Alright... 1) one of primary school bullies (close to the bottom of their pack though... simply because he was nearly most stupid) 2) an extended family member following generally the least demanding routes of educational system, rejected by police recruitment process 3) an educator of sorts at local prison, rehabilitation mostly via paper models group last time I checked, overall a nice guy and leading such classes with kids in the open.
2 out of 3...
They might be not an issue. There are still few quite religious places in Europe - but their fertility rates are no higher (lower is possible, too lazy to check) than the average for continent.
Even with relatively very, very easy travel on the Earth nowadays - you're very likely to die close to the place where you were born. Guess what will be the case for "space colonization" (even allowing for some magical technology or non-practical engineering... but not too much; while alchemists brought progress, it wasn't what they hoped for - no philosophers stone)... especially considering ease of transporting almost all colonists while miniaturized and in deep hibernation, what we can do already - or that vast majority of populations in "New World", even with quite easy transport, is due to local breeding
if we put a limit on that says 'women can only have 2 children' then I would have been screwed
"Screwed" attaches unnecessary value. Other way of saying it - "fairly average":
If you look at a population, even now, most of the females have children, which is absolutely not the case for males.
"We estimate that about 40% of males do not leave any descendents. This means that each generation, you are losing the traces of 40% of males in that generation. The turnover for males is much higher than it is for females."
"Valuing your culture" (vs. "assimilation") is largely an illusion anyway (partly a combination of how we only like to convince ourselves in good memory, how we prefer to not notice immense changes of ourselves during our short lifetimes; partly unwilling to admit how shallow human divisions are)
I can assure you, we are much, much closer culturally between ourselves than to our ancestors a mere 100 years ago. Despite probably living on different continents. When I meet some vocal members of my diaspora (generally from a century-old emigrations), I can't help but notice that those people - to put it mildly - are batshit crazy in thinking we share more than some superficialities.
(of course keeping in mind that random differences are fairly shallow anyway)
Curious; if you think about it, it's a very... primate thing, that "the progeny that seem to be doing best and getting the most job satisfaction are cooking and baking and styling hair, not doing anything high-tech at all". Only makes sense it strikes home, when it comes to our satisfaction?
Though even successful education system doesn't equal assuring that historical names stick (which OTOH might take forms dangerously close to rote repetition). Certainly it's not the same thing as trying to learn lessons of history, etc.
It's fascinating how all those people in such threads don't have anything against inheriting money, or property acts falling into hands of family - both things more transitory than works of art; and abstract numbers or data for some time now, meaningless without society, without culture which sustains them (even greater riddle: people here being quick to voice their contempt for bankers, financiers, etc.... while cherishing financial results of few companies, provided by very same people). All the while US is at the bottom among developed nations in social mobility (meaning: large part of success is determined by social status of parents)
It's even more fascinating how you managed to avoid being modded down into oblivions... (though not shouted at)
A great contribution to such state of affairs is probably... the Shuttle (itself possibly partly a result of following "childhood dreams" - I guess a lot of people responsible for it were raised on "spaceplanes" in pop scifi of their childhood)
In other words, they were inspired by absolute fantasies, determined largely by creative shortcuts for ease of production, to make the fictional world more palatable to limited imagination of audiences determined by Earthly experiences, make the work of storytellers, scriptwriters and authors much easier?
Though - yes, it might be the best and most appropriate way to send off the Discovery as it goes home [1] - considering how the dream of "spaceplanes" grabbed public imagination mostly via pop scifi of the 30s, 40s or 50s (on which STS designers and decisionmakers were probably raised?) - a times of great advances and inspirations from airplanes (like those airplanes from "our" times were no doubt influenced by marine tech advances - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy - vs. boring appropriate ideas)
(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program is called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"... Another "well meaning" grande lie?)
1. With the possible exception of, say, somebody from the ISS crew quietly installing HAL console (some small & light cardboard-like construction with LED, hidden inside ISS cargo, plus repurposed comms) in the cockpit of Discovery.:) Unfortunately, it's too late for that... and any possible Stargate: Atlantis or James Cook themes don't seem to be in the same league.
From what we know about our universe, it's very unlikely any survey ships will be coming back. Also, archetypal "dark ages" are largely a myth, a fabrication of following era - those were also times of immense progress.
Generally, it's possible that such grandiose inspirations do at least quite comparable amounts of harm and good. STS (and how it provoked ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for "strategic counterpart" for nonexistent advantage, when their engineers wanted to do different things, also outside LEO...) can be easily seen as a great contribution to the possibility of near Earth orbit being the final frontier of manned space exploration in our lifetime [1]. Unsustainable crash projects in the style of Apollo (not that STS was very different) also aren't the way (BTW, please remind me - what happened with public attention soon after July 20, 1969?). Overall, be careful for those "boldly going beyond the reaches of our imagination" minds to not fall out of their skulls (as one saying with being "open minded" goes) - for one example at hand: it's quite possible that designers and decisionmakers of the STS were raised by pop scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s - scifi with many dreams (nightmares, it turns out?) of "spaceplanes", no doubt inspired by rapid advances in airplane technology during that time. Kinda like those airplanes from "our times" - no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech (and we can even build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy) - vs. what reality dictates as a good idea (for airplanes! Not launchers and spacecraft... unless you want something analogous to Catalina at best, Spruce Goose at worst)
(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program was called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...)
1. It's not very likely though. Have $100 million? Get yourself a ride (those are the people responsible for almost all orbital "tourists")
I'm confused... "This is the whole point of (good, hard) science fiction....to predict things so well that there's no real option but to go out and do it for real. Good on Discovery, good on Shatner, good on Roddenberry and good on humanity in general" in one line?
NVM how the point of (good, hard) science fiction seems to be somewhat different - to explore how perhaps possible (vs. "outright fantasies"; or creative shortcuts meant to ease production (Roddenberry...), make the wold more palatable for limited experiences of audiences, make the work of storytellers, scriptwriters and authors easier) future circumstances would influence us, our reality. NVM how the dream of "spaceplanes" (Discovery...) grabbed public imagination (humanity in general...) mostly via pop science fiction of the 30s, 40s or 50s - a times of great advances and inspirations from airplanes (kind of like those airplanes from "our" times were no doubt influenced by marine tech advances - vs. boring reality) - but it didn't make "go out and do it for real" a good idea (kinda how we can even build the airplanes from first Wiki link - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy). If anything, STS set us back.
Space flight != launches to LEO. With in-situ resource utilization / manufacturing and sending almost exclusively miniaturized humans in deep hibernation (what we can do already), chemical launchers are perfectly enough; no need for magical technologies or structures.
But what was the gain from such complexity? (and anyway, surely you would put Energia-Buran somewhat higher on the scale? Basically a decade younger, developed using more modern CAD/CAM approach plus with better concept from the start - the orbiter was just a payload of Ares V-like launcher. Even while maintaining at the same time two active manned programs...)
Oh my, the prank could be total - say, somebody from the ISS crew quietly installing HAL console (some small & light cardboard-like construction with LED, hidden inside ISS cargo, plus repurposed comms) in the cockpit of Discovery. Alas, it's too late... and any possible Stargate: Atlantis or James Cook pranks don't seem to be in the same league.
Though that probably still doesn't justify calling it Space Shuttle Enterprise, or *orbiter* - Soviet equivalent was simply called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...
Though TOS is a bit of a mixed deal. Yes, the saucery ships, Kirk and Spock et al are fairly recognizable... but from what I can gather, the original series itself is kinda neglected - and its theme is quite unknown. Relative scarcity of international syndication in its heyday, I guess
The opening by Sir Patrick Stewart and TNG theme OTOH...
I was further amazed at how much his voice did not seem to have changed.
That didn't seem to be the case at all... it's not even a case of remembering it wrong (and our memory is pretty bad, overall), it opened with very different original sample.
I say it very precisely, "ships with hulls overlooking Archimedes' principle"/etc., for a reason.:p But congrats, you're the first out of at least a dozen people replying to such posts [1] / I was starting to think nobody would ever point out hydrofoils;> (which don't change much of course, their properties resulting in limited use, and how their essence is quite comparable... even to few swimming styles - especially "improper" (but common: head constantly above water) breaststroke or, to a lesser extent, "proper" one or butterfly; when the body is dynamically suspended above the equilibrium by movement of surfaces. Also, we can probably agree that small bike-like hydrofoils without hulls, often muscle-powered, are a joke;) ) And I'm even from a place formerly behind the Iron Curtain - easy past contact with Meteor or Voskhod hydrofoils.
1. Generally, posts dispelling tendencies to mix fiction and wishful thinking with reality, most often when... related to space activities, as above. This picture is useful too (airplanes from "our" times, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech 100+ years ago [2] - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea), vs. boring reality (yes, typically this picture;p It's not only a nice shot, also the most widely used passenger airliner, the airline (as far as my part of the woods goes), and one of few profitable ones)
2. One can wonder how strong was this effect in giving us the Shuttle - after all, scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s (times of rapid advances in airplane technology / I can see a pattern...) was full of "spaceplanes". Shuttle designers and decisionmakers grew up on those works of fiction before they gave us... an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst)
Slashdot Mirror
Personal analogy time?
Alright... 1) one of primary school bullies (close to the bottom of their pack though... simply because he was nearly most stupid) 2) an extended family member following generally the least demanding routes of educational system, rejected by police recruitment process 3) an educator of sorts at local prison, rehabilitation mostly via paper models group last time I checked, overall a nice guy and leading such classes with kids in the open.
2 out of 3...
In fact, it didn't even work with two involved females for several days after the "event"...
I would find it much more interesting, even intriguing, if they weren't selective...
That's some distorted view of history. People of wealth and power leaving disproportionately many descendants is very much the rule for our species...
They might be not an issue. There are still few quite religious places in Europe - but their fertility rates are no higher (lower is possible, too lazy to check) than the average for continent.
Even with relatively very, very easy travel on the Earth nowadays - you're very likely to die close to the place where you were born. Guess what will be the case for "space colonization" (even allowing for some magical technology or non-practical engineering... but not too much; while alchemists brought progress, it wasn't what they hoped for - no philosophers stone)... especially considering ease of transporting almost all colonists while miniaturized and in deep hibernation, what we can do already - or that vast majority of populations in "New World", even with quite easy transport, is due to local breeding
BTW, know what happens to locusts in the end?
if we put a limit on that says 'women can only have 2 children' then I would have been screwed
"Screwed" attaches unnecessary value. Other way of saying it - "fairly average":
If you look at a population, even now, most of the females have children, which is absolutely not the case for males.
"We estimate that about 40% of males do not leave any descendents. This means that each generation, you are losing the traces of 40% of males in that generation. The turnover for males is much higher than it is for females."
"Valuing your culture" (vs. "assimilation") is largely an illusion anyway (partly a combination of how we only like to convince ourselves in good memory, how we prefer to not notice immense changes of ourselves during our short lifetimes; partly unwilling to admit how shallow human divisions are)
I can assure you, we are much, much closer culturally between ourselves than to our ancestors a mere 100 years ago. Despite probably living on different continents. When I meet some vocal members of my diaspora (generally from a century-old emigrations), I can't help but notice that those people - to put it mildly - are batshit crazy in thinking we share more than some superficialities.
(of course keeping in mind that random differences are fairly shallow anyway)
Curious; if you think about it, it's a very... primate thing, that "the progeny that seem to be doing best and getting the most job satisfaction are cooking and baking and styling hair, not doing anything high-tech at all". Only makes sense it strikes home, when it comes to our satisfaction?
Closer to 5%, even (100 million iOS ones recently, Android on quite comparable numbers, vs. 5 billion mobile subscriptions in the middle of 2010)
Though even successful education system doesn't equal assuring that historical names stick (which OTOH might take forms dangerously close to rote repetition). Certainly it's not the same thing as trying to learn lessons of history, etc.
It's fascinating how all those people in such threads don't have anything against inheriting money, or property acts falling into hands of family - both things more transitory than works of art; and abstract numbers or data for some time now, meaningless without society, without culture which sustains them (even greater riddle: people here being quick to voice their contempt for bankers, financiers, etc. ... while cherishing financial results of few companies, provided by very same people). All the while US is at the bottom among developed nations in social mobility (meaning: large part of success is determined by social status of parents)
It's even more fascinating how you managed to avoid being modded down into oblivions... (though not shouted at)
Autoland (or, more generally, glide slope guiding) systems aren't build around GPS.
A great contribution to such state of affairs is probably... the Shuttle (itself possibly partly a result of following "childhood dreams" - I guess a lot of people responsible for it were raised on "spaceplanes" in pop scifi of their childhood)
In other words, they were inspired by absolute fantasies, determined largely by creative shortcuts for ease of production, to make the fictional world more palatable to limited imagination of audiences determined by Earthly experiences, make the work of storytellers, scriptwriters and authors much easier?
:) Unfortunately, it's too late for that... and any possible Stargate: Atlantis or James Cook themes don't seem to be in the same league.
Though - yes, it might be the best and most appropriate way to send off the Discovery as it goes home [1] - considering how the dream of "spaceplanes" grabbed public imagination mostly via pop scifi of the 30s, 40s or 50s (on which STS designers and decisionmakers were probably raised?) - a times of great advances and inspirations from airplanes (like those airplanes from "our" times were no doubt influenced by marine tech advances - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy - vs. boring appropriate ideas)
(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program is called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"... Another "well meaning" grande lie?)
1. With the possible exception of, say, somebody from the ISS crew quietly installing HAL console (some small & light cardboard-like construction with LED, hidden inside ISS cargo, plus repurposed comms) in the cockpit of Discovery.
From what we know about our universe, it's very unlikely any survey ships will be coming back. Also, archetypal "dark ages" are largely a myth, a fabrication of following era - those were also times of immense progress.
Generally, it's possible that such grandiose inspirations do at least quite comparable amounts of harm and good. STS (and how it provoked ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for "strategic counterpart" for nonexistent advantage, when their engineers wanted to do different things, also outside LEO...) can be easily seen as a great contribution to the possibility of near Earth orbit being the final frontier of manned space exploration in our lifetime [1]. Unsustainable crash projects in the style of Apollo (not that STS was very different) also aren't the way (BTW, please remind me - what happened with public attention soon after July 20, 1969?). Overall, be careful for those "boldly going beyond the reaches of our imagination" minds to not fall out of their skulls (as one saying with being "open minded" goes) - for one example at hand: it's quite possible that designers and decisionmakers of the STS were raised by pop scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s - scifi with many dreams (nightmares, it turns out?) of "spaceplanes", no doubt inspired by rapid advances in airplane technology during that time. Kinda like those airplanes from "our times" - no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech (and we can even build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy) - vs. what reality dictates as a good idea (for airplanes! Not launchers and spacecraft... unless you want something analogous to Catalina at best, Spruce Goose at worst)
(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program was called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...)
1. It's not very likely though. Have $100 million? Get yourself a ride (those are the people responsible for almost all orbital "tourists")
I'm confused... "This is the whole point of (good, hard) science fiction....to predict things so well that there's no real option but to go out and do it for real. Good on Discovery, good on Shatner, good on Roddenberry and good on humanity in general" in one line?
NVM how the point of (good, hard) science fiction seems to be somewhat different - to explore how perhaps possible (vs. "outright fantasies"; or creative shortcuts meant to ease production (Roddenberry...), make the wold more palatable for limited experiences of audiences, make the work of storytellers, scriptwriters and authors easier) future circumstances would influence us, our reality. NVM how the dream of "spaceplanes" (Discovery...) grabbed public imagination (humanity in general...) mostly via pop science fiction of the 30s, 40s or 50s - a times of great advances and inspirations from airplanes (kind of like those airplanes from "our" times were no doubt influenced by marine tech advances - vs. boring reality) - but it didn't make "go out and do it for real" a good idea (kinda how we can even build the airplanes from first Wiki link - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy). If anything, STS set us back.
James Doohan ... actor
And, apparently, with an honorary degree in engineering.
(though I can't help but wonder how many fruitless fantasies persist because of scifi inspirations)
Space flight != launches to LEO. With in-situ resource utilization / manufacturing and sending almost exclusively miniaturized humans in deep hibernation (what we can do already), chemical launchers are perfectly enough; no need for magical technologies or structures.
But what was the gain from such complexity? (and anyway, surely you would put Energia-Buran somewhat higher on the scale? Basically a decade younger, developed using more modern CAD/CAM approach plus with better concept from the start - the orbiter was just a payload of Ares V-like launcher. Even while maintaining at the same time two active manned programs...)
Oh my, the prank could be total - say, somebody from the ISS crew quietly installing HAL console (some small & light cardboard-like construction with LED, hidden inside ISS cargo, plus repurposed comms) in the cockpit of Discovery. Alas, it's too late... and any possible Stargate: Atlantis or James Cook pranks don't seem to be in the same league.
Though that probably still doesn't justify calling it Space Shuttle Enterprise, or *orbiter* - Soviet equivalent was simply called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...
Though TOS is a bit of a mixed deal. Yes, the saucery ships, Kirk and Spock et al are fairly recognizable ... but from what I can gather, the original series itself is kinda neglected - and its theme is quite unknown. Relative scarcity of international syndication in its heyday, I guess
The opening by Sir Patrick Stewart and TNG theme OTOH...
I was further amazed at how much his voice did not seem to have changed.
That didn't seem to be the case at all... it's not even a case of remembering it wrong (and our memory is pretty bad, overall), it opened with very different original sample.
I still see Archimedean hulls over there :p
:p But congrats, you're the first out of at least a dozen people replying to such posts [1] / I was starting to think nobody would ever point out hydrofoils ;> (which don't change much of course, their properties resulting in limited use, and how their essence is quite comparable... even to few swimming styles - especially "improper" (but common: head constantly above water) breaststroke or, to a lesser extent, "proper" one or butterfly; when the body is dynamically suspended above the equilibrium by movement of surfaces. Also, we can probably agree that small bike-like hydrofoils without hulls, often muscle-powered, are a joke ;) ) And I'm even from a place formerly behind the Iron Curtain - easy past contact with Meteor or Voskhod hydrofoils.
;p It's not only a nice shot, also the most widely used passenger airliner, the airline (as far as my part of the woods goes), and one of few profitable ones)
I say it very precisely, "ships with hulls overlooking Archimedes' principle"/etc., for a reason.
1. Generally, posts dispelling tendencies to mix fiction and wishful thinking with reality, most often when... related to space activities, as above. This picture is useful too (airplanes from "our" times, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech 100+ years ago [2] - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea), vs. boring reality (yes, typically this picture
2. One can wonder how strong was this effect in giving us the Shuttle - after all, scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s (times of rapid advances in airplane technology / I can see a pattern...) was full of "spaceplanes". Shuttle designers and decisionmakers grew up on those works of fiction before they gave us... an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst)