I know few scientists who say "I know everything". I know a lot of scientists who say things like "I have studied this specific matter rather closely, and here are the conclusions I've drawn. Please consider this exhaustive data that I've acquired, and processed according to these methods."
"but treating the apps as more "native" with Windows or Linux binaries showing up as icons in OS X?"
OK, your other points aside, I got a full-body shivering skeeve with a bit of throw up in my mouth when I had a mental picture of usually-very-nicely designed OSX icons sitting right next to the crap you get on Windows and Linux.
Sandbox==good. That way you can keep all the turds in the same place.
I'll take my argument from authority (which, frankly, I don't see, as I simply stated my opinion) trumps your proof by assertion.
I have had good experience with Apple hardware is a factual statement. You have had bad experiences with Apple hardware is an equally factual statement.
"Apple computers have had comparable performance to PCs costing 50-70% of their price"
I'm not chasing you down this rathole. Apple machines are priced more competitively than ever, and when you compare them against other manufacturers, they look pretty darn good.
Is your white-box PC cheaper? Maybe. Depends on which corners you're gonna cut.
"expansion slots that are standard on even the shonkiest PCs"
And are empty on most of those PCs. What are you going to put in the expansion slot? A better video card? OK, if that's what you're into. Most computer users don't care.
Is it suitable for your needs? Maybe not. But that doesn't make it bad.
So you like big clunky keyboards. Cool. They still work just fine, don't they? What's your argument here?
"The single button mouse and the passive-aggressive tricks"
Oh, come on. Get over it. I shouldn't have to explain to you how ridiculously easy it is to get a multi-button mouse on a Mac. It's been true for as long as I've had one.
"Having a small outpost on Mars is not going to preserve your life, or your family's. It's doubtful it would even preserve mankind if life on Earth were wiped out."
Unless I or my family or somebody I care about is living there, you're right. Which is why I think it's a good idea to start establishing a large, self-sufficient colony as soon as possible.
"But some future hypothetical colony on Mars is not myself, nor my family."
Why not? I figured my chances were almost as good as 50/50 of having the opportunity to emigrate to Mars before the Columbia disaster. Now, however, it seems like there is no desire to explore space, which I simply can not understand. Our problems on Earth aren't going to go away if NASA's paltry budget is dissolved. However, colonizing space can and will provide unknowable technological and sociological benefits. This has been true throughout history...why would it become not true now? Exploration is always a good investment. Going new places teaches us new things.
Robotic exploration is great...but it's not human exploration until humans explore.
"Humanity is not just a few people surviving in an artificial environment"
Humanity is humans doing whatever humans do. Why are humans living in a dome, exploring an unknown planet, any less human?
" Losing that would be far more tragic than losing a few selected astronauts."
Undoubtedly. The only thing MORE tragic would be if all humans everywhere died.
I think I am worth preserving. I think my family is worth preserving. I'm willing to go out on a limb and presume that you, and your family, is worth preserving, although you could probably convince me otherwise if you wish.
Why is it important for mankind to survive? Because I am a man, and I am a member of mankind, and I think that I and people like me are valuable, and therefore worth preserving.
Again: If you don't have an instinct for self preservation, make room for somebody who does.
"Zubrin's argument involves a lot of other economic and technological assumptions."
None of which seem to be worth your time to discuss?
"There are plenty of frontiers we have here on earth"
Where? Palestine?
"it's just that people like you aren't up to the challenge and want to run away from them."
If you're hungry, and you want some food, going to the store isn't running away from your problem. It is going to the place where the solution to your problem is.
"It's you who is self-loathing, anti-science, and anti-progress."
If you say so, Clyde. I think that science and progress are not going to be possible in the socio-political climate here on Earth, so I think that having a not-on-Earth petri dish to incubate some new forms of society would be helpful.
I happen to think that the sociological experiment in America improved life in Europe. I think that the same thing could happen on Mars.
"space nuts who have been watching too much science fiction"
"You can look at the real-world launch capabilities, transit times, costs, and success rates of sending payloads to Mars and extrapolate."
All of these problems are solvable with simple extrapolations of our current well-proven launch technologies.
"A manned space program is a fraud as far as I'm concerned."
I believe that, without a frontier, humanity becomes impacted and stagnant. Without a frontier to challenge, without a place to go to try new ways of being, we just rot in our own filth. A fraud? The fraud is that there are other ways to address mankind's ills besides finding new places to put people.
Frankly, I dismiss your attitude as self-destructive and self-loathing. Go ahead and count me with the science fiction reading space nuts, because they're way better company than you are.
And, you might do well to put away your ad hominem attacks. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of space exploration. I assure you of one thing: I don't disagree with you because I am stupid or ignorant or wrongheaded or mislead. Do me the courtesy of proceeding from that assumption.
I don't have a particular issue with corporate welfare, as long as it also advances the state of the art. However, launching Shuttle to build the ISS and building the ISS to have a place for the Shuttle to go is just stupid.
You seem to think that I'm in favor of manned exploration for its own sake, and that's simply not true. I'm in favor of manned exploration, because that's the only way we're going to get our eggs into a different basket.
You seem to think that Zubrin's numbers are wrong, but you don't do anything to convince me that you've studied the problem any more closely than he has.
Robots are great. However, gathering scientific data is not the most important goal of space flight. Going places is the most important goal of space flight.
Premature? Please. The Moon missions were 30 years ago. It is time to stop jacking around in LEO and go somewhere.
"the ISS tells you what is possible in terms of manned presence in space and at what cost,"
No, the ISS tells you what NASA was able to negotiate out of Congress. It is a technological and exploratory dead end, and exists as a welfare project for the contractors scattered across 50 states. Much better to use that money to fund a REAL manned space program.
"Well, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that is possible."
The Mars Society has made a pretty good case, with detailed mission profiles. The key concept is in-situ propellant production. Rather than shipping your return fuel to Mars, send a dry return vehicle and fuel it on the surface by refining atmospheric gases.
If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend. Dr. Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars". I found him extremely convincing.
It takes a pretty long causal chain to have an accounting error result in death by hydrostatic shock. I'm not saying that bank errors aren't a big deal, I'm saying that they're usually not fatal.
"If the Feds say they want one criminal DB to rule them all then I get nervous."
First fix the system, then come talk to me about more taxes. Unless and until government is a good steward of their current revenues, why should they get more?
Slashdot Mirror
"we'll get whatever is lost after this war as well."
OK. When will the War on Terror end? When there's no more terror in the world?
I am, and I do. I also don't pretend that animals in the wild have anything that can be meaningfully mapped onto human morals and ethics.
So what's the moral difference between a cat and a (human) serial murderer?
"When a Fox kills a rabbit, it does it out of necessity."
When a cat kills a mouse and plays with it, but doesn't eat it, is that necessity?
And if ever there is a mechanical system that has meaningful analogues for "pain and suffering", that might be a fruitful discussion.
Since there aren't, it isn't.
"I think this guy more-or-less represents the majority opinion in this state."
I'd say your assertion is about as scientific as that blogger's assertion.
Golly. It's almost like intelligence is a phenomenon that can't be measured like a cup of flour. What ever shall we do?
I know few scientists who say "I know everything". I know a lot of scientists who say things like "I have studied this specific matter rather closely, and here are the conclusions I've drawn. Please consider this exhaustive data that I've acquired, and processed according to these methods."
You have the right to be not virtuous.
I certainly have the right to do things that you don't happen to think are virtuous.
Um, no, probably not. But thanks for playing.
BFG is a gun.
BFB is a...wait for it...bomb.
"but treating the apps as more "native" with Windows or Linux binaries showing up as icons in OS X?"
OK, your other points aside, I got a full-body shivering skeeve with a bit of throw up in my mouth when I had a mental picture of usually-very-nicely designed OSX icons sitting right next to the crap you get on Windows and Linux.
Sandbox==good. That way you can keep all the turds in the same place.
Um, OK. I've never had a problem, but whatever floats your boat.
Me? I hate all laptop pointing devices, so I use a mouse. Works beautifully.
I'll take my argument from authority (which, frankly, I don't see, as I simply stated my opinion) trumps your proof by assertion.
I have had good experience with Apple hardware is a factual statement. You have had bad experiences with Apple hardware is an equally factual statement.
"Apple computers have had comparable performance to PCs costing 50-70% of their price"
I'm not chasing you down this rathole. Apple machines are priced more competitively than ever, and when you compare them against other manufacturers, they look pretty darn good.
Is your white-box PC cheaper? Maybe. Depends on which corners you're gonna cut.
"expansion slots that are standard on even the shonkiest PCs"
And are empty on most of those PCs. What are you going to put in the expansion slot? A better video card? OK, if that's what you're into. Most computer users don't care.
Is it suitable for your needs? Maybe not. But that doesn't make it bad.
So you like big clunky keyboards. Cool. They still work just fine, don't they? What's your argument here?
"The single button mouse and the passive-aggressive tricks"
Oh, come on. Get over it. I shouldn't have to explain to you how ridiculously easy it is to get a multi-button mouse on a Mac. It's been true for as long as I've had one.
Well golly. Your unsubstantiated anecdote completely overshadows my 10+ years of good hardware from Apple. Thank you so much for setting me straight!
"Having a small outpost on Mars is not going to preserve your life, or your family's. It's doubtful it would even preserve mankind if life on Earth were wiped out."
Unless I or my family or somebody I care about is living there, you're right. Which is why I think it's a good idea to start establishing a large, self-sufficient colony as soon as possible.
"But some future hypothetical colony on Mars is not myself, nor my family."
Why not? I figured my chances were almost as good as 50/50 of having the opportunity to emigrate to Mars before the Columbia disaster. Now, however, it seems like there is no desire to explore space, which I simply can not understand. Our problems on Earth aren't going to go away if NASA's paltry budget is dissolved. However, colonizing space can and will provide unknowable technological and sociological benefits. This has been true throughout history...why would it become not true now? Exploration is always a good investment. Going new places teaches us new things.
Robotic exploration is great...but it's not human exploration until humans explore.
"Humanity is not just a few people surviving in an artificial environment"
Humanity is humans doing whatever humans do. Why are humans living in a dome, exploring an unknown planet, any less human?
" Losing that would be far more tragic than losing a few selected astronauts."
Undoubtedly. The only thing MORE tragic would be if all humans everywhere died.
I think I am worth preserving. I think my family is worth preserving. I'm willing to go out on a limb and presume that you, and your family, is worth preserving, although you could probably convince me otherwise if you wish.
Why is it important for mankind to survive? Because I am a man, and I am a member of mankind, and I think that I and people like me are valuable, and therefore worth preserving.
Again: If you don't have an instinct for self preservation, make room for somebody who does.
Matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you, why are you posting on Slashdot instead of killing yourself?
"Zubrin's argument involves a lot of other economic and technological assumptions."
None of which seem to be worth your time to discuss?
"There are plenty of frontiers we have here on earth"
Where? Palestine?
"it's just that people like you aren't up to the challenge and want to run away from them."
If you're hungry, and you want some food, going to the store isn't running away from your problem. It is going to the place where the solution to your problem is.
"It's you who is self-loathing, anti-science, and anti-progress."
If you say so, Clyde. I think that science and progress are not going to be possible in the socio-political climate here on Earth, so I think that having a not-on-Earth petri dish to incubate some new forms of society would be helpful.
I happen to think that the sociological experiment in America improved life in Europe. I think that the same thing could happen on Mars.
If science were my stated goal, you might have a point. Since fixing humanity is my stated goal, robotic probes are irrelevant.
Yes, I am just that idealistic.
WHAT "ad hominems"?
"space nuts who have been watching too much science fiction"
"You can look at the real-world launch capabilities, transit times, costs, and success rates of sending payloads to Mars and extrapolate."
All of these problems are solvable with simple extrapolations of our current well-proven launch technologies.
"A manned space program is a fraud as far as I'm concerned."
I believe that, without a frontier, humanity becomes impacted and stagnant. Without a frontier to challenge, without a place to go to try new ways of being, we just rot in our own filth. A fraud? The fraud is that there are other ways to address mankind's ills besides finding new places to put people.
Frankly, I dismiss your attitude as self-destructive and self-loathing. Go ahead and count me with the science fiction reading space nuts, because they're way better company than you are.
I disagree with you.
And, you might do well to put away your ad hominem attacks. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of space exploration. I assure you of one thing: I don't disagree with you because I am stupid or ignorant or wrongheaded or mislead. Do me the courtesy of proceeding from that assumption.
I don't have a particular issue with corporate welfare, as long as it also advances the state of the art. However, launching Shuttle to build the ISS and building the ISS to have a place for the Shuttle to go is just stupid.
You seem to think that I'm in favor of manned exploration for its own sake, and that's simply not true. I'm in favor of manned exploration, because that's the only way we're going to get our eggs into a different basket.
You seem to think that Zubrin's numbers are wrong, but you don't do anything to convince me that you've studied the problem any more closely than he has.
Robots are great. However, gathering scientific data is not the most important goal of space flight. Going places is the most important goal of space flight.
Premature? Please. The Moon missions were 30 years ago. It is time to stop jacking around in LEO and go somewhere.
"the ISS tells you what is possible in terms of manned presence in space and at what cost,"
No, the ISS tells you what NASA was able to negotiate out of Congress. It is a technological and exploratory dead end, and exists as a welfare project for the contractors scattered across 50 states. Much better to use that money to fund a REAL manned space program.
"Well, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that is possible."
The Mars Society has made a pretty good case, with detailed mission profiles. The key concept is in-situ propellant production. Rather than shipping your return fuel to Mars, send a dry return vehicle and fuel it on the surface by refining atmospheric gases.
If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend. Dr. Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars". I found him extremely convincing.
It takes a pretty long causal chain to have an accounting error result in death by hydrostatic shock. I'm not saying that bank errors aren't a big deal, I'm saying that they're usually not fatal.
"If the Feds say they want one criminal DB to rule them all then I get nervous."
On that, we are in complete and total agreement.
First fix the system, then come talk to me about more taxes. Unless and until government is a good steward of their current revenues, why should they get more?
"You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts."
No, but I can and should object to their accumulation of data under the presumption that I am doing Wrong Things.
If there's not a direct investigation of me, they need to not accumulate information about me. This is true for all values of "me".