That's as may be, but NASA has said that fusion reactions are actually a bit easier to start and maintain at cooler temperatures with Helium-3, and that its rarity on Earth is what's kept scientists from considering it as a viable source of fuel. We may not be putting "Mr. Fusion" boxes on our cars within the next five years, but the technology may be a couple of steps closer this way. Check out this NASA webpage on Helium-3 energy production, which outlines the possibility of building a commercial H3 fusion reactor in 20 years time.
b) The shuttle can't go to the moon and back.
Yeah, that's right! Neither can a 1946 Ford. That's why we wouldn't be going to the moon in one, let alone go back. We've got 20 years until we'll really need the stuff, and by then, things like NASA's X-33 RLV program will be just the thing we need for a job like this.
So you see? There is hope for humanity, after all!
Hmm... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Internet and the television were completely equivalent, but I think this is an excellent point. There are educational television shows, just as there are educational computer programs (and I don't mean Math Blaster, Eureeka's Castle Episode MCXVII, or any other game, for that matter). Computers, however, do offer the element of interaction, which television lacks. Does this justify the presence of computers in the classroom? Possibly. Does it justify the manner in which computers are being used by teachers nowadays? Not even a little bit.
Teachers, computers aren't a panacea of learning. Surprise, there's still work to be done. I guess it wasn't enough that America was leaving its children for the schools to raise them, but now teachers seem to want to let computers teach for them. Just because a program has lots of nifty graphics and sound effects, that does not necessarily mean it's going to be a quality product. Case in point, Windows 98. Along with that, just because a computer is in the classroom, that does not mean that the teacher is knowledgable enough to show kids just what this technological marvel is capable of. It would be like a teacher getting a box of oil paints, letting the kids have at them, and then complaining that the kids made a mess, and this was justification to ban Art from all elementary school curriculi. In the right hands, computers can teach kids quite a bit, and halting all exposure to computers will only serve to stifle interest in the technology that has changed the world in a matter of years.
I suppose the bottom line here is that we're talking about the difference between using computers and using individual pieces of software. The moral of the story? Show a kid a computer, and he'll waste an afternoon. Show a kid how it works, and he may very well become the next Linus Torvalds...
Slashdot Mirror
(a) Fusion don't work yet.
That's as may be, but NASA has said that fusion reactions are actually a bit easier to start and maintain at cooler temperatures with Helium-3, and that its rarity on Earth is what's kept scientists from considering it as a viable source of fuel. We may not be putting "Mr. Fusion" boxes on our cars within the next five years, but the technology may be a couple of steps closer this way. Check out this NASA webpage on Helium-3 energy production, which outlines the possibility of building a commercial H3 fusion reactor in 20 years time.
b) The shuttle can't go to the moon and back.
Yeah, that's right! Neither can a 1946 Ford. That's why we wouldn't be going to the moon in one, let alone go back. We've got 20 years until we'll really need the stuff, and by then, things like NASA's X-33 RLV program will be just the thing we need for a job like this.
So you see? There is hope for humanity, after all!
/* Steve */
Hmm... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Internet and the television were completely equivalent, but I think this is an excellent point. There are educational television shows, just as there are educational computer programs (and I don't mean Math Blaster, Eureeka's Castle Episode MCXVII, or any other game, for that matter). Computers, however, do offer the element of interaction, which television lacks. Does this justify the presence of computers in the classroom? Possibly. Does it justify the manner in which computers are being used by teachers nowadays? Not even a little bit.
Teachers, computers aren't a panacea of learning. Surprise, there's still work to be done. I guess it wasn't enough that America was leaving its children for the schools to raise them, but now teachers seem to want to let computers teach for them. Just because a program has lots of nifty graphics and sound effects, that does not necessarily mean it's going to be a quality product. Case in point, Windows 98. Along with that, just because a computer is in the classroom, that does not mean that the teacher is knowledgable enough to show kids just what this technological marvel is capable of. It would be like a teacher getting a box of oil paints, letting the kids have at them, and then complaining that the kids made a mess, and this was justification to ban Art from all elementary school curriculi. In the right hands, computers can teach kids quite a bit, and halting all exposure to computers will only serve to stifle interest in the technology that has changed the world in a matter of years.
I suppose the bottom line here is that we're talking about the difference between using computers and using individual pieces of software. The moral of the story? Show a kid a computer, and he'll waste an afternoon. Show a kid how it works, and he may very well become the next Linus Torvalds...
Of course, that's just my opinion.