And they might have gotten that DNA in a few isolated cases. Keep in mind that there weren't many humans for much of our past, especially after the alleged Toba supervolcano eruption in Indonesia about 70k years ago (which incidentally is the older part of the range for DNA influence from Neanderthals). And as far as the researchers were able to tell, there's about 20k years at the end where no genetic exchange occurred.
A robot built to the size and mass of the Apollo landing system is a helluva lot more capable than Spirit too. Make this comparison again after MSL has been in operation for a while, and see what the results are. I suspect the gap will be narrowed considerably. Not that I have anything against astronauts. I like astronauts. Being nosy, in person, is part of being human, so have at it. Just saying, The Apollo missions had a serious mass advantage.
It's worth noting here that for the Moon a Cold War publicity stunt ended up being more serious scientifically, than anything since. The "mass advantage" translates into a host of advantages, the biggest of which is that the best tools for surface analysis, namely people, were used.
In the old days, exploration was dirt cheap and so were people. Losing a bunch of sailors was no big deal nor was losing a ship or several. It would be like losing a UAV today.
Ships were significant investments not "UAV" level costs. And people just aren't that expensive now, even astronauts.
Tourists fund their own adventures, and if they want to jerk off climbing Everest then that's their right. Let them pay other countries to send them while those other countries are funding space adventures for penis-waving reasons. There is no reason the Rest Of The World can't cough up some loot and go play.
So your only complaint is that public funds are used? I'm good with getting rid of that.
No, but my desire for entertainment shouldn't be the driver of waste. Send robots to take good pictures, because even a tourist cannot doff his/her helmet and breathe the atmosphere. There must always be a barrier. Given sufficient technology, the visual experience can be replicated remotely.
4-20 minutes one way, communication delay are a far bigger obstacle than a helmet. Similarly, we could and do simulate visually the effects of going to Mt. Everest, but people would rather pay to go there directly even though they have barriers as well (such as a breathing apparatus and warm clothing).
If you're going to spend months in space lifeboat you're already dead, unless you can freeze yourself.
Or you have enough life support to last a few months.
It's like doing research into not needing water in the long term. Sure we can do without water for a day or two. But why waste time researching into doing without water for months, when the better solution is just to supply potable water?
Actually, it's not because prolonged periods of weightlessness are survivable. While I imagine most humans in space would try hard to avoid prolonged periods of weightlessness, it seems likely that something will go wrong sooner or later. Understanding what's going to happen in that case and how to make things better, probably will save considerable lives in space in the long term.
Well, ordinary matter is empty for all practical purposes too. That doesn't stop it from having mass and large scale physical properties. Similarly, space is empty, well except for all those place like the Moon, Mars, the Sun, and even Earth which make even empty for all practical purposes vastly different than truly empty space.
If you want something to spin, it must be strong. Strength means weight and weight means cost and the cost is prohibitively high or we'd have done it already.
Most human habitable things have to be "strong" anyway to survive launch and holding pressure against vacuum.
In contrast research into space surgery in zero g is a waste of time and resources- this and most zero g research is basically like researching into dealing with bad stuff because you keep doing things wrong in the first place.
I thought the same until I realized that sometimes artificial gravity isn't available. Maybe your ship is broken or maybe you're on a ship too small to sustain artificial gravity (for example, some sort of "escape pod" or lifeboat).
We need robots on Earth, and since every task in space is dangerous and since humans are a burden to support, there is no functional reason for the desperate rush to send people.
Except there's also the usual procrastination problem. If we don't start now, when we already are very capable of doing so, then when will the better time come along, if ever?
We should perfect machines before sending tourists.
Why? We didn't wait for perfect machines before we built an industrial civilization. Tourists who visit dangerous places, like Mt. Everest, don't wait for perfect machines either.
We have time.
Do you expect to be alive when either humans land on Mars or machines are perfected? If not, then you don't have the time.
Here are the recommendations from the CDC and the New Mexico Department of Health; notice the the NMH article specifically calls out tobacco smoke residue on surfaces, seats, and in carpet being sufficient to trigger an asthma attack.
OK, that is better. It still doesn't justify banning a legal activity from the workplace, but at least there's something to it.
That system of development is well known and has brought a lot of countries out of poverty. But it has yet to get a country ahead of the pack. While we don't have a lot of examples, it's worth noting that this strategy is now holding Japan back currently. The structures that enabled them to catch up quickly, such as putting a huge portion of their citizens' savings into government backed development projects, are now dysfunctional (building a lot of concrete buildings and bridges to nowhere, for example, and depriving their banks of those savings).
And I don't see that such planning has any advantage when it comes to developing new technology. The Japanese didn't have a lot of success with their Fifth Generation AI program, for example. They got better robotics, but they'd have had that anyway.
As an aside, the US spends money on "ubiquitous" things too. If there is any value to the effort, the US will get it as well. Frankly, I don't think there will be. People vastly overestimate the ability of governments to throw money at a concept and have some of it stick. I don't think South Korea will prove to be an exception here.
And then when your students emerge, they will want to have been through a balanced syllabus, which will have to be assessed somehow in a way that is recognised nationwide, so that will have to be standardised somehow, all of which sounds very much like something that a government should be doing.
No. Private non-profits do a good enough job here. For example, college accreditation is mostly a private affair, even for public universities. The US Department of Education does have the authority to recognize accrediting agencies, but it doesn't have the authority to be one. And that has worked out just fine for the US.
I find it remarkable how little people understand of such things to think that so many things can only be fixed by government action.
What I find interesting is that the concept has received government support and direction as part of a push to develop the "U-Society" (which I suppose is mean to be an abbreviation for "ubiquitous computing society"). In Korea, this is governmental industrial policy with the goal of making Korean industry a leader in producing "ubiquitously networked" products of all kinds. On the other hand, here in the United States, it seems like more of an matter of academic study and, perhaps, seen as a possible cost-saving (as opposed to profit-producing) technology.
And what's wrong with the US approach? I see yet again the belief that dumping public funds on R&D in an area means getting concrete, valuable results in an area.
As I understand it, sufficiently reckless endangerment is mens rea. I don't know how reliable Find Law is, but here's their definition of second degree murder:
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
No new refineries in the US, and yet refinery capacity is nearly at an all-time high.
It's about quality, not quantity.
"Capacity" is inherently about quantity.
There are no new refineries being built because we've been improving the existing ones so much.
I wonder who else really believes that? When one actually looks at refineries built in the past 45 years, it is remarkable how little has been done. There's a simple explanation. Regulation has driven up the cost of building a new plant so much that it is cheaper to expand an existing plant than to build a new plant of the same capacity.
Consider this, there's apparently only one refinery in North Dakota at Mandan, ND. That refinery processes almost 60,000 barrels of oil a day. In comparison, the state is producing over half a million barrels of oil a day. That's almost a factor of ten difference between production capacity in the state and refining capacity in the state. I just don't buy that it's somehow cheaper (outside of regulatory considerations) to funnel all that oil down to a distant refinery operating near capacity rather than opening up a refinery near the location on cheap land to add value prior to moving the oil elsewhere.
You do realize that second hand smoke is not the only problem, there is also the residue, which is just as likely a problem as the peanut oil you talk about, but even worst, because it does not just stick to your hands but your entire clothes and then falls off.
Where's the evidence? I'm looking here for health consequences like "go to emergency room" rather than feeling "sick" because you smelled something funny.
I keep hearing this over and over again. "Well if it won't work in the whole US, then we can't do it". There are large portions of the US that look pretty similar to Europe. Wyoming and Kansas are not it. But the east and west coasts. Milwaukee to Detroit to Indy/Louisville doesn't seem too different from the German countryside.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but the biggest difference between the US and Europe is a complete absence of European taxpayers. I don't know what we did with them, maybe they were hunted to extinction in the 19th century? But I gather one can't support most European high speed rails without considerable subsidies from those European taxpayers. Then there's the huge petroleum taxes which serve to make automobiles less appealing.
Those taxpayers and those taxes is what sets European rail apart from any US counterpart, even more so than the geographic considerations.
Not strictly. The patterns exist whether or not we have the language to describe the patterns. Math is but one language to describe *how* to *operate* OR to *describe* on the patterns.
Math is both the patterns and ANY language, process, or whatever which happens to describe the patterns whether by intent or not.
Your relationship with others.
Your relationship with yourself.
Your relationship with your higher self.
Math might have trouble with that last relationship. For things which are poorly defined such as a "higher self", what can one really say about it or any relationships with things we can observe?
Slashdot Mirror
And they might have gotten that DNA in a few isolated cases. Keep in mind that there weren't many humans for much of our past, especially after the alleged Toba supervolcano eruption in Indonesia about 70k years ago (which incidentally is the older part of the range for DNA influence from Neanderthals). And as far as the researchers were able to tell, there's about 20k years at the end where no genetic exchange occurred.
A robot built to the size and mass of the Apollo landing system is a helluva lot more capable than Spirit too. Make this comparison again after MSL has been in operation for a while, and see what the results are. I suspect the gap will be narrowed considerably. Not that I have anything against astronauts. I like astronauts. Being nosy, in person, is part of being human, so have at it. Just saying, The Apollo missions had a serious mass advantage.
It's worth noting here that for the Moon a Cold War publicity stunt ended up being more serious scientifically, than anything since. The "mass advantage" translates into a host of advantages, the biggest of which is that the best tools for surface analysis, namely people, were used.
His terminal velocity may decrease as he approaches the ground, but he will never exceed the local terminal velocity at any given altitude.
In general objects fall somewhat faster than their terminal velocity because air density increases as one falls. The earlier poster was right.
In the old days, exploration was dirt cheap and so were people. Losing a bunch of sailors was no big deal nor was losing a ship or several. It would be like losing a UAV today.
Ships were significant investments not "UAV" level costs. And people just aren't that expensive now, even astronauts.
Tourists fund their own adventures, and if they want to jerk off climbing Everest then that's their right. Let them pay other countries to send them while those other countries are funding space adventures for penis-waving reasons. There is no reason the Rest Of The World can't cough up some loot and go play.
So your only complaint is that public funds are used? I'm good with getting rid of that.
No, but my desire for entertainment shouldn't be the driver of waste. Send robots to take good pictures, because even a tourist cannot doff his/her helmet and breathe the atmosphere. There must always be a barrier. Given sufficient technology, the visual experience can be replicated remotely.
4-20 minutes one way, communication delay are a far bigger obstacle than a helmet. Similarly, we could and do simulate visually the effects of going to Mt. Everest, but people would rather pay to go there directly even though they have barriers as well (such as a breathing apparatus and warm clothing).
If you're going to spend months in space lifeboat you're already dead, unless you can freeze yourself.
Or you have enough life support to last a few months.
It's like doing research into not needing water in the long term. Sure we can do without water for a day or two. But why waste time researching into doing without water for months, when the better solution is just to supply potable water?
Actually, it's not because prolonged periods of weightlessness are survivable. While I imagine most humans in space would try hard to avoid prolonged periods of weightlessness, it seems likely that something will go wrong sooner or later. Understanding what's going to happen in that case and how to make things better, probably will save considerable lives in space in the long term.
Well, so little genetic cross over over such a long time indicates a good chance of some sort of limited interfertility issue.
Space is empty for all practical purposes.
Well, ordinary matter is empty for all practical purposes too. That doesn't stop it from having mass and large scale physical properties. Similarly, space is empty, well except for all those place like the Moon, Mars, the Sun, and even Earth which make even empty for all practical purposes vastly different than truly empty space.
If you want something to spin, it must be strong. Strength means weight and weight means cost and the cost is prohibitively high or we'd have done it already.
Most human habitable things have to be "strong" anyway to survive launch and holding pressure against vacuum.
In contrast research into space surgery in zero g is a waste of time and resources- this and most zero g research is basically like researching into dealing with bad stuff because you keep doing things wrong in the first place.
I thought the same until I realized that sometimes artificial gravity isn't available. Maybe your ship is broken or maybe you're on a ship too small to sustain artificial gravity (for example, some sort of "escape pod" or lifeboat).
Or throwing up every time you look out the window?
Why would that happen? I figure anyone that delicate probably would be chucking every time they move their head around.
We need robots on Earth, and since every task in space is dangerous and since humans are a burden to support, there is no functional reason for the desperate rush to send people.
Except there's also the usual procrastination problem. If we don't start now, when we already are very capable of doing so, then when will the better time come along, if ever?
We should perfect machines before sending tourists.
Why? We didn't wait for perfect machines before we built an industrial civilization. Tourists who visit dangerous places, like Mt. Everest, don't wait for perfect machines either.
We have time.
Do you expect to be alive when either humans land on Mars or machines are perfected? If not, then you don't have the time.
Given the recent data that they're our recent ancestors, only the former makes sense.
Not really. There wasn't a lot of genetic exchange even though the populations of the two groups lived by each other for up to 200,000 years.
Humanity never had successful reproduction with sheep, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim as a result that we've never had sex with sheep.
I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.
Here are the recommendations from the CDC and the New Mexico Department of Health; notice the the NMH article specifically calls out tobacco smoke residue on surfaces, seats, and in carpet being sufficient to trigger an asthma attack.
OK, that is better. It still doesn't justify banning a legal activity from the workplace, but at least there's something to it.
That system of development is well known and has brought a lot of countries out of poverty. But it has yet to get a country ahead of the pack. While we don't have a lot of examples, it's worth noting that this strategy is now holding Japan back currently. The structures that enabled them to catch up quickly, such as putting a huge portion of their citizens' savings into government backed development projects, are now dysfunctional (building a lot of concrete buildings and bridges to nowhere, for example, and depriving their banks of those savings).
And I don't see that such planning has any advantage when it comes to developing new technology. The Japanese didn't have a lot of success with their Fifth Generation AI program, for example. They got better robotics, but they'd have had that anyway.
As an aside, the US spends money on "ubiquitous" things too. If there is any value to the effort, the US will get it as well. Frankly, I don't think there will be. People vastly overestimate the ability of governments to throw money at a concept and have some of it stick. I don't think South Korea will prove to be an exception here.
And then when your students emerge, they will want to have been through a balanced syllabus, which will have to be assessed somehow in a way that is recognised nationwide, so that will have to be standardised somehow, all of which sounds very much like something that a government should be doing.
No. Private non-profits do a good enough job here. For example, college accreditation is mostly a private affair, even for public universities. The US Department of Education does have the authority to recognize accrediting agencies, but it doesn't have the authority to be one. And that has worked out just fine for the US.
I find it remarkable how little people understand of such things to think that so many things can only be fixed by government action.
What I find interesting is that the concept has received government support and direction as part of a push to develop the "U-Society" (which I suppose is mean to be an abbreviation for "ubiquitous computing society"). In Korea, this is governmental industrial policy with the goal of making Korean industry a leader in producing "ubiquitously networked" products of all kinds. On the other hand, here in the United States, it seems like more of an matter of academic study and, perhaps, seen as a possible cost-saving (as opposed to profit-producing) technology.
And what's wrong with the US approach? I see yet again the belief that dumping public funds on R&D in an area means getting concrete, valuable results in an area.
I see a scary fairy tale, not actual evidence.
Maybe the "BMO" is in your sig? I don't see "BMO" showing up anywhere else, smartypants. :-)
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
No new refineries in the US, and yet refinery capacity is nearly at an all-time high.
It's about quality, not quantity.
"Capacity" is inherently about quantity.
There are no new refineries being built because we've been improving the existing ones so much.
I wonder who else really believes that? When one actually looks at refineries built in the past 45 years, it is remarkable how little has been done. There's a simple explanation. Regulation has driven up the cost of building a new plant so much that it is cheaper to expand an existing plant than to build a new plant of the same capacity.
Consider this, there's apparently only one refinery in North Dakota at Mandan, ND. That refinery processes almost 60,000 barrels of oil a day. In comparison, the state is producing over half a million barrels of oil a day. That's almost a factor of ten difference between production capacity in the state and refining capacity in the state. I just don't buy that it's somehow cheaper (outside of regulatory considerations) to funnel all that oil down to a distant refinery operating near capacity rather than opening up a refinery near the location on cheap land to add value prior to moving the oil elsewhere.
You do realize that second hand smoke is not the only problem, there is also the residue, which is just as likely a problem as the peanut oil you talk about, but even worst, because it does not just stick to your hands but your entire clothes and then falls off.
Where's the evidence? I'm looking here for health consequences like "go to emergency room" rather than feeling "sick" because you smelled something funny.
Occams razor strongly suggests liquid water to be the most credible option for the fluid involved.
Occam's razor suggests waiting for evidence rather than jumping to conclusions.
I keep hearing this over and over again. "Well if it won't work in the whole US, then we can't do it". There are large portions of the US that look pretty similar to Europe. Wyoming and Kansas are not it. But the east and west coasts. Milwaukee to Detroit to Indy/Louisville doesn't seem too different from the German countryside.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but the biggest difference between the US and Europe is a complete absence of European taxpayers. I don't know what we did with them, maybe they were hunted to extinction in the 19th century? But I gather one can't support most European high speed rails without considerable subsidies from those European taxpayers. Then there's the huge petroleum taxes which serve to make automobiles less appealing.
Those taxpayers and those taxes is what sets European rail apart from any US counterpart, even more so than the geographic considerations.
Not strictly. The patterns exist whether or not we have the language to describe the patterns. Math is but one language to describe *how* to *operate* OR to *describe* on the patterns.
Math is both the patterns and ANY language, process, or whatever which happens to describe the patterns whether by intent or not.
Your relationship with others.
Your relationship with yourself.
Your relationship with your higher self.
Math might have trouble with that last relationship. For things which are poorly defined such as a "higher self", what can one really say about it or any relationships with things we can observe?