Sure. (re-)read John D. Barrows book "The Artful Universe" for real insight into the synergy between the scientific mind and the artistic one.
There are in fact many examples of art preceeding science, or at least co-evolving with it. Think cubism was an abberation? Maybe relativity was the abberation.
If the issue is "someone dying" then those dollars that are currently spent insuring that astronauts aren't included, may be far more effectively spent by upgrading water supply services in the rural United States (not to mention the rest of the planet). That would provide a huge dollar to life-saved ratio.
The issue I'm addressing is not someone dying but the concept of "acceptable risk" involved in a venture. You get into an automobile knowing the risk is not insignificant that you will be involved in an accident that will take your life. But I'm sure that you do take the risk.
To make automobiles 10% safer (10% fewer fatalities) would require many, many hundreds of billions of dollars re-engineering the infrastructure as well as the vehicle itself. Why aren't we doing that? Surely many well-trained valuable people die in auto accidents? We don't do it because we perceive the risk to be acceptable.
I'm saying that the balance is out of kilter at NASA.
Many here have spoken of the "insane" "horrendous" "crazy" amounts of money spent on IIS. How many think that this money was spent *mostly* to make sure that no one died?
Was it a good thing to spend that money on? Is the IIS over-engineered in favour of preventing un unfortunate death? (Aside - How many of you, after viewing the interior of an Apollo era craft, would still go into space in one of those?)
Let's look at a little history. If during the 18th century, we had spent an equivalent amount of dough on sailing ships (with the (un)stated goal of preventing deaths (monarchs HATE to look bad)) I think we'd still be looking for our assholes with a mirror. We'd never have left Europe. The economy of the day would not have tolerated it.
My father-in-law was one of the Canadians who helped develop the nuclear power station system called CANDU. His stories are quite telling. His take on risk? - during development of CANDU the engineering studies required would fill a couple of banker's boxes. Today, those studies would fill a small stadium. With a exponential rise in cost. Why? What's the return? A couple of lives? A dozen lives?
My point is - we have tried to reduce the risk to zero and this is not only stupid, but unwise. Stupid because there will always be a risk. How much money are we going to let timid politicians/bureaucrats spend on that last.005% of risk reduction? Unwise, because we lose the ability to pursue our dreams. We're deadlocked.
"Acceptable risk" is a term that has been lost from the West's vocabulary and it is time to bring it back.
If I hear that sure-fire, badge of stupidity, quoted one more time I may just roll over, die AND throw up on my shoes. Not in that order of course.
Wheels get re-invented ALL the time. It's called PROGRESS. What? You didn't realize that progress was cumulative? That everyone stands "on the shoulders of giants"? Every post, it seems, that says ANYTHING, someone drags it out "What's the point? We've done that with x?"
Bozo. You folks are supposed to be thinkers. So think.
No Wheel, no rubber tyre - no rubber tyre, no tractor - no tracter, no avocado farm - no avocado farm, no Guacamole for the masses!
And then where would we be? Mmmmm?
Okay, so I'm a _little_ off topic but at least I have my chips and dip.
As someone said - this is very much an *American* thing.
By the way - I'm a little pissed that the U.S. of A. has taken ownership of the name "America(n)". Mexicans & Canadians are "Americans" by definition. But of course, it IS Spanish LOL
Nick Negroponte had it right. (You still reading this?) What we are seeing here is nothing less than the continuation of the "digital revolution". Essentially, information is just bits. Why should we pay more for bits that encode audio (er . . speech) than we do for bits that encode other types of data - video, text etc.
In case you don't know or have forgotten - we *are* in the middle of a revolution as culture changing as the Industrial Revolution or the Agricultural Revolution.
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost For want of a shoe, a hoarse was lost For want of a hoarse, a Ryder was lost For want of a Ryder, a massage was lost For want of a massage, a battle was lost For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost All for want of a nail
. ..yes, makes sense to me. Please don't misplace those massages
You're just only now figuring this out? And a public news media outlet had to to tell you about it? Sheesh . . ..
Whatever happened to the ethic that *every* new wire or device that came into the house/office/car got scoped out to see what it was/wasn't doing/capable of doing? You guys aren't geeks at all - you're just pretend geeks.
So! Get OFF of your collective arses and send the good doctor an email and tell him what you think - I do not think he reads/. but I have been wrong before.
You can reach him at : evillanueva@congreso.gob.pe
You only have to read the last line to understand why and how Reuters came to run this story.
"If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness."
Typically Reuters. The seemingly offhand remark to Guiness - we all know the Irish love of drink and story - gives it away as nothing more than a filler piece for them!
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. (re-)read John D. Barrows book "The Artful Universe" for real insight into the synergy between the scientific mind and the artistic one.
There are in fact many examples of art preceeding science, or at least co-evolving with it. Think cubism was an abberation? Maybe relativity was the abberation.
LOL Yes, brings to mind the old "10,000 Monkeys with typewriters" fable.
If the issue is "someone dying" then those dollars that are currently spent insuring that astronauts aren't included, may be far more effectively spent by upgrading water supply services in the rural United States (not to mention the rest of the planet). That would provide a huge dollar to life-saved ratio.
The issue I'm addressing is not someone dying but the concept of "acceptable risk" involved in a venture. You get into an automobile knowing the risk is not insignificant that you will be involved in an accident that will take your life. But I'm sure that you do take the risk.
To make automobiles 10% safer (10% fewer fatalities) would require many, many hundreds of billions of dollars re-engineering the infrastructure as well as the vehicle itself. Why aren't we doing that? Surely many well-trained valuable people die in auto accidents? We don't do it because we perceive the risk to be acceptable.
I'm saying that the balance is out of kilter at NASA.
Many here have spoken of the "insane" "horrendous" "crazy" amounts of money spent on IIS. How many think that this money was spent *mostly* to make sure that no one died?
.005% of risk reduction? Unwise, because we lose the ability to pursue our dreams. We're deadlocked.
Was it a good thing to spend that money on? Is the IIS over-engineered in favour of preventing un unfortunate death? (Aside - How many of you, after viewing the interior of an Apollo era craft, would still go into space in one of those?)
Let's look at a little history. If during the 18th century, we had spent an equivalent amount of dough on sailing ships (with the (un)stated goal of preventing deaths (monarchs HATE to look bad)) I think we'd still be looking for our assholes with a mirror. We'd never have left Europe. The economy of the day would not have tolerated it.
My father-in-law was one of the Canadians who helped develop the nuclear power station system called CANDU. His stories are quite telling. His take on risk? - during development of CANDU the engineering studies required would fill a couple of banker's boxes. Today, those studies would fill a small stadium. With a exponential rise in cost. Why? What's the return? A couple of lives? A dozen lives?
My point is - we have tried to reduce the risk to zero and this is not only stupid, but unwise. Stupid because there will always be a risk. How much money are we going to let timid politicians/bureaucrats spend on that last
"Acceptable risk" is a term that has been lost from the West's vocabulary and it is time to bring it back.
If I hear that sure-fire, badge of stupidity, quoted one more time I may just roll over, die AND throw up on my shoes. Not in that order of course.
Wheels get re-invented ALL the time. It's called PROGRESS. What? You didn't realize that progress was cumulative? That everyone stands "on the shoulders of giants"? Every post, it seems, that says ANYTHING, someone drags it out "What's the point? We've done that with x?"
Bozo. You folks are supposed to be thinkers. So think.
No Wheel, no rubber tyre - no rubber tyre, no tractor - no tracter, no avocado farm - no avocado farm, no Guacamole for the masses!
And then where would we be? Mmmmm?
Okay, so I'm a _little_ off topic but at least I have my chips and dip.
As someone said - this is very much an *American* thing.
By the way - I'm a little pissed that the U.S. of A. has taken ownership of the name "America(n)". Mexicans & Canadians are "Americans" by definition. But of course, it IS Spanish LOL
Nick Negroponte had it right. (You still reading this?) What we are seeing here is nothing less than the continuation of the "digital revolution". Essentially, information is just bits. Why should we pay more for bits that encode audio (er . . speech) than we do for bits that encode other types of data - video, text etc.
In case you don't know or have forgotten - we *are* in the middle of a revolution as culture changing as the Industrial Revolution or the Agricultural Revolution.
Well, uuuhhhmmmm, I guess it's 'cause you ARE a coward :-)
And GOD has a great big DOT painted on your forehead
No. Your're just naturally stupid. Sort of goes withoutr saying but I felt that I really should.
Geez - I got branded a flame the other day - right here on /. - for saying that "Americans just don't get it" and now here you go an prove me wrong.
NOW what am I gonna' do?
Ps - posting anon was probably a wise thing for you to do LOL
Americans LOL - the funny part is that you just don't get it.
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost
.yes, makes sense to me. Please don't misplace those massages
For want of a shoe, a hoarse was lost
For want of a hoarse, a Ryder was lost
For want of a Ryder, a massage was lost
For want of a massage, a battle was lost
For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost
All for want of a nail
. .
You're just only now figuring this out? And a public news media outlet had to to tell you about it? Sheesh . . . .
Whatever happened to the ethic that *every* new wire or device that came into the house/office/car got scoped out to see what it was/wasn't doing/capable of doing? You guys aren't geeks at all - you're just pretend geeks.
So! Get OFF of your collective arses and send the good doctor an email and tell him what you think - I do not think he reads /. but I have been wrong before.
You can reach him at : evillanueva@congreso.gob.pe
You only have to read the last line to understand why and how Reuters came to run this story.
"If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness."
Typically Reuters. The seemingly offhand remark to Guiness - we all know the Irish love of drink and story - gives it away as nothing more than a filler piece for them!