Part of the issue, as I understand it, is it's sort of an "all or nothing" arrangement.
If I'm selling Android phones, I can't pre-install Google Maps without also installing Google's Search Bar and various other Google apps. So if I want to install Google Maps and install Yandex's Search Bar, I'm SOL.
I think it is an objective truth that sending humans to space is costlier and more error prone than unmanned probes.
And where does this "objective truth" come from?
When it comes to expense, I think we have good evidence for your argument. The US Apollo program certainly cost more than the robotic missions that were sent by the Soviet Union, although how much more might be difficult to judge.
But here's an interesting question: How much knowledge did we gain versus the cost?
Consider moon rocks, for example. I believe there were three successful Soviet sample return missions (and about six failures--which might speak to your statement of "error prone") which returned, in total, 326 grams. The Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of rocks and soil from different areas. That's over 1000x more! So if Apollo cost less than 1000-times the Soviet Luna program, wouldn't you say we got more value for our money than with robotic probes?
Also, that is one advantage of a manned program--they're coming back to Earth and can bring stuff back for further study. Robotic missions are not coming back and, therefore, have to carry automated labs with them.
In my personal opinion, you will get more knowledge per dollar spent from a manned mission than you will from a robotic mission. But you will be spending a lot more dollars. And it's harder to convince the American taxpayer that it's worth spending a trillion dollars, say, to send people to Mars to collect information than it is to convince them to spend 200 million dollars 5000 times.
There have been different Batmobiles throughout the history of the comic and movies
I'll admit, that has my curious.
If you look here, for example, you will see various versions of the Batmobile.
So is it the issue that this person is making his own "Batmobiles"? If he made really cool-looking cars but didn't market them as "Batmobiles", would that make a difference?
speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely
[...] But actually trying to incite hacking into systems right now, or actually trying to incite murder right now, are outside the boundaries of protection.
FTFY.
If I say, "Someday I'm gonna murder the mayor," I'm okay. If I say, "C'mon, everybody, grab your guns! We're gonna march on city hall and kill the mayor!" and people start doing it, the cops can come in and arrest me for my speech. But I would also assume that if I said that and everybody laughed and kept playing parcheesi, I'm okay.
As I understand it, you can say whatever you want. However, the first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. If you incite people to do something illegal and they actually do it, you can be held accountable for their actions. So if I suggest to my adoring fans that they go out and shoot someone and one of them does because I suggested it, I can be arrested as an accessory or some-such to the murder. As I understand it, it even goes as far as if I say, "I wish my boss were dead" and my adoring sweetheart goes out and kills my boss to make me happy, I can be arrested.
How many successful landings has anybody had from landing a 5 story tall launch vehicle above the Karman Line (aka what is commonly thought of as actually outer space) and then landing that rocket on a barge in the ocean?
None. On the other hand, if I say I am going to walk barefoot on water and I fail, I doubt you would be so quick to say that, "Oh, he almost made it that time..."
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. SpaceX can try as many times as they like and I'm rooting for them to figure out a way to do it. And they're not necessarily losing anything, since the first stage would be thrown away anyhow. If I were an investor--and I'm not--about the only question I might be asking would be how much are they spending to develop this technology and how much money do they think they'll save--in short, what is the ROI for something like this? If you end up spending $100 million to save $1 million, that means 100 or so launches until you see the profit from your work.
I imagine that Elon Musk and the folks at SpaceX have calculated it out and decided it's worthwhile.
To me, it depends on how many do what as to whether it "makes more sense."
"Makes more sense" is a personal thing. For example, I hate enclosed vehicles. I have owned one of them in my entire life and I hated driving it. I love convertibles and I won't buy a non-convertible. It's off the table, period. Yes, this means I might pay more for a vehicle that I want to be in. I could buy an enclosed econobox car that gets better gas mileage, can't accelerate worth a damn, and is uncomfortable to ride in for cheaper. But, to me, it's worth it.
If it is worth it for you to own your own vehicle and not have to deal with the smells of vomit, piss, and bad body odor that you might have to deal with from an autonomous vehicle transportation service, you go for it.
See, everybody seems to want to make this jump. "Oh, da gubmint won't let us own our own vehicles anymore! We'll have to join this socialist collective where da gubmint will watch everywhere we go!" I don't see that happening. What I see is that the proverbial "invisible hand of the market" will probably decide. Where these vehicles make sense, people will choose them. Where "autonomous vehicle transportation services" makes sense, people will choose them. Where public transit makes sense, people will choose it.
What's scary, of course, is that you might discover that your preferences are a minority and that might affect the market. Suppose the vast majority of people decide they prefer to be driven around by a machine while texting their friends rather than having to spend 20 minutes "off-line" while driving a car. So companies decide there isn't enough of a market for people who prefer to drive themselves and stop selling cars which you can drive or they make fewer "drivable" cars and, therefore, have to charge more in order to recoup their costs, pricing you out of the market.
Years ago, they invented this thing called the "On/Off" switch. You probably have similar things in your house for controlling lights and such.
I have a little roadster which is fun to drive--in certain environments. But it's annoying to drive in other environments. I would have no problem with a car that is flexible enough that I can say, "Hey, car, drive me home" and yet, if I was up in the mountains and the road was pretty empty, I could say, "Hey, car, I'll take it from here" and have a fun drive.
About the only issue I can see, from a commercial point-of-view, is that those delays may mean I have to wait for my satellite to be operational. You need to have "perfect" weather now in two places across the globe.
[...] concepts that many of "those in the 40s, 50s, and 60s who actually laid out how to do this stuff" said couldn't be done in the first place.... yet here is SpaceX actually doing it.
Well, I think part of his argument is that they aren't doing it. How many successful landings have they had on their barge?
That said, my attitude--since this is a private company--is go for it. It's not costing me anything for them to try, they may figure out what would be necessary (more fuel? better engines?) to do it, and I occasionally get to see cool blowey-upey videos.
If it were my tax dollars at work? Tricky call, but I'd probably still be in favor. Many of the above points are still valid and, as SpaceX might say, it's not like they've lost anything because the booster would have just ended up in the ocean anyway.
I like to see companies try new things, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.
Well, as I understand it, one difference between Harrison Ford and the rest of the cast is that Harrison had a piece of the revenue the movie made. So he ended up making a heck of a lot more money than the rest of them.
Maybe he's also getting a piece of the action of the revenue from the ride. In which case, hell yeah, he'd be up to promote it.
Further, concerning the 1789 "All Writs Act", signed by George Washington back before there was much Federal law at all.
Actually, I'm wandering a bit off-topic, but this "All Writs Act" could be awesome.
Recently, Northrop-Grumman announced their new B-21 strategic bomber. They're going to build them at a cost to the taxpayer of $800 million per.
Nope! "All Writs Act!"
That's right, with the "All Writs Act," all the government needs is a court order saying that this is important for "National Security" and, bingo, Northrop-Grumman has to figure out how to build it for free!
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the food. Did they have a vegan alternative?
...which is why women make such lousy lawyers.
(Sorry...couldn't resist. No, I don't think women make lousy lawyers.)
As for Google Maps and Play Services, Android would break if they weren't present.
I remember Microsoft saying the same about Internet Explorer.
I buy iPhones for a similar reason.
Yeah. If only I could get rid of that Stocks app, or Voice Memos, or Newsstand, or the Tips app...
Part of the issue, as I understand it, is it's sort of an "all or nothing" arrangement.
If I'm selling Android phones, I can't pre-install Google Maps without also installing Google's Search Bar and various other Google apps. So if I want to install Google Maps and install Yandex's Search Bar, I'm SOL.
What will they be doing? Proving that they can go where ever it is they're going.
And making sure the equipment actually works. I assume you'd be first in line to bitch about NASA not doing any testing if something went wrong.
Apollo 9 astronauts spent 10 days orbiting the Earth with a LEM, right? I mean, what a fucking waste! They should have just gone to the Moon.
Nope. Y. Ono.
It's not very quiet.
Bye-Bye Empire, Bye-Bye.
[...] you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".
Why not? Why invite reprisals?
When you dropped cherry bombs down the toilets in high school, did you let the principal know you did it? Hell no!
I think it is an objective truth that sending humans to space is costlier and more error prone than unmanned probes.
And where does this "objective truth" come from?
When it comes to expense, I think we have good evidence for your argument. The US Apollo program certainly cost more than the robotic missions that were sent by the Soviet Union, although how much more might be difficult to judge.
But here's an interesting question: How much knowledge did we gain versus the cost?
Consider moon rocks, for example. I believe there were three successful Soviet sample return missions (and about six failures--which might speak to your statement of "error prone") which returned, in total, 326 grams. The Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of rocks and soil from different areas. That's over 1000x more! So if Apollo cost less than 1000-times the Soviet Luna program, wouldn't you say we got more value for our money than with robotic probes?
Also, that is one advantage of a manned program--they're coming back to Earth and can bring stuff back for further study. Robotic missions are not coming back and, therefore, have to carry automated labs with them.
In my personal opinion, you will get more knowledge per dollar spent from a manned mission than you will from a robotic mission. But you will be spending a lot more dollars. And it's harder to convince the American taxpayer that it's worth spending a trillion dollars, say, to send people to Mars to collect information than it is to convince them to spend 200 million dollars 5000 times.
...Or Spinning Logos.
In a completely unrelated story, CoinStar announces an extra $20,000 in profit from machines around the Alabama area...
There have been different Batmobiles throughout the history of the comic and movies
I'll admit, that has my curious.
If you look here, for example, you will see various versions of the Batmobile.
So is it the issue that this person is making his own "Batmobiles"? If he made really cool-looking cars but didn't market them as "Batmobiles", would that make a difference?
speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely
[...] But actually trying to incite hacking into systems right now, or actually trying to incite murder right now, are outside the boundaries of protection.
FTFY.
If I say, "Someday I'm gonna murder the mayor," I'm okay. If I say, "C'mon, everybody, grab your guns! We're gonna march on city hall and kill the mayor!" and people start doing it, the cops can come in and arrest me for my speech. But I would also assume that if I said that and everybody laughed and kept playing parcheesi, I'm okay.
As I understand it, you can say whatever you want. However, the first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. If you incite people to do something illegal and they actually do it, you can be held accountable for their actions. So if I suggest to my adoring fans that they go out and shoot someone and one of them does because I suggested it, I can be arrested as an accessory or some-such to the murder. As I understand it, it even goes as far as if I say, "I wish my boss were dead" and my adoring sweetheart goes out and kills my boss to make me happy, I can be arrested.
These guys are a couple of idiots [...]
What part of "Florida" didn't you understand?
It's just a government jobs program.
How many successful landings has anybody had from landing a 5 story tall launch vehicle above the Karman Line (aka what is commonly thought of as actually outer space) and then landing that rocket on a barge in the ocean?
None. On the other hand, if I say I am going to walk barefoot on water and I fail, I doubt you would be so quick to say that, "Oh, he almost made it that time..."
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. SpaceX can try as many times as they like and I'm rooting for them to figure out a way to do it. And they're not necessarily losing anything, since the first stage would be thrown away anyhow. If I were an investor--and I'm not--about the only question I might be asking would be how much are they spending to develop this technology and how much money do they think they'll save--in short, what is the ROI for something like this? If you end up spending $100 million to save $1 million, that means 100 or so launches until you see the profit from your work.
I imagine that Elon Musk and the folks at SpaceX have calculated it out and decided it's worthwhile.
To me, it depends on how many do what as to whether it "makes more sense."
"Makes more sense" is a personal thing. For example, I hate enclosed vehicles. I have owned one of them in my entire life and I hated driving it. I love convertibles and I won't buy a non-convertible. It's off the table, period. Yes, this means I might pay more for a vehicle that I want to be in. I could buy an enclosed econobox car that gets better gas mileage, can't accelerate worth a damn, and is uncomfortable to ride in for cheaper. But, to me, it's worth it.
If it is worth it for you to own your own vehicle and not have to deal with the smells of vomit, piss, and bad body odor that you might have to deal with from an autonomous vehicle transportation service, you go for it.
See, everybody seems to want to make this jump. "Oh, da gubmint won't let us own our own vehicles anymore! We'll have to join this socialist collective where da gubmint will watch everywhere we go!" I don't see that happening. What I see is that the proverbial "invisible hand of the market" will probably decide. Where these vehicles make sense, people will choose them. Where "autonomous vehicle transportation services" makes sense, people will choose them. Where public transit makes sense, people will choose it.
What's scary, of course, is that you might discover that your preferences are a minority and that might affect the market. Suppose the vast majority of people decide they prefer to be driven around by a machine while texting their friends rather than having to spend 20 minutes "off-line" while driving a car. So companies decide there isn't enough of a market for people who prefer to drive themselves and stop selling cars which you can drive or they make fewer "drivable" cars and, therefore, have to charge more in order to recoup their costs, pricing you out of the market.
Years ago, they invented this thing called the "On/Off" switch. You probably have similar things in your house for controlling lights and such.
I have a little roadster which is fun to drive--in certain environments. But it's annoying to drive in other environments. I would have no problem with a car that is flexible enough that I can say, "Hey, car, drive me home" and yet, if I was up in the mountains and the road was pretty empty, I could say, "Hey, car, I'll take it from here" and have a fun drive.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
About the only issue I can see, from a commercial point-of-view, is that those delays may mean I have to wait for my satellite to be operational. You need to have "perfect" weather now in two places across the globe.
[...] concepts that many of "those in the 40s, 50s, and 60s who actually laid out how to do this stuff" said couldn't be done in the first place.... yet here is SpaceX actually doing it.
Well, I think part of his argument is that they aren't doing it. How many successful landings have they had on their barge?
That said, my attitude--since this is a private company--is go for it. It's not costing me anything for them to try, they may figure out what would be necessary (more fuel? better engines?) to do it, and I occasionally get to see cool blowey-upey videos.
If it were my tax dollars at work? Tricky call, but I'd probably still be in favor. Many of the above points are still valid and, as SpaceX might say, it's not like they've lost anything because the booster would have just ended up in the ocean anyway.
I like to see companies try new things, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.
An important technology to answer that age old question, "Where are the white women at?"
Well, as I understand it, one difference between Harrison Ford and the rest of the cast is that Harrison had a piece of the revenue the movie made. So he ended up making a heck of a lot more money than the rest of them.
Maybe he's also getting a piece of the action of the revenue from the ride. In which case, hell yeah, he'd be up to promote it.
Further, concerning the 1789 "All Writs Act", signed by George Washington back before there was much Federal law at all.
Actually, I'm wandering a bit off-topic, but this "All Writs Act" could be awesome.
Recently, Northrop-Grumman announced their new B-21 strategic bomber. They're going to build them at a cost to the taxpayer of $800 million per.
Nope! "All Writs Act!"
That's right, with the "All Writs Act," all the government needs is a court order saying that this is important for "National Security" and, bingo, Northrop-Grumman has to figure out how to build it for free!
(Yes, I'm being facetious.)
Obviously. That's t-reason they're doing it.
Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal.