While I'm a big fan of robotic probes to Mars and elsewhere, I have never seen a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars, at least in the short and medium term.
Better success rate?
Humans don't become totally useless when one of their solar panels gets stuck, or an airbag is blocking their path.
"Dang... some wind blew over the rover! If only we could somehow pick it up... hmmmm..."
One wonders why these literal rocket scientists didn't just get a software programmable Linux or PalmOS based wrist-computer and hack together a Mars-time display application into it?
Because that would be pointless?
All they had to do was change a few gear ratios instead of actually figuring out how to use linux, or getting an SDK for PalmOS, then actually writing the program and hope there's no bugs in it.
They're rocket scientists... not script kiddies who lavish in anything that is related to linux. (Go ahead, call me a troll... you know it's true)
The real question should be why they even needed to do it. It's not like knowing the time on mars is a huge deal.
They predict "an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.4 by Sept. 5, 2004, in a region that includes the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert, and an area south of it." We'll see if they're right.
Actually, I thought he was referring to "spooky action at a distance". This doesn't envolve "teleportation". Basically you "create" two particles (be it atoms or sub-atomic) that are 'entangled', they will have opposite spins. Seperate them over a large distance and the instant you change the spin on one of the particles, the other one changes as well.
Doesn't matter how far apart the particles are... the change is instantaneous.
Global warming or no global warming, we're in the middle of one of the biggest mass extinctions in Earth's history and people are still bickering about politics
Yea.... yea we are...
Frankly, most humans don't care about what animals are dieing. All you have to do is appeal to the rich people by saying "hey, with global warming, you won't be able to go skiing in the alps anymore! now give me money and i'll see what I can do to fix that"
To me this just seems like another one of those outcries in order to get more funding.
Species go extinct all the time... and more keep poping up. Deal with it. Next they'll be saying that the global warming is heating the earth's core and eventually the entire planet will explode (uh oh... giving them ideas).
Funny how ALL this is going to happend around 2050. Anybody else notice that?
we're definitely wasting time *every* day due to the current state of Microsoft Windows desktop software.
spam (due to insecure Outlook email clients, etc.)
I just rebooted my machine due to Windows XP "detecting and recovering from a device error
How much time is wasted setting up XFree86? How much extra time is wasted installing software on a unix machine? It's not as easy as doing it on a windows computer.
Outlook doesn't cause spam. Spammers cause spam. Gee... I've never heard of sendmail or any other unix mail service having holes in it... hmm.
The funny thing is... I never crash my XP install. Updating from windows update takes only 20 mins. Hell, a fresh install takes me less than 40min.
If you had to reboot from a device error, check your hardware. You're probably running on some emachine that you had built for you which crashes for no reason all the time (I work with them every day for tech support... yea... they're fun).
Switch to a MAC? I'm sorry, but they have problems too. Instead of the blue screen that gives you actual information on what the hell just happened when running XP, MAC's like to just close applications randomly and shut down without warning.
BTW - if XP did "detect and recover" from it, why did I have to reboot?
You didn't have to. I've gotten that error a few times. Not ONCE was I forced to reboot. Again... support for my shitty hardware theory.
Seriously... people need to stop blaming everything on the operating system. Hardware has a huge play in the errors (Duh... it runs the frekin OS). A good 75% of all the errors I come across during work is due to crappy hardware, and the other 25% (at least for WinXP...) is due to faulty drivers or screwed up software they put on.
I've only had 1 problem with XP in the years that i've worked with it (and that deals with their new IPv6 package you can download... I recommend not to, for now). The rest is drivers, or just bad hardware (and, of course, user stupidity).
umm... some of the time taken for some tasks is rediculous. Loading motherboard drivers for 4 hours?? Fixing a printer driver for an hour? Windows update for an hour?
Either he's on a really slow computer, or he's just stupid.
Huh? Hydrogen quickly moves up and away from you while gasoline sticks to you. You did see the pictures of those babies our boys burned alive with napalm in the 70's?
Sure, let's bring in another substance into the agrument for no reason (Napalm is polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts), btw). The use for napalm is so that it will stick to something and burn that object very nicely... so yes, napalm is dangerous, but more so because it's hard to clean. For actual explosions (like we're discussing) we don't use napalm specifically for that reason... it's thick and it sticks.
Gasoline is only combustable in a somewhat gas form (like fule being injected into the cylinder of your car, being mixed with air). If you throw a match into a puddle of gas, it won't blow up in your face (lime movies will have you believe). Sure it will light on fire, but what is burning is the gas evaporating at the surface.
Hydrogen, on the other hand, is more readily in a gas form. This alone increases the surface area during mixture allowing for a more volatile and efficient 'burn'.
To go into a more chemical explanation, gasoline contains hydrocarbons (H-C bonds). The actual energy given off is from the formation of the H20 product at the end. In order to get it to react that way, you must first break the H-C bonds which requires a good amount of energy (relatively speaking).
Hydrogen by itself, on the other hand, doesn't have any bonds. No extra energy is needed to break the bonds like in the hydrocarbon situation. The only energy needed is the activation energy (which is also required for burning hydrocarbons).
Basically, with given energy inputs, pure hydrogen combining with oxygen give you the most "bang for your buck" since it only requires a small amount of activation energy. Hydrocarbons are more contained, less volitale (that's why we use them in cars instead of hydrogen gas for the 'combustion'), and the emitted energy from the reaction is less.
(excuse my lack of more precise, technical words... but it has been about 3 years since I took chem)
"When you heat this material up, it [can] reach an onset temperature that begins to self-heat and progresses into fire and explosion."
You really can't go replacing important words like that. Who knows if the word "can" was to replace something like "has the small possibility to" or "can under extreme and rare conditions"...
Filling in the blank with the word "can" has the possibility of throwing the perspective out of proportion. Even later in the article it states that "explosions and fire happen 'rarely'".
And what really got me...
Long-term fuel cells that convert hydrogen and oxygen to electricity -- don't ask me how -- are a promising alternative.
So replace lithium ion batteries with a HIGHLY combustable mixture... good alternative...
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm a big fan of robotic probes to Mars and elsewhere, I have never seen a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars, at least in the short and medium term.
Better success rate?
Humans don't become totally useless when one of their solar panels gets stuck, or an airbag is blocking their path.
"Dang... some wind blew over the rover! If only we could somehow pick it up... hmmmm..."
often forgetful of where they've already been. ;)
Have we re-created the first microseconds of the big bang in the lab?
..oh wait... how the hell would I know what the first few miliseconds actually were like?
Yes!
I think the only answer that you can respond with is "maybe."
Notice the horrible photochopping done to the horizon...
What is NASA hiding?
One wonders why these literal rocket scientists didn't just get a software programmable Linux or PalmOS based wrist-computer and hack together a Mars-time display application into it?
Because that would be pointless?
All they had to do was change a few gear ratios instead of actually figuring out how to use linux, or getting an SDK for PalmOS, then actually writing the program and hope there's no bugs in it.
They're rocket scientists... not script kiddies who lavish in anything that is related to linux. (Go ahead, call me a troll... you know it's true)
The real question should be why they even needed to do it. It's not like knowing the time on mars is a huge deal.
They predict "an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.4 by Sept. 5, 2004, in a region that includes the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert, and an area south of it." We'll see if they're right.
C'mon schwartz.... c'mon schwartz!
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
No. The radeon 9000 has the RV250 GPU while the 9200 has the RV280
the ebgames preorder says it will ship on 7/14/2004
That's a little late for that 4/1 prediction, doncha think?
Actually, I thought he was referring to "spooky action at a distance". This doesn't envolve "teleportation". Basically you "create" two particles (be it atoms or sub-atomic) that are 'entangled', they will have opposite spins. Seperate them over a large distance and the instant you change the spin on one of the particles, the other one changes as well.
Doesn't matter how far apart the particles are... the change is instantaneous.
Humanity as a whole has problems a lot more serious and significant than finding new sources for iron oxide
Rust? Oh I think there's plenty of that. Just come on over and chip some off of my car.
Global warming or no global warming, we're in the middle of one of the biggest mass extinctions in Earth's history and people are still bickering about politics
Yea.... yea we are...
Frankly, most humans don't care about what animals are dieing. All you have to do is appeal to the rich people by saying "hey, with global warming, you won't be able to go skiing in the alps anymore! now give me money and i'll see what I can do to fix that"
To me this just seems like another one of those outcries in order to get more funding.
Species go extinct all the time... and more keep poping up. Deal with it. Next they'll be saying that the global warming is heating the earth's core and eventually the entire planet will explode (uh oh... giving them ideas).
Funny how ALL this is going to happend around 2050. Anybody else notice that?
The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S.
No one in their right mind would expect a highly educated person to work for minimum wage or lower... that defeats the purpose of the education...
From the data sheet:
With the introduction of "Hi-MD," Sony is poised to meet the demands of a growing broadband era...
then later they mention the speed:
and transfering data from a PC to the disc at 48kbps with ATRAC3plus
Well where is the "broadband" coming in here? Ugh... I don't want to relive the days of downloading music over my dial-up connection...
have had to leave Earth time behind and attune their circadian clock to the Mars solar day or 'sol'
Now why in gods name did they name the martian day AND the Sun the same damn thing?
Isn't GPS a huge overkill for this kind of project? I mean... you don't need a frekin sattelite to track horse around a 1/2 mile track.
Plus I thought commercially available GPS was only accurate to aabout + or - 3 meters (or 3 feet ~= 1 meter? something like that...).
And how much of an advantage would that be to knowing the track length and counting the number of laps? Oh well... I guess people are lazy.
Sometimes I have even been known to forget about several systems because they just work.
Yea... cool thing is that my XP computer I use "just works". Same with my family (with 2 Win98 SE machines mixed in there).
Everybody has their horror stories about an OS, and everybody has good stories about an OS. It all depends on who you talk to.
What does that inconsistancy tell me? The problems (or lack of problems) is mainly the fault of the hardware.
we're definitely wasting time *every* day due to the current state of Microsoft Windows desktop software.
spam (due to insecure Outlook email clients, etc.)
I just rebooted my machine due to Windows XP "detecting and recovering from a device error
How much time is wasted setting up XFree86? How much extra time is wasted installing software on a unix machine? It's not as easy as doing it on a windows computer.
Outlook doesn't cause spam. Spammers cause spam. Gee... I've never heard of sendmail or any other unix mail service having holes in it... hmm.
The funny thing is... I never crash my XP install. Updating from windows update takes only 20 mins. Hell, a fresh install takes me less than 40min.
If you had to reboot from a device error, check your hardware. You're probably running on some emachine that you had built for you which crashes for no reason all the time (I work with them every day for tech support... yea... they're fun).
Switch to a MAC? I'm sorry, but they have problems too. Instead of the blue screen that gives you actual information on what the hell just happened when running XP, MAC's like to just close applications randomly and shut down without warning.
BTW - if XP did "detect and recover" from it, why did I have to reboot?
You didn't have to. I've gotten that error a few times. Not ONCE was I forced to reboot. Again... support for my shitty hardware theory.
Seriously... people need to stop blaming everything on the operating system. Hardware has a huge play in the errors (Duh... it runs the frekin OS). A good 75% of all the errors I come across during work is due to crappy hardware, and the other 25% (at least for WinXP...) is due to faulty drivers or screwed up software they put on.
I've only had 1 problem with XP in the years that i've worked with it (and that deals with their new IPv6 package you can download... I recommend not to, for now). The rest is drivers, or just bad hardware (and, of course, user stupidity).
umm... some of the time taken for some tasks is rediculous. Loading motherboard drivers for 4 hours?? Fixing a printer driver for an hour? Windows update for an hour?
Either he's on a really slow computer, or he's just stupid.
... the E-Mails trying to sell me \/1@gra?
You, again, missed the point. We're talking about explosions... like explosions in the trunk of your car.
I wouldn't want a tank of hydrogen blowing up on my lap... well... maybe... it would be a nice and quick death.
Huh? Hydrogen quickly moves up and away from you while gasoline sticks to you. You did see the pictures of those babies our boys burned alive with napalm in the 70's?
Sure, let's bring in another substance into the agrument for no reason (Napalm is polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts), btw). The use for napalm is so that it will stick to something and burn that object very nicely... so yes, napalm is dangerous, but more so because it's hard to clean. For actual explosions (like we're discussing) we don't use napalm specifically for that reason... it's thick and it sticks.
Gasoline is only combustable in a somewhat gas form (like fule being injected into the cylinder of your car, being mixed with air). If you throw a match into a puddle of gas, it won't blow up in your face (lime movies will have you believe). Sure it will light on fire, but what is burning is the gas evaporating at the surface.
Hydrogen, on the other hand, is more readily in a gas form. This alone increases the surface area during mixture allowing for a more volatile and efficient 'burn'.
To go into a more chemical explanation, gasoline contains hydrocarbons (H-C bonds). The actual energy given off is from the formation of the H20 product at the end. In order to get it to react that way, you must first break the H-C bonds which requires a good amount of energy (relatively speaking).
Hydrogen by itself, on the other hand, doesn't have any bonds. No extra energy is needed to break the bonds like in the hydrocarbon situation. The only energy needed is the activation energy (which is also required for burning hydrocarbons).
Basically, with given energy inputs, pure hydrogen combining with oxygen give you the most "bang for your buck" since it only requires a small amount of activation energy. Hydrocarbons are more contained, less volitale (that's why we use them in cars instead of hydrogen gas for the 'combustion'), and the emitted energy from the reaction is less.
(excuse my lack of more precise, technical words... but it has been about 3 years since I took chem)
Just a reminder: Even if you get the uber mouse, you'll still suck at playing the game ;)
And if you thing hydrogen is dangerous, just look at gasoline! Wow!
Hydrogen is more dangerous than gesoline. Much much more dangerous.
"When you heat this material up, it [can] reach an onset temperature that begins to self-heat and progresses into fire and explosion."
You really can't go replacing important words like that. Who knows if the word "can" was to replace something like "has the small possibility to" or "can under extreme and rare conditions"...
Filling in the blank with the word "can" has the possibility of throwing the perspective out of proportion. Even later in the article it states that "explosions and fire happen 'rarely'".
And what really got me...
Long-term fuel cells that convert hydrogen and oxygen to electricity -- don't ask me how -- are a promising alternative.
So replace lithium ion batteries with a HIGHLY combustable mixture... good alternative...