Therefore, the chances of bedrock actually being a buried-and-then-exposed foreign body are reasonably slim.
Quite right. However, I believe that we weren't really talking about bedrock, but the various loose stones scattered around. Now, if its in an impact crater then we should expect that traces of the meteor would be somewhere, even if it had been pulverised.
Well true true true. Actually, what has struck me is the uniformity of the martian surface/geology at any particular location. On earth, you may go to a place and see a multiplicity of different kinds of rocks, even if one kind predominates.
If I had mod points, I mod you insightful for the last paragraph of your comment. You are quite right- higher speed requires more autonomy. It must haunt the rover team to think that they would only find out if their rover fell into a ditch many minutes after the fact.
Sounds good. The only thing that I might worry about, is that it might decide, on its own, to make a religious pilgrimage out to visit its (by then) deceased brothers Opportunity and Spirit.
You are right, mostly. However, solar vehicle competitions don't promote solar power as an alternative- its just a competition for lightest most aerodynamic vehicle possible. And that is fine for what it is. Solar power is wonderful, but there are two constraints: 1)there is a maximum amount of energy input available, which is actually quite low (there's a reason plants don't move (mostly), and that cows sitand and eat all day- its called the trophic pyramid) and 2)there is a serious efficiency problem in solar cells (for that matter plants lose 90% of energy in the process too).
Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race.
Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun).
The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important.
Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak.
This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb. Hail all climber
Although they were following the regulations (the letter of the law), unless some can demonstrate that this was caused by a mechanical failure one has to assume that the car was not safe for highway.
I call bulls##t. By that reasoning any car that followed regulations and was involved in a similar accident should be considered unsafe for the highway.
I would like to ammend what I said about belief in the end times being responsible for environmental irresponsibility: I did not mean to imply that all environmental irresponsibility is caused by End-timers.
You are right, mostly. Solar vehicle competitions don't promote solar power as an alternative- its just a competition for lightest most aerodynamic vehicle possible. And that is fine for what it is. Solar power is wonderful, but there are two constraints: 1)there is a maximum amount of energy input available, which is actually quite low (there's a reason plants don't move (mostly), and that cows sitand and eat all day- its called the trophic pyramid) and 2)there is a serious efficiency problem in solar cells (for that matter plants lose 90% of energy in the process too).
Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race.
Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun).
The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important.
Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak.
This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb
Well, and I take your comment seriously, I'm not sure how deeply you would have to drill, and second, we have and do drill quite deep into the earth- the question here are two, I think: 1)how deep would we need to drill, and where and 2)how deep can we drill, and at what cost. I don't have any answers to these questions. I know that when we drill down deep, we don't hit magma- that's way to deep... but presumably the problem in a volcanoe is much closer to the surface- and thus, possibly, reachable. However, like I said, this is not my field, and I appreciate your comment.
From my limited understanding of volcanic activity, when a volcano erupts, they either can be explosive eruptions (like Mt. St. Helens) or the lava flow kind (Hawaill), and the type depends largely on the geological structure of the volcanoe itself. Now, it is my understanding that an explosive eruption is caused principally by the build-up of pressure with no way of escape (like blowing up a tough leathery baloon until it pops). If I am right, then I am curious whether or not it would be possible to artificially relieve this pressure by drilling deep holes into the earth. Am I totally off-base?
I really like Warsaw (actually, I was living in Milanowek, a 'suburb' of Warsaw between Brynow and Grodisk (sorry spelling). But there is something that I noticed about Warsaw in comparison to Krakow- Krakow is more laid back, women dress more appealingly (in my humble opinion, though I adore my Polish fiance from Warsaw), and Krakow seems more cultural. From what I understand, people go to Warsaw to earn money. I taught business English and I met a lot of ambitious Poles. Krakow is a beautiful city. I guess one of my *poor* opinions of schools in Poland come from the stories of my fiance, a student in the Academy of Arts in Warsaw. e.g. I saw one of her professors drinking beer and obviously drunk while critiquing students' work. My fiance told me of one of her professors who fell out of a bus because he was drunk (in front of the students' families). On the other hand, I love a lot of the Polish art scene, and feel priveledged to have partook of it. I really love Poland in a lot of ways. I'm not in Poland now, but I miss it dearly. It is difficult though to separate one's self from family and friends by such a distance. forgive my sentimentality. ( : prost!
Maybe MBA's are going out of vogue, and maybe they're not. In any case, I think that anyone majoring in Computer Science would do very well to minor in Business. I don't have either degree (yet). I graduated with a degree in Anthropology (BA), and the only job I could find was to be a substitute teacher (since I don't want to become a full-time teacher). So now, I'm enrolled in a MS program in Computer Science in small state university (not even close to top-flight, else they would not have accepted me). I'm curious how much I could think to earn with such a degree?
Yes, I am curious about Polish universities. I've lived in Poland for about a year (Warsaw), and thought about trying to attend university there. (I'm an anthropologist). However, while doing research in Polish kinship I've visited the University library in Warsaw, and though the building is gorgeous, they simply didn't have enough material in the library (though there are other specialized libraries in Warsaw which helped). I was speaking to a student of mine (I taught English), a professor of the psychology of violence, and she told me that in that year (2003), the University Library had not bought a single new book for lack of funds. What is your experience?
i have friends in the states i would love to visit. i love shopping in the states. but i will not go to the states if i am going to be treated like a criminal before i even get there.
In the United States, when a person seeks certification to become a teacher, the person has to have a background check, a mug shot, and a finger-printing. This is done for the safety of children in school. Naturally we don't want child molestors in our schools, or psychotic killers either. However, I have never felt that I was being treated like a criminal for having it done. I'm not sure I understand why you would feel treated as a criminal for it being done to you at the U.S. border. I am well aquainted with how difficult (and sometimes demeaning) it is to pass through immigration etc, how disprespected people feel during the experience (for example, my fiance was held up in U.S. immigration for 7 hours). Nonetheless, I think that people are over-reacting here.
"I think most university researchers or professors have a tremendous ego problem."
In my experience, as a student, it was mostly the students (undergrads especially) who have had the majority of ego problems. it is easy to think you're smart when you don't have to submit your ideas to proof or test. The truth is, professors (most of them anyway) have thought about their particular issues for so long and so hard that it is difficult for them to imagine themselves being wrong (YOU spend 30 years trying to solve a problem and see where you stand). Its not an ego thing at all. Rather they've just convinced themselves of their being correct. And generally, they are the ones who will know because they've looked at the issues more deeply and more carefully, and with a greater awareness of method, than any other.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly yes. And what would this imply for a terraforming effort?
Quite right. However, I believe that we weren't really talking about bedrock, but the various loose stones scattered around. Now, if its in an impact crater then we should expect that traces of the meteor would be somewhere, even if it had been pulverised.
Well true true true. Actually, what has struck me is the uniformity of the martian surface/geology at any particular location. On earth, you may go to a place and see a multiplicity of different kinds of rocks, even if one kind predominates.
Well, not unless it sees a tree or something. ( :
If I had mod points, I mod you insightful for the last paragraph of your comment. You are quite right- higher speed requires more autonomy. It must haunt the rover team to think that they would only find out if their rover fell into a ditch many minutes after the fact.
Yeah, it would have been nice if they had added some life detecting equipment...like a high powered microscope, which would be useful otherwise too.
Which is why everyone here is just making jokes.
.
I said that with a straight face.
I can't move the muscles in my face anyway.
You are right, mostly. However, solar vehicle competitions don't promote solar power as an alternative- its just a competition for lightest most aerodynamic vehicle possible. And that is fine for what it is. Solar power is wonderful, but there are two constraints: 1)there is a maximum amount of energy input available, which is actually quite low (there's a reason plants don't move (mostly), and that cows sitand and eat all day- its called the trophic pyramid) and 2)there is a serious efficiency problem in solar cells (for that matter plants lose 90% of energy in the process too). Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race. Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun). The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important. Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak. This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb. Hail all climber
I call bulls##t. By that reasoning any car that followed regulations and was involved in a similar accident should be considered unsafe for the highway.
We welcome our new genetically enchanced overlords.
I would like to ammend what I said about belief in the end times being responsible for environmental irresponsibility: I did not mean to imply that all environmental irresponsibility is caused by End-timers.
Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race.
Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun).
The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important.
Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak.
This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb
Yeah, you're probably right.
Well, and I take your comment seriously, I'm not sure how deeply you would have to drill, and second, we have and do drill quite deep into the earth- the question here are two, I think: 1)how deep would we need to drill, and where and 2)how deep can we drill, and at what cost. I don't have any answers to these questions. I know that when we drill down deep, we don't hit magma- that's way to deep... but presumably the problem in a volcanoe is much closer to the surface- and thus, possibly, reachable. However, like I said, this is not my field, and I appreciate your comment.
ISAS succeeded in deploying a big thin film for solar sail in space for the first time in the world
(a quote from the article)
"first time in the world" doesn't quite seem an appropriate expression...now does it?
From my limited understanding of volcanic activity, when a volcano erupts, they either can be explosive eruptions (like Mt. St. Helens) or the lava flow kind (Hawaill), and the type depends largely on the geological structure of the volcanoe itself. Now, it is my understanding that an explosive eruption is caused principally by the build-up of pressure with no way of escape (like blowing up a tough leathery baloon until it pops). If I am right, then I am curious whether or not it would be possible to artificially relieve this pressure by drilling deep holes into the earth. Am I totally off-base?
I really like Warsaw (actually, I was living in Milanowek, a 'suburb' of Warsaw between Brynow and Grodisk (sorry spelling). But there is something that I noticed about Warsaw in comparison to Krakow- Krakow is more laid back, women dress more appealingly (in my humble opinion, though I adore my Polish fiance from Warsaw), and Krakow seems more cultural. From what I understand, people go to Warsaw to earn money. I taught business English and I met a lot of ambitious Poles. Krakow is a beautiful city. I guess one of my *poor* opinions of schools in Poland come from the stories of my fiance, a student in the Academy of Arts in Warsaw. e.g. I saw one of her professors drinking beer and obviously drunk while critiquing students' work. My fiance told me of one of her professors who fell out of a bus because he was drunk (in front of the students' families). On the other hand, I love a lot of the Polish art scene, and feel priveledged to have partook of it. I really love Poland in a lot of ways. I'm not in Poland now, but I miss it dearly. It is difficult though to separate one's self from family and friends by such a distance. forgive my sentimentality. ( : prost!
thank you.
Maybe MBA's are going out of vogue, and maybe they're not. In any case, I think that anyone majoring in Computer Science would do very well to minor in Business. I don't have either degree (yet). I graduated with a degree in Anthropology (BA), and the only job I could find was to be a substitute teacher (since I don't want to become a full-time teacher). So now, I'm enrolled in a MS program in Computer Science in small state university (not even close to top-flight, else they would not have accepted me). I'm curious how much I could think to earn with such a degree?
And using a spell checker.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Yes, I am curious about Polish universities. I've lived in Poland for about a year (Warsaw), and thought about trying to attend university there. (I'm an anthropologist). However, while doing research in Polish kinship I've visited the University library in Warsaw, and though the building is gorgeous, they simply didn't have enough material in the library (though there are other specialized libraries in Warsaw which helped). I was speaking to a student of mine (I taught English), a professor of the psychology of violence, and she told me that in that year (2003), the University Library had not bought a single new book for lack of funds. What is your experience?
I don't know if we are alone in the universe, but I'm feeling awfully lonely right now.
In the United States, when a person seeks certification to become a teacher, the person has to have a background check, a mug shot, and a finger-printing. This is done for the safety of children in school. Naturally we don't want child molestors in our schools, or psychotic killers either. However, I have never felt that I was being treated like a criminal for having it done. I'm not sure I understand why you would feel treated as a criminal for it being done to you at the U.S. border. I am well aquainted with how difficult (and sometimes demeaning) it is to pass through immigration etc, how disprespected people feel during the experience (for example, my fiance was held up in U.S. immigration for 7 hours). Nonetheless, I think that people are over-reacting here.
In my experience, as a student, it was mostly the students (undergrads especially) who have had the majority of ego problems. it is easy to think you're smart when you don't have to submit your ideas to proof or test. The truth is, professors (most of them anyway) have thought about their particular issues for so long and so hard that it is difficult for them to imagine themselves being wrong (YOU spend 30 years trying to solve a problem and see where you stand). Its not an ego thing at all. Rather they've just convinced themselves of their being correct. And generally, they are the ones who will know because they've looked at the issues more deeply and more carefully, and with a greater awareness of method, than any other.