The potential ROI on space travel is huge, but it's also very long-term.
Hm it's also interesting how the concept of a family in the society and changes in it affect attitudes here. Since we generally don't see our families now as clans going on for centuries across generations any ROI that is likely to happen after your death is not worth much trouble. I guess people who have kids have a slightly different view, but even then, I think most people concentrate at things that will happen within the span of the life they're living now. It has also much to do with the assumption, deeply rooted in our culture, that we have only one single life.
If you sum all that up there are a lot of psychological incentives to concentrate rather on stuff that would bring fast, tangible results within one's lifespan so that he can enjoy them.
That said, I'm happy it never really materialized. Having a universe with a human population spreading effectively in it summons an eerie image on a spherically expanding brain-tumor to my mind...
Then why do you keep on living? Remove yourself - one cell of a brain-tumor - immediately from the universe.
I downloaded the new Opera after the previous/. story and I started to look at memory footprint of running application as compared to Firefox. I discovered that with the same sites opened in three tabs Opera took less memory, so intending to write about it I set about repeating the exercise. I closed both browsers, opened them and do exactly the same thing in both. This time Opera took more system memory than Firefox, although started smaller. What gives? Why their behavior is not deterministic?
To keep with the story I actually don't care whether Opera's CEO sinks while trying to swim across the ocean. This is just a piece of mind-virus advertising. Although, for the sake of his life he might consider using a raft, this could be feasible especially if it would be equipped with a small sail.
The difference between the two is quite clear I think. Research is being conducted openly, with full consent of the subjects who freely and with full understanding agree for given data to be collected (or answer certain questions asked by the researchers). Spying is done in secret, without the subjects knowing data about them is being collected, without being able to review it and agree to it consciously.
And, obviously, tucking some small print into a lengthy "agreement" written in lawyer-lingo that no one reads is clearly aimed at concealing the true character of a given software from the user. While it might probably save the spyware peddlers in court a very simple test could easily show that "users" of those packages are being spied on: I bet no one of them knows that some information about him or her is collected and what that information is.
Calling spyware researchware must be a bright idea of PR-type aimed at removing negative connotations from a given product. Pathetic but will probably work on general public.
That's great news. However, there is no need to ponder possible applications any further because SF authors did that at length over the last 50 or so years. This is just yet another field in which imagination has overtaken reality so now it's just the question of getting it to work. Applications would bloom everywhere as soon as these folks progress from mice to humans.
Now I'm just waiting for someone to finally find a new energy source.
First, this is an interesting sign of times that companies have official political positions and that it matters. After all, some gay-"rights" bill has nothing to do with Microsoft's business. Why should a company have a position about such matters at all? Shouldn't it be neutral all the time on issues such as abortion, this "rights", housing, whatever? It's supposed to be a business, not a political party.
Second, I really don't get it why this whole issue of "rights" (read: undue privileges) for people with messed up sexual drive is considered a serious matter worth discussing and legislating about in the US. Why should it be a matter worth commenting on Slashdot? Can someone explain it in logical terms why this is important to you, preferably without name-calling and stuff like that?
You didn't read the f**king article, did you? You just saw the trigger word "Bush" and switched into "bush-bashing mode" immediately.
There is no mention of cuts. There is only lack of promise that they will grow. And there is an appeal for greater scrutiny in managing funding, and I don't see nothing wrong with that. Scientists should also think carefully about the ways they spend public money and at least consider less costly approaches where possible. Why should they be above this?
And there is lots of criticism of ISS program and the way it is managed - and you can hardly argue with that.
prepare as if an asteroid was to hit us in the near future anyway
I totally agree with you.
Isn't it nice that this news comes just after we again discussed here another anniversary of Apollos? And some argued viciously that, for example, we should postpone human space travel until it is completely safe.
Don't you see we are already all engaging in space travel that is not safe in the long run? Time to wake up, the clock is ticking.
Your mistake is assuming technology is all we need and that the rest of the human condition is any different than it's ever been.
I don't assume that. On the contrary, I'm acutely aware that the social issues are mainly responsible for the current state of affairs I was referring to.
Maybe I should point out that my little comment was by no means meant to be a balanced, well researched overview of NASA activities and US space effort in general. I was expressing my feelings in relation to this particular event.
However, I'm ready to defend my conclusion that generally speaking human space travel didn't progress significantly since Apollo. There are some good signs for the future but they are so far not on the scale that would create a meaning full change (like Scaled's SS1), though I could agree that this change may come later. But for now the things stand as I said.
have you SEEN some victorian era pron? it puts ours to shame man. [...]...the stuff they came up with and widely circulated back then...
One thing changed, though. Remembering my own childhood I have to say that getting access to porn is now way, way easier for kids than it used to be when I was one. And certainly much easier than it was in the Victorian period you are referring to. I would say that the circulation has widened a lot.
Now, I don't think there is much in terms of porn that could surprise an average truck driver, however I don't like the fact that any ten year old can get to tons of really sick images (we all know there is much more to porn these days than just naked chicks) with a few clicks of a mouse.
(OTOH rest stops along highways as probably not the best place to do something about it).
I of course watch private endeavors into space very closely, and I think I agree with you more than you think. I see private rocketeers and China's advancement into space as two most promising factors nowadays. I even go around advising younger people to get into space industry, because I think it will be hot within ten years or so.
But we are discussing here in a certain context and that is of Apollo 13's anniversary. And with focus on human space flight, which is obvious within that context I wrote my (rather personal) remarks.
And, while you are right on scientific achievements of NASA I firmly believe that in the long run nothing can substitute human space flight. And in this field we haven't moved much since 1970, have we?
All those Apollo anniversaries make me sad. 35 years is my whole life, I was born the same year Apollo 13 made its epic return to Earth. And what happened through my whole life with space exploration? Are we further than we were in 1970? All that's left from the grand dreams of the period are some old shuttles, that make news when they fly at all, a space station which we wouldn't be able to operate without Russian (paid) help and a huge, costly government agency that produces lots of nice animations, small droids and very, very little substance - and tons of SF movies. In our silver screen dreams we have already conquered whole galaxy, in reality we hardly moved.
I know it's a harsh judgment. But technologically speaking we could have been walking on Mars a decade ago, we could have been visiting Moon regularly, we could have been sending dozens of automated probes each year not just a few. Isn't that sad?
I think it is each time I have to ask myself: will I live long enough to see anything to even match, let alone outshine Apollo achievements?
Loband is a very good idea. One of the downsides of rising presence of fast net in developed nations (and amongst the elite of better off net users) is that web sites are being designed with less regard to load time and availability to all, including older browsers and equipment. Apart from users from underdeveloped nations, the ones that have hard time with this are mobile users.
And not only those who try to use web browsers on tiny screens of their phones or PDAs but also users of full-blown notebooks who happen to be in a place where GPRS or plain old phone is the only connection to the net available. While browsing over GPRS issues other than just speed of connection appear, such as paying for each byte (as opposed to time) or timeouts. I've heard many times GPRS users complaining about the design of some web pages which prevents them from using them while on the move - mostly because of overuse of graphics, Java scripts and infamous Flash animations. Loband could be a good solution, and in fact I'm going to spread the word about it in that sense.
If only it worked better not with rendering pages, but rather with connecting for example to services that use Squid farms as a means of load balancing their web servers.
And if we did, would there be any way to protect the planet?
Even if this whole theoretical construct would be true we probably can't protect an entire planet. But there is a way to protect our species and our civilization. It is to get out of Earth and spread ASAP. In more places we are the less chance of any single event wiping us out.
Like I said, I love Star Trek but until we get really, really serious advances in technology, lunar and cislunar exploration is more sensibly done with robots.
Tell me, how are we then going to get those new technologies for human space flight?
Right now IT journalists live in a symbiotic relationship with various PR types, who companies hire to project desired image of their products and themselves to the public using the media. This relationship rarely takes form of direct bribes or buying reviews, especially respectable media don't do that. It's rather that PRs meet with journalists all the time, build relationships, distribute pre-release hardware for reviews (and it's up to them who will get it first), do them some little favors etc. So if a given piece of hardware is really bad no journalist would cover that up, but some minor quirks won't be exposed or treated too harshly in the review.
PR is a neat invention. Just the idea of making it someone's responsibility and livelihood to ensure that products and company get presented in the media in a desired way and with desired frequency is brilliant. Those people are really good at it, the result is that currently technical journalism without corporate PR is hard to imagine.
I like idea of human presence on Moon and Mars, but not for price of cutting other succesful projects like Voyager.
I don't like the idea of scraping Voyager too, but if we really get to the Mars the amount of technology developed and overall advancement of space exploration would make another long distance probes more likely than not.
In other words, if we go to the Mars we may some day go beyond our system but if we don't then surely not.
Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?
on
CherryOS On Hold
·
· Score: 1
Basically it gets so much coverage because it's so unbelievable how stupid they are.
That's exactly my point. But why post news about stupid things - it was funny for the first time, but now is not even original anymore.
Logically it shouldn't be like on the Moon since Mars has an atmosphere - it even has dust storms.
But this is one more remainder that decision taken some time ago by NASA to go first to the Moon and then to Mars makes no real sense. This was discussed widely, also on/. but one of the reasons was that Moon would serve as a testing ground for solutions to be used on Mars. As this example shows Moon may require totally different habitats, suits and equipment - in some aspects even up to much higher standards than for Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh... then... when do I apply for a job there? *cough*
Hm it's also interesting how the concept of a family in the society and changes in it affect attitudes here. Since we generally don't see our families now as clans going on for centuries across generations any ROI that is likely to happen after your death is not worth much trouble. I guess people who have kids have a slightly different view, but even then, I think most people concentrate at things that will happen within the span of the life they're living now. It has also much to do with the assumption, deeply rooted in our culture, that we have only one single life.
If you sum all that up there are a lot of psychological incentives to concentrate rather on stuff that would bring fast, tangible results within one's lifespan so that he can enjoy them.
Then why do you keep on living? Remove yourself - one cell of a brain-tumor - immediately from the universe.
Now, inevitably, the betting will start... how long would he swim? 5 km pays 3:1. :-)
You'll never know, they are already too dumb to report back. :)
To keep with the story I actually don't care whether Opera's CEO sinks while trying to swim across the ocean. This is just a piece of mind-virus advertising. Although, for the sake of his life he might consider using a raft, this could be feasible especially if it would be equipped with a small sail.
The difference between the two is quite clear I think. Research is being conducted openly, with full consent of the subjects who freely and with full understanding agree for given data to be collected (or answer certain questions asked by the researchers). Spying is done in secret, without the subjects knowing data about them is being collected, without being able to review it and agree to it consciously.
And, obviously, tucking some small print into a lengthy "agreement" written in lawyer-lingo that no one reads is clearly aimed at concealing the true character of a given software from the user. While it might probably save the spyware peddlers in court a very simple test could easily show that "users" of those packages are being spied on: I bet no one of them knows that some information about him or her is collected and what that information is.
Calling spyware researchware must be a bright idea of PR-type aimed at removing negative connotations from a given product. Pathetic but will probably work on general public.
Now I'm just waiting for someone to finally find a new energy source.
Second, I really don't get it why this whole issue of "rights" (read: undue privileges) for people with messed up sexual drive is considered a serious matter worth discussing and legislating about in the US. Why should it be a matter worth commenting on Slashdot? Can someone explain it in logical terms why this is important to you, preferably without name-calling and stuff like that?
You didn't read the f**king article, did you? You just saw the trigger word "Bush" and switched into "bush-bashing mode" immediately.
There is no mention of cuts. There is only lack of promise that they will grow. And there is an appeal for greater scrutiny in managing funding, and I don't see nothing wrong with that. Scientists should also think carefully about the ways they spend public money and at least consider less costly approaches where possible. Why should they be above this?
And there is lots of criticism of ISS program and the way it is managed - and you can hardly argue with that.
I totally agree with you.
Isn't it nice that this news comes just after we again discussed here another anniversary of Apollos? And some argued viciously that, for example, we should postpone human space travel until it is completely safe.
Don't you see we are already all engaging in space travel that is not safe in the long run? Time to wake up, the clock is ticking.
I don't assume that. On the contrary, I'm acutely aware that the social issues are mainly responsible for the current state of affairs I was referring to.
Maybe I should point out that my little comment was by no means meant to be a balanced, well researched overview of NASA activities and US space effort in general. I was expressing my feelings in relation to this particular event.
However, I'm ready to defend my conclusion that generally speaking human space travel didn't progress significantly since Apollo. There are some good signs for the future but they are so far not on the scale that would create a meaning full change (like Scaled's SS1), though I could agree that this change may come later. But for now the things stand as I said.
One thing changed, though. Remembering my own childhood I have to say that getting access to porn is now way, way easier for kids than it used to be when I was one. And certainly much easier than it was in the Victorian period you are referring to. I would say that the circulation has widened a lot.
Now, I don't think there is much in terms of porn that could surprise an average truck driver, however I don't like the fact that any ten year old can get to tons of really sick images (we all know there is much more to porn these days than just naked chicks) with a few clicks of a mouse.
(OTOH rest stops along highways as probably not the best place to do something about it).
I of course watch private endeavors into space very closely, and I think I agree with you more than you think. I see private rocketeers and China's advancement into space as two most promising factors nowadays. I even go around advising younger people to get into space industry, because I think it will be hot within ten years or so.
But we are discussing here in a certain context and that is of Apollo 13's anniversary. And with focus on human space flight, which is obvious within that context I wrote my (rather personal) remarks.
And, while you are right on scientific achievements of NASA I firmly believe that in the long run nothing can substitute human space flight. And in this field we haven't moved much since 1970, have we?
All those Apollo anniversaries make me sad. 35 years is my whole life, I was born the same year Apollo 13 made its epic return to Earth. And what happened through my whole life with space exploration? Are we further than we were in 1970? All that's left from the grand dreams of the period are some old shuttles, that make news when they fly at all, a space station which we wouldn't be able to operate without Russian (paid) help and a huge, costly government agency that produces lots of nice animations, small droids and very, very little substance - and tons of SF movies. In our silver screen dreams we have already conquered whole galaxy, in reality we hardly moved.
I know it's a harsh judgment. But technologically speaking we could have been walking on Mars a decade ago, we could have been visiting Moon regularly, we could have been sending dozens of automated probes each year not just a few. Isn't that sad?
I think it is each time I have to ask myself: will I live long enough to see anything to even match, let alone outshine Apollo achievements?
You think it was all "peaceful scientific exploration"? Wanna see a list of weaponry that was developed in those days?
And I'm not kidding. I really prefer to use two hands rather than put additional strain on my thumbs.
Loband is a very good idea. One of the downsides of rising presence of fast net in developed nations (and amongst the elite of better off net users) is that web sites are being designed with less regard to load time and availability to all, including older browsers and equipment. Apart from users from underdeveloped nations, the ones that have hard time with this are mobile users.
And not only those who try to use web browsers on tiny screens of their phones or PDAs but also users of full-blown notebooks who happen to be in a place where GPRS or plain old phone is the only connection to the net available. While browsing over GPRS issues other than just speed of connection appear, such as paying for each byte (as opposed to time) or timeouts. I've heard many times GPRS users complaining about the design of some web pages which prevents them from using them while on the move - mostly because of overuse of graphics, Java scripts and infamous Flash animations. Loband could be a good solution, and in fact I'm going to spread the word about it in that sense.
If only it worked better not with rendering pages, but rather with connecting for example to services that use Squid farms as a means of load balancing their web servers.
Even if this whole theoretical construct would be true we probably can't protect an entire planet. But there is a way to protect our species and our civilization. It is to get out of Earth and spread ASAP. In more places we are the less chance of any single event wiping us out.
Tell me, how are we then going to get those new technologies for human space flight?
PR is a neat invention. Just the idea of making it someone's responsibility and livelihood to ensure that products and company get presented in the media in a desired way and with desired frequency is brilliant. Those people are really good at it, the result is that currently technical journalism without corporate PR is hard to imagine.
He could take possession of them by law. He just won't be able to take his possession for some time.
I don't like the idea of scraping Voyager too, but if we really get to the Mars the amount of technology developed and overall advancement of space exploration would make another long distance probes more likely than not.
In other words, if we go to the Mars we may some day go beyond our system but if we don't then surely not.
That's exactly my point. But why post news about stupid things - it was funny for the first time, but now is not even original anymore.
Logically it shouldn't be like on the Moon since Mars has an atmosphere - it even has dust storms.
But this is one more remainder that decision taken some time ago by NASA to go first to the Moon and then to Mars makes no real sense. This was discussed widely, also on /. but one of the reasons was that Moon would serve as a testing ground for solutions to be used on Mars. As this example shows Moon may require totally different habitats, suits and equipment - in some aspects even up to much higher standards than for Mars.