You stick to your WoW and your linux - there's better people than you securing your freedoms. As long as you're in your own delusional little world, dreaming about Big Oil conspiracies and moon landing hoaxes, you can't do any damage to our efforts.
Buddy, if we could find some way to turn Roses into the most efficient fuel known to man, there would be people opposed to having rose-plantations near their house. It's called "NIMBY", and you'll find that a case of it exists for any project worth pursuing.
Flywheels suck for moving vehicles. They either have to go very quickly, or be very massive, to store any significant energy.
The point is that you WOULDN'T store huge amounts of energy. You're right in that a car that was powered solely by a fly-wheel would be either too massive, or too expensive. Also, it would be way too dangerous. But using a flywheel for storing small amounts of energy from regenerative breaking, and then pumping that energy back into the main motor? There's no reason why THAT shouldn't be doable. In fact, maybe I should go patent the idea:p
So you multiply the weight of the battery by a factor of 10. Even at 15-20 kilos, it's not really a big deal. Or you use an ultra-capaitator. Heck, you could even put in a fly-wheel if you wanted to, since we're talking about fairly low energy levels, held for short periods of time. There's plenty of ways to deal with the issue, none of which would be all that complicated or expensive.
Now, give me enough hardware to do that thirty times as I drive from one corner of SF to another, and take into account the maximum practical charge and discharge rates.
Why in the heck would you want to do that? Are you saving all this energy for something? You do realize that you could simply have it all fed to the motor the next time you press your accelerator pedal, don't you?
The question is, "what are your priorities". If the people putting this thing together think it's worth risking mission success in order to give the ESA more experience, then certainly they should have the ESA do the mission. If, on the other hand, landing a package on mars is the most important aspect of the mission, they should go with NASA. It's all about priorities. And the rest of your argument is totally inapplicable, simply because you're seeing things in my comments that simply aren't there.
What about it? I'm sure you've heard the phrase "close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades". It's especially apt when you're thinking about spending millions of dollars on a project.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the ESA can't do the job, I'm just saying they don't have the experience or track record to make me comfortable. I'm also saying that pointing to past NASA mistakes is foolish, because failure is part of every testing process. And if YOU were the one fronting the money for the project, I can pretty much guarantee you'd chose NASA over the ESA.
The reason you're immune to just about anything is exactly because your country trusts you. What, you think they hand out diplomatic immunity through a lottery?
I mean, thanks for linking to that article because it was certainly a fun read, but it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
It doesn't make any difference what OS is installed...... support will be in an Indian call center where no one will understand their English... just like Dell's Windows....
I know that it might not sound like English, but really, it is. You just have to listen really carefully. And anyway, if you think about how hard it is to find computer monkeys in India who can support windows and do it in English, think about how hard it would be to find computer monkeys in India who can speak English and support LINUX!! There's what, maybe FIVE of them in the whole country???
By the same logic, you as a private citizen should have no problem at all writing a letter of recommendation for random strangers. Next time you see a drunk homeless guy passed out in a puddle of his own urine, offer to get him a job at your company.
You're assuming that owning a passport is a human right. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to legal cases, because you cannot take away someones rights and freedoms without proof of guilt. You certainly CAN refuse to issue them a passport, though.
A passport is a request by your government for foreign nations and domestic agencies to safeguard your passage and extend you basic courtesies based on your nationality. By extension, they are also an assurance by your government that you will not abuse these privileges or in any way harm your host nation. How can your government make such an assurance if the only data they have on you is your name, address, and date of birth?
Turkey seems a rights heaven when compared to what we are reading now...
According to the writers' advocacy group International PEN, roughly 60 writers, publishers and journalists have been brought charged under the 301st Article of the Turkish Penal Code that states: "A person who publicly insults being a Turk, the Republic or the Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of six months to three years."
Yep, those damn despotic Brits are WAY worse than the freedom-loving people of Turkey.
Goes to show just how fucked up peoples perceptions of the US are. I always find it amusing listening to Europeans talk about Fox News with derision, while swallowing BBC swill, and spouting some of the most Orwellian double-talk I've ever heard.
Listen, you define intelligence how you want, and I'll define it how I want. Just keep in mind that even the most developmentally retarded humans are capable of performing feats more impressive than the most intelligent animals. Your pets being able to perform a few tricks really doesn't impress me much. I've worked professionally with dogs, and I've consistently been impressed with some of the things they are capable of doing. What I've come to realize over time is that we tend to project our own standards on to them. We see as a sign of intelligence things that are only the product of conditioning and instinct. And that's wrong. You wuwing your wittle snuggly wuggly won't give it true intelligence, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "propaganda" here, though. The idea that entertainment networks are broadcasting government propaganda is more than a bit silly. It's also got nothing to do with the book you linked to.
Apology accepted. Most Aussies I know drink good beers. My favourite beer is Kilkenny, and the two coolest broads I've ever met were Aussies who loved it too, so we're good. I don't mind the fact that you guys also happen to be poisoning all the ignorant college kids with that Fosters crap.
Absence of proof is what all scepticism is based on. When you investigate 9,000 cases of reported UFO sightings, or reported "miracle healers", or "psychics", "fortune tellers", "dowsers", and "honest politicians", and EVERY SINGLE ONE turns out to be a fraud, does it really make sense to believe that case number 9,001 will turn out to be the real deal? Not bloody likely. You, like many other people before you, have raped the phrase "absence of proof is not proof of absence". It absolutely does not apply in the way in which you are attempting to use it. Being a skeptic means demanding proof. Believing things on faith alone is religion, not scepticism.
Animals aren't intelligent, and we don't have to cross several lightyears in order to study them. If we had the capability to speak to the animals, and had to travel interstellar distances before we could even look at them, do you really think we'd bother tagging them?
You'd have to be a bit crazy to suggest that a species which has perfected space-travel to the extent needed to make interstellar research viable could learn ANYTHING by sticking glorified thermometers up the asses of rednecks and certifiable lunatics.
Slashdot Mirror
You stick to your WoW and your linux - there's better people than you securing your freedoms. As long as you're in your own delusional little world, dreaming about Big Oil conspiracies and moon landing hoaxes, you can't do any damage to our efforts.
Buddy, if we could find some way to turn Roses into the most efficient fuel known to man, there would be people opposed to having rose-plantations near their house. It's called "NIMBY", and you'll find that a case of it exists for any project worth pursuing.
So you multiply the weight of the battery by a factor of 10. Even at 15-20 kilos, it's not really a big deal. Or you use an ultra-capaitator. Heck, you could even put in a fly-wheel if you wanted to, since we're talking about fairly low energy levels, held for short periods of time. There's plenty of ways to deal with the issue, none of which would be all that complicated or expensive.
Aw, yes, the favourite refrain of the woowoo's. It's da NaziBusHIlter sucking up to da Big OIL!!!!!1ONE!!!
The question is, "what are your priorities". If the people putting this thing together think it's worth risking mission success in order to give the ESA more experience, then certainly they should have the ESA do the mission. If, on the other hand, landing a package on mars is the most important aspect of the mission, they should go with NASA. It's all about priorities. And the rest of your argument is totally inapplicable, simply because you're seeing things in my comments that simply aren't there.
What about it? I'm sure you've heard the phrase "close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades". It's especially apt when you're thinking about spending millions of dollars on a project.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the ESA can't do the job, I'm just saying they don't have the experience or track record to make me comfortable. I'm also saying that pointing to past NASA mistakes is foolish, because failure is part of every testing process. And if YOU were the one fronting the money for the project, I can pretty much guarantee you'd chose NASA over the ESA.
The reason you're immune to just about anything is exactly because your country trusts you. What, you think they hand out diplomatic immunity through a lottery?
I mean, thanks for linking to that article because it was certainly a fun read, but it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Congratulations, you managed to miss the point entirely! That deffinitely took talent.
Let me put it this way; who would you trust with a multi-million dollar space mission:
a) An organization which, through the process of trial and error, has landed several vehicles on Mars.
or
b) The kid next door with his scrap paper and crayons, yelling "WELP, I HAVEN'T FAILED YET!!".
Amazing. I didn't think people like you still existed. Let me guess...you're a university teacher, right?
By the same logic, you as a private citizen should have no problem at all writing a letter of recommendation for random strangers. Next time you see a drunk homeless guy passed out in a puddle of his own urine, offer to get him a job at your company.
You're assuming that owning a passport is a human right. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to legal cases, because you cannot take away someones rights and freedoms without proof of guilt. You certainly CAN refuse to issue them a passport, though.
A passport is a request by your government for foreign nations and domestic agencies to safeguard your passage and extend you basic courtesies based on your nationality. By extension, they are also an assurance by your government that you will not abuse these privileges or in any way harm your host nation. How can your government make such an assurance if the only data they have on you is your name, address, and date of birth?
Yep, those damn despotic Brits are WAY worse than the freedom-loving people of Turkey.
Goes to show just how fucked up peoples perceptions of the US are. I always find it amusing listening to Europeans talk about Fox News with derision, while swallowing BBC swill, and spouting some of the most Orwellian double-talk I've ever heard.
There's a difference between "absence of evidence because we haven't looked" and "absence of evidence even though we've spent years looking".
*sigh* there's always one of you around...
Listen, you define intelligence how you want, and I'll define it how I want. Just keep in mind that even the most developmentally retarded humans are capable of performing feats more impressive than the most intelligent animals. Your pets being able to perform a few tricks really doesn't impress me much. I've worked professionally with dogs, and I've consistently been impressed with some of the things they are capable of doing. What I've come to realize over time is that we tend to project our own standards on to them. We see as a sign of intelligence things that are only the product of conditioning and instinct. And that's wrong. You wuwing your wittle snuggly wuggly won't give it true intelligence, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
So you're suggesting that all this anal probing is just the aliens version of Candid Camera?
Hrm....well, it makes more sense than any other explanation I've ever heard....
Alright, that was good :)
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "propaganda" here, though. The idea that entertainment networks are broadcasting government propaganda is more than a bit silly. It's also got nothing to do with the book you linked to.
Apology accepted. Most Aussies I know drink good beers. My favourite beer is Kilkenny, and the two coolest broads I've ever met were Aussies who loved it too, so we're good. I don't mind the fact that you guys also happen to be poisoning all the ignorant college kids with that Fosters crap.
Absence of proof is what all scepticism is based on. When you investigate 9,000 cases of reported UFO sightings, or reported "miracle healers", or "psychics", "fortune tellers", "dowsers", and "honest politicians", and EVERY SINGLE ONE turns out to be a fraud, does it really make sense to believe that case number 9,001 will turn out to be the real deal? Not bloody likely. You, like many other people before you, have raped the phrase "absence of proof is not proof of absence". It absolutely does not apply in the way in which you are attempting to use it. Being a skeptic means demanding proof. Believing things on faith alone is religion, not scepticism.
Animals aren't intelligent, and we don't have to cross several lightyears in order to study them. If we had the capability to speak to the animals, and had to travel interstellar distances before we could even look at them, do you really think we'd bother tagging them?
You'd have to be a bit crazy to suggest that a species which has perfected space-travel to the extent needed to make interstellar research viable could learn ANYTHING by sticking glorified thermometers up the asses of rednecks and certifiable lunatics.