"Starting" does not require early manned missions. We can do far more research with unmanned systems while laying the groundwork for future manned missions. We have barely scratched the surface of space exploration, and sending humans to gather information we can get more easily from other systems is a waste. Supporting humans is expensive, and because we expect all of them back (as opposed to early terrestrial exploration where loss was routine) we make it even more so. Unmanned systems can have much more rapid development cycles, because they are simpler and may be easily sacrificed. Manned systems OTOH trap us in antiquated equipment like the Shuttle.
"If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us."
That's not enough. My vote alone isn't shite. My vote and those of many NRA members, represented by lobbyists to remind Congress we exist, DOES matter.
Non-hybrids have about a century of refinement behind their current performance. Getting hybrids into the production stream can pave the way for better hybrids, gradually reducing the need to run the internal combustion engine for support. Until energy storage tech improves, the gas engine "crutch" is among reasonable workarounds.
"After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all and, if they care enough about this, they'll start charging you monthly fees for your Windows Update account."
Duck and cover is intended as protection from a blast at a distance which would shatter windows and send debris flying. Not everyone is going to be under the fireball. If you are at a distance it makes every bit as much sense as taking cover during a mortar attack. Plenty of troops and civilians have been near enough to test detonations to take cover, then get out of their trench or from behind their shelter and do their jobs. Atmospheric testing proves limited nuclear war is indeed fightable. What we do with that info is up to us.
It really depends on the end result. For example, there would have been no way to oust foreign influence and weld China beck together without something like Maoism. Processes to build a modern nation from divided countries with backward populations are often bloody. Old structures must be smashed and unity forged by force. In the very short time since 1948, China went from warlordism and anarchy to economic and military powerhouse. Revolutionaries understand this. (I am NOT praising Communist economics, merely their willingness to destroy old bad systems.) Communism can propel a country into the modern age, force educational reform, weaken the hold of religion=superstition, and perform many useful transitional functions. OTOH, democracy is only good when there are educated people who embrace secularist ideals to operate it. Otherwise, democracy will merely serve as a vehicle for its own destruction (Iraq). People who believe the universe is a religious monarchy cannot believe in freedom from religion under a secular government. I would like to see a few more Leftist, anti-religious revolutions stir the pot. I'm unfashionably right-wing myself, but the Leftists are anti-tribalist and anti-religion. I regard them as a force for healthy destruction.
The shuttle and other manned systems have too slow a development cycle due to the provision for putting Meat in space. We have eternity to put men in space, so we should first perfect the processes we need to explore and exploit space with robots and supporting systems. We shouldn't NEED people to do anything but be passengers whe we get it right.
"Actually, I think I like this new fuel for the darwin awards, err, our cars!"
That's been done (long) before. Prior to the advent of glycol antifreeze, alcohol was used. Winos were fond of draining radiators to get it. The predictable thing happened during the transition period...
When Mexicans want to stop living in a failed state, they can change their society and government. Their failure to use THEIR resources to provide for THEIR needs is their fault. With citizenship comes responsibility to make adult choices.
If they want cheap tortillas, let them create the conditions for the agribusinesses that provide the ingredients so inexpensively.
I contrast the situation of endangered species with that of livestock. If one wants the benefits of harvesting animals is makes no sense to rely on nature to sustain UN-natural consumption rates. We don't depend on nature for fowl or eggs, we raise fowl and have a renewable supply of both.
If we want to harvest, we should farm or otherwise artificially support the populations we use.
The inevitable reality of China as superpower means we should cooperate with them, without regard to "morality" and with regard to US interests in terms of global power.
The cultural war with Islam means than any ally against religious fundamentalism is to be sought. The Chinese are tough, and won't extend tolerance to Jihadists. They have the freedom to really crush religious movements as they deserve. Falun Gong is an example.
China is a fine global partner, the natural master of Asia (which, despite the wet dreams of US missionaries, we are not), and since we cannot beat them we'd best learn humility and cut a deal. Smart US companies have a postive trade balance with China (Caterpillar, for example), so we can CHOOSE to compete if we wish.
"Actually, I'd rather be carried out of the battle by something with a big Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol on the side,"
I'll skip the Red Target, thanks. The US hasn't fought an opponent who respects those since World War II. Renouncing self-defense in the hope that your friendly opponent will lose interest in killing you because of a symbol that means nothing to them is questionable.
Of course, we can claim moral superiority and display the wreckage of the "properly marked" CareBot, but that does nothing for the guy/gal it was transporting.
If we want to advance instead of grandstand, we need a faster technology development cycle. We can't have that because of the safety issues associated with putting Meat in space. If we skip (government funded) manned missions for say, fifty years, we could have far more capable unmanned systems. We have as much time as we care to take.
If we can study and manipulate the things in space we need to study and manipulate without human attendants, we can get far more bang for our investment. Terrestrial exploration was carried out by humans when these were relatively expendable. Astronauts may be willing to take risks, but the public snivels when they die (unlike the risk acceptance in the heydays of test pilots...) and their life support systems impact mission duration.
Missiles are not capable of performing recon, resupply, sustained engagement, loiter, and other complex functions that combat robots offer/will eventually offer, nor do they hold territory. A combat robot could be put in forward fighting positions where humans would be at excessive risk. It could fight to cover a withdrawal, then detonate when the position was overrun. Likewise it could be an expendable replacement for a "point man". PackBots are already used for this in a limited way.
Missiles don't do these jobs well or do them at all, and cannot be recalled once launched.
We are in the very early stages of military robot development, comparable to the state of military aircraft before WW1. Much of war fits the "dull, dirty,dangerous" criteria where robots can be a good choice.
Embedding an explosive is an unusual and potentially useful idea.
A benefit of "suicide bombers" is that there is no one to be captured/interrogated/turned, and no provision need be made for egress and recovery. It is really an economical way to accomplish a mission, because overall casualties are rather light. Expendable robotic soldiers could be ideal for some jobs.
I should have mentioned that fastener torque is one of the hardest things to teach someone new to machinery maintenance.
An inexpensive deflecting-beam torque wrench (Craftsman brand is a safe bet) is fine for almost all automotive work (except where specified in tech data) and will give an idea of "feel" when tightening fasteners.
"i'm fairly certain we will yet see more and more useless devices like this end up new-in-box, on ebay, for a fraction of the initial msrp, before this year is out."
Sweet! More stuff for Slashdotters to play with! Someone elses business model is not my problem. Cool hackables for cheap works for me and many other geeks.
No, crappy engineering (Ford cruise control switches, having large areas of harness "hot" even with the vehicle not running...) is dangerous.
The public want blingful features, the public are no longer mechanically literate, and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles. This creates tremendous pressure on makers to offer stupid shite at a competitive price.
Even good features like electronically controlled automatic transmissions are often poorly engineered and are brutally expensive to replace when they fail.
As an aside, tool prices have remained quite low, and if you are the sort of person who isn't afraid to learn you can save many thousands of dollars by doing your own work. The money you save easliy buys good equipment you can use for a lifetime. Never has an auto repair course at the local community college been a better value. You can free yourself from ever having to buy a new car, free yourself from being at the mercy of undertrained or unethical automobile repair outfits, and know the person who worked on your car gave a shit. If you can understand computers, it isn't a great leap to understand other technology, and as usual the internet can help.
You can still legally get lockout kits, and the (more proficient) car thieves know how to disable most alarms.
The other way is to grab the car with a wrecker. People don't seem to care about that when it isn't their car. We've hooked up to move cars off-property for legit repos, and when expedient we've dragged them down the street with brakes locked and tires smoking. Once off-premises we'd tow it properly, but the point is that unless you are with your ride, someone who wants it can usually still get it.
"So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water."
MY alternative is unsweetened iced tea. We ditched the soda habit years ago for tea. Tea is less expensive, easily adjusted to taste (I favor lime juice), and quite refreshing. We drink plenty of juice, water, and milk, but there is always at least a gallon jug of tea in the fridge. There are teas for every taste, so try a few and find out what you like.
Slashdot Mirror
"Starting" does not require early manned missions. We can do far more research with unmanned systems while laying the groundwork for future manned missions. We have barely scratched the surface of space exploration, and sending humans to gather information we can get more easily from other systems is a waste.
Supporting humans is expensive, and because we expect all of them back (as opposed to early terrestrial exploration where loss was routine) we make it even more so.
Unmanned systems can have much more rapid development cycles, because they are simpler and may be easily sacrificed. Manned systems OTOH trap us in antiquated equipment like the Shuttle.
"If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us."
That's not enough. My vote alone isn't shite.
My vote and those of many NRA members, represented by lobbyists to remind Congress we exist, DOES matter.
"They are just as efficient as non-hybrids."
Non-hybrids have about a century of refinement behind their current performance.
Getting hybrids into the production stream can pave the way for better hybrids, gradually reducing the need to run the internal combustion engine for support. Until energy storage tech improves, the gas engine "crutch" is among reasonable workarounds.
"After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all and, if they care enough about this, they'll start charging you monthly fees for your Windows Update account."
Excellent idea!
Duck and cover is intended as protection from a blast at a distance which would shatter windows and send debris flying. Not everyone is going to be under the fireball. If you are at a distance it makes every bit as much sense as taking cover during a mortar attack.
Plenty of troops and civilians have been near enough to test detonations to take cover, then get out of their trench or from behind their shelter and do their jobs.
Atmospheric testing proves limited nuclear war is indeed fightable. What we do with that info is up to us.
" where personal freedom is gone."
It really depends on the end result.
For example, there would have been no way to oust foreign influence and weld China beck together without something like Maoism. Processes to build a modern nation from divided countries with backward populations are often bloody. Old structures must be smashed and unity forged by force.
In the very short time since 1948, China went from warlordism and anarchy to economic and military powerhouse. Revolutionaries understand this. (I am NOT praising Communist economics, merely their willingness to destroy old bad systems.)
Communism can propel a country into the modern age, force educational reform, weaken the hold of religion=superstition, and perform many useful transitional functions.
OTOH, democracy is only good when there are educated people who embrace secularist ideals to operate it. Otherwise, democracy will merely serve as a vehicle for its own destruction (Iraq). People who believe the universe is a religious monarchy cannot believe in freedom from religion under a secular government.
I would like to see a few more Leftist, anti-religious revolutions stir the pot. I'm unfashionably right-wing myself, but the Leftists are anti-tribalist and anti-religion. I regard them as a force for healthy destruction.
The shuttle and other manned systems have too slow a development cycle due to the provision for putting Meat in space.
We have eternity to put men in space, so we should first perfect the processes we need to explore and exploit space with robots and supporting systems. We shouldn't NEED people to do anything but be passengers whe we get it right.
"Actually, I think I like this new fuel for the darwin awards, err, our cars!"
That's been done (long) before.
Prior to the advent of glycol antifreeze, alcohol was used. Winos were fond of draining radiators to get it. The predictable thing happened during the transition period...
"the same crops that would feed mexicans"
When Mexicans want to stop living in a failed state, they can change their society and government. Their failure to use THEIR resources to provide for THEIR needs is their fault. With citizenship comes responsibility to make adult choices.
If they want cheap tortillas, let them create the conditions for the agribusinesses that provide the ingredients so inexpensively.
"Mankind needs to back up. Impassioned pursuit of new ways does not exalt the future, it mocks the future.
Without such impassioned pursuit, we wouldn't be having this discussion on a computer...
I contrast the situation of endangered species with that of livestock. If one wants the benefits of harvesting animals is makes no sense to rely on nature to sustain UN-natural consumption rates. We don't depend on nature for fowl or eggs, we raise fowl and have a renewable supply of both.
If we want to harvest, we should farm or otherwise artificially support the populations we use.
The inevitable reality of China as superpower means we should cooperate with them, without regard to "morality" and with regard to US interests in terms of global power.
The cultural war with Islam means than any ally against religious fundamentalism is to be sought. The Chinese are tough, and won't extend tolerance to Jihadists. They have the freedom to really crush religious movements as they deserve. Falun Gong is an example.
China is a fine global partner, the natural master of Asia (which, despite the wet dreams of US missionaries, we are not), and since we cannot beat them we'd best learn humility and cut a deal. Smart US companies have a postive trade balance with China (Caterpillar, for example), so we can CHOOSE to compete if we wish.
"Actually, I'd rather be carried out of the battle by something with a big Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol on the side,"
I'll skip the Red Target, thanks.
The US hasn't fought an opponent who respects those since World War II. Renouncing self-defense in the hope that your friendly opponent will lose interest in killing you because of a symbol that means nothing to them is questionable.
Of course, we can claim moral superiority and display the wreckage of the "properly marked" CareBot, but that does nothing for the guy/gal it was transporting.
If we want to advance instead of grandstand, we need a faster technology development cycle. We can't have that because of the safety issues associated with putting Meat in space. If we skip (government funded) manned missions for say, fifty years, we could have far more capable unmanned systems.
We have as much time as we care to take.
If we can study and manipulate the things in space we need to study and manipulate without human attendants, we can get far more bang for our investment. Terrestrial exploration was carried out by humans when these were relatively expendable. Astronauts may be willing to take risks, but the public snivels when they die (unlike the risk acceptance in the heydays of test pilots...) and their life support systems impact mission duration.
Missiles are not capable of performing recon, resupply, sustained engagement, loiter, and other complex functions that combat robots offer/will eventually offer, nor do they hold territory.
A combat robot could be put in forward fighting positions where humans would be at excessive risk. It could fight to cover a withdrawal, then detonate when the position was overrun. Likewise it could be an expendable replacement for a "point man". PackBots are already used for this in a limited way.
Missiles don't do these jobs well or do them at all, and cannot be recalled once launched.
We are in the very early stages of military robot development, comparable to the state of military aircraft before WW1. Much of war fits the "dull, dirty,dangerous" criteria where robots can be a good choice.
Embedding an explosive is an unusual and potentially useful idea.
A benefit of "suicide bombers" is that there is no one to be captured/interrogated/turned, and no provision need be made for egress and recovery.
It is really an economical way to accomplish a mission, because overall casualties are rather light. Expendable robotic soldiers could be ideal for some jobs.
"the problem is that sub-notebooks, while a personal favorite of mine, typically have not done well in the marketplace."
That might have to do with their being too expensive for most users. Paying more for less is not always popular.
"beach boys" was not capitalized, so we must assume you are not referring to the pop group.
I'll be avoiding THAT beach. Yucko.
All the companies mentioned may not have been dumping people with technical skill.
Unskilled peons should not be counted as techies, nor should they so count themselves.
Helpful tip:
I should have mentioned that fastener torque is one of the hardest things to teach someone new to machinery maintenance.
An inexpensive deflecting-beam torque wrench (Craftsman brand is a safe bet) is fine for almost all automotive work (except where specified in tech data) and will give an idea of "feel" when tightening fasteners.
"i'm fairly certain we will yet see more and more useless devices like this end up new-in-box, on ebay, for a fraction of the initial msrp, before this year is out."
t raBoard.pl
Sweet! More stuff for Slashdotters to play with! Someone elses business model is not my problem.
Cool hackables for cheap works for me and many other geeks.
Some examples from the past:
http://www.linux-hacker.net/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/Ul
No, crappy engineering (Ford cruise control switches, having large areas of harness "hot" even with the vehicle not running...) is dangerous.
The public want blingful features, the public are no longer mechanically literate, and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles. This creates tremendous pressure on makers to offer stupid shite at a competitive price.
Even good features like electronically controlled automatic transmissions are often poorly engineered and are brutally expensive to replace when they fail.
As an aside, tool prices have remained quite low, and if you are the sort of person who isn't afraid to learn you can save many thousands of dollars by doing your own work. The money you save easliy buys good equipment you can use for a lifetime.
Never has an auto repair course at the local community college been a better value. You can free yourself from ever having to buy a new car, free yourself from being at the mercy of undertrained or unethical automobile repair outfits, and know the person who worked on your car gave a shit.
If you can understand computers, it isn't a great leap to understand other technology, and as usual the internet can help.
You can still legally get lockout kits, and the (more proficient) car thieves know how to disable most alarms.
The other way is to grab the car with a wrecker.
People don't seem to care about that when it isn't their car. We've hooked up to move cars off-property for legit repos, and when expedient we've dragged them down the street with brakes locked and tires smoking. Once off-premises we'd tow it properly, but the point is that unless you are with your ride, someone who wants it can usually still get it.
"So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water."
MY alternative is unsweetened iced tea.
We ditched the soda habit years ago for tea. Tea is less expensive, easily adjusted to taste (I favor lime juice), and quite refreshing. We drink plenty of juice, water, and milk, but there is always at least a gallon jug of tea in the fridge. There are teas for every taste, so try a few and find out what you like.
"Another fine tradition, fleecing the flock."
Religion is entertainment, for which they are paying. IMO they deserve to be milked by anyone sharp enough to do so.