I'm afraid you're jumping the gun. We've never tried to survive in any extraplanetary terrestrial environments, so we'd be developing technologies that would be generally useful. Keeping with your analogy, to survive in both the Sahara and Antarctica a team would require a habitat that was self-contained to isolate it from the extreme surroundings. You could go about it as two completely different projects that have no relation to each other, and you'd end up dividing your resources to create two converging technologies. Assuming zero prior knowledge, you'd both have discovered how construct a building, develop environmental control systems, and reliably/efficiently grow food under contained circumstances. What was the point of dividing the resources so early on when these basic technologies still needed to be developed? You've just doubled the cost of learning something new.
Information is one. If a situation developed where time was of the essence and real-time collaboration with a broad range of information resources and experts back on Earth was necessary, it would be extremely burdensome to wait at least 40 minutes for each and every response to a question or comment. Also, think in terms of future civilian bases. It would still be physically possible to have a telephone conversation with people back home and use the internet with a reasonable response time. I could go on and on, and that's just off the top of my head.
Many of the same arguments could be made for the Moon. A base on the Moon, however, would not require transportation times of six months, and communications with Earth would be received within seconds rather than 10-20 minutes compared with Mars. Between Mars and the Moon, the Moon is the better candidate for the debut of an extraplanetary human establishment. When the required technologies have been deployed and are allowed to mature on the Moon, then Mars will be within reach should we decide it is indeed ethically and practically sound to set up a Mars base.
He ought to know if he's selling that tap water for $10/bottle.
Pre-emptive strikes on free speech
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I would find it disturbing if this guy was arrested for posting the information himself. Regardless of the information posted, he hasn't actually committed a crime, nor from what I understand was he in a position encouraging others to perform violent acts. I'll draw a parallel to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan - what they believe and stand for is reprehensible, and they most likely discuss desires to physically harm others of racial minority status. However, talking and doing are two different things. There's a distinction between having a violent impulse and acting on it. If the government launches pre-emptive strikes on our freedom of speech in order to prevent future crimes, they have effectively set a precendent for the erosion of personal freedoms and liberties; once the rust has an 'in', it's only a matter of time before it consumes the body of its host in its entirety. Now, without a doubt, such pre-emptive strikes do indeed prevent crimes and save lives. It comes down to a choice of the society we wish to live in. Would one rather exist in a country where the government keeps a tight fist on all of our actions and communications, secure in the knowledge that violence has been reduced to near-non-existant levels? Or does one value freedom over life and live in a country where occasional acts of violence occur, but the dissemination of information and unhindered distribution of ideas reign free? In this age of the Ashcrofts and Patriot Acts, our historic battle cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me Death' seems to have already rusted away.
I remember 5 years ago when tickets cost three dollars and there weren't any ads. Now, they cost seven to nine dollars -- with Britney Spears performing Pepsi-in-hand acrobatics included. I wonder where all that extra ticket money, plus the extra ad money, is going...
The problem the Askslashdot poster described fit my own procrastination issues to the letter. I will literally sit around the house all day and do nothing because I have so many tasks to complete (??). It's completely illogical, I know. By the end of the day, I very well could have gone out and had a good time, but instead I stayed inside pacing and roaming around. It's as though I have to be rushing like mad at the very last minute (literally!), or I can't do the work. However, the television argument doesn't hold up in my case. I have always been this way, and I grew up without a television -- my parents wouldn't allow one in the house. Only recently -- within the last couple years -- have I experienced television ownership. So, I don't think that's the problem. I have tried exercising in the mornings and switching to an extreme 'super-healthy' diet, which does improve my outlook and motivation, but it does prove difficult to stick with. It's extremeley frustrating, because I recognize my own potential and abilities, but I seem to be unable to knuckle down and get to work. I read another post recommending a Major change, but I don't agree with that, either; I'm very interested in the field I'm currently in, and it excites me. I can learn about it when it's not required, but as soon as it becomes a necessity with a deadline, I put it off until the last minute as if I don't want to learn it. While I have always known procrastination is commonplace, it's nice to know there are others out there who have the problem to the same degree as I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes - such roles are important to biological cycling processes on Earth.
I'm afraid you're jumping the gun. We've never tried to survive in any extraplanetary terrestrial environments, so we'd be developing technologies that would be generally useful. Keeping with your analogy, to survive in both the Sahara and Antarctica a team would require a habitat that was self-contained to isolate it from the extreme surroundings. You could go about it as two completely different projects that have no relation to each other, and you'd end up dividing your resources to create two converging technologies. Assuming zero prior knowledge, you'd both have discovered how construct a building, develop environmental control systems, and reliably/efficiently grow food under contained circumstances. What was the point of dividing the resources so early on when these basic technologies still needed to be developed? You've just doubled the cost of learning something new.
Information is one. If a situation developed where time was of the essence and real-time collaboration with a broad range of information resources and experts back on Earth was necessary, it would be extremely burdensome to wait at least 40 minutes for each and every response to a question or comment. Also, think in terms of future civilian bases. It would still be physically possible to have a telephone conversation with people back home and use the internet with a reasonable response time. I could go on and on, and that's just off the top of my head.
Many of the same arguments could be made for the Moon. A base on the Moon, however, would not require transportation times of six months, and communications with Earth would be received within seconds rather than 10-20 minutes compared with Mars. Between Mars and the Moon, the Moon is the better candidate for the debut of an extraplanetary human establishment. When the required technologies have been deployed and are allowed to mature on the Moon, then Mars will be within reach should we decide it is indeed ethically and practically sound to set up a Mars base.
He ought to know if he's selling that tap water for $10/bottle.
I would find it disturbing if this guy was arrested for posting the information himself. Regardless of the information posted, he hasn't actually committed a crime, nor from what I understand was he in a position encouraging others to perform violent acts. I'll draw a parallel to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan - what they believe and stand for is reprehensible, and they most likely discuss desires to physically harm others of racial minority status. However, talking and doing are two different things. There's a distinction between having a violent impulse and acting on it. If the government launches pre-emptive strikes on our freedom of speech in order to prevent future crimes, they have effectively set a precendent for the erosion of personal freedoms and liberties; once the rust has an 'in', it's only a matter of time before it consumes the body of its host in its entirety. Now, without a doubt, such pre-emptive strikes do indeed prevent crimes and save lives. It comes down to a choice of the society we wish to live in. Would one rather exist in a country where the government keeps a tight fist on all of our actions and communications, secure in the knowledge that violence has been reduced to near-non-existant levels? Or does one value freedom over life and live in a country where occasional acts of violence occur, but the dissemination of information and unhindered distribution of ideas reign free? In this age of the Ashcrofts and Patriot Acts, our historic battle cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me Death' seems to have already rusted away.
I remember 5 years ago when tickets cost three dollars and there weren't any ads. Now, they cost seven to nine dollars -- with Britney Spears performing Pepsi-in-hand acrobatics included. I wonder where all that extra ticket money, plus the extra ad money, is going...
The ambulance chasers are prepping for launch!
But who am i kidding.. We all were told we would have flying cars in the year 2000 right?
w ebsite/files/skyrider/mai n.htm
Hmm....
http://www.moller.com
http://www.skyrider.org/
The problem the Askslashdot poster described fit my own procrastination issues to the letter. I will literally sit around the house all day and do nothing because I have so many tasks to complete (??). It's completely illogical, I know. By the end of the day, I very well could have gone out and had a good time, but instead I stayed inside pacing and roaming around. It's as though I have to be rushing like mad at the very last minute (literally!), or I can't do the work. However, the television argument doesn't hold up in my case. I have always been this way, and I grew up without a television -- my parents wouldn't allow one in the house. Only recently -- within the last couple years -- have I experienced television ownership. So, I don't think that's the problem. I have tried exercising in the mornings and switching to an extreme 'super-healthy' diet, which does improve my outlook and motivation, but it does prove difficult to stick with. It's extremeley frustrating, because I recognize my own potential and abilities, but I seem to be unable to knuckle down and get to work. I read another post recommending a Major change, but I don't agree with that, either; I'm very interested in the field I'm currently in, and it excites me. I can learn about it when it's not required, but as soon as it becomes a necessity with a deadline, I put it off until the last minute as if I don't want to learn it. While I have always known procrastination is commonplace, it's nice to know there are others out there who have the problem to the same degree as I do.