That's simple: because our robotics technology really isn't very advanced, and to do so would take a lot of time and effort.
Robot technology is not advanced? WTF? Tell that to your surgeon who removes your appendix by remote controlled robot from a control room 900 miles away. Our robotics technology has come a long way and I bet even Moon Money would come into the game too late to have much influence.
Now, nanobot development, on the other hand, could benefit from Moon Money.
Instead, we could get a highly intelligent automaton called a "human", which we have over 6.5 billion of in stock, and use that instead. There's no development time at all required, just a little training time (and there's plenty with most of the requisite training already available).
Riiiight. We just pluck those astronauts from under the bush, eh? Just how many years and how many millions go into training an astronaut?
Oh, wait! You're refering to the modern school-teacher type astronaut! The kind surrounded by machines and other humans dedicated to keeping her alive and intact. Why, THAT kind of astronaut comes a dime-a-dozen, and they're so cheap we can afford to incinerate one now and then. Is that the kind of astronaut you want picking up rocks and hitting golf balls on Mars?
Best just to send robots to do that work. You could land an analysis ship or three--robot manipulators and lab gear. And you could land a hundred gatherer bots designed to bring rock samples to the lab ship. And these bots could even fly to their destinations, covering great distances. AND you could orbit a few eye-in-the-sky High Def camera ships AND operate a fleet of small flying/hovering camera bots.
You could do ALL of this for less than the cost of putting human bootprints in the Martian soil.
People can deal with unknown parameters a lot better then even the most advanced machine and software right now.
Utter rubbish. The people sent in space do as told by the ground control engineers. And the consequence of mistaken judgement in situations with unknown parameters (usually a failing life support system) is death. Death results in the inability of the wetware to operate the controls as required by ground control.
Look, just because Tom Hanks made you believe that astronauts were critical to the moon mission in the late 60's does not mean humans would be required today to get the same results.
People put a face on exploration. Humans like to achieve great things.
So, a wasteful trip to Mars is a great thing? It's a great big boondoggle, certainly. Humans also like to post "First!" wherever they go, whether it be discussion groups or polar regions.
I'd say we've gotten more science from the Hubble robot than from all the Moon missions combined.
I think there is some what of a false dichotomy going on here. I think they should send up Humans and machines.
There sure is a lot of muddy, wishful thinking going on! Of course you send humans into space in a machine, surrounded by machines. Machines designed to keep frail humans alive. Machines designed to let them do manual override, when in reality any such mission will be controlled by the machines in the can and on the ground. The humans are more parasite than intelligence. Hal 2000 got it exactly right.
Still put the much need RnD into robotics. They would just be assitants. Put on down, let it go around and collect samples for you. If it fails, you can still gt your samples and that failure will lead to a better machine next times.
So, a human, that can travel, what, a mile from the ship and work, what, 6 hours on bottle air before it has to go back to the ship, will do a better job than a robot or a ship full of robots? Get real--that's a huge amount of effort to pick up rocks close to the ship. Why not just pollute the planet with LOTS of cheap, small, sterile robots that become disposable, and eventually become raw material for other robots sent to replicate a bot factory on the planet?
When we get to the point where all the human does is drum their fingers while robots do everything else, then we can send Robot only missions to planets.
Exactly what did the moon mission astronauts do on the moon? They set up equipment, they picked up samples and they goofed off a little. They NEVER got to touch the samples or analyze them or in any way add intelligent analysis. All analysis was done on earth. Why would a Mars mission be different?
Of course we have sent robots to the edge of our solar system, but those where very specialized and are going through a lot of 'knowns'.
Finally, the RnD needed to get humans to other bodies will translate into spin off that help humans at home. Materials, safety, etc.
Naw, not this time around. Materials science has progressed so far without a manned space program that there would be little to contribute. Now, if the focus was on nanotech and robotics and ion drives and other things needed to propel intelligent machines throughout our solar system, then the benefits to humans would be direct and rapid.
Riddle me this: when a human dies on another planet or moon or asteroid, do we bury the body there, or bring it back to keep from contaminating the foreign body? Best to stick with robots--we know how to deal with bot death, emotionally...
The next generation of spaceship should not carry humans, food, water or diapers. That stuff is so LAST GENERATION.
The NEXT generation of spaceship should be 100% robotic, with no intention of returning to Earth. And if you simply MUST have souvenir rocks for your earthbound collection, (although this too is utterly ridiculous), you can shoot them back to near-earth orbit as a dead payload and capture them with other robotic vehicles.
Honestly, the old guard at NASA cannot retire early enough! Time for some new thinking. Hold a massive celebration for all the past glories, close the books on manned travel, and get on with the science of robotic exploration. It will benefit us on earth much more quickly to develop robotics and nanotech for the space program.
Just what is the significance of the speed of sound as a measure for deciding the boundary of the termination shock? How 1940's is that? The speed of sound really meant something back then.
If you are going to choose an arbitrary measure, at least choose one that doesn't have you thinking, "In space no one can hear you scream."
The Ximeta NDAS products have worked reliably for me in business & home situations. I've used them for 3 years now. Power use is minimal because it's just the disk and the controller board in a small enclosure.
One drawback to Ximeta is that their low-cost product does not include 1-Gb ethernet, so using these to store video files is a hassle. I use USB or firewire-attached Seagate external drives for the video storage and backup. It's much faster.
If the only reason to use NAS is that you want to back up from several machines, you can just share out those inexpensive external HDs. Same difference, lower cost, AND you can upgrade to 1-Gb by upgrading your NIC.
If you apply experience and reasoning you'll come to a better understanding.
I think social leveling comes into play much more than distance factor or anonymity.
In a public online forum you are socially level with the others in the forum. Age and accomplishment have no bearing, other than they tend to bring skill and experience to bear (but not necessarily so).
So, where freshmen might be intimidated by seniors and juniors when in the same classroom or at the same party, online there are no such social levels. No one is pretty, no one is rich. In that forum, the sum of you is in the words you write. Even accomplishments enumerated in your sig file have little bearing (particularly when they conflict with your online personality).
Second, in an online text forum you can more easily overcome the inhibition brought on by the fear of public speaking. Thoughts that might normally remain skullbound become liberated in these venues.
Finally, the inhibition of conforming to socially acceptable behavior quickly disappears with experience online, because all too soon you witness the hypocrisy of people who whine about trolls and flamers only to turn around and do the same behavior either in that forum or in another. In essence, *everyone* does it at some point, and those who say they do not are often easily proven to be liars.
Your analogy doesn't wash. You believe an online forum is like you on a sidewalk and includes the ability for teens to drive by? Not logical.
Try this, since you favor violence:
An online forum is a Wii boxing ring and you compete against the skill of others on screen. You can win a match or lose it, but really, no matter how hard you punch you cannot do more than win a match and score some points. There are no drive-bys, and nobody has any advantage other than the skill they bring to the ring.
We've learned a lot in the decade since the story, no? I think many people new to online discussion do not know all the rhetorical tools available to them, or how to effectively use the few tools they possess.
Lacking this insight, they resort to the hammer, which is to label a person of contrary viewpoint, and try to gather sympathy from other vocal users of the forum. The goal is to build vocal consensus.
The thing is, ganging up in a public online forum works only to introduce much more noise such that the signal gets drowned. You see this behavior quite often in fan forums. But its effectiveness is limited because the original post remains undiminished near the start of the thread.
You confuse me. First you say we have less social interaction than the past, and then you list many of the ways we interact using technology, methods that were not available to the past.
So, we have ALL the methods available to us that our parents had (you DO go to church, don't you?) AND you have all the convenient technologies of the present (and you USE them!), AND you have much more leisure time at home AND at the office.
So, I'm calling your bluff.
What you call flames and trolls and rude behavior are merely tools of social interaction and are perfectly legitimate in open public online anonymous forums. Politeness and consensus-building are also tools in these forums. So is whining self-pity and complaining. These are merely rhetorical tools.
I suspect what you are seeking is a better education in the use of rhetoric. Perhaps schools should offer an Online Rhetoric class. Perhaps from the Psychology or Sociology departments.
If you think about it, you'll see the hypocrisy of name-calling in an open public forum like usenet.
There are indeed repercussions in such forums. Flames are a consensus group's method of holding accountable the expression of a contrary thought or opinion.
Precisely because those holding consensus opinion choose to flame instead of debate, the contrarian is punished by being denied the honest discussion of the matter at hand.
All you can have in a public discussion forum is discussion, and if you are denied the discussion you desire, then that is indeed a consequence.
Well, OK, it's 2007, so let's apply 23 years of experience to a more refined view of the causes, instead of assuming that it has all been figured out.
Being faceless and depersonalized is too simple. You have to mix in social standing and effect of a level playing field, as well as the human desire to belong to a group, and the tendency of any group to develop and reward groupthink.
You took that one right over the top, circle, when you compared the people who participate in simple internet arguments to mass murderers.
How can you expect us to take you seriously?
Actually, though, your theory lends weight to the idea I expressed (and I won't even try wiki up the originator of either idea). That is, sometimes arguments erupt when consensus opinion is challenged.
For example, you believe that an idea contrary to your own opinion must come from someone with violent tendencies, and then you ACT upon your feelings in the online forum.
It always takes two to tango, circle, and if your dance partner is a heated kettle ready to explode, then what is your role?
I find that "Lord of the Flies"-style group psychology plays a big role in the misunderstandings that erupt online. You can observe these same patterns in other political scenarios.
Discussion groups tend to build consensus quickly, and running threads lead to a form of shorthand communication among many of the participants, who after developing this level of groupthink become intolerant toward any challenge or any newcomer.
Newcomers are typically flamed for knowing little, even if their basic point is aligned with the groupthought. They are perceived this way until they too learn the groupspeak and meld into the consensus. This can happen fairly quickly and the newcomer is expected to remain active.
Contrarians are often quickly labeled as troublemakers, trying to upset the groupthink. Immediately a post contrary to the consensus is labeled as a troll or flamebait, and members of the group rally around to join in commonly ad hominem attacks that serve to reinforce the consensus opinion in the face of a challenge.
Humans, being rational, must think through the logic of any challenge, and humans, being emotional, have a strong desire to remain in a group. The internal and external conflict leads to some very interesting results.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, nanobot development, on the other hand, could benefit from Moon Money. Riiiight. We just pluck those astronauts from under the bush, eh? Just how many years and how many millions go into training an astronaut?
Oh, wait! You're refering to the modern school-teacher type astronaut! The kind surrounded by machines and other humans dedicated to keeping her alive and intact. Why, THAT kind of astronaut comes a dime-a-dozen, and they're so cheap we can afford to incinerate one now and then. Is that the kind of astronaut you want picking up rocks and hitting golf balls on Mars?
Best just to send robots to do that work. You could land an analysis ship or three--robot manipulators and lab gear. And you could land a hundred gatherer bots designed to bring rock samples to the lab ship. And these bots could even fly to their destinations, covering great distances. AND you could orbit a few eye-in-the-sky High Def camera ships AND operate a fleet of small flying/hovering camera bots.
You could do ALL of this for less than the cost of putting human bootprints in the Martian soil.
Utter rubbish. The people sent in space do as told by the ground control engineers. And the consequence of mistaken judgement in situations with unknown parameters (usually a failing life support system) is death. Death results in the inability of the wetware to operate the controls as required by ground control.
Look, just because Tom Hanks made you believe that astronauts were critical to the moon mission in the late 60's does not mean humans would be required today to get the same results.
So, a wasteful trip to Mars is a great thing? It's a great big boondoggle, certainly. Humans also like to post "First!" wherever they go, whether it be discussion groups or polar regions.
I'd say we've gotten more science from the Hubble robot than from all the Moon missions combined.
There sure is a lot of muddy, wishful thinking going on! Of course you send humans into space in a machine, surrounded by machines. Machines designed to keep frail humans alive. Machines designed to let them do manual override, when in reality any such mission will be controlled by the machines in the can and on the ground. The humans are more parasite than intelligence. Hal 2000 got it exactly right.
So, a human, that can travel, what, a mile from the ship and work, what, 6 hours on bottle air before it has to go back to the ship, will do a better job than a robot or a ship full of robots? Get real--that's a huge amount of effort to pick up rocks close to the ship. Why not just pollute the planet with LOTS of cheap, small, sterile robots that become disposable, and eventually become raw material for other robots sent to replicate a bot factory on the planet?
Exactly what did the moon mission astronauts do on the moon? They set up equipment, they picked up samples and they goofed off a little. They NEVER got to touch the samples or analyze them or in any way add intelligent analysis. All analysis was done on earth. Why would a Mars mission be different?
Naw, not this time around. Materials science has progressed so far without a manned space program that there would be little to contribute. Now, if the focus was on nanotech and robotics and ion drives and other things needed to propel intelligent machines throughout our solar system, then the benefits to humans would be direct and rapid.
Riddle me this: when a human dies on another planet or moon or asteroid, do we bury the body there, or bring it back to keep from contaminating the foreign body? Best to stick with robots--we know how to deal with bot death, emotionally...
The next generation of spaceship should not carry humans, food, water or diapers. That stuff is so LAST GENERATION.
The NEXT generation of spaceship should be 100% robotic, with no intention of returning to Earth. And if you simply MUST have souvenir rocks for your earthbound collection, (although this too is utterly ridiculous), you can shoot them back to near-earth orbit as a dead payload and capture them with other robotic vehicles.
Honestly, the old guard at NASA cannot retire early enough! Time for some new thinking. Hold a massive celebration for all the past glories, close the books on manned travel, and get on with the science of robotic exploration. It will benefit us on earth much more quickly to develop robotics and nanotech for the space program.
It takes lots of energy to attack a planet in another solar system?
Not according to my sources on Klandathu! Why, they think you're just blowing smoke out your ass...
True, on landing they may be separated by a country mile, but just think of the opportunities for micro-strafing on the way down...
Sky assassins away!!!
Say, you heard that on TV!
Actually, this is a far cry from bouncing a Slinky down the stairs...
Companies ALWAYS make efforts for their own interest. That is WHY THEY EXIST!
No scandal here. Move along...
Just what is the significance of the speed of sound as a measure for deciding the boundary of the termination shock? How 1940's is that? The speed of sound really meant something back then.
If you are going to choose an arbitrary measure, at least choose one that doesn't have you thinking, "In space no one can hear you scream."
What? You're not able to tell when a message is directed right at ya?
What are you? Stoopid?
The Ximeta NDAS products have worked reliably for me in business & home situations. I've used them for 3 years now.
Power use is minimal because it's just the disk and the controller board in a small enclosure.
One drawback to Ximeta is that their low-cost product does not include 1-Gb ethernet, so using these to store video files is a hassle. I use USB or firewire-attached Seagate external drives for the video storage and backup. It's much faster.
If the only reason to use NAS is that you want to back up from several machines, you can just share out those inexpensive external HDs. Same difference, lower cost, AND you can upgrade to 1-Gb by upgrading your NIC.
"if the mob is large enough, virtually free from consequence."
WTF? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which mobs get away without consequence.
Typically law enforcement deals with mobs >in every society on earth. Just where do large mobs get free reign?
Are you referring to orderly parades and million man marches and county fairs?
Do tell!
If you apply experience and reasoning you'll come to a better understanding.
I think social leveling comes into play much more than distance factor or anonymity.
In a public online forum you are socially level with the others in the forum. Age and accomplishment have no bearing, other than they tend to bring skill and experience to bear (but not necessarily so).
So, where freshmen might be intimidated by seniors and juniors when in the same classroom or at the same party, online there are no such social levels. No one is pretty, no one is rich. In that forum, the sum of you is in the words you write. Even accomplishments enumerated in your sig file have little bearing (particularly when they conflict with your online personality).
Second, in an online text forum you can more easily overcome the inhibition brought on by the fear of public speaking. Thoughts that might normally remain skullbound become liberated in these venues.
Finally, the inhibition of conforming to socially acceptable behavior quickly disappears with experience online, because all too soon you witness the hypocrisy of people who whine about trolls and flamers only to turn around and do the same behavior either in that forum or in another. In essence, *everyone* does it at some point, and those who say they do not are often easily proven to be liars.
Carlin was into heavy drugs then, no?
What about your asshole boss? Is he an asshole only remotely, or does he get right up in your face?
Your analogy doesn't wash. You believe an online forum is like you on a sidewalk and includes the ability for teens to drive by? Not logical.
Try this, since you favor violence:
An online forum is a Wii boxing ring and you compete against the skill of others on screen. You can win a match or lose it, but really, no matter how hard you punch you cannot do more than win a match and score some points. There are no drive-bys, and nobody has any advantage other than the skill they bring to the ring.
Your fists are useless in this situation.
We've learned a lot in the decade since the story, no? I think many people new to online discussion do not know all the rhetorical tools available to them, or how to effectively use the few tools they possess.
Lacking this insight, they resort to the hammer, which is to label a person of contrary viewpoint, and try to gather sympathy from other vocal users of the forum. The goal is to build vocal consensus.
The thing is, ganging up in a public online forum works only to introduce much more noise such that the signal gets drowned. You see this behavior quite often in fan forums. But its effectiveness is limited because the original post remains undiminished near the start of the thread.
You confuse me. First you say we have less social interaction than the past, and then you list many of the ways we interact using technology, methods that were not available to the past.
So, we have ALL the methods available to us that our parents had (you DO go to church, don't you?) AND you have all the convenient technologies of the present (and you USE them!), AND you have much more leisure time at home AND at the office.
So, I'm calling your bluff.
What you call flames and trolls and rude behavior are merely tools of social interaction and are perfectly legitimate in open public online anonymous forums. Politeness and consensus-building are also tools in these forums. So is whining self-pity and complaining. These are merely rhetorical tools.
I suspect what you are seeking is a better education in the use of rhetoric. Perhaps schools should offer an Online Rhetoric class. Perhaps from the Psychology or Sociology departments.
Oh my gosh! I can hear your >sniff! right through the wires!
Where would we be without Psychology?
Why, we'd be ignorant of human behavior. We'd be stuck with amateur insight and foregone conclusion, much as you've demonstrated here.
Yeah, you're probably right.
But I don't suck as bad as that article does, ya ol' goat roper!
I don't think there is editorial bias among the deciders at Slashdot, do you?
It may simply be that MIT students have a proclivity toward Public Relations, and naturally flock toward stories of their own.
If you think about it, you'll see the hypocrisy of name-calling in an open public forum like usenet.
There are indeed repercussions in such forums. Flames are a consensus group's method of holding accountable the expression of a contrary thought or opinion.
Precisely because those holding consensus opinion choose to flame instead of debate, the contrarian is punished by being denied the honest discussion of the matter at hand.
All you can have in a public discussion forum is discussion, and if you are denied the discussion you desire, then that is indeed a consequence.
Well, OK, it's 2007, so let's apply 23 years of experience to a more refined view of the causes, instead of assuming that it has all been figured out.
Being faceless and depersonalized is too simple. You have to mix in social standing and effect of a level playing field, as well as the human desire to belong to a group, and the tendency of any group to develop and reward groupthink.
You took that one right over the top, circle, when you compared the people who participate in simple internet arguments to mass murderers.
How can you expect us to take you seriously?
Actually, though, your theory lends weight to the idea I expressed (and I won't even try wiki up the originator of either idea). That is, sometimes arguments erupt when consensus opinion is challenged.
For example, you believe that an idea contrary to your own opinion must come from someone with violent tendencies, and then you ACT upon your feelings in the online forum.
It always takes two to tango, circle, and if your dance partner is a heated kettle ready to explode, then what is your role?
The NARC disbanded when members realized each other was a hypocrite.
That, and the promised incursion of AOL subscribers onto the Usenets was all blow away by the advent of Google Groups, and eventually, blogs.
What was once a heirarchy of opinion has fractured into an almost infinite constellation of opinion fiefdoms. It has become utter anarchy.
I find that "Lord of the Flies"-style group psychology plays a big role in the misunderstandings that erupt online. You can observe these same patterns in other political scenarios.
Discussion groups tend to build consensus quickly, and running threads lead to a form of shorthand communication among many of the participants, who after developing this level of groupthink become intolerant toward any challenge or any newcomer.
Newcomers are typically flamed for knowing little, even if their basic point is aligned with the groupthought. They are perceived this way until they too learn the groupspeak and meld into the consensus. This can happen fairly quickly and the newcomer is expected to remain active.
Contrarians are often quickly labeled as troublemakers, trying to upset the groupthink. Immediately a post contrary to the consensus is labeled as a troll or flamebait, and members of the group rally around to join in commonly ad hominem attacks that serve to reinforce the consensus opinion in the face of a challenge.
Humans, being rational, must think through the logic of any challenge, and humans, being emotional, have a strong desire to remain in a group. The internal and external conflict leads to some very interesting results.