Sending people to Mars is not a very cost effective way to do science. For the same money you'd be able to send dozens of unmanned probes. Granted, they work slowly, but they don't get tired, and can spend years on the Martian surface without food, oxygen and water. They also don't have to come back.
Who said anything that the goal was to "impress" you or the American people? If the goal is to use the moon as a base, NASA has to re-develop the technology to get back there.
There's no economic benefit to a moon base, so it's all for show anyway.
However it is cheaper than launching directly from Earth.
You conveniently leave out the mass of the fuel station on the Moon that has to be launched from Earth, and gently landed on the Moon. Why don't you add that back in, and redo your calculations...
I like the fact that the hardware is identical, but teams can make their own software. The race also offers a nice way to measure progress in a controlled environment that still offers enough challenges to be useful in the real world.
if you tax corporations more they just increase prices for consumers, because if they could get away with the higher prices they'd already be charging them.
They can't get away with higher prices because people would shop at a competitor. But if you raise taxes for all of them, they can increase the price for consumers, because the competitor would do the same.
I have no problems with tax law modifications to make things fairer, and assure that everybody's got a good shot at surviving.
But if a robot can do the work more efficiently than a person, then we shouldn't try to stop it. Instead, let's find something else for the person to do. And if there's really nothing else (not very likely in the foreseeable future), then we redistribute some of the money in the least complicated fashion.
If the cake is large enough to feed everyone why are we making more cake?
Because there's still international competition for resources.
It's interesting how you measure wealth, historically wealth was measured by land, gold, and gemstones. There's no argument that by that definition per capita wealth is much lower.
Only if you believe the price of gold and land have stayed the same, which makes no sense considering that their supply is limited.
That's stupid. Imagine total economic output as a cake. Taxes can be used to redistribute the cake in a (hopefully) fair way. Robot workers and automation make the cake bigger. You should not use taxes as a mechanism to keep the cake small.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to fund Climate Change studies so we can Terraform the Earth next century.
there's no economic benefit to a colony in North America
The analogy makes no sense. You could have dropped a naked man there without any tools, and he'd be able to survive. Try that on the Moon.
Sending people to Mars is not a very cost effective way to do science. For the same money you'd be able to send dozens of unmanned probes. Granted, they work slowly, but they don't get tired, and can spend years on the Martian surface without food, oxygen and water. They also don't have to come back.
Who said anything that the goal was to "impress" you or the American people? If the goal is to use the moon as a base, NASA has to re-develop the technology to get back there.
There's no economic benefit to a moon base, so it's all for show anyway.
The hard part is the low level engineering and testing,
And the *really* hard part is finding a good reason to do it.
However it is cheaper than launching directly from Earth.
You conveniently leave out the mass of the fuel station on the Moon that has to be launched from Earth, and gently landed on the Moon. Why don't you add that back in, and redo your calculations...
It may be slightly interesting at first,but the best ones will quickly rise to the top, and no new ones will be capable of competing
I've been watching computer chess since the 80's, and there have been quite a few changes at the top. Any team can have the next brilliant idea.
People watch racing because there is risk of a crash with humans in the cockpit
I watch racing, but a crash is the last thing I want to see.
I like the fact that the hardware is identical, but teams can make their own software. The race also offers a nice way to measure progress in a controlled environment that still offers enough challenges to be useful in the real world.
It seems most conspiracy theories of this sort involve a lack of understanding of basic physics.
Indeed. Same applies to 9/11 conspiracy theories involving the physics of the planes and buildings.
The next step would be to deny entry for people with wiped phones.
No, it's that you can't trust the investigators until the investigators are trustworthy
Trustworthy to whom ?
Are resources so tight that we have to do things in sequence ?
Trump got in via the electoral college.
With the most votes ever...
How much "Top Secret" information have you seen on twitter? Why do you people try to make yourself look like morons.
If you think that posting "Top Secret" information on twitter is the only security risk of a private phone, you are the moron.
You misunderstand. Let me try again:
if you tax corporations more they just increase prices for consumers, because if they could get away with the higher prices they'd already be charging them.
They can't get away with higher prices because people would shop at a competitor. But if you raise taxes for all of them, they can increase the price for consumers, because the competitor would do the same.
Now, we just have to shred all the corporate tax loopholes and get them to start paying some taxes in the first place.
Which will just send them over the border to a country with more loopholes.
I have no problems with tax law modifications to make things fairer, and assure that everybody's got a good shot at surviving.
But if a robot can do the work more efficiently than a person, then we shouldn't try to stop it. Instead, let's find something else for the person to do. And if there's really nothing else (not very likely in the foreseeable future), then we redistribute some of the money in the least complicated fashion.
If the cake is large enough to feed everyone why are we making more cake?
Because there's still international competition for resources.
Let's do an investigation and be completely secure.
There's still a problem with GPS tracking and remote activation of microphone and camera.
So, according to his own words, he should be locked up in prison.
After they buy all your property, and compete with you on the global market for resources, there won't be anything left for you either.
It's interesting how you measure wealth, historically wealth was measured by land, gold, and gemstones. There's no argument that by that definition per capita wealth is much lower.
Only if you believe the price of gold and land have stayed the same, which makes no sense considering that their supply is limited.
Without the taxes, the competitor can choose to keep his prices lower.
That's stupid. Imagine total economic output as a cake. Taxes can be used to redistribute the cake in a (hopefully) fair way. Robot workers and automation make the cake bigger. You should not use taxes as a mechanism to keep the cake small.