The definition of pound force depends on the factor 9.8... m/s2 which never changes, also called gravity. In the extremely-improvable case that the acceleration of gravity will be redefined to 9.9, the definition of pound-force would also have to be modified accordingly. Apparently, you misinterpreted "gravity" as "actual acceleration being considered to calculate lbf from lb"; or as lbf being different in a place outside Earth (what wasn't implied in the AC's comment).
I do use Wikipedia quite often and it is certainly a quite good source of information, mainly to get a general picture about more or less generic issues. On the other hand, its reliability isn't that good when dealing with somehow more specialised facts (usually, even worse in some non-English versions).
When I was developing the aforementioned unit-parsing library (see my comment above, the one containing basically the same information than yours), I made relevant research and cross-validation efforts to find all the conversion factors. Although Wikipedia was definitively quite helpful on this front, I did find a relevant number of errors and/or incomplete references about units of measurement there.
Wikipedia does seem an excellent source for more or less complex concepts (e.g., force/mass or lb/lbf), but it isn't that reliable when dealing with specific facts like the conversion factors you are linking. On the other hand and although I did pay special attention to these hardcoding aspects, my library is logically no absolute reference either (too new, too unclear my exact knowledge/implication, etc.). I think that official/governmental/well-stablished/expert/university references are much more recommendable for these situations, by bearing in mind that they might also be wrong (I did find errors almost everywhere while performing the aforementioned research).
Unfortunately, you are right. But there are still levels in the tech/marketing distribution and this one seems to consist almost exclusively in marketing.
A simplistic chatbot from old emails = rebuilt him using artificial intelligence?! And the linked page is even worse! There isn't a single word about the algorithm or how it is supposed to work, just pictures and text about this guy, about why she decided to build it and similar abstract ideas completely unrelated to programming or data analysis!
From a technical (programming, data analysis, mathematical, etc.) perspective, this article is plainly useless. It seems a very simple implementation working under highly restricted conditions; something neither complex nor innovative. There is a tremendous difference between calling something AI (really easy, mainly lately and for some people) and having a good-enough AI algorithm (really difficult or plainly impossible, depending upon your exact expectations).
This is a non-technical article/development from and for non-technical people. A marketing-based development?
If it wasn't a joke it would have been an aggressive reaction, a perfect sample to support my point (similar attitudes being completely serious do happen). Sorry if I bothered you.
Your comment makes lots of sense because the OP was clearly complaining about gender-based bias (sarcasm).
I guess that you are joking, but your post shows another side of this whole problem: random attacks. Talking about A and getting an aggressive reaction blindly defending B. I have even seen quite a few cases very similar to this specific situation, with a self-invited aggressive reaction coming from nowhere.
I have always been pro-equality on each single front, but there are many pro-equality/empty-PC attitudes which don't represent me. Internet seems to be an excellent channel for fanatics to defend anything as they have always done (unreasonably, aggressively, by trying to force others and as part of blindly-supporting groups). Social justice issues seem to be quite attractive to them; these ideas are popular and, theoretically, easily enforceable.
If you are making a South Park reference, I don't get it. Otherwise, what?! Well, if you are a nice single woman around my age, not completely crazy, currently located near my town and who has always dreamt about meeting a guy exactly like me, I might consider accepting your invitation:)
After re-reading your original post, I do find it kind of confusing. Firstly, you say "We have had the technology to send people to Mars" and then "Sending living people to Mars and have them go on living is more of a challenge". Call me radical if you wish, but I think that we should only worry about sending people who are alive and making sure that they remain alive for as long as possible (ideally, until the end of the trip). LOL.
Anyway, I guess that our ideas are already completely clear (difficult but possible within the medium term vs. virtually impossible within the next quite a few years) and there is no need to continue.
As said, your "technology to send people to Mars" implies many non-existing-yet things on top of propulsion. To not mention that living there (at least, during some months) is also part of the minimum requirements of a trip to Mars. We certainly don't have the technology to send humans anywhere in the space, other than during a few days and to the ISS.
Firstly, I want to highlight that your "I think you mean" was brilliant. So perfect 4 words! You are an inspiration for me and for the rest of the world; not just about English usage, but in general! We need more people like you! You are a solver, a getting-it-done person, a genius, the 4-word answer to any problem... You are the one! LOL.
Note that my post isn't completely incorrect because "critic" is an archaic form of "critique". I might even say that my reference was a proof of knowledge rather than of ignorance (nah! It was certainly ignorance:)).
Thanks for helping me improve my English. In fact, I do things on these lines quite often: using the version which is more similar to Spanish, my mother tongue, without giving too much thought to it (even despite the huge number of so-called "false friends"). I did make a mistake (here and quite a few times before, because I always use "critic" rather than "critique" as both adjective and noun), which I will correct in the future.
Lastly, I want to highlight that finding my spelling/grammar errors in internet is very easy. Usually, I correct them, but doing such a thing in Slashdot isn't possible; that's why you should take a look at some my old posts here.
We have had the technology to send people to Mars for decades
Have we sent anyone to Mars? Have we ever sent anyone to the deep space (just a couple of weeks away from the earth)? Have we ever had a small colony of people living in other planet (an asteroid might be fine)? Have we ever dealt with the problems associated with supplying goods to a different planet (and terraforming it!)? etc.
What do you think that having the technology really means? Dealing with much simpler scenarios, having some non-validated theories and blindly trusting in scaling-up ideas? Having the technology means actually being able to do something. You cannot claim to be able to do what nobody did before. Or do you think that the big deal of going to Mars is just having a propulsion system able to eventually get us there?! We certainly don't have the technology to go to Mars and live there. We don't even have the technology to build a colony in the moon.
So, you are saying that we have already flying cars, nuclear fusion and the required technology to send humans to Mars (or to any other planet)? Weird! I thought that we only had some experiments with no practical applicability, lots of non-validated theories, quite a few dreams and some sci-fi videos.
Anyone with a basic English knowledge should immediately understand that the OP meant "sole".
In any case, this issue has nothing to do with the value of the defended ideas and/or the suitability of that person to support them. Properly-understanding people should get the intended point regardless of some minor mistakes. A critic on the lines of ""soul"?? I would suggest that someone who can't master basic English vocabulary should refrain from talking about issues related to the English language" would have been much better; still a quite arbitrary attack against someone minding his own business though.
On the other hand, drawing absolute conclusions from punctual facts (you wrote a typo = you cannot write properly) is certainly indicative of serious understanding limitations. A poorly-understanding person is rarely in a position to properly analyse anything, to participate in a sensible discussion or to have a worthy opinion.
Just to clarify my reference to Spain, I meant the recent chaos of having to pass through 2 elections (+ still no president) after the rise of new parties precisely as a reaction to the overall anger against politicians/corruption. These new alternatives have certainly nothing to do with Trump and his defining egoism, but also had a huge media support which ultimately backfired. This media over-exposure seems to also be the ultimate responsible of the corrupted right-wing party slow growth: the first corruption news were horrible to them, but the nth ones weren't that bad. On the other hand, the fragmented character (i.e., at least, two opposing alternatives) of this reaction can also somehow justify the aforementioned evolution.
As said, the situation in Spain isn't too clearly related to the USA/UK cases, but it does share some of the same problems: the higher number of voters, usually representing the most primary feelings of a society (fear, tiredness, mistrust, angriness, etc.) against politicians, facing a media over-exposure of evidently worse options (+ not always too honest + usually not really caring about their specific concerns) and finally behaving contrarily to what was expected (apathy towards politics or even choosing the old-but-known options in Spain or Trump/Brexit in USA/UK). Always the same irony: over-proving (or worse, trying to impose) the certainly better option drives to its partial justification (via "why are they so interested in making me see things in this way" or "I don't like corruption, but I have nothing in common with what media defends either" or similar) and to its final acceptance.
In some cases and for some people, plainly not saying anything (or just saying a properly-understandable bit) and trusting in objectively wrong alternatives to fail by themselves tends to be a more efficient proceeding. Curiously, I am saying all this by being fully aware about the fact that such ideas are very far away from my own personality; but even a person like me (I mostly care about objectivity, with no interest in persuading anyone or making sure that a high number of people agrees with me, even proud of such a behaviour; and my interest in politics is virtually none) can see what is happening (now and quite a few times in the past). I certainly don't quite understand why those actually interested in all this (i.e., media) cannot see the reality, continue making the same mistakes and provoking the same bad-to-their-own-interests outputs.
I am not a US citizen and don't even care much about politics. On the other hand, I am seeing a somehow common pattern everywhere: equivalent problems, provoking realities like Trump to appear and similar shortsightedness allowing them to flourish.
I am not saying that we are witnessing never-happened-before situations. In fact, human history is full of equivalent episodes; our cyclic evolution is formed by many lows, ups and learning from mistakes. In any case, there is a problem which should ideally be fixed.
The initial seed is the same than every time before: fear (to lose what you have, to feel unsafe, to be irrelevant, etc.). Egoist people exclusively interested in their own gain are also the ones taking advantage from this situation. And as usual, those in a position to somehow minimise the impact are either misassessing its importance or not used to a new-to-them reality. Trump-like attitudes are very old story, but somehow unusual lately and in certain countries like USA or UK (via Brexit). There are even other situations, like what has recently happened in my own country (Spain), apparently different but essentially identical: egoist interests growing supported by manipulating the fears of the many which ironically will be the ones losing the most.
All this has even nothing to do with left/right, democrats/republicans. It is just about egoism growing via hypocritically showing an inexistent interest in others, mainly about those whose number is higher and who only want to believe that someone really cares about their specific concerns. In fact, Donald Trump represents an excellent example of ideology-free pure-egoism-driven personality. I have read quite a few bad things about Hillary Clinton and no idea what to believe. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion about her, not even about its party (as said, I am not American and don't follow politics much). This post isn't even about recommending her as the not-so-bad alternative. This post is about highlighting what Trump represents. He isn't a politician (not even a corrupt one), but a businessman looking for new ways to make more money.
Internet and the huge amount of available information (easily misused and misunderstood) has certainly had a big impact on this fear-backed raise of egoism. Media and intellectual elites seem also to be misjudging their exact influence and the best way to proceed. The recent Brexit was an excellent example on this front: the elites hugely misassessed the true impact of their opinion and pro-"no" campaigns. They didn't worry about communicating with the higher number of voters; and preferred to blindly trust in their self-assessed authority where anyone not seeing the evidence was wrong. I am certainly not the kind of person in a position to lecture anyone about how to talk to the many; in fact, this is one of my weakest points (even worse: I don't see it as a weakness and plainly don't care:)). On the other hand, I don't work for the media and for opinion-influencers seriously interested in helping everyone see the long-term/best-for-the-most picture. Although I am pretty good at spotting problems and do see that media attempts to undermine the influence of Trump (and similar attitudes) are actually intensifying it. Most of media seems to be mostly concerned about convincing themselves (and people like them) that his triumph is impossible, rather than about understanding that the decision is actually in the hands of people about whom they don’t even care.
In summary, this post isn't about politics or parties, but about avoiding short-sighted egoism to succeed. Trump (and similar personalities and movements) doesn't care about anyone other than himself; If you can benefit him (or those surrounding him), he would certainly help you, otherwise not. Allowing this kind of people to have so much power will never be a good idea. In any case, thinking that someone like Trump can care about anyone different than himself would be extremely naive.
I didn't see the point in continuing with this discussion and that's why didn't reply to the last Immerman's post. I am writing this clarification just in case someone thinks that this AC is me.
I am not against ACs (mainly because of having been an AC my whole life; Alvaro Carballo to be more specific), but never used Slashdot's anonymous option (always logged as CustomSolvers2).
The ONLY additional risk of traveling to Mars versus the Moon
I wasn't trying to enumerate the disadvantages associated with the mars option (lots of them), just proving that the big distance is a very relevant issue.
If you're not willing to accept the risks, then I recommend not signing up
Signing up? Sorry to blow your bubble but there will be nothing to sign up for. Perhaps they might set some kind of pre-booking system, then delays and more delays (years will go by and you will gradually stop caring about all this). There might be some advertising campaigns, mostly meant to get some social support (presumably to ease the funding efforts, which will never be used to build what you want). They might even build the ship (forget about the numbers in this crazy proposal; you should be very happy in case of getting just one). NASA and SpaceX will certainly be labelling some of their work as required for an eventual trip to mars (today, I saw a video about a robot which might be used in future visits to mars).
I am completely sure that there will be no ship full of people heading to mars; certainly never on the lines of the Elon's fantastic stories, but neither any other version. On the other hand, if you are so interested in signing up for something, you might want to do an internet research (there is at least one company looking for volunteers to mars).
It is clear that our positions are very far away and that there is nothing to discuss here. So better stop doing it. Don't you think?
I am not proposing to set a moon-base as a first step to go to mars. I think that going to mars is so difficult that can be assumed impossible (at least, during the next quite a few years). The whole point of my post was highlighting that, unlikely the aforementioned mars impossibility, colonising (= just a few buildings and a few people; certainly not terraforming and having millions of people right away) the moon might be possible, but very difficult (= slow + expensive).
Please, try to understand my posts properly by getting the whole context. If certain parts confuse you, feel free to ask me for clarifications (note that all my posts since some weeks ago are ALMOST-100%-sarcasm-free). Thanks:)
You don't seem to be getting my point. Forget about fuel and about the whole propulsion. Just think about doing something during 1 day vs. during 100 days. Whatever you will be doing is likely to be around 100 times more expensive/risky and, in this specific scenario, way above 100 times.
What I am trying to explain is that distances in space are certainly a very big deal. You want to think that there are not by focusing your analysis on the beneficial aspects (e.g., zero gravity or probes getting beyond mars), but you have to see the whole picture and to understand the tremendous difficulties associated with sending people to space. They would be travelling for months through areas where no man has gone before, the associated risk/cost is so huge (+ no direct benefits!!) that it is very unlikely to be assumed by anyone (not even allowed; no government will ever permit a so big and media-covered adventure to be even started in case of having a high likelihood of deaths). Just going to the space station (or to the moon or even just leaving earth's gravity) is extremely risky and prone-to-problems, imagine being in the open space months away from earth!
I am really sorry to see people like Elon Musk saying these things. Somehow risky and even a bit crazy attitudes from the private sector are certainly required on these fronts; most of big advancements in almost any area have been started by these people. But one thing is being risky/wanting to go beyond and a different story is trying to sell what isn't possible. I am not sure about his motivations, but it seems like a really bad move for his own interests.
Hopefully, this episode will help some people remember the huge differences between reality (we are nothing at the space level and have to try really hard to make even the slightest improvement on this front) and movies/theories/dreams/simulations (anything is possible). Choosing any of these alternatives is fine; not understanding the differences between both of them and having disproportionate expectations isn't.
Evil is pretty much synonym of short-sighted, under-evolved or, in eviler terms, stupid. In fact, one of the features which make humans superior is their cooperation capabilities. Individuals fail, groups succeed. Under ideal conditions, a group will only accept what benefits to most of its members. Stupidity avoids such an evident output to always occur (i.e., groups following egoist/evil interests because of not being able to adequately understand the situation).
Long-term learning, adaptation and even evolution should eventually get rid of stupidity; mainly of the group-following-egoist-individual-interests version.
Unless you're in a hurry, distance is largely irrelevant for transporting stuff around the solar system
This statement is completely wrong. When you are transporting anything (or anyone), the fuel isn't the whole story. Actually, the fuel requirements in very long distances don't even represent the most important expense; mainly when dealing with a much more complex transportation reality.
An extremely simplistic example: when transporting anything here in earth changing the distance from 100 km to over 10000 km would provoke a geometrical increase of costs on all the fronts. Fuel and other issues (e.g., food and accommodation of transporters, insurance costs, etc.) would increase more or less linearly; but planning, coordination, potential problems, required support, etc. are likely to be increased well beyond linearly.
The only advantage in space is that the fuel requirements aren't too relevant, but all the other expenses remain. Additionally, the huge uncertainty which is associated with space and mainly with a never-done-before mission would provoke a beyond-imaginable increase of all the associated standard costs. I am sure that the costs associated with a 100 times longer distance are much higher than 100 times.
Risks are different, but the Moon is far more challenging, as unlike Mars it has no readily available air or water, and razor-sharp unweathered dust that will make short work of air seals and moving parts.
You can also add this generic concept of risks (including from unknown health issues up to a random object hitting the ship, I understand) to the aforementioned list of problems during the trip. In the surface of mars/moon, these risks will again grow geometrically; we are talking about poisonous + unknown vs. habitable + known. You cannot start thinking about what to do next before accounting for the basic premises properly.
At this stage, the only option which should be considered (= the only approach which we have ever tried before) is a simplistic indoor solution, together with a regular supply of basic resources (like air, water, food, etc.). The problem is that you cannot even think about such a setup in a place so far away like mars and this is where the terraforming fantasies have to kick in. That is: firstly, you imagine a cool enough destination; then you extrapolate everything by relying on as generic, improvable and simplistic assumptions as possible (practicality and reality are your enemies here); finally, you find unsolvable problems and decide to further-fantasise about a possible solution. Unfortunately, something like terraforming anything is still very far away from being feasible (if possible at all). One thing is coming up with nice theories and/or movies, but a completely different story is actually applying these ideas.
your speed and direction while consuming almost no fuel. It can easily take years or decades to get where you're going
As said, the fuel isn't the whole problem in transportation and certainly not in space travelling. Most of people should agree on this point, not sure why you insist in misinterpreting my words (+ the actually involved problems to come up with clearly impossible expectations). But there is another issue in this comment which I want to highlight: "take years or decades" denotes the kind of behaviour which I am observing in the dreamy people seriously thinking that what is completely impossible might happen. This is actually the reason why I included the aforementioned animation: some visual help for some people to get a better grasp of reality. In space, years or decades are nothing. One single light year (a pretty standardised unit distance) means travelling during hundreds of years. This is what you don't seem to get. Reaching the moon is extremely difficult, going further is at this point virtually impossible.
According to this animation, the distances to the moon and mars are 3k and 428k pixels away, respectively. Do you consider that a 100 times bigger distance isn't an issue? Is the cost of doing something 1 day the same than doing it during 100 days? And what about the potential problems? Same likelihood in both scenarios? And what about delays, need for help or equivalent? Everything the same? The results (the costs) are identical within a 100 times range? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
is not actually dependent on gravity
The definition of pound force depends on the factor 9.8... m/s2 which never changes, also called gravity. In the extremely-improvable case that the acceleration of gravity will be redefined to 9.9, the definition of pound-force would also have to be modified accordingly. Apparently, you misinterpreted "gravity" as "actual acceleration being considered to calculate lbf from lb"; or as lbf being different in a place outside Earth (what wasn't implied in the AC's comment).
I do use Wikipedia quite often and it is certainly a quite good source of information, mainly to get a general picture about more or less generic issues. On the other hand, its reliability isn't that good when dealing with somehow more specialised facts (usually, even worse in some non-English versions).
When I was developing the aforementioned unit-parsing library (see my comment above, the one containing basically the same information than yours), I made relevant research and cross-validation efforts to find all the conversion factors. Although Wikipedia was definitively quite helpful on this front, I did find a relevant number of errors and/or incomplete references about units of measurement there.
Wikipedia does seem an excellent source for more or less complex concepts (e.g., force/mass or lb/lbf), but it isn't that reliable when dealing with specific facts like the conversion factors you are linking. On the other hand and although I did pay special attention to these hardcoding aspects, my library is logically no absolute reference either (too new, too unclear my exact knowledge/implication, etc.). I think that official/governmental/well-stablished/expert/university references are much more recommendable for these situations, by bearing in mind that they might also be wrong (I did find errors almost everywhere while performing the aforementioned research).
Exactly. In fact, both units measure different realities:
Mass -> pound (lb) = 0.45359237 kg.
Force -> pound-force (lbf) = 4.4482216152605 N.
You can find these and many other conversion factors here (part of a unit-parsing library which I have recently developed).
Unfortunately, you are right. But there are still levels in the tech/marketing distribution and this one seems to consist almost exclusively in marketing.
A simplistic chatbot from old emails = rebuilt him using artificial intelligence?! And the linked page is even worse! There isn't a single word about the algorithm or how it is supposed to work, just pictures and text about this guy, about why she decided to build it and similar abstract ideas completely unrelated to programming or data analysis!
From a technical (programming, data analysis, mathematical, etc.) perspective, this article is plainly useless. It seems a very simple implementation working under highly restricted conditions; something neither complex nor innovative. There is a tremendous difference between calling something AI (really easy, mainly lately and for some people) and having a good-enough AI algorithm (really difficult or plainly impossible, depending upon your exact expectations).
This is a non-technical article/development from and for non-technical people. A marketing-based development?
If it wasn't a joke it would have been an aggressive reaction, a perfect sample to support my point (similar attitudes being completely serious do happen). Sorry if I bothered you.
Your comment makes lots of sense because the OP was clearly complaining about gender-based bias (sarcasm).
I guess that you are joking, but your post shows another side of this whole problem: random attacks. Talking about A and getting an aggressive reaction blindly defending B. I have even seen quite a few cases very similar to this specific situation, with a self-invited aggressive reaction coming from nowhere.
I have always been pro-equality on each single front, but there are many pro-equality/empty-PC attitudes which don't represent me. Internet seems to be an excellent channel for fanatics to defend anything as they have always done (unreasonably, aggressively, by trying to force others and as part of blindly-supporting groups). Social justice issues seem to be quite attractive to them; these ideas are popular and, theoretically, easily enforceable.
If you are making a South Park reference, I don't get it. Otherwise, what?! Well, if you are a nice single woman around my age, not completely crazy, currently located near my town and who has always dreamt about meeting a guy exactly like me, I might consider accepting your invitation :)
I am not too sure about that. Cartman being so nice and Kyle's dad so bad? Something smells fishy.
After re-reading your original post, I do find it kind of confusing. Firstly, you say "We have had the technology to send people to Mars" and then "Sending living people to Mars and have them go on living is more of a challenge". Call me radical if you wish, but I think that we should only worry about sending people who are alive and making sure that they remain alive for as long as possible (ideally, until the end of the trip). LOL.
Anyway, I guess that our ideas are already completely clear (difficult but possible within the medium term vs. virtually impossible within the next quite a few years) and there is no need to continue.
at some of my old posts here.
FTFM.
No whooosh, I did get it right :)
As said, your "technology to send people to Mars" implies many non-existing-yet things on top of propulsion. To not mention that living there (at least, during some months) is also part of the minimum requirements of a trip to Mars. We certainly don't have the technology to send humans anywhere in the space, other than during a few days and to the ISS.
I think you mean "critique".
Firstly, I want to highlight that your "I think you mean" was brilliant. So perfect 4 words! You are an inspiration for me and for the rest of the world; not just about English usage, but in general! We need more people like you! You are a solver, a getting-it-done person, a genius, the 4-word answer to any problem... You are the one! LOL.
:)).
Note that my post isn't completely incorrect because "critic" is an archaic form of "critique". I might even say that my reference was a proof of knowledge rather than of ignorance (nah! It was certainly ignorance
Thanks for helping me improve my English. In fact, I do things on these lines quite often: using the version which is more similar to Spanish, my mother tongue, without giving too much thought to it (even despite the huge number of so-called "false friends"). I did make a mistake (here and quite a few times before, because I always use "critic" rather than "critique" as both adjective and noun), which I will correct in the future.
Lastly, I want to highlight that finding my spelling/grammar errors in internet is very easy. Usually, I correct them, but doing such a thing in Slashdot isn't possible; that's why you should take a look at some my old posts here.
We have had the technology to send people to Mars for decades
Have we sent anyone to Mars? Have we ever sent anyone to the deep space (just a couple of weeks away from the earth)? Have we ever had a small colony of people living in other planet (an asteroid might be fine)? Have we ever dealt with the problems associated with supplying goods to a different planet (and terraforming it!)? etc.
What do you think that having the technology really means? Dealing with much simpler scenarios, having some non-validated theories and blindly trusting in scaling-up ideas? Having the technology means actually being able to do something. You cannot claim to be able to do what nobody did before. Or do you think that the big deal of going to Mars is just having a propulsion system able to eventually get us there?! We certainly don't have the technology to go to Mars and live there. We don't even have the technology to build a colony in the moon.
the technology already exists
So, you are saying that we have already flying cars, nuclear fusion and the required technology to send humans to Mars (or to any other planet)? Weird! I thought that we only had some experiments with no practical applicability, lots of non-validated theories, quite a few dreams and some sci-fi videos.
Anyone with a basic English knowledge should immediately understand that the OP meant "sole".
In any case, this issue has nothing to do with the value of the defended ideas and/or the suitability of that person to support them. Properly-understanding people should get the intended point regardless of some minor mistakes. A critic on the lines of ""soul"?? I would suggest that someone who can't master basic English vocabulary should refrain from talking about issues related to the English language" would have been much better; still a quite arbitrary attack against someone minding his own business though.
On the other hand, drawing absolute conclusions from punctual facts (you wrote a typo = you cannot write properly) is certainly indicative of serious understanding limitations. A poorly-understanding person is rarely in a position to properly analyse anything, to participate in a sensible discussion or to have a worthy opinion.
Just to clarify my reference to Spain, I meant the recent chaos of having to pass through 2 elections (+ still no president) after the rise of new parties precisely as a reaction to the overall anger against politicians/corruption. These new alternatives have certainly nothing to do with Trump and his defining egoism, but also had a huge media support which ultimately backfired. This media over-exposure seems to also be the ultimate responsible of the corrupted right-wing party slow growth: the first corruption news were horrible to them, but the nth ones weren't that bad. On the other hand, the fragmented character (i.e., at least, two opposing alternatives) of this reaction can also somehow justify the aforementioned evolution.
As said, the situation in Spain isn't too clearly related to the USA/UK cases, but it does share some of the same problems: the higher number of voters, usually representing the most primary feelings of a society (fear, tiredness, mistrust, angriness, etc.) against politicians, facing a media over-exposure of evidently worse options (+ not always too honest + usually not really caring about their specific concerns) and finally behaving contrarily to what was expected (apathy towards politics or even choosing the old-but-known options in Spain or Trump/Brexit in USA/UK). Always the same irony: over-proving (or worse, trying to impose) the certainly better option drives to its partial justification (via "why are they so interested in making me see things in this way" or "I don't like corruption, but I have nothing in common with what media defends either" or similar) and to its final acceptance.
In some cases and for some people, plainly not saying anything (or just saying a properly-understandable bit) and trusting in objectively wrong alternatives to fail by themselves tends to be a more efficient proceeding. Curiously, I am saying all this by being fully aware about the fact that such ideas are very far away from my own personality; but even a person like me (I mostly care about objectivity, with no interest in persuading anyone or making sure that a high number of people agrees with me, even proud of such a behaviour; and my interest in politics is virtually none) can see what is happening (now and quite a few times in the past). I certainly don't quite understand why those actually interested in all this (i.e., media) cannot see the reality, continue making the same mistakes and provoking the same bad-to-their-own-interests outputs.
I am not a US citizen and don't even care much about politics. On the other hand, I am seeing a somehow common pattern everywhere: equivalent problems, provoking realities like Trump to appear and similar shortsightedness allowing them to flourish.
:)). On the other hand, I don't work for the media and for opinion-influencers seriously interested in helping everyone see the long-term/best-for-the-most picture. Although I am pretty good at spotting problems and do see that media attempts to undermine the influence of Trump (and similar attitudes) are actually intensifying it. Most of media seems to be mostly concerned about convincing themselves (and people like them) that his triumph is impossible, rather than about understanding that the decision is actually in the hands of people about whom they don’t even care.
I am not saying that we are witnessing never-happened-before situations. In fact, human history is full of equivalent episodes; our cyclic evolution is formed by many lows, ups and learning from mistakes. In any case, there is a problem which should ideally be fixed.
The initial seed is the same than every time before: fear (to lose what you have, to feel unsafe, to be irrelevant, etc.). Egoist people exclusively interested in their own gain are also the ones taking advantage from this situation. And as usual, those in a position to somehow minimise the impact are either misassessing its importance or not used to a new-to-them reality. Trump-like attitudes are very old story, but somehow unusual lately and in certain countries like USA or UK (via Brexit). There are even other situations, like what has recently happened in my own country (Spain), apparently different but essentially identical: egoist interests growing supported by manipulating the fears of the many which ironically will be the ones losing the most.
All this has even nothing to do with left/right, democrats/republicans. It is just about egoism growing via hypocritically showing an inexistent interest in others, mainly about those whose number is higher and who only want to believe that someone really cares about their specific concerns. In fact, Donald Trump represents an excellent example of ideology-free pure-egoism-driven personality. I have read quite a few bad things about Hillary Clinton and no idea what to believe. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion about her, not even about its party (as said, I am not American and don't follow politics much). This post isn't even about recommending her as the not-so-bad alternative. This post is about highlighting what Trump represents. He isn't a politician (not even a corrupt one), but a businessman looking for new ways to make more money.
Internet and the huge amount of available information (easily misused and misunderstood) has certainly had a big impact on this fear-backed raise of egoism. Media and intellectual elites seem also to be misjudging their exact influence and the best way to proceed. The recent Brexit was an excellent example on this front: the elites hugely misassessed the true impact of their opinion and pro-"no" campaigns. They didn't worry about communicating with the higher number of voters; and preferred to blindly trust in their self-assessed authority where anyone not seeing the evidence was wrong. I am certainly not the kind of person in a position to lecture anyone about how to talk to the many; in fact, this is one of my weakest points (even worse: I don't see it as a weakness and plainly don't care
In summary, this post isn't about politics or parties, but about avoiding short-sighted egoism to succeed. Trump (and similar personalities and movements) doesn't care about anyone other than himself; If you can benefit him (or those surrounding him), he would certainly help you, otherwise not. Allowing this kind of people to have so much power will never be a good idea. In any case, thinking that someone like Trump can care about anyone different than himself would be extremely naive.
Good summary, other AC.
I didn't see the point in continuing with this discussion and that's why didn't reply to the last Immerman's post. I am writing this clarification just in case someone thinks that this AC is me.
I am not against ACs (mainly because of having been an AC my whole life; Alvaro Carballo to be more specific), but never used Slashdot's anonymous option (always logged as CustomSolvers2).
The ONLY additional risk of traveling to Mars versus the Moon
I wasn't trying to enumerate the disadvantages associated with the mars option (lots of them), just proving that the big distance is a very relevant issue.
If you're not willing to accept the risks, then I recommend not signing up
Signing up? Sorry to blow your bubble but there will be nothing to sign up for. Perhaps they might set some kind of pre-booking system, then delays and more delays (years will go by and you will gradually stop caring about all this). There might be some advertising campaigns, mostly meant to get some social support (presumably to ease the funding efforts, which will never be used to build what you want). They might even build the ship (forget about the numbers in this crazy proposal; you should be very happy in case of getting just one). NASA and SpaceX will certainly be labelling some of their work as required for an eventual trip to mars (today, I saw a video about a robot which might be used in future visits to mars).
I am completely sure that there will be no ship full of people heading to mars; certainly never on the lines of the Elon's fantastic stories, but neither any other version. On the other hand, if you are so interested in signing up for something, you might want to do an internet research (there is at least one company looking for volunteers to mars).
It is clear that our positions are very far away and that there is nothing to discuss here. So better stop doing it. Don't you think?
OK. But It seems that you misunderstood my point.
:)
I am not proposing to set a moon-base as a first step to go to mars. I think that going to mars is so difficult that can be assumed impossible (at least, during the next quite a few years). The whole point of my post was highlighting that, unlikely the aforementioned mars impossibility, colonising (= just a few buildings and a few people; certainly not terraforming and having millions of people right away) the moon might be possible, but very difficult (= slow + expensive).
Please, try to understand my posts properly by getting the whole context. If certain parts confuse you, feel free to ask me for clarifications (note that all my posts since some weeks ago are ALMOST-100%-sarcasm-free). Thanks
You don't seem to be getting my point. Forget about fuel and about the whole propulsion. Just think about doing something during 1 day vs. during 100 days. Whatever you will be doing is likely to be around 100 times more expensive/risky and, in this specific scenario, way above 100 times.
What I am trying to explain is that distances in space are certainly a very big deal. You want to think that there are not by focusing your analysis on the beneficial aspects (e.g., zero gravity or probes getting beyond mars), but you have to see the whole picture and to understand the tremendous difficulties associated with sending people to space. They would be travelling for months through areas where no man has gone before, the associated risk/cost is so huge (+ no direct benefits!!) that it is very unlikely to be assumed by anyone (not even allowed; no government will ever permit a so big and media-covered adventure to be even started in case of having a high likelihood of deaths). Just going to the space station (or to the moon or even just leaving earth's gravity) is extremely risky and prone-to-problems, imagine being in the open space months away from earth!
I am really sorry to see people like Elon Musk saying these things. Somehow risky and even a bit crazy attitudes from the private sector are certainly required on these fronts; most of big advancements in almost any area have been started by these people. But one thing is being risky/wanting to go beyond and a different story is trying to sell what isn't possible. I am not sure about his motivations, but it seems like a really bad move for his own interests.
Hopefully, this episode will help some people remember the huge differences between reality (we are nothing at the space level and have to try really hard to make even the slightest improvement on this front) and movies/theories/dreams/simulations (anything is possible). Choosing any of these alternatives is fine; not understanding the differences between both of them and having disproportionate expectations isn't.
Fully agree with this AC.
Evil is pretty much synonym of short-sighted, under-evolved or, in eviler terms, stupid. In fact, one of the features which make humans superior is their cooperation capabilities. Individuals fail, groups succeed. Under ideal conditions, a group will only accept what benefits to most of its members. Stupidity avoids such an evident output to always occur (i.e., groups following egoist/evil interests because of not being able to adequately understand the situation).
Long-term learning, adaptation and even evolution should eventually get rid of stupidity; mainly of the group-following-egoist-individual-interests version.
Unless you're in a hurry, distance is largely irrelevant for transporting stuff around the solar system
This statement is completely wrong. When you are transporting anything (or anyone), the fuel isn't the whole story. Actually, the fuel requirements in very long distances don't even represent the most important expense; mainly when dealing with a much more complex transportation reality.
An extremely simplistic example: when transporting anything here in earth changing the distance from 100 km to over 10000 km would provoke a geometrical increase of costs on all the fronts. Fuel and other issues (e.g., food and accommodation of transporters, insurance costs, etc.) would increase more or less linearly; but planning, coordination, potential problems, required support, etc. are likely to be increased well beyond linearly.
The only advantage in space is that the fuel requirements aren't too relevant, but all the other expenses remain. Additionally, the huge uncertainty which is associated with space and mainly with a never-done-before mission would provoke a beyond-imaginable increase of all the associated standard costs. I am sure that the costs associated with a 100 times longer distance are much higher than 100 times.
Risks are different, but the Moon is far more challenging, as unlike Mars it has no readily available air or water, and razor-sharp unweathered dust that will make short work of air seals and moving parts.
You can also add this generic concept of risks (including from unknown health issues up to a random object hitting the ship, I understand) to the aforementioned list of problems during the trip. In the surface of mars/moon, these risks will again grow geometrically; we are talking about poisonous + unknown vs. habitable + known. You cannot start thinking about what to do next before accounting for the basic premises properly.
At this stage, the only option which should be considered (= the only approach which we have ever tried before) is a simplistic indoor solution, together with a regular supply of basic resources (like air, water, food, etc.). The problem is that you cannot even think about such a setup in a place so far away like mars and this is where the terraforming fantasies have to kick in. That is: firstly, you imagine a cool enough destination; then you extrapolate everything by relying on as generic, improvable and simplistic assumptions as possible (practicality and reality are your enemies here); finally, you find unsolvable problems and decide to further-fantasise about a possible solution. Unfortunately, something like terraforming anything is still very far away from being feasible (if possible at all). One thing is coming up with nice theories and/or movies, but a completely different story is actually applying these ideas.
your speed and direction while consuming almost no fuel. It can easily take years or decades to get where you're going
As said, the fuel isn't the whole problem in transportation and certainly not in space travelling. Most of people should agree on this point, not sure why you insist in misinterpreting my words (+ the actually involved problems to come up with clearly impossible expectations). But there is another issue in this comment which I want to highlight: "take years or decades" denotes the kind of behaviour which I am observing in the dreamy people seriously thinking that what is completely impossible might happen. This is actually the reason why I included the aforementioned animation: some visual help for some people to get a better grasp of reality. In space, years or decades are nothing. One single light year (a pretty standardised unit distance) means travelling during hundreds of years. This is what you don't seem to get. Reaching the moon is extremely difficult, going further is at this point virtually impossible.
a little closer in terms of shipping costs
According to this animation, the distances to the moon and mars are 3k and 428k pixels away, respectively. Do you consider that a 100 times bigger distance isn't an issue? Is the cost of doing something 1 day the same than doing it during 100 days? And what about the potential problems? Same likelihood in both scenarios? And what about delays, need for help or equivalent? Everything the same? The results (the costs) are identical within a 100 times range? I don't think so.