People with significant amounts of money like John Carmack, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Paul Allen have thought otherwise, and have invested in manned spaceflight.
What was their ROI again?
If there was money to be made in manned spaceflight, you wouldn't just see people with significant amounts of money (some of which they can easily afford to lose if their investment turns out to be a failure) "invest" in it.
Without giving away too much, when you research the matter, you'll run into interesting terms like obstructionism, turf protection, pork politics, ITAR, entrenched interests and common misconceptions, perpetuated by certain groups and so on.
The blindingly obvious answer is: Profit. If you have the kind of money necessary to fund a manned spaceflight program, there are ways to invest it that are _waaaaay_ safer and more profitable than manned spaceflight.
Hey, you were the one who originally stated that amphetamines are, _right now_, more tightly controlled than Ritalin (and both can be prescribed to treat ADHD, see for example Adderall). If they're both on the same schedule, please explain where that difference is coming from. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.
Ritalin was only classified as a schedule II drug in the 1970s do to the think-of-the-children congressional pressure.
Yes, how about you go back to the 70s to fetch me some Ritalin then? What, impossible?
You are pushing the bullshit factor too much here.
Nope, you're just pushing bad science. The facts are: Methylphenidate is chemically somewhat similar to amphetamines, has a different mechanism of action, and both are stimulants. If you want to dispute that, please provide some references for your statements. Mine can be found in any pharmacology textbook.
Let's face it, you were lying by stating that Ritalin and amphetamine are completely different.
Err.. I was saying what? Are you sure you're not putting words in my mouth? I explained the difference in the way Ritalin and amphetamines act in the brain (one is a dopmaine reuptake inhibitor, the other stimulates dopamine release), apparently you completely conveniently overlooked that or just don't understand it.
A self-sustaining base must have the capability to expand (or else it'll just shrivel up and die as soon as a minor disaster strikes. Teetering on the brink of self-sustaining really is _not_ self-sustaining.). And once you have that capability, there's exponential growth and you'll have a colony sooner or later.
I don't see the big plus of inhabiting other "gravity wells". It's not like they're that much nicer places, and it'll be expensive to get back off them.
Real, actual gravity is an asset all by itself. Getting out of a gravity well is just a matter of building an efficient launching system (i.e. one that doesn't force the payload to carry all of the fuel while accelerating).
Better to work on building sustainable space stations with necessary stuff like artificial gravity and radiation shielding,
Most attempts at artificial gravity just suck. Until (if ever) we can generate _actual_ gravity without having to lug a whole planet around, all other attempts will just be medical measures to keep the human body from deteriorating too much while in weightlessness.
And you don't just need to shield a long-term space station from radiation, but also from random space junk coming it at several km/s.
In fact, the long term inhabitants of space colonies might view living on Mars or the Moon far more unpleasant than living in a space colony.
Just a few things that are fairly easy to do on Mars or the Moon (i.e. un- to slightly modified Earth technology), but require immense engineering efforts in weightlessness:
Actually, they both increase the amount of dopamine in the brain. Saying they are "completely unlike" each other is spurious at best.
Saying that two substances that are chemically somewhat similar but have different mechanisms of action are "chemically almost identical" is pushing it a little. Is nicotine also "chemically almost identical" to amphetamines? It also increases the amount of dopamine in the brain.
I don't think that Amazon, Facebook, etc, need all the floating point performance that current desktop and server CPUs can deliver. If they're really looking for power efficiency, they shouldn't use CPUs with features that are never used, but draw tons of power nonetheless.
Amphetamines are a tightly controlled substance now so the pharmaceutical companies developed Ritalin to get around the prohibitions.
Dude... Ritalin has been around for over half a century. Back then, most substances were less controlled than they are today.
Don't worry Ritalin is almost chemically identical to amphetamine,
Chemically, yes. However, it's effects on the brain are completely unlike amphetamine (it blocks dopamine reuptake, while amphetamines stimulate dopamine release). Its effects are more similar to cocaine than amphetamines.
One B17 carried 900kg of ordnance, hardly "more than the entire V-2 production
OP was talking about bombing raids, not single planes. And even the B17 (which had a small bomb load for a heavy bomber) could carry between 2 and 4 tons of bombs. Lancasters could carry a ten-ton Grand Slam (or about 6 tons of regular bombs). And bombing raids with about 1000 planes weren't unheard of in WW2.
Re:Electronic Health Records is very hard
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Crap, I'm NEVER going to the doctor again!
In Sovier Russia, Mad Doctor and Igor go to you.
Re:NHS IT: last year's hardware at next year's pri
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 1
So why not have the ability to "skin" the interface to keep the primadonna clinicians happy?
Imagine the question "Which button do I have to push?" for each and every necessary function of the system. And more than one button (or, god forbid, navigating a menu) is not accepted.
Re:one word: protectionism
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Becuase care providing is a controlled, state-sponsored monopoly.
This might be news to you, but it's pretty much the same as in the other first world countries, which are getting better medical outcomes at lower overall costs.
If You put voltmeter at test point number 321, you measure exact that voltage...
... but you misread the number. ... but your voltmeter is broken/uncalibrated/set to the wrong setting. ... but the documentation is wrong, and the voltage you wanted to measure is really at test point number 320. ... but the exact voltage doesn't do you any good since the problem is caused by transients that are too fast for your voltmeter.
etc.;)
Oh, and there's no such thing as an "exact" measurement. Not even in engineering.
A much simpler explanation for why IT is not strong in your local doctor's office is because they don't know enough about it to trust it, or understand why and how it could help.
Some older doctors might even be scarred for life from their encounters with IT in medical school. I have a case like that in my own family - for his dissertation, he did a statistical evaluation of certain accidents (probably trivial today, just punch the data into a spreadsheet and you're done in less than five minute)... with punch cards.
He'd only touch any kind of computer with a ten-foot pole... if the twenty-foot pole is broken. Heck, most electronical devices that come with more than one button and don't read minds drive him bonkers, unless he learned how to operate them thirty years ago. Navigating a menu (like that of a cellphone) is a completely alien concept to him.
Some people just relate to computers like geeks relate to people, really.;)
I credit this game and the Battle of Brittan one before its game manual as one of the best of all time. I was pretty young when it came out but I spent a lot of time reading that book learning about WWII and aerial maneuvers. Amazing game, lots of fond memories of it!
Luckily, I still possess my copy of it, manual, disks and all. And yes, the manual was amazing.
would seem likely that he only signed the non-aggression pact to lull Stalin into a false sense of security
And Stalin was possibly doing the same. I've heard the hypothesis that Germanys initial success during the invasion was partly due to catching the Soviet Union while they were preparing for attacking instead of maintaining a defensive position.
Slashdot Mirror
What was their ROI again?
If there was money to be made in manned spaceflight, you wouldn't just see people with significant amounts of money (some of which they can easily afford to lose if their investment turns out to be a failure) "invest" in it.
Without giving away too much, when you research the matter, you'll run into interesting terms like obstructionism, turf protection, pork politics, ITAR, entrenched interests and common misconceptions, perpetuated by certain groups and so on.
The blindingly obvious answer is: Profit. If you have the kind of money necessary to fund a manned spaceflight program, there are ways to invest it that are _waaaaay_ safer and more profitable than manned spaceflight.
Hey, you were the one who originally stated that amphetamines are, _right now_, more tightly controlled than Ritalin (and both can be prescribed to treat ADHD, see for example Adderall). If they're both on the same schedule, please explain where that difference is coming from. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.
Ritalin was only classified as a schedule II drug in the 1970s do to the think-of-the-children congressional pressure.
Yes, how about you go back to the 70s to fetch me some Ritalin then? What, impossible?
You are pushing the bullshit factor too much here.
Nope, you're just pushing bad science. The facts are: Methylphenidate is chemically somewhat similar to amphetamines, has a different mechanism of action, and both are stimulants. If you want to dispute that, please provide some references for your statements. Mine can be found in any pharmacology textbook.
Let's face it, you were lying by stating that Ritalin and amphetamine are completely different.
Err .. I was saying what? Are you sure you're not putting words in my mouth? I explained the difference in the way Ritalin and amphetamines act in the brain (one is a dopmaine reuptake inhibitor, the other stimulates dopamine release), apparently you completely conveniently overlooked that or just don't understand it.
I have some bad news for you: All other species are, most likely, doomed to extinction, too. It's just going to happen a bit later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_universe
700 km? Which object was that, please do tell.
A self-sustaining base must have the capability to expand (or else it'll just shrivel up and die as soon as a minor disaster strikes. Teetering on the brink of self-sustaining really is _not_ self-sustaining.). And once you have that capability, there's exponential growth and you'll have a colony sooner or later.
I don't see the big plus of inhabiting other "gravity wells". It's not like they're that much nicer places, and it'll be expensive to get back off them.
Real, actual gravity is an asset all by itself. Getting out of a gravity well is just a matter of building an efficient launching system (i.e. one that doesn't force the payload to carry all of the fuel while accelerating).
Better to work on building sustainable space stations with necessary stuff like artificial gravity and radiation shielding,
Most attempts at artificial gravity just suck. Until (if ever) we can generate _actual_ gravity without having to lug a whole planet around, all other attempts will just be medical measures to keep the human body from deteriorating too much while in weightlessness.
And you don't just need to shield a long-term space station from radiation, but also from random space junk coming it at several km/s.
In fact, the long term inhabitants of space colonies might view living on Mars or the Moon far more unpleasant than living in a space colony.
Just a few things that are fairly easy to do on Mars or the Moon (i.e. un- to slightly modified Earth technology), but require immense engineering efforts in weightlessness:
That would mean you're female? (*DOES NOT COMPUTE, THIS IS SLASHDOT*)
You are stating the obvious.
Yep, it had to be stated, since you were apparently overlooking it.
Oh, and btw, Ritalin and amphetamines are both schedule II drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs
Actually, they both increase the amount of dopamine in the brain. Saying they are "completely unlike" each other is spurious at best.
Saying that two substances that are chemically somewhat similar but have different mechanisms of action are "chemically almost identical" is pushing it a little. Is nicotine also "chemically almost identical" to amphetamines? It also increases the amount of dopamine in the brain.
But ... but ... you'll need Cat 9 to get rid of the cat completely?
I don't think that Amazon, Facebook, etc, need all the floating point performance that current desktop and server CPUs can deliver. If they're really looking for power efficiency, they shouldn't use CPUs with features that are never used, but draw tons of power nonetheless.
Dude ... Ritalin has been around for over half a century. Back then, most substances were less controlled than they are today.
Don't worry Ritalin is almost chemically identical to amphetamine,
Chemically, yes. However, it's effects on the brain are completely unlike amphetamine (it blocks dopamine reuptake, while amphetamines stimulate dopamine release). Its effects are more similar to cocaine than amphetamines.
The V1 was the ancestor of the cruise missile. The V2 was more like a SRBM.
Of course it is about profit.
Someone has to make the investment. In research. Labor. Facilities and so on.
Someone has to pay the geek a competitive wage if they want him as a system administrator - or in any other role.
Err ... _profit_ is what remains _after_ all the expenses and investments you mention have been made.
I think I remember seeing the same story, here on /., _months_ ago.
OP was talking about bombing raids, not single planes. And even the B17 (which had a small bomb load for a heavy bomber) could carry between 2 and 4 tons of bombs. Lancasters could carry a ten-ton Grand Slam (or about 6 tons of regular bombs). And bombing raids with about 1000 planes weren't unheard of in WW2.
In Sovier Russia, Mad Doctor and Igor go to you.
So why not have the ability to "skin" the interface to keep the primadonna clinicians happy?
Imagine the question "Which button do I have to push?" for each and every necessary function of the system. And more than one button (or, god forbid, navigating a menu) is not accepted.
This might be news to you, but it's pretty much the same as in the other first world countries, which are getting better medical outcomes at lower overall costs.
etc.
Oh, and there's no such thing as an "exact" measurement. Not even in engineering.
Frivolous malpractice lawsuit incoming in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Oh, yes. This is China. Malpractice lawsuits probably aren't allowed or severely limited.
I think there is a lot of fear and apprehension of putting data "on the record", particularly in a litigious society.
Reverse the burden of proof in lawsuits, and you'll notice a sudden eagerness in putting everything on the record.
A much simpler explanation for why IT is not strong in your local doctor's office is because they don't know enough about it to trust it, or understand why and how it could help.
Some older doctors might even be scarred for life from their encounters with IT in medical school. I have a case like that in my own family - for his dissertation, he did a statistical evaluation of certain accidents (probably trivial today, just punch the data into a spreadsheet and you're done in less than five minute) ... with punch cards.
He'd only touch any kind of computer with a ten-foot pole ... if the twenty-foot pole is broken. Heck, most electronical devices that come with more than one button and don't read minds drive him bonkers, unless he learned how to operate them thirty years ago. Navigating a menu (like that of a cellphone) is a completely alien concept to him.
Some people just relate to computers like geeks relate to people, really. ;)
Luckily, I still possess my copy of it, manual, disks and all. And yes, the manual was amazing.
And Stalin was possibly doing the same. I've heard the hypothesis that Germanys initial success during the invasion was partly due to catching the Soviet Union while they were preparing for attacking instead of maintaining a defensive position.
Whoops, I must have got some letter switched there. Should be: ra__r and __da_.