Personally, I think Mars offers way more than the moon- but if we go back to the moon it would be a good thing (it just wouldn't necessarily help us much if the end goal were Mars).
Also, fully understand the concept that going to mars, at least initially- probably means you're there for the long haul. It would take a special person to sign up for such a trip- but I have no doubt NASA would get no shortage of qualified volunteers. Certainly- understanding from a medical standpoint what that means- and that certain treatments would not be available would be part of the mindset going to Mars.
In reality- it would be more than two days to the moon. To mobilise everything and be prepared for a launch would probably take more time than that. But certainly- any astronaut sent to the moon would most likely one day return. Going to mars would probably mean you stay there- probably mean a shortened life expectancy.
I still think mars offers more- but to the early pioneers they would be giving up so much more for the sake of progress- and for those that followed.
Mars has 37% the gravity of earth- this may be enough to prevent these problems. As for the 6 month trip- cosmonauts have spent over a year in space before without going blind so your comment:
Imagine a missions to Mars that takes six months just one way? These astronauts would be blind under our current understanding of how space travel affects sight by the time that they came back.
Is... an exaggeration. They may have limited vision damage- yes. As well as other medical conditions both known and unknown.
Mars has the natural resources to be self-sustaining- the moon would always need regular supplies from earth. Mars has over a third the surface gravity of earth - this is pretty significant compared to the moon. It means getting to the surface requires different techniques. The fact that Mars HAS an atmosphere is significant. Mars has WATER. There is more commercially available that would be usefull on Mars than the moon.
Mars and the moon are very different and require different approaches to get there. Going to the moon doesn't really help the different challenges going to mars- and indeed has different challenges.
The fact that Mars could be self-sustaining, provide exports to earth (one day), has not been explored by man yet (and unliket the moon would require a base) - it is waaaaay more geologically interesting that the moon.
The moon would be an expensive and not very usefull side show. Go straight to Mars!!!!!
One way I've read several times to cut the cost of a human Mars mission is to make it a one-way mission.
Take away the expectation of returning- you save a bunch of costs associated with returning. Naturally- not everyone would want a one-way ticket to mars but there are lots of people who would.
Naturally, the technicality is you have to find some way to make them able to live there long term. Mars has lots of natural resources and tecnically could be self-supporting- but this could be complicated.
Those first people who go would have the mission of making the planet ready for the next wave of scientists. I think we should set our sites on a one way mission rather than bite off more than we can chew with our first mission to mars.
If that strategy backfires it would be illegal to pray to Cthulhu before the year is out.
Pope Santorum of the newly established Church of America would outlaw all false gods- and any believe other than anything identical to what he believes.
The scary thing is- under Santorums view of the government- the current foremost official on American religion is Obama. Think about it- if there is no seperation of church and state- Obama is currently the head executive official for American religion- technically the prez doesn't write laws- but he gets to sign laws based on his own personal religious view.
What do people think of that?
The people who should be most afraid of the wearing down on seperation of church and state should be the religious.
Perhaps they should all vote and "write-in" Obama. If all democrats voted- and voted for Obama- he would beat the split votes the republicans gave Santorum/Romney/Newt.
As an independent - I would LOL if Obama won the Republican primary in Michigan. (I'm not a big fan of Obama or any of the existing Republican candidates).
I doubt Santorum could find the Netherlands on the map. I doubt he could find Europe on a map.
Partially because his maps all depict a flat earth with "here be dragons" written on either side of the United States. The bible doesn't authorize a globe- so the earth must be flat.
Personally I think they should do away with "special rights" of parties, etc.
There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties. There is nothing about our brand of democracy that benefits from having parties. George Washington actually called them a bad idea and thought the US should stay away from them.
The government by including party affiliation on ballots- and helping organise- and give public spaces to primaries are interfering with fair elections- it gives an unfair advantage to the two largest parties and does not give a level playing field.
Being a two-party system the majority of the population are pressured into voting for one of two ideologies. "an independant or a third-party can't win" is a common belief... certainly it is made harder by states allowing people to vote "straight-party ticket". This makes it harder for independants or third parties to be elected.
Yeah usually moths are said to be nocturnal, have clubbed antennae and dull colours. I couldn't remember the exceptions to the rules- but wikipedia comes to the rescue:
Regarding frogs- and toads- no I don't remember the specifics- although I do recall reading that there is no rule which was 100% unviolate between them that says this is a frog and this is a toad. Toads technically are a subset of frogs.
Most frogs don't actually live in water- although they do prefer damp or humid conditions.
I wonder if the devil from the South Pole can cross-breed with the one that will be discovered by the Russians at lake Vladivostokilokkilakkiooohahhh (or whatever it is called).
There are polar bears in the Southern hemisphere and penguins in the northern hemisphere.
True, they're all in zoos... but they exist. Maybe there are polar bears in the South Pole national zoo. I wonder how long till penguins became extinct if someone released a breeding pair of polar bears in antartica.
41 Megapixels - wow, that will take up an entire 2008 SD card per photo.
Does it actually have a good enough lense to use all 41 Megapixels- or is this a case of the megapixels being greater than it can really accurately capture?
I know megapixel is often not a good indicator of the actual photo quality.
The difference is like the difference between butterflies and moths; frogs and toads. Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference- sometimes it isn't- and sometimes the common name "shrimp" or "prawn" for a species is technically incorrect.
Frequently people call larger species "prawn" and smaller species "shrimp". This isn't always true.
Also, shape of gills is sometimes used- but this isn't always accurate. Sometimes which leg has the dominant pinchers is used- again this isn't always accurate.
The only truly accurate way to determine if a species is shrimp or prawn is to look at it's DNA. They are both decapods, (like lobster, crayfish, etc), but they diverged a way back.
You might like "Meet the Feebles" then. It is a New Zealand made parody based on a very disfunctional muppet-like group.
Your above comment sounds like a story-line from something in Meet the Feebles.
Incidentally- the producer was... ahem... Peter Jackson, the guy behind the Lord Of The Rings film adaptations, The Hobbit, King Kong, The Frighteners, etc. Before he became famous he had some really strange, bizarre and humorous productions. "Dead Alive" is one of my all-time favourite movies.
I want a larger Kindle Fire: One with a 25" screen, detachable CPU tower, Keyboard, mouse, etc. Oh and it must run Windows so I can code on it. If it helps save money they can do away with the touchscreen aspect- I don't need that.
If they can manage all that then yes- I want a Kindle Fire.
Ultimately- they did try changing to digital- and as pointed out above, they pioneered digital. That's not why they failed- they failed because they produced a low quality product. Their name soon became synonymous with sub-quality cameras. They could no longer fall back on the reputation with film- because it was a completely different product.
Many people who don't have kids- or arn't recently out of college will more than likely not have Game Consoles (some will- probably most slashdotters- but general population at large won't)- even those that do have kids- the Game Consoles will probably be in the kids room. Blu-Rays, Smart TVs and DVRs will all eat out of the market- but again; a lot of people already have those devices so won't be buying them new just to get online media.
Definately there are alternatives shared-purpose devices that will do some of the things these media players will do; however, they don't do it all, or as well.
I think media players like these have a limited life- in 5 or 6 years, they will be phased out (unless they can find new niches to incorporate) as TVs and BluRays steal the show. Right now though- for many in the world a standalone media player is still a good idea.
I think the kind of people who actually pay the slightest bit of attention to the oscars arn't *usually* Sci-Fi people to begin with.
(yes I know there are probably exceptions) I know I personally have never sat down to watch the oscars. I've never even cared enough to see who wins what after they're over. Often times if it is on the news I hear who won- but it's not information I actively seek. I really don't care.
Those that explore social issues; (Gattaca was excellent. I like Well's work too- even though his books that were made into films were dumbed down on the social-issue side).
There are those that try to predict the future- or use hard science facts to tell stories.
Then there are the silly "Made For SyFy channel" features and their ilk. The ones that don't use science, don't really tell a social story; they're just dumb entertainment. Sometimes fun- but often just campy. They're the equivalent of romance stories for men. Same plot lines told over and over again cranked out on an assembly line by uninventive authors.
Honestly- although there can be entertainment in all three- I prefer the ones that make you think. The ones that speak out about today. I don't care if the science-or the facts or off...make me think once in a while.
I've wondered if Raspberry Pi would be good for this or not- and had considered getting one for that exact purpose. Obviously no one has experience with R Pis as HTPCs yet- but does anyone with experience of HTPCs think the Pi would be good enough for that?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the "DO IT" statement.
Personally, I think Mars offers way more than the moon- but if we go back to the moon it would be a good thing (it just wouldn't necessarily help us much if the end goal were Mars).
Also, fully understand the concept that going to mars, at least initially- probably means you're there for the long haul. It would take a special person to sign up for such a trip- but I have no doubt NASA would get no shortage of qualified volunteers. Certainly- understanding from a medical standpoint what that means- and that certain treatments would not be available would be part of the mindset going to Mars.
In reality- it would be more than two days to the moon. To mobilise everything and be prepared for a launch would probably take more time than that. But certainly- any astronaut sent to the moon would most likely one day return. Going to mars would probably mean you stay there- probably mean a shortened life expectancy.
I still think mars offers more- but to the early pioneers they would be giving up so much more for the sake of progress- and for those that followed.
Mars has 37% the gravity of earth- this may be enough to prevent these problems. As for the 6 month trip- cosmonauts have spent over a year in space before without going blind so your comment:
Imagine a missions to Mars that takes six months just one way? These astronauts would be blind under our current understanding of how space travel affects sight by the time that they came back.
Is... an exaggeration. They may have limited vision damage- yes. As well as other medical conditions both known and unknown.
Oh- and a permenent moonbase would cost more because it would require frequent supply trips. Marsbase wouldn't necessarily.
I completely disagree.
Mars has the natural resources to be self-sustaining- the moon would always need regular supplies from earth. Mars has over a third the surface gravity of earth - this is pretty significant compared to the moon. It means getting to the surface requires different techniques. The fact that Mars HAS an atmosphere is significant. Mars has WATER. There is more commercially available that would be usefull on Mars than the moon.
Mars and the moon are very different and require different approaches to get there. Going to the moon doesn't really help the different challenges going to mars- and indeed has different challenges.
The fact that Mars could be self-sustaining, provide exports to earth (one day), has not been explored by man yet (and unliket the moon would require a base) - it is waaaaay more geologically interesting that the moon.
The moon would be an expensive and not very usefull side show. Go straight to Mars!!!!!
One way I've read several times to cut the cost of a human Mars mission is to make it a one-way mission.
Take away the expectation of returning- you save a bunch of costs associated with returning. Naturally- not everyone would want a one-way ticket to mars but there are lots of people who would.
Naturally, the technicality is you have to find some way to make them able to live there long term. Mars has lots of natural resources and tecnically could be self-supporting- but this could be complicated.
Those first people who go would have the mission of making the planet ready for the next wave of scientists. I think we should set our sites on a one way mission rather than bite off more than we can chew with our first mission to mars.
If that strategy backfires it would be illegal to pray to Cthulhu before the year is out.
Pope Santorum of the newly established Church of America would outlaw all false gods- and any believe other than anything identical to what he believes.
The scary thing is- under Santorums view of the government- the current foremost official on American religion is Obama. Think about it- if there is no seperation of church and state- Obama is currently the head executive official for American religion- technically the prez doesn't write laws- but he gets to sign laws based on his own personal religious view.
What do people think of that?
The people who should be most afraid of the wearing down on seperation of church and state should be the religious.
I stopped taking sleeping pills because they had an unintended side affect for me. They kept me awake.
Caffeine has no affect on me- but taking a sleeping pill keeps me awake all night. I have some odd body chemistry no doubt.
Perhaps they should all vote and "write-in" Obama. If all democrats voted- and voted for Obama- he would beat the split votes the republicans gave Santorum/Romney/Newt.
As an independent - I would LOL if Obama won the Republican primary in Michigan. (I'm not a big fan of Obama or any of the existing Republican candidates).
I doubt Santorum could find the Netherlands on the map. I doubt he could find Europe on a map.
Partially because his maps all depict a flat earth with "here be dragons" written on either side of the United States. The bible doesn't authorize a globe- so the earth must be flat.
Personally I think they should do away with "special rights" of parties, etc.
There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties. There is nothing about our brand of democracy that benefits from having parties. George Washington actually called them a bad idea and thought the US should stay away from them.
The government by including party affiliation on ballots- and helping organise- and give public spaces to primaries are interfering with fair elections- it gives an unfair advantage to the two largest parties and does not give a level playing field.
Being a two-party system the majority of the population are pressured into voting for one of two ideologies. "an independant or a third-party can't win" is a common belief... certainly it is made harder by states allowing people to vote "straight-party ticket". This makes it harder for independants or third parties to be elected.
My roomba got a robo call once telling him to vote skynet.
Because there arn't enough ways yet...
It's even on the Roku for cheeses sake! What next- underware equipped with the ability to play angry birds?!?!?!
Yeah usually moths are said to be nocturnal, have clubbed antennae and dull colours. I couldn't remember the exceptions to the rules- but wikipedia comes to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_butterflies_and_moths
Explains exceptions to all the rules.
Regarding frogs- and toads- no I don't remember the specifics- although I do recall reading that there is no rule which was 100% unviolate between them that says this is a frog and this is a toad. Toads technically are a subset of frogs.
Most frogs don't actually live in water- although they do prefer damp or humid conditions.
I wonder if the devil from the South Pole can cross-breed with the one that will be discovered by the Russians at lake Vladivostokilokkilakkiooohahhh (or whatever it is called).
There are polar bears in the Southern hemisphere and penguins in the northern hemisphere.
True, they're all in zoos... but they exist. Maybe there are polar bears in the South Pole national zoo. I wonder how long till penguins became extinct if someone released a breeding pair of polar bears in antartica.
Yes, but stick with the Chinese flatworms- the Russian ones all have viruses.
41 Megapixels - wow, that will take up an entire 2008 SD card per photo.
Does it actually have a good enough lense to use all 41 Megapixels- or is this a case of the megapixels being greater than it can really accurately capture?
I know megapixel is often not a good indicator of the actual photo quality.
Kinda... and kinda not.
The difference is like the difference between butterflies and moths; frogs and toads. Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference- sometimes it isn't- and sometimes the common name "shrimp" or "prawn" for a species is technically incorrect.
Frequently people call larger species "prawn" and smaller species "shrimp". This isn't always true.
Also, shape of gills is sometimes used- but this isn't always accurate. Sometimes which leg has the dominant pinchers is used- again this isn't always accurate.
The only truly accurate way to determine if a species is shrimp or prawn is to look at it's DNA. They are both decapods, (like lobster, crayfish, etc), but they diverged a way back.
You might like "Meet the Feebles" then. It is a New Zealand made parody based on a very disfunctional muppet-like group.
Your above comment sounds like a story-line from something in Meet the Feebles.
Incidentally- the producer was... ahem... Peter Jackson, the guy behind the Lord Of The Rings film adaptations, The Hobbit, King Kong, The Frighteners, etc. Before he became famous he had some really strange, bizarre and humorous productions. "Dead Alive" is one of my all-time favourite movies.
I want a larger Kindle Fire:
One with a 25" screen, detachable CPU tower, Keyboard, mouse, etc. Oh and it must run Windows so I can code on it.
If it helps save money they can do away with the touchscreen aspect- I don't need that.
If they can manage all that then yes- I want a Kindle Fire.
Ultimately- they did try changing to digital- and as pointed out above, they pioneered digital. That's not why they failed- they failed because they produced a low quality product. Their name soon became synonymous with sub-quality cameras. They could no longer fall back on the reputation with film- because it was a completely different product.
Many people who don't have kids- or arn't recently out of college will more than likely not have Game Consoles (some will- probably most slashdotters- but general population at large won't)- even those that do have kids- the Game Consoles will probably be in the kids room. Blu-Rays, Smart TVs and DVRs will all eat out of the market- but again; a lot of people already have those devices so won't be buying them new just to get online media.
Definately there are alternatives shared-purpose devices that will do some of the things these media players will do; however, they don't do it all, or as well.
I think media players like these have a limited life- in 5 or 6 years, they will be phased out (unless they can find new niches to incorporate) as TVs and BluRays steal the show. Right now though- for many in the world a standalone media player is still a good idea.
Very good point.
I think the kind of people who actually pay the slightest bit of attention to the oscars arn't *usually* Sci-Fi people to begin with.
(yes I know there are probably exceptions) I know I personally have never sat down to watch the oscars. I've never even cared enough to see who wins what after they're over. Often times if it is on the news I hear who won- but it's not information I actively seek. I really don't care.
Well- there are three types of sci-fi.
Those that explore social issues; (Gattaca was excellent. I like Well's work too- even though his books that were made into films were dumbed down on the social-issue side).
There are those that try to predict the future- or use hard science facts to tell stories.
Then there are the silly "Made For SyFy channel" features and their ilk. The ones that don't use science, don't really tell a social story; they're just dumb entertainment. Sometimes fun- but often just campy. They're the equivalent of romance stories for men. Same plot lines told over and over again cranked out on an assembly line by uninventive authors.
Honestly- although there can be entertainment in all three- I prefer the ones that make you think. The ones that speak out about today. I don't care if the science-or the facts or off...make me think once in a while.
I've wondered if Raspberry Pi would be good for this or not- and had considered getting one for that exact purpose. Obviously no one has experience with R Pis as HTPCs yet- but does anyone with experience of HTPCs think the Pi would be good enough for that?