supersonic flights were banned over land because the sonic booms annoyed people. This problem persist to this day.
Now if the aliens (for the sake of this argument assume they exist... if you don't, feel free to ignore this post and not reply to it) are flying about in their saucers in the atmosphere at high speeds, why haven't people on the ground heard sonic booms? Is there something about the saucer shape that prevents sonic booms from propagating to ground level?
so, just eat 2 meals a day in restaurants. That's what I do, I've been skinny all my life (and still am)
The idea that you need 3 square meals a day came from ancient times when most people did hard physical labor (such as farming) for a living. Doesn't apply to computer desk jockeys.
And if you think bongs and such haven't already been printed you aren't paying attention. Legislate shops all ya want, won't matter soon.
Who cares if you can print bongs? I can carve one out with my pocket knife. But if you can print some quality marijuana and heroin, then we'd be talkin'.
no ceramic or plastic can withstand the stresses of being fired through or repeatedly compressed
What if you don't need to fire repeatedly, only a few times... like in the Clint Eastwood movie where John Malkovich is the assassin, and he builds a polymer gun to sneak it past the metal detector and kill the president?
Since you're a scientist, what do you sense from the other scientists you know, regarding "climate scientists"?
I know a few people who do hard science, and they regard climatology about as scientific as sociology and child psychology.
From TFA: "the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate"
Possible reason for this is that climatology doesn't quite pass the bullshit detector test. Every summer when it gets hot, they proclaim it's the hottest year in the history of the universe. But in the winter when it gets really cold and snows a lot, they say it's just the weather not climate. (even though in their private emails they express sorrow at the record low temperature in Denver and what a travesty it is)
how else are you going to convert heat (from fission or fusion or coal burning or whatever) into electricity? Steam turbine is our best method.
According to Bob Lazar, aliens use a "near-100 percent efficient" thermoelectric generator to convert the heat (from antimatter annihilation) into electricity. Unfortunately the CIA is keeping it under wraps so we don't have it.
well, that might work if you're the government. South Korea does that; you must register with your real name and your national ID number (roughly equivalent to social security #)
Works pretty well for handling trolls/spam/abusers but it would never fly here... anonymous free speech being guaranteed in writing and all
to spend his money providing free birth control rather than trying to wipe out disease in the Third World. That would be the most effective use of his money.
Preventing childhood disease is a laudable goal, but that just brings more misery in the long run from overpopulation -- unless you also bring them up to First World standards in education, economy and infrastructure. And I don't think Bill has enough money to do that. There's probably not enough money on the planet to do that actually.
But I can understand why he does what he does. Who wants their legacy to be "The Great Population Reducer"? Everybody will hate him, from the religious who oppose abortion and birth control, to the liberals who will accuse him of genocide for preventing the blacks and browns from having babies. On the other hand, save children from dying by malaria and everyone will applaud him. Safe choice.
in California, the Lords of Silicon Valley send in their hired goons** I mean, the Cupertino Police, and raid your house. That's how things get done on the west coast.
Put more simply: If you ever have need to take up arms against the federal government, then you wouldn't care what the 2nd Amendment --or any amendment-- actually said. Until that time, you're pretty much just making excuses (because guns are fun, because they make you feel like more of a man than you are, because you want an object that guarantees you to have more power than someone else, etc).
You can't have an armed rebellion if there are no arms to be had. Firearm and ammunition manufacturing isn't something one does in his garage on a moment's notice.
Having an armed and informed citizenry is a deterrent to a would-be tyrant. This is not something that escaped the founders.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but I would add that an occasional nut going crazy and killing a dozen people is also part of the price we pay.
Gun control activists like to say, "But in [insert western democracy nation] guns are forbidden and they're just as free as we are."
That's true today, but it wasn't in 1780. It may not be true 50 years from now.
It (reason or explanation for the 2nd Amend.) is not in the Constitution. But then, the Constitution is not an essay or a diary.
How the writers of the Constitution felt about the issue is well known, however. From this you can reasonably infer that yes, one of the reasons the Founders put that "right to bear arms" thingie in there was as a backup strategy in case the Federal government becomes a tyranny.
Example:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" --Thomas Jefferson
I'm no botanist but I doubt sunlight intensity will be a problem. Sunlight on Mars is like 50%-60% of Earth and the shortfall can be compensated for with LED lights or mirrors like you said. Plants that grow in the shade (on earth) wouldn't even need any supplemental lighting.
Oh you wouldn't have to dig down that far. You wouldn't even need to dig 100 meters let alone 1km. Probably 30 meters underground and you'd have a nice comfy bunker.
Problem is, digging out an underground base 30 meters deep would require bringing heavy earthmoving equipment. Those things weigh a lot, like 20 tons each. Plus you need to make the bunker structurally sound, so you need to bring steel reinforcing beams etc. and that's a lot of weight also. And the people are gonna need spacesuits that can withstand 1000 degree temperatures for extended periods and that's gonna be *very* hard. All of this can be avoided simply by going to Mars and bringing along a couple of nuclear generators.
NASA, Russians, Chinese and everybody else all have drawn up some kind of a plan for a manned Mars mission at one time or another. As far as I know nobody has planned a manned Mercury mission. Because the heat makes it freaking hard.
Nobody asked this question: what happens when one of your permanent Mars colonists gets cancer or some other disease
Then they fucking die.
Even worse if the disease is one that does have a high cure rate on Earth. Imagine the headlines then.
I'd imagine the headlines would be like, "MARS COLONIST X DIES OF CANCER"
This problem alone is likely to mean the project will never happen.
If all of mankind consisted of ninnies, pantywaists and worrywarts who desired 100% safety 100% of the time and worried about the sky falling all day, then yes I agree with you. Otherwise no, there are people who like adventure and willing to take risks.
That is a legitimate concern. Looking for sources of nitrogen will be one of the first things that the colonists will be doing, I imagine.
Meanwhile, you bring the nitrogen with you. The nitrogen requirements for a small colony isn't so huge as to be a deal-breaker... the weight of it would be a small fraction of the water and food you'll be bringing along.
They opened the Olympics to professional athletes to make it fair. Most of the "amateurs" competing in the Olympics prior to this were already professionals in all but name. As in, if you displayed talent in a sport that was an Olympic event, the Politburo would give you a monthly stipend so that you can train full time. They would assign coaches (usually former gold medalists) to help you, paid by the government. And they would give you a monetary prize for winning a medal... 5,000 rubles for a bronze, 10,000 for silver, etc. Yet they still qualified as amateurs because their official job title was "university student" or "factory worker" or whatever.
Sounds just like what "climate scientists" are doing to scientific skeptics.
Well yes, some of the more rabid climate scientists try to silence their critics... I guess we can call them Climascientologists... but they don't go nearly as far as Scientology does. They're not even in the same league, really.
And although one prominent climate scientist has expressed his desire to physically assault a AGW-skeptical scientist, as far as I know nobody has actually used physical violence yet. Scientology on the other had long history of violence and abuse against its own members who fall out of line.
It's just an unfortunate side of human nature, people tend to want to to shut people up who disagree with them. And beat em up. It takes civilized behavior to not do it.
they would no longer need to make a spectacle of themselves.
Except that the "pioneers" selected to go would most likely be Kardashian-type personalities who would rather slit their wrists than turn down an opportunity to mug in front of a camera.
And there's also the fact that additional supply missions or even a return trip are distinct possibilities, if SpaceX's booster reusability plans succeed... but only if the pioneers remain in good graces with the people of Earth and the project is a commercial success. (good TV ratings)
Really, what's with all the pessimism, why point out every possible way it can't work, instead of getting excited by a grand adventure and seeing how it *can* work? Not just the parent, but seems like every other post is full of naysayers.
Slashdot Mirror
supersonic flights were banned over land because the sonic booms annoyed people. This problem persist to this day.
Now if the aliens (for the sake of this argument assume they exist... if you don't, feel free to ignore this post and not reply to it) are flying about in their saucers in the atmosphere at high speeds, why haven't people on the ground heard sonic booms? Is there something about the saucer shape that prevents sonic booms from propagating to ground level?
so, just eat 2 meals a day in restaurants. That's what I do, I've been skinny all my life (and still am)
The idea that you need 3 square meals a day came from ancient times when most people did hard physical labor (such as farming) for a living. Doesn't apply to computer desk jockeys.
And if you think bongs and such haven't already been printed you aren't paying attention. Legislate shops all ya want, won't matter soon.
Who cares if you can print bongs? I can carve one out with my pocket knife. But if you can print some quality marijuana and heroin, then we'd be talkin'.
no ceramic or plastic can withstand the stresses of being fired through or repeatedly compressed
What if you don't need to fire repeatedly, only a few times... like in the Clint Eastwood movie where John Malkovich is the assassin, and he builds a polymer gun to sneak it past the metal detector and kill the president?
Many people still deny climate change is human made
Including some of the smartest people alive on the planet, such as Freeman Dyson
despite its blatant obviousness
What's blatantly obvious to a true believer isn't necessarily so to the skeptic.
Since you're a scientist, what do you sense from the other scientists you know, regarding "climate scientists"?
I know a few people who do hard science, and they regard climatology about as scientific as sociology and child psychology.
From TFA: "the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate"
Possible reason for this is that climatology doesn't quite pass the bullshit detector test. Every summer when it gets hot, they proclaim it's the hottest year in the history of the universe. But in the winter when it gets really cold and snows a lot, they say it's just the weather not climate. (even though in their private emails they express sorrow at the record low temperature in Denver and what a travesty it is)
how else are you going to convert heat (from fission or fusion or coal burning or whatever) into electricity? Steam turbine is our best method.
According to Bob Lazar, aliens use a "near-100 percent efficient" thermoelectric generator to convert the heat (from antimatter annihilation) into electricity. Unfortunately the CIA is keeping it under wraps so we don't have it.
well, that might work if you're the government. South Korea does that; you must register with your real name and your national ID number (roughly equivalent to social security #)
Works pretty well for handling trolls/spam/abusers but it would never fly here... anonymous free speech being guaranteed in writing and all
are good at gymnastics...
to spend his money providing free birth control rather than trying to wipe out disease in the Third World. That would be the most effective use of his money.
Preventing childhood disease is a laudable goal, but that just brings more misery in the long run from overpopulation -- unless you also bring them up to First World standards in education, economy and infrastructure. And I don't think Bill has enough money to do that. There's probably not enough money on the planet to do that actually.
But I can understand why he does what he does. Who wants their legacy to be "The Great Population Reducer"? Everybody will hate him, from the religious who oppose abortion and birth control, to the liberals who will accuse him of genocide for preventing the blacks and browns from having babies. On the other hand, save children from dying by malaria and everyone will applaud him. Safe choice.
in California, the Lords of Silicon Valley send in their hired goons** I mean, the Cupertino Police, and raid your house. That's how things get done on the west coast.
Put more simply: If you ever have need to take up arms against the federal government, then you wouldn't care what the 2nd Amendment --or any amendment-- actually said. Until that time, you're pretty much just making excuses (because guns are fun, because they make you feel like more of a man than you are, because you want an object that guarantees you to have more power than someone else, etc).
You can't have an armed rebellion if there are no arms to be had. Firearm and ammunition manufacturing isn't something one does in his garage on a moment's notice.
Having an armed and informed citizenry is a deterrent to a would-be tyrant. This is not something that escaped the founders.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but I would add that an occasional nut going crazy and killing a dozen people is also part of the price we pay.
Gun control activists like to say, "But in [insert western democracy nation] guns are forbidden and they're just as free as we are."
That's true today, but it wasn't in 1780. It may not be true 50 years from now.
It (reason or explanation for the 2nd Amend.) is not in the Constitution. But then, the Constitution is not an essay or a diary.
How the writers of the Constitution felt about the issue is well known, however. From this you can reasonably infer that yes, one of the reasons the Founders put that "right to bear arms" thingie in there was as a backup strategy in case the Federal government becomes a tyranny.
Example:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" --Thomas Jefferson
I'm no botanist but I doubt sunlight intensity will be a problem. Sunlight on Mars is like 50%-60% of Earth and the shortfall can be compensated for with LED lights or mirrors like you said. Plants that grow in the shade (on earth) wouldn't even need any supplemental lighting.
Sufficient for what?
Sufficient to run a colony.
Surely a km or two below the surface would help?
Oh you wouldn't have to dig down that far. You wouldn't even need to dig 100 meters let alone 1km. Probably 30 meters underground and you'd have a nice comfy bunker.
Problem is, digging out an underground base 30 meters deep would require bringing heavy earthmoving equipment. Those things weigh a lot, like 20 tons each. Plus you need to make the bunker structurally sound, so you need to bring steel reinforcing beams etc. and that's a lot of weight also. And the people are gonna need spacesuits that can withstand 1000 degree temperatures for extended periods and that's gonna be *very* hard. All of this can be avoided simply by going to Mars and bringing along a couple of nuclear generators.
NASA, Russians, Chinese and everybody else all have drawn up some kind of a plan for a manned Mars mission at one time or another. As far as I know nobody has planned a manned Mercury mission. Because the heat makes it freaking hard.
Nobody asked this question: what happens when one of your permanent Mars colonists gets cancer or some other disease
Then they fucking die.
Even worse if the disease is one that does have a high cure rate on Earth. Imagine the headlines then.
I'd imagine the headlines would be like, "MARS COLONIST X DIES OF CANCER"
This problem alone is likely to mean the project will never happen.
If all of mankind consisted of ninnies, pantywaists and worrywarts who desired 100% safety 100% of the time and worried about the sky falling all day, then yes I agree with you. Otherwise no, there are people who like adventure and willing to take risks.
That is a legitimate concern. Looking for sources of nitrogen will be one of the first things that the colonists will be doing, I imagine.
Meanwhile, you bring the nitrogen with you. The nitrogen requirements for a small colony isn't so huge as to be a deal-breaker... the weight of it would be a small fraction of the water and food you'll be bringing along.
I think the difficulty of coping with the high temperatures on Mercury offsets any solar energy bonus. And then some.
It's not like lack of energy on Mars is a critical problem, we already know how to get/generate sufficient energy there.
They're going to solve the dust problem on the Moon by simply not going there. They're going to Mars instead.
They opened the Olympics to professional athletes to make it fair. Most of the "amateurs" competing in the Olympics prior to this were already professionals in all but name. As in, if you displayed talent in a sport that was an Olympic event, the Politburo would give you a monthly stipend so that you can train full time. They would assign coaches (usually former gold medalists) to help you, paid by the government. And they would give you a monetary prize for winning a medal... 5,000 rubles for a bronze, 10,000 for silver, etc. Yet they still qualified as amateurs because their official job title was "university student" or "factory worker" or whatever.
Sounds just like what "climate scientists" are doing to scientific skeptics.
Well yes, some of the more rabid climate scientists try to silence their critics... I guess we can call them Climascientologists... but they don't go nearly as far as Scientology does. They're not even in the same league, really.
And although one prominent climate scientist has expressed his desire to physically assault a AGW-skeptical scientist, as far as I know nobody has actually used physical violence yet. Scientology on the other had long history of violence and abuse against its own members who fall out of line.
It's just an unfortunate side of human nature, people tend to want to to shut people up who disagree with them. And beat em up. It takes civilized behavior to not do it.
Will we be able to shield or block the Higgs from interacting with other particles, leading to a reduction in mass (and therefore weight?)
EOM
Maybe a Mars landing cheapened by commercials is better than no Mars landing?
I don't see the government of (wherever it is you live) spending any money on a manned Mars mission, do you?
A 9-month weightless journey is not really that long-term. We already had people in orbit for *years*, they did fairly well after returning to Earth.
they would no longer need to make a spectacle of themselves.
Except that the "pioneers" selected to go would most likely be Kardashian-type personalities who would rather slit their wrists than turn down an opportunity to mug in front of a camera.
And there's also the fact that additional supply missions or even a return trip are distinct possibilities, if SpaceX's booster reusability plans succeed... but only if the pioneers remain in good graces with the people of Earth and the project is a commercial success. (good TV ratings)
Really, what's with all the pessimism, why point out every possible way it can't work, instead of getting excited by a grand adventure and seeing how it *can* work? Not just the parent, but seems like every other post is full of naysayers.