there are also multitude of valuable scientific experiments that are done on ISS
The science-per-dollar in such ISS experiments has been very poor, considering the total cost of ISS and life-support and maintenance. 100 billion US dollars can buy a hell of a lot of R&D otherwise.
all the Moon missions brought back precious information about its geology. If we could make a self-sufficient base on the Moon and even send a single geologist there they will bring more data then all probes that we sent there to date.
I'm skeptical of that claim. One generally does not know what one is looking at until it's taken back to a lab. And robotic sniffers can do more preliminary analysis than an on-site human geologist per dollar. Robots (multi-spectral cameras) can "see more colors" in a sense. Human eyesight is limited. And we'd have more rocks/soil from more sites if we had sent robots under the same costs.
Our current gap is not really in space-specific technology. An "AI race" and/or 3D-printer/replicator-race would probably better serve the goal of living in space than a "space race" that only focuses on space-specific technology. We should focus on the bottlenecks, and those bottlenecks so far appear to NOT be space-specific.
Think of how difficult it would be to do space exploration in general without compact computers. Computer technology is not space-specific, but computer technology miniaturization happened to be a giant enabler of space exploration. Dumping tons of money into ONLY space-related stuff would not have been nearly as beneficial (being we've mostly plateaued on the mechanical and chem rocket side of things since the late 1950's.)
Similarly, AI and/or flexible manufacturing automation appear to be areas that help in other industries AND space exploration/colonization. Let's try to launch two birds with one rocket.
Manned missions are expensive, risky, and provide very little of value for the money other than knowledge of space's impact on the human body.
Manned missions also take money away from robotic missions, which have proven to be far more scientifically valuable per dollar spent. I'd rather see a Titan boat probe and a Europa submarine probe than a manned near-orbit asteroid sampling mission.
I believe other technologies have to catch up to make humans-in-space practical, such as automated dwelling construction and mining, and automation of space-based manufacturing and repair. It requires a lot of labor to make a self-sustaining colony, and space-suits make such impractical and risky. We need better helper robots first. Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels. These problems will NOT be solved by yet more manned missions alone.
Robotic probes are highly effective and efficient, while humans-in-space is currently very clunky, wasteful, risky, and expensive at this point in time. We are doing it wrong. Let other tech catch up first.
Sorry, that's what I meant. Still relatively close. The diameter of the observable universe is about 30 to 40 billion light years. The chance of the brightest radiation source being only 2.6 BLY away is close enough to suggest some kind of anthropic principle bias in play.
The galaxy is about 2.6 light-years away. That's relatively close. That seems kind of a coincidental. A far away one would probably be detectable because it's so powerful.
Actually, the fine print would probably resemble: "You will receive stated number of virgins in the afterlife, but Al-Qaeda and its affiliates cannot guarantee the quality, skill, sexual preference, or the species of the virgins. Nor do we offer substitutions."
Amen! Science is a difficult profession with a long and winding road until you get a stable career, and no guarantees even after boatloads of education. You often have to be willing to sacrifice a family and personal life early on to make coin in the profession.
Women tend to value family life and family issues more than men. I won't put a value judgement on that preference here, but the practical side is that science is NOT a family-oriented line of work.
The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating...
That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.
Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.
I don't like forced browser tabs and was pissed when FireFox changed to required them, making up a stupid excuse about security. Fortunately there's an addon to switch them off. If that addon disappears, I'm chucking FireFox.
Slashdot Mirror
The science-per-dollar in such ISS experiments has been very poor, considering the total cost of ISS and life-support and maintenance. 100 billion US dollars can buy a hell of a lot of R&D otherwise.
I'm skeptical of that claim. One generally does not know what one is looking at until it's taken back to a lab. And robotic sniffers can do more preliminary analysis than an on-site human geologist per dollar. Robots (multi-spectral cameras) can "see more colors" in a sense. Human eyesight is limited. And we'd have more rocks/soil from more sites if we had sent robots under the same costs.
Our current gap is not really in space-specific technology. An "AI race" and/or 3D-printer/replicator-race would probably better serve the goal of living in space than a "space race" that only focuses on space-specific technology. We should focus on the bottlenecks, and those bottlenecks so far appear to NOT be space-specific.
Think of how difficult it would be to do space exploration in general without compact computers. Computer technology is not space-specific, but computer technology miniaturization happened to be a giant enabler of space exploration. Dumping tons of money into ONLY space-related stuff would not have been nearly as beneficial (being we've mostly plateaued on the mechanical and chem rocket side of things since the late 1950's.)
Similarly, AI and/or flexible manufacturing automation appear to be areas that help in other industries AND space exploration/colonization. Let's try to launch two birds with one rocket.
Manned missions are expensive, risky, and provide very little of value for the money other than knowledge of space's impact on the human body.
Manned missions also take money away from robotic missions, which have proven to be far more scientifically valuable per dollar spent. I'd rather see a Titan boat probe and a Europa submarine probe than a manned near-orbit asteroid sampling mission.
I believe other technologies have to catch up to make humans-in-space practical, such as automated dwelling construction and mining, and automation of space-based manufacturing and repair. It requires a lot of labor to make a self-sustaining colony, and space-suits make such impractical and risky. We need better helper robots first. Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels. These problems will NOT be solved by yet more manned missions alone.
Robotic probes are highly effective and efficient, while humans-in-space is currently very clunky, wasteful, risky, and expensive at this point in time. We are doing it wrong. Let other tech catch up first.
Excellent! I want my age 19 wanker back!
Sorry, that's what I meant. Still relatively close. The diameter of the observable universe is about 30 to 40 billion light years. The chance of the brightest radiation source being only 2.6 BLY away is close enough to suggest some kind of anthropic principle bias in play.
The galaxy is about 2.6 light-years away. That's relatively close. That seems kind of a coincidental. A far away one would probably be detectable because it's so powerful.
If a hacker has access to accelerometer data, he/she probably has access to lots of OTHER personal info also.
Time for good old fashioned taxes
It's our God-given right to have the freedom to allow our brains to be splattered all over His Grand Creation.
Modern take on Honeymooners: "To the moon with your job, Alice!"
Or suggests NASA workers need a vacation and a good f8ck.
At least it's not Java
So are people who think virgins are better, but it's what their market seems to want.
ACA is not "free healthcare"; it's required insurance. Very different. Sure, there are subsidies, which is fine by me when inequality is so high.
And, early retirement makes room for the next generation to work.
Well, they ain't russian to get anything new.
I like "Crashberry"
How do you get references from dead martyrs?
Actually, the fine print would probably resemble: "You will receive stated number of virgins in the afterlife, but Al-Qaeda and its affiliates cannot guarantee the quality, skill, sexual preference, or the species of the virgins. Nor do we offer substitutions."
True nerds would find a way to get Emacs to do it.....I bet RMS put the code in already even.
"64 bytes oughtta be enough for any Martian."
- Marvin Gates
Amen! Science is a difficult profession with a long and winding road until you get a stable career, and no guarantees even after boatloads of education. You often have to be willing to sacrifice a family and personal life early on to make coin in the profession.
Women tend to value family life and family issues more than men. I won't put a value judgement on that preference here, but the practical side is that science is NOT a family-oriented line of work.
Those boards don't work on water, unless you got POWAH!
That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.
Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.
They already exist, they are called Furby's. And "annoying" is a better description than "creepy".
I don't like forced browser tabs and was pissed when FireFox changed to required them, making up a stupid excuse about security. Fortunately there's an addon to switch them off. If that addon disappears, I'm chucking FireFox.