That last part is exactly why the Libertarians are appealing to me. I'm a conservative. I don't like expansion of the government, I don't like them spending a whole lot of our (my) money. This same philosophy is the foundation of my biggest beef with Bush: The government grew drastically under him. Some sources I've seen say that it grew more in the past 4 years than it did in the previous 10 (I haven't taken the time to research the exact figures myself).
But the thing is, I seriously doubt that Kerry would be any better in that regard. I'll probably vote Bush, then take a shower.
I can't vote 3rd party because I disagree with them as much as I do the GOP & Dems. Each of the parties has a fatal flaw, even the major "other parties". For instance, Libertarians are isolationist. It was demonstrated to us last century why this is a bad idea, and it's probably an even worse idea now.
I just wish we had a halfway decent candidate for once. I don't need a great one, or an ideal one, just a decent one. I don't expect a candidate that agrees with everything I believe, or one that has no flaws. Just one that doesn't make me feel like I need a shower after leaving the voting booth. I haven't seen that in my voting life.
Hey, don't single people out like that. It's not just the conservatives/GOP/fundies. There's fear of losing your job (when the jobless rate is dropping), fear of economic depression (when the industrial index is at a 20yr high), fear of Greedy Big Corporations, and fear of governmental conspiracy (well...just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you). Those are all traditional gold mines for the Democratic party.
Libertarians, Greens, etc all have their own pet fears/gold mines. I'm not saying the GOP doesn't do it, to deny it would be just stupid. But to just point the finger at one party and say "THEY ARE FEAR MONGERS!!!!" is simply playing on fear, as well.
And bad journalism is advertising. They are selling your eyeballs.
I think I expected too much from D3. I got it a few weeks ago, (I really can't afford to buy them as they come out) and I'm playing it now.
It's scaring the crap out of me at every turn, but it's not engrossing. D3's great to look at, but I can remember playing Doom2 starting after dinner and, after what seemed like a few minutes, blinking at the window, wondering why the hell the moon was so bright. Remember shutting it down, and seeing the "playtime" number? That was depressing sometimes. Same thing happened with HL.
Anyway, that doesn't happen with D3, and it's not just that I'm older. I've done it recently, too. It's a personal preference, but I don't lose track of time when I play it. It's fun. It's a lot of fun. But it doesn't come close to the original, and that disappointed me.
I hope HL2 lives up to its predecessor, but I'm expecting just a prettier version. That way I may be pleasently surprised.
It's not so much a law as it is a similar system. Basically, whoever "wrote" the genetic code ain't talking, so it's closed source. We have a great way to ID information sent through an unknown or unfamiliar process, and it's providing answers. It makes sense that you could use the same process in both realms.
I agree about bioinformatics being the next big thing, but it's really just another kind of information technology. Same idea, different system. Damn, I gotta learn how to code.
How are all of us going to feel about all of those tax dollars we're pouring into the shuttle and ISS now?
About the same way I feel about it right now.
Re:burt rutan will do it, if anyone
on
After the X Prize
·
· Score: 1
From what I hear, he is planning it. There was a post earlier that the craft is already in the design stage, with construction in a few years.
It is my understanding that he plans to sell these craft to differentoperators to take people not only as tourists, but also as rapid transit round the world flights. There was some discussion on this a few months back, that an orbital/sub-orbital craft could get to altitude within maybe an hour, go somewhere and come down, could get from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in about 3-4 hours. NYC to Sydney : 4 hours. Tokyo-London : 4 hours. Sell tickets at $100k/seat and you have uber-business class.
You're still not starting with the correct hypothetical. If the baby is infact alive, then the mother has no right to terminate it because it causes difficulty for her or because of her predictions of its future prospects. And, cue analogy...
Say you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you make a mistake and hang out with the wrong people and wind up with a prison sentence. You get to your cell and meet your cellmate. He's an asshole. He's not bad by prison standards, he doesn't sodomize or beat you, but he just smells bad, is filthy, makes you exceptionally uncomfortable, gave you some kind of funky communicable disease, talks way too much and keeps you up all night with loud, boring stories, kicks your bunk, etc. In short, he has made your life very, very uncomfortable, but he has not threatened it in any way. The warden laughs at your request to transfer to another cell. You do not have the right to kill him.
I have heard the argument about quality of life before, and it makes perfect sense from the initial assumption that the fetus is not a human life (yet). But when you do assume that it is fully alive and fully human, the logic no longer works. If it did, the same argument would apply to the homeless people I see on my way home every day. Killing them is not mercy, it is murder.
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong about abortion. I'm just trying to point out that the fundamental difference is wether or not the fetus is a human life, and when it becomes a human life. Both lines of logic are correct, it's the starting points that differ.
You say it is about thinking that you know what is best for any given person. If the fetus is alive, it is me that is saying that I don't know what is best for that person, and he should therefore be left alone by me, and by everyone else. If the mother is as unfit as you say, she probably doesn't have the faculties to decide that, either. If you begin with the assumption that the fetus is human life, then you must also respect them just as you would the mother. She has rights, certainly. But so does the fetus (under this assumption), and her rights end where the fetus's begin. Once the exercise of your rights inflicts real harm on another, they have reached their limit.
Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?
on
Bush vs. Kerry on Science
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I know you have never heard it from the real scientists in the field. You never will. They are far more careful with their words. I haven't heard it, either and I work right across the hall from some of them (INCREDIBLY cool work, BTW).
I do hear it in the popular media, and the implication is there in many campaign speeches (not pointing at Kerry). The biggest talk, though, is from Joe Schmukatelli. A large number of people have the impression that this stuff would be a cure-all if only Bush would let scientists work on it, and this is simply not true. It's not even true that the research isn't done. The guys across the hall that I mentioned have literally ten times the money we have. And we're a very well-funded lab.
Maybe I hear more because people around me know I'm in the field, so perhaps my experience is skewed. But I do get that exact impression (ES==Fountain of Youth) from the general populace.
The problem is not that scientists are overblowing their claims. The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. It's a problem that we have had in science for a long, long time. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that reporters use hyperbole a bit too much in order to make the story more interesting. And this gives the wrong impression.
Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists. Very few people read JBC, or even know what it is. Some people at least know what Cell is, more have perhaps read a Xeroxed commentary article from Nature. Most people don't even get their science from Scientific American or even Popular Science. They get it from the WSJ, the NYT and the local news. And I have not yet seen a report in the popular media that doesn't blow discoveries way out of proportion.
Our difference in this has to do with fundamental beliefs where we differ. I don't believe that an early stage embryo is a human being, you do
Thank you! I was begining to think I was the only one that understood that.
The same thing translates into the abortion debate. It is not an issue of women's rights, it is an issue of personal belief or conviction about when life begins.
To take the extremes: If you start with the assumption that the zygote is in fact a human life at the instant of conception, all conclusions must logically flow towards pro-life/anti-ES cell research. If You start with the assumption that human life begins at the moment the baby crowns, then all conclusions must logically flow to pro-choice/pro-ES cell research.
Each side finds it so incredibly hard to allow themselves to think in hypotheticals. It's as if the opposition's basic assumption is so utterly alien to them that they can't even imagine it. And that's something I really can't fathom. It is the prime example of a closed mind.
Actually, I think you reinforced his point quite well.
I think the thrust of the comment was that stem cell research is not a panacea, does not promise to be a panacea, and is certainly not the only way to find cures for these diseases. It may or may not even be the best way. For instance, gene therapy might be a more effective way to combat disease X.
And development of fusion/solar/wind power may be better than looking for more oil.
And better international policies and improved diplomacy may offer more protection than ABMs. Or other weapon platforms may address the specific threat better.
The last line of the original comment refers to the fact that the people who currently have Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/paralysis/diabetes are very likely not going to be helped by this research. It's the people who will be diagnosed with these problems ten years from now that will benefit. So, don't lead the afflicted on, thinking that this research will benefit them, specifically. For instance, my cousin has type I diabetes. If all the stops were taken outwe went full steam ahead trying to find a cure based on stem cell research for her condition, she will very likely never benefit from it personally.
Hell, for all we know it was a volcano or a freakin' meteor strike. The thing that makes it the most suspicious is the nearby military base (bbc article).
Most likely, we'll never know exactly waht happened. Remote area, government not known for their forthcoming, potential embarssemnt if it is something nasty. Yep. It was a meteor strike. Might as well make the fantasy something cool....
Ever seen the TV show mythbusters? It's like snopes for TV. Anyway, they took the myth about the Corvette that smelled so bad that no one could clean it or sell it. They took two dead pigs and sealed them up in a Vette and sealed the whole thing up in a shipping container for a few weeks. Then tried to clean it.
They got a professional crew in, guys that clean out ambulances, crime scenes, etc. The car still reeked at the end of the show, and wound up getting sold for the engine & transmission.
You may be stuck with the stench. OK, random bad jokes : give them to PETA/ADL/vegan society. Give them to Cowboy Neal, no one will notice them over his stench.
I've done a version of this before to clean out keyboards & such in the lab. We're a biochem lab, so we use several liters of molecular biology grade ethanol (grain alcohol) every week. It's exceptionally pure, so it evaporates with no residue.
Not really an option, though. Without the liscence and the academic discounts, the taxes on the stuff would make it prohibitive. Not to mention that you need special permission to get the non-denatured stuff.
Re:Yes but what about the ants?
on
Solder in Space
·
· Score: 1
Take your vitamins and exercise. That should have been the conclusion of microgravity research years ago.
It's not that simple. Proper diet and exercise help alleiviate some of the symptoms, but it does not correct all of them. Simply saying "It's bad for you, don't do it" could be applied to exposure to vaccuum as well. But we came up with solutions. Furthermore, there are spinoffs. Examining the effects of the environment not only helps us better prepare people for exploration, but it also helps with normal earthbound physiology. We have learned volumes about circulation, respiration, wound healing, and inflammatory responses because of the microgravity experiments, many done on ISS. And there are equally large volumes of questions raised by that research. We have learned a lot, but have a LOT more to learn; we are not relearning the same stuff.
But you're right on one point. We probably have enough physiology info to go to Mars somewhat safely.
As for exclusivity, there are the crystal growth experiments. These take weeks to months to do properly, and some crystals that simply cannot be grown on earth do grow in space. As for automation, ask any structural biologist. Crystal growth is 75% art, 25% science. You can't automate it effectively. And, as I said, I have seen articles about the benefits of other technologies as well, but I am in no way informed enough to defend them. Maybe someone else reading this thread is.
The tourism angle is a very long term thing. You can't look at annual P&L reports to see it. Besides, NASA is not in the business of business.
Would a kid (or adult) rather go to Mars or ISS? What do you think? If you compare Mars to Epsilon Erandi, or the Crab Nebula which one wins?
Is it even remotely possible for someone to go to Mars right now? No. To make a tourism splash, what you propose must be possible. Therefore, ISS gets it. How long until we can sell tickets to Mars or the Moon? How long until we can sell tickets to ISS, or orbit? One step at a time. We're just taking too long at this step.
Re:Yes but what about the ants?
on
Solder in Space
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The free time comment was directed only at the thin-films link you posted. I was under the impression that the soldering was started as an official project.
You won't find much disagreement from me about wether ISS is run well. It's not. It could be used for some very good things, but currently, it's not. It is uniquely suited to physiological research on the effects of long-term microgravity exposure (needed for manned exploratory missions) and is a good testbed for manufacturing technologies and research applications. There are some things that can be done better in space; molecular biology structural research, for one (many crystals grow better w/o gravity). I'm a biochemist, so that's the only one I'm familiar with, but I have heard of technologies that would benefit from vaccuum and/or microgravity. I just don't know enough to discuss them intelligently.
ISS could be a great place to determine the feasibility of these manufacturing applications, the success of which could help draw industry and private groups into space. Granted that's a lot of "could's" and the first run of these tests should be done via automated satellite, with the second run on the shuttle (or its replacement). ISS testing should be final phase, but it should still be a phase.
The best thing about it, though, is the public image and exposure. In the absence of any other space-based industry, the thing that will draw real money there is tourism. As it grows, tourism will eventually bring the industry connected with it. This will draw more people and money up, which will reduce launch costs, which will increase flux into space (I'm talking decades to centuries here).
As for building and maintenance, I work in a research lab. The cost of keeping things going is huge. The cost of housing the animals alone exceeds the salary of two technicians. It costs more annually for me to do my work than it does to pay me (although that's not saying much), and much of that is tied up in utilities, maintenance, ventillation, and the like. ISS is a unique lab, and it is needed to determine the effects of living and working in space long-term, on both men and equipment. The shuttle can't stay up for months at a time. Any work you do on it, at all, furthers this goal. It is an expensive lab, but it is useful.
IMHO, the issue is that expensive labs need to be run well.
Re:Yes but what about the ants?
on
Solder in Space
·
· Score: 1
I hope you're just being sarcastic, but my sarcasm detector is on the fritz.
Somebody did something in their free time that you deem a waste of time and effort? Go figure.
If you read the article that you linked, you will see that the astronauts did this in their *free time*. As in time during which there was nothing else planned. As in time to goof off and relax.
I'm actually kind of impressed that they see their free time as a chance to do *more* experiments. Besides, this is the kind of basic science, the fundamental pursuit of knowledge just because it's cool and it piques you interest. This is what pure science is all about. How can you call yourself a geek and not know that?
BTW, if anyone hasn't read that article, you should check it out. It's kinda cool.
But even so you know that NBC is not going to show any event unless the US has won.
Granted, it's not on the primary NBC channel, but there are events covered that aren't won by the US. Men's fencing was on, as was table tennis and tennis, archery, weightlifting, rowing, and badmitton.
Of course, these are on MSNBC, Bravo, USA, and CNBC, and are not all during primetime (though some are), but they are broadcast.
I agree that the coverage is subpar, I'd like to see less background crap about the athletes and more actual athletics. I'd also like to see more well-rounded coverage during primetime on NBC. Also, I don't have it, but from what I see on the NBC schedule, the HDTV channel that is supposed to be 24/7 coverage is showing only gymnastics and swimming. How in the hell can anyone watch that much gymnastics and swimming???
I know only basic physics, so I am probably just talking out of my ass here, but...
I have heard it commented elsewhere that it may be possible to use gravity as the countering force for tacking with a solar sail. Does anyone know if this is possible, or is it just a bad sci-fi element?
They may justify it in their minds, but they still know that it is wrong. And, if someone has rationalized and justified theft in their own mind, then that person truly needs rehabilitation. That can be done effeciently by forcibly scaring the crap out of them.
The cop cannot, should not, and does not assume that the person has had this happen to them. It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more prevelant, but it is still by no means so frequent as to be a factor in this decision. Blaming society for crimes is an ancient technique. It doesn't work, and it shouldn't work.
The kid's real problem in this scenario is that no one has ever taught him/her personal responsibility; that you are responsible for your own decisions and actions, and that you are accountable for them. Informing them that the reason they steal is because their parents never taught them better, shifts responsibility from the offender to someone else. This does not foster an attitude of personal responsibility. This is not to say the parents are blameless. They screwed up (not) raising their kid. But to help the kid, you have to put the responsilbility on his shoulders, and no one elses.
Thus, if a kid walks down a row of cars testing door handles, the prosecutor can make a good case for the intent to illegally enter one of those cars because he's trying all the doors (and therefore has a no legitimate interest in being inside any of them).
Sure, but what is the potential penalty for attempted B&E of a vehicle? IANAL, but I'm sure it's not much of a threat to hold over someone's head. At least, nothing in comparison to actual B&E (or just E, I guess) with theft. And I'm pretty sure it's hard to prove intent without action. A really inventive lawyer could probably argue that the kid was attempting something else entirely (to a gullible jury). If, however, the kid removes something from a car not his own, intent is obvious. Or at least a lot easier.
That is outstanding. The only thing missing is to hijack their webcam to see the look on the kid's face when his printer kicks in and he dives for the network cable.
Experienced, good cops will notice if the kid is a first timer or someone experienced. If it's someone that has broken into many cars before, then the person should be arrested and sent to jail. For that, you need to wait to get good evidence.
If the kid is a first timer, some 15 year old on a dare or trying to impress his friends, most cops that I know would just scare the crap out of him. Take him to holding, make his parents come get him, etc. The kid is doing no real harm just pulling the handles, and the cop will stop him before he does any real harm. This is better in the long run, because when the kid is actually taking the item, he's probably scared and when he gets caught, will be terrified. You can be sure he'll never do it again. If he doesn't get to full-blown terror, you may or may not prevent the activity in the future. It's a lot better when the club you weild is real, instead of just imagined. If the kid that didn't steal calls your bluff, then once he gets off he will feel invulnerable, and do it again. Cops protect and serve society, not individuals.
That's all debateable, though. The kicker for me was:
If no-one ever tells you where the line is, how do you know when you've crossed it?
Do you really think that the kid doesn't know that opening up someone's car door and taking something that doesn't belong to them is wrong? Is there anyone over the age of four who honestly does not believe that that is "over the line"?
Slashdot Mirror
But the thing is, I seriously doubt that Kerry would be any better in that regard. I'll probably vote Bush, then take a shower.
I just wish we had a halfway decent candidate for once. I don't need a great one, or an ideal one, just a decent one. I don't expect a candidate that agrees with everything I believe, or one that has no flaws. Just one that doesn't make me feel like I need a shower after leaving the voting booth. I haven't seen that in my voting life.
Libertarians, Greens, etc all have their own pet fears/gold mines. I'm not saying the GOP doesn't do it, to deny it would be just stupid. But to just point the finger at one party and say "THEY ARE FEAR MONGERS!!!!" is simply playing on fear, as well.
And bad journalism is advertising. They are selling your eyeballs.
It's scaring the crap out of me at every turn, but it's not engrossing. D3's great to look at, but I can remember playing Doom2 starting after dinner and, after what seemed like a few minutes, blinking at the window, wondering why the hell the moon was so bright. Remember shutting it down, and seeing the "playtime" number? That was depressing sometimes. Same thing happened with HL.
Anyway, that doesn't happen with D3, and it's not just that I'm older. I've done it recently, too. It's a personal preference, but I don't lose track of time when I play it. It's fun. It's a lot of fun. But it doesn't come close to the original, and that disappointed me.
I hope HL2 lives up to its predecessor, but I'm expecting just a prettier version. That way I may be pleasently surprised.
I agree about bioinformatics being the next big thing, but it's really just another kind of information technology. Same idea, different system. Damn, I gotta learn how to code.
I you have a goatee, *you're* the evil twin. Your cleanshaven counterpart is the good guy.
About the same way I feel about it right now.
It is my understanding that he plans to sell these craft to different operators to take people not only as tourists, but also as rapid transit round the world flights. There was some discussion on this a few months back, that an orbital/sub-orbital craft could get to altitude within maybe an hour, go somewhere and come down, could get from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in about 3-4 hours. NYC to Sydney : 4 hours. Tokyo-London : 4 hours. Sell tickets at $100k/seat and you have uber-business class.
Say you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you make a mistake and hang out with the wrong people and wind up with a prison sentence. You get to your cell and meet your cellmate. He's an asshole. He's not bad by prison standards, he doesn't sodomize or beat you, but he just smells bad, is filthy, makes you exceptionally uncomfortable, gave you some kind of funky communicable disease, talks way too much and keeps you up all night with loud, boring stories, kicks your bunk, etc. In short, he has made your life very, very uncomfortable, but he has not threatened it in any way. The warden laughs at your request to transfer to another cell. You do not have the right to kill him.
I have heard the argument about quality of life before, and it makes perfect sense from the initial assumption that the fetus is not a human life (yet). But when you do assume that it is fully alive and fully human, the logic no longer works. If it did, the same argument would apply to the homeless people I see on my way home every day. Killing them is not mercy, it is murder.
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong about abortion. I'm just trying to point out that the fundamental difference is wether or not the fetus is a human life, and when it becomes a human life. Both lines of logic are correct, it's the starting points that differ.
You say it is about thinking that you know what is best for any given person. If the fetus is alive, it is me that is saying that I don't know what is best for that person, and he should therefore be left alone by me, and by everyone else. If the mother is as unfit as you say, she probably doesn't have the faculties to decide that, either. If you begin with the assumption that the fetus is human life, then you must also respect them just as you would the mother. She has rights, certainly. But so does the fetus (under this assumption), and her rights end where the fetus's begin. Once the exercise of your rights inflicts real harm on another, they have reached their limit.
I do hear it in the popular media, and the implication is there in many campaign speeches (not pointing at Kerry). The biggest talk, though, is from Joe Schmukatelli. A large number of people have the impression that this stuff would be a cure-all if only Bush would let scientists work on it, and this is simply not true. It's not even true that the research isn't done. The guys across the hall that I mentioned have literally ten times the money we have. And we're a very well-funded lab.
Maybe I hear more because people around me know I'm in the field, so perhaps my experience is skewed. But I do get that exact impression (ES==Fountain of Youth) from the general populace.
The problem is not that scientists are overblowing their claims. The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. It's a problem that we have had in science for a long, long time. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that reporters use hyperbole a bit too much in order to make the story more interesting. And this gives the wrong impression.
Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists. Very few people read JBC, or even know what it is. Some people at least know what Cell is, more have perhaps read a Xeroxed commentary article from Nature. Most people don't even get their science from Scientific American or even Popular Science. They get it from the WSJ, the NYT and the local news. And I have not yet seen a report in the popular media that doesn't blow discoveries way out of proportion.
Thank you! I was begining to think I was the only one that understood that.
The same thing translates into the abortion debate. It is not an issue of women's rights, it is an issue of personal belief or conviction about when life begins.
To take the extremes: If you start with the assumption that the zygote is in fact a human life at the instant of conception, all conclusions must logically flow towards pro-life/anti-ES cell research. If You start with the assumption that human life begins at the moment the baby crowns, then all conclusions must logically flow to pro-choice/pro-ES cell research.
Each side finds it so incredibly hard to allow themselves to think in hypotheticals. It's as if the opposition's basic assumption is so utterly alien to them that they can't even imagine it. And that's something I really can't fathom. It is the prime example of a closed mind.
I think the thrust of the comment was that stem cell research is not a panacea, does not promise to be a panacea, and is certainly not the only way to find cures for these diseases. It may or may not even be the best way. For instance, gene therapy might be a more effective way to combat disease X.
And development of fusion/solar/wind power may be better than looking for more oil.
And better international policies and improved diplomacy may offer more protection than ABMs. Or other weapon platforms may address the specific threat better.
The last line of the original comment refers to the fact that the people who currently have Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/paralysis/diabetes are very likely not going to be helped by this research. It's the people who will be diagnosed with these problems ten years from now that will benefit. So, don't lead the afflicted on, thinking that this research will benefit them, specifically. For instance, my cousin has type I diabetes. If all the stops were taken outwe went full steam ahead trying to find a cure based on stem cell research for her condition, she will very likely never benefit from it personally.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
I have it on the wall over my bench. It helps when the data goes all weird on me.
Most likely, we'll never know exactly waht happened. Remote area, government not known for their forthcoming, potential embarssemnt if it is something nasty. Yep. It was a meteor strike. Might as well make the fantasy something cool....
Ever seen the TV show mythbusters? It's like snopes for TV. Anyway, they took the myth about the Corvette that smelled so bad that no one could clean it or sell it. They took two dead pigs and sealed them up in a Vette and sealed the whole thing up in a shipping container for a few weeks. Then tried to clean it.
They got a professional crew in, guys that clean out ambulances, crime scenes, etc. The car still reeked at the end of the show, and wound up getting sold for the engine & transmission.
You may be stuck with the stench. OK, random bad jokes : give them to PETA/ADL/vegan society. Give them to Cowboy Neal, no one will notice them over his stench.
Not really an option, though. Without the liscence and the academic discounts, the taxes on the stuff would make it prohibitive. Not to mention that you need special permission to get the non-denatured stuff.
It's not that simple. Proper diet and exercise help alleiviate some of the symptoms, but it does not correct all of them. Simply saying "It's bad for you, don't do it" could be applied to exposure to vaccuum as well. But we came up with solutions. Furthermore, there are spinoffs. Examining the effects of the environment not only helps us better prepare people for exploration, but it also helps with normal earthbound physiology. We have learned volumes about circulation, respiration, wound healing, and inflammatory responses because of the microgravity experiments, many done on ISS. And there are equally large volumes of questions raised by that research. We have learned a lot, but have a LOT more to learn; we are not relearning the same stuff.
But you're right on one point. We probably have enough physiology info to go to Mars somewhat safely.
As for exclusivity, there are the crystal growth experiments. These take weeks to months to do properly, and some crystals that simply cannot be grown on earth do grow in space. As for automation, ask any structural biologist. Crystal growth is 75% art, 25% science. You can't automate it effectively. And, as I said, I have seen articles about the benefits of other technologies as well, but I am in no way informed enough to defend them. Maybe someone else reading this thread is.
The tourism angle is a very long term thing. You can't look at annual P&L reports to see it. Besides, NASA is not in the business of business.
Would a kid (or adult) rather go to Mars or ISS? What do you think? If you compare Mars to Epsilon Erandi, or the Crab Nebula which one wins?
Is it even remotely possible for someone to go to Mars right now? No. To make a tourism splash, what you propose must be possible. Therefore, ISS gets it. How long until we can sell tickets to Mars or the Moon? How long until we can sell tickets to ISS, or orbit? One step at a time. We're just taking too long at this step.
You won't find much disagreement from me about wether ISS is run well. It's not. It could be used for some very good things, but currently, it's not. It is uniquely suited to physiological research on the effects of long-term microgravity exposure (needed for manned exploratory missions) and is a good testbed for manufacturing technologies and research applications. There are some things that can be done better in space; molecular biology structural research, for one (many crystals grow better w/o gravity). I'm a biochemist, so that's the only one I'm familiar with, but I have heard of technologies that would benefit from vaccuum and/or microgravity. I just don't know enough to discuss them intelligently.
ISS could be a great place to determine the feasibility of these manufacturing applications, the success of which could help draw industry and private groups into space. Granted that's a lot of "could's" and the first run of these tests should be done via automated satellite, with the second run on the shuttle (or its replacement). ISS testing should be final phase, but it should still be a phase.
The best thing about it, though, is the public image and exposure. In the absence of any other space-based industry, the thing that will draw real money there is tourism. As it grows, tourism will eventually bring the industry connected with it. This will draw more people and money up, which will reduce launch costs, which will increase flux into space (I'm talking decades to centuries here).
As for building and maintenance, I work in a research lab. The cost of keeping things going is huge. The cost of housing the animals alone exceeds the salary of two technicians. It costs more annually for me to do my work than it does to pay me (although that's not saying much), and much of that is tied up in utilities, maintenance, ventillation, and the like. ISS is a unique lab, and it is needed to determine the effects of living and working in space long-term, on both men and equipment. The shuttle can't stay up for months at a time. Any work you do on it, at all, furthers this goal. It is an expensive lab, but it is useful.
IMHO, the issue is that expensive labs need to be run well.
Somebody did something in their free time that you deem a waste of time and effort? Go figure.
If you read the article that you linked, you will see that the astronauts did this in their *free time*. As in time during which there was nothing else planned. As in time to goof off and relax.
I'm actually kind of impressed that they see their free time as a chance to do *more* experiments. Besides, this is the kind of basic science, the fundamental pursuit of knowledge just because it's cool and it piques you interest. This is what pure science is all about. How can you call yourself a geek and not know that?
BTW, if anyone hasn't read that article, you should check it out. It's kinda cool.
Granted, it's not on the primary NBC channel, but there are events covered that aren't won by the US. Men's fencing was on, as was table tennis and tennis, archery, weightlifting, rowing, and badmitton.
Of course, these are on MSNBC, Bravo, USA, and CNBC, and are not all during primetime (though some are), but they are broadcast.
I agree that the coverage is subpar, I'd like to see less background crap about the athletes and more actual athletics. I'd also like to see more well-rounded coverage during primetime on NBC. Also, I don't have it, but from what I see on the NBC schedule, the HDTV channel that is supposed to be 24/7 coverage is showing only gymnastics and swimming. How in the hell can anyone watch that much gymnastics and swimming???
I have heard it commented elsewhere that it may be possible to use gravity as the countering force for tacking with a solar sail. Does anyone know if this is possible, or is it just a bad sci-fi element?
The cop cannot, should not, and does not assume that the person has had this happen to them. It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more prevelant, but it is still by no means so frequent as to be a factor in this decision. Blaming society for crimes is an ancient technique. It doesn't work, and it shouldn't work.
The kid's real problem in this scenario is that no one has ever taught him/her personal responsibility; that you are responsible for your own decisions and actions, and that you are accountable for them. Informing them that the reason they steal is because their parents never taught them better, shifts responsibility from the offender to someone else. This does not foster an attitude of personal responsibility. This is not to say the parents are blameless. They screwed up (not) raising their kid. But to help the kid, you have to put the responsilbility on his shoulders, and no one elses.
That is outstanding. The only thing missing is to hijack their webcam to see the look on the kid's face when his printer kicks in and he dives for the network cable.
If the kid is a first timer, some 15 year old on a dare or trying to impress his friends, most cops that I know would just scare the crap out of him. Take him to holding, make his parents come get him, etc. The kid is doing no real harm just pulling the handles, and the cop will stop him before he does any real harm. This is better in the long run, because when the kid is actually taking the item, he's probably scared and when he gets caught, will be terrified. You can be sure he'll never do it again. If he doesn't get to full-blown terror, you may or may not prevent the activity in the future. It's a lot better when the club you weild is real, instead of just imagined. If the kid that didn't steal calls your bluff, then once he gets off he will feel invulnerable, and do it again. Cops protect and serve society, not individuals.
That's all debateable, though. The kicker for me was:
Do you really think that the kid doesn't know that opening up someone's car door and taking something that doesn't belong to them is wrong? Is there anyone over the age of four who honestly does not believe that that is "over the line"?