Re:What would be the significance of this?
on
Lake spotted on Titan?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
What do you moderators not understand about "I'm not trolling, I'm curious."? I'm looking for more knowledgeable people in the Slashdot community to answer the question of the finding's significance. It's one thing to find something, and report it, but TFA gives no reason as to why this is important. Does it allow for future bases on Titan to somehow suck up methane for fuel? Is there the possibilty of methane-based life that might live in a methane lake? I'd like to know why this is important.
What would be the significance of this?
on
Lake spotted on Titan?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm not trolling, I'm curious. Surely, liquids exist in space, and surely they must pool? If it were a *water* lake I'd say that'd be something (life!?), but on a planet where there's likely methane rain, there's likely methane lakes.
First, It doesn't have to cost billions of dollars. Just because that's what the government will spend doesn't mean that's what it will cost. Private companies would have an incentive to make sure that things weren't ridiculously expensive, whereas the government has no such incentive. (They can print money and/or raise taxes.)
I'm sorry that your imagination is so limited (I wasn't just talking advertising). Think of all the technology that will come out of it, and imagine if those companies that joined could get license free use of the technologies for X number of years. Imagine that those companies get to reap the rewards of scientific research done in low to zero gravity in the time it takes to get there and back. Imagine that those companies get exclusive rights to mineral finds on the red planet based on the size of their contributions over a defined field of area.
Do you still think there might be no way to get them to pony up money?
Read Zubrin's book. There's nothing on the moon. It costs more to land on the moon and then have to get off again, because even though there is less gravity, you still need to break to get to the moon, and then more propellant to get back off. Once you're off Earth, there's no sense in re-encountering gravity when you can go straight to Mars without having to land and take off again.
Seriously, for everyone who thinks this, go read the book, and you'll learn to stop parroting the "let's go to the moon first" bit, just like I did.;)
Use the Olympic model, and... a consortium of companies. Imagine this: IBM, Microsoft, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Mojave Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Johnson & Johnson, McDonalds, Apple, Coca-Cola, and a whole group of large companies got together, and invested a small portion of their profits for two years into a Mission to Mars program. It could be done. They could form a company just for that (ala the IOC), and of course, there would be advertising. They could all be "Proud Sponsors of the Mission to Mars" in much the same way they all pay to help with the Olympics.
...people should really pay more attention to Robert Zubrin. If you haven't read his book, I suggest you do so. He has shown that it is possible to get a mission to the actual planet (not the moons) relatively safely using the same kind of technology that we used to get to the moon in the 1960s. (Of course, with what we have now, it would be "easier" and safer", and those are in quotes merely because I am appreciative of the difficult and danger.)
We (as humans, not just as specific country-people) need to recapture our pioneering spirit, and get someone to Mars. What we'll learn and accomplish will far outweigh the danger. Imagine if people had been too initimidated to round the horn of Africa, cross the Atlantic ocean, or go to moon! It's time we got that adventurous spirit back, and applied it planet-wide. If we pay attention to our smart people (ie, Zubrin), it's not something that need be far off in the future!
I read the article. My question still stands. Or perhaps you're so hellbent on criticizing people that you don't stop to actually -understand- the question?
Where do they get that from? If that's really the case, it would only take about 6,000 people to cause enough damage to double the national debt!
The article doesn't mention anything anywhere about pure damages, for starters. It mentions the costs associated with tracking and capturing the guy, and costs correcting some of the problems - combined. Those costs are listed as 570,000 pounds. At the exchange rate I just looked up (1.83 dollars to a pound), that's still only 1,054,500 dollars, which is more like a meeelllion dollars. Even if they tack on the 950,000 pound in fines, that's still not even three million.
That's a far cry from a billion... and about two million less than the damages Kevin Mitnick was supposed to have caused.
Frankly, they should have just let this guy find some "evidence" of UFOs. Then he might have spent his time trying to convince people of it instead of looking for more!
So we've got a Slashdot palgiarism of two paragraphs of a Security Focus story that was posted on The Register. Is this like "meta-editing" or something?
The contradiction was referring to the time part, as in "not ready soon", versus "may not be long now".
And if you like putting more into things than you get back out, I'll happily give you this $5 bill for one of your $10 bills. We'll repeat the process a few times, too, for good measure, just to make sure that you're completely satisfied.;)
"For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. In the mean time, the crystal-fusion device might be used as a compact source of neutrons and X-rays, something that could turn out to be useful making small scanning machines. But it really may not be long until we have the first nuclear fusion-powered devices in common use."
While it may "work", if more energy has to be put in than is gotten out, I don't think the size of the apparatus really matters. And she contradicts herself, too: "don't expect fusion to become readily available", followed with "it really may not be long...".
...and if you can truly manage, it doesn't matter what the "subject" is really. If you have a grasp of the basics (and even most non-technical people have a grasp of some computer basics), and you know how to manage people, then you will do well. You have to be able to hire smart people, make sure they know what they're doing (and if they don't, it becomes evident even if you don't know the advanced stuff, when things don't get done), and run interference from upper management, and inspire the people below you.
If you can do that effectively, for the most part, you can manage.
"The UK government has responded to one major report into nanotechnologies by ordering another review."
"The Royal Society told the BBC News website it was encouraged by the government's commitment to research, but was disappointed that no extra funding was proposed for it."
The UK wants to be a world leader in nanotechnology, but they are bogging down the reports with reports on reports, and not providing funding. Looks like things will have to change if they want to reach their world-leadership goal!
...program. I remember making my page with that A-River logo, and putting up books for sale. If I'd have stuck with it, who knows how much I'd have in terms of money and experience!
Ah, to go back in time and tell myself then what I know now.;)
Slashdot Mirror
What do you moderators not understand about "I'm not trolling, I'm curious."? I'm looking for more knowledgeable people in the Slashdot community to answer the question of the finding's significance. It's one thing to find something, and report it, but TFA gives no reason as to why this is important. Does it allow for future bases on Titan to somehow suck up methane for fuel? Is there the possibilty of methane-based life that might live in a methane lake? I'd like to know why this is important.
I'm not trolling, I'm curious. Surely, liquids exist in space, and surely they must pool? If it were a *water* lake I'd say that'd be something (life!?), but on a planet where there's likely methane rain, there's likely methane lakes.
First, It doesn't have to cost billions of dollars. Just because that's what the government will spend doesn't mean that's what it will cost. Private companies would have an incentive to make sure that things weren't ridiculously expensive, whereas the government has no such incentive. (They can print money and/or raise taxes.)
I'm sorry that your imagination is so limited (I wasn't just talking advertising). Think of all the technology that will come out of it, and imagine if those companies that joined could get license free use of the technologies for X number of years. Imagine that those companies get to reap the rewards of scientific research done in low to zero gravity in the time it takes to get there and back. Imagine that those companies get exclusive rights to mineral finds on the red planet based on the size of their contributions over a defined field of area.
Do you still think there might be no way to get them to pony up money?
Read Zubrin's book. There's nothing on the moon. It costs more to land on the moon and then have to get off again, because even though there is less gravity, you still need to break to get to the moon, and then more propellant to get back off. Once you're off Earth, there's no sense in re-encountering gravity when you can go straight to Mars without having to land and take off again.
;)
Seriously, for everyone who thinks this, go read the book, and you'll learn to stop parroting the "let's go to the moon first" bit, just like I did.
...who will fund the mars mission?
... a consortium of companies. Imagine this: IBM, Microsoft, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Mojave Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Johnson & Johnson, McDonalds, Apple, Coca-Cola, and a whole group of large companies got together, and invested a small portion of their profits for two years into a Mission to Mars program. It could be done. They could form a company just for that (ala the IOC), and of course, there would be advertising. They could all be "Proud Sponsors of the Mission to Mars" in much the same way they all pay to help with the Olympics.
Use the Olympic model, and
...people should really pay more attention to Robert Zubrin. If you haven't read his book, I suggest you do so. He has shown that it is possible to get a mission to the actual planet (not the moons) relatively safely using the same kind of technology that we used to get to the moon in the 1960s. (Of course, with what we have now, it would be "easier" and safer", and those are in quotes merely because I am appreciative of the difficult and danger.)
We (as humans, not just as specific country-people) need to recapture our pioneering spirit, and get someone to Mars. What we'll learn and accomplish will far outweigh the danger. Imagine if people had been too initimidated to round the horn of Africa, cross the Atlantic ocean, or go to moon! It's time we got that adventurous spirit back, and applied it planet-wide. If we pay attention to our smart people (ie, Zubrin), it's not something that need be far off in the future!
...and they're not going to release a patch for it.
;)
And you *know* that if Microsoft says it's not a flaw, well, then, it mustn't be a flaw.
...that some lucky cab rider gets a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card? If so, are there limits to what they can do to land themselves in jail? ;)
I just saw it. You will not be disappointed. It was EXCELLENT.
...is because Han shoots first like I remember! ;)
I read the article. My question still stands. Or perhaps you're so hellbent on criticizing people that you don't stop to actually -understand- the question?
...doesn't necessarily mean that we should do that thing.
While moving technology forward is always a good thing, are there any non-military uses for this?
I believe I already used that line, and got modded Offtopic for it.
"World's Most Over-Used Headline Cliche"... ;)
1 Beeelllion Dollars?
Where do they get that from? If that's really the case, it would only take about 6,000 people to cause enough damage to double the national debt!
The article doesn't mention anything anywhere about pure damages, for starters. It mentions the costs associated with tracking and capturing the guy, and costs correcting some of the problems - combined. Those costs are listed as 570,000 pounds. At the exchange rate I just looked up (1.83 dollars to a pound), that's still only 1,054,500 dollars, which is more like a meeelllion dollars. Even if they tack on the 950,000 pound in fines, that's still not even three million.
That's a far cry from a billion... and about two million less than the damages Kevin Mitnick was supposed to have caused.
Frankly, they should have just let this guy find some "evidence" of UFOs. Then he might have spent his time trying to convince people of it instead of looking for more!
Is it slowing too? In which case, this is a sign of overall growth slowing... or is it just a Linux thing?
So we've got a Slashdot palgiarism of two paragraphs of a Security Focus story that was posted on The Register. Is this like "meta-editing" or something?
The contradiction was referring to the time part, as in "not ready soon", versus "may not be long now".
;)
And if you like putting more into things than you get back out, I'll happily give you this $5 bill for one of your $10 bills. We'll repeat the process a few times, too, for good measure, just to make sure that you're completely satisfied.
"For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. In the mean time, the crystal-fusion device might be used as a compact source of neutrons and X-rays, something that could turn out to be useful making small scanning machines. But it really may not be long until we have the first nuclear fusion-powered devices in common use."
While it may "work", if more energy has to be put in than is gotten out, I don't think the size of the apparatus really matters. And she contradicts herself, too: "don't expect fusion to become readily available", followed with "it really may not be long...".
...what ever happened to Google? ;)
..to anyone whose country doesn't have DMCA laws. Check afterdawn.com, and do a search for it. They ask you where you live.
They've been building everything on PowerPC and Intel at the same time for five years. Wow.
...and if you can truly manage, it doesn't matter what the "subject" is really. If you have a grasp of the basics (and even most non-technical people have a grasp of some computer basics), and you know how to manage people, then you will do well. You have to be able to hire smart people, make sure they know what they're doing (and if they don't, it becomes evident even if you don't know the advanced stuff, when things don't get done), and run interference from upper management, and inspire the people below you.
If you can do that effectively, for the most part, you can manage.
...from the article:
"The UK government has responded to one major report into nanotechnologies by ordering another review."
"The Royal Society told the BBC News website it was encouraged by the government's commitment to research, but was disappointed that no extra funding was proposed for it."
The UK wants to be a world leader in nanotechnology, but they are bogging down the reports with reports on reports, and not providing funding. Looks like things will have to change if they want to reach their world-leadership goal!
...program. I remember making my page with that A-River logo, and putting up books for sale. If I'd have stuck with it, who knows how much I'd have in terms of money and experience!
;)
Ah, to go back in time and tell myself then what I know now.