dependent on this hardware. We also have a permanent space station up there (Alpha or ISS or whatever it's called). What say we use Alpha as a base for repairing and upgrading satellites as well as cleaning up orbital debris? What it would need is a space craft, kind of a tow truck in space. A couple of astronauts could take this tow truck to a satellite and reposition its orbit and make repairs. It would always be in space so it would be cheaper than having to send the shuttle up every time you want to repair a satellite. And it could find space junk and send it to burn in earth's atmosphere. This could be a real commercial role for Alpha. Combine this with tourism and Alpha might actually be a viable commercial entity.
and an atomic rocket then we'll be in business people! It will finally be here--we'll finally have an interplanetary civilization! This is what we need to aspire to. This is our destiny. Let's make it happen people. Go! Go! Go!
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn?t each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn?t it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn?t at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don?t apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth and a lizard-like tail. That sounds like an intermediate between evolutionary stages to me. Also, a very small percentage of animals are fossilized, and a smaller percentage of that have been discovered so far. Intermediate stages are rarer still, considering Gould's punctuated equalibrium. So it isn't unusual that we don't have a complete record of every developmental stage of an animals evolutionary development.
As for humans being at different stages of evolution, until recently, (30,000 years ago) that was the case. But humans at our stage killed or out-competed the rest. Because that's the way evolution works. Survival of the fitest.
I'm not sure what you meant about each Entity being at its own stage of evolution. Evolution isn't like a pre-planned route with certain pre-planned stages to reach the "top stage" or anything like that. Essentially the rule is "Whatever survives survives." Simple as that. You need a population of a certain size with genes similar enough so that they can reproduce with each other. Scientist call them "species".
Did you actually read the article? He's saying that geeks should switch the battlefield to the one where they have the advantage--to technology rather than to the legal system. Personally, I like a two-pronged attack myself, the technological and legal simultaneously. The legal system is a lumbering colossus that can destroy individuals it actually gets its hands on, but isn't nimble enough to catch everyone. (Think of the scene in Jason and the Argonauts where the giant statue is chasing the argonauts around.) Remember how distracted the legal system was by Napster, while dozens of other file sharing programs proliferated? If you want to download a song now can you? Easily, and it's because geeks write code.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC; as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
I've always had great respect for the man, but after reading that quote it has increased.
Also to note: More than half the college books I've had to read have some reference to Dijkstra in them. He is one of the greatest contributers to computer science, not only in the theoretical level, but on the practical design level as well.
Thanks for explaining that, you did a good job. I always considered it necessary for a curved universe to curve into a higher dimension, and always wondered why scientists didn't announce things like "We know that there are higher dimensions because space is curved". It certainly does makes it easier to visualize curved space when you look at it like a 2d universe in a 3d one. Even with your example, your 2 dimensional universe does exist on a sphere. But the point is that something can behave like it is curved without actually being curved. It's just the way the universe behaves. However, while admitting that we don't require higher dimensions, I think it is more likely that they do exist if the universe behaves like it is curving into them.
According to the Theory of Relativity, mass curves space. The question is, in what direction is it curved? In the direction of a higher physical, non-time producing dimension, perhaps? You've seen all those pictures that show a representation of a black hole curving a two-dimensional space to a singularity. You've heard the theories about wormholes providing short-cuts through the universe. These theories take it for granted that our space is curved within a higher physical dimension. Instead of being the 4th dimension, time could be the 5th dimension.
An interstellar empire would be feasible if there existed sentient beings with a lifespan that was measured in the millions of years. Then the trips between stars at about 10% c wouldn't seem all that long, and there would be enough continuity to maintain an interstellar culture.
I stated that at this point we should proceed as if there is no limit, because we don't know what it is. But I believe (and I could be wrong) that some day we will hit a wall, where the universe will allow no more technological advancement. To assume otherwise is to believe that the universe in infinitely maliable to our will. An interesting philosophical question is whether or not an infinitely maliable universe is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
One time my boss was out sick so they sent me in to represent our department at a large meeting with the customers. I think I was picked because I happened to be wearing slacks and a button-down shirt (even though it wasn't mandatory). The customer was upset because the product was late and was demanding to know why. I told the customer what I thought the real due date for the product would be (about 4 times what he had been told by management). After that I didn't get invited to any more meetings with the customers.
"Colonize?" "ANThropocentric?" Are you trying to tell us the universe isn't really filled with giant ants? That's a relief! ;-)
Please read a post before commenting. I said they would not land.
Read my entire post. I said they would not land.
I did not say that it was cheaper to send a manned flight. I said that a manned flight would be able to perform more tests and perform those tests more thoroughly. Overall, it certainly would be cheaper to send a robotic probe, but the best robotic probe couldn't work as well as the best manned mission. The point was that once the greater expense of running a manned mission was taken care of, the cost of each additional test would be comparatively less than each additional test added to a robotic probe. Thus, chances are that once a manned mission was decided on there would be more tests.
Let's say your atmospheric scooper grabs some Venusian life forms. How long before you want to have human scientists examine them? 10 hours or 10 months? They might not survive a trip back to earth. For the flexability to observe a new life form in its environment I believe it would be best to have people there. Admittedly, most if not all of the critters will be microscopic and a sufficiently advanced robotic probe might be able to record some living behavior, but by making it a manned flight you will be able to fit more tests on board overall because the engineering necessary to allow for human flight will eliminate the need for complex automation. In other words, once the greater expense of sending humans is taken care of it is easier to throw in more equipment for experiments.
I would like to see an unmanned probe sent out first to confirm life. If life is found and the ecosystem sufficiently complex I believe sending human scientist is justified.
Plus it will be real fun.
We should be looking to send a manned mission to Venus before sending a manned mission to Mars. Venus is 10 million miles closer to Earth than Mars is. A Venus mission wouldn't have a landing so it would be much cheaper. And then there's the possibility of finding life in the atmosphere. I know, I know, people want to have the excitement of astronauts walking around on the surface of another planet. They also want to be able to see the surface of the planet from orbit. But think about it, for considerably less cost we can have humans exploring (from orbit) another world with an atmosphere and possible life. We can have probes enter the atmosphere and return samples to the orbitting spacecraft, which could then be brought back to Earth. A manned mission would have the flexibility and resources to make an exhaustive examination of the atmosphere. It makes more sense to have this be our first manned interplanetary expadition than the more expensive and difficult mission to Mars.
Hey baby, do you want to kill all humans?
When I die I want my head chopped off and launched into orbit.
If you assume that a "day" really means "day" in the Bible for the first 7 days (and why wouldn't you?) and then add up all the ages of the people listed from generation to generation, you get a fairly conclusive age for the universe according to the Bible. (I don't know if off the top of my head, but I know it's there) Now, you could argue that a the first 7 days in the Bible are actually billions of years long. But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to believe in and interpret the Bible however you want.
He was not born in the U.S. Heck, he was not born on earth. You can't really call him a white man because he is not a "man", in the human sense.
Keaton portrayed someone who was damaged. You could see in him someone who was uncomfortable dealing with the niceties of his high society surroundings, someone who knew that there was a dark thing writhing in the city that could only be fought against by something equally dark. The other players of Batman treated him as a one dimensional heroic figure.
I thought the first Batman movie was excellent. If only Jack had been 20 years younger he would have been the perfect Joker. He still pulled off a fine job.
The second movie introduced some nearly over-the-top performances (Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken) that seemed to give permission to the people who produced the next couple of movies to return to the campiness of the television series. The formula that is the theme of Batman (person is emotionally and physically wounded, person puts on a mask and exacts revenge on the rest of the world) is made truely formulamatic in the last few films. Tim Burton realized that such a formula could be made into camp unless you had actors with depth who could flesh out the struggle of dual persona. That is where Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Michelle Pfeiffer succeeded.
Don't be too eager to deal out death, but do it if you have to. Gandalf deals out his share of death.
It seems to me that there's a lot of hardware in orbit and that our modern complex society is dependent on this hardware. We also have a permanent space station up there (Alpha or ISS or whatever it's called). What say we use Alpha as a base for repairing and upgrading satellites as well as cleaning up orbital debris? What it would need is a space craft, kind of a tow truck in space. A couple of astronauts could take this tow truck to a satellite and reposition its orbit and make repairs. It would always be in space so it would be cheaper than having to send the shuttle up every time you want to repair a satellite. And it could find space junk and send it to burn in earth's atmosphere. This could be a real commercial role for Alpha. Combine this with tourism and Alpha might actually be a viable commercial entity.
and an atomic rocket then we'll be in business people! It will finally be here--we'll finally have an interplanetary civilization! This is what we need to aspire to. This is our destiny. Let's make it happen people. Go! Go! Go!
Things won't get really interesting until we clone a Neanderthal.
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn?t each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn?t it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn?t at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don?t apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth and a lizard-like tail. That sounds like an intermediate between evolutionary stages to me. Also, a very small percentage of animals are fossilized, and a smaller percentage of that have been discovered so far. Intermediate stages are rarer still, considering Gould's punctuated equalibrium. So it isn't unusual that we don't have a complete record of every developmental stage of an animals evolutionary development.
As for humans being at different stages of evolution, until recently, (30,000 years ago) that was the case. But humans at our stage killed or out-competed the rest. Because that's the way evolution works. Survival of the fitest.
I'm not sure what you meant about each Entity being at its own stage of evolution. Evolution isn't like a pre-planned route with certain pre-planned stages to reach the "top stage" or anything like that. Essentially the rule is "Whatever survives survives." Simple as that. You need a population of a certain size with genes similar enough so that they can reproduce with each other. Scientist call them "species".
I will proceed to write out the number google:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000
There.
Now, if I tried to do it in binary I might have trouble.
Did you actually read the article? He's saying that geeks should switch the battlefield to the one where they have the advantage--to technology rather than to the legal system. Personally, I like a two-pronged attack myself, the technological and legal simultaneously. The legal system is a lumbering colossus that can destroy individuals it actually gets its hands on, but isn't nimble enough to catch everyone. (Think of the scene in Jason and the Argonauts where the giant statue is chasing the argonauts around.) Remember how distracted the legal system was by Napster, while dozens of other file sharing programs proliferated? If you want to download a song now can you? Easily, and it's because geeks write code.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC; as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
I've always had great respect for the man, but after reading that quote it has increased.
Also to note: More than half the college books I've had to read have some reference to Dijkstra in them. He is one of the greatest contributers to computer science, not only in the theoretical level, but on the practical design level as well.
Thanks for explaining that, you did a good job. I always considered it necessary for a curved universe to curve into a higher dimension, and always wondered why scientists didn't announce things like "We know that there are higher dimensions because space is curved". It certainly does makes it easier to visualize curved space when you look at it like a 2d universe in a 3d one. Even with your example, your 2 dimensional universe does exist on a sphere. But the point is that something can behave like it is curved without actually being curved. It's just the way the universe behaves. However, while admitting that we don't require higher dimensions, I think it is more likely that they do exist if the universe behaves like it is curving into them.
According to the Theory of Relativity, mass curves space. The question is, in what direction is it curved? In the direction of a higher physical, non-time producing dimension, perhaps? You've seen all those pictures that show a representation of a black hole curving a two-dimensional space to a singularity. You've heard the theories about wormholes providing short-cuts through the universe. These theories take it for granted that our space is curved within a higher physical dimension. Instead of being the 4th dimension, time could be the 5th dimension.
An interstellar empire would be feasible if there existed sentient beings with a lifespan that was measured in the millions of years. Then the trips between stars at about 10% c wouldn't seem all that long, and there would be enough continuity to maintain an interstellar culture.
I stated that at this point we should proceed as if there is no limit, because we don't know what it is. But I believe (and I could be wrong) that some day we will hit a wall, where the universe will allow no more technological advancement. To assume otherwise is to believe that the universe in infinitely maliable to our will. An interesting philosophical question is whether or not an infinitely maliable universe is possible.
Are you assuming that technology has no limits placed upon it by the laws of the universe?