> The problem is not the user. Period. If you design a car that has accidents for the most inocous of reasons you would be out of business in a snap, blaming the user would not save you.
Ever seen film of the early 60's Corvair van in a 5 mph slalom? Damn thing would roll! At 5mph! Last I checked, GM is still in business.
If you're running Win98SE - you can always refresh your installation by running
"setup/p f"
That goes through the installation procedure, refreshing all the corrupted/replaced files. Gives you options to keep the more recent ones, too. That's solved many a problem for me...
...is that, chances are, these technologies will be developed anyway, and they will be developed to solve the problem directly at hand, thus making the research effort cheaper and the results better.
Which problem is that? The problem of generating solutions to real issues, or the problem of generating more profit for already large corporations? Which do you think will be done first?
Colour me cynical, but I think that we'd see businesses developing things that would bring them a direct, easy, obvious profit first. Solving real problems, after all, just means that the profit opportunity goes away.
I mean, so space exploration is going to solve the education problems in the third world? Are farmer boys from africa going to sit at a videoconference lecture held by a professor from Harvard? Give me a break.
Maybe they won't - but will they watch an educational television program distributed by satellite? More likely.
Would schools in Africa benefit from satellite broadcasts? Probably.
Would the farmers benefit from having satellite data of their crops? Definitely.
Would access to the internet (by satellite) benefit remote areas of Africa? Probably.
I have no problems with space exploration, but why is it that when it comes to space, there is always a lot of blind dreaming going on?
Because it's easier to dream when you don't get distracted by what's around you.;-)
Applied research (aka engineering) is aimed at the problems you can see. Basic research (aka science) is aimed at the causes of the problems you can see. Given the choice, most businesses fund applied research. The average businessman appreciates risk, but they tend to like to know what they're going to get out of it. This gets us a lot of improvements to existing products.
Just because space is more entertaining than say, cancer research, it doesn't make it more important.
False argument. It's not an either-or situation. Space research supports Cancer research. Where do you think that all those small medical instruments came from anyways? They were developed because Ground Control needed to monitor the astronauts. Once the basic technology is developed, it is then adapted to other areas.
Necessity - invention - application.
And by the way, we have plenty of time for space exploration before the odd meteor hits or the sun explodes..
Okay - we now have reports that there may be a major collision between Earth and an asteroid in 2014. We have less than 11 years to develop technologies to protect the planet. Or would you rather just trust that we'll get missed?
That argument is like saying that you have lots of time to check your brakes before the odd child darts in front of you, or you get cut off in traffic....
I think we have enough problems we could solve on earth with all the money that goes into space travel.
Ah, the traditional cry of the shortsighted. I couldn't let this one go by without commenting.
According to studies, every dollar spent in space has returned at least $10 into the wider economy. Odds are, you posted this comment using one of the spinoffs from the space program: a small computer. The development of smaller, faster computers (like the one you are reading this on!) was a direct result of the space program. You can't really fit a room sized computer into a space capsule, can you? It's much better to develop a smaller, lighter one that's just as powerful.
There are dozens and dozens of technologies that came out of the space program, technologies that would probably have taken decades more to develop without the spur of necessity.
Ah, but who needs things like improved solar panels on earth. We have 216 years of coal lying around. We can just use that...
Who really needs better battery technology on Earth. You're never very far from the stable, reliable electrical grid, are you?
Who needs improved communications technologies? We have a perfectly adequate network of cables lying around right now...
Who needs improved manufacturing techniques? Manufacturers improve those as a matter of course in their quest for higher profits.
Necessity drives invention. Without sufficient necessity, people tend to do that which they are familiar with. (Just look at the auto industry in the late sixties, or the current state of Hollywood.) They continue to use coal and oil, because there isn't a perceived need that will justify the expense of research. They continue to use old techniques, because they are good enough.
But give them the spur of having to develop technologies capable of sustaining life in space, and all of a sudden, the level of innovation, the level of creativity, spikes. And funny enough - when you figure out how to do something for the space program - then you start looking around to find out where else you can apply it.
Put a satellite in orbit to see if it can be done, and all of a sudden, we have a network of weather satellites.
Put a man in orbit and have to communicate with him, and all of a sudden, ground to space communications is important. And that gives us a network of communications satellites that are so ubiquitous that you probably don't even realize that you're using them.
These are technologies that have current, direct benefits to the people around us. For every obvious benefit, there are dozens that are less obvious, till you do the research.
Slashdot Mirror
> The problem is not the user. Period. If you design a car that has accidents for the most inocous of reasons you would be out of business in a snap, blaming the user would not save you.
Ever seen film of the early 60's Corvair van in a 5 mph slalom? Damn thing would roll! At 5mph! Last I checked, GM is still in business.
If you're running Win98SE - you can always refresh your installation by running
/p f"
"setup
That goes through the installation procedure, refreshing all the corrupted/replaced files. Gives you options to keep the more recent ones, too. That's solved many a problem for me...
...is that, chances are, these technologies will be developed anyway, and they will be developed to solve the problem directly at hand, thus making the research effort cheaper and the results better.
;-)
Which problem is that? The problem of generating solutions to real issues, or the problem of generating more profit for already large corporations? Which do you think will be done first?
Colour me cynical, but I think that we'd see businesses developing things that would bring them a direct, easy, obvious profit first. Solving real problems, after all, just means that the profit opportunity goes away.
I mean, so space exploration is going to solve the education problems in the third world? Are farmer boys from africa going to sit at a videoconference lecture held by a professor from Harvard? Give me a break.
Maybe they won't - but will they watch an educational television program distributed by satellite? More likely.
Would schools in Africa benefit from satellite broadcasts? Probably.
Would the farmers benefit from having satellite data of their crops? Definitely.
Would access to the internet (by satellite) benefit remote areas of Africa? Probably.
I have no problems with space exploration, but why is it that when it comes to space, there is always a lot of blind dreaming going on?
Because it's easier to dream when you don't get distracted by what's around you.
Applied research (aka engineering) is aimed at the problems you can see. Basic research (aka science) is aimed at the causes of the problems you can see. Given the choice, most businesses fund applied research. The average businessman appreciates risk, but they tend to like to know what they're going to get out of it. This gets us a lot of improvements to existing products.
Just because space is more entertaining than say, cancer research, it doesn't make it more important.
False argument. It's not an either-or situation. Space research supports Cancer research. Where do you think that all those small medical instruments came from anyways? They were developed because Ground Control needed to monitor the astronauts. Once the basic technology is developed, it is then adapted to other areas.
Necessity - invention - application.
And by the way, we have plenty of time for space exploration before the odd meteor hits or the sun explodes..
Okay - we now have reports that there may be a major collision between Earth and an asteroid in 2014. We have less than 11 years to develop technologies to protect the planet. Or would you rather just trust that we'll get missed?
That argument is like saying that you have lots of time to check your brakes before the odd child darts in front of you, or you get cut off in traffic....
I think we have enough problems we could solve on earth with all the money that goes into space travel.
Ah, the traditional cry of the shortsighted. I couldn't let this one go by without commenting.
According to studies, every dollar spent in space has returned at least $10 into the wider economy. Odds are, you posted this comment using one of the spinoffs from the space program: a small computer. The development of smaller, faster computers (like the one you are reading this on!) was a direct result of the space program. You can't really fit a room sized computer into a space capsule, can you? It's much better to develop a smaller, lighter one that's just as powerful.
There are dozens and dozens of technologies that came out of the space program, technologies that would probably have taken decades more to develop without the spur of necessity.
Ah, but who needs things like improved solar panels on earth.
We have 216 years of coal lying around. We can just use that...
Who really needs better battery technology on Earth.
You're never very far from the stable, reliable electrical grid, are you?
Who needs improved communications technologies?
We have a perfectly adequate network of cables lying around right now...
Who needs improved manufacturing techniques?
Manufacturers improve those as a matter of course in their quest for higher profits.
Necessity drives invention. Without sufficient necessity, people tend to do that which they are familiar with. (Just look at the auto industry in the late sixties, or the current state of Hollywood.) They continue to use coal and oil, because there isn't a perceived need that will justify the expense of research. They continue to use old techniques, because they are good enough.
But give them the spur of having to develop technologies capable of sustaining life in space, and all of a sudden, the level of innovation, the level of creativity, spikes. And funny enough - when you figure out how to do something for the space program - then you start looking around to find out where else you can apply it.
Put a satellite in orbit to see if it can be done, and all of a sudden, we have a network of weather satellites.
Put a man in orbit and have to communicate with him, and all of a sudden, ground to space communications is important. And that gives us a network of communications satellites that are so ubiquitous that you probably don't even realize that you're using them.
These are technologies that have current, direct benefits to the people around us. For every obvious benefit, there are dozens that are less obvious, till you do the research.