"Millions of people would lose their jobs." Granted, just like millions lost their jobs when we developed new mining methods or invented the steam engine.
But history indicates that in total many times more jobs are created than lost, and the standard of living increases.
e.g. an off the peg shirt costs me about 1 hour of my labour. 100 years ago a shirt would have cost me about a week's labour.
As a further example my dad lost his job as a machine tool maker. Now has a higher paid, less strenuous job in the education sector. Loosing jobs isn't a bad thing - it is often a sign of progress that people no longer have to work in mines or the mill like my grandparents did. i.e. my grandad is welcome to his job as a blacksmith in the mines - I'll stay as an IC designer than you very much! BTW I have been made redundant at one point in my career and it was the best thing to happen to me.
I disagree, If we had robots all over the solar system now mining and bringing back stuff for us to use I'd say that was a great thing. Then it'd make sense to increase our food supply through orbital farms (as we've run out of space on earth).
Then once we've done that, living in orbit on those farms isn't far behind. And once we're in orbit...
The trick is to make space profitable - once something is profitable we exploit it to the maximum.
BTW Star Trek is your utopia, not mine. Please don't make me live in that world.
Re:And make sure it burns up on re-entry too!
on
Golf in Space
·
· Score: 1
Rugby? Cricket? Any form of running? Sking? Tennis? Hockey? Boxing? These aren't sports why?
What about Motor Sport? Is Michael Schumacher a sportsman?
:-) Although I have a Linux and Windows box at work, I still need Windows for: Outlook (may it burn and rot in hell) - OSS alternatives are not allowed by the IS departement and don't have the full calender functionality MS Office - OO may be good enough for home use, but isn't fully compatable with everyone else who uses it
So the obsticle I would add to your list is: Microsoft's closed document and protocol standards
How do you define artificial? For a start off remember this is Microsoft's code and they can do with it what they want and charge whatever they want for it. (I hope they carry on as well - this might force people to consider the alternatives).
Ok here's an example - suppose I make software for cash registers. If I have to add code to make the cash register multi-user should I be able to charge more for my multi-user cash register than my single user register? If you agree that extra functional = extra value -> higher price then who cares why something costs more.
Something is worth what someone else will pay for it, not what it costs...
There is no "cost" to microsoft for any of their code. It costs them nothing for me to have a copy of ms word. I am still expected to pay for it though.
1st lesson of capitalism, it's not what something costs, it's what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Why? Putting on my gentoo hat for a moment.. If I don't need an OS with 64 bit support I shouldn't have it.
Putting on my supporting stupid users hat - it's better to have a product that fits what your client (ok, in this case my Dad) needs and little else for him to break.
Once you accept that it is fair to pay for software at all, I don't see a difference between paying incremental ammounts for extra product, and paying extra for a product with extra features and functionality. i.e. if I pay for the OS and media software and virus/spyware checkers and the word processor separately, why not pay incrementally for a more capable os?
"Yep, like nuking Mecca." Actually a Jewish friend of mine insists this is the solution to the middle east problem. Treat them like the children they're acting like. When two children are fighting over a toy, you take it away from both of them until they can learn to play nice!
So since they can't play together in the holy land, irradiate the lot (without damaging the buildings) with something that'll last for 100 years or so, When they can learn to work out their differences and play together, then they can have it back.
I'm not convinced it'd work, but it always starts up a good dinner time conversation...
I think part of the problem with the shuttle was the 70s - people wanted a buck rogers space craft with wings!
The shuttle was too much too soon. While I'd like to see a DC-X program to get us some re-usable technology we're just not there yet!
IMO if they wanted the next generation to be reusable they should build what they're building so we have a path to space then slowly make it re-usable. Make the SRBs fly back so that they don't need as much refit. Make the SRBs into LRBs so they "just " need re-fueling between each launh.
(Ok this ignors the major problem with the shuttle - that of the fact that you had to practically re-build it each time, but you know what I mean!)
Well chipping in my 2p here: At the most basic level is the cliche that something is only a secret when only 1 person knows it.
However my useful secrets are between 2 or more parties e.g. my bank details are secret between me and my bank - if anyone else gains knowledge then the trust beween myself and bank has been broken and I am liable to fraud. What friends have talked to me about while drunk are secret. etc
In this day and age these secret exchanges can and do take place over the medium of the internet which google has made its goal to index and catalog. So I do go to lengths to protect the above mentioned secrets, but there is an impled trust with the service google provides (e.g. gmail) in the same way there is an implied trust with my friends when I have an online chat about my opinions of an*l s*x. The online nature of this is important because regardless of what laws currently exist, laws to protect your privicy online should exist that are akin to the level of trust society is currently happy with.
People like to use the postal system as an analogy, I prefer to use the pub! Suppose I'm having a private conversation at the pub as I am oft to do about my sex life. If the pub were to install microphones so it could monitor this exchange and sell it to the highest bidder, then that would be a breech of trust and should be stopped. But you say, you're on the pub's premises, so it could be in their T&C that they may monitor any exchanges had in the pub - I still say that is a breech of trust and we should not frequent a pub that did this. Now google is very close to this at the moment, although google is at the moment stopping at being the barmaid who knows what drinks you like, senses your mood and suggests appropriate drinks.
Saying that google has a right to my pass my information to the highest bidder because I have asked them about it like saying that fred at the pub should be free to discuss the details of my sex life with all his friends because I discussed it with him. In my social circles that would be a big faux pas and I hope that it is in others too.
Ok not the best analogy, but you get the jist at how I determine privacy has been breeched.
Re:Does going public effect the level of trust?
on
Can We Trust Google?
·
· Score: 1
Where is this law? Or is this American law? I'm a director of a limited company (not publicly traded though) and we certainly don't make a profit (It is by definition a not for profit company). By law we have to follow our shareholders votes and we have to have plans to remain solvent and procedures in place to follow the law etc. But there is nothing in Briish law that says you have to follow the course that makes a limited company the most money.
Consider IBM - they spend a fortune in blue sky research. If they wanted the maximum per-quater profit or even the maximum ROI per year or decade they'd stop all research and sell off all their buildings and lease them back. But they're in it for the long term - research and public opinion are intangable assets that only a muppet would ignore as being valuable to the company.
Personally I'm glad Google went into China even in a censored version because it's a first step. No blocking is perfect so stuff will leak through, and hopefully as time moves on then the situation will improve.
"You're arguing that something designed to do its job shouldn't" Not quite, I'm arguing that our existing expendable launchers aren't suitable as the GP suggested.
Anything is possible given enough effort, but I don't understand how putting the components onto existing expendable launchers would be possible.
I believe the shuttle derived heavy lift in the new architecture will have a very similar flight profile to the current shuttle, so that may be suitable for finishing the space station with the carry rig as you pointed out.
Slightly off topic: One thing I'd personally like to see is giving up on trying to improve the safety of the shuttle and only have 1 person flying it. Then just use it for the cargo plane it was supposed to be. The chances of all 3 failing before it's completed are very remote. i.e. treat the shuttle as an expendable and if you're lucky to get it back - bonus! Then you'd need volunteers to fly it who knew the risk, but who doesn't/wouldn't?
My 2p - probably a good job I'm not NASA administrator
But no others that have the same DeltaV at the required parts of the lift, and that can carry the correct shape, and that have the modules mounted in the correct way. i.e. these are relatively flimsy modules designed to be bolted into the shuttle's cargo bay and therefore recieve stress at certain points of their design. Once you try and get them to take the 3+G stress of launch from a different part of their structure, well they just can't - they're not designed to. The other problem is that many of the larger lift rockets experience much higher G forces during launch - I believe DeltaV goes up to 5G at some points - which is fine if you've designed for it, but not for most space station modules which were designed for the relatively benign 3.3G (I think) forces that the shuttle experiences.
No we drink warm beer because our beer has taste and don't need to chill it to hide the taste of the crap chemicals/cheap ingredients most other brews these days have.
I have read as much as I have found on the subject... Yes it is! ID says "We don't understand how the universe could have got in this condition, so some greater force must have done it. No don't try and explain the incongruities, just accept that it's all to hard and difficult for us mere mortals to understand." Without then going on to explain how that greater force might work.
Do you see an intelegent structure in that that appears from the mallenbrot set? After all, look at the pictures those fractels produce, so that must be the hand of an outside intelegence! Or maybe then you have a few basic rules, complexity and patterns turn up in the oddest places...
I think you missed my point... That being that if those going to church want to mix up the boundry between science and faith, and to also hear all points of view, then I suggest they start teaching some science in their churches to lead the way. I suggest they also make sure their services feature an equal balance from all religions. If they want what they say they want, they should lead by example; once they've cleaned up their house, they can start working on other people's until then...
2 comments on that: 1) it isn't internally consistant: Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8 It contradicts itself never mind the rest of reality! 2) It asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, and rests on pillars, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that hares and coneys chew the cud, that giants and unicorns are real, that bats are birds, that stars are small objects which can fall from the sky and be stamped upon, that.. well.. you get the idea.
I forgot to add: You say teach them all theories and let them make their mind up. Fine, why not teach them flat earth, helio-centric, and the propogation in the ether while you're at it. The reason we only teach certain theories to 90% of people is that people have limited time and limited brain capacity, so we are better off teaching them the major/none discredited subjects and if the student is interested in alternative/discredited theories, they can always search for them himself. i wonder how many Christians at Sunday service would be happy having to stop 20 times as long so that as well as the teachings of Christianity, they could have opinions from Muslim/Buddhist/Taoism etc preeched.
Or put another way, then the pope starts teaching and preeching about General relativity, then it might be time to start talking about creationism in science class. Until then, they're separate for good reasons.
Let us assume I give creationism/ID etc the validity of a theory (which I don't but for the purposes of this exercise).
We have 2 groups of theories (I would not class evolution as a single theory, neither neither would I creationism/ID - lets call them groups of theories):
One (Evolution) tells us how life formed, how it behaves, how it will behave, what it did, what it should do and how we can expect to proceed. It tells us what we should look for to fill the gaps in our knowledge and it makes sufficient predictions that when we see evidence outside of the expected, then our understanding is incorrect and we had better think/investigate/experiment some more. Simply put it advances the human knowledge and shows us ways to push it further; it helps us understand the world and drives advancement in it Two (ID/Creationism) we have something which tells us how life formed, and about the motivations of a creator. Theologically this is very interesting about why a creator would create a world like this, and if you believe in a creator this is a valid exercise to attempt to understand him/her/it. This 'Theory' predicts nothing, guides us in search of nothing, helps our understanding of the world not a jot. However, that isn't science, understanding the wills of a creator is theology/religion's terrain; understanding the world as it is is science's domain. ID/Creationism helps you understand a creator, Evolutional theory helps you understand the world as it exists. That's why science is interested in Evolution and not in creationism/ID. Call it a theory all you want, I don't mind; but it's only of use in a religious/theological investigation and therefore belongs as such.
Slashdot Mirror
"Millions of people would lose their jobs."
Granted, just like millions lost their jobs when we developed new mining methods or invented the steam engine.
But history indicates that in total many times more jobs are created than lost, and the standard of living increases.
e.g. an off the peg shirt costs me about 1 hour of my labour. 100 years ago a shirt would have cost me about a week's labour.
As a further example my dad lost his job as a machine tool maker. Now has a higher paid, less strenuous job in the education sector. Loosing jobs isn't a bad thing - it is often a sign of progress that people no longer have to work in mines or the mill like my grandparents did.
i.e. my grandad is welcome to his job as a blacksmith in the mines - I'll stay as an IC designer than you very much! BTW I have been made redundant at one point in my career and it was the best thing to happen to me.
I disagree, If we had robots all over the solar system now mining and bringing back stuff for us to use I'd say that was a great thing.
Then it'd make sense to increase our food supply through orbital farms (as we've run out of space on earth).
Then once we've done that, living in orbit on those farms isn't far behind. And once we're in orbit...
The trick is to make space profitable - once something is profitable we exploit it to the maximum.
BTW Star Trek is your utopia, not mine. Please don't make me live in that world.
Rugby? Cricket? Any form of running? Sking? Tennis? Hockey? Boxing? These aren't sports why?
What about Motor Sport? Is Michael Schumacher a sportsman?
:-)
Although I have a Linux and Windows box at work, I still need Windows for:
Outlook (may it burn and rot in hell) - OSS alternatives are not allowed by the IS departement and don't have the full calender functionality
MS Office - OO may be good enough for home use, but isn't fully compatable with everyone else who uses it
So the obsticle I would add to your list is:
Microsoft's closed document and protocol standards
Can I introduce you to an iBook or PowerBook?
How do you define artificial?
For a start off remember this is Microsoft's code and they can do with it what they want and charge whatever they want for it. (I hope they carry on as well - this might force people to consider the alternatives).
Ok here's an example - suppose I make software for cash registers. If I have to add code to make the cash register multi-user should I be able to charge more for my multi-user cash register than my single user register?
If you agree that extra functional = extra value -> higher price then who cares why something costs more.
Something is worth what someone else will pay for it, not what it costs...
There is no "cost" to microsoft for any of their code.
It costs them nothing for me to have a copy of ms word. I am still expected to pay for it though.
1st lesson of capitalism, it's not what something costs, it's what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Why?
Putting on my gentoo hat for a moment.. If I don't need an OS with 64 bit support I shouldn't have it.
Putting on my supporting stupid users hat - it's better to have a product that fits what your client (ok, in this case my Dad) needs and little else for him to break.
Once you accept that it is fair to pay for software at all, I don't see a difference between paying incremental ammounts for extra product, and paying extra for a product with extra features and functionality.
i.e. if I pay for the OS and media software and virus/spyware checkers and the word processor separately, why not pay incrementally for a more capable os?
"Yep, like nuking Mecca."
Actually a Jewish friend of mine insists this is the solution to the middle east problem. Treat them like the children they're acting like.
When two children are fighting over a toy, you take it away from both of them until they can learn to play nice!
So since they can't play together in the holy land, irradiate the lot (without damaging the buildings) with something that'll last for 100 years or so,
When they can learn to work out their differences and play together, then they can have it back.
I'm not convinced it'd work, but it always starts up a good dinner time conversation...
I think part of the problem with the shuttle was the 70s - people wanted a buck rogers space craft with wings!
The shuttle was too much too soon. While I'd like to see a DC-X program to get us some re-usable technology we're just not there yet!
IMO if they wanted the next generation to be reusable they should build what they're building so we have a path to space then slowly make it re-usable.
Make the SRBs fly back so that they don't need as much refit.
Make the SRBs into LRBs so they "just " need re-fueling between each launh.
(Ok this ignors the major problem with the shuttle - that of the fact that you had to practically re-build it each time, but you know what I mean!)
Can you point me to this Britain on a map please?
Which M is this that says "Pip pip, cheerio"?
Dame Judy Dench has gone downhil...
Well chipping in my 2p here:
At the most basic level is the cliche that something is only a secret when only 1 person knows it.
However my useful secrets are between 2 or more parties
e.g.
my bank details are secret between me and my bank - if anyone else gains knowledge then the trust beween myself and bank has been broken and I am liable to fraud.
What friends have talked to me about while drunk are secret.
etc
In this day and age these secret exchanges can and do take place over the medium of the internet which google has made its goal to index and catalog.
So I do go to lengths to protect the above mentioned secrets, but there is an impled trust with the service google provides (e.g. gmail) in the same way there is an implied trust with my friends when I have an online chat about my opinions of an*l s*x. The online nature of this is important because regardless of what laws currently exist, laws to protect your privicy online should exist that are akin to the level of trust society is currently happy with.
People like to use the postal system as an analogy, I prefer to use the pub!
Suppose I'm having a private conversation at the pub as I am oft to do about my sex life.
If the pub were to install microphones so it could monitor this exchange and sell it to the highest bidder, then that would be a breech of trust and should be stopped. But you say, you're on the pub's premises, so it could be in their T&C that they may monitor any exchanges had in the pub - I still say that is a breech of trust and we should not frequent a pub that did this.
Now google is very close to this at the moment, although google is at the moment stopping at being the barmaid who knows what drinks you like, senses your mood and suggests appropriate drinks.
Saying that google has a right to my pass my information to the highest bidder because I have asked them about it like saying that fred at the pub should be free to discuss the details of my sex life with all his friends because I discussed it with him.
In my social circles that would be a big faux pas and I hope that it is in others too.
Ok not the best analogy, but you get the jist at how I determine privacy has been breeched.
Where is this law? Or is this American law?
I'm a director of a limited company (not publicly traded though) and we certainly don't make a profit (It is by definition a not for profit company). By law we have to follow our shareholders votes and we have to have plans to remain solvent and procedures in place to follow the law etc.
But there is nothing in Briish law that says you have to follow the course that makes a limited company the most money.
Consider IBM - they spend a fortune in blue sky research. If they wanted the maximum per-quater profit or even the maximum ROI per year or decade they'd stop all research and sell off all their buildings and lease them back. But they're in it for the long term - research and public opinion are intangable assets that only a muppet would ignore as being valuable to the company.
Personally I'm glad Google went into China even in a censored version because it's a first step. No blocking is perfect so stuff will leak through, and hopefully as time moves on then the situation will improve.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist...
"You're arguing that something designed to do its job shouldn't"
Not quite, I'm arguing that our existing expendable launchers aren't suitable as the GP suggested.
Anything is possible given enough effort, but I don't understand how putting the components onto existing expendable launchers would be possible.
I believe the shuttle derived heavy lift in the new architecture will have a very similar flight profile to the current shuttle, so that may be suitable for finishing the space station with the carry rig as you pointed out.
Slightly off topic:
One thing I'd personally like to see is giving up on trying to improve the safety of the shuttle and only have 1 person flying it. Then just use it for the cargo plane it was supposed to be. The chances of all 3 failing before it's completed are very remote. i.e. treat the shuttle as an expendable and if you're lucky to get it back - bonus!
Then you'd need volunteers to fly it who knew the risk, but who doesn't/wouldn't?
My 2p - probably a good job I'm not NASA administrator
But no others that have the same DeltaV at the required parts of the lift, and that can carry the correct shape, and that have the modules mounted in the correct way.
i.e. these are relatively flimsy modules designed to be bolted into the shuttle's cargo bay and therefore recieve stress at certain points of their design. Once you try and get them to take the 3+G stress of launch from a different part of their structure, well they just can't - they're not designed to.
The other problem is that many of the larger lift rockets experience much higher G forces during launch - I believe DeltaV goes up to 5G at some points - which is fine if you've designed for it, but not for most space station modules which were designed for the relatively benign 3.3G (I think) forces that the shuttle experiences.
And just look at the proof of this!o n_landings.htm
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/mo
An oldie I know, but I couldn't resist!
No we drink warm beer because our beer has taste and don't need to chill it to hide the taste of the crap chemicals/cheap ingredients most other brews these days have.
The tell me something this "alternate line of thought" tells us that evolution theory doesn't that isn't faith based reasoning.
You know now you've left me wondering if having faith is a good thing or not.
You certainly remind me why I come to slashdot as much as I do...
I have read as much as I have found on the subject...
Yes it is! ID says "We don't understand how the universe could have got in this condition, so some greater force must have done it. No don't try and explain the incongruities, just accept that it's all to hard and difficult for us mere mortals to understand." Without then going on to explain how that greater force might work.
Do you see an intelegent structure in that that appears from the mallenbrot set? After all, look at the pictures those fractels produce, so that must be the hand of an outside intelegence!
Or maybe then you have a few basic rules, complexity and patterns turn up in the oddest places...
I think you missed my point...
That being that if those going to church want to mix up the boundry between science and faith, and to also hear all points of view, then I suggest they start teaching some science in their churches to lead the way. I suggest they also make sure their services feature an equal balance from all religions. If they want what they say they want, they should lead by example; once they've cleaned up their house, they can start working on other people's until then...
2 comments on that:
1) it isn't internally consistant:
Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8
It contradicts itself never mind the rest of reality!
2) It asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, and rests on pillars, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that hares and coneys chew the cud, that giants and unicorns are real, that bats are birds, that stars are small objects which can fall from the sky and be stamped upon, that.. well.. you get the idea.
Coney: Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7
Bat: Deut. 14:11, 18
Unicorn: Daniel 8:5
mustard: Matthew 13:31-32
Giants: Genesis 6:4
Stars Fall: Revelation 6:13-16
There you have it, the Bible has just been proven wrong!
I forgot to add:
You say teach them all theories and let them make their mind up. Fine, why not teach them flat earth, helio-centric, and the propogation in the ether while you're at it.
The reason we only teach certain theories to 90% of people is that people have limited time and limited brain capacity, so we are better off teaching them the major/none discredited subjects and if the student is interested in alternative/discredited theories, they can always search for them himself.
i wonder how many Christians at Sunday service would be happy having to stop 20 times as long so that as well as the teachings of Christianity, they could have opinions from Muslim/Buddhist/Taoism etc preeched.
Or put another way, then the pope starts teaching and preeching about General relativity, then it might be time to start talking about creationism in science class. Until then, they're separate for good reasons.
Let us assume I give creationism/ID etc the validity of a theory (which I don't but for the purposes of this exercise).
We have 2 groups of theories (I would not class evolution as a single theory, neither neither would I creationism/ID - lets call them groups of theories):
One (Evolution) tells us how life formed, how it behaves, how it will behave, what it did, what it should do and how we can expect to proceed. It tells us what we should look for to fill the gaps in our knowledge and it makes sufficient predictions that when we see evidence outside of the expected, then our understanding is incorrect and we had better think/investigate/experiment some more. Simply put it advances the human knowledge and shows us ways to push it further; it helps us understand the world and drives advancement in it
Two (ID/Creationism) we have something which tells us how life formed, and about the motivations of a creator. Theologically this is very interesting about why a creator would create a world like this, and if you believe in a creator this is a valid exercise to attempt to understand him/her/it. This 'Theory' predicts nothing, guides us in search of nothing, helps our understanding of the world not a jot.
However, that isn't science, understanding the wills of a creator is theology/religion's terrain; understanding the world as it is is science's domain.
ID/Creationism helps you understand a creator, Evolutional theory helps you understand the world as it exists. That's why science is interested in Evolution and not in creationism/ID. Call it a theory all you want, I don't mind; but it's only of use in a religious/theological investigation and therefore belongs as such.