I was think of getting a P5 after I heard that Black & White supported it.
P5 + B&W = not too good.
Although B&W says it uses a "hand" to control everything, that's really just a different looking mouse cursor. B&W's interface is highly optimized towards use with a regular mouse (gestures and everything), so you wouldn't gain anything from having 5 fingers to bend. Although it would give a new meaning to gorilla arm... ("I got gorilla arm from slapping my monkey too much")
(But then again, my P5 is really too inaccurate to use for anything. Even clicking desktop icons is a challenge)
Thus I accept that objective as simply an opinion.
I started to suggest that you find a website in your own language to post to, but I guess it's not helpful to be discouraging. At least you can get a dictionary and contrast "objective" with "objection".
I also notice that your taking the objective that space missions are over and that we may as well just give up on the whole idea of space travel all together.
I never wrote that. If you think I wrote that, then your English comprehension needs improvement. (Still, your English skills are well above what any typical USA student can achieve in a foreign language)
A more insightfull and possibly more helpfull remark would have been to tell me specifically to us the
It's not HTML skill, but a valid flaw in your posting style. Your messages will be painful for others to read until you learn to insert some form of paragraph-breaks. Either select "Plain Old Text" and just push Enter occasionally, or select "HTML Formatted" and then insert <br> or <p> explicitly.
(And no, I'm not going to explain how to insert a literal "<>" in a comment...)
I would suggest testing this robotic repair vehicle on a "safe" satelite that needs maintanence that a normal human shuttle mission would do.
Uh, there is no such thing as a "normal shuttle mission" anymore. Shuttle missions are almost completely over. Maybe a few more trips to the ISS, but you will never again see a shuttle sent to service a satellite. (Servicing satellites is nearly worthless anyhow. The Hubble is the only satellite in history with a replacement cost greater than a traditional shuttle mission)
(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS)
The feasibility is: None. The ISS is just too far away from the Hubble. You can't reasonably visit them both in a single trip (without a huge, huge expense of carrying extra fuel "just in case").
There's just no reason to think about bringing a robot to the ISS. If the robot fails somehow, tough. Let it drift or fall or whatever, it's no matter to us. The price of the robot body itself is trivial next to the retrieval cost.
Oddly enough we are a throw away society, we still use booster rockets that are disposible.(I know that part of the booster rocket system is reusable but I don't remember which of the top of my head. is it the small ones?)
It's not "Oddly", it's a small island of sanity in a wasteful space program. The shuttle's boosters are disposable because it's just cheaper that way. For some things, refilling and refurbishing is more expensive (and far more risky) than building a new one. If more of the shuttle had been disposable, then the whole 30-year project budget would've been much less. (Except that then it wouldn't be called a "shuttle", because shuttles are by definition reused)
Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money.
You bet wrong. The expensive thing about a robot isn't building the actual machine- those guys from Monster Garage could handle that in a few weeks. The real hard work is the design, for both hardware and "AI" software.
You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?
She didn't say "resuable space vehicle". The words were "safer and cheaper launcher".
Making it "reusable" is actually a major design flaw that results in a vehicle that is both more expensive and more dangerous. That fact was obvious to engineers in 1979, but politicians (following the lead of Richard Nixon) ignored reality in the hope it would go away.
Before the STS was even built, we already had superior launchers: the Saturn rocket series.
Believe it or not, most military members do respect him.
They have no choice. In the military, you MUST show respect your commanding officers. They're not allowed to tell what they really think.
look no further then when the commander-in-chief was a draft dodger
You mean like June 03, 2004?
who held anti-American protests on foreign soil.
It's logically difficult to claim that an American is anti-American, unless you've also diagnosed suicidal tendencies. But nevermind that... compare to the current president, who at the same time was sucking millions of dollars from the US military with his dereliction, which went unpunished because his daddy was high in government.
, but Bush will go out of his way to return a salute, however Clinton only did a half-assed job of returning the salute.
Yeah, that great saluting must make the soldiers feel so much better about all the dying and maiming they go through...
Also Clinton felt it necesary to fire a bunch of the military.
That's so untrue, it's really funny. You NEVER fire someone from the military except for dangerous incompetence. So many troops want to leave continuously, that firing them just isn't needed- they'll volunteer to go. (Sorta like Bush volunteered to leave the Guard early, remember?)
But once more, compare against Bush where he's cutting veteran's benefits, and forbidding troops from leaving the military when their time is up.
That kind of analysis is common, but not really true.
People who earn $100/hr are usually doing tasks that are abstract or creative, or of inconsistent required effort. Unlike factory or foodservice workers, the relationship between time input and value output is nonlinear.
A mental worker, for example, needs to spend some of each day just pondering outstanding problems- an activity that can proceed even though her PC is temporarily out of service. The hour following an interruption is usually more productive than the one that proceeded it... etc.
Nonetheless, this kind of false analysis continues (because it'd be difficult to be any more accurate). Lawyers use this to bill the same if they're on a cellphone while driving or at an office desktop. Virus damage reports use it to produce drastically excessive monetary losses.
Programs that misbehave should simply not be used. Period.
So then we know what happens with vi vs emacs: they both lose!
Of course, the "select-copy/middle-paste" question is technically trivial to resolve, yet has taken a long time to get (nearly) fixed. Meanwhile there's the much larger problem of "clipboard data besides raw ascii text", which Linux software has barely even addressed.
(That's someplace where KDE lags Gnome and OpenOffice.org... but in truth, all 3 Free Software office suites are quite bad)
It's difficult to construe the Open Sourcing of Solaris as anything BUT an assault on Linux use.
Linux has, for a few years, been devouring Solaris marketshare because it's a comprable product and is free+Free. Sun has apparently decided they have no choice except to "Free" Solaris as well, or be left in the dust.
Why does the DMCA have anything to do with this? There's absolutely NO copyright issues in hacking the OS of the camera
You wish. But as it happens, DMCA is about MORE than copyright. (If it's only purpose was to protect copyright, then it wouldn't have had to be a new law). The DMCA outlaws things permitted by copyright.
Pick up a promotional DVD-R on the sidewalk. It'll play the first 10 minutes of a movie, then you have to transfer $5 from your credit card to see the rest. The video is on there, in your possession, but you're not allowed to see it because you've not paid. Attempts to circumvent the payment will be prosecuted
Buy a cheap version of a fancy camera. It's firmware data contains features/menus that are disabled in the non-professional version. The programs are on there, in your possession, but you're not allowed to run them because you've not paid. Attempts to circumvent that protection will be prosecuted.
There's no substantial difference between those two scenarios. You can obviously see that the authorities will come after you in the first case, so why not in the second?
will really not catch on until they become multi-purpose, in which case Asimov may have been correct and humaniform robots become common; or else speciallized robots will catch on,
No, neither of those options will come true. Asimov's scifi world didn't have even the degree of computer networking we've already achieved on earth.
There's no reason to have a separate robotic mind driving your tractor and washing your dishes, when one centrallized AI can operate both machines by remote control.
Based on the trailer, it is just so very wrong. It looks really cool, but it (my guess based on the trailer) screws up so many fundamental things
Not necessarily. There's nothing in the trailer that explicitly contradicts Asimovian robotics.
You can plausibly hope that the advertising is a bait&switch, and that the apparently violent robots will actually be working for the benefit of mankind (according to some elaborate rationalization)
For example: the robot in the interrogation chamber. Suppose it actually didn't murder the victim, but was commanded by the real killer (a human) to fake defectiveness and take the blame.... that's a perfect Asimovian storyline.
cheap enough that there is incentive for companies to mass produce 'naked' hardware, throw some OSS on it, and sell it for cheaper than the big-name hardware/software bundles.
Which is why Microsoft (etc) is working to make OSS illegal. If they can get DRM / "Trusted Computing" mandated as a "piracy prevention" requirment, then anyone trying to put a "Free" OS on one of those PCs will be arrested for "circumventing a mechanism intended to protect copyrighted works".
Play their cards right, and they could even get non-DRM general purpose PCs banned, as they are also "copy protection circumvention mechanisms".
The notion of software will become ever less important, and hardware will become an even greater driving force in the computer industry.
I don't agree. I even think that this statement is at odds with the rest of your predictions. A word processor in your TV? That's software. Dictation in your phone? Software again.
In both those cases, its just software running on a general-purpose computing platform.
Consider the statement not to be "Hardware SHOULD be free", but "Hardware WILL be free"- meaning not that software companies will provide complementary hardware alongside a subscription, but that Moore's Law and similar trends will bring down the price so much that replacing your PC is like changing a lightbulb.
You can see this happening already- the upgrade treadmill is slowing. PCs that were new in 2000 are still useful today (for non-gamers).
you might have been right about the first generations of 3D cards.
But regarding the first generation of 3D cards, the question is irrelevant- because those cards had NO 2D output ability, so you always had a separate 2D card running anyhow.
Has anyone told you that your choice of nickname is distracting? The real Ann Coulter has a very limited range of output that can be trivially replicated by Markovian string techniques. This leads most readers to skip over anything under her name, because the content is entirely predictable.
And in any other industry, the manufacturer at least tries to meet the customers' needs.
And apparently, customers don't care much about security, or they would ask for it, and a corp would profit by meeting the need.
So what's the problem exactly? There are so-called experts telling people they need more wireless security... but what do they know? If it was a real demand, it would be met.
This is a little like those cultural watchdog groups who whine about the sinking morality standards on TV...
and only have Macs. Why should I care about securing my access point?
I assume you're joking. Mac OSX is famous for having a huge wireless security hole. Any attacker who is on your LAN (airport wireless or ethernet cables, doesn't matter) and has an attack script running when you boot up can OWN your computer.
OS X, by default, looks for a "network configuration distributor" or something when it starts... and then it downloads and installs any patches that computer is providing. The implications are obvious.
Apple has probably patched this one hole by now, but it shows that Macs have no fundamental advantage.
nuclear bombs are WMDs, but a nuclear bomb from the 60s no longer is one now - it's just a museum piece.
Actually, if an atom bomb has degraded to the point where it can't produce an fission blast, it would still function as a "dirty bomb" and spread a small cloud of toxic radiation. Those are classified as WMD too.
One major flaw I see in telling people to enable WEP on their WiFi is the first question I'm sure to get back is "How do I do that?
So what? It's not like WEP provides security. It's a fundamentally broken protocol.
CNN is engaging in dangerous misreporting. They spun it so that insecurity is the AP vendors' fault by making WEP difficult to activate. This will lead viewers to believe that once they manage to enable WEP, they're safe. And that's just absolutely wrong. You'd be safer with no WEP and higher-level encryption (although running secure application protocols is even further outside the imagination of typical consumers).
I have the MAC filter turned on to secure the rest of my network,
Good thing you don't care about security, because MAC filtering provides no protection. Anyone can sniff the MAC addresses that work, and then use those same addrs themselves.
point 1: criticism that does not provide a solution is still valid criticism.
Yes, in general. But in this case, much of Sterling's (weak) criticism was based around an accusation that Lovelock wasn't providing a solution:
(((Okay - let's say your argument has convinced me. So get me a written quid pro quo that actually cuts carbon emissions way past Kyoto limits, and I'll risk the Chernobyls. Do you have the clout to give us one of those - or would you rather just pester hippies, Hollywood, and reporters?)))
By making that attack, Sterling allows it to be flung back at him.
At best, all you've listed is productization. Some things get invented many times over, and don't become widespread until there's a real need.
Far and away, the "mother" (reason it was invented then, and not earlier) to all those inventions was simply whatever precursor technology was needed as the prior building block.
Invention: Atom bomb
Can you tell me who "invented" the atom bomb? You can't, because it's irrelevant. Multiple phsyisists worldwide had already worked through what was (to them) obvious results internationally-published work. Actually building an A-Bomb was hard, but building!=inventing.
Invention: Rockets
Sorry, rockets were invented in North America circa 1905, and Britain wasn't shooting at their planes at the time.
Whoops! My mistake... rockets were invented in Manchuria, circa 400 BC... and the British weren't shooting their planes either.
Invention: Tanks
Who "invented" tanks? You probably don't know, because it's almost to obvious to qualify as an "invention".
Nessicity: Trenches from world war I were a bitch
Lessee, World War 1 started in 1914... but the tank was invented in 1507. You've got a problem there, unless you can tell me when the flux capacitor was invented (1985?)
Nessicity: IF we don't the damn ruskies will do it first...
Rockets you listed already. But space modules? Umm... the Russians did do it first.
They raise the ambient temperature of whatever area they are in.
If that ever becomes a problem, the obvious solution is just to use some of that energy to push this planet further away from it's sun. Presto! The excess is cancelled by less solar heating.
Other posters have already thoroughly demolished that example, so I'll just add one little tidbit: you evidently use a PC for recreation, as well as your scholarship. Consider the environmental cost of a PC in light of changing energy availability. Just one example of how industrial production is an interconnected ecosystem.
Necessity is the mother of invention
No it isn't. That memorable aphorism has been disproved time and again by historical studies.
Just think about any famous inventions you can remember, or pick 10 random patents, and ask yourself how much "necessity" really contributed. Generally not at all.
Look at the Edison telegraph or the Wright airplane... what role did "necessity" have there? The need for those devices was the same as it had been for centuries previously.
I'm sure that when the time comes, we'll be able to make do.
Yes, we will- because at that point, it'll be obvious that nuclear is the only alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
I was think of getting a P5 after I heard that Black & White supported it.
P5 + B&W = not too good.
Although B&W says it uses a "hand" to control everything, that's really just a different looking mouse cursor. B&W's interface is highly optimized towards use with a regular mouse (gestures and everything), so you wouldn't gain anything from having 5 fingers to bend. Although it would give a new meaning to gorilla arm... ("I got gorilla arm from slapping my monkey too much")
(But then again, my P5 is really too inaccurate to use for anything. Even clicking desktop icons is a challenge)
Thus I accept that objective as simply an opinion.
I started to suggest that you find a website in your own language to post to, but I guess it's not helpful to be discouraging. At least you can get a dictionary and contrast "objective" with "objection".
I also notice that your taking the objective that space missions are over and that we may as well just give up on the whole idea of space travel all together.
I never wrote that. If you think I wrote that, then your English comprehension needs improvement. (Still, your English skills are well above what any typical USA student can achieve in a foreign language)
A more insightfull and possibly more helpfull remark would have been to tell me specifically to us the
It's not HTML skill, but a valid flaw in your posting style. Your messages will be painful for others to read until you learn to insert some form of paragraph-breaks. Either select "Plain Old Text" and just push Enter occasionally, or select "HTML Formatted" and then insert <br> or <p> explicitly.
(And no, I'm not going to explain how to insert a literal "<>" in a comment...)
I would suggest testing this robotic repair vehicle on a "safe" satelite that needs maintanence that a normal human shuttle mission would do.
Uh, there is no such thing as a "normal shuttle mission" anymore. Shuttle missions are almost completely over. Maybe a few more trips to the ISS, but you will never again see a shuttle sent to service a satellite. (Servicing satellites is nearly worthless anyhow. The Hubble is the only satellite in history with a replacement cost greater than a traditional shuttle mission)
(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS)
The feasibility is: None. The ISS is just too far away from the Hubble. You can't reasonably visit them both in a single trip (without a huge, huge expense of carrying extra fuel "just in case").
There's just no reason to think about bringing a robot to the ISS. If the robot fails somehow, tough. Let it drift or fall or whatever, it's no matter to us. The price of the robot body itself is trivial next to the retrieval cost.
Oddly enough we are a throw away society, we still use booster rockets that are disposible.(I know that part of the booster rocket system is reusable but I don't remember which of the top of my head. is it the small ones?)
It's not "Oddly", it's a small island of sanity in a wasteful space program. The shuttle's boosters are disposable because it's just cheaper that way. For some things, refilling and refurbishing is more expensive (and far more risky) than building a new one. If more of the shuttle had been disposable, then the whole 30-year project budget would've been much less. (Except that then it wouldn't be called a "shuttle", because shuttles are by definition reused)
Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money.
You bet wrong. The expensive thing about a robot isn't building the actual machine- those guys from Monster Garage could handle that in a few weeks. The real hard work is the design, for both hardware and "AI" software.
You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?
She didn't say "resuable space vehicle". The words were "safer and cheaper launcher".
Making it "reusable" is actually a major design flaw that results in a vehicle that is both more expensive and more dangerous. That fact was obvious to engineers in 1979, but politicians (following the lead of Richard Nixon) ignored reality in the hope it would go away.
Before the STS was even built, we already had superior launchers: the Saturn rocket series.
Believe it or not, most military members do respect him.
They have no choice. In the military, you MUST show respect your commanding officers. They're not allowed to tell what they really think.
look no further then when the commander-in-chief was a draft dodger
You mean like June 03, 2004?
who held anti-American protests on foreign soil.
It's logically difficult to claim that an American is anti-American, unless you've also diagnosed suicidal tendencies. But nevermind that... compare to the current president, who at the same time was sucking millions of dollars from the US military with his dereliction, which went unpunished because his daddy was high in government.
, but Bush will go out of his way to return a salute, however Clinton only did a half-assed job of returning the salute.
Yeah, that great saluting must make the soldiers feel so much better about all the dying and maiming they go through...
Also Clinton felt it necesary to fire a bunch of the military.
That's so untrue, it's really funny. You NEVER fire someone from the military except for dangerous incompetence. So many troops want to leave continuously, that firing them just isn't needed- they'll volunteer to go. (Sorta like Bush volunteered to leave the Guard early, remember?)
But once more, compare against Bush where he's cutting veteran's benefits, and forbidding troops from leaving the military when their time is up.
that's more than $ 300 per person per week.
That kind of analysis is common, but not really true.
People who earn $100/hr are usually doing tasks that are abstract or creative, or of inconsistent required effort. Unlike factory or foodservice workers, the relationship between time input and value output is nonlinear.
A mental worker, for example, needs to spend some of each day just pondering outstanding problems- an activity that can proceed even though her PC is temporarily out of service. The hour following an interruption is usually more productive than the one that proceeded it... etc.
Nonetheless, this kind of false analysis continues (because it'd be difficult to be any more accurate). Lawyers use this to bill the same if they're on a cellphone while driving or at an office desktop. Virus damage reports use it to produce drastically excessive monetary losses.
Programs that misbehave should simply not be used. Period.
So then we know what happens with vi vs emacs: they both lose!
Of course, the "select-copy/middle-paste" question is technically trivial to resolve, yet has taken a long time to get (nearly) fixed. Meanwhile there's the much larger problem of "clipboard data besides raw ascii text", which Linux software has barely even addressed.
(That's someplace where KDE lags Gnome and OpenOffice.org... but in truth, all 3 Free Software office suites are quite bad)
Sun isn't saying "Don't use Linux".
It's difficult to construe the Open Sourcing of Solaris as anything BUT an assault on Linux use.
Linux has, for a few years, been devouring Solaris marketshare because it's a comprable product and is free+Free. Sun has apparently decided they have no choice except to "Free" Solaris as well, or be left in the dust.
You wish. But as it happens, DMCA is about MORE than copyright. (If it's only purpose was to protect copyright, then it wouldn't have had to be a new law). The DMCA outlaws things permitted by copyright.
There's no substantial difference between those two scenarios. You can obviously see that the authorities will come after you in the first case, so why not in the second?
will really not catch on until they become multi-purpose, in which case Asimov may have been correct and humaniform robots become common; or else speciallized robots will catch on,
No, neither of those options will come true. Asimov's scifi world didn't have even the degree of computer networking we've already achieved on earth.
There's no reason to have a separate robotic mind driving your tractor and washing your dishes, when one centrallized AI can operate both machines by remote control.
Based on the trailer, it is just so very wrong. It looks really cool, but it (my guess based on the trailer) screws up so many fundamental things
Not necessarily. There's nothing in the trailer that explicitly contradicts Asimovian robotics.
You can plausibly hope that the advertising is a bait&switch, and that the apparently violent robots will actually be working for the benefit of mankind (according to some elaborate rationalization)
For example: the robot in the interrogation chamber. Suppose it actually didn't murder the victim, but was commanded by the real killer (a human) to fake defectiveness and take the blame.... that's a perfect Asimovian storyline.
cheap enough that there is incentive for companies to mass produce 'naked' hardware, throw some OSS on it, and sell it for cheaper than the big-name hardware/software bundles.
Which is why Microsoft (etc) is working to make OSS illegal. If they can get DRM / "Trusted Computing" mandated as a "piracy prevention" requirment, then anyone trying to put a "Free" OS on one of those PCs will be arrested for "circumventing a mechanism intended to protect copyrighted works".
Play their cards right, and they could even get non-DRM general purpose PCs banned, as they are also "copy protection circumvention mechanisms".
The notion of software will become ever less important, and hardware will become an even greater driving force in the computer industry.
I don't agree. I even think that this statement is at odds with the rest of your predictions. A word processor in your TV? That's software. Dictation in your phone? Software again.
In both those cases, its just software running on a general-purpose computing platform.
Consider the statement not to be "Hardware SHOULD be free", but "Hardware WILL be free"- meaning not that software companies will provide complementary hardware alongside a subscription, but that Moore's Law and similar trends will bring down the price so much that replacing your PC is like changing a lightbulb.
You can see this happening already- the upgrade treadmill is slowing. PCs that were new in 2000 are still useful today (for non-gamers).
you might have been right about the first generations of 3D cards.
But regarding the first generation of 3D cards, the question is irrelevant- because those cards had NO 2D output ability, so you always had a separate 2D card running anyhow.
Has anyone told you that your choice of nickname is distracting? The real Ann Coulter has a very limited range of output that can be trivially replicated by Markovian string techniques. This leads most readers to skip over anything under her name, because the content is entirely predictable.
And in any other industry, the manufacturer at least tries to meet the customers' needs.
And apparently, customers don't care much about security, or they would ask for it, and a corp would profit by meeting the need.
So what's the problem exactly? There are so-called experts telling people they need more wireless security... but what do they know? If it was a real demand, it would be met.
This is a little like those cultural watchdog groups who whine about the sinking morality standards on TV...
and only have Macs. Why should I care about securing my access point?
I assume you're joking. Mac OSX is famous for having a huge wireless security hole. Any attacker who is on your LAN (airport wireless or ethernet cables, doesn't matter) and has an attack script running when you boot up can OWN your computer.
OS X, by default, looks for a "network configuration distributor" or something when it starts... and then it downloads and installs any patches that computer is providing. The implications are obvious.
Apple has probably patched this one hole by now, but it shows that Macs have no fundamental advantage.
nuclear bombs are WMDs, but a nuclear bomb from the 60s no longer is one now - it's just a museum piece.
Actually, if an atom bomb has degraded to the point where it can't produce an fission blast, it would still function as a "dirty bomb" and spread a small cloud of toxic radiation. Those are classified as WMD too.
One major flaw I see in telling people to enable WEP on their WiFi is the first question I'm sure to get back is "How do I do that?
So what? It's not like WEP provides security. It's a fundamentally broken protocol.
CNN is engaging in dangerous misreporting. They spun it so that insecurity is the AP vendors' fault by making WEP difficult to activate. This will lead viewers to believe that once they manage to enable WEP, they're safe. And that's just absolutely wrong. You'd be safer with no WEP and higher-level encryption (although running secure application protocols is even further outside the imagination of typical consumers).
I have the MAC filter turned on to secure the rest of my network,
Good thing you don't care about security, because MAC filtering provides no protection. Anyone can sniff the MAC addresses that work, and then use those same addrs themselves.
Yes, in general. But in this case, much of Sterling's (weak) criticism was based around an accusation that Lovelock wasn't providing a solution:
- (((Okay - let's say your argument has convinced me. So get me a written quid pro quo that actually cuts carbon emissions way past Kyoto limits, and I'll risk the Chernobyls. Do you have the clout to give us one of those - or would you rather just pester hippies, Hollywood, and reporters?)))
By making that attack, Sterling allows it to be flung back at him.At best, all you've listed is productization. Some things get invented many times over, and don't become widespread until there's a real need.
Far and away, the "mother" (reason it was invented then, and not earlier) to all those inventions was simply whatever precursor technology was needed as the prior building block.
Invention: Atom bomb
Can you tell me who "invented" the atom bomb? You can't, because it's irrelevant. Multiple phsyisists worldwide had already worked through what was (to them) obvious results internationally-published work. Actually building an A-Bomb was hard, but building!=inventing.
Invention: Rockets
Sorry, rockets were invented in North America circa 1905, and Britain wasn't shooting at their planes at the time.
Whoops! My mistake... rockets were invented in Manchuria, circa 400 BC... and the British weren't shooting their planes either.
Invention: Tanks
Who "invented" tanks? You probably don't know, because it's almost to obvious to qualify as an "invention".
Nessicity: Trenches from world war I were a bitch
Lessee, World War 1 started in 1914... but the tank was invented in 1507. You've got a problem there, unless you can tell me when the flux capacitor was invented (1985?)
Nessicity: IF we don't the damn ruskies will do it first...
Rockets you listed already. But space modules? Umm... the Russians did do it first.
They raise the ambient temperature of whatever area they are in.
If that ever becomes a problem, the obvious solution is just to use some of that energy to push this planet further away from it's sun. Presto! The excess is cancelled by less solar heating.
Example, I'm a graduate student.
Other posters have already thoroughly demolished that example, so I'll just add one little tidbit: you evidently use a PC for recreation, as well as your scholarship. Consider the environmental cost of a PC in light of changing energy availability. Just one example of how industrial production is an interconnected ecosystem.
Necessity is the mother of invention
No it isn't. That memorable aphorism has been disproved time and again by historical studies.
Just think about any famous inventions you can remember, or pick 10 random patents, and ask yourself how much "necessity" really contributed. Generally not at all.
Look at the Edison telegraph or the Wright airplane... what role did "necessity" have there? The need for those devices was the same as it had been for centuries previously.
I'm sure that when the time comes, we'll be able to make do.
Yes, we will- because at that point, it'll be obvious that nuclear is the only alternative.