1) Make it respond to motion controllers like the Kinect and Move. You can have cues to let the user know when to "pass out" on stage because you're strung out on heroin and Jack Daniels.
2) Make it exclusively for the iPad. Because the kids today love those damned iPad things, right?
3) Add 3D to the game. Put on your glasses to see sad concert sluts throwing their underwear at you...in 3 D !!!!
4) Make it cheaper to buy.....No, fuck that, charge EVEN MORE.
5) Release a retro version for the Commodore 64.
6) Donate 1% of all profits to some fucking charity for whatever fucking disaster happens to be going on at the moment.
7) Do something to sell it to people who can actually remember when there was stuff on the radio besides hip hop, pop, and R&B.
8) Hire some tired, old band who are just sad shadows of their former greatness to promote it. This could be any rock band, really.
9) Do what EA does and just release a new version every year with an updated NFL roster.
10) Just slap some new packaging on it that calls it "Digitally Remastered."
There are realistic limitations. You can't just dismiss anyone who is skeptical of any dream as a limited thinker. Yes, people say things like "They will never be a computer in every home" and are wrong. You can call someone like that a limited thinker. But there is also the guy who says in 1955 "We'll never have flying cars in every garage. Flying vehicles are impractical and inefficient. The technology isn't there to make them practical or usable for average people, and likely never will be. It's a waste of time trying to build them." Sitting in 1955, you might call him a limited thinker too. But you would be wrong. He was merely acknowledging that there are practical limitations and that not every dream can or should be pursued.
Space colonization is so far beyond impractical and to almost warrant a new term. Human space travel over any significant distance is insanely inefficient. The distances between solar systems is almost unimaginably vast. That's the reality.
Do you really believe that in the billions of stars out there that none of them have a planet that has a oxygenated atmosphere and standing water?
Sure, they're out there. We just can't and won't be able to get to them.
One small asteroid (metallic or otherwise) would be worth a massive fortune
No ore would make the expense even close to worth it, even if you could find a meteor that was solid ore. Even a solid gold meteor would be worthless (even if you found a way to get the thing to earth without it costing more than the gold was worth, it would just collapse the gold market).
I had a very similar experience in academia. "Hard" science isn't nearly as hard as most people think. Most of the researchers I knew were unabashed grant-whores who said and did whatever it took to get the next grant, get the next paper published, and (ultimately) get tenure. They would exaggerate their findings, cook their numbers, treat their hypotheses like forgone conclusions, sensationalize and over-publicize their results, and follow whatever hot trends would get them grant money (just look at all the "green energy" and global warming grant applications popping up today if you want modern examples of that). I saw professors who forced their grad students to put their names on articles and papers that the students wrote entirely by themselves. I saw people engage in petty and unethical behavior in the interest of political goals. I saw a lot of stuff that makes me a helluva lot less accepting of the "But science SAYS SO!" mantra that's so popular here on slashdot. The numbers and experiments may not lie, but the people interpreting those numbers and conducting those experiments MOST DEFINITELY do.
The International Space Station would *not* exist in any similar way if it were left to the Russians
That's because the Russians know it's a dead end and a money pit. They already learned that with Mir long ago.
how many cosmonauts do you think there would be if it weren't for the desire to compete with the USA
Conversely, how many astronauts do you think there would be if it weren't for the desire to compete with the Soviets? Remember that NASA *began* as the U.S.'s response to Sputnik.
Human spaceflight would be massively different (and almost nonexistent) if it weren't for American involvement.
Human spaceflight would be massively different (and DEFINITELY nonexistent) if it weren't for Soviet involvement.
Your epitaph is about 40 years too late, my friend. The space shuttle was never about "the future of space exploration," any more than the Gemini/Apollo era was ever about anything other than the Cold War. The shuttle was about politically-connected contractors, jobs, and PR.
Far from promoting science and engineering, NASA has spent most of is existence focusing on political propaganda of one variety or another--to the point where even the basic science of the shuttle and its other programs have been laughably distorted in the popular mind. Most people think the shuttle can do everything from stopping meteors to flying to the moon, largely because NASA has spent so much effort obfuscating the fact that it can't even leave low earth orbit (and has so exaggerated its potential over the years). The "science" that the shuttle has conducted has been more of a reflection of NASA's desperate efforts to keep it relevant (and, hence, keep what little of their budget was left after the Apollo era). It's a similar story with the ISS--a floating lab which does very little real science but which very much gives NASA the ability to justify its yearly appropriations.
As for *actual* exploration, well it's largely a money pit. There are no other inhabitable bodies out there and no way to ever make them sustainable. That's a cold, hard fact. Humans are forever tethered to earth, for good or ill. Escapist fantasies of hopping in space ships to colonize other planets make for great science fiction. But in the real world, in the long term, we need to seriously focus on keeping the earth sustainable and survivable. Because it's all we have, now and forever.
And as for Mars, well, man may very well one day set foot on Mars. But I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that when he does, he won't have a NASA patch on his environmental suit.
Come on, granny, we're trading in our goats for a flashy island! This oil's gonna let us spend our money in ways so obscene and ridiculous that no one will ever guess that that we're really just bedouin trash that can't read and write!
How about "The Incredibly Dangerous Process of Drift-Mining: Strip-Mining's More Eco-Friendly Cousin" and "Daily Life Without The Electricity that Coal Fire Plants Produce"?
She's a Democrat. Democratic negotiating skills can best be described with the analogy of the poker player who starts the game by showing everyone all his cards--then tries to bluff.
No, my first question was "I wonder if the Judge Susan Baxter would be okay if she learned that her U.S. government IT staff were secretly taking webcam pics of her with her federal-owned laptop." After all, it's not her property right? It belongs to the federal government. So I'm sure she would be totally cool with her IT people taking random webcam footage of her whenever they felt like it.
The guys that control the purse strings are politicians. And politicians are owned by big pharma. Just go look at how much money the big drug companies hand out in political donations every campaign cycle. It's up to over $30 million now. And that's just DIRECT giving to FEDERAL candidates. That doesn't include all their proxy non-profits (with their "public interest" ad money) and state giving.
I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations
You mean the investigations that Scotland Yard has already swept under the rug and tried to kill several times? Yeah, we wouldn't want to compromise those thorough investigations by competent, unbiased police officers. Shit, I heard they're going to put Sherlock Holmes on it, just the make sure that Scotland Yard's unblemished reputation in this matter is upheld.
Yes, they do. But inter-library loan (at my library anyway) is very slow (we're talking 2 months or more to get anything) and very restrictive (there are all kinds of guidelines on the types of books you can and can't get through loan). You most definitely wouldn't be able to get graphic novels.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Make it respond to motion controllers like the Kinect and Move. You can have cues to let the user know when to "pass out" on stage because you're strung out on heroin and Jack Daniels.
2) Make it exclusively for the iPad. Because the kids today love those damned iPad things, right?
3) Add 3D to the game. Put on your glasses to see sad concert sluts throwing their underwear at you...in 3 D !!!!
4) Make it cheaper to buy.....No, fuck that, charge EVEN MORE.
5) Release a retro version for the Commodore 64.
6) Donate 1% of all profits to some fucking charity for whatever fucking disaster happens to be going on at the moment.
7) Do something to sell it to people who can actually remember when there was stuff on the radio besides hip hop, pop, and R&B.
8) Hire some tired, old band who are just sad shadows of their former greatness to promote it. This could be any rock band, really.
9) Do what EA does and just release a new version every year with an updated NFL roster.
10) Just slap some new packaging on it that calls it "Digitally Remastered."
There are realistic limitations. You can't just dismiss anyone who is skeptical of any dream as a limited thinker. Yes, people say things like "They will never be a computer in every home" and are wrong. You can call someone like that a limited thinker. But there is also the guy who says in 1955 "We'll never have flying cars in every garage. Flying vehicles are impractical and inefficient. The technology isn't there to make them practical or usable for average people, and likely never will be. It's a waste of time trying to build them." Sitting in 1955, you might call him a limited thinker too. But you would be wrong. He was merely acknowledging that there are practical limitations and that not every dream can or should be pursued.
Space colonization is so far beyond impractical and to almost warrant a new term. Human space travel over any significant distance is insanely inefficient. The distances between solar systems is almost unimaginably vast. That's the reality.
Do you really believe that in the billions of stars out there that none of them have a planet that has a oxygenated atmosphere and standing water?
Sure, they're out there. We just can't and won't be able to get to them.
One small asteroid (metallic or otherwise) would be worth a massive fortune
No ore would make the expense even close to worth it, even if you could find a meteor that was solid ore. Even a solid gold meteor would be worthless (even if you found a way to get the thing to earth without it costing more than the gold was worth, it would just collapse the gold market).
I had a very similar experience in academia. "Hard" science isn't nearly as hard as most people think. Most of the researchers I knew were unabashed grant-whores who said and did whatever it took to get the next grant, get the next paper published, and (ultimately) get tenure. They would exaggerate their findings, cook their numbers, treat their hypotheses like forgone conclusions, sensationalize and over-publicize their results, and follow whatever hot trends would get them grant money (just look at all the "green energy" and global warming grant applications popping up today if you want modern examples of that). I saw professors who forced their grad students to put their names on articles and papers that the students wrote entirely by themselves. I saw people engage in petty and unethical behavior in the interest of political goals. I saw a lot of stuff that makes me a helluva lot less accepting of the "But science SAYS SO!" mantra that's so popular here on slashdot. The numbers and experiments may not lie, but the people interpreting those numbers and conducting those experiments MOST DEFINITELY do.
But Mr. President, we must not allow a space gap!
The International Space Station would *not* exist in any similar way if it were left to the Russians
That's because the Russians know it's a dead end and a money pit. They already learned that with Mir long ago.
how many cosmonauts do you think there would be if it weren't for the desire to compete with the USA
Conversely, how many astronauts do you think there would be if it weren't for the desire to compete with the Soviets? Remember that NASA *began* as the U.S.'s response to Sputnik.
Human spaceflight would be massively different (and almost nonexistent) if it weren't for American involvement.
Human spaceflight would be massively different (and DEFINITELY nonexistent) if it weren't for Soviet involvement.
Your epitaph is about 40 years too late, my friend. The space shuttle was never about "the future of space exploration," any more than the Gemini/Apollo era was ever about anything other than the Cold War. The shuttle was about politically-connected contractors, jobs, and PR.
Far from promoting science and engineering, NASA has spent most of is existence focusing on political propaganda of one variety or another--to the point where even the basic science of the shuttle and its other programs have been laughably distorted in the popular mind. Most people think the shuttle can do everything from stopping meteors to flying to the moon, largely because NASA has spent so much effort obfuscating the fact that it can't even leave low earth orbit (and has so exaggerated its potential over the years). The "science" that the shuttle has conducted has been more of a reflection of NASA's desperate efforts to keep it relevant (and, hence, keep what little of their budget was left after the Apollo era). It's a similar story with the ISS--a floating lab which does very little real science but which very much gives NASA the ability to justify its yearly appropriations.
As for *actual* exploration, well it's largely a money pit. There are no other inhabitable bodies out there and no way to ever make them sustainable. That's a cold, hard fact. Humans are forever tethered to earth, for good or ill. Escapist fantasies of hopping in space ships to colonize other planets make for great science fiction. But in the real world, in the long term, we need to seriously focus on keeping the earth sustainable and survivable. Because it's all we have, now and forever.
And as for Mars, well, man may very well one day set foot on Mars. But I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that when he does, he won't have a NASA patch on his environmental suit.
Come on, granny, we're trading in our goats for a flashy island! This oil's gonna let us spend our money in ways so obscene and ridiculous that no one will ever guess that that we're really just bedouin trash that can't read and write!
I just hope they get it on video for the Smithsonian. I cried last night at the last defecation.
And even when the Republicans loose a hand, the Democrats still timidly let the Republicans take all the chips.
How about "The Incredibly Dangerous Process of Drift-Mining: Strip-Mining's More Eco-Friendly Cousin" and "Daily Life Without The Electricity that Coal Fire Plants Produce"?
only two options available to them legally
Most of the cops I've ever known would take a third option if you tried that with them, namely:
Option 3: Drag you out of view of the camera and beat the shit out of you.
NASA doesn't have is consistently competent management, accounting, or engineering.
Yeah, but their PR department is second-to-none.
She's a Democrat. Democratic negotiating skills can best be described with the analogy of the poker player who starts the game by showing everyone all his cards--then tries to bluff.
Lord Vishnu thanks you, Hilary.
No, my first question was "I wonder if the Judge Susan Baxter would be okay if she learned that her U.S. government IT staff were secretly taking webcam pics of her with her federal-owned laptop." After all, it's not her property right? It belongs to the federal government. So I'm sure she would be totally cool with her IT people taking random webcam footage of her whenever they felt like it.
The guys that control the purse strings are politicians. And politicians are owned by big pharma. Just go look at how much money the big drug companies hand out in political donations every campaign cycle. It's up to over $30 million now. And that's just DIRECT giving to FEDERAL candidates. That doesn't include all their proxy non-profits (with their "public interest" ad money) and state giving.
So yeah, good luck with that.
They've already got a nice honeypot up and running, staffed by their old plant at Wikileaks no less.
And I hear some of them were actual attacks and not just counterintelligence operations to discredit them.
Shit, they CREATED astronautics.
Spy satellite turned *away* from earth.
I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations
You mean the investigations that Scotland Yard has already swept under the rug and tried to kill several times? Yeah, we wouldn't want to compromise those thorough investigations by competent, unbiased police officers. Shit, I heard they're going to put Sherlock Holmes on it, just the make sure that Scotland Yard's unblemished reputation in this matter is upheld.
How could they do such a cruel thing to the good people at News of the World?!?!?
Yes, they do. But inter-library loan (at my library anyway) is very slow (we're talking 2 months or more to get anything) and very restrictive (there are all kinds of guidelines on the types of books you can and can't get through loan). You most definitely wouldn't be able to get graphic novels.
Come on, the NYC library isn't exactly typical.