Uhmmm links please. If we have a true understanding of how the global climate machine works and it's being hidden from the general populace, please provide links to that information. I've not seen it, heard of it, not even the conspiracy you seem to be indicating. Links please. Oh, did I forget to mention: please provide some links to this work of 'real scientists' who know how the global climate machine works.
Before you ever, and I mean EVER think that science has come up with a golden bullet to cure something that requires constant exposure to a material, you need to sit down and get some help, start looking at it to see just how much it looks like Pandora's Box. Remember thalidomide, asbestos, DDT, or any of the millions of other substances that are supposed to be good for us? Here are a few items with regard to fluoridation:
Remember to ask yourself why thyroid problems are rising. Why autism is rising. Why diseases continue to be a problem when we have 'cures' and vaccines.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "â¦we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climateâ¦" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
There is a part that bears repeating: with slight modification:
The state of the science is: "â¦we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climateâ¦".
We just launched space probes to try to figure out why the Sun seems so quiet and cool. This was not predicted, nor is it understood. The many and varied factors that affect our global climate are thought of but not known. I say known in the way that we KNOW why some babies are boys and some are girls. We know that and can do little to affect the outcome of birth. We KNOW about cancer, or think we do, and yet people die every day from it. We KNOW about diet and food based health problems yet people die of starvation every fucking day.
What is my point? It's simple. We do NOT know enough about the problem to clearly and unequivocally state that reducing CO2 will stop global warming or even control it. We do NOT know enough to even begin to know what the problem is caused by. Sure, man's contribution to greenhouse gases obviously has some impact, but we do NOT know enough to say that reduction of man made greenhouse gases would reduce or even affect global warming, never mind saying it would control global climate.
I'm all for energy efficient appliances and so called 'green' buildings and so forth. I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions. I'm all for 'green' coal burning, if there is such a thing in reality. These are all things that put less pollutants into the air. I'm all for doing many of the things that global warming alarmists warn that we should stop doing, or start doing. What I am against is thinking that this is magically going to solve a problem that we have barely any idea it exists never mind how it is caused.
I'm all for doing the things we know are bad for us in the fucking short term, never mind their long term effects. That smog in L.A. - bad idea. Lead in paint and toys and such - bad idea. Ozone emissions - bad idea. Fluoridation of the water - bad idea. Inefficient Internal combustion engines spewing filth into the ecosystem - bad idea. There are literally millions of things that are BAD IDEAS and have immediate consequences to life on this planet that are bad enough to justify the stopping of such things. We do NOT need to cry global warming to have reason to stop them.
Please please please, would someone take the lead and do so with common sense. Lets understand how the Earth's climate machinery works before thinking we can control that machinery. The chances that shifting magnetosphere and solar heating changes have 99.999% of the blame here is as great or greater than the idea that humans have caused this current climate situation. The position of this planet and solar system in relation to the surrounding galaxy has an effect on climate. There are many factors that affect climate or can, that just won't fit inside the 'standard' activist's head. Do these activist go to sleep at night praying that there will be a solar flare tomorrow? Oh god, please help our Sun be normal again?
I'm just asking for common sense. Understand the problem before you begin thinking you can fix it. This is hardly something that governments are good at. Scientists have had to use buzzy sound bites to get any attention for their particular concerns, so the real picture has not been exposed, nor all the players in this game we call the global climate machine of Earth.
First there were dolls, shirts, light sabers and manner of spin-off merchandise. I'm surprised that it took so long to get a MMO going. I expect to see people at scifi conventions dressed like a sith and wearing a belt with digital readout declaring their score/health/karma from the game. It's bound to boost cosplay in North America. The FSM knows we need more of that!
Send email if you are not John McCain. Calculate the value of Pi farther than anyone cares really. Run Vista and Crysis - but not at the same time. Set up a self aware VM cluster.... Create your own spam botnet Heat your computer room Be the coolest guy at the next flashmob computing meet
What we don't know is exactly what we'll find and we are kind of running out of time and discoveries on this planet. Time to explore the next great frontier... surface exploration of other solar planets.
I don't think that the great explorers of Earth waited for the very best high tech gear that was possible before they went exploring to find new lands and the poles etc. Whether that seems wise or not, you really will have trouble inventing new and groundbreaking diving gear without getting in the water. What you can discover in your backyard pool is good, but it's not quite the same as experimenting at 275 meters.
Yes, some flight equipment can be tested in Earth atmosphere, yet others can't really be tested except in space, except theoretically. The space race and moon endeavors as well as Mars missions and others have helped add impressive amounts of data to what we do know about space travel. The Voyagers found some interesting information about gravity and our solar system, but that took years. You really can't send men out for that long. We have some information about radiation in space (outside our protective atmosphere/magnetosphere) but more information is needed. Waiting for that information until there are perfected space craft that can't possibly fail will hinder the over-all progress and perhaps cost humanity the chance for a better world. Explorers are not known for their timidity. How many great discoveries by the human species were made while analyzing the failure of other research? Accidents as it were. This is real 'get your hands dirty' science at it's best. Try, experiment, analyze the failures, celebrate the successes, continue to learn.
Your thoughts on what is out there are fair, but based solely on what we think we know so far. What discoveries have been made by the Mars missions? Water ice? It's confirmed. This helps shape how we look at other planets through telescopes and with sensitive instruments orbiting this planet. Each discovery or confirmation of theory builds a greater base of knowledge for our use. While you speculate that we need to first master fusion reactors, perhaps it will be a discovery in our solar system that allows us to do that. Some material or carbon matter that does not exist in any quantity here on Earth. Think about the KT boundary. It was not created by wind and rain. What else can be created by things we do not have in abundance on this planet? Like lack of heat for instance, or constant bombardment by other small bodies, or by radiation that we are protected from.
Your line of thinking seems to be: Lets not go into the store until we are sure we have the best shopping cart, and we know exactly what we are shopping for and are certain that it is available for purchase in the store. Thankfully the early explorers on Earth were not so timid.
From this, I conclude that you are male. I can also conclude that you will probably never run NASA.
As someone who tinkers around with robots, perhaps I can shed some light on the question you ask:
I know slashdot is full of folks who want robots/astronauts actually tromping around, but what's the actual cost/benefit?
There is much to be learned by building robots galore. Intelligent machines can make many tasks much more cost effecting in the 'long run' but will cost much to start, and seem silly for a long while. I say in the long run because what we think we know today is merely the tip of an iceberg. A couple of benefits of robotics engineering experience are: iRobot's vacuum robot and bomb disposal robots for the military and police, the Canadarm on the space shuttle, Automated mechanical assembly (makes things cheaper)
When you consider the cost of sending an unmanned craft halfway across the solar system compared to cost for a similar manned mission, cost savings are incredible. This is more poignant in view of the fact that we are not sure yet why we'd send a manned mission. If robots can do the work necessary for initial and preliminary discoveries, then the cost is greatly reduced. If we find a chemical on the surface of another planet that not only sequesters CO2 but turns it into useful hydrocarbons by mixing it with seawater and sunlight... that would be worth going after a boatload of the stuff. Perhaps by sending robot explorers we find something that could replace all the predicted oil energy with just 10 trips for the next 75 years? What we don't know is exactly what we'll find and we are kind of running out of time and discoveries on this planet. Time to explore the next great frontier... surface exploration of other solar planets.
In the meantime, we take baby steps. Vacuums, IED warriers, manufacturing, toys, and other methods of financing further development. BTW, there are many groups around the globe that are experimenting with robotics in their garages. Some of them are pretty fucking awesome. Here are a couple that I've seen close up and personal that are quite impressive http://www.geology.smu.edu/~dpa-www/myrobots.html They won't be exploring Mars anytime soon, but the principles involved in creating these robots apply to exploring mars as well.
That is the reason for the skycrane. If the air were as dense, a standard parachute landing would be all that is required. The problem is an inability to decelerate to a stop without the sudden stop part. I believe that gliders are also out of the question due to atmospheric conditions. This is a compromise of all known possible options. One that will land the heavier weight, and perhaps give them much greater accuracy in choosing a landing spot... With the speed of the rover hitting the right spot first try can be quite a bit of savings.
Profit is next actually... I have no idea why the story submitter can't believe this. There are some awesome engineering feats that our species has accomplished here on earth. UAVs are awesome. The Thames flood damn is awesome. ISS is awesome. Comms satellites are awesome. Heavy lift helicopters are awesome. VTO spaceships and fighter jets are awesome. Autonomous gliders launched from weather balloons in near space are awesome. Why is it so difficult to believe this Mars mission? The Lunar lander did similar feats. It's even possible to test this with modified equipment right here on earth. I don't understand why this is so difficult to believe, or why some might call it a bad idea?
A soft landing is much preferred to a 6G impact any day, or whatever you call it on Mars. Perfecting this technology might even allow for a more precise landing spot... a little extra fuel and you could hover the lander over to the desired location several kilometers away?
Oh, by the fucking way, that guy who flew his jet powered wing pack over the English Channel is awesome too.
Don't take it personal. I tried to upset/insult as many groups with evidence of genetic links to their 'situations' as I could think of in a few seconds. Secondly, I did not say it was a disease or flaw, it was a question about genetics, and in that comment more specifically about the link between genetics and the less common sexual orientations. In particular, someone looking to use this to support ID would have to admit that I'm right, or god's plan/design is wrong/imperfect... either that or that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it was in their god's plan all along. Genetic differences have been shown between those of varying sexual orientations. I think over-all, it worked well. Any ill intent should have been seen as aimed at ID proponents rather than at those of the less common sexual orientations.
Indeed, ID fails badly. Even the animal kingdom shows us that homosexuality (as well as other sexual orientations and conditions) is simply part of the very wide array of possibilities. Just as one can not be looked down upon for having imperfect toes, I don't think anyone should be faulted for genetic differences. It may well be yet determined that the hardcore bible thumpers are afflicted with genetic issues that cause them to be as they are. That would still not give them the right to tell everyone else that they have the only answer and the rest of us are wrong.
And back on point, genetic variance disproves the perfect designer theory, so don't take offense, simply enjoy being part of the wonderful array of life on this planet. Remember that not that long ago, left handed people were thought to be possessed by the devil, and by the same folk that would today have you believe that ID is science and true. While I may not easily fit into a category that ID proponents would dislike, I doubt it will take long before they find a category for me. We should all fight against ignorance when given even half a chance.
Personally, I kind of hope these stories are true.. Much preferred to the whack-o magical stuff theists believe, and some big government conspiracy makes much more sense than the thought that all governments all over the world are full of nut-job power hungry ass-wipes.
sigh... I just read that back, I know there is probably no aliens visiting us... but I rather like that explanation best.
You are perhaps right, though the statement: "If every home uses 250 watts/hr less during peak times, we can put off building a 14 billion dollar nuclear power plant for another 17 years" is an easy way to sell the idea that if everyone contributes, it does pay off handsomely for everyone.
I hope that the 'market' comes up with many of the ones that I can think of.
Battery UPS in your PC case... stores power for power outages and uses the battery during startup cycles, thus spreading the draw from the grid to less used times.
EU just made incandescent lights illegal.
Green design homes
Light timer switches with built-in motion sensors and other such devices.
More efficient solar energy. Windows with solar collectors built-in as well as LED lighting so that daylight can continue unabated.
The list goes on. Anything that prevents a 250 watt drain on the grid during peak times will reduce the problem dramatically if millions of homes participated. Say 2 million homes used 250W/hr less at peak times for any given grid supply area: 500MegaWatt hour savings. That's a lot of savings.
Countries have established law against computer crime. An internetpol is not required. The fact that F-Secure is asking for one is quite suspicious to me. You would think they would be in the forefront of telling the police where and who the bad guys are. Maybe they're just jockeying for a fat global contract?
More law enforcement is not needed, more security is. The problem is insecure OS and software platforms, insecure operations processes and policies, insecure user habits and other such things. No manner of Internet police forces will be able to cure those things.
Come to think of it, no manner of thought police would be able to stop me calling F-Secure asshats, and Mr Hypponen chief asshat among them. See how well those thought police work? That's how good Internetpol would work. Just more wasted money, more lost rights, more inconvenience for the good guys, and more fun for the bad guys.
Geez, the DHS at least has physical goals. The Internetpol wouldn't even be able to do that much. How much of the really bad guys on the Internet are hired by governments? by corporations? By people who would thwart the efforts of Internetpol through political means?
Lets just go full tilt into asshatteriness: Make it a capital crime to have an insecure pc operating in your house or under your control. That will ensure it all stops... right?
Growing popularity and infamy... xkcd has been my secret... when I need a laugh, all I have to do is push that 'random' button and life is transformed to the surreal for a few seconds. It's been like a personal 'hyperspace' button. Now, just another meme. sigh
To start with, software has a visible, talking, breathing creator that we can chat with about why they chose to write the code that way. Does ID? when we all can sit down and have a cup of coffee with god, I'll change my mind on this.
Science has been notably wrong before (you know, that whole Earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe thing...), and it routinely discovers information which invalidates previous theories.
If there was scientific proof of God's existence, they'd have to change their entire thought model of the Universe, and that change is particularly scary to them.
If... IF... If there was scientific evidence of the existence of a god, a whole bunch of scientists and others would be glad to change their minds about it. The trouble is that there is NO proof, no matter how much you and others claim there is.
If, as ID critics claim, ID really isn't supported by the evidence, it will end up in the trash bin of history. It wouldn't be the first time a wrong theory has been put forth in science, and it will certainly not be the last. But, if we are really going to take a scientific approach to the formation of life on this planet, we should be content to bear with incorrect theories, knowing that eventually the discovery of additional information will settle the issue.
Are you saying that ID is science??? That 'if' is not needed. ID is NOT supported by the evidence. ID is NOT science. We are fervently trying to put ID in the trash bin of history... why do you keep dragging it back out? ID proponents unfathomably 'assume' that life must have been created, and because it seems complex to us right now, it must have been god that created it. There is no proof or science there, only assumptive reasoning to support a creator god. The creator god of ID is no more real than Thor or Zeus. There is in fact more historical evidence of the latter two than the former... if you count books and stories and temples and statues and such.
One last time: just because you don't understand it, that does NOT mean that there must have been some magic creator god to make it. Did god make the Alps? Or was that due to continental drift? I can go on with more questions like that if you want.
If you want to opine that your god caused the 'big bang' and thus caused all the rest to happen naturally... well, you've got me there. At least until we figure out some way to explain that too. There still is no evidence of the existence of a god in our physical universe, thus no scientific evidence of a god, only nature and the physical universe. Argue with that all you wish to, but please whisper until you find some physical evidence. ID is not science. Creationism is not science. That said, I wholly welcome physical scientific evidence of a god.... the FSM told made me say that.
I find the theory that the universe and earth are fine tuned for life on this planet a ludicrous example of rectal/cranial inversion.
The assumption that the conditions on the planet earth are created just so current life forms can exist presumes that previous life on this planet could have existed in the current conditions. The fossil records seems to indicate that this is not correct.
Life exists here because it formed here. Had it formed on some other planet (and it might have) then it would have formed to suit that environment as if it had been fine tuned for life. Creatures that live on the ocean floor by thermal vents live in an environment that would kill surface lifeforms almost instantly. How is this 'fine tuning' anything? It isn't. Lifeforms evolved to suit a particular environment, not the other way around. Intelligent Design is ludicrous. Ever hear of congenital deformities? With every discovery of a link between genetics and human behavior and disease, ID loses even more. It doesn't appear to be that complex or even intelligent of a design. In fact, more and more it looks like there was no design, that it was all done accidentally, incrementally, and haphazardly. I don't think the appendix was part of the great design for modern man. How many of us actually use or still have wisdom teeth? How are your tonsils doing? Yes, all part of a wonderful design. Are you genetically predisposed to being fat? Gay? Have heart attacks? Cancer? Yes, a wonderfully intelligent design.
so... NO, this discovery does NOT support ID. It supports the theory that life on Earth is a wonderful and amazing accident.
I hope you are modded up handily.... what you say is the truth, and the only reason that such information makes the news. If govt. agencies were doing their job as prescribed, it would not be news. This is simply creating a new evil-doer to distract the minds of Americans while the government continues it's wholesale grab of liberties and Constitutional pinata frenzy.
Mr Orwell would be happy to note that in 4 more years, most Americans will be on a terrorist watch list, augmented heartily by those signing up for unemployment benefits. How much farther down this rabbit hole must we go before government whistle blowers become folk heroes? Will our grandchildren hear stories of Babe the blue ox, superman, and joe whistleblower? I hope so.
Serious issue? Do you mean like preventing Iran from having nucular weapons serious? Perhaps, saving the thousands that die of starvation every day kind of serious? Global climate change kind of serious? AIDS kind of serious? or are you simply talking about 'what costume will I wear this year?' kind of serious?
If it works, nobody will rush out and pay to change it, no matter how much bitching goes on. If it was as serious as malaria, BG would have forced everyone to upgrade to IEfirefox by now. Apparently it's not THAT serious. I mean, when I go to the bank to cash a check, I don't worry they won't give me money unless I can prove I'm using Firefox at home.
A very salient point: If they're still a danger to society at large, why the hell are they not behind bars?
Answer: Because without a group of people to vilify there is no easy way to sway the mindset of the public at large. If it were not for sex offenders, it might well be that we'd be protecting the children from godless atheists or some other group. Democrats perhaps? The USA system of democracy has been tortured into a shape that requires a evil-doers in order to function. We HAVE to be at war against something or nobody will vote.
Sad but true.... According to Palin, we're engaged in an economic war right now also. Not sure when that was declared or even if the McCain campaign has spoken with her about this new war, but she has announced it. Beheading of Wall street types who don't own at least 3 cars is to begin next week.
It's clear from your logic that you will NEVER be elected to public office. You just don't seem to have the 'team player' attitude.
Clearly, if politics were left out of this process and all aspects of hiring non-local talent were held up transparently for inspection by local groups representing workers there would be no abuses or problems that news stories and a lawsuit could not fix. The problem is that now politics ARE involved... not even Spiderman or Batman can fix this. Time to scrap the whole thing and start over with something new, something apolitical.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhmmm links please. If we have a true understanding of how the global climate machine works and it's being hidden from the general populace, please provide links to that information. I've not seen it, heard of it, not even the conspiracy you seem to be indicating. Links please. Oh, did I forget to mention: please provide some links to this work of 'real scientists' who know how the global climate machine works.
Before you ever, and I mean EVER think that science has come up with a golden bullet to cure something that requires constant exposure to a material, you need to sit down and get some help, start looking at it to see just how much it looks like Pandora's Box. Remember thalidomide, asbestos, DDT, or any of the millions of other substances that are supposed to be good for us? Here are a few items with regard to fluoridation:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=googleabout&btnG=Search+our+site&q=flouridation%20problem
http://www.wddty.com/03363800370654010205/effects-of-water-flouridation-on-thyroid-problems.html
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm
And a reasonable voice among the din:
http://naturalhygienesociety.org/review/0601/fluoridation.html
Remember to ask yourself why thyroid problems are rising. Why autism is rising. Why diseases continue to be a problem when we have 'cures' and vaccines.
From the article you mention:
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "â¦we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climateâ¦" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
There is a part that bears repeating: with slight modification:
The state of the science is: "â¦we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climateâ¦".
We just launched space probes to try to figure out why the Sun seems so quiet and cool. This was not predicted, nor is it understood. The many and varied factors that affect our global climate are thought of but not known. I say known in the way that we KNOW why some babies are boys and some are girls. We know that and can do little to affect the outcome of birth. We KNOW about cancer, or think we do, and yet people die every day from it. We KNOW about diet and food based health problems yet people die of starvation every fucking day.
What is my point? It's simple. We do NOT know enough about the problem to clearly and unequivocally state that reducing CO2 will stop global warming or even control it. We do NOT know enough to even begin to know what the problem is caused by. Sure, man's contribution to greenhouse gases obviously has some impact, but we do NOT know enough to say that reduction of man made greenhouse gases would reduce or even affect global warming, never mind saying it would control global climate.
I'm all for energy efficient appliances and so called 'green' buildings and so forth. I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions. I'm all for 'green' coal burning, if there is such a thing in reality. These are all things that put less pollutants into the air. I'm all for doing many of the things that global warming alarmists warn that we should stop doing, or start doing. What I am against is thinking that this is magically going to solve a problem that we have barely any idea it exists never mind how it is caused.
I'm all for doing the things we know are bad for us in the fucking short term, never mind their long term effects. That smog in L.A. - bad idea. Lead in paint and toys and such - bad idea. Ozone emissions - bad idea. Fluoridation of the water - bad idea. Inefficient Internal combustion engines spewing filth into the ecosystem - bad idea. There are literally millions of things that are BAD IDEAS and have immediate consequences to life on this planet that are bad enough to justify the stopping of such things. We do NOT need to cry global warming to have reason to stop them.
Please please please, would someone take the lead and do so with common sense. Lets understand how the Earth's climate machinery works before thinking we can control that machinery. The chances that shifting magnetosphere and solar heating changes have 99.999% of the blame here is as great or greater than the idea that humans have caused this current climate situation. The position of this planet and solar system in relation to the surrounding galaxy has an effect on climate. There are many factors that affect climate or can, that just won't fit inside the 'standard' activist's head. Do these activist go to sleep at night praying that there will be a solar flare tomorrow? Oh god, please help our Sun be normal again?
I'm just asking for common sense. Understand the problem before you begin thinking you can fix it. This is hardly something that governments are good at. Scientists have had to use buzzy sound bites to get any attention for their particular concerns, so the real picture has not been exposed, nor all the players in this game we call the global climate machine of Earth.
First there were dolls, shirts, light sabers and manner of spin-off merchandise. I'm surprised that it took so long to get a MMO going. I expect to see people at scifi conventions dressed like a sith and wearing a belt with digital readout declaring their score/health/karma from the game. It's bound to boost cosplay in North America. The FSM knows we need more of that!
The flood of gambling proxies being set up in
3...
2...
1...
-x... profit
With this new computer, you can:
Send email if you are not John McCain.
Calculate the value of Pi farther than anyone cares really.
Run Vista and Crysis - but not at the same time.
Set up a self aware VM cluster....
Create your own spam botnet
Heat your computer room
Be the coolest guy at the next flashmob computing meet
or... you could .... Watch pr0n
Perhaps I did miss the point? I hope I didn't.
What we don't know is exactly what we'll find and we are kind of running out of time and discoveries on this planet. Time to explore the next great frontier... surface exploration of other solar planets.
I don't think that the great explorers of Earth waited for the very best high tech gear that was possible before they went exploring to find new lands and the poles etc. Whether that seems wise or not, you really will have trouble inventing new and groundbreaking diving gear without getting in the water. What you can discover in your backyard pool is good, but it's not quite the same as experimenting at 275 meters.
Yes, some flight equipment can be tested in Earth atmosphere, yet others can't really be tested except in space, except theoretically. The space race and moon endeavors as well as Mars missions and others have helped add impressive amounts of data to what we do know about space travel. The Voyagers found some interesting information about gravity and our solar system, but that took years. You really can't send men out for that long. We have some information about radiation in space (outside our protective atmosphere/magnetosphere) but more information is needed. Waiting for that information until there are perfected space craft that can't possibly fail will hinder the over-all progress and perhaps cost humanity the chance for a better world. Explorers are not known for their timidity. How many great discoveries by the human species were made while analyzing the failure of other research? Accidents as it were. This is real 'get your hands dirty' science at it's best. Try, experiment, analyze the failures, celebrate the successes, continue to learn.
Your thoughts on what is out there are fair, but based solely on what we think we know so far. What discoveries have been made by the Mars missions? Water ice? It's confirmed. This helps shape how we look at other planets through telescopes and with sensitive instruments orbiting this planet. Each discovery or confirmation of theory builds a greater base of knowledge for our use. While you speculate that we need to first master fusion reactors, perhaps it will be a discovery in our solar system that allows us to do that. Some material or carbon matter that does not exist in any quantity here on Earth. Think about the KT boundary. It was not created by wind and rain. What else can be created by things we do not have in abundance on this planet? Like lack of heat for instance, or constant bombardment by other small bodies, or by radiation that we are protected from.
Your line of thinking seems to be: Lets not go into the store until we are sure we have the best shopping cart, and we know exactly what we are shopping for and are certain that it is available for purchase in the store. Thankfully the early explorers on Earth were not so timid.
From this, I conclude that you are male. I can also conclude that you will probably never run NASA.
As someone who tinkers around with robots, perhaps I can shed some light on the question you ask:
I know slashdot is full of folks who want robots/astronauts actually tromping around, but what's the actual cost/benefit?
There is much to be learned by building robots galore. Intelligent machines can make many tasks much more cost effecting in the 'long run' but will cost much to start, and seem silly for a long while. I say in the long run because what we think we know today is merely the tip of an iceberg. A couple of benefits of robotics engineering experience are: iRobot's vacuum robot and bomb disposal robots for the military and police, the Canadarm on the space shuttle, Automated mechanical assembly (makes things cheaper)
When you consider the cost of sending an unmanned craft halfway across the solar system compared to cost for a similar manned mission, cost savings are incredible. This is more poignant in view of the fact that we are not sure yet why we'd send a manned mission. If robots can do the work necessary for initial and preliminary discoveries, then the cost is greatly reduced. If we find a chemical on the surface of another planet that not only sequesters CO2 but turns it into useful hydrocarbons by mixing it with seawater and sunlight... that would be worth going after a boatload of the stuff. Perhaps by sending robot explorers we find something that could replace all the predicted oil energy with just 10 trips for the next 75 years? What we don't know is exactly what we'll find and we are kind of running out of time and discoveries on this planet. Time to explore the next great frontier... surface exploration of other solar planets.
In the meantime, we take baby steps. Vacuums, IED warriers, manufacturing, toys, and other methods of financing further development. BTW, there are many groups around the globe that are experimenting with robotics in their garages. Some of them are pretty fucking awesome. Here are a couple that I've seen close up and personal that are quite impressive http://www.geology.smu.edu/~dpa-www/myrobots.html They won't be exploring Mars anytime soon, but the principles involved in creating these robots apply to exploring mars as well.
That is the reason for the skycrane. If the air were as dense, a standard parachute landing would be all that is required. The problem is an inability to decelerate to a stop without the sudden stop part. I believe that gliders are also out of the question due to atmospheric conditions. This is a compromise of all known possible options. One that will land the heavier weight, and perhaps give them much greater accuracy in choosing a landing spot... With the speed of the rover hitting the right spot first try can be quite a bit of savings.
Profit is next actually... I have no idea why the story submitter can't believe this. There are some awesome engineering feats that our species has accomplished here on earth. UAVs are awesome. The Thames flood damn is awesome. ISS is awesome. Comms satellites are awesome. Heavy lift helicopters are awesome. VTO spaceships and fighter jets are awesome. Autonomous gliders launched from weather balloons in near space are awesome. Why is it so difficult to believe this Mars mission? The Lunar lander did similar feats. It's even possible to test this with modified equipment right here on earth. I don't understand why this is so difficult to believe, or why some might call it a bad idea?
A soft landing is much preferred to a 6G impact any day, or whatever you call it on Mars. Perfecting this technology might even allow for a more precise landing spot... a little extra fuel and you could hover the lander over to the desired location several kilometers away?
Oh, by the fucking way, that guy who flew his jet powered wing pack over the English Channel is awesome too.
Dear F-Secure,
Please note the implications of this story, then promptly stick your request for Internetpol up your collective asses.
Thank you
The Internet
Don't take it personal. I tried to upset/insult as many groups with evidence of genetic links to their 'situations' as I could think of in a few seconds. Secondly, I did not say it was a disease or flaw, it was a question about genetics, and in that comment more specifically about the link between genetics and the less common sexual orientations. In particular, someone looking to use this to support ID would have to admit that I'm right, or god's plan/design is wrong/imperfect... either that or that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it was in their god's plan all along. Genetic differences have been shown between those of varying sexual orientations. I think over-all, it worked well. Any ill intent should have been seen as aimed at ID proponents rather than at those of the less common sexual orientations.
Indeed, ID fails badly. Even the animal kingdom shows us that homosexuality (as well as other sexual orientations and conditions) is simply part of the very wide array of possibilities. Just as one can not be looked down upon for having imperfect toes, I don't think anyone should be faulted for genetic differences. It may well be yet determined that the hardcore bible thumpers are afflicted with genetic issues that cause them to be as they are. That would still not give them the right to tell everyone else that they have the only answer and the rest of us are wrong.
And back on point, genetic variance disproves the perfect designer theory, so don't take offense, simply enjoy being part of the wonderful array of life on this planet. Remember that not that long ago, left handed people were thought to be possessed by the devil, and by the same folk that would today have you believe that ID is science and true. While I may not easily fit into a category that ID proponents would dislike, I doubt it will take long before they find a category for me. We should all fight against ignorance when given even half a chance.
Personally, I kind of hope these stories are true.. Much preferred to the whack-o magical stuff theists believe, and some big government conspiracy makes much more sense than the thought that all governments all over the world are full of nut-job power hungry ass-wipes.
sigh... I just read that back, I know there is probably no aliens visiting us... but I rather like that explanation best.
You are perhaps right, though the statement: "If every home uses 250 watts/hr less during peak times, we can put off building a 14 billion dollar nuclear power plant for another 17 years" is an easy way to sell the idea that if everyone contributes, it does pay off handsomely for everyone.
I hope that the 'market' comes up with many of the ones that I can think of.
Battery UPS in your PC case... stores power for power outages and uses the battery during startup cycles, thus spreading the draw from the grid to less used times.
EU just made incandescent lights illegal.
Green design homes
Light timer switches with built-in motion sensors and other such devices.
More efficient solar energy. Windows with solar collectors built-in as well as LED lighting so that daylight can continue unabated.
The list goes on. Anything that prevents a 250 watt drain on the grid during peak times will reduce the problem dramatically if millions of homes participated. Say 2 million homes used 250W/hr less at peak times for any given grid supply area: 500MegaWatt hour savings. That's a lot of savings.
In a different sense, the question is as simple as answering this one: How much is your business worth?
You are not a tin foil hat guy, trust me.
Countries have established law against computer crime. An internetpol is not required. The fact that F-Secure is asking for one is quite suspicious to me. You would think they would be in the forefront of telling the police where and who the bad guys are. Maybe they're just jockeying for a fat global contract?
More law enforcement is not needed, more security is. The problem is insecure OS and software platforms, insecure operations processes and policies, insecure user habits and other such things. No manner of Internet police forces will be able to cure those things.
Come to think of it, no manner of thought police would be able to stop me calling F-Secure asshats, and Mr Hypponen chief asshat among them. See how well those thought police work? That's how good Internetpol would work. Just more wasted money, more lost rights, more inconvenience for the good guys, and more fun for the bad guys.
Geez, the DHS at least has physical goals. The Internetpol wouldn't even be able to do that much. How much of the really bad guys on the Internet are hired by governments? by corporations? By people who would thwart the efforts of Internetpol through political means?
Lets just go full tilt into asshatteriness: Make it a capital crime to have an insecure pc operating in your house or under your control. That will ensure it all stops... right?
Growing popularity and infamy... xkcd has been my secret... when I need a laugh, all I have to do is push that 'random' button and life is transformed to the surreal for a few seconds. It's been like a personal 'hyperspace' button. Now, just another meme. sigh
To start with, software has a visible, talking, breathing creator that we can chat with about why they chose to write the code that way. Does ID? when we all can sit down and have a cup of coffee with god, I'll change my mind on this.
Science has been notably wrong before (you know, that whole Earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe thing...), and it routinely discovers information which invalidates previous theories.
I want you to publicly and profoundly apologize to Galileo, right now! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
If there was scientific proof of God's existence, they'd have to change their entire thought model of the Universe, and that change is particularly scary to them.
If... IF... If there was scientific evidence of the existence of a god, a whole bunch of scientists and others would be glad to change their minds about it. The trouble is that there is NO proof, no matter how much you and others claim there is.
If, as ID critics claim, ID really isn't supported by the evidence, it will end up in the trash bin of history. It wouldn't be the first time a wrong theory has been put forth in science, and it will certainly not be the last. But, if we are really going to take a scientific approach to the formation of life on this planet, we should be content to bear with incorrect theories, knowing that eventually the discovery of additional information will settle the issue.
Are you saying that ID is science??? That 'if' is not needed. ID is NOT supported by the evidence. ID is NOT science. We are fervently trying to put ID in the trash bin of history... why do you keep dragging it back out? ID proponents unfathomably 'assume' that life must have been created, and because it seems complex to us right now, it must have been god that created it. There is no proof or science there, only assumptive reasoning to support a creator god.
The creator god of ID is no more real than Thor or Zeus. There is in fact more historical evidence of the latter two than the former... if you count books and stories and temples and statues and such.
One last time: just because you don't understand it, that does NOT mean that there must have been some magic creator god to make it. Did god make the Alps? Or was that due to continental drift? I can go on with more questions like that if you want.
If you want to opine that your god caused the 'big bang' and thus caused all the rest to happen naturally... well, you've got me there. At least until we figure out some way to explain that too. There still is no evidence of the existence of a god in our physical universe, thus no scientific evidence of a god, only nature and the physical universe. Argue with that all you wish to, but please whisper until you find some physical evidence. ID is not science. Creationism is not science. That said, I wholly welcome physical scientific evidence of a god.... the FSM told made me say that.
I know you're joking... but fuck, thoughts like that are damned scary
I find the theory that the universe and earth are fine tuned for life on this planet a ludicrous example of rectal/cranial inversion.
The assumption that the conditions on the planet earth are created just so current life forms can exist presumes that previous life on this planet could have existed in the current conditions. The fossil records seems to indicate that this is not correct.
Life exists here because it formed here. Had it formed on some other planet (and it might have) then it would have formed to suit that environment as if it had been fine tuned for life. Creatures that live on the ocean floor by thermal vents live in an environment that would kill surface lifeforms almost instantly. How is this 'fine tuning' anything? It isn't. Lifeforms evolved to suit a particular environment, not the other way around. Intelligent Design is ludicrous. Ever hear of congenital deformities? With every discovery of a link between genetics and human behavior and disease, ID loses even more. It doesn't appear to be that complex or even intelligent of a design. In fact, more and more it looks like there was no design, that it was all done accidentally, incrementally, and haphazardly. I don't think the appendix was part of the great design for modern man. How many of us actually use or still have wisdom teeth? How are your tonsils doing? Yes, all part of a wonderful design. Are you genetically predisposed to being fat? Gay? Have heart attacks? Cancer? Yes, a wonderfully intelligent design.
so... NO, this discovery does NOT support ID. It supports the theory that life on Earth is a wonderful and amazing accident.
I hope you are modded up handily.... what you say is the truth, and the only reason that such information makes the news. If govt. agencies were doing their job as prescribed, it would not be news. This is simply creating a new evil-doer to distract the minds of Americans while the government continues it's wholesale grab of liberties and Constitutional pinata frenzy.
Mr Orwell would be happy to note that in 4 more years, most Americans will be on a terrorist watch list, augmented heartily by those signing up for unemployment benefits. How much farther down this rabbit hole must we go before government whistle blowers become folk heroes? Will our grandchildren hear stories of Babe the blue ox, superman, and joe whistleblower? I hope so.
Serious issue? Do you mean like preventing Iran from having nucular weapons serious? Perhaps, saving the thousands that die of starvation every day kind of serious? Global climate change kind of serious? AIDS kind of serious? or are you simply talking about 'what costume will I wear this year?' kind of serious?
If it works, nobody will rush out and pay to change it, no matter how much bitching goes on. If it was as serious as malaria, BG would have forced everyone to upgrade to IEfirefox by now. Apparently it's not THAT serious. I mean, when I go to the bank to cash a check, I don't worry they won't give me money unless I can prove I'm using Firefox at home.
geeesh
A very salient point: If they're still a danger to society at large, why the hell are they not behind bars?
Answer: Because without a group of people to vilify there is no easy way to sway the mindset of the public at large. If it were not for sex offenders, it might well be that we'd be protecting the children from godless atheists or some other group. Democrats perhaps? The USA system of democracy has been tortured into a shape that requires a evil-doers in order to function. We HAVE to be at war against something or nobody will vote.
Sad but true.... According to Palin, we're engaged in an economic war right now also. Not sure when that was declared or even if the McCain campaign has spoken with her about this new war, but she has announced it. Beheading of Wall street types who don't own at least 3 cars is to begin next week.
It's clear from your logic that you will NEVER be elected to public office. You just don't seem to have the 'team player' attitude.
Clearly, if politics were left out of this process and all aspects of hiring non-local talent were held up transparently for inspection by local groups representing workers there would be no abuses or problems that news stories and a lawsuit could not fix. The problem is that now politics ARE involved... not even Spiderman or Batman can fix this. Time to scrap the whole thing and start over with something new, something apolitical.
Yeah, wakey wakey, dream time over