I submit that, today, the Republican party doesn't care whether their power comes from the Executive, the Judicial, or the Legislature, as long as it comes from a Republican.
"De-emphasize means that we can teach the scientific process and research methods without saying everything came from this species billions and billions of eons ago,"
I want to have a conversation with the teacher that says that. That teacher is wrong. I also think that that teacher doesn't exist...I think it's a straw man.
"and than magically transformed into this species"
If by "magically" you mean "By well understood processes of natural selection", that IS actual science.
I really don't understand what you're arguing against.
My emphasis on "fuel" comes from the fact that, today, that's what we use to make stuff go. That may well change in the future, but I'm talking about NOW.
I'm not willing to wait 50-100 years to colonize the solar system. We need to get started tomorrow, and that means we need to start with technology we have today.
That's why I think Mars is a better target than Luna.
"The Peace of God passeth all understanding, but then again, so does Quantum Field Theory."
One can test quantum field theory in the laboratory. One can endeavor to understand it better. The Peace of God, well, I sure would like to see some out there. Most of the time, what we get is the War Between People Who Think That Their Gods Are Better Than Other Peoples'.
That sentiment goes back to Galileo. "The Bible is not a book about how the heavens go, it is about how to go to Heaven."
I don't understand the contention between science and religion. They are answering fundamentally different questions. I happen to think that excluding one or the other from my consciousness makes me a less-whole person.
Whee! I just finished playing Ridge Racer! Now, as soon as I go back to my PC, erase my MemoryStick, and spend 20 minutes copying another game, I can play something else! Yeah! I'm l33t!
From a marketing standpoint, they are different products.
From a technical standpoint, they're 99.44% Same Damn Code, with some more server-oriented applications bundled in with the Server version.
So, yes, they're different products with a different set of features. (An uncharitable person might observe that the non-Server version is simply hamstrung, but that's very common in this industry, and therefore irrelevant).
I'm not sure why you're trying to draw strong technical distinctions between the two. Under the hood, they're not very different...
What do you call the server version of Mac OS X? I think it's "Mac OS X Server". Maybe I could be forgiven for thinking that is the server version of Mac OS X. It's very confusing...
I'm not sure what "bigger problems" you're talking about. Now I'm more confused.
You have me confused with an anti-space-travel luddite. Not the case. I just think that going to the moon, again, is a waste of time and money. Been there, done that.
"If you can't do full-up systems integration on Earth (which is the best possible place to do it), the best place to do it is on orbit, not on the moon."
The moon is a dead rock. It may well be useful to mine HE3 there, but let's figure out fusion first.
I wouldn't argue for a moment that Shuttle was anything other than horrible cost-plus budget gerrymandering.
However, manned space flight is literally the only important thing that humans can do.
Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.
Nothing sarcastic at all. I know that, whatever his politics may REALLY have been, Gingrich was painted as the fucking anti-Christ in the media, and no idea that he ever touched will ever happen, because by virtue of the fact that they crossed his lips they're the work of the Deveel.
You could slice it that way, I concede. I wasn't counting the deaths in the on-the-ground pre-mission test, but I see where you're coming from.
However, Shuttle is not a good space launch system. The "Better Faster Cheaper" mantra didn't actually accomplish any of those goals, and Shuttle certainly didn't.
How much tax revenue does the US get from businesses that wouldn't exist without comm satellites?
Historically, exploration has been the number one long-term economic driver. It's not very expensive, and the potential (and hard to anticipate) benefits are big.
"The Moon is a far more efficient launch site than the big hulking gravity machine we call the Earth."
Whatcha gonna use for fuel to launch from the Moon?
Oh, you're going to launch fuel from Earth, land it on the moon, launch from the moon, and go somewhere else.
Wow. That's really efficient.
If you can't do full-up systems integration on Earth (which is the best possible place to do it), the best place to do it is on orbit, not on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I care? Because the security organizations care.
If this is not going to give the security forces more power to surveil ME, why are they in favor of it?
That's why I care. If it didn't matter, it wouldn't be happening. It is happening, so therefore it's of concern to me.
I submit that, today, the Republican party doesn't care whether their power comes from the Executive, the Judicial, or the Legislature, as long as it comes from a Republican.
They're perilously close to realizing their goal.
Who makes laws? Lawyers.
Who benefits from a confusing legal code? Lawyers.
Why would they change?
"De-emphasize means that we can teach the scientific process and research methods without saying everything came from this species billions and billions of eons ago,"
I want to have a conversation with the teacher that says that. That teacher is wrong. I also think that that teacher doesn't exist...I think it's a straw man.
"and than magically transformed into this species"
If by "magically" you mean "By well understood processes of natural selection", that IS actual science.
I really don't understand what you're arguing against.
My emphasis on "fuel" comes from the fact that, today, that's what we use to make stuff go. That may well change in the future, but I'm talking about NOW.
I'm not willing to wait 50-100 years to colonize the solar system. We need to get started tomorrow, and that means we need to start with technology we have today.
That's why I think Mars is a better target than Luna.
Doesn't make it any less true...
Nobody has made a reasonable, scientific case against evolution. You might want there to be one, but there isn't. I defy you to prove me wrong.
De-emphasize? What does that mean? Spend less time teaching a well-supported scientific theory, and spend more time teaching...what?
"The Peace of God passeth all understanding, but then again, so does Quantum Field Theory."
One can test quantum field theory in the laboratory. One can endeavor to understand it better. The Peace of God, well, I sure would like to see some out there. Most of the time, what we get is the War Between People Who Think That Their Gods Are Better Than Other Peoples'.
I agree that that is the argument being made. I contend that that argument has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Any attempt to conflate the two perverts both.
From my perspective standing on the Earth, the sun CAN stand still. It's all relative.
That sentiment goes back to Galileo. "The Bible is not a book about how the heavens go, it is about how to go to Heaven."
I don't understand the contention between science and religion. They are answering fundamentally different questions. I happen to think that excluding one or the other from my consciousness makes me a less-whole person.
All of that Buck Rogers technology is great, and provides zero justification for why we should be concentrating on the moon rather than Mars.
"except for the supply of volatiles and organics"
Yeah, except for fuel and stuff to breathe, the Moon is great.
Mars has everything we need for sustained human colonization. The Moon doesn't.
Whee! I just finished playing Ridge Racer! Now, as soon as I go back to my PC, erase my MemoryStick, and spend 20 minutes copying another game, I can play something else! Yeah! I'm l33t!
Uh, yeah, assuming you only want to play one of 'em at a time...
From a marketing standpoint, they are different products.
From a technical standpoint, they're 99.44% Same Damn Code, with some more server-oriented applications bundled in with the Server version.
So, yes, they're different products with a different set of features. (An uncharitable person might observe that the non-Server version is simply hamstrung, but that's very common in this industry, and therefore irrelevant).
I'm not sure why you're trying to draw strong technical distinctions between the two. Under the hood, they're not very different...
Access to the printer that's attached to my AirPort Express.
What do you call the server version of Mac OS X? I think it's "Mac OS X Server". Maybe I could be forgiven for thinking that is the server version of Mac OS X. It's very confusing...
I'm not sure what "bigger problems" you're talking about. Now I'm more confused.
You have me confused with an anti-space-travel luddite. Not the case. I just think that going to the moon, again, is a waste of time and money. Been there, done that.
"If you can't do full-up systems integration on Earth (which is the best possible place to do it), the best place to do it is on orbit, not on the moon."
The moon is a dead rock. It may well be useful to mine HE3 there, but let's figure out fusion first.
Mars is the place to be.
I wouldn't argue for a moment that Shuttle was anything other than horrible cost-plus budget gerrymandering.
However, manned space flight is literally the only important thing that humans can do.
Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.
Nothing sarcastic at all. I know that, whatever his politics may REALLY have been, Gingrich was painted as the fucking anti-Christ in the media, and no idea that he ever touched will ever happen, because by virtue of the fact that they crossed his lips they're the work of the Deveel.
Congress invented "Not Invented Here".
You could slice it that way, I concede. I wasn't counting the deaths in the on-the-ground pre-mission test, but I see where you're coming from.
However, Shuttle is not a good space launch system. The "Better Faster Cheaper" mantra didn't actually accomplish any of those goals, and Shuttle certainly didn't.
What's NASA's budget? $17 billion/year? That's peanuts.
How much tax revenue does the US get from businesses that wouldn't exist without comm satellites?
Historically, exploration has been the number one long-term economic driver. It's not very expensive, and the potential (and hard to anticipate) benefits are big.
If the Shuttle were better, faster, and cheaper, nobody would have a problem with it.
It's currently deadlier, slower, and more expensive.
"Mabye people like shuttles because they don't leave a trail of trash from here to the moon"
What are you talking about?
"Or mabye because less material resources are expended in recycling something that you know already works."
Recycling? More like re-manufacturing. Every part of Shuttle gets touched before it's ready to fly again. Might as well build a new one.
"Or perhaps because they don't smash into the ground like a meteor if the parachutes fail."
No, they smash into the upper atmosphere like a meteor if the heat shield systems get hit by foam.
"The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has,so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design"
Killed more astronauts too, so I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.
"Perhaps one should try focusing on the real problem with NASA, which is the bureaucracy"
Fair enough. Do you think they should make you director?
"The Moon is a far more efficient launch site than the big hulking gravity machine we call the Earth."
Whatcha gonna use for fuel to launch from the Moon?
Oh, you're going to launch fuel from Earth, land it on the moon, launch from the moon, and go somewhere else.
Wow. That's really efficient.
If you can't do full-up systems integration on Earth (which is the best possible place to do it), the best place to do it is on orbit, not on the moon.