I've noticed a significant group discussing post-birth abortions (infanticides) up to age five lately. The premise seems to be that those children aren't considered self-aware by some measure. Makes you wonder if some random judge could simply require prisoners to prove themselves self-aware or accept their own "abortion".
I'm unsure of your point. Are you arguing that our inability to use power sources that don't slaughter animals of any kind is okay because of this issue?
Here in San Diego they still catch people dropping off illegal construction workers at the border once they've had an injury that makes them unemployable. I love how all the caring businesses basically use people as chatel.
Wrong. I said mass manufacture - you don't have to re-engineer curiosity from scratch and hand-build it every time. And if you can pay to build a super-heavy-lift vehicle, or tons of smaller (but still very large) launches to get your ~100 tonne manned Mars round trip spacecraft into orbit, then you can launch a 100x 889kg curiosity rovers.
You literally can launch about 100 mass-manufactured curiosity-sized rovers for the cost of one manned mission. The scientific bang for your buck is way, way, way higher with robots.
My experience with these robotic projects points me in a different direction. They're fundamentally over-budget and no where near ready for mass-production. The support systems developed on the west coast took forever to test correctly, too. I'll admit that a different focus (like yours) could change that, but history hasn't shown that with products like this. However, private companies are definitely making a better push for launch systems.
And FYI, if your goal is to be able to help people "live on another planet", then you absolutely should not be supporting wasting money on a trip to Mars on today's way overpriced launch systems. You should be supporting spending it on developing novel systems for orders-of-magnitude reduction of launch prices, be they scramjets, launch loops, coilguns, metastable fuels, nuclear thermal propulsion, or in general insert-your-favorite-potential-cost-reducer-here, so that it doesn't cost an impractical amount of money to send people there. (never mind that we're not even centuries away from being able to recreate a full self-sustainable tech tree on Mars.. see earlier in the thread)
I never indicated anything different on improvements in launch schemes. I certainly support better launch systems. I more back one-way systems that deliver people on site. We probably will never find middle ground on that but there are just too many variables that require a human decision-maker on site to accomplish by my estimation. If delivery wasn't an issue (work with me!) the best solution in my mind is getting an invested populace into the "new country" and supporting an economy. Robots cannot do that on any reasonable schedule that doesn't last lifetimes.
I always find it funny to hear people the same alt-space fanboys complaining vitriolically about how maintaining ISS is a huge waste of money but then insisting that we set up a manned outpost that would cost orders of magnitude more to maintain;)
My only complaint for the ISS is that it was rather underwhelming. We've plenty of money to give the NFL billions in tax breaks but true investment in the science of our species' survival (in the ISS) doesn't even get pennies in comparison.
Remember that time advantage next time you like getting anything accomplished in your own life. I'll sit back and see how well you experience the type of latency you're describing. The other advantage is that people actually on Mars can live and diversify the species. Preventing extinction seems like a fairly strong advantage.
Also, I can't believe you aren't throwing out some hyperbole on those stats. A one-way manned mission to Mars would cost considerably less than 100 Curiosity rovers. At $1.8 billion per package and a total of $2.5 billion per launch, that's nominally $108 billion to $250 billion for your methodology at the level of Curiosity. Making robots that can do "anything" at the end of a wire would probably be considerably more. Sends some humans and make a colony. Much cheaper.
This is our fundamental difference. You are willing to collect data and die. I'd like to live on another planet. Any speculation on your method that crosses over to my goals is improbable. Curiosity was valuable as a landing test. Anything else is just frosting.
Only plausibly because you're vastly underrating the engineering for robotics implementation will require. Sending 100,000 humans would be easier than creating this all-purpose robot you seem to be describing. Robots are not anywhere near the competency you've described as necessary.
Exactly. The science and resource abundance in the asteroid belts or even Saturn orbit warrant this effort. Zero-g problems to the physical would all be easily overcome with a ring station of some kind. Our early-warning technologies would probably need to improve for the vicinity.
But you're not being honest. Your proposal makes assumptions that the robots will make/react/design decisions with the breadth of our intellect. If this existed we would already be using it to control the solar system. Your technology doesn't exist, is unlikely to be created, and more complex than anything even approaching anything needed to establish a Martian or space-based station with current technology. Also, Curiosity could be replaced by one human being costing immeasurably less than today or future robotic construction. There's absolutely no example of your proposal in working format, or even engineering-level designs.
Another problem I've noticed is that those closed systems seem to expect people to be entertained by absolutely nothing. Can't we send some computer games with colonists? movies? etc...
What you propose doesn't exist, and is probably beyond the ability to create functionally with today's technology. What does exist is millions of humans capable of learning basic environmental safety for operations on Mars and construction skills to get a base started now so we can move ahead now instead of when some apex of robotics produces your described nirvana.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Republicans, right. Those bastards.
NC Democratic Party uses 'voter shaming' to spur turnout
I Received This Menacing Letter From the Democratic Party Trying To Shame Me Into Voting
CONFIRMED by Experts! Voting Machines in Maryland, Illinois Rigged to Support Democrats
I've noticed a significant group discussing post-birth abortions (infanticides) up to age five lately. The premise seems to be that those children aren't considered self-aware by some measure. Makes you wonder if some random judge could simply require prisoners to prove themselves self-aware or accept their own "abortion".
You're so funny. I wonder if "natives" ever conducted war or conquered territories?
I'm unsure of your point. Are you arguing that our inability to use power sources that don't slaughter animals of any kind is okay because of this issue?
Cats don't kill giant endangered hunting birds, not matter how much you wish to obfuscate the issue.
Cats don't kill eagles and hawks; particularly endangered ones.
... or it could be that they generally don't kill you when you disagree with them. There's a possibility, think?
of which you never watch. Moron.
Except when North Dakota has a massive oil and gas boom, because of the minimum wage. Hilarious.
Here in San Diego they still catch people dropping off illegal construction workers at the border once they've had an injury that makes them unemployable. I love how all the caring businesses basically use people as chatel.
No, it's much more entertaining to watch shills come on /. and scream how all of the H1Bs are making $500K a year working for Microsoft.
I hate it when sociologist post irrelevant crap to justify their jobs.
Wrong. I said mass manufacture - you don't have to re-engineer curiosity from scratch and hand-build it every time. And if you can pay to build a super-heavy-lift vehicle, or tons of smaller (but still very large) launches to get your ~100 tonne manned Mars round trip spacecraft into orbit, then you can launch a 100x 889kg curiosity rovers.
You literally can launch about 100 mass-manufactured curiosity-sized rovers for the cost of one manned mission. The scientific bang for your buck is way, way, way higher with robots.
My experience with these robotic projects points me in a different direction. They're fundamentally over-budget and no where near ready for mass-production. The support systems developed on the west coast took forever to test correctly, too. I'll admit that a different focus (like yours) could change that, but history hasn't shown that with products like this. However, private companies are definitely making a better push for launch systems.
And FYI, if your goal is to be able to help people "live on another planet", then you absolutely should not be supporting wasting money on a trip to Mars on today's way overpriced launch systems. You should be supporting spending it on developing novel systems for orders-of-magnitude reduction of launch prices, be they scramjets, launch loops, coilguns, metastable fuels, nuclear thermal propulsion, or in general insert-your-favorite-potential-cost-reducer-here, so that it doesn't cost an impractical amount of money to send people there. (never mind that we're not even centuries away from being able to recreate a full self-sustainable tech tree on Mars.. see earlier in the thread)
I never indicated anything different on improvements in launch schemes. I certainly support better launch systems. I more back one-way systems that deliver people on site. We probably will never find middle ground on that but there are just too many variables that require a human decision-maker on site to accomplish by my estimation. If delivery wasn't an issue (work with me!) the best solution in my mind is getting an invested populace into the "new country" and supporting an economy. Robots cannot do that on any reasonable schedule that doesn't last lifetimes.
I always find it funny to hear people the same alt-space fanboys complaining vitriolically about how maintaining ISS is a huge waste of money but then insisting that we set up a manned outpost that would cost orders of magnitude more to maintain ;)
My only complaint for the ISS is that it was rather underwhelming. We've plenty of money to give the NFL billions in tax breaks but true investment in the science of our species' survival (in the ISS) doesn't even get pennies in comparison.
Remember that time advantage next time you like getting anything accomplished in your own life. I'll sit back and see how well you experience the type of latency you're describing. The other advantage is that people actually on Mars can live and diversify the species. Preventing extinction seems like a fairly strong advantage.
Also, I can't believe you aren't throwing out some hyperbole on those stats. A one-way manned mission to Mars would cost considerably less than 100 Curiosity rovers. At $1.8 billion per package and a total of $2.5 billion per launch, that's nominally $108 billion to $250 billion for your methodology at the level of Curiosity. Making robots that can do "anything" at the end of a wire would probably be considerably more. Sends some humans and make a colony. Much cheaper.
This is our fundamental difference. You are willing to collect data and die. I'd like to live on another planet. Any speculation on your method that crosses over to my goals is improbable. Curiosity was valuable as a landing test. Anything else is just frosting.
Only plausibly because you're vastly underrating the engineering for robotics implementation will require. Sending 100,000 humans would be easier than creating this all-purpose robot you seem to be describing. Robots are not anywhere near the competency you've described as necessary.
Might as well ban sugar factories too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Exactly. The science and resource abundance in the asteroid belts or even Saturn orbit warrant this effort. Zero-g problems to the physical would all be easily overcome with a ring station of some kind. Our early-warning technologies would probably need to improve for the vicinity.
But you're not being honest. Your proposal makes assumptions that the robots will make/react/design decisions with the breadth of our intellect. If this existed we would already be using it to control the solar system. Your technology doesn't exist, is unlikely to be created, and more complex than anything even approaching anything needed to establish a Martian or space-based station with current technology. Also, Curiosity could be replaced by one human being costing immeasurably less than today or future robotic construction. There's absolutely no example of your proposal in working format, or even engineering-level designs.
Another problem I've noticed is that those closed systems seem to expect people to be entertained by absolutely nothing. Can't we send some computer games with colonists? movies? etc...
What you propose doesn't exist, and is probably beyond the ability to create functionally with today's technology. What does exist is millions of humans capable of learning basic environmental safety for operations on Mars and construction skills to get a base started now so we can move ahead now instead of when some apex of robotics produces your described nirvana.
Or you could label the whole post, "Ode to Morons".
Too bad your reality-bias is now Democrats in everyone's bedrooms.
Amen. Bribed politicians giving monopolies to cable companies and entertainment studios.