Seriously. At the very least, if you're gonna be late, link to or have some interesting and/. crowd specific commentary. Otherwise its just a day late repeat of freshnews.org.
his contribution was to do it in a different, faster, and now accepted better way. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. No, he didn't have to do it, but he did at private expense, so he gets to do it any way he wants. The fact that he used his own dna does NOT invalidate the results.
A scientifically careful approach can now be done quickly and easily thanks to his now proven superior technique and his baseline results, which happen to be his own dna. Again, doesn't sound like a problem to me. Private works get to do things the way they see fit. If the scientific community wishes to invalidate the results, then so be it -- but they haven't. So what's wrong with what he did?
so he used his own DNA...big deal! He had to use someone's! By using his own, no release forms, no malpractice insurance, cuts costs. I don't see the problem with it. Would you have preferred a "perfect human specimen"? Perhaps Arnold? Or Gates? Or Torvalds? One guy is as good as the next. Who cares if he used his own!
well its considered private, personal data. You can release it to whomever you wish of course, but a doctor or medical practitioner or data warehouse cannot. The smallest problem that could occur is of course identity theft. I work with private medical data every day, and privacy is a big deal. The laws and penalties for releasing data accidentally or without authorization are pretty severe.
right, i replied in the post above, i was meaning "classified" not "Classified" -- any information with a class (secret, private, time sensitive) i considered classified. I admit I wasn't clear enough.
correct, and i amend my definition of "classified" to also include "private" information, like medical records and SSNs and all that. OF COURSE I don't believe that stuff is public information, so I simply considered it classified. It's not that all information not classified is public, its that all information not public is classified -- perhaps classified as top secret, perhaps as private medical info, etc.
First off, if classified info got to a P2P network, then there was a security breach BEFORE it got there. The p2p network is not the problem.
Second, if the info isn't classified, why shouldn't it be on p2p? If a jet crashed and there's a picture, and its not classified info, then there's nothing wrong with it being public information, because it IS public information.
$10M is a lot of money. What do these guys plan to do with it? Either team? I haven't heard much about that. Is there somone I should be rooting for? Is one team planning to live off the money and pass it on to their kids and the other planning to feed the hungry? Or what?
basically van allen is saying human spaceflight isn't worth it. given what current human spaceflight goals are, i agree. but ill never say that all the science we need to do can be done more efficiently with robots, because it can't. send robots FIRST but don't send them ONLY.
so i say change the goals. now. make it worth it, now. i say it can be done. thats the basis. yes, its my opinion, no i havent written a study. nor has 99% of anyone else here.
why should I have to point to one? Sure, its initially very expensive. But if we never send people, just robots, then its money with no monetary return. A permanent station can eventually self sustain. It can reduce operating costs. It can give more WORTH for the money, long run, than rover after rover after rover. eventually, after a bunch of rovers and several billion dollars, how can you get more info? you have to build another rover. for the same amount of money as the first rover.
send people, and costs fall. more information is sent back. more is learned. more people can be sent to do different things. money can be made. show people money can be made, and theyll invest. show them pictures of rocks from a dying rover, and they say "whats the point?"
question is, can robots do all those things today? Im not sure they can, so maybe we need the humans to do it. second, what are the humans going to do living permanently there? If its like the space station, where they're just there to do PR spots and little experiments, I have a problem with it.
And its my contention that the manned space program should also be redesigned with a bigger budget and better goals. Human missions should increase, as well as the budgets for them.
Youre totally right. We should just replace all scientists on earth with robots too. Since obviously they can do it better than us.
NO ONE in their right mind will tell you that a robot can do surface sampling and study better than a human. Those rovers on mars have only moved a couple Km in MONTHS. A person could do it in a week, and have looked at/gathered more samples.
Touch and feel is very important. Thats why there is such an importance in education on hands-on lab work. Otherwise, robots would just do it.
It's easier and cheaper to keep a human alive on mars if the goal is for it to become self-sustaining. There is more initial cost and engineering to do, but less to just send a "care package" every so often.
Except, when we lose mars probes, everything shuts down too.
And when the comet hits, and there's no humans left to make robots....then what? I sure hope we hopped SOMEWHERE else.
The Space Shuttle isn't real exploration. It's PR. When someone gets lost on a PR trip, of course there are problems. When someone dies while building an oil rig, or some other infrastructure based item, there are inquiries and a temporary shutdown, but in the end, it gets built. That's the difference. Sorry you don't like analogies, but in the end its the same thing. Eventually a space elevator will be in the same class as the Golden Gate Bridge, and no longer just an analagous comparison.
Perhaps, but Im willing to bet that the proportion of cooked food to raw food that humans eat FAR FAR outpaces the proportion naturally occurring in nature.
Slashdot Mirror
No. My elementary school wasn't big on science, its a miracle I'm the science nerd that I am today!
I bring it up because in the thread about the Genome guy, he was being criticized for using his own DNA.
Did he use his own, or watson's, DNA under the microscope to make the discovery?
Seriously. At the very least, if you're gonna be late, link to or have some interesting and /. crowd specific commentary. Otherwise its just a day late repeat of freshnews.org.
Step Three: Profit?
I have to agree with ya. Im still skeptical that doom3 will be any good, gameplay wise. sure it looks great, but...
his contribution was to do it in a different, faster, and now accepted better way. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. No, he didn't have to do it, but he did at private expense, so he gets to do it any way he wants. The fact that he used his own dna does NOT invalidate the results.
A scientifically careful approach can now be done quickly and easily thanks to his now proven superior technique and his baseline results, which happen to be his own dna. Again, doesn't sound like a problem to me. Private works get to do things the way they see fit. If the scientific community wishes to invalidate the results, then so be it -- but they haven't. So what's wrong with what he did?
so he used his own DNA...big deal! He had to use someone's! By using his own, no release forms, no malpractice insurance, cuts costs. I don't see the problem with it. Would you have preferred a "perfect human specimen"? Perhaps Arnold? Or Gates? Or Torvalds? One guy is as good as the next. Who cares if he used his own!
well its considered private, personal data. You can release it to whomever you wish of course, but a doctor or medical practitioner or data warehouse cannot. The smallest problem that could occur is of course identity theft. I work with private medical data every day, and privacy is a big deal. The laws and penalties for releasing data accidentally or without authorization are pretty severe.
right, i replied in the post above, i was meaning "classified" not "Classified" -- any information with a class (secret, private, time sensitive) i considered classified. I admit I wasn't clear enough.
correct, and i amend my definition of "classified" to also include "private" information, like medical records and SSNs and all that. OF COURSE I don't believe that stuff is public information, so I simply considered it classified. It's not that all information not classified is public, its that all information not public is classified -- perhaps classified as top secret, perhaps as private medical info, etc.
First off, if classified info got to a P2P network, then there was a security breach BEFORE it got there. The p2p network is not the problem.
Second, if the info isn't classified, why shouldn't it be on p2p? If a jet crashed and there's a picture, and its not classified info, then there's nothing wrong with it being public information, because it IS public information.
If they don't win, will they be doing that anyway?
$10M is a lot of money. What do these guys plan to do with it? Either team? I haven't heard much about that. Is there somone I should be rooting for? Is one team planning to live off the money and pass it on to their kids and the other planning to feed the hungry? Or what?
im also in too many threads at once. ;)
right. back then they were eating a lot more raw food than cooked. so the cooked thing worked out, and we do it more than raw now.
basically van allen is saying human spaceflight isn't worth it. given what current human spaceflight goals are, i agree. but ill never say that all the science we need to do can be done more efficiently with robots, because it can't. send robots FIRST but don't send them ONLY.
so i say change the goals. now. make it worth it, now. i say it can be done. thats the basis. yes, its my opinion, no i havent written a study. nor has 99% of anyone else here.
why should I have to point to one? Sure, its initially very expensive. But if we never send people, just robots, then its money with no monetary return. A permanent station can eventually self sustain. It can reduce operating costs. It can give more WORTH for the money, long run, than rover after rover after rover. eventually, after a bunch of rovers and several billion dollars, how can you get more info? you have to build another rover. for the same amount of money as the first rover.
send people, and costs fall. more information is sent back. more is learned. more people can be sent to do different things. money can be made. show people money can be made, and theyll invest. show them pictures of rocks from a dying rover, and they say "whats the point?"
hmmm....this moon beer idea intrigues me...
well thats not so bad. maybe i did misread.
question is, can robots do all those things today? Im not sure they can, so maybe we need the humans to do it. second, what are the humans going to do living permanently there? If its like the space station, where they're just there to do PR spots and little experiments, I have a problem with it.
its several billion round trip. for a short duration stay. think bigger. think leaving them there, and sustaining the habitat, or colony.
long term, its cheaper.
And its my contention that the manned space program should also be redesigned with a bigger budget and better goals. Human missions should increase, as well as the budgets for them.
Youre totally right. We should just replace all scientists on earth with robots too. Since obviously they can do it better than us.
NO ONE in their right mind will tell you that a robot can do surface sampling and study better than a human. Those rovers on mars have only moved a couple Km in MONTHS. A person could do it in a week, and have looked at/gathered more samples.
Touch and feel is very important. Thats why there is such an importance in education on hands-on lab work. Otherwise, robots would just do it.
It's easier and cheaper to keep a human alive on mars if the goal is for it to become self-sustaining. There is more initial cost and engineering to do, but less to just send a "care package" every so often.
Except, when we lose mars probes, everything shuts down too.
And when the comet hits, and there's no humans left to make robots....then what? I sure hope we hopped SOMEWHERE else.
The Space Shuttle isn't real exploration. It's PR. When someone gets lost on a PR trip, of course there are problems. When someone dies while building an oil rig, or some other infrastructure based item, there are inquiries and a temporary shutdown, but in the end, it gets built. That's the difference. Sorry you don't like analogies, but in the end its the same thing. Eventually a space elevator will be in the same class as the Golden Gate Bridge, and no longer just an analagous comparison.
Perhaps, but Im willing to bet that the proportion of cooked food to raw food that humans eat FAR FAR outpaces the proportion naturally occurring in nature.
Unless we send the humans to Mars. Or Saturn. Don't say its impossible, because its not.