Seems like that won't work very well for people who can't see, or people who can't write (like because they don't have any limbs, say). But those people are obviously subhuman impediments to democracy, and should be immediately liquidated.
You brought up the Feynman quote. If you think it's valid, then it's valid. I disagree.
If you think it's necessary to talk to every single researcher on the planet to have an informed opinion, there is no such thing as an informed opinion.
My point stands: Biological contamination is a problem that is solved all the time here on Earth. It's a well understood problem, and there is no reason that the techniques could not be applied in a laboratory on the surface of Mars. To suppose that the ONLY way to prevent biocontamination is to use unmanned probes is just silly.
There are lots of good reasons to use unmanned probes. There are lots of good reasons to send people. Both are necessary for the future survival and growth of our species. Neither need be impeded (or advanced) by worries about biocontamination.
And yes, in my opinion, Sagan is a fuckwit, and anything he might say is met with more than the average amount of skepticism by me. You are free to have a different opinion. I didn't say that you were a fuckwit because you don't think Sagan is a fuckwit, and I didn't say that Sagan was the only person to do Mars jar experiments. I simply stated my (considered) opinion that those experiments are not germane to the question at hand.
Feynman can speak for himself. He was a brilliant man, but by his own characterization, what does he know about the sociology of scientists?
I'm not a biologist. But I know that biologists have this problem knocked. Why? Because I've talked to them, and read their articles. Unless you suppose that my education is not sufficient to enable me to understand things that I read and hear.
Then we'll have a totally different conversation.
And apparently, your education is not sufficient to tell the difference between the possessive "your" and the contraction "you're", so any aspersions you might want to cast on my intellect and education are immediately suspect.
Yeah, I'm sure ALL Europeans are smarter than ALL Americans, and it's just absurd that somebody would make a post that informs another person of a fact that they would already know, if they were European.
Is there a list of things that we stupid Americans can look at, that we're not supposed to post on Slashdot, because we'd already know it if we were European? Because I wouldn't want to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Bacterial contamination of samples is a problem that is solved on a daily basis here on Earth. There is no reason to suppose the same conditions could not be replicated on Mars. It's not like the astronauts are going to be carrying these samples in their jeans pockets...
Maybe because they designed the hardware to do the mission, and didn't include hardware that wasn't necessary for the mission.
I'm pretty sure that the JPL engineers have seen brooms before, and if such a system were a) practical or b) useful, they would have incorporated it. But it wasn't, so they didn't.
These guys don't think of everything, but they think of more stuff than most/. posters (myself included).
I don't suppose you got any of the science in the Robot series.
Science Fiction is not about science. It's about what people do in the presence of technological advancement. The best sci fi posits the technological changes, doesn't bother to explain them in excruciating detail, and goes on to deal with the human stories.
Of course, I love the other kind of sci fi, where we discuss in detail some of the scientific advances that might happen in the next few (hundred) years. But the broad appeal comes from the human stories.
Just look at the most popular sci fi novel ever: Stranger in a Strange Land didn't bother to even talk about how we got to Mars and back.
Hyperion was a really really crappy retread of Canterbury Tales. I wanted my time back after finishing that turd.
Star Wars is not science fiction. It does not make science fiction less good. It does not take away science fiction's lollypop. Star Wars (4-6) were good space opera. 1 and 2 are, well, not.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure does. Really all I want to do is bind that to my mousewheel.
And uninstall that gestures nonsense. Wow...that thing needs some serious UI help.
Wow, does that ever not work well. I did the "size up" gesture and everything in the window disappeared. Yuck.
I didn't care for mouse gestures in Black & White, and my opinion has not much changed. I'm glad some people like 'em, but not for me...
The point is this:
How do you know that the vote you cast is the one encoded on the ballot? You CAN'T know. You can't read the data on the card.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Seems like that won't work very well for people who can't see, or people who can't write (like because they don't have any limbs, say). But those people are obviously subhuman impediments to democracy, and should be immediately liquidated.
You brought up the Feynman quote. If you think it's valid, then it's valid. I disagree.
If you think it's necessary to talk to every single researcher on the planet to have an informed opinion, there is no such thing as an informed opinion.
My point stands: Biological contamination is a problem that is solved all the time here on Earth. It's a well understood problem, and there is no reason that the techniques could not be applied in a laboratory on the surface of Mars. To suppose that the ONLY way to prevent biocontamination is to use unmanned probes is just silly.
There are lots of good reasons to use unmanned probes. There are lots of good reasons to send people. Both are necessary for the future survival and growth of our species. Neither need be impeded (or advanced) by worries about biocontamination.
And yes, in my opinion, Sagan is a fuckwit, and anything he might say is met with more than the average amount of skepticism by me. You are free to have a different opinion. I didn't say that you were a fuckwit because you don't think Sagan is a fuckwit, and I didn't say that Sagan was the only person to do Mars jar experiments. I simply stated my (considered) opinion that those experiments are not germane to the question at hand.
Wow, I sure wish I knew how to enable ctrl-mousewheel. There's a nice dialog in Moz, but not in FF. Any clues?
And good tip on the double click. I'll check that out.
Thanks!
Firefox fixes both of your issues. Hope that helps. : )
Only problem is, Firefox is not substantially lighter on memory requirements than Moz.
Yeah. And why can't I change it? The CTRL-ENTER behavior of "Open a new tab, and append www..com to whatever I typed" is utterly useless.
I also want ctrl-mousewheel to make text bigger and smaller.
And why do I have to double click on Javascript pop-open window links to get them to open? It's bizarre.
Feynman can speak for himself. He was a brilliant man, but by his own characterization, what does he know about the sociology of scientists?
I'm not a biologist. But I know that biologists have this problem knocked. Why? Because I've talked to them, and read their articles. Unless you suppose that my education is not sufficient to enable me to understand things that I read and hear.
Then we'll have a totally different conversation.
And apparently, your education is not sufficient to tell the difference between the possessive "your" and the contraction "you're", so any aspersions you might want to cast on my intellect and education are immediately suspect.
That's when I like to hit them in the head with a brick. I think it's funny, and they bleed and cry. It's great!
Yeah, I'm sure ALL Europeans are smarter than ALL Americans, and it's just absurd that somebody would make a post that informs another person of a fact that they would already know, if they were European.
Is there a list of things that we stupid Americans can look at, that we're not supposed to post on Slashdot, because we'd already know it if we were European? Because I wouldn't want to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Carl Sagan is a fuckwit. He has zero credibility with me when he says anything about science.
His fiction is fun. Unfortunately, with his ridiculous stance on "nuclear winter", his science became fiction.
I wouldn't argue that it can't happen. I would argue that it would happen in any significantly detrimental way.
Because I'm sure that bacteria that evolved on Earth are going to just THRIVE on Mars.
You are making up problems. There is no biocontamination reason not to go to Mars. It's a fake dragon.
The return is also far lower.
Bacterial contamination of samples is a problem that is solved on a daily basis here on Earth. There is no reason to suppose the same conditions could not be replicated on Mars. It's not like the astronauts are going to be carrying these samples in their jeans pockets...
And it's totally impossible for an unmanned lander to carry contaminants, right?
Quarantine is important, but it's not incompatible with manned exploration.
Maybe because they designed the hardware to do the mission, and didn't include hardware that wasn't necessary for the mission.
/. posters (myself included).
I'm pretty sure that the JPL engineers have seen brooms before, and if such a system were a) practical or b) useful, they would have incorporated it. But it wasn't, so they didn't.
These guys don't think of everything, but they think of more stuff than most
"Are we persisting in looking at mars from an Earth-centric viewpoint?"
Until we get to Mars, we don't have much choice. We're from Earth. That's all we really know about. That's why we want to go to Mars.
Why not? Afraid of getting eaten?
Er, since he bought one, the answer to your question "Is it worth $200" is, obviously, "Yeah."
All four of those people can buy a different player. Problem solved.
And this is the first year that that ever happened at the Oscars. Right.
Let me save you the time.
Play DX1 again. Don't waste your time with the sequel. It is broken, broken, broken.
I don't suppose you got any of the science in the Robot series.
Science Fiction is not about science. It's about what people do in the presence of technological advancement. The best sci fi posits the technological changes, doesn't bother to explain them in excruciating detail, and goes on to deal with the human stories.
Of course, I love the other kind of sci fi, where we discuss in detail some of the scientific advances that might happen in the next few (hundred) years. But the broad appeal comes from the human stories.
Just look at the most popular sci fi novel ever: Stranger in a Strange Land didn't bother to even talk about how we got to Mars and back.
Hyperion was a really really crappy retread of Canterbury Tales. I wanted my time back after finishing that turd.
Star Wars is not science fiction. It does not make science fiction less good. It does not take away science fiction's lollypop. Star Wars (4-6) were good space opera. 1 and 2 are, well, not.