Do you mind explaining to me what's the point of maintaining a manned Moon base for decades? Besides making it a bottomless money pit with an extremely poor ROI in terms of actual scientific advancement?
Yeah, sure, we could totally have a manned mission to Mars right now. If it wasn't for the fact that we don't have a launcher for that, nor a vehicle in which a crew could spend months in, let alone a way to return, nor probably any crew possibly prepared for such a trip.
No you're right, all you gotta do is put a couple of schmocks in a rocket and aim for the tiny red ball in the sky.
A real space program? Dude, we landed a robot on the moist and frozen shores of Titan, and we've got a few machines sending readings from the very fucking edge of the solar system.
Oh wait sorry, do you mean you would rather have had some guy play golf on an asteroid? Face it, space exploration is pursued for the sake of the advancement of science, not for the satisfaction of science fiction fans.
Some national TLDs just suck. That's why there's relatively few.fr domains, compared to.co.uk or.de domains. It's a shame, but it's not like you can't have your own.com or.net
Well actually there kind of is a legitimate reason to that. Games such as the Call of Duty series involve enemies wearing camouflage, and sometimes they blend in damn well with what you see them against, mostly when they're in the dark or mostly hidden. If you've ever played a lot of Call of Duty online, you must have realised that careful observation is absolutely crucial in the survival of your player. The sniper in ghillies on the facing hill, the camper in the window, the guy in the shady corner, if you see them before they see you you win. If you fail to see them and go about your business normally, you'll be easy game.
So just in what other types of games are such observation skills as important?
Yeah pffft I hate it when scientists do research only to find out what they expected. They should only do research that would yield unexpected results.
The point is that credibility is irrelevant, which he is using to get his misinformed point across. His point has no merit, and to top it off he didn't do any actual research or try to publish the results of such research. Einstein did that.
People like you need to get a clue about how science works and STFU.
No, you're just stupid. The fact that it was very hot at one point in time in one point of Earth (Libya, of all places) is completely irrelevant of the global situation. It only shows how little you understand how climate on the scale of a planet works.
Plus, he sugggested that a solution to it would be genetically engineered trees designed to "eat" carbon more efficiently. So basically it's "do nothing and wait for a solution that doesn't exist and that no one is working on and that would be unfeasible (out of scale) anyways"
His most useful contribution to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.
OK so basically a guy whose speciality isn't in any way related to climatology makes misinformed and over-simplistic claims about the consequences of part of what's happening. Yawn. Why are we even listening to that guy again?
Wake me up when that guy publishes a climatology paper instead of just attention whoring.
Yeah, I found this after a bit of googling, looks like it's the only way it's done. Too bad, imagine a sky scraper with in its center a sequoia tree hanging upside down...
Semi-relatedly, since they tried 1 G, 0 G and now they want to try 1/6 G, has anyone ever tried -1 G? i.e. grow plants upside down? I for one would love to see a huge structure meant to hold thousands of cubic meters of soil 100 feet from the ground and let a tree grow downwards. Who knows, maybe you'd get trees of epic dimensions?
You're thinking logically. The nanny-staters who agitate for more and more ridiculous laws in this arena don't know how to do that.
Sure but I mean while we're at it we can do what they won't do and push the thinking further. For example there may be certain aspects that would evade my simple proposal, i.e. coercion to obtain child-produced porn, or fake child-produced porn, or maybe we'll still want to do something about people who are into this. But more than logic it really takes the guidance of experts in the domain.
Thanks for the reply, but if people could only stop throwing around the word genocide like it means what they think it means. Genocide is for people only, not animals, otherwise animal farming would be genocide too.
I'd rather say a cultural failure, i.e. a culture in which stupid viewpoints are given more consideration than they deserve. Take creationism for example. America could have said "lol stfu retard" to it, just like the rest of the world did, and never gave it more credence than the Time Cube, but no, because we need two opposing sides to anything, "the other side of the story", as if reality came in two contradictory but equally valid versions which should both be considered equally regardless of their initial merits.
Note that it also relates to the anti-expert culture we have. That's how we end up opposing elite politicians (Obama) with unlicensed plumbers (Joe), theories with overwhelming and lasting consensuses in the scientific community (climate change/evolution) with meritless and baseless pseudo-science (climate change denial/intelligent design), or researchers highly qualified in the field with bored Slashdotters with vague understandings of what's being talked about. That's how you end up circumcised from birth despite the fact that your parents are Protestants or how your sister becomes a teenage mother because the only protection she had was an abstinence pledge ring.
Thanks for the insight, although it begs the question of how you'd get to be so knowledgeable on the topic. However here are my thoughts : if child porn was first criminalised because it involved molesting children, shouldn't we, instead of making the production and possession of child porn a crime, make it an evidence of crime (the crime of molesting children) and prosecute along those lines, instead of prosecuting children for strictly victimless crimes?
Boil them like frogs! Put them in mild water and increase slowly the temperature. Works on frogs. I know it's true and totally not an urban legend because Pierce Brosnan said it in that movie.
Would Pierce Brosnan lie about boiling frogs just to make a point? Of course not, he's Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan, for Christ's sake!
Further reading of this article says apparently in 1998 we were hit by gamma/x rays from supernova explosion 600 LY years away. So there definitely is a danger zone up to where? 300 LY?
To use a bad car analogy that's like saying "some guy got killed in a 70 mph car accident but another got in a car accident at only 50 mph and lived so there must be a death limit around 60 mph".
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mind explaining to me what's the point of maintaining a manned Moon base for decades? Besides making it a bottomless money pit with an extremely poor ROI in terms of actual scientific advancement?
Yeah, sure, we could totally have a manned mission to Mars right now. If it wasn't for the fact that we don't have a launcher for that, nor a vehicle in which a crew could spend months in, let alone a way to return, nor probably any crew possibly prepared for such a trip.
No you're right, all you gotta do is put a couple of schmocks in a rocket and aim for the tiny red ball in the sky.
A real space program? Dude, we landed a robot on the moist and frozen shores of Titan, and we've got a few machines sending readings from the very fucking edge of the solar system.
Oh wait sorry, do you mean you would rather have had some guy play golf on an asteroid? Face it, space exploration is pursued for the sake of the advancement of science, not for the satisfaction of science fiction fans.
That's more as if you tried to develop a modern OS from the 1969 MULTICS.
Some national TLDs just suck. That's why there's relatively few .fr domains, compared to .co.uk or .de domains. It's a shame, but it's not like you can't have your own .com or .net
Nope. I'm addicted to air though. And peeing. A real toilet junkie.
A /b/tard in my /.!?
Well actually there kind of is a legitimate reason to that. Games such as the Call of Duty series involve enemies wearing camouflage, and sometimes they blend in damn well with what you see them against, mostly when they're in the dark or mostly hidden. If you've ever played a lot of Call of Duty online, you must have realised that careful observation is absolutely crucial in the survival of your player. The sniper in ghillies on the facing hill, the camper in the window, the guy in the shady corner, if you see them before they see you you win. If you fail to see them and go about your business normally, you'll be easy game.
So just in what other types of games are such observation skills as important?
Yeah pffft I hate it when scientists do research only to find out what they expected. They should only do research that would yield unexpected results.
The point is that credibility is irrelevant, which he is using to get his misinformed point across. His point has no merit, and to top it off he didn't do any actual research or try to publish the results of such research. Einstein did that.
People like you need to get a clue about how science works and STFU.
No, you're just stupid. The fact that it was very hot at one point in time in one point of Earth (Libya, of all places) is completely irrelevant of the global situation. It only shows how little you understand how climate on the scale of a planet works.
Plus, he sugggested that a solution to it would be genetically engineered trees designed to "eat" carbon more efficiently. So basically it's "do nothing and wait for a solution that doesn't exist and that no one is working on and that would be unfeasible (out of scale) anyways"
His most useful contribution to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.
OK so basically a guy whose speciality isn't in any way related to climatology makes misinformed and over-simplistic claims about the consequences of part of what's happening. Yawn. Why are we even listening to that guy again?
Wake me up when that guy publishes a climatology paper instead of just attention whoring.
Yeah, I found this after a bit of googling, looks like it's the only way it's done. Too bad, imagine a sky scraper with in its center a sequoia tree hanging upside down...
Semi-relatedly, since they tried 1 G, 0 G and now they want to try 1/6 G, has anyone ever tried -1 G? i.e. grow plants upside down? I for one would love to see a huge structure meant to hold thousands of cubic meters of soil 100 feet from the ground and let a tree grow downwards. Who knows, maybe you'd get trees of epic dimensions?
You're thinking logically. The nanny-staters who agitate for more and more ridiculous laws in this arena don't know how to do that.
Sure but I mean while we're at it we can do what they won't do and push the thinking further. For example there may be certain aspects that would evade my simple proposal, i.e. coercion to obtain child-produced porn, or fake child-produced porn, or maybe we'll still want to do something about people who are into this. But more than logic it really takes the guidance of experts in the domain.
Thanks for the reply, but if people could only stop throwing around the word genocide like it means what they think it means. Genocide is for people only, not animals, otherwise animal farming would be genocide too.
You must be in the 60% too stupid to look up what conscious means.
I'd rather say a cultural failure, i.e. a culture in which stupid viewpoints are given more consideration than they deserve. Take creationism for example. America could have said "lol stfu retard" to it, just like the rest of the world did, and never gave it more credence than the Time Cube, but no, because we need two opposing sides to anything, "the other side of the story", as if reality came in two contradictory but equally valid versions which should both be considered equally regardless of their initial merits.
Note that it also relates to the anti-expert culture we have. That's how we end up opposing elite politicians (Obama) with unlicensed plumbers (Joe), theories with overwhelming and lasting consensuses in the scientific community (climate change/evolution) with meritless and baseless pseudo-science (climate change denial/intelligent design), or researchers highly qualified in the field with bored Slashdotters with vague understandings of what's being talked about. That's how you end up circumcised from birth despite the fact that your parents are Protestants or how your sister becomes a teenage mother because the only protection she had was an abstinence pledge ring.
Wow, forget BadAnalogyGuy, meet SuperStretchSciFiAnalogyGuy!
Thanks for the insight, although it begs the question of how you'd get to be so knowledgeable on the topic. However here are my thoughts : if child porn was first criminalised because it involved molesting children, shouldn't we, instead of making the production and possession of child porn a crime, make it an evidence of crime (the crime of molesting children) and prosecute along those lines, instead of prosecuting children for strictly victimless crimes?
To hell with my karma, you've got a point, we've consistently proven to be more apathetic than most people. Hence why so many of us are Libertarians.
Boil them like frogs! Put them in mild water and increase slowly the temperature. Works on frogs. I know it's true and totally not an urban legend because Pierce Brosnan said it in that movie.
Would Pierce Brosnan lie about boiling frogs just to make a point? Of course not, he's Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan, for Christ's sake!
How do you know/determine if a creature is concious? I don't see how crabs are unconscious.
Aaaaaah, ooooooh, my heeeeead!! Why yes how did you know I was just pretending?
Further reading of this article says apparently in 1998 we were hit by gamma/x rays from supernova explosion 600 LY years away. So there definitely is a danger zone up to where? 300 LY?
To use a bad car analogy that's like saying "some guy got killed in a 70 mph car accident but another got in a car accident at only 50 mph and lived so there must be a death limit around 60 mph".