Re:'Because We Can' good enough reason?
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for that wonderful insight, name calling is ever so productive.
FYI, I never stated this wouldn't work or shouldn't be built...my intent was to get people to think a bit more...something you're obviously incapable of.
Wow, where'd you pull that from? Angry white guy is right.
It was just a bad joke, you might actually understand it too if you read the grandparent post that I replied to...I just can't figure out though how you thought I was arguing with you or where I even suggested those things you are refuting...actually if anything my post shows that I agree with your point of view.
Very interesting idea...though that would seem to contradict some of the other ideas about the elevator careening safely off into space should the cable ever be severed. I thought the platform itself was essential as an anchor, but I may be wrong.
Re:'Because We Can' good enough reason?
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 1
I absolutely did not close any debate, I stated a fact, millions were killed by dropping the 2 bombs on Japan.
It was, and still is, debatable at the time the bombs were dropped whether Japan was about to conceed defeat anyways: Thus there may have been no need for ground invasion OR the bombs. All sides are debatable...but the facts cannot be changed. The point here is to learn from mistakes made in the past...and try to see the mistakes we may make in the future before we do.
Lets say that that is a possible scenario. Now the question is, is that acceptable?
Obviously, you believe it is. I'd have to disagree though. Just because you want an elevator to space, it's ok to risk every living thing around the equator? (Assuming that's the only possible fall line)
It's one thing to build sky-scrapers...we're not really displacing anything or putting anything at risk that can't get out of harms way...but an entire ring around the planet?
Maybe the asteroid would have originally burned up upon entering the atmosphere? Or maybe it would never have even hit earth, but just happened to hit the elevator enough to knock it out of it's orbit?
What if what if...
Re:'Because We Can' good enough reason?
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 1
No need to be a child about responding, that was the point of my post...getting people to think from all angles.
Now, you have only managed to spout off the most obvious benefit to this project which I assure you, I do understand. How about you take some of that energy you're wasting on attitude and spend it on looking at things from another angle?
BTW, your concern for the imminent explosion of our sun just proves your a child that lives way too much in the Sci-Fi they read. We have MUCH bigger concerns right here and now, and I tell you, If I could up and fly off to another planet right now, I'd be first in line in hopes I could leave before we blow this place up.
Ah, interesting if that is the case. I'm really just trying to point out the researchers rather obvious and simple write off of a quite complex problem: It won't crash cause the earth's rotational inertia will throw it into space.
Sure, in a simple case like if you cut the cord.
What if a big enough asteroid or piece of space junk plowed into it, driving it lower into it's orbit or even into the atmosphere? It's not on it's way to mars now is it?
I know, they have all sorts of answers to problems like this, but they all seem to be rather, well, hodge-podge and all seem to beg for more what-if's. Don't mind me, just playing devil's advocate.
Re:'Because We Can' good enough reason?
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 1
I have actually read a lot about this, it's called playing devils advocate in an attempt to get people to not just look at the wow factor and jump all over a project like this, but to try to be realistic, and weigh ALL factors involved.
Sure, they have done a very good job of explaining away the disaster scenarios that they have come up with, BUT, this cannot solve all possible problems and would be terrible to assume that they can do so. Why? Because, nothing like this has EVER been done before. We only really learn from our mistakes, and why? Because until we make mistakes, we usually fail to see them for mistakes.
It's just food for thought man, open up a bit. I do think the idea is way cool, I just want to make sure that that is enough to warrant building it.
Was the Atomic Bomb worth building? Debatable yes but millions of deaths would have been avoided if it hadn't been.
Ah, so that's why the moon's been getting farther and farther away...oh wait, it's not. Either I'm missing something or they are, but something just doesn't mesh with this idea.
Yeah, but we can't even keep drilling platforms stable enough to survive violent storms...fat chance in hell I say.
Also, the first one would deffinately be over water...but say the first few work just fine for the first little while, and we get lax and 20 years from now every major urban centre has one...and shit happens...
Don't want to be there.
'Because We Can' good enough reason?
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I totally believe that Space Elevators are feasible in the near term. However, my concern is with whether we should. Is there a compelling enough reason that outweighs the risks involved to actually go and build one of these?
What risks you may ask? Well, sure, shuttles are quite expensive to launch and are not flawless by any means. But what was lost recently? 7 lives, a bit of research and a relatively moderate chunk of change.
Ever thought about the effect of a disaster with one of these elevators? Use your imagination. Now remember that you have to use your imagination to even allow the concept of these being built so you can't just write off the possible effects of a catastrophe just because it's unlikely or far fetched...the whole idea is so if the idea becomes reality, well, likely so do many of the possible disasters that could come along with it.
Ever heard of the plan to build a dam across the mouth of James Bay, separating it from Hudson's bay? It was fully engineered and can be done...thank GOD nobody with more cash than sense has decided to back this idea. Neato factor just doesn't cut it for me, I need real reasons that outweight the risks.
If you are a student, you have no real _need_ of the enterprise architect version. Sure, it might be nice to poke around and play with BUT, that's not what you should be learning in school. VS.NET is just a tool and nothing more, the only reason you need it at all is as an environment to implement the coding techniques you are being taught. (If you're being taught VS.NET explicitly rather than a language, or even better, general programming paradigms(sp?) and methods, you may want to rethink where you are going to school;-)
Besides, with the release of.NET, MS has actually made it so that you have absolutely NO need of VS.net, since by downloading the sdk, you can write code in notepad and compile etc from the tools provided for _free_.
VS.NET is a convenience tool and nothing more, and as such MS does deserve to be paid for it without a doubt. Go compare other professional IDE's at the street price, you'll realize that even then VS.NET is a great deal. You should be happy as a student that there IS a cheaper version provided for something that is just a tool.
Good point, amazing how soon we forget. I was some ticked at 3dfx back in the day for forcing glide upon us and diluting the market at the time just because they had clout. (Fat lot of good it did them). But I had never really correlated that with MS's decision to create Direct3D, again, good point!
Who are you arguing with? My post had nothing to do with the validity of google patenting their technology, so there is really no point in arguing with me on this. Not sure why you've got your panties all in a bundle over my post. I'm certain you could have found a better place for this rant.
Heh, same here. My wife hates playing games on the PC, but has always loved consoles. She bought me a PS2 for christmas with ViceCity and it has become quite apparent that there was an alterior motive involved;-)
Most of the people you're talking about though still live at home in the basement. It's quite easy to preach 'free as in beer' when you can't afford it.
Kick them out into the real world, make them pay bills to survive, they'll have to get a real job and their view will change drastically and inevitably.
If they really want everything free they should move to Russia or Singapore, just don't bitch about the quality of life that goes along with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for that wonderful insight, name calling is ever so productive.
FYI, I never stated this wouldn't work or shouldn't be built...my intent was to get people to think a bit more...something you're obviously incapable of.
Wow, where'd you pull that from?
Angry white guy is right.
It was just a bad joke, you might actually understand it too if you read the grandparent post that I replied to...I just can't figure out though how you thought I was arguing with you or where I even suggested those things you are refuting...actually if anything my post shows that I agree with your point of view.
Wow, that's smart.
Setting themselves up for a HUGE lawsuit should this kind of thing happen there.
No your honour, as you can clearly see these 2 numbers are not the same...well, barely and only if you know to add a zero...
And is it running on the same hardware?
;-)
And is it the same time of day?
And do you take one lump or two?
Bad joke, move along, nothing to see here
Very interesting idea...though that would seem to contradict some of the other ideas about the elevator careening safely off into space should the cable ever be severed. I thought the platform itself was essential as an anchor, but I may be wrong.
I absolutely did not close any debate, I stated a fact, millions were killed by dropping the 2 bombs on Japan.
It was, and still is, debatable at the time the bombs were dropped whether Japan was about to conceed defeat anyways: Thus there may have been no need for ground invasion OR the bombs. All sides are debatable...but the facts cannot be changed.
The point here is to learn from mistakes made in the past...and try to see the mistakes we may make in the future before we do.
Lets say that that is a possible scenario.
Now the question is, is that acceptable?
Obviously, you believe it is.
I'd have to disagree though. Just because you want an elevator to space, it's ok to risk every living thing around the equator? (Assuming that's the only possible fall line)
It's one thing to build sky-scrapers...we're not really displacing anything or putting anything at risk that can't get out of harms way...but an entire ring around the planet?
What is too much risk?
Maybe the asteroid would have originally burned up upon entering the atmosphere? Or maybe it would never have even hit earth, but just happened to hit the elevator enough to knock it out of it's orbit?
What if what if...
No need to be a child about responding, that was the point of my post...getting people to think from all angles.
Now, you have only managed to spout off the most obvious benefit to this project which I assure you, I do understand. How about you take some of that energy you're wasting on attitude and spend it on looking at things from another angle?
BTW, your concern for the imminent explosion of our sun just proves your a child that lives way too much in the Sci-Fi they read. We have MUCH bigger concerns right here and now, and I tell you, If I could up and fly off to another planet right now, I'd be first in line in hopes I could leave before we blow this place up.
Ah, interesting if that is the case.
I'm really just trying to point out the researchers rather obvious and simple write off of a quite complex problem: It won't crash cause the earth's rotational inertia will throw it into space.
Sure, in a simple case like if you cut the cord.
What if a big enough asteroid or piece of space junk plowed into it, driving it lower into it's orbit or even into the atmosphere?
It's not on it's way to mars now is it?
I know, they have all sorts of answers to problems like this, but they all seem to be rather, well, hodge-podge and all seem to beg for more what-if's. Don't mind me, just playing devil's advocate.
I have actually read a lot about this, it's called playing devils advocate in an attempt to get people to not just look at the wow factor and jump all over a project like this, but to try to be realistic, and weigh ALL factors involved.
Sure, they have done a very good job of explaining away the disaster scenarios that they have come up with, BUT, this cannot solve all possible problems and would be terrible to assume that they can do so. Why? Because, nothing like this has EVER been done before. We only really learn from our mistakes, and why? Because until we make mistakes, we usually fail to see them for mistakes.
It's just food for thought man, open up a bit.
I do think the idea is way cool, I just want to make sure that that is enough to warrant building it.
Was the Atomic Bomb worth building? Debatable yes but millions of deaths would have been avoided if it hadn't been.
And yet I still don't (and won't) live anywhere near any of those...I wonder why?
Ah, so that's why the moon's been getting farther and farther away...oh wait, it's not.
Either I'm missing something or they are, but something just doesn't mesh with this idea.
Yeah, but we can't even keep drilling platforms stable enough to survive violent storms...fat chance in hell I say.
Also, the first one would deffinately be over water...but say the first few work just fine for the first little while, and we get lax and 20 years from now every major urban centre has one...and shit happens...
Don't want to be there.
I totally believe that Space Elevators are feasible in the near term. However, my concern is with whether we should. Is there a compelling enough reason that outweighs the risks involved to actually go and build one of these?
What risks you may ask?
Well, sure, shuttles are quite expensive to launch and are not flawless by any means. But what was lost recently? 7 lives, a bit of research and a relatively moderate chunk of change.
Ever thought about the effect of a disaster with one of these elevators? Use your imagination. Now remember that you have to use your imagination to even allow the concept of these being built so you can't just write off the possible effects of a catastrophe just because it's unlikely or far fetched...the whole idea is so if the idea becomes reality, well, likely so do many of the possible disasters that could come along with it.
Ever heard of the plan to build a dam across the mouth of James Bay, separating it from Hudson's bay? It was fully engineered and can be done...thank GOD nobody with more cash than sense has decided to back this idea.
Neato factor just doesn't cut it for me, I need real reasons that outweight the risks.
Didja read the parent I was responding to?
Nah, didn't think so.
Which printers have a label stating "Buy me because you can buy knock-off ink for cheaper than our own!"?
That's f***ing funny! LMAO!
Oh for some mod points.
Subject says it all.
If you are a student, you have no real _need_ of the enterprise architect version. Sure, it might be nice to poke around and play with BUT, that's not what you should be learning in school. VS.NET is just a tool and nothing more, the only reason you need it at all is as an environment to implement the coding techniques you are being taught. (If you're being taught VS.NET explicitly rather than a language, or even better, general programming paradigms(sp?) and methods, you may want to rethink where you are going to school;-)
.NET, MS has actually made it so that you have absolutely NO need of VS.net, since by downloading the sdk, you can write code in notepad and compile etc from the tools provided for _free_.
Besides, with the release of
VS.NET is a convenience tool and nothing more, and as such MS does deserve to be paid for it without a doubt. Go compare other professional IDE's at the street price, you'll realize that even then VS.NET is a great deal. You should be happy as a student that there IS a cheaper version provided for something that is just a tool.
Good point, amazing how soon we forget.
I was some ticked at 3dfx back in the day for forcing glide upon us and diluting the market at the time just because they had clout. (Fat lot of good it did them).
But I had never really correlated that with MS's decision to create Direct3D, again, good point!
"Sounds an awful lot to me like...", "...implied..."
You assume way too much.
My point was about patents _in general_, as was the post I was replying to.
As for the other branch I posted under, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this branch, so why you'd bring that up I don't know.
Me thinks you may be the Troll though so with that said, I shall feed you no more.
Who are you arguing with?
My post had nothing to do with the validity of google patenting their technology, so there is really no point in arguing with me on this. Not sure why you've got your panties all in a bundle over my post.
I'm certain you could have found a better place for this rant.
Heh, same here. My wife hates playing games on the PC, but has always loved consoles. She bought me a PS2 for christmas with ViceCity and it has become quite apparent that there was an alterior motive involved ;-)
Most of the people you're talking about though still live at home in the basement. It's quite easy to preach 'free as in beer' when you can't afford it.
Kick them out into the real world, make them pay bills to survive, they'll have to get a real job and their view will change drastically and inevitably.
If they really want everything free they should move to Russia or Singapore, just don't bitch about the quality of life that goes along with it.