LOL Exactly!!! Why are people solving problems that we don't need solved and not solving things we really need solved? How about these geniuses come up with an economic way to get things from the surface of Earth into high earth orbit instead.
Hehe. Once the space elevator is built?!? And just who is going to build it and how? It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes (or on this planet) given the current political and economic environment. Just think what would happen if some blew up one of those in construction!!! Wow.
The fact is, we wouldn't have gone to the moon w/o the space race. There is no economic reason (with our current technology) to go there. Once we have developed reliable fusion power and developed high strength materials/structures (putting in place one or more space elevators for example) to turn it into a serious commercial venture then everyone will go into space. How soon till we are sophisticated enough to do that? Given how things are currently progressing in the world, I'd guess maybe in a 500+ years from now it will be viable.
Agreed. You base all your information off mere speculation and conjecture and is shallow on any facts when cited to you. You can't discuss things with someone like you because reason, real known "facts" (not mere conjecture based on nothing) and the actual science are meaningless to you.
First, your points are pure conjecture. There is no information to point to for your analysis other than mere speculation based on scant information. The crafts were lost and there was no way to know for certain what the cause was. Stating as fact something that is pure conjecture is the height of ignorance and stupidity. You next statement made me laugh, "No one who actually works in the field of space travel is that concerned about micrometeorites. No one who reviews the spacecraft losses has concluded we've lost them to micrometeorites. And as far as I can tell, you don't even do basic research to check whether micrometeorites are an issue before talking about them." Actually, nothing could be further form the truth and is a very serious concern in point of fact. Tega Jessa just published an article on this very matter and http://www.universetoday.com/89804/micrometeorites/ just a few months ago. If you had taken more than a second to actually read up on this subject, you would realize it is a very serious concern.
> Well a very large hole would take a larger meteorite wouldn't it? And a larger meteorite we'd be able to track and see coming. The point of micrometeorites is that they're tiny and untrackable.
And your point is what? Maybe they could detect it coming, the likelihood they could avoid something moving that fast (even if it it is the size of a fist) is unlikely. Again, you dismiss something deadly as a non-threat because of your ignorance about the matter only. Being able to see something coming at you and being able to avoid it are two different things. Something large enough to cause a space craft to decompress is not that significant and detecting it in time to avoid it would be highly unlikely.
Also, thank you for the math lesson. However, it is just a simple a display of ignorance by employing averages. If you had any understanding of this field, you'd realize a few things: 1) the amount of material is NOT insignifcant (even though you try to pretend otherwise by employing averages which is silly because of point 2) fields of meteors (and micrometeorites) interact with the earth at varying densities. There are periods of time in which the earth has little meteor activity and periods of time in which the earth interact with dense fields of meteors. We call these meteor showers.
We simply do not know the density of the fields between Earth and Mars. Given the distance the craft has to travel and amount of time (over unknown space), it is highly likely the spacecraft will encounter fields of these particles of varying sizes. Given the speeds involved, the fact is that any craft going to Mars is highly likely to collide with micrometeorites.
> Again, how big do you think a solar flare is, and what it is composed of?
That depends on the flare and the intensity of the event. Everything you cite after that has to do with satelites orbiting the earth protected by the earth's magnetic field and is not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about a solar flare directly impacting a space craft with human beings aboard w/o any protection from the earth's magnetic field. You stated that a thin foil of gold would be sufficient. That is laughable given the types of high energy particles involved and high level of saturation by these particles related to an event like this. We aren't talking about simple alpha particles that can be stopped with a thin pice of gold foil or even a piece of paper. You also state that the distance from the sun will greatly diminish this event. That is also completely untrue given how powerful the effects of significant flare can be upon the earth (which is roughly at the same distance any space craft going to mars would be at and is protected by a powerful magnetic field).
> Apollo 13 was not damaged by micrometeorites.
You don't know that and neither do I. It is quite possible that might have been what occurred. No one really knows. The actual craft and parts that were damaged were unrecoverable so anything you cite is simply conjecture. Also, a number of probes have been lost due to unknown circumstances (which could be related to collisions with micrometeriorites). For example, on March 28, 1989 Phobos 2 launched by the Russians (going to Mars) was lost and that is just one probe. There are number of other probes (another would be on August 21, 1994 we lost the Mars Observer) that have had similiar malfunctions and been lost so pretending like they don't exist is ridiculous and undermines your position completely.
Your statement that explosive decompression doesn't happen is inaccurate. It would depend on the size and type of impact. We have witnessed explosive decompressions on airplanes, so if you punch a big enough of a whole in a space ship, you can expect exactly the same effect since the pressure differential is even greater between a pressurized capsule and the vacuum of space.
As far as your statement about rarity of micrometeorites, it has been estimated that around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year of these particles enter the earth's atmosphere each year. While it may be true we don't know what the true density of these particles are outside of earth's gravity field (as I said, the earth acts like a large vacuum for these particles), I do not believe you are correct that it is inconsequential just given the mass of material that we have observed entering the earth's atmosphere each year. It certainly isn't true that the solar system is pristine of debris since we have observed thousands of asteroids on earth crossing orbits and still don't have a good grasp on observable asteroids. So it is likely the solar system is littered with fields of these smaller particles with varying densities depending on a number of factors. This represents a very real danger to any spaceship traveling through the solar system and disregarding this risk would be foolhardy in the extreme since a craft passing through such a field would be lethal to the inhabitants.
1) Radiation. What we are mainly concerned with is a solar flare. A space craft going to Mars will be unable to outrun that and a little gold foil IS NOT going to protect the crew from that. A few meters of lead will.
2) Gravity. It is highly doubtful that the human body can tolerate the lack of gravity for the year and a half to get there, then be able to adjust to Mars gravity, then tolerate the return trip for the year and half it will take to get back and survive returning to earth.
3) Micrometeriorites. Actually, probes get hit by quite a few once they leave the earth's gravity. Most are designed with redundant systems for such an eventuality. The earth acts like a vacuum pulling in a large number of them so they aren't a large risk near earth (even as far as the moon). However, we do know of micrometeorites hitting a space craft and the results were nearly catastrophic. Apollo 13 was most likely struck. We are talking about a considerable amount of time travelling to and from mars. The likelihood of being struck many times would be significant. In addition, while robot craft can sustain such impacts without failure of the whole craft, the human body is not likely to surive if struck and we are talking about a vehicle with a contained atmosphere too that will have to sealed after strikes and more potentially critical strikes in vital systems is highly likely which might cripple or destroy the craft.
Oxygen isn't the problem -
There are 3 major things going to kill anyone going to mars:
1) Radiation. Once you leave the earth's protective magnetic field (and don't cite the moon, you are still in it when you go there), you'll die of radiation exposure from the Sun. They'll need a signficant radition shield (few meters of lead for instance) to keep them from dying and getting something that heavy up there will be expensive.
2) Gravity (or lack of it in fact). 3 years in space w/o any gravity will kill the crew. They'll need micro gravity with rotating sections. Again, very expensive to build and shield from the radiation mentioned above.
3) Micrometeorites. We have no good solution for that. We'll just have to send A LOT of crew and hope some of them survive.. If you really want to go to Mars, a certain percentage will die from these hitting the ship. Self-sealing sections will be required and a way to dispose of those that die.
Throw on top of that all the food, water, fuel and everything else - it is pretty impractical to go right now, so if anyone seriously looks at what it will really cost to go. It will get cancelled as just a stupid idea.
What do you mean I haven't mentioned something that can't be solved? Micrometeorites will go right through frozen water, the crew, and out the other side like it was a piece of paper (now you have one or more dead crew). Rinse and repeat. Also, low gravity is a very big problem over a long time. We can't tolerate that environment for very long. Also, digging into the moon and building a moon base will be very difficult to achieve and very expensive. Can many problems be solved if you shove enough money and resources at it? Sure, everything but the Micrometeorite problem and the solution to that is just send a lot of people and accept that a certain percent will die. As I said though, this is all science fiction. No one will spend those kinds of resources, nor accept a number of casualties just to go to Mars. There is nothing there we need or worth that.
We have no technology to resist micrometeorites. These things fly around at 60,000+kph and punch through anything we have. It is inevitable that a certain percentage of the crew will be killed by these (depending on how quickly we could actually get to Mars and back). We have no technology for remotely mining the moon nor do we know if there is or where the ore might be that we would be require for manufacturing the ship. Anyone that physically mines the moon will eventually die due to radiation exposure and/or low gravity w/o significant efforts to shield them and provide a normal gravity environment. Basically, we are simply unable to do this for the foreseeable future (and when I say that - I mean for centuries). Perhaps in a few thousand years we might be able to overcome this with fusion reactors (the power) and some kind of shield to protect against all the radiation and micrometeorites. Anyone trying to go now will have a very good chance of dying (even with the best protection would could possibly offer) and I don't see any country (except maybe china) willing to spend the trillion + dollars it would take.
You really don't know very much about the difference between near orbit and travelling in the solar system do you?
ISS is in near earth orbit for example. It is protected by the earth's magnetic field so the Sun's solar radiation doesn't kill the inhabitants. In fact, if you go to the Moon, you are still in the field and so you don't need as much protection. The earth's magnetic shield is just that large. However, if you leave the earth's electromagnetic field (like go to Mars), you will be saturated with solar radiation and DIE!!! - end of story. Also, the Earth has a huge gravitational mass. It acts like a huge vacuum sucking up the micrometeorites. Again, once you leave the earth gravitational field, same effect. You get struct by micrometeorites at a certain rate. For a robot, that isn't usually very catastrophic. However, for us, that is a different story. We get hit by them in just a few places and we just die. Throw on top of that all the food, fuel, and everything else you need to get there and it is easily a very expensive proposition. To sum it up, going to mars is science fiction and no-one is going to go there in the next few centuries since it would be just too expensive and nobody wants to go on a suicide mission. Maybe in a few thousand years it will be possible, but right now. NO CHANCE.
It is mutually exclusive. Going to mars is a trillion dollar + nightmare and HUGE waste of money. If china wants to go to the moon and mars, let them. There is nothing out there that we need. We can invent plenty of technology without going and who cares if china succeeds (I promise you they won't - even living on the moon for an extended period of time is a death sentence due to radiation exposure and low gravity). We don't need to waste our money and stupid adventures like this any more. We have more pressing matters here on earth.
It won't cost in the low tens of billions to go to Mars. With today's technology, if you wanted to go (and not kill everyone in the process) you literally have to put an armored space station up there and send it to mars. You'd need meters of lead between them and the sun for example just to keep them from dying from radiation exposure to the sun. That is going to cost 100's of billions to launch into space. You'd need a massive space ship with rotating sections to provide micro-gravity for the long time it would take to get there (months). You'd need the ship highly armored with many self-sealing sections for when it is punctured by micrometeorites (and those still might kill the crew). The cost would easily get into the trillions of dollars to do all that and you have still have to land (that might kill them if you don't have a pretty fool-proof system) and return (which might kill them as well even with all that). With our current level of technology, going to Mars safely and not killing everyone in the process is going to be unbelievably expensive and even with all that money - it is going to have at least a few people die along the way and in coming back.
We don't have the technology. It is just science fiction and in your head. Anyone that tries it today with today's technology is dead and dead. Between the radiation that they would be exposed to (from the sun alone) and micrometeorites, anyone going is dead. And there is just no good reason to go either. There is nothing on Mars (or the Moon) that we need. Maybe in a few thousand years when we have the technology to travel to planets like mars safely and in numbers, then it would make sense. But, now it is a ridiculous proposition and an expensive waste of time. Thank god we don't have the money now to waste on stupid things like this.
Agreed. There is NOTHING and I mean nothing out there that needs a manned mission right now. Maybe in a few thousand years from now when we have fusion generators and have really advanced in technology where is it realistic to go to Mars and other planets it would make sense. Let the Chinese race back to the moon and to mars. Long duration living on moons will greatly shorten anyone who goes there lifespan and Mars is just suicide at this point. There are just so many ways for someone to die going to Mars it is ridiculous and it would be incredibly expensive given our technology level.
If you want a Nobel Prize in Computing, invent AI. I believe that current Turing machine theory is insufficient for AI so you'll have to not only expand on the theory, but develop the new machine to demonstrate a "thinking" machine. If you do that, you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.
As stated in prior conversations, certifications are meaningless in IT. They don't impress anyone. It is a matter of what you have actually done or not done. Most employers will have you do various things to make sure you know your stuff (those that don't might be impressed by certs, but they are screwed up companies) before they hire you. I wouldn't waste your time or money on them. It is more important to learn your craft and get experience.
You need to leave the Earth's magnetic field for a valid test. Right now, we just don't have the technology to safely get a human-being to Mars and back. They'll just be killed from exposure to radiation, micro-metorites, lack of gravity and so on. There are technologies to prevent this - we'll need about 6 feet of lead shielding between the capsule and exposure to the sun's radation and using a rotational section to create gravity for the long journey. Still iffy though since we don't have any known shielding against micro-meteorites. If they hit a storm of those, everyone will be dead. Also, the ship would just have to be huge that we send and I don't think anyone would fund such an operation especially since we don't have an answer about how to keep the crew alive in certain situations. I'm sure we could chance it, but why invest that much if there is a probability everyone would be killed?
I agree. I have a fake facebook page too and DO NOT put any real information about myself out on the web. All the information about the user is completely untrue so I don't understand what good this new industry does for advertisers? nor how it creates one new job based on the viewing habits of a fake user?
LOL - You know there is an "new" internet bubble when they start saying Facebook credits are going to be worth more than the money you have in the bank. Hmmm - I wonder where we've heard this before?!?
Look at the real user reviews of this service on the web. It's going down hard. There are a few positive reviews but the majority are negative for a simple reason. IT'S A STUPID IDEA. Rendering a NTSC image of a game on a server by creating a virtual session and then sending it to a user over typical internet connections (btw this thing need a really high end internet connection to even work then) makes no sense. This thing will be dead and buried by next year. Mark my words.
Now go look for real life reviews of the service. I found easily dozens of user reviews like this one - "OnLive works if you're practically sitting at their server, but it's just not ready for mass market in any way shape or form." or "I doubt this service is really going to take off if it gets released to the public like this. No Wifi support and paying for a blurry video feed of a game isn't exactly "fun"." And these aren't even high end games they are hosting. It's all about the math. I'm shocked such a stupid idea as this got funded. Somebody is about to lose alot of money.
I've heard of it and am sick of the compression magic box (since I've actually written compression routines myself) arguement. It's stupid. Stuffing 1080p remotely ray traced games down 10 Mbps lines (which nobody has for the most part) is stupid. Compressing stuff isn't going to help things. Even if you could do it (and believe me you can't), what are you going to get at the most from it? 2 or 3 frames per second. WOW. I'm impressed. Most games I play nowdays seem to render just fine at 30-60 frames per second just fine already.
We are talking about broadband and typical internet connections. I don't know where you get the idea that anyone can get a gigabit connection cheaply.
Most broadband is T1 or a fractional T3 in speed of 1.5 Mbps-3Mbps in the US. The price is roughly $30-60 per month for that from their cable providers.
An OC-24 on the other hand, which is 1.224 Gbps connection, will only cost you ~$100,000 per month to have in the US. Seeing as how I don't have $100k per month the burn, I can't give you an exact figure. However, you are welcome to go price one and let me know if you can get one for less than that.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL Exactly!!! Why are people solving problems that we don't need solved and not solving things we really need solved? How about these geniuses come up with an economic way to get things from the surface of Earth into high earth orbit instead.
Hehe. Once the space elevator is built?!? And just who is going to build it and how? It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes (or on this planet) given the current political and economic environment. Just think what would happen if some blew up one of those in construction!!! Wow.
The fact is, we wouldn't have gone to the moon w/o the space race. There is no economic reason (with our current technology) to go there. Once we have developed reliable fusion power and developed high strength materials/structures (putting in place one or more space elevators for example) to turn it into a serious commercial venture then everyone will go into space. How soon till we are sophisticated enough to do that? Given how things are currently progressing in the world, I'd guess maybe in a 500+ years from now it will be viable.
Agreed. You base all your information off mere speculation and conjecture and is shallow on any facts when cited to you. You can't discuss things with someone like you because reason, real known "facts" (not mere conjecture based on nothing) and the actual science are meaningless to you.
First, your points are pure conjecture. There is no information to point to for your analysis other than mere speculation based on scant information. The crafts were lost and there was no way to know for certain what the cause was. Stating as fact something that is pure conjecture is the height of ignorance and stupidity. You next statement made me laugh, "No one who actually works in the field of space travel is that concerned about micrometeorites. No one who reviews the spacecraft losses has concluded we've lost them to micrometeorites. And as far as I can tell, you don't even do basic research to check whether micrometeorites are an issue before talking about them." Actually, nothing could be further form the truth and is a very serious concern in point of fact. Tega Jessa just published an article on this very matter and http://www.universetoday.com/89804/micrometeorites/ just a few months ago. If you had taken more than a second to actually read up on this subject, you would realize it is a very serious concern.
> Well a very large hole would take a larger meteorite wouldn't it? And a larger meteorite we'd be able to track and see coming. The point of micrometeorites is that they're tiny and untrackable.
And your point is what? Maybe they could detect it coming, the likelihood they could avoid something moving that fast (even if it it is the size of a fist) is unlikely. Again, you dismiss something deadly as a non-threat because of your ignorance about the matter only. Being able to see something coming at you and being able to avoid it are two different things. Something large enough to cause a space craft to decompress is not that significant and detecting it in time to avoid it would be highly unlikely.
Also, thank you for the math lesson. However, it is just a simple a display of ignorance by employing averages. If you had any understanding of this field, you'd realize a few things: 1) the amount of material is NOT insignifcant (even though you try to pretend otherwise by employing averages which is silly because of point 2) fields of meteors (and micrometeorites) interact with the earth at varying densities. There are periods of time in which the earth has little meteor activity and periods of time in which the earth interact with dense fields of meteors. We call these meteor showers.
We simply do not know the density of the fields between Earth and Mars. Given the distance the craft has to travel and amount of time (over unknown space), it is highly likely the spacecraft will encounter fields of these particles of varying sizes. Given the speeds involved, the fact is that any craft going to Mars is highly likely to collide with micrometeorites.
> Again, how big do you think a solar flare is, and what it is composed of?
That depends on the flare and the intensity of the event. Everything you cite after that has to do with satelites orbiting the earth protected by the earth's magnetic field and is not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about a solar flare directly impacting a space craft with human beings aboard w/o any protection from the earth's magnetic field. You stated that a thin foil of gold would be sufficient. That is laughable given the types of high energy particles involved and high level of saturation by these particles related to an event like this. We aren't talking about simple alpha particles that can be stopped with a thin pice of gold foil or even a piece of paper. You also state that the distance from the sun will greatly diminish this event. That is also completely untrue given how powerful the effects of significant flare can be upon the earth (which is roughly at the same distance any space craft going to mars would be at and is protected by a powerful magnetic field).
> Apollo 13 was not damaged by micrometeorites.
You don't know that and neither do I. It is quite possible that might have been what occurred. No one really knows. The actual craft and parts that were damaged were unrecoverable so anything you cite is simply conjecture. Also, a number of probes have been lost due to unknown circumstances (which could be related to collisions with micrometeriorites). For example, on March 28, 1989 Phobos 2 launched by the Russians (going to Mars) was lost and that is just one probe. There are number of other probes (another would be on August 21, 1994 we lost the Mars Observer) that have had similiar malfunctions and been lost so pretending like they don't exist is ridiculous and undermines your position completely.
Your statement that explosive decompression doesn't happen is inaccurate. It would depend on the size and type of impact. We have witnessed explosive decompressions on airplanes, so if you punch a big enough of a whole in a space ship, you can expect exactly the same effect since the pressure differential is even greater between a pressurized capsule and the vacuum of space.
As far as your statement about rarity of micrometeorites, it has been estimated that around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year of these particles enter the earth's atmosphere each year. While it may be true we don't know what the true density of these particles are outside of earth's gravity field (as I said, the earth acts like a large vacuum for these particles), I do not believe you are correct that it is inconsequential just given the mass of material that we have observed entering the earth's atmosphere each year. It certainly isn't true that the solar system is pristine of debris since we have observed thousands of asteroids on earth crossing orbits and still don't have a good grasp on observable asteroids. So it is likely the solar system is littered with fields of these smaller particles with varying densities depending on a number of factors. This represents a very real danger to any spaceship traveling through the solar system and disregarding this risk would be foolhardy in the extreme since a craft passing through such a field would be lethal to the inhabitants.
1) Radiation. What we are mainly concerned with is a solar flare. A space craft going to Mars will be unable to outrun that and a little gold foil IS NOT going to protect the crew from that. A few meters of lead will. 2) Gravity. It is highly doubtful that the human body can tolerate the lack of gravity for the year and a half to get there, then be able to adjust to Mars gravity, then tolerate the return trip for the year and half it will take to get back and survive returning to earth. 3) Micrometeriorites. Actually, probes get hit by quite a few once they leave the earth's gravity. Most are designed with redundant systems for such an eventuality. The earth acts like a vacuum pulling in a large number of them so they aren't a large risk near earth (even as far as the moon). However, we do know of micrometeorites hitting a space craft and the results were nearly catastrophic. Apollo 13 was most likely struck. We are talking about a considerable amount of time travelling to and from mars. The likelihood of being struck many times would be significant. In addition, while robot craft can sustain such impacts without failure of the whole craft, the human body is not likely to surive if struck and we are talking about a vehicle with a contained atmosphere too that will have to sealed after strikes and more potentially critical strikes in vital systems is highly likely which might cripple or destroy the craft.
Oxygen isn't the problem - There are 3 major things going to kill anyone going to mars: 1) Radiation. Once you leave the earth's protective magnetic field (and don't cite the moon, you are still in it when you go there), you'll die of radiation exposure from the Sun. They'll need a signficant radition shield (few meters of lead for instance) to keep them from dying and getting something that heavy up there will be expensive. 2) Gravity (or lack of it in fact). 3 years in space w/o any gravity will kill the crew. They'll need micro gravity with rotating sections. Again, very expensive to build and shield from the radiation mentioned above. 3) Micrometeorites. We have no good solution for that. We'll just have to send A LOT of crew and hope some of them survive.. If you really want to go to Mars, a certain percentage will die from these hitting the ship. Self-sealing sections will be required and a way to dispose of those that die. Throw on top of that all the food, water, fuel and everything else - it is pretty impractical to go right now, so if anyone seriously looks at what it will really cost to go. It will get cancelled as just a stupid idea.
What do you mean I haven't mentioned something that can't be solved? Micrometeorites will go right through frozen water, the crew, and out the other side like it was a piece of paper (now you have one or more dead crew). Rinse and repeat. Also, low gravity is a very big problem over a long time. We can't tolerate that environment for very long. Also, digging into the moon and building a moon base will be very difficult to achieve and very expensive. Can many problems be solved if you shove enough money and resources at it? Sure, everything but the Micrometeorite problem and the solution to that is just send a lot of people and accept that a certain percent will die. As I said though, this is all science fiction. No one will spend those kinds of resources, nor accept a number of casualties just to go to Mars. There is nothing there we need or worth that.
We have no technology to resist micrometeorites. These things fly around at 60,000+kph and punch through anything we have. It is inevitable that a certain percentage of the crew will be killed by these (depending on how quickly we could actually get to Mars and back). We have no technology for remotely mining the moon nor do we know if there is or where the ore might be that we would be require for manufacturing the ship. Anyone that physically mines the moon will eventually die due to radiation exposure and/or low gravity w/o significant efforts to shield them and provide a normal gravity environment. Basically, we are simply unable to do this for the foreseeable future (and when I say that - I mean for centuries). Perhaps in a few thousand years we might be able to overcome this with fusion reactors (the power) and some kind of shield to protect against all the radiation and micrometeorites. Anyone trying to go now will have a very good chance of dying (even with the best protection would could possibly offer) and I don't see any country (except maybe china) willing to spend the trillion + dollars it would take.
You really don't know very much about the difference between near orbit and travelling in the solar system do you? ISS is in near earth orbit for example. It is protected by the earth's magnetic field so the Sun's solar radiation doesn't kill the inhabitants. In fact, if you go to the Moon, you are still in the field and so you don't need as much protection. The earth's magnetic shield is just that large. However, if you leave the earth's electromagnetic field (like go to Mars), you will be saturated with solar radiation and DIE!!! - end of story. Also, the Earth has a huge gravitational mass. It acts like a huge vacuum sucking up the micrometeorites. Again, once you leave the earth gravitational field, same effect. You get struct by micrometeorites at a certain rate. For a robot, that isn't usually very catastrophic. However, for us, that is a different story. We get hit by them in just a few places and we just die. Throw on top of that all the food, fuel, and everything else you need to get there and it is easily a very expensive proposition. To sum it up, going to mars is science fiction and no-one is going to go there in the next few centuries since it would be just too expensive and nobody wants to go on a suicide mission. Maybe in a few thousand years it will be possible, but right now. NO CHANCE.
It is mutually exclusive. Going to mars is a trillion dollar + nightmare and HUGE waste of money. If china wants to go to the moon and mars, let them. There is nothing out there that we need. We can invent plenty of technology without going and who cares if china succeeds (I promise you they won't - even living on the moon for an extended period of time is a death sentence due to radiation exposure and low gravity). We don't need to waste our money and stupid adventures like this any more. We have more pressing matters here on earth.
It won't cost in the low tens of billions to go to Mars. With today's technology, if you wanted to go (and not kill everyone in the process) you literally have to put an armored space station up there and send it to mars. You'd need meters of lead between them and the sun for example just to keep them from dying from radiation exposure to the sun. That is going to cost 100's of billions to launch into space. You'd need a massive space ship with rotating sections to provide micro-gravity for the long time it would take to get there (months). You'd need the ship highly armored with many self-sealing sections for when it is punctured by micrometeorites (and those still might kill the crew). The cost would easily get into the trillions of dollars to do all that and you have still have to land (that might kill them if you don't have a pretty fool-proof system) and return (which might kill them as well even with all that). With our current level of technology, going to Mars safely and not killing everyone in the process is going to be unbelievably expensive and even with all that money - it is going to have at least a few people die along the way and in coming back.
We don't have the technology. It is just science fiction and in your head. Anyone that tries it today with today's technology is dead and dead. Between the radiation that they would be exposed to (from the sun alone) and micrometeorites, anyone going is dead. And there is just no good reason to go either. There is nothing on Mars (or the Moon) that we need. Maybe in a few thousand years when we have the technology to travel to planets like mars safely and in numbers, then it would make sense. But, now it is a ridiculous proposition and an expensive waste of time. Thank god we don't have the money now to waste on stupid things like this.
Agreed. There is NOTHING and I mean nothing out there that needs a manned mission right now. Maybe in a few thousand years from now when we have fusion generators and have really advanced in technology where is it realistic to go to Mars and other planets it would make sense. Let the Chinese race back to the moon and to mars. Long duration living on moons will greatly shorten anyone who goes there lifespan and Mars is just suicide at this point. There are just so many ways for someone to die going to Mars it is ridiculous and it would be incredibly expensive given our technology level.
You are absolutely right. This has got to be the most stupid thing Microsoft has done since they launched the Kin.
If you want a Nobel Prize in Computing, invent AI. I believe that current Turing machine theory is insufficient for AI so you'll have to not only expand on the theory, but develop the new machine to demonstrate a "thinking" machine. If you do that, you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.
As stated in prior conversations, certifications are meaningless in IT. They don't impress anyone. It is a matter of what you have actually done or not done. Most employers will have you do various things to make sure you know your stuff (those that don't might be impressed by certs, but they are screwed up companies) before they hire you. I wouldn't waste your time or money on them. It is more important to learn your craft and get experience.
You need to leave the Earth's magnetic field for a valid test. Right now, we just don't have the technology to safely get a human-being to Mars and back. They'll just be killed from exposure to radiation, micro-metorites, lack of gravity and so on. There are technologies to prevent this - we'll need about 6 feet of lead shielding between the capsule and exposure to the sun's radation and using a rotational section to create gravity for the long journey. Still iffy though since we don't have any known shielding against micro-meteorites. If they hit a storm of those, everyone will be dead. Also, the ship would just have to be huge that we send and I don't think anyone would fund such an operation especially since we don't have an answer about how to keep the crew alive in certain situations. I'm sure we could chance it, but why invest that much if there is a probability everyone would be killed?
I agree. I have a fake facebook page too and DO NOT put any real information about myself out on the web. All the information about the user is completely untrue so I don't understand what good this new industry does for advertisers? nor how it creates one new job based on the viewing habits of a fake user?
LOL - You know there is an "new" internet bubble when they start saying Facebook credits are going to be worth more than the money you have in the bank. Hmmm - I wonder where we've heard this before?!?
Look at the real user reviews of this service on the web. It's going down hard. There are a few positive reviews but the majority are negative for a simple reason. IT'S A STUPID IDEA. Rendering a NTSC image of a game on a server by creating a virtual session and then sending it to a user over typical internet connections (btw this thing need a really high end internet connection to even work then) makes no sense. This thing will be dead and buried by next year. Mark my words.
Now go look for real life reviews of the service. I found easily dozens of user reviews like this one - "OnLive works if you're practically sitting at their server, but it's just not ready for mass market in any way shape or form." or "I doubt this service is really going to take off if it gets released to the public like this. No Wifi support and paying for a blurry video feed of a game isn't exactly "fun"." And these aren't even high end games they are hosting. It's all about the math. I'm shocked such a stupid idea as this got funded. Somebody is about to lose alot of money.
I've heard of it and am sick of the compression magic box (since I've actually written compression routines myself) arguement. It's stupid. Stuffing 1080p remotely ray traced games down 10 Mbps lines (which nobody has for the most part) is stupid. Compressing stuff isn't going to help things. Even if you could do it (and believe me you can't), what are you going to get at the most from it? 2 or 3 frames per second. WOW. I'm impressed. Most games I play nowdays seem to render just fine at 30-60 frames per second just fine already.
We are talking about broadband and typical internet connections. I don't know where you get the idea that anyone can get a gigabit connection cheaply. Most broadband is T1 or a fractional T3 in speed of 1.5 Mbps-3Mbps in the US. The price is roughly $30-60 per month for that from their cable providers. An OC-24 on the other hand, which is 1.224 Gbps connection, will only cost you ~$100,000 per month to have in the US. Seeing as how I don't have $100k per month the burn, I can't give you an exact figure. However, you are welcome to go price one and let me know if you can get one for less than that.