Re:How is this insightful?
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Your first remark disingenuously misses the point. Human space colonies are not needed, preposterously expensive, and obstruct space science and space exploration by wasting resources better spent on unmanned missions.
Your second reamrk is even worse. Who are these intelligent spenders? The project leaders and political champions of the many recent unmanned probes to moons, planets, and comets. Manned space flight is orders of magnitude less productive.
You are stuck on the idea that a human physical presence is necessary or it is not interesting or worthwhile. You also have the bizarre yet mainstream idea that medium or large scale human space colonization is feasible and desirable. It is neither. For the next century or two, possibly more, it will remain the stuff of sci fi stories.
And yes, I am fully aware that my opinion is that of a small minority.
Anyway, as I said, the ISS has virtually ensured that we HAVE to keep up manned flight.
Politically, you're probably right. We really should just cease all operations and abandon it, and push it into a safe re-entry to avoid unintended damage on earth. I can't see that happening any time soon, though.
Curiously, a similar rationale has taken shape regarding the Iraq invasion, and has been mocked recently in the Doonesbury comic strip.
This is shallow thinking. Money goes from point A to point B, so everything is OK. Forget the billions that have been spent, forget that no useful activities occur that can't be done better, more cheaply, for a longer time, and on a far greater scale by unmanned missions. Forget that taxpayers are subsidizing a colossally expensive amusement park ride for some random rich guy.
The money can be far more intelligently spent, and people will still buy clothes, food, etc.
Re:New reality show: "The Astronaut"
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, you're right. This is a nefariously brilliant idea. It would rekindle people's idiotic belief that manned space flight is worth spending money on. Read my other post to see why this is pure exploitation of superstitious beliefs that actually prevents space exploration rather than promote it.
You are talking to the wind. Nobody likes to hear this. They far prefer the magical-religious belief that manned space exploration will make their favorite sci fi stories come true. They don't care about actually exploring space, and even less about doing any serious science. They want Roman Circus while a few powerful and influential companies ransack the treasury.
A sad state of affairs indeed.
What part don't slashdotters understand?
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Time and again slashdotters trot out their superstitious penchant towards supporting manned space flight. The parent showcases one aspect of this simpleminded belief with:
It is definately favourable towards generating extra funds for space programs,...
A guy pays $20M and suddenly this sounds like extra money. Forget that taxpayers paid several billion dollars to put the ISS up there and billions more to keep it working. For what, to have an unbelievably elitist amusement park ride? What fraction of the investment is paid for with $20M? Is it realistically scalable to actually have a meaningful fiscal impact? No.
But wait! say slashdotters, they're doing science up there! The parent points to a favorite claim of useful science:
Experiments that he participated in included further investigation into how the human body deals with weightlessness and the possible causes to lower back pain and nausea, yet are these activities simply carried out so as to 'entertain' or is there real scientific purpose behind them?
To his credit, he provides the answer in his question. Yes, it is bullshit, not science. It is of practically no scientific interest.
Please, please, please! Aren't slashdotters supposed to be science and engineering geeks? Aren't we supposed to question things and demand hard evidence and clear justification? Why then this childish infatuation with manned space flight?
Its preposterously high cost diverts funds and resources away from science exploration tasks to simply keeping human beings alive and reasonably comfortable. Many people claim that the central drive for manned space flight is the human tencency to explore, and most bring up some variant of a comparison with Columbus pushing aside doubters and naysayers and forging ahead with his historic quest. I can't emphasize this enough: Manned space flight inhibits space exploration. Robots do it better, cheaper, and on a vastly greater scale, and they perform useful science as well.
It is very short range. Manned probes travel the solar system and explore other planets and their moons, while manned flights dabble in high school science projects in low earth orbit.
Contrary to a common side-belief, mining asteroids, planets or moons is not economically feasible. This is a favorite theme. For some reason many people think it is cheaper to bring thousands of tons of minerals from asteroids, moons, or other planets than to bring it in by train from the Andes. Baffling, unless the only motivation here is to pretend favorite sci fi stories are actually realistic.
We will never leave earth en masse as insurance against a major asteroid impact or whatever. It is not even remotely feasible economically, and the amount of vehicles, resources and logistics is so immense as to be physically impossible for generations to come. There is nowhere to go, either, which seems not to bother people. In more general terms, this is little more than a modern version of ancient myths about life after death. A shining fantasy that provides humanity eternal life in the face of potential physical obliteration. It is a magical-religious belief with no factual or physical basis.
Manned space flight is a scam. Its core purpose is to channel billions of dollars from the federal budget to aerospace companies and their contractors, with a secondary purpose of hiding military expenditures in ostensibly civilian projects.
If you're going to get a new GNU/Linux box, you're far better off building it yourself. Even if you get a fancy $130 Antec case or a hot AGP card, you will still be able to spend less than on the Dell box. You can get exactly what you want the way you want it, and push the specs without pushing the price as hard as with these big PC companies. Why contribute to the salaries and bonuses of the numerous professional bullshitters who run these companies? You will anyway when you buy the parts, but to a lesser extent.
When I saw the heading "'Open' PC" I thought it was going to be some kind of open-source hardware or design model, but it turned out to be the usual PR bullshit.
If you are a _contractor_, any work you do is NOT a work for hire unless you sign a contract that says your work should be considered a work for hire. Work for hire only applies if you are an _employee_, not a contractor.
I suspect you are mistaken. If you are a contractor hired to do work, it is work done for hire and all belongs to the client. Work you do away from that customer's site and without any materials, information, or facilities belonging to the customer would not be work for hire, even if it was of a similar nature. If you are referring specifically to after hours work by an employee versus a contractor, then I agree with you.
Nonetheless, this disagreement shows the perils of not consulting a lawyer.
AFAIK (IANAL), in the State of California it is considered "work done for hire" and belongs to the company. If you are an outside contractor, you may be able to specify ownership beforehand. If you don't, it's work done for hire and belongs to your employer. Worse, if you invent stuff at home of the same kind as what you do at work during the day, it also belongs to your employer. If you use the laptop they provide, it's a done deal.
However, if write code at home that does things that are clearly unrelated to what you do at work, the code is yours, unless you commit the mistake of using materials and resources provided to you by your employer, such as the laptop.
DO NOT reach a conclusion based on what you read in this thread! You must get competent legal advice and/or get conclusive information from your state government!
I think you are too optimistic about the measurability of intelligence. Most of these methods are necessarily biased towards mainstream culture. If you are in the mainstream, you will score better than someone who is not. Things like access to information, family attitudes and practices regarding reading and education, how much TV you watch and what you watch, what ethnic group you belong to and when did the immigration occur (biology is probably much less important than culture in this regard), and many, many other factors taint the results enough to make them of dubious value.
As if that weren't enough, the test implicitly defines intelligence, which quite frankly is the height of arrogance and self delusion. While most would agree that Math and Reading skills have something to do with intelligence, it is hard to argue that applying the same test to people with vastly different Math and Reading experience is a credible way to measure intelligence. Look at standardized testing today. People who take more exam prep courses apparently do better than those who don't. Schools that drill their students in the testing applied by the state, even poor schools, raise their relative score. It would be preposterous to claim that the students were becoming more intelligent.
I would agree that it is measurable in principle, but I would suggest more skepticism regarding actual practice. In any case, what is the point of intelligence testing, for some momentary gratification or as a predictor of "success in life"? Both intelligence and "success in life" are vague and poorly definable notions.
Finally, to divide the entire population in two parts based on some arbitrary criterion and claim that one is more intelligent than the other is reminiscent of "There are two kinds of people..." jokes and not much more.
"'People...see it as a real democratic institution in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution, a business.' Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'"
Ooh, I'm scared too! While it sounds revolutionary, it actually is not. Just give employees who are already the most inclined to participate in corporate office politics a bit of press and possibly some budget for meetings and other activities, and this is what you get. I was at a biotech company that did this with their scientists. After three years or so, not much had come of it but inflated egos and a lot of hot air.
Think of it, a highly maneuverable jet aircraft flying at or even well above the speed of sound with a 150 kW laser beam on it. How clever. How useful. In a previous/. article on this topic, much was said about the unintended reflections, and how they would cause significant heat damage at short range, and eye damage at longer range. Anyone who has played Sim City and fallen prey to the orbiting microwave power source would probably be loathe to deploy a weapon like this.
This is yet another example of the many we've had over the past few years that Pentagon planners are not big on carefully thinking things through and making sure the solution fits the problem (let alone what the problem is, or if there is one to begin with). This laser weapon is the sort of thing a foolish and impulsive little boy would ask Santa Claus for, and throw a few tantrums to make sure he got it. After Christmas and after seeing what an idiotic toy it is, into the closet it goes, much to the chagrin of his parents who got conned into buying such an expensive and useless toy.
How many poor bastards will be accidentally maimed by this thing before the Pentagon concludes it was a stupid idea and shelves it?
One for most time spent in space, the other for greatest amount of money spent to break a record of any kind.
Can anyone guesstimate how many billions of dollars were involved here?
Cost of space station
Cost of supplies and supply delivery
Round trip cost
We don't have to count the money to fix the shuttle, or any other shuttle costs (?), so that saves a billion or two.
I'm sure the hard core manned space flight fanatics think this is a great expression of man's quest for exploration or whatever, spending billions of dollars so that Joe Schmo can sit around in orbit for a couple of years. Really important medical advances, here, really important. And science. Science.
Think of all the unmanned missions throughout the solar system and (shall I dream?) beyond that could have been made with that kind of money. How many Mars Rover missions could have been paid, or trips to the moons of the large planets, or setting up a series of unmanned base stations from the earth to Mars to mount ever more sophisticated and ambitious missions? That my friends would be Space Exploration, not this piddly bullshit we have to be content with.
There is no verses. We do BOTH. We have the means and we're using it, regardless of what fools like you think you know.
Spoken like a true fanatic. We do not have the means to do both. The federal budget is running at enormous deficits, and expenditures for doing real science are being curtailed so that a few people can fly around in elitist and colossally expensive amusement park rides. Manned space exploration does not promote space science or exploration, it restricts them because far fewer activities can be done per dollar, they can only be done close to home, and they are extremely modest in their capacity to explore the cosmos or generate interesting science.
You have a magical-religious belief in fairy tales and shiny objects. Oddly enough, your list of space missions that actually do produce interesting science and significant exploration consists entirely of unmanned projects. You don't even understand the evidence you put forth for your own arguments.
A "test flight?" You aren't sure if it can come back without blowing up so you put a half dozen poor bastards inside and send it up to "test" it? You work at NASA, don't you?
While there is, certainly, a great deal of value from unmanned space flight, and while there should be appropriate consideration as to how the objectives of any given mission can be best achieved, unmanned missions ultimately have their own limitations, as well.
This is a ridiculous statement. Given that most of what goes up in the shuttle is or can be automated or controlled from the ground, "how the objectives of any given mission can be best achieved" begs the question of what a manned space mission provides that is worth the vastly higher cost. How much would it cost to automate or set up for remote control everything that has gone up in the last 10 shuttle missions, and how much have those missions cost, including vehicles and training of crew?
The idea that we should simply stay put...
I don't know if ot is out of desperation that you trot out this Straw Man argument, but it is obvious from my post that I do not propose to "stay put." I propose to do much more space science and exploration at much less cost by using unmanned missions exclusively for the foreseeable future. People like you who insist on manned space flight, while pretentious in your claimed desire to explore the cosmos, etc., drastically curtail the amount of science and exploration that can be done per dollar.
"Gee, Ferdinand..."
Jesus Christ, again with the Columbus analogy. It doesn't apply. On the contrary, as another of your responders points out, manned space flight is like demanding that Columbus sail around near the home port forever in preposterously expensive ships and never do anything useful or interesting.
You are guilty of espousing an unfounded magical-religious belief that manned space flight accomplishes anything of utility, does any interesting science, or advances space exploration in any important way. It does none of those things. Your irrational beliefs are unfounded. Furthermore, your religious zeal regarding the possibility of human colonization of the cosmos is nothing more than a refried belief in an afterlife common to most religions. Again, no basis in fact, and requiring a colossal suspension of of both disbelief and the laws of physics, to say nothing of realistic funding, to be tenable.
Faith in astronauts plus faith in Jesus will save the shuttle.
Why didn't that work the last few times? And while we're on the subject of fickle and inconsistent Deus ex machina, why is it that when a few people survive a catastrophe in which many others are killed or injured, they often claim that God saved them? What about the poor bastards who didn't make it?
I hope your answer won't be as lame as "only the faithful were saved, and the sinners and unfaithful accurately and justly obliterated."
Then, when our country is overrun, we can all escape to space.
Awww, isn't that cute! He thinks the war in Iraq is helping defend us! I bet he thinks, in that cute little head of his, that Iraq is the front line against terrorism!
Ah, the sweet sound of blissful innocence! Running across a meadow, eyes rolling, arms flailing, tongue flapping in the breeze, saliva flinging every which way, and finally, crashing nose first into a tree.
They have just spent a billion dollars to fix it, and it's still fucked up. Not to design, test, and build a new one, nor even to do any significant redesign. Just some refactoring and repairs. Four times the cost of the Mars rovers (still working, BTW), so that a few people can ride around in orbit and say how cool the view is from up there.
Of course, the fanatical believers in manned space flight would never even consider that this shows the monstrous demerits and grotesque waste of manned flight versus unmanned.
Bob Metcalfe did us all a great favor with his brilliant ethernet work. It showed talent, intelligence, and focus. So far so good, right? Unfortunately, he has shown us time and again that great intelligence and talent guarantee nothing in other fields. You or I can be brilliant in one realm, and nitwits in many others. Bob is no exception.
I often read his columns in computer industry tabloids years ago and was struck by his loud, opinionated, shallow, and often way off the mark columns. He doesn't understand the computer industry especially well, and these riduculous remarks bear that out quite eloquently.
I recently saw the first two or three episodes of Firefly. In spite of the very good production values, I found it to be utterly lame. Bad acting by TV actors who look like TV actors, shallow sententious dialogue, dumb story, standard TV show characters and character development, it is essentially a not-witty Buffy Goes Sci-Fi without Buffy, Xander, or Willow. I crapped out in the middle of an episode and returned the DVD to Netflix.
The cult surrounding this crappy show is baffling.
Mountain View, CA - June 29, 2005 - Sun Microsystems announced today a radically new information storage and communications system using nanotechnology. Using tiny carbon-based fibers carefully prepared, purified and pressed into paper thin sheets, along with sleek, ergonomic pigment deposition units, Sun has introduced a tablet-based handwriting-centric system they believe will inundate the world.
Availlable in units of 75 sheets each, the beautiful yellow nanotech material is easy to hold in the user's hand or attached to a conventional clipboard. It requires no external power, relying exclusively on passive power derived from the user's physical manipulation of the material. The stylus is available in models that apply black, red, blue, or green pigment to the nanotech sheets. They also rely entirely on the user's physical manipulation for power, and only require periodic changing of toner cartridges that are small tubular components only a few millimeters in diameter. Sun has thus eliminated the cost and logistics required to distribute electrical power, UPS facilities, and expensive rechargeable batteries to users. Data storage is for all intents and purposes permanent, and is impervious to even multi-Tesla magnetic fields and large amounts of electromagnetic radiation across a wide spectrum. Styli that contain precisely machined lengths of purified graphite-based toner will soon be available and will add erasable read/write capability.
The nanosheets will be available in units of 10 pads of 75 sheets each for $2500 list price, and non-erasable styli are available in packages of 25 for $1295. The advanced machined graphite styli were not available at press time.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.
Anti gun freak variation: We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to shoot people, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster shooting people, is liable for the resulting acts of shooting people by third parties.
Oops! Unconstitutional
Anti "Defense Industry" variation: We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to kill civilians by aerial bombardment, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster killing civilians by aerial bombardment, is liable for the resulting acts of killing civilians by aerial bombardment by third parties.
Shit. Too specific. I guess they're off the hook
Anti corrupt foreign allies variation: We hold that one who distributes foreign aid with the object of promoting its use to enrich politicians, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to enrich politicians, is liable for the resulting acts of embezzlement by third parties.
Darn, too different. No liability there.
Anti spammer variation: We hold that one who distributes a spam with the object of promoting its use to buy worthless crap, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster the purchase of worthless crap, is liable for the resulting acts of buying worthless crap by third parties.
Goddamn it! That one doesn't even make sense!
Anti franchise fast food variant We hold that one who distributes a fattening food with little nutritional value with the object of promoting its use to have people eat it and get fat, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster eating the fattening food, is liable for the resulting acts of enfattenment by third parties
Sounds good, but do we need laws for this?
Anti drug and alcohol variant We hold that one who distributes a mind-altering substance with the object of promoting its use to have people alter their consciousness, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster consciousness-altering usage, is liable for the resulting acts of consciousness-altering by third parties
I can see it now, alcoholic beverage manufacturers liable for acts committed while drunk. The DEA will love it, though. Throw in tobacco and coffee, and civilization will probably stop in its tracks, such as it is.
No wonder I'm not on the Supreme Court. Those guys are just too good at this shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Your second reamrk is even worse. Who are these intelligent spenders? The project leaders and political champions of the many recent unmanned probes to moons, planets, and comets. Manned space flight is orders of magnitude less productive.
You are stuck on the idea that a human physical presence is necessary or it is not interesting or worthwhile. You also have the bizarre yet mainstream idea that medium or large scale human space colonization is feasible and desirable. It is neither. For the next century or two, possibly more, it will remain the stuff of sci fi stories.
And yes, I am fully aware that my opinion is that of a small minority.
Politically, you're probably right. We really should just cease all operations and abandon it, and push it into a safe re-entry to avoid unintended damage on earth. I can't see that happening any time soon, though.
Curiously, a similar rationale has taken shape regarding the Iraq invasion, and has been mocked recently in the Doonesbury comic strip.
The money can be far more intelligently spent, and people will still buy clothes, food, etc.
Unfortunately, you're right. This is a nefariously brilliant idea. It would rekindle people's idiotic belief that manned space flight is worth spending money on. Read my other post to see why this is pure exploitation of superstitious beliefs that actually prevents space exploration rather than promote it.
A sad state of affairs indeed.
It is definately favourable towards generating extra funds for space programs,...
A guy pays $20M and suddenly this sounds like extra money. Forget that taxpayers paid several billion dollars to put the ISS up there and billions more to keep it working. For what, to have an unbelievably elitist amusement park ride? What fraction of the investment is paid for with $20M? Is it realistically scalable to actually have a meaningful fiscal impact? No.
But wait! say slashdotters, they're doing science up there! The parent points to a favorite claim of useful science:
Experiments that he participated in included further investigation into how the human body deals with weightlessness and the possible causes to lower back pain and nausea, yet are these activities simply carried out so as to 'entertain' or is there real scientific purpose behind them?
To his credit, he provides the answer in his question. Yes, it is bullshit, not science. It is of practically no scientific interest.
Please, please, please! Aren't slashdotters supposed to be science and engineering geeks? Aren't we supposed to question things and demand hard evidence and clear justification? Why then this childish infatuation with manned space flight?
- Its preposterously high cost diverts funds and resources away from science exploration tasks to simply keeping human beings alive and reasonably comfortable. Many people claim that the central drive for manned space flight is the human tencency to explore, and most bring up some variant of a comparison with Columbus pushing aside doubters and naysayers and forging ahead with his historic quest. I can't emphasize this enough: Manned space flight inhibits space exploration. Robots do it better, cheaper, and on a vastly greater scale, and they perform useful science as well.
- It is very short range. Manned probes travel the solar system and explore other planets and their moons, while manned flights dabble in high school science projects in low earth orbit.
- Contrary to a common side-belief, mining asteroids, planets or moons is not economically feasible. This is a favorite theme. For some reason many people think it is cheaper to bring thousands of tons of minerals from asteroids, moons, or other planets than to bring it in by train from the Andes. Baffling, unless the only motivation here is to pretend favorite sci fi stories are actually realistic.
- We will never leave earth en masse as insurance against a major asteroid impact or whatever. It is not even remotely feasible economically, and the amount of vehicles, resources and logistics is so immense as to be physically impossible for generations to come. There is nowhere to go, either, which seems not to bother people. In more general terms, this is little more than a modern version of ancient myths about life after death. A shining fantasy that provides humanity eternal life in the face of potential physical obliteration. It is a magical-religious belief with no factual or physical basis.
Manned space flight is a scam. Its core purpose is to channel billions of dollars from the federal budget to aerospace companies and their contractors, with a secondary purpose of hiding military expenditures in ostensibly civilian projects.Wake up, slashdotters.
When I saw the heading "'Open' PC" I thought it was going to be some kind of open-source hardware or design model, but it turned out to be the usual PR bullshit.
Long live the DIY computer builder.
I suspect you are mistaken. If you are a contractor hired to do work, it is work done for hire and all belongs to the client. Work you do away from that customer's site and without any materials, information, or facilities belonging to the customer would not be work for hire, even if it was of a similar nature. If you are referring specifically to after hours work by an employee versus a contractor, then I agree with you.
Nonetheless, this disagreement shows the perils of not consulting a lawyer.
However, if write code at home that does things that are clearly unrelated to what you do at work, the code is yours, unless you commit the mistake of using materials and resources provided to you by your employer, such as the laptop.
DO NOT reach a conclusion based on what you read in this thread! You must get competent legal advice and/or get conclusive information from your state government!
As if that weren't enough, the test implicitly defines intelligence, which quite frankly is the height of arrogance and self delusion. While most would agree that Math and Reading skills have something to do with intelligence, it is hard to argue that applying the same test to people with vastly different Math and Reading experience is a credible way to measure intelligence. Look at standardized testing today. People who take more exam prep courses apparently do better than those who don't. Schools that drill their students in the testing applied by the state, even poor schools, raise their relative score. It would be preposterous to claim that the students were becoming more intelligent.
I would agree that it is measurable in principle, but I would suggest more skepticism regarding actual practice. In any case, what is the point of intelligence testing, for some momentary gratification or as a predictor of "success in life"? Both intelligence and "success in life" are vague and poorly definable notions.
Finally, to divide the entire population in two parts based on some arbitrary criterion and claim that one is more intelligent than the other is reminiscent of "There are two kinds of people..." jokes and not much more.
Ooh, I'm scared too! While it sounds revolutionary, it actually is not. Just give employees who are already the most inclined to participate in corporate office politics a bit of press and possibly some budget for meetings and other activities, and this is what you get. I was at a biotech company that did this with their scientists. After three years or so, not much had come of it but inflated egos and a lot of hot air.
On the bottom is better than on top!
Red is better than Purple!
Being a complete dipshit is better than being an utter and complete moron!
Why can't I get paid to spout idiotic claptrap all day?
This is yet another example of the many we've had over the past few years that Pentagon planners are not big on carefully thinking things through and making sure the solution fits the problem (let alone what the problem is, or if there is one to begin with). This laser weapon is the sort of thing a foolish and impulsive little boy would ask Santa Claus for, and throw a few tantrums to make sure he got it. After Christmas and after seeing what an idiotic toy it is, into the closet it goes, much to the chagrin of his parents who got conned into buying such an expensive and useless toy.
How many poor bastards will be accidentally maimed by this thing before the Pentagon concludes it was a stupid idea and shelves it?
I guess one arm has significantly lower loss of bone mass than the other. The Bjorn Borg of Space this guy is.
Can anyone guesstimate how many billions of dollars were involved here?
- Cost of space station
- Cost of supplies and supply delivery
- Round trip cost
We don't have to count the money to fix the shuttle, or any other shuttle costs (?), so that saves a billion or two.I'm sure the hard core manned space flight fanatics think this is a great expression of man's quest for exploration or whatever, spending billions of dollars so that Joe Schmo can sit around in orbit for a couple of years. Really important medical advances, here, really important. And science. Science.
Think of all the unmanned missions throughout the solar system and (shall I dream?) beyond that could have been made with that kind of money. How many Mars Rover missions could have been paid, or trips to the moons of the large planets, or setting up a series of unmanned base stations from the earth to Mars to mount ever more sophisticated and ambitious missions? That my friends would be Space Exploration, not this piddly bullshit we have to be content with.
Spoken like a true fanatic. We do not have the means to do both. The federal budget is running at enormous deficits, and expenditures for doing real science are being curtailed so that a few people can fly around in elitist and colossally expensive amusement park rides. Manned space exploration does not promote space science or exploration, it restricts them because far fewer activities can be done per dollar, they can only be done close to home, and they are extremely modest in their capacity to explore the cosmos or generate interesting science.
You have a magical-religious belief in fairy tales and shiny objects. Oddly enough, your list of space missions that actually do produce interesting science and significant exploration consists entirely of unmanned projects. You don't even understand the evidence you put forth for your own arguments.
And I'm the fool? Wow.
This is a ridiculous statement. Given that most of what goes up in the shuttle is or can be automated or controlled from the ground, "how the objectives of any given mission can be best achieved" begs the question of what a manned space mission provides that is worth the vastly higher cost. How much would it cost to automate or set up for remote control everything that has gone up in the last 10 shuttle missions, and how much have those missions cost, including vehicles and training of crew?
The idea that we should simply stay put...
I don't know if ot is out of desperation that you trot out this Straw Man argument, but it is obvious from my post that I do not propose to "stay put." I propose to do much more space science and exploration at much less cost by using unmanned missions exclusively for the foreseeable future. People like you who insist on manned space flight, while pretentious in your claimed desire to explore the cosmos, etc., drastically curtail the amount of science and exploration that can be done per dollar.
"Gee, Ferdinand..."
Jesus Christ, again with the Columbus analogy. It doesn't apply. On the contrary, as another of your responders points out, manned space flight is like demanding that Columbus sail around near the home port forever in preposterously expensive ships and never do anything useful or interesting.
You are guilty of espousing an unfounded magical-religious belief that manned space flight accomplishes anything of utility, does any interesting science, or advances space exploration in any important way. It does none of those things. Your irrational beliefs are unfounded. Furthermore, your religious zeal regarding the possibility of human colonization of the cosmos is nothing more than a refried belief in an afterlife common to most religions. Again, no basis in fact, and requiring a colossal suspension of of both disbelief and the laws of physics, to say nothing of realistic funding, to be tenable.
Why didn't that work the last few times? And while we're on the subject of fickle and inconsistent Deus ex machina, why is it that when a few people survive a catastrophe in which many others are killed or injured, they often claim that God saved them? What about the poor bastards who didn't make it?
I hope your answer won't be as lame as "only the faithful were saved, and the sinners and unfaithful accurately and justly obliterated."
Awww, isn't that cute! He thinks the war in Iraq is helping defend us! I bet he thinks, in that cute little head of his, that Iraq is the front line against terrorism!
Ah, the sweet sound of blissful innocence! Running across a meadow, eyes rolling, arms flailing, tongue flapping in the breeze, saliva flinging every which way, and finally, crashing nose first into a tree.
Sigh...
Of course, the fanatical believers in manned space flight would never even consider that this shows the monstrous demerits and grotesque waste of manned flight versus unmanned.
I often read his columns in computer industry tabloids years ago and was struck by his loud, opinionated, shallow, and often way off the mark columns. He doesn't understand the computer industry especially well, and these riduculous remarks bear that out quite eloquently.
The cult surrounding this crappy show is baffling.
Availlable in units of 75 sheets each, the beautiful yellow nanotech material is easy to hold in the user's hand or attached to a conventional clipboard. It requires no external power, relying exclusively on passive power derived from the user's physical manipulation of the material. The stylus is available in models that apply black, red, blue, or green pigment to the nanotech sheets. They also rely entirely on the user's physical manipulation for power, and only require periodic changing of toner cartridges that are small tubular components only a few millimeters in diameter. Sun has thus eliminated the cost and logistics required to distribute electrical power, UPS facilities, and expensive rechargeable batteries to users. Data storage is for all intents and purposes permanent, and is impervious to even multi-Tesla magnetic fields and large amounts of electromagnetic radiation across a wide spectrum. Styli that contain precisely machined lengths of purified graphite-based toner will soon be available and will add erasable read/write capability.
The nanosheets will be available in units of 10 pads of 75 sheets each for $2500 list price, and non-erasable styli are available in packages of 25 for $1295. The advanced machined graphite styli were not available at press time.
Anti gun freak variation:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to shoot people, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster shooting people, is liable for the resulting acts of shooting people by third parties.
Oops! Unconstitutional
Anti "Defense Industry" variation:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to kill civilians by aerial bombardment, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster killing civilians by aerial bombardment, is liable for the resulting acts of killing civilians by aerial bombardment by third parties.
Shit. Too specific. I guess they're off the hook
Anti corrupt foreign allies variation:
We hold that one who distributes foreign aid with the object of promoting its use to enrich politicians, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to enrich politicians, is liable for the resulting acts of embezzlement by third parties.
Darn, too different. No liability there.
Anti spammer variation:
We hold that one who distributes a spam with the object of promoting its use to buy worthless crap, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster the purchase of worthless crap, is liable for the resulting acts of buying worthless crap by third parties.
Goddamn it! That one doesn't even make sense!
Anti franchise fast food variant
We hold that one who distributes a fattening food with little nutritional value with the object of promoting its use to have people eat it and get fat, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster eating the fattening food, is liable for the resulting acts of enfattenment by third parties
Sounds good, but do we need laws for this?
Anti drug and alcohol variant
We hold that one who distributes a mind-altering substance with the object of promoting its use to have people alter their consciousness, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster consciousness-altering usage, is liable for the resulting acts of consciousness-altering by third parties
I can see it now, alcoholic beverage manufacturers liable for acts committed while drunk. The DEA will love it, though. Throw in tobacco and coffee, and civilization will probably stop in its tracks, such as it is.
No wonder I'm not on the Supreme Court. Those guys are just too good at this shit.