my point seems to have been largely missed. I did not suggest 'sticking our heads in the sand' by ending space exploration. What I was saying is that everything that is now being done in space can be done without sending humans there, and generally better. For the things the machines can't do on their own, simply control them from down here on nice, cozy Earth.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
As another poster noted, and as NASA has acknowledged, no amount of imaging could have helped the Columbia tragedy. Yes, it's conceivable that in a future disaster this specific fact might be different. But the real way to avoid another Columbia tragedy is: Don't send people into space.
Besides being dangerous, as we just saw, sending people into space is quite costly. (IIRC, if there was free gold in low earth orbit, at current prices you would lose money if you brought it back to earth and sold it.) And it is not needed. Space tasks can be accomplished just as well, maybe better, by sending machines into space and controlling them 'from home.'
Sending people into space is really little more than a risky, expensive, unnecessary publicity stunt. This new monitoring won't change that.
I think it's safe to say there would be a huge amount of overhead involved in looking into archive files, even with a good method of determining which archive files contain code and which do not. There might also be legality problems if the license type was misidentified.
Would indeed be nice, though.
I've noticed this often these days. It's really silly. In the IT field males greatly outnumber females.
That isn't even at issue. The proper usage in English is to use the male pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender. Hence the OP's comment that doing otherwise is illiterate.
I don't think the CloneAid crap even counts as voodoo science. If you read Robert Park's book, you'll see that that isn't the kind of thing he's referring to. Specifically, I recommend that you refer to Chapter 1, 'It's not news, it's entertainment.' In a considerable number of cases, the media have made people believe bogus science, either under the guise of human interest (what has backwoods inventor Joe Newman been doing since the cruel world of science dismissed his infinite free energy machine?) or just as a result of reporters not doing their homework.
I would also like to point out that 'rat turds may cause cancer' is probably not quite the kind of claim you could expect to get rich and famous from making.
I've read this book, and it is quite an interesting read. It expounds on the topics mentioned in the article as well as giving some detailed accounts of examples of voodoo science. I highly recommend it. The ISBN is 0195147103.
Slashdot Mirror
my point seems to have been largely missed. I did not suggest 'sticking our heads in the sand' by ending space exploration. What I was saying is that everything that is now being done in space can be done without sending humans there, and generally better. For the things the machines can't do on their own, simply control them from down here on nice, cozy Earth. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Besides being dangerous, as we just saw, sending people into space is quite costly. (IIRC, if there was free gold in low earth orbit, at current prices you would lose money if you brought it back to earth and sold it.) And it is not needed. Space tasks can be accomplished just as well, maybe better, by sending machines into space and controlling them 'from home.'
Sending people into space is really little more than a risky, expensive, unnecessary publicity stunt. This new monitoring won't change that.
I think it's safe to say there would be a huge amount of overhead involved in looking into archive files, even with a good method of determining which archive files contain code and which do not. There might also be legality problems if the license type was misidentified. Would indeed be nice, though.
I've noticed this often these days. It's really silly. In the IT field males greatly outnumber females. That isn't even at issue. The proper usage in English is to use the male pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender. Hence the OP's comment that doing otherwise is illiterate.
Could it be YASND (Yet Another Slow News Day)?
I would also like to point out that 'rat turds may cause cancer' is probably not quite the kind of claim you could expect to get rich and famous from making.
I've read this book, and it is quite an interesting read. It expounds on the topics mentioned in the article as well as giving some detailed accounts of examples of voodoo science. I highly recommend it. The ISBN is 0195147103.