Considering it will cost billions to send people to the moon versus the millions it cost sending unmanned flights, exactly what scientific experiment could those people do that an unmanned flight could not do? Look for evidence of life or water? Collect samples? Please enlighten me why we need to send a human there to do those things?
Oh I dunno, maybe look with a critical eye at hundreds of samples as opposed to the dozen or so a robot can look at? Actually touch and feel the composition of rocks? Construct a habitat to base from and not die in 3 months due to solar panel failure? Or a faulty wheel? Humans can do much more than a robot, more efficiently, and with the proper goals, for better reasons.
Humans were not meant to cook their food. But that worked out OK. Or wear clothes. Also, seems to be alright. Humans also weren't meant to travel faster than we can walk -- our reflexes have trouble with events at high speed -- but we make do. And our world is better for it.
The fallacy you are committing is that there will be a point when we say "ok, NOW we can pursue spaceflight, NOW we are ready" -- thats absurd. We should always be pursuing everything we can, in parallel. To close off thought, or dreams, or progress in any direction because "we arent ready" is foolish. Humans don't learn by not doing - we learn by doing.
humans are too valuable to risk indiscriminatly and for no purpose. there's a difference.
If robots are so great for infrastructure, why don't they build bridges for us? Bridge building is very dangerous...but humans do it all the time. Its a matter of priorities. Are humans too valuable to risk if all we're doing is putting a flag on a rock? Yes. Are they too valuable to risk if we're building a bridge to the moons, planets and stars? No.
I think its enough too. But its not for most people. That may or may not be a problem, to each his own.
But that doesnt mean human spaceflight is a waste. It means that the goals need to be changed to convince a majority of people that its not a waste. Asteroid mining. LowGrav amusement parks. The possibilities are endless but its not JUST about exploration, its about imagination, and many people have that.
Of course, there are lots of problems here on earth too that need work. Everyone's priorities may be different. And that again, may or may not be a bad thing.
...if you follow this assumption: "Let us not obfuscate the issue with false analogies to Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, and Lewis and Clark, or with visions of establishing a pleasant tourist resort on the planet Mars," van Allen suggests
The space shuttle is PR. The ISS is a waste and a flop. The ISS should be a means not an end. Flags and footprints of COURSE aren't worth it if, again, they are an end and not a beginning.
However, those analogies to Columbus, Magellan, L&C and the tourist resort on Mars cease to be false if the goals are changed. If the point is to continue to grow out and off our ball of dirt, then none of the steps are a waste. If the goal is to put a flag on Mars and never return, then yes, it is a waste.
Totally untrue. Because most people have their email include the text from replies, so if you have lots of email conversations, its adding 5k to each email. the 4th email will be 20k. the 6th, 30k. It adds up fast.
...one, someone keeps paying to listen (not a guarantee, but I hope it happens) and two, there's somone out there for us to here. If there isn't, it sure is an awful waste of space, seeing as how we're not exactly jumping to fill it. But that's another matter entirely.
Here's what i never understood, maybe you or someone can help me out...
if eavesdropping on the encrypted transmission destroys it, couldnt the eavesdropper do so on purpose everytime, effectively jamming all transmission? Little point in having a secure way to communicate if no message can ever get through.
no way man! thats awesome! EVEN BETTER was this thing i found the other day! Its a goofy page of a bunch of hamsters! DANCING! Who's ever heard of something so absurd! I can't wait to see what else people make dance!
For you that's fine, and I have no problem with that. But if thats the ONLY option available, it sucks. What if I give out my number to someone to call me, and I don't have their number? What if they have to call me from a different phone? Phone interviews....emergency calls from whoknowswhere...these would all be blocked if they aren't on the whitelist. That's why I think whitelisting is crap -- in the real world there's too many times where I've needed to be able to accept phone calls from a number I didn't know, and if whitelisting is going to be the only option available to me to combat spam, then that's not an option at all. To push whitelisting as the alternative to good legislation and sane enforcement, that is a copout.
I hate whitelisting. Its just a poor way to protect the end user. There are many instances, both for email, or cell phones where a whitelist will block an important transmission. To push whitelisting as the solution is a cop-out. It increases litigation, but creating good, informed, solid and unambiguous laws is the best way to stop spammers.
Sadly, I'm too poor and unconnected to run for office. Otherwise I would. I doubt many 25 year olds are considered electable anyway. Maybe when I'm 35.
Is that me, the voter, has no control over it. I never get to say what I think about something like this. Sure I could send a letter, but its never read, some staffer puts it in the "against" pile for this issue, and since its not well publicized, the politicians will ignore the letters on it. "Not representative of all constituents."
Sure I could vote for someone who says they won't cut the nasa budget....but when was the last time you heard a politician say that? Also, there's no guarantee a particular politician will ever be on the correct committee to cut/not cut the budget.
Its all very frustrating, but thats the price of our system I suppose. I still think its the best system around.
No, I think you're missing his point totally. He's not trying to be funny.
Bad idea. Everyone knows that most headlines are made at the top of the hour. Thus, A.M. radio always give news headlines "at-the-top-of-hour." RSS reader should be given the same timely updates.
What he's saying here is that people are conditioned to expect news headlines at the top of the hour. Erego, they EXPECT their RSS newsfeeds to grab news at the top of every hour. People are conditioned to check the news every hour, on the hour....thats why its the 5 oclock news, the 6 oclock news, highlights at 11. No one expects headlines at 3:28 pm, or highlights at 9:37. Similarly, they don't expect their newsfeeds to update at 8:22 and 9:14, they expect it at 8:00 and 9:00.
His traffic comment is that most traffic accidents DO happen 20 after and 20 before the hour -- it has nothing to do with when the radio announces it. See a sibling post for the full explanation.
no i think he's being serious. Since most people's schedules are based on the hour marks, it stands to chance that most people are rushing to get to their destination 20 minutes before the hour, and rushing out of their wherever 20 minutes after the hour. So, since the schedules are all synched, the traffic volume quickly swells 20 min before/after the hour and bam -- thats when you get the most accidents.
Most major cities I think have traffic reports more often than just on 20/40.
Well that would depend on how much water ice is invisible on mars. Venus has a big atmosphere, so thats a lot of volume area. There's a significantly thick upper shell thats constantly condensing sulfuric acid (which has a lots of H in it) raining it down a few thousand feet, then evaporating back up and doing it all over again. All over the planet, constantly. So I'd say that there's a lot of H locked up in that.
either way, all comes down to the magnetosphere i guess. thats the key. 8) it still shows that a larger planet can hold some sort of atmosphere compared to a little planet like mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering it will cost billions to send people to the moon versus the millions it cost sending unmanned flights, exactly what scientific experiment could those people do that an unmanned flight could not do? Look for evidence of life or water? Collect samples? Please enlighten me why we need to send a human there to do those things?
Oh I dunno, maybe look with a critical eye at hundreds of samples as opposed to the dozen or so a robot can look at? Actually touch and feel the composition of rocks? Construct a habitat to base from and not die in 3 months due to solar panel failure? Or a faulty wheel? Humans can do much more than a robot, more efficiently, and with the proper goals, for better reasons.
Humans were not meant to cook their food. But that worked out OK. Or wear clothes. Also, seems to be alright. Humans also weren't meant to travel faster than we can walk -- our reflexes have trouble with events at high speed -- but we make do. And our world is better for it.
The fallacy you are committing is that there will be a point when we say "ok, NOW we can pursue spaceflight, NOW we are ready" -- thats absurd. We should always be pursuing everything we can, in parallel. To close off thought, or dreams, or progress in any direction because "we arent ready" is foolish. Humans don't learn by not doing - we learn by doing.
humans are too valuable to risk indiscriminatly and for no purpose. there's a difference.
If robots are so great for infrastructure, why don't they build bridges for us? Bridge building is very dangerous...but humans do it all the time. Its a matter of priorities. Are humans too valuable to risk if all we're doing is putting a flag on a rock? Yes. Are they too valuable to risk if we're building a bridge to the moons, planets and stars? No.
I think its enough too. But its not for most people. That may or may not be a problem, to each his own.
But that doesnt mean human spaceflight is a waste. It means that the goals need to be changed to convince a majority of people that its not a waste. Asteroid mining. LowGrav amusement parks. The possibilities are endless but its not JUST about exploration, its about imagination, and many people have that.
Of course, there are lots of problems here on earth too that need work. Everyone's priorities may be different. And that again, may or may not be a bad thing.
...if you follow this assumption:
"Let us not obfuscate the issue with false analogies to Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, and Lewis and Clark, or with visions of establishing a pleasant tourist resort on the planet Mars," van Allen suggests
The space shuttle is PR. The ISS is a waste and a flop. The ISS should be a means not an end. Flags and footprints of COURSE aren't worth it if, again, they are an end and not a beginning.
However, those analogies to Columbus, Magellan, L&C and the tourist resort on Mars cease to be false if the goals are changed. If the point is to continue to grow out and off our ball of dirt, then none of the steps are a waste. If the goal is to put a flag on Mars and never return, then yes, it is a waste.
Totally untrue. Because most people have their email include the text from replies, so if you have lots of email conversations, its adding 5k to each email. the 4th email will be 20k. the 6th, 30k. It adds up fast.
Hey, what IS to stop microsoft from doing that? someone should make a law!
Hmm now i feel kinda guilty for having mentioned anything...
Once again, ability to make robot sound effects properly predicts good mating characteristics!
Right. That's all we need...a robot that looks like us and beats us to death.
"It's a robot -- just a flying one," said senior Jessica Dooley, 22, of Phoenix, stepping mechanically like a robot and making "err, err, err" sounds.
Wow. She sounds hot...
thumbs man. not brains. its what separates us from the animals. Sure, dolphins are smarter, but can they hold a fork? NO! it all comes down to thumbs.
...one, someone keeps paying to listen (not a guarantee, but I hope it happens) and two, there's somone out there for us to here. If there isn't, it sure is an awful waste of space, seeing as how we're not exactly jumping to fill it. But that's another matter entirely.
Here's what i never understood, maybe you or someone can help me out...
if eavesdropping on the encrypted transmission destroys it, couldnt the eavesdropper do so on purpose everytime, effectively jamming all transmission? Little point in having a secure way to communicate if no message can ever get through.
no way man! thats awesome! EVEN BETTER was this thing i found the other day! Its a goofy page of a bunch of hamsters! DANCING! Who's ever heard of something so absurd! I can't wait to see what else people make dance!
For you that's fine, and I have no problem with that. But if thats the ONLY option available, it sucks. What if I give out my number to someone to call me, and I don't have their number? What if they have to call me from a different phone? Phone interviews....emergency calls from whoknowswhere...these would all be blocked if they aren't on the whitelist. That's why I think whitelisting is crap -- in the real world there's too many times where I've needed to be able to accept phone calls from a number I didn't know, and if whitelisting is going to be the only option available to me to combat spam, then that's not an option at all. To push whitelisting as the alternative to good legislation and sane enforcement, that is a copout.
I hate whitelisting. Its just a poor way to protect the end user. There are many instances, both for email, or cell phones where a whitelist will block an important transmission. To push whitelisting as the solution is a cop-out. It increases litigation, but creating good, informed, solid and unambiguous laws is the best way to stop spammers.
What country is this? Thats an interesting idea....
Sadly, I'm too poor and unconnected to run for office. Otherwise I would. I doubt many 25 year olds are considered electable anyway. Maybe when I'm 35.
Is that me, the voter, has no control over it. I never get to say what I think about something like this. Sure I could send a letter, but its never read, some staffer puts it in the "against" pile for this issue, and since its not well publicized, the politicians will ignore the letters on it. "Not representative of all constituents."
Sure I could vote for someone who says they won't cut the nasa budget....but when was the last time you heard a politician say that? Also, there's no guarantee a particular politician will ever be on the correct committee to cut/not cut the budget.
Its all very frustrating, but thats the price of our system I suppose. I still think its the best system around.
No, I think you're missing his point totally. He's not trying to be funny.
Bad idea. Everyone knows that most headlines are made at the top of the hour. Thus, A.M. radio always give news headlines "at-the-top-of-hour." RSS reader should be given the same timely updates.
What he's saying here is that people are conditioned to expect news headlines at the top of the hour. Erego, they EXPECT their RSS newsfeeds to grab news at the top of every hour. People are conditioned to check the news every hour, on the hour....thats why its the 5 oclock news, the 6 oclock news, highlights at 11. No one expects headlines at 3:28 pm, or highlights at 9:37. Similarly, they don't expect their newsfeeds to update at 8:22 and 9:14, they expect it at 8:00 and 9:00.
His traffic comment is that most traffic accidents DO happen 20 after and 20 before the hour -- it has nothing to do with when the radio announces it. See a sibling post for the full explanation.
no i think he's being serious. Since most people's schedules are based on the hour marks, it stands to chance that most people are rushing to get to their destination 20 minutes before the hour, and rushing out of their wherever 20 minutes after the hour. So, since the schedules are all synched, the traffic volume quickly swells 20 min before/after the hour and bam -- thats when you get the most accidents.
Most major cities I think have traffic reports more often than just on 20/40.
Well that would depend on how much water ice is invisible on mars. Venus has a big atmosphere, so thats a lot of volume area. There's a significantly thick upper shell thats constantly condensing sulfuric acid (which has a lots of H in it) raining it down a few thousand feet, then evaporating back up and doing it all over again. All over the planet, constantly. So I'd say that there's a lot of H locked up in that.
Just depends on how much ice is under mars.
well its still got more hydrogen than mars. ;)
either way, all comes down to the magnetosphere i guess. thats the key. 8) it still shows that a larger planet can hold some sort of atmosphere compared to a little planet like mars.
no. he said traffic accidents happen on the twenties. not traffic reports. it seems pretty unambiguous to me, im not sure what the confusion is.