Chemical rockets are quite sufficent, considering that the problem isn't getting there in the first place, but slowing down enough to not skip out of orbit and off into deep space when you get there.
That being said, maybe you'd be interested in a Nuclear thermal rocket:
I think it has something to do with some pact made by a bunch of nations back in the begining of the previous century (maybe before?) regarding developing antarctica. I'm too lazy to wikipedia it up right now.
that being said, I actually support this. We can start doing it -right now-, and learning to set up a workable colony in antarctica is actually very valid training for setting up a colony on Mars. A lot less oxygen and gravity on Mars, some more radiation, most of the "ice" is CO2 not H2O, and leaving is a lot harder, but otherwise pretty much the same sort of thing.
Re:Why Mars and not the Moon?
on
Gardening On Mars
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually, Mars and the Moon aren't very similar at all other than the superficial difference of "they're both outside LEO, and neither one has an oxygen atmosphere". You can get better approximation of living and working on Mars in antarctica, or hell even Wyoming, than you can on the Moon.
The moon is absolutely positivly not a prerequsite for Mars. You certainly can (and should!) design hardware that simultaniously serves dual roles on both the Moon and Mars, in order to save expenses, but there is no "study" or "experimentation" that needs to be done on the moon to prepare us for Mars.
We had comprehensive, workable, plans based on existing (not future) hardware and technology to get to Mars since at least the mid 90s. We didn't do it because of internal NASA bickering and politics. Everybody thinks "oh we can't get to mars for X reason without Y technology". When you ask other scientists about X reason, they explain that X is bunk, and that the real reason the first group is so "concerned" with X reason is because Y technology is the pet project of that team.
Of course then this same second group explains to you that the REAL reason we can't get to Mars is because of reason Z, which will convinently be fixed by THEIR technology Q, which they could get finished quickly if only they had more funding.
It's all about getting funding for your pet project.
And neither they, nor wine, are running Mass Effect 2, World in Conflict, Modern Warfare, etc for me.
I can get Wine to run WoW pretty well, but it chokes on trasmitting voice in teamspeak (which is, admitedly, better than the linux native client which I can't get to transmit OR recieve)
"real linux"? Like Ubuntu is made from cheap copy components from some nameless factory in China?
Why would I get more respect editing fstab in Debian, running a driver install script from the terminal in fedora, or compiling source code in mandrake?
What qualifies me for "real linux" user? Do I need to pick up Slackware or gentoo and compile my own kernal for a 1% improvement in speed?
Why do fanboys feel the need to splinter themselves internally, even to the point of absurdity?
*note, this is not directed specifically at you Dotancohen
I had a problem with beta2 where it wasn't automatically mounting them at login. I finally figured out I needed to add the option "auto" into my fstab samba mount lines, even though "auto" should be the default (according the documentation I read).
after that, it worked fine.
Now I'm worried if I run a system update when i get home, it'll break again.
Surprised that this hasn't been "flamebaited" already, even though it's true.
I use linux because: 1. I hate Windows bloat (not even entirely MS's fault. every application, piece of hardware, and hell even some games wants to install stuff that runs at startup) that slows the system down. 2. I hate anti-virus software that slows the system down, randomly breaks programs, and assumes I'm an idiot.
That's really about it.
If 99% of viruses/malware/rootkits/etc out there weren't targeted at windows, I'd probably use windows 7 as my daily driver OS. As it is now, I just dual boot into it for gaming, and I'll tell you... with nothing but the absolute essentials installed, it's pretty damn speedy.
Has it?? i've been running beta2 for a few weeks and it dual boots Win7 just fine. Did they break something?
Speaking of which, my impressions of 10.04 aren't as thrilled as the summary (can't read TFA yet). I ran 9.04 for nearly a year, skipped completely over 9.10, and now that I'm on 10.04, I honestly can't tell what's different from 9.04 aside from the new purple/grey/orange colored interface bars, moved min/max/close buttons, different IM tool (which I was already using in 9.04 anyway), and the login tool already knowing my name. Oh, and some icons for cloud computing (which I'm not sold on at all) and integration with facebook and twitter.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but with the short 6-month release schedule, it doesn't seem like -any- release of Ubuntu is worth "eagerly anticipating". It's not like we're talking the 6 year feature/design gap between XP and Vista, or even the 3 year gap between Vista and 7.
It seems like it basically comes down to "install whatever release is current, get it configured to your liking, and run it until support ends." I saw no reason to upgrade from 9.04 to 9.10, and I wouldn't have upgraded from 9.04 to 10.04 except I needed to wipe the HD anyway.
Really? The last jury I served on, from the College student to the 69-year-old grandmother, seemed to have no problems comprehending pretty much exactly what each count against the defendant meant, and whether he voilated the letter of the law, even if he didn't mean to.
In the one instance we were confused as a whole, we just asked the Judge. You do know that the jusge is at your disposal to answer any legal questions you may have about how the law is written, right? We had to have him explain a subsection that was written in a confusing manner.
There were for sure some idiots and or biased people on the intial selection panel, but the Judge himself booted some of those for various reasons, and the prosecution and defense attorneys did a damn good job of getting rid of the rest. That's their -job- remember?
You just learned NOW that CYA is job number one for anybody that wants a career in IT?
Step 1: Document ANYTHING that may ever be contraversial, why you did it, and exactly why the other options were poor choices. Step 2: Any time your superiors ask you to do anything, always mention "Per Supervisor Jane Peterson..." in your notes. Step 3: Always make sure you have some good generic excises banked in the back of your head why you are not at fault for bad stuff, while still being responsible for the good things. It -will- save your ass at some point over the years. Step 4: Make sure you especially keep an eye out for co-workers, and superiors(!) who are potentially likely to use YOU as THEIR CYA excuse. Be wary, and be prepared.
It doesn't matter if your company administrates servers, publishes novels, writes software or sells shoes. Business is business, and CYA is always important. Disregard
"I'm sorry John, you know I can't give that out without confirmation. Did Bob (Joe Schmoe's boss)authorize this? By the way, Why am I being fired, and who are these people?"
I see where you're going with this, and I don't necessarily disagree with your overall idea, but I have to comment on several points:
The US has PLENTY of natural resources left, including (I believe) some of the largest -untapped- oil reserves left in the world, but we have special interest groups preventing us from getting to some of these resources, and multinataional conglomerates that find it easier and more profitable to harvest resources elsewhere in the world for one reason or another.
I keep hearing it said that the US is still a manufacturing powerhouse, but damn if all the toys I buy don't say "built in china" on them. Or "made in korea". Some American comes up with the idea and then gets it manufactured in Asia. Then we blame Asia (China specifically). Granted, those countries have made it cheaper to manufacture there and import here than it is to just make it here. I'm no economist either, but I wonder how much of this issue is them paying their workers too little, and us paying our workers too much? Unions were a godsend for human rights in 1910, but are strangling the US economy in 2010.
Don't point at just americans on wall street for the financial meltdown, you can't trust -anybody- with other people's money. They see it simply as a tool to get themselves more money, and if it disapears... so what, it's not their money.
The US car companies were run by idiots with poor asumptions, but that doesn't mean it has bad designers or manufactuering capabilities. Pick up a motor trend or similar magazine from the last 3 or 4 years. See what they have to say about the malibu, the cts, the focus, the taurus, the f150, the mustang, the corvette, the G8, the Volt and more. Ford and GM can make great vehicles when they want to. I havn't been paying the most attention either, since I'm not looking at buying a new car, but I'm pretty sure I heard GM advertising a 100,000 mile warrantee on their new stuff, which is 40,000 better than what i've got on my 2008 Kia. Before that, I drove my 1998 Pontiac Trans Am to 149,000 miles and 11 years old before I replaced it. I think you're stuck in the american car stigma of the 80s.
I don't know about that. I seem to remember a point during the 2008 elections where Barack Obama was the darling of not just the US, but Canada, the majority of Europe, and a large part of the rest of the world.
He of course has simply turned out to be nothing but a regular man, but at the time he had a good portion of western civilization looking at him as the next coming. That was only 2 years ago.
Take someone who actually intends to be evil dictator overlord (which is not something I believe Obama ever intends) and put him in the same sitatuion, and we'll see what happens.
The world, in that regard, wants the same from it's leaders than a teenage girl wants from a boyfriend. Sure we all -say- we want the smart, caring niceguy leader, but give us the choice of the good looking, charismatic, exciting leader, and see who we really gravitate towards.
I was of course not serious, I'd think the fact that I was quoting a game from 1993 and talked about blowing up pinecones would be obvious! I agree with most of your points except one. I certainly think that we have the potential for another Napoleon or Hitler. Charisma was Hilter's true strength. The man was a pro at manipulating what people thought of him, and what they thought in general. Charisma is POWERFUL, do not underestimate it. The easiest way and most sure way to become an Evil dictator is to convince people that you're a benevolent savior. A host of other countries around the world with nuclear weapons doesn't matter a hill of beans if you think globally and expand your cult of personality to encompass them as well. That threat is never going away.
If you realize that there are about 6 billion more people on the planet to replace whoever you kill, and you dont' belong to one of those "life is sacred" religions, I'd say it probably isn't a big deal at all, as long as you don't have to watch.
I haven't gotten around to reading the Rome entry on wikipedia yet, so I'm curious, what happened to rome's strength? Poor leadership? poor training? bad morale? lack of loyalty? too many occupying troops and not enough economy to support it?
600 years is realistically about 6x as long as the US has been a world power, so I'd say that Rome sets the bar there.
Naw, not a big problem, I don't recall losing many of those games once I used that strategy. Most of the games I lost where when I tried to sit at home and micromanage up the best cities I could while the terrori.. I mean the klackons developed a horde of inferior starships to overwhelm me.
On the other hand, the "sit at home and develop awesome cities" strategy was my primary strategy for Civilization games, so I'm not really sure which strategy would work best in the long run.
What? and leave baliwood to make all the blockbuster movies? not likely!
Along those lines, aside from Canada's pop musicians, and England who produces good rock band on occasions, where is the rest of the world supposed to get good music from if America gets wiped off the map?
The problem has never been that we blow too much shit up. The problem has been that we don't blow up ENOUGH!
I have always been a proponent of the Master of Orion foreign policy theory. You live in peace ad harmony with your neighbors, until they do something to piss you off. You know, they attack your colonies, steal too much technology, crash their star cruisers into a couple of towers, whatever.
You then send your fleet to bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants... then you simply bring in your own colonists to settle the area and call it good.
Once the other countries learn that you're serious and not screwing around anymore, they don't dare pick a fight with you.
Exactly... well wait. Remember the movie Signs? The aliens decided to try and take over a planet that was 70% covered in a liquid that is highly corrosive to them, where that liquid often falls from the sky, and never mind they also attacked sapient beings who were 80% composed of that liquid as well.
Maybe having advanced star cruiser technology doesn't mean you have a lot of common sense?
Slashdot Mirror
Chemical rockets are quite sufficent, considering that the problem isn't getting there in the first place, but slowing down enough to not skip out of orbit and off into deep space when you get there.
That being said, maybe you'd be interested in a Nuclear thermal rocket:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
Plants are a lot hardier than you think they are.
And we've been genetically engineering plants for even more survivability and yield forever.
I think it has something to do with some pact made by a bunch of nations back in the begining of the previous century (maybe before?) regarding developing antarctica. I'm too lazy to wikipedia it up right now.
that being said, I actually support this. We can start doing it -right now-, and learning to set up a workable colony in antarctica is actually very valid training for setting up a colony on Mars. A lot less oxygen and gravity on Mars, some more radiation, most of the "ice" is CO2 not H2O, and leaving is a lot harder, but otherwise pretty much the same sort of thing.
Actually, Mars and the Moon aren't very similar at all other than the superficial difference of "they're both outside LEO, and neither one has an oxygen atmosphere". You can get better approximation of living and working on Mars in antarctica, or hell even Wyoming, than you can on the Moon.
The moon is absolutely positivly not a prerequsite for Mars. You certainly can (and should!) design hardware that simultaniously serves dual roles on both the Moon and Mars, in order to save expenses, but there is no "study" or "experimentation" that needs to be done on the moon to prepare us for Mars.
We had comprehensive, workable, plans based on existing (not future) hardware and technology to get to Mars since at least the mid 90s. We didn't do it because of internal NASA bickering and politics. Everybody thinks "oh we can't get to mars for X reason without Y technology". When you ask other scientists about X reason, they explain that X is bunk, and that the real reason the first group is so "concerned" with X reason is because Y technology is the pet project of that team.
Of course then this same second group explains to you that the REAL reason we can't get to Mars is because of reason Z, which will convinently be fixed by THEIR technology Q, which they could get finished quickly if only they had more funding.
It's all about getting funding for your pet project.
VMware and Virtualbox are both quite easy.
And neither they, nor wine, are running Mass Effect 2, World in Conflict, Modern Warfare, etc for me.
I can get Wine to run WoW pretty well, but it chokes on trasmitting voice in teamspeak (which is, admitedly, better than the linux native client which I can't get to transmit OR recieve)
"real linux"? Like Ubuntu is made from cheap copy components from some nameless factory in China?
Why would I get more respect editing fstab in Debian, running a driver install script from the terminal in fedora, or compiling source code in mandrake?
What qualifies me for "real linux" user? Do I need to pick up Slackware or gentoo and compile my own kernal for a 1% improvement in speed?
Why do fanboys feel the need to splinter themselves internally, even to the point of absurdity?
*note, this is not directed specifically at you Dotancohen
I had a problem with beta2 where it wasn't automatically mounting them at login. I finally figured out I needed to add the option "auto" into my fstab samba mount lines, even though "auto" should be the default (according the documentation I read).
after that, it worked fine.
Now I'm worried if I run a system update when i get home, it'll break again.
Surprised that this hasn't been "flamebaited" already, even though it's true.
I use linux because:
1. I hate Windows bloat (not even entirely MS's fault. every application, piece of hardware, and hell even some games wants to install stuff that runs at startup) that slows the system down.
2. I hate anti-virus software that slows the system down, randomly breaks programs, and assumes I'm an idiot.
That's really about it.
If 99% of viruses/malware/rootkits/etc out there weren't targeted at windows, I'd probably use windows 7 as my daily driver OS. As it is now, I just dual boot into it for gaming, and I'll tell you... with nothing but the absolute essentials installed, it's pretty damn speedy.
Has it?? i've been running beta2 for a few weeks and it dual boots Win7 just fine. Did they break something?
Speaking of which, my impressions of 10.04 aren't as thrilled as the summary (can't read TFA yet). I ran 9.04 for nearly a year, skipped completely over 9.10, and now that I'm on 10.04, I honestly can't tell what's different from 9.04 aside from the new purple/grey/orange colored interface bars, moved min/max/close buttons, different IM tool (which I was already using in 9.04 anyway), and the login tool already knowing my name. Oh, and some icons for cloud computing (which I'm not sold on at all) and integration with facebook and twitter.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but with the short 6-month release schedule, it doesn't seem like -any- release of Ubuntu is worth "eagerly anticipating". It's not like we're talking the 6 year feature/design gap between XP and Vista, or even the 3 year gap between Vista and 7.
It seems like it basically comes down to "install whatever release is current, get it configured to your liking, and run it until support ends." I saw no reason to upgrade from 9.04 to 9.10, and I wouldn't have upgraded from 9.04 to 10.04 except I needed to wipe the HD anyway.
Nope, you never refused a thing. You reittereated what he already knew, or should know.
You don't say "No I will not do that". You say "I will do that as soon as I can confirm that I am allowed to."
Semantic difference, for sure, but the law is all about semantics and how things are worded/phrased. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need lawyers.
Really? The last jury I served on, from the College student to the 69-year-old grandmother, seemed to have no problems comprehending pretty much exactly what each count against the defendant meant, and whether he voilated the letter of the law, even if he didn't mean to.
In the one instance we were confused as a whole, we just asked the Judge. You do know that the jusge is at your disposal to answer any legal questions you may have about how the law is written, right? We had to have him explain a subsection that was written in a confusing manner.
There were for sure some idiots and or biased people on the intial selection panel, but the Judge himself booted some of those for various reasons, and the prosecution and defense attorneys did a damn good job of getting rid of the rest. That's their -job- remember?
Last line should read "Disregard at your peril".
damn too quick on the submit button.
You just learned NOW that CYA is job number one for anybody that wants a career in IT?
Step 1: Document ANYTHING that may ever be contraversial, why you did it, and exactly why the other options were poor choices.
Step 2: Any time your superiors ask you to do anything, always mention "Per Supervisor Jane Peterson..." in your notes.
Step 3: Always make sure you have some good generic excises banked in the back of your head why you are not at fault for bad stuff, while still being responsible for the good things. It -will- save your ass at some point over the years.
Step 4: Make sure you especially keep an eye out for co-workers, and superiors(!) who are potentially likely to use YOU as THEIR CYA excuse. Be wary, and be prepared.
It doesn't matter if your company administrates servers, publishes novels, writes software or sells shoes. Business is business, and CYA is always important. Disregard
"I'm sorry John, you know I can't give that out without confirmation. Did Bob (Joe Schmoe's boss)authorize this? By the way, Why am I being fired, and who are these people?"
Doesn't that work?
Can I tell senators to stop sharing more of my money than the constitution they signed up for allows?
I see where you're going with this, and I don't necessarily disagree with your overall idea, but I have to comment on several points:
The US has PLENTY of natural resources left, including (I believe) some of the largest -untapped- oil reserves left in the world, but we have special interest groups preventing us from getting to some of these resources, and multinataional conglomerates that find it easier and more profitable to harvest resources elsewhere in the world for one reason or another.
I keep hearing it said that the US is still a manufacturing powerhouse, but damn if all the toys I buy don't say "built in china" on them. Or "made in korea". Some American comes up with the idea and then gets it manufactured in Asia. Then we blame Asia (China specifically). Granted, those countries have made it cheaper to manufacture there and import here than it is to just make it here. I'm no economist either, but I wonder how much of this issue is them paying their workers too little, and us paying our workers too much? Unions were a godsend for human rights in 1910, but are strangling the US economy in 2010.
Don't point at just americans on wall street for the financial meltdown, you can't trust -anybody- with other people's money. They see it simply as a tool to get themselves more money, and if it disapears... so what, it's not their money.
The US car companies were run by idiots with poor asumptions, but that doesn't mean it has bad designers or manufactuering capabilities. Pick up a motor trend or similar magazine from the last 3 or 4 years. See what they have to say about the malibu, the cts, the focus, the taurus, the f150, the mustang, the corvette, the G8, the Volt and more. Ford and GM can make great vehicles when they want to. I havn't been paying the most attention either, since I'm not looking at buying a new car, but I'm pretty sure I heard GM advertising a 100,000 mile warrantee on their new stuff, which is 40,000 better than what i've got on my 2008 Kia. Before that, I drove my 1998 Pontiac Trans Am to 149,000 miles and 11 years old before I replaced it. I think you're stuck in the american car stigma of the 80s.
Scandinavia does produce some damn good metal, I'll give it that.
I don't know about that. I seem to remember a point during the 2008 elections where Barack Obama was the darling of not just the US, but Canada, the majority of Europe, and a large part of the rest of the world.
He of course has simply turned out to be nothing but a regular man, but at the time he had a good portion of western civilization looking at him as the next coming. That was only 2 years ago.
Take someone who actually intends to be evil dictator overlord (which is not something I believe Obama ever intends) and put him in the same sitatuion, and we'll see what happens.
The world, in that regard, wants the same from it's leaders than a teenage girl wants from a boyfriend. Sure we all -say- we want the smart, caring niceguy leader, but give us the choice of the good looking, charismatic, exciting leader, and see who we really gravitate towards.
I was of course not serious, I'd think the fact that I was quoting a game from 1993 and talked about blowing up pinecones would be obvious! I agree with most of your points except one. I certainly think that we have the potential for another Napoleon or Hitler. Charisma was Hilter's true strength. The man was a pro at manipulating what people thought of him, and what they thought in general. Charisma is POWERFUL, do not underestimate it. The easiest way and most sure way to become an Evil dictator is to convince people that you're a benevolent savior. A host of other countries around the world with nuclear weapons doesn't matter a hill of beans if you think globally and expand your cult of personality to encompass them as well. That threat is never going away.
If you realize that there are about 6 billion more people on the planet to replace whoever you kill, and you dont' belong to one of those "life is sacred" religions, I'd say it probably isn't a big deal at all, as long as you don't have to watch.
I haven't gotten around to reading the Rome entry on wikipedia yet, so I'm curious, what happened to rome's strength? Poor leadership? poor training? bad morale? lack of loyalty? too many occupying troops and not enough economy to support it?
600 years is realistically about 6x as long as the US has been a world power, so I'd say that Rome sets the bar there.
Naw, not a big problem, I don't recall losing many of those games once I used that strategy. Most of the games I lost where when I tried to sit at home and micromanage up the best cities I could while the terrori.. I mean the klackons developed a horde of inferior starships to overwhelm me.
On the other hand, the "sit at home and develop awesome cities" strategy was my primary strategy for Civilization games, so I'm not really sure which strategy would work best in the long run.
What? and leave baliwood to make all the blockbuster movies? not likely!
Along those lines, aside from Canada's pop musicians, and England who produces good rock band on occasions, where is the rest of the world supposed to get good music from if America gets wiped off the map?
The problem has never been that we blow too much shit up. The problem has been that we don't blow up ENOUGH!
I have always been a proponent of the Master of Orion foreign policy theory. You live in peace ad harmony with your neighbors, until they do something to piss you off. You know, they attack your colonies, steal too much technology, crash their star cruisers into a couple of towers, whatever.
You then send your fleet to bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants... then you simply bring in your own colonists to settle the area and call it good.
Once the other countries learn that you're serious and not screwing around anymore, they don't dare pick a fight with you.
Where's the problem?
Exactly... well wait. Remember the movie Signs? The aliens decided to try and take over a planet that was 70% covered in a liquid that is highly corrosive to them, where that liquid often falls from the sky, and never mind they also attacked sapient beings who were 80% composed of that liquid as well.
Maybe having advanced star cruiser technology doesn't mean you have a lot of common sense?