He has a point - in some areas it is simpler, in others it's harder.
I disagree. It might be more practical for some niche tasks but in general it has much more complicated unit conversions and is not used by 95% of the worlds population. Unit conversions certainly are not simpler, engineering in non-SI units is rarely simpler, and all the Imperial and US Customary units are defined in terms of SI units anyway.
When everything is in base twelve you can get many more integer divisors out of it.
Which is of little actual practical value. If you have some rare niche task where that is a compelling advantage then by all means use a different measurement system but those situations are few and far between.
using a base of twelve, which is what most imperial units are.
The common only imperial unit that could be considered to be in base 12 is the conversion between feet and inches. Volume measurements in Imperial/US Customary are not in base 12 nor are weight measurements. Inches are not integer divisible by 12 and in fact when we use fractional inches we normally divide by 8 or 16 or 32, not 12.
I can see when my coffee cup is full and I could fill it with water to get 1 cup.
Given how stupid that statement is I suspect you are trolling but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your coffee cup is not calibrated to any unit of measure. It is merely a cup you put coffee in. Do not confuse the object cup with the measurement cup. If you think they have anything to do with one another you need to spend a little time on Wikipedia getting a clue.
Imperial has some presence in engineering, possibly due to a more narrow focus and more resistance to change.
Imperial and US Customary units are used in engineering almost entirely due to economic considerations of having an installed base. Switching all your supply chain and documentation to a different measurement system (even a better one) is a HUGE cost with a payback that is measured in many years if there is one at all.
Beyond the reason of 'that's what I grew up with', how is the Fahrenheit scale more comprehensible than the Celsius scale?
It isn't. It's just what people have learned to use in every day life. They know what a day that is 70F will feel like. They know that 350F will get them the right cooking temperature in the oven. If you tell them it is 21C outside they have no mental framework to put that information into even though it is the same as 70F.
I live in the US and a good portion of the US population does think it is special. They are wrong but they do honestly and earnestly believe it. "Greatest country in the world" and all that nonsense.
America is lazy and hates change.
America is anything but lazy though you are correct that many of them do hate change. Americans work more hours than almost anyone else in the world on average so lazy isn't a label that really fits. But people in general do not like change.
Metric is taught in most schools, especially those in science.
Foreign languages are taught in most schools too and yet only a minority of native born americans are bi-lingual. Doesn't matter what is taught in schools if it isn't used in the real world.
By the end of the century America will be Metric too.
I do not share your optimism on that though I wish it would happen. Officially we do use metric but I don't see the US switching to metric for daily use in my lifetime and I'd honestly be surprised if it happened in the next 100 years. Maybe it will but I'm dubious.
Of course... in engineering and sciences, we already use metric across the board.
Sadly not true in US engineering. We all use metric but LOTS of engineering is in other units in the US. At my company we specify all dimensions in feet and inches because that's how our supply chain generally functions. Sure we could use metric but all the drawings from our customers are in US customary and most of the dimensions from our suppliers are too. We're not a big enough firm to really move the needle on that.
It's in daily life which the simpler imperial measure system makes sense.
"Simpler"? Imperial and US Customary units are many things but simpler is not among them. You may be comfortable with them but that is not the same thing.
I just don't see how knowing both is a problem.
Knowing both isn't a problem. Needing both IS a problem. It creates needless complexity and opportunities for error.
He said taught, not use. There is a massive difference. Personally don't see the harm in that at all.
People tend to use what they are taught. By your logic we should we teach creationism in science class. After all there is a massive difference so what's the harm right?
Teach the official standard in school. If families want to teach customary units then leave that up to them.
1 cup of flour is trivially measured by volume: Just grab the "1 cup" cup from your set of measuring cups, scoop up flour from your storage container, level.
And if you do that you are going to get a different amount of flour every single time. Flour is a powder with a LOT of air in between. If you are looking for consistency you MUST measure flour by weight because you'll get different packing densities by the method you recommend. Sometimes it doesn't matter but when it does you have to use weight, not volume. ALL professional bakers measure flour by weight and never by volume.
US recipes usually don't use "cups" of butter, they use "sticks" of butter. If you live where butter isn't sold in US sticks (113.4 grams), you're screwed.
A stick of butter is 8 tablespoons or approximately 120mL. You're only screwed if you are clueless.
The big issue is when you get to "1 cup of flour" or "1 cup of butter" - things that are much more easily measured by mass, or things like "1 cup of cherry tomatoes" where the amount you get will vary based on the size and density of the particular tomatoes you have today.
Butter generally has a fairly consistent density so measuring by volume is normally fine unless you are getting into specialty butters. (Pick whatever volumetric units make you happy) Flour should ALWAYS be measured by weight because there is no way to measure it by volume that is consistent. The reason we use volume units is because A) it's faster than getting out a scale and B) absolute precision often doesn't matter much unless you are baking. (in baking precision matters) If someone says to use a cup of tomatoes, they are giving you an estimate of the amount needed rather than a precise measurement. Good cooks/chefs know this. Being exact does not actually matter for most cooking and you will (and should) adjust to taste and preference. Lots of outstanding chefs (like Bobby Flay) do very little measurement when cooking because it isn't necessary. They use experience and adjust the relative ingredient quantities until they get the taste they are looking for.
Basically, no, the kitchen is exactly the place I want metric measurement - it is if anything the best example around a house of where you need accurate scientific style measurement.
Metric is no more accurate than US customary units. A cup in the US has a very specific volume. Like you I'd prefer metric units but it doesn't gain me anything from a precision standpoint.
if you use cups as a size, you'll never repeat the same quantity twice, cup is only an approximate quantity,
You are quite wrong. A cup is just as exact as any other unit of measure except there are a few different versions of measures with that name depending on location. In US customary units a cup is 236.5882365 milliliters which is more precision than you will ever actually need. For legal purposes (like on nutrition labeling) a cup is defined as exactly 240ml. In the UK it is 284ml and in Japan it is 200ml. If you are making coffee it is 150ml.
Now granted you will note that all these measures are defined in relationship to liters so one might reasonably question why we still use cups in some parts of the world. Mostly tradition, comfort and conversion costs. I'd love it if we would switch to metric but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
one is exactly twice the other whereas 1 cup and 1/2 cup are not
Where did you get a ridiculous idea like that? 1/2 cup is by definition exactly half of 1 cup. There can be no possible other definition.
It is not a good habit to pin apps to the task bar.
Why not? I'll agree that it's a bad habit to pin a lot of apps or infrequently used apps but I pin the 6 or so I use the most to the task bar. Saves me at least one mouse click every time I use them.
Using a keyboard instead of a mouse on the desktop is like using the mouth instead of the penis for sex. Some like you seem to like it that way but do not speak for the rest of us.
Funniest analogy I've heard in a long time. Well played.
And what exactly could a human geologist do that a rover (built with current technology), coupled with a competent geology team on Earth couldn't?
So you don't actually want to think about it? The answers are the same as here on Earth. Sometimes a robot is necessary but we don't use them when we don't have to because working through them is incredibly awkward. There is no geologist that wants to work remotely when he can work onsite. Plus there is a LOT more to do than simply geology on Mars.
1) Speed - a human can work faster on site than humans working through remotely operated devices. When latency averages 13 minutes each way humans on site are a LOT faster. A human on site could accomplish vastly more in a shorter amount of time. 2) I defy you to find me an end effector for any robot that is as useful as a human hand attached to a real live human. 3) Notice and investigate things the robot wasn't designed to address. 4) Repair equipment that breaks 5) Utilize local resources in ways robots cannot 6) Do things other than geology 7) Design and implement tools on site
So a $100bn Mars mission is going to deliver $10,000bn in R&D payback that couldn't have been done without sending humans to Mars?
I said that the R&D payback would be much larger for a manned mission than for a robotic mission (or even a large number of robotic missions) which is true. I didn't specify any dollar amounts - The 100X number is just made up to get the point across though it seems to have whooshed by you. A LOT more technology would have to be developed for a manned mission and as a result there would be a much larger R&D payback. For a manned mission we would need all the robotics research PLUS life support, radiation shielding, food supply, medical technology, remote manufacturing, mining and much more. It's a far bigger, more complicated mission with a lot more R&D requirements. Bigger R&D will result in bigger economic payback.
You cited examples of mathematical theory, not scientific theory. While they overlap they are not the same thing. Mathematical proofs can and do exist independent of any real world phenomena as they are pure logical constructs.
All scientific theories are falsifiable. This does not mean they are wrong but rather that there is always the possibility (however remote) that a new piece of data will disprove the theory. If it cannot (theoretically) be proven wrong then it is not science. Theories that cannot be tested through observations of real world phenomena are not science.
It's also far from dumb. It's intricate, complex and beautiful.
I think no sane person would argue that a good mechanical watch isn't beautiful as well as an amazing piece of engineering. (I cannot say the same for crappy digital watches however) That doesn't change the fact though that they are a single purpose device that generally speaking is seldom necessary these days. I don't really need to carry around an extra gadget whose sole purpose is to tell me the time 99.99999% of the time. There are occasions when that is useful/necessary but they are rare these days.
If you enjoy wearing a watch there is no problem with that. Just recognize that you are wearing a piece of functional jewelry rather than making a practical choice. I think a watch of any sort is a much better choice than wearing polished rocks embedded in rare metals.
A good hammer, a good manual drill, a good screwdriver, will last a lifetime.
And will sit in a drawer for any but the most basic or simple of tasks. I have each of those tools and use them but 9 times out of 10 I find myself reaching for the cordless hammer-drill or the pneumatic nail gun because I value my time and don't believe in pointless effort. Plus a good part of the reason those hand tools last is because you are somewhat limited in the amount of work you can do with them. I can generate FAR more torque with my hammer-drill than with any manual screwdriver or hand drill. Pretty useful when trying to punch a hole in concrete or loosen a stuck bolt.
Many people, however, invest in pneumatic hammers, electric drills, and bit sets even though they know it will break.
Because they are FAR more productive with those tools. Maybe you've never done any construction. I have. Try framing a house sometime with a traditional hammer and traditional saw and miter box and then do it with a nail gun and circular miter saw. Then get back to me on how much I should value that old school hammer. Sure you can get the job done with the old tools and people did it for a long time. And it will take you 20X longer and require far more effort.
It runs a tiny bit fast (several seconds a month), but until it completely dies, I see no reason to replace it for telling time at a glance (something that can't be done with a smartphone).
Which is exactly why those devices remain useful. And there are times when that is valuable. I sometimes carry a (dumb) watch when I'm hiking or doing some competitive distance running. Also useful if you are flying a plane or navigating a boat.
Here's the thing though. How often to you *really* need to know the time at a glance and do not have several clocks within eye shot these days? I spend most of my day working near a computer that has the time right on the menu bars. My car has a clock. I have various clocks in most of the rooms of my home. Most places at my office have at least one clock visible. When would I truly need to know the time so quickly that I cannot take a few seconds to pull my phone out of my pocket. Why would I wear a relatively uncomfortable piece of jewelry with no other purpose just so I can know to the second what time it is throughout the day? Does that really make sense?
Needs not be slow - you just need enough land and fast-growing trees.
That gets a tad difficult when you are trying to grow enough trees for 7 billion people.
Furthermore wood burning stoves are rather dirty from an environmental standpoint. Most traditional wood burning stoves are quite inefficient and release a lot of particulate matter.
Why the hurry? It's not like Mars is going anywhere.
Why the delay? You have something better to do? What could possibly be a better use of your time than the greatest exploration mankind has ever undertaken?
Plus, the robots have a lot of autonomy. They move around obstacles pretty much by themselves, with only occasional help.
I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hand holding going on from mission control here on Earth.
Could a human crew carry more scientific equipment than Curiosity did?
Wrong question. You have to get the equipment there either way. The question is what can you do with the equipment once you get it there. Presently the state of the art in robotics is such that we are pretty limited in what we can do with equipment once we get it there. Generally speaking people can usually do a lot more in a short amount of time than even the most state of the art automation unless it is highly repetitive. It's exactly the same problem we have in automating factories here on earth. Automation can be extremely useful but for most tasks we still have no better or more flexible tool than a competent human being.
Keep in mind that even the most basic manned mission is gonna cost so much money you could send 50 curiosity rovers there.
And the R&D payback will probably be 100X as large on a manned mission. People focus too much on the mission cost without considering the full economic picture. Remember that you have to develop a LOT more technology for a manned mission and much of this technology is applicable elsewhere.
Robot operators have a lag time of a millisecond. They just need to get a little smarter, but we're working hard on that.
Not on mars they don't. Not when being operated from earth. Average latency to send a bit of data to mars is around 13 minutes in each direction. Sometimes longer depending on where the earth is in its orbit in relation to mars. The speed of light is fast but mars is really really far away.
The Earth is thoroughly mapped, explored, photographed, populated, and exploited. There are no frontiers or mystery here any more.
Complete and utter nonsense. We are discovering things about the Earth daily. We've barely explored the 3/4 of the earth that is under water. We know a lot but there is a lot left to learn right here on Earth and for the foreseeable future Earth is exactly where we are going to learn because we have limited options regarding space travel right now. Our technology is simply not advanced enough to send people much farther than the moon a present and even that is a stretch.
There's an enormous unexplored solar system out there vastly bigger and more interesting than Earth.
And we should explore that too. Doesn't make your previous statement any less false.
I honestly don't understand the mentality of people who aren't curious about it and don't want to go explore it.
I understand it but like you I don't agree with it. We should be exploring space with as much enthusiasm as we can generate as a species. It will take courage and vision and an appetite for risk but the long term payback is almost certainly there. (and I'm not just talking about money either)
Because space is mostly empty, and extremely hostile. There's no rational reason for anybody to go there.
There are plenty of rational reasons to go there. Not all of them are economically rational. None of them are without some amount of danger. But the notion that there is no rational reason to go into space is easily and demonstrably false. Off the top of my head:
1) Scientific discovery, particularly as it relates to the human body in hostile environments 2) Technology development 3) Preserving the species (the Earth will cease to be habitable at some point) 4) Curiosity (simple curiosity is rational if risky) 5) Economic development (space R&D has a multi-fold economic payback) 6) Because the experience of standing on another planet is as different as standing on a mountain versus looking at a post card
For an oceanographer, saying "I have no idea what's there" is a sign that you haven't done your research
Untrue. The oceanographer is simply being candid. Sure they are not completely ignorant but they also know enough to know their is a lot more to be discovered. They are simply stating the obvious fact that there is a lot of territory to be explored and we haven't explored very much of it in any great detail. They are saying they are like Christopher Columbus who has learned some fascinating things about this new continent while standing on the beach but there is a lot more to be learned. If they claimed they understood it perfectly that would be false because they've barely gotten off the beach (literally).
What is the difference between sending humans, with all their implications, vs. instruments and engines to get them there?
The differences are vast. It's the same difference as standing on a mountain versus looking at a post card. Sometimes machines are necessary but more often they are a poor proxy.
Why is the human part so important to science?
There is some exploration that has to be done in person. There are some questions that cannot be answered without sending people to answer them. Questions like "are we stuck on this planet"?
And at what cost, to everyone who must pay real money for the expedition, (...never minding the folks who volunteered their 'free time'/lives to go up first)?
The cost of space exploration has paid itself back economically multi-fold. The spinoff technologies alone are worth billions to trillions of dollars. Even the most conservative estimates of economic benefit of NASA and other space exploration research has a 3X-8X return on investment. The question isn't why should we be investing in space travel. The question is why aren't we investing more?
Earth has no more undiscovered continents, no more unexplored territory, and no more absolute wilderness.
Earth has vast amounts of mostly unexplored territory. The 3/4 of the Earth's surface that is covered by water has only barely been explored. Sure, there are bits and pieces of dry land that haven't been explored yet though those are disappearing quickly. But right now we really don't have the technology to explore the oceans comprehensively. I think people tend to forget about the oceans and how vast they really are.
Please note this isn't an argument against going into space. We absolutely should. I'm merely pointing out that there is actually quite a bit of the Earth that we don't know very much about.
Slashdot Mirror
He has a point - in some areas it is simpler, in others it's harder.
I disagree. It might be more practical for some niche tasks but in general it has much more complicated unit conversions and is not used by 95% of the worlds population. Unit conversions certainly are not simpler, engineering in non-SI units is rarely simpler, and all the Imperial and US Customary units are defined in terms of SI units anyway.
When everything is in base twelve you can get many more integer divisors out of it.
Which is of little actual practical value. If you have some rare niche task where that is a compelling advantage then by all means use a different measurement system but those situations are few and far between.
using a base of twelve, which is what most imperial units are.
The common only imperial unit that could be considered to be in base 12 is the conversion between feet and inches. Volume measurements in Imperial/US Customary are not in base 12 nor are weight measurements. Inches are not integer divisible by 12 and in fact when we use fractional inches we normally divide by 8 or 16 or 32, not 12.
I can see when my coffee cup is full and I could fill it with water to get 1 cup.
Given how stupid that statement is I suspect you are trolling but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your coffee cup is not calibrated to any unit of measure. It is merely a cup you put coffee in. Do not confuse the object cup with the measurement cup. If you think they have anything to do with one another you need to spend a little time on Wikipedia getting a clue.
Imperial has some presence in engineering, possibly due to a more narrow focus and more resistance to change.
Imperial and US Customary units are used in engineering almost entirely due to economic considerations of having an installed base. Switching all your supply chain and documentation to a different measurement system (even a better one) is a HUGE cost with a payback that is measured in many years if there is one at all.
Beyond the reason of 'that's what I grew up with', how is the Fahrenheit scale more comprehensible than the Celsius scale?
It isn't. It's just what people have learned to use in every day life. They know what a day that is 70F will feel like. They know that 350F will get them the right cooking temperature in the oven. If you tell them it is 21C outside they have no mental framework to put that information into even though it is the same as 70F.
America knows it isn't special.
I live in the US and a good portion of the US population does think it is special. They are wrong but they do honestly and earnestly believe it. "Greatest country in the world" and all that nonsense.
America is lazy and hates change.
America is anything but lazy though you are correct that many of them do hate change. Americans work more hours than almost anyone else in the world on average so lazy isn't a label that really fits. But people in general do not like change.
Metric is taught in most schools, especially those in science.
Foreign languages are taught in most schools too and yet only a minority of native born americans are bi-lingual. Doesn't matter what is taught in schools if it isn't used in the real world.
By the end of the century America will be Metric too.
I do not share your optimism on that though I wish it would happen. Officially we do use metric but I don't see the US switching to metric for daily use in my lifetime and I'd honestly be surprised if it happened in the next 100 years. Maybe it will but I'm dubious.
Of course... in engineering and sciences, we already use metric across the board.
Sadly not true in US engineering. We all use metric but LOTS of engineering is in other units in the US. At my company we specify all dimensions in feet and inches because that's how our supply chain generally functions. Sure we could use metric but all the drawings from our customers are in US customary and most of the dimensions from our suppliers are too. We're not a big enough firm to really move the needle on that.
It's in daily life which the simpler imperial measure system makes sense.
"Simpler"? Imperial and US Customary units are many things but simpler is not among them. You may be comfortable with them but that is not the same thing.
I just don't see how knowing both is a problem.
Knowing both isn't a problem. Needing both IS a problem. It creates needless complexity and opportunities for error.
He said taught, not use. There is a massive difference. Personally don't see the harm in that at all.
People tend to use what they are taught. By your logic we should we teach creationism in science class. After all there is a massive difference so what's the harm right?
Teach the official standard in school. If families want to teach customary units then leave that up to them.
1 cup of flour is trivially measured by volume: Just grab the "1 cup" cup from your set of measuring cups, scoop up flour from your storage container, level.
And if you do that you are going to get a different amount of flour every single time. Flour is a powder with a LOT of air in between. If you are looking for consistency you MUST measure flour by weight because you'll get different packing densities by the method you recommend. Sometimes it doesn't matter but when it does you have to use weight, not volume. ALL professional bakers measure flour by weight and never by volume.
US recipes usually don't use "cups" of butter, they use "sticks" of butter. If you live where butter isn't sold in US sticks (113.4 grams), you're screwed.
A stick of butter is 8 tablespoons or approximately 120mL. You're only screwed if you are clueless.
The big issue is when you get to "1 cup of flour" or "1 cup of butter" - things that are much more easily measured by mass, or things like "1 cup of cherry tomatoes" where the amount you get will vary based on the size and density of the particular tomatoes you have today.
Butter generally has a fairly consistent density so measuring by volume is normally fine unless you are getting into specialty butters. (Pick whatever volumetric units make you happy) Flour should ALWAYS be measured by weight because there is no way to measure it by volume that is consistent. The reason we use volume units is because A) it's faster than getting out a scale and B) absolute precision often doesn't matter much unless you are baking. (in baking precision matters) If someone says to use a cup of tomatoes, they are giving you an estimate of the amount needed rather than a precise measurement. Good cooks/chefs know this. Being exact does not actually matter for most cooking and you will (and should) adjust to taste and preference. Lots of outstanding chefs (like Bobby Flay) do very little measurement when cooking because it isn't necessary. They use experience and adjust the relative ingredient quantities until they get the taste they are looking for.
Basically, no, the kitchen is exactly the place I want metric measurement - it is if anything the best example around a house of where you need accurate scientific style measurement.
Metric is no more accurate than US customary units. A cup in the US has a very specific volume. Like you I'd prefer metric units but it doesn't gain me anything from a precision standpoint.
if you use cups as a size, you'll never repeat the same quantity twice, cup is only an approximate quantity,
You are quite wrong. A cup is just as exact as any other unit of measure except there are a few different versions of measures with that name depending on location. In US customary units a cup is 236.5882365 milliliters which is more precision than you will ever actually need. For legal purposes (like on nutrition labeling) a cup is defined as exactly 240ml. In the UK it is 284ml and in Japan it is 200ml. If you are making coffee it is 150ml.
Now granted you will note that all these measures are defined in relationship to liters so one might reasonably question why we still use cups in some parts of the world. Mostly tradition, comfort and conversion costs. I'd love it if we would switch to metric but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
one is exactly twice the other whereas 1 cup and 1/2 cup are not
Where did you get a ridiculous idea like that? 1/2 cup is by definition exactly half of 1 cup. There can be no possible other definition.
I've been using a desktop for more than 15 years.
Newbie. ;-)
It is not a good habit to pin apps to the task bar.
Why not? I'll agree that it's a bad habit to pin a lot of apps or infrequently used apps but I pin the 6 or so I use the most to the task bar. Saves me at least one mouse click every time I use them.
Using a keyboard instead of a mouse on the desktop is like using the mouth instead of the penis for sex. Some like you seem to like it that way but do not speak for the rest of us.
Funniest analogy I've heard in a long time. Well played.
And what exactly could a human geologist do that a rover (built with current technology), coupled with a competent geology team on Earth couldn't?
So you don't actually want to think about it? The answers are the same as here on Earth. Sometimes a robot is necessary but we don't use them when we don't have to because working through them is incredibly awkward. There is no geologist that wants to work remotely when he can work onsite. Plus there is a LOT more to do than simply geology on Mars.
1) Speed - a human can work faster on site than humans working through remotely operated devices. When latency averages 13 minutes each way humans on site are a LOT faster. A human on site could accomplish vastly more in a shorter amount of time.
2) I defy you to find me an end effector for any robot that is as useful as a human hand attached to a real live human.
3) Notice and investigate things the robot wasn't designed to address.
4) Repair equipment that breaks
5) Utilize local resources in ways robots cannot
6) Do things other than geology
7) Design and implement tools on site
So a $100bn Mars mission is going to deliver $10,000bn in R&D payback that couldn't have been done without sending humans to Mars?
I said that the R&D payback would be much larger for a manned mission than for a robotic mission (or even a large number of robotic missions) which is true. I didn't specify any dollar amounts - The 100X number is just made up to get the point across though it seems to have whooshed by you. A LOT more technology would have to be developed for a manned mission and as a result there would be a much larger R&D payback. For a manned mission we would need all the robotics research PLUS life support, radiation shielding, food supply, medical technology, remote manufacturing, mining and much more. It's a far bigger, more complicated mission with a lot more R&D requirements. Bigger R&D will result in bigger economic payback.
There is such a thing as a proven theory
You cited examples of mathematical theory, not scientific theory. While they overlap they are not the same thing. Mathematical proofs can and do exist independent of any real world phenomena as they are pure logical constructs.
All scientific theories are falsifiable. This does not mean they are wrong but rather that there is always the possibility (however remote) that a new piece of data will disprove the theory. If it cannot (theoretically) be proven wrong then it is not science. Theories that cannot be tested through observations of real world phenomena are not science.
It's also far from dumb. It's intricate, complex and beautiful.
I think no sane person would argue that a good mechanical watch isn't beautiful as well as an amazing piece of engineering. (I cannot say the same for crappy digital watches however) That doesn't change the fact though that they are a single purpose device that generally speaking is seldom necessary these days. I don't really need to carry around an extra gadget whose sole purpose is to tell me the time 99.99999% of the time. There are occasions when that is useful/necessary but they are rare these days.
If you enjoy wearing a watch there is no problem with that. Just recognize that you are wearing a piece of functional jewelry rather than making a practical choice. I think a watch of any sort is a much better choice than wearing polished rocks embedded in rare metals.
A good hammer, a good manual drill, a good screwdriver, will last a lifetime.
And will sit in a drawer for any but the most basic or simple of tasks. I have each of those tools and use them but 9 times out of 10 I find myself reaching for the cordless hammer-drill or the pneumatic nail gun because I value my time and don't believe in pointless effort. Plus a good part of the reason those hand tools last is because you are somewhat limited in the amount of work you can do with them. I can generate FAR more torque with my hammer-drill than with any manual screwdriver or hand drill. Pretty useful when trying to punch a hole in concrete or loosen a stuck bolt.
Many people, however, invest in pneumatic hammers, electric drills, and bit sets even though they know it will break.
Because they are FAR more productive with those tools. Maybe you've never done any construction. I have. Try framing a house sometime with a traditional hammer and traditional saw and miter box and then do it with a nail gun and circular miter saw. Then get back to me on how much I should value that old school hammer. Sure you can get the job done with the old tools and people did it for a long time. And it will take you 20X longer and require far more effort.
It runs a tiny bit fast (several seconds a month), but until it completely dies, I see no reason to replace it for telling time at a glance (something that can't be done with a smartphone).
Which is exactly why those devices remain useful. And there are times when that is valuable. I sometimes carry a (dumb) watch when I'm hiking or doing some competitive distance running. Also useful if you are flying a plane or navigating a boat.
Here's the thing though. How often to you *really* need to know the time at a glance and do not have several clocks within eye shot these days? I spend most of my day working near a computer that has the time right on the menu bars. My car has a clock. I have various clocks in most of the rooms of my home. Most places at my office have at least one clock visible. When would I truly need to know the time so quickly that I cannot take a few seconds to pull my phone out of my pocket. Why would I wear a relatively uncomfortable piece of jewelry with no other purpose just so I can know to the second what time it is throughout the day? Does that really make sense?
Needs not be slow - you just need enough land and fast-growing trees.
That gets a tad difficult when you are trying to grow enough trees for 7 billion people.
Furthermore wood burning stoves are rather dirty from an environmental standpoint. Most traditional wood burning stoves are quite inefficient and release a lot of particulate matter.
Why the hurry? It's not like Mars is going anywhere.
Why the delay? You have something better to do? What could possibly be a better use of your time than the greatest exploration mankind has ever undertaken?
Plus, the robots have a lot of autonomy. They move around obstacles pretty much by themselves, with only occasional help.
I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hand holding going on from mission control here on Earth.
I hear that said a lot, but is it really true?
Probably yes.
Could a human crew carry more scientific equipment than Curiosity did?
Wrong question. You have to get the equipment there either way. The question is what can you do with the equipment once you get it there. Presently the state of the art in robotics is such that we are pretty limited in what we can do with equipment once we get it there. Generally speaking people can usually do a lot more in a short amount of time than even the most state of the art automation unless it is highly repetitive. It's exactly the same problem we have in automating factories here on earth. Automation can be extremely useful but for most tasks we still have no better or more flexible tool than a competent human being.
Keep in mind that even the most basic manned mission is gonna cost so much money you could send 50 curiosity rovers there.
And the R&D payback will probably be 100X as large on a manned mission. People focus too much on the mission cost without considering the full economic picture. Remember that you have to develop a LOT more technology for a manned mission and much of this technology is applicable elsewhere.
Robot operators have a lag time of a millisecond. They just need to get a little smarter, but we're working hard on that.
Not on mars they don't. Not when being operated from earth. Average latency to send a bit of data to mars is around 13 minutes in each direction. Sometimes longer depending on where the earth is in its orbit in relation to mars. The speed of light is fast but mars is really really far away.
The Earth is thoroughly mapped, explored, photographed, populated, and exploited. There are no frontiers or mystery here any more.
Complete and utter nonsense. We are discovering things about the Earth daily. We've barely explored the 3/4 of the earth that is under water. We know a lot but there is a lot left to learn right here on Earth and for the foreseeable future Earth is exactly where we are going to learn because we have limited options regarding space travel right now. Our technology is simply not advanced enough to send people much farther than the moon a present and even that is a stretch.
There's an enormous unexplored solar system out there vastly bigger and more interesting than Earth.
And we should explore that too. Doesn't make your previous statement any less false.
I honestly don't understand the mentality of people who aren't curious about it and don't want to go explore it.
I understand it but like you I don't agree with it. We should be exploring space with as much enthusiasm as we can generate as a species. It will take courage and vision and an appetite for risk but the long term payback is almost certainly there. (and I'm not just talking about money either)
Because space is mostly empty, and extremely hostile. There's no rational reason for anybody to go there.
There are plenty of rational reasons to go there. Not all of them are economically rational. None of them are without some amount of danger. But the notion that there is no rational reason to go into space is easily and demonstrably false. Off the top of my head:
1) Scientific discovery, particularly as it relates to the human body in hostile environments
2) Technology development
3) Preserving the species (the Earth will cease to be habitable at some point)
4) Curiosity (simple curiosity is rational if risky)
5) Economic development (space R&D has a multi-fold economic payback)
6) Because the experience of standing on another planet is as different as standing on a mountain versus looking at a post card
For an oceanographer, saying "I have no idea what's there" is a sign that you haven't done your research
Untrue. The oceanographer is simply being candid. Sure they are not completely ignorant but they also know enough to know their is a lot more to be discovered. They are simply stating the obvious fact that there is a lot of territory to be explored and we haven't explored very much of it in any great detail. They are saying they are like Christopher Columbus who has learned some fascinating things about this new continent while standing on the beach but there is a lot more to be learned. If they claimed they understood it perfectly that would be false because they've barely gotten off the beach (literally).
What is the difference between sending humans, with all their implications, vs. instruments and engines to get them there?
The differences are vast. It's the same difference as standing on a mountain versus looking at a post card. Sometimes machines are necessary but more often they are a poor proxy.
Why is the human part so important to science?
There is some exploration that has to be done in person. There are some questions that cannot be answered without sending people to answer them. Questions like "are we stuck on this planet"?
And at what cost, to everyone who must pay real money for the expedition, (...never minding the folks who volunteered their 'free time'/lives to go up first)?
The cost of space exploration has paid itself back economically multi-fold. The spinoff technologies alone are worth billions to trillions of dollars. Even the most conservative estimates of economic benefit of NASA and other space exploration research has a 3X-8X return on investment. The question isn't why should we be investing in space travel. The question is why aren't we investing more?
Earth has no more undiscovered continents, no more unexplored territory, and no more absolute wilderness.
Earth has vast amounts of mostly unexplored territory. The 3/4 of the Earth's surface that is covered by water has only barely been explored. Sure, there are bits and pieces of dry land that haven't been explored yet though those are disappearing quickly. But right now we really don't have the technology to explore the oceans comprehensively. I think people tend to forget about the oceans and how vast they really are.
Please note this isn't an argument against going into space. We absolutely should. I'm merely pointing out that there is actually quite a bit of the Earth that we don't know very much about.