If your goal is colorization of space. Then the last thing you want is another government pork nationalistic space mission. It will achieve nothing towards your goal. Just as the Apollo mission achieved nothing towards that goal.
I am taking up skydiving with the eventual goal of wingsuit flying. I like the freedom to do that and take that risk. But then i don't expect the government and fellow taxpayers to pay for it.
Dying for piddling oil wars is somehow acceptable, but to advance the human space frontier is questionably not ethical?!
A one way mission to mars with not advance the human space frontier one iota. It will however cost a lot and have good odds to fail to even get them to mars.
A robot that costs and has the mass budget of a human mission could easily do all those things and more. Current robotic missions have mass/energy budgets that are a small fraction of anything a manned mission could be.
3D printers are going to do nothing of the sort. You can't control micro structure for example on the few that can "print" metal. A good example is the metal frame of the iPhone. Its forged to get the right micro structure that gives it the properties it needs. Its quite impossible to print.
Also 3d printers have been used in industry as a rapid prototyping tool for the better part of 2 decades. And they are not that much of an improvement over a good mulitaxis CNC machine which we have had for even longer.
I travel a lot. I don't watch DVD much anymore. But i have 3 different zones in my collection. Its not uncommon for people to have at least 2 zones. Where they are from and where they currently live.
Gold is not a superconductor at any temperature. Its not even a great conductor. It is soft and makes good "push" connections, hence its use in connectors.
Also most of golds value has nothing to do with its usefulness. About 10% of mined gold is used. The rest is hoarded for perceived value based historically on the fact that its shiny when not many things where.
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
Yea i am in favor of this also. Everyone gets a basic income. Everyone. If you get a job you pay tax, but still have this basic income. The idea is you don't need a massive Social system that probably spends more money working if you are allowed unemployment etc, than if just everyone got the base income.
Also if we believe some of the above posts. Some people are so stupid we should not give them a job since they are crap at everything and it would be cheaper to give them a base income, and let the machine do the job anyway.
You know what else! Buggy whip manufactures are all out of business as we speak. Oh wait we don't want those anyway. Ah, i got it. Potato pickers are all out of work. Work where they would intereact with each other and have income. And now all replaced by a few machines. Rise up and, wait what?
The idea that we need to keep menial unsatisfying jobs around to "keep people employed" is stupid. Seriously stupid. If your version of human interaction is ordering a bugger at McD's you are a sad person.
If your take on human interaction is to wait in line to be served by a pretty girl who says almost nothing and tells you to pay... then i pity you. Try and spend your time better and get a hobby/sport or something where you really interact with these other people you seem so fond of.
I know when i want facts... I use the internets as well. Cus its on the internets.
Oh wait, no i don't. I read the peer reviewed papers on the subject. IPCC is not that. I personally know scientists who have contributed to the report in the past. They won't do so again.
Then why is CO2 is added to greenhouses to increase growth rate of crops? Depending on local conditions growth is limited by one factor (basic ecology). Where there is sun and its not too cold ie in the summer for large parts of earth, it is typically CO2 limited for many plants. Even now at 400pm there is very little CO2 is the air. That is a lot of diffusion to absorb a decent amount.
Like hell they are. What is done in these highly politicized reports, is take the 5% extreme case, say in California and report that. Then take the 5% most extreme case in NY and report that.. So on and so forth. Now even if these "confidence" things could be interpreted as probability of the event occurring, which they can't. They present all of these 5% things all over the world as if that is what could happen, while even with this poor interpretation of data, its a million to one that even a dozen of these predictions to come true. Its total misrepresentation of the model/data at best and scientifically dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
If your goal is colorization of space. Then the last thing you want is another government pork nationalistic space mission. It will achieve nothing towards your goal. Just as the Apollo mission achieved nothing towards that goal.
I am taking up skydiving with the eventual goal of wingsuit flying. I like the freedom to do that and take that risk. But then i don't expect the government and fellow taxpayers to pay for it.
Dying for piddling oil wars is somehow acceptable, but to advance the human space frontier is questionably not ethical?!
A one way mission to mars with not advance the human space frontier one iota. It will however cost a lot and have good odds to fail to even get them to mars.
A robot that costs and has the mass budget of a human mission could easily do all those things and more. Current robotic missions have mass/energy budgets that are a small fraction of anything a manned mission could be.
3D printers are going to do nothing of the sort. You can't control micro structure for example on the few that can "print" metal. A good example is the metal frame of the iPhone. Its forged to get the right micro structure that gives it the properties it needs. Its quite impossible to print.
Also 3d printers have been used in industry as a rapid prototyping tool for the better part of 2 decades. And they are not that much of an improvement over a good mulitaxis CNC machine which we have had for even longer.
I travel a lot. I don't watch DVD much anymore. But i have 3 different zones in my collection. Its not uncommon for people to have at least 2 zones. Where they are from and where they currently live.
Same magnitude but not the same. Its not used because of a conductivity. Silver is both much cheaper and a better conductor.
This is true. In fact if gold was cheaper.. It would probably find a lot more uses that it currently does.
Gold is not a superconductor at any temperature. Its not even a great conductor. It is soft and makes good "push" connections, hence its use in connectors.
Also most of golds value has nothing to do with its usefulness. About 10% of mined gold is used. The rest is hoarded for perceived value based historically on the fact that its shiny when not many things where.
The current nuclear detection network is struggling to keep its funding. So no this angle will probably not help with funding.
I wounder if you will still go when its 3x more expensive that the non real waiter places?
Speak for yourself. I work less and play more.
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
Yea i am in favor of this also. Everyone gets a basic income. Everyone. If you get a job you pay tax, but still have this basic income. The idea is you don't need a massive Social system that probably spends more money working if you are allowed unemployment etc, than if just everyone got the base income.
Also if we believe some of the above posts. Some people are so stupid we should not give them a job since they are crap at everything and it would be cheaper to give them a base income, and let the machine do the job anyway.
What would really fix a bunch of stuff is outlawing fractional-reserve banking. With anything besides currency, it would be considered fraud.
I think perhaps you don't understand Fractional reserve banking. If there is contract law you *can* do with anything else. And it sometimes is.
You know what else! Buggy whip manufactures are all out of business as we speak. Oh wait we don't want those anyway. Ah, i got it. Potato pickers are all out of work. Work where they would intereact with each other and have income. And now all replaced by a few machines. Rise up and, wait what?
The idea that we need to keep menial unsatisfying jobs around to "keep people employed" is stupid. Seriously stupid. If your version of human interaction is ordering a bugger at McD's you are a sad person.
If this is what you want. Join the Amish.
If your take on human interaction is to wait in line to be served by a pretty girl who says almost nothing and tells you to pay... then i pity you. Try and spend your time better and get a hobby/sport or something where you really interact with these other people you seem so fond of.
I know when i want facts... I use the internets as well. Cus its on the internets.
Oh wait, no i don't. I read the peer reviewed papers on the subject. IPCC is not that. I personally know scientists who have contributed to the report in the past. They won't do so again.
It's disingenuous to try and compare the two periods, for many more reasons than the few I've listed.
What do you think climate models use as input?
Then why is CO2 is added to greenhouses to increase growth rate of crops? Depending on local conditions growth is limited by one factor (basic ecology). Where there is sun and its not too cold ie in the summer for large parts of earth, it is typically CO2 limited for many plants. Even now at 400pm there is very little CO2 is the air. That is a lot of diffusion to absorb a decent amount.
Only in that the debate contains no science.
Whats cute is you think your being a free thinker.
Like hell they are. What is done in these highly politicized reports, is take the 5% extreme case, say in California and report that. Then take the 5% most extreme case in NY and report that.. So on and so forth. Now even if these "confidence" things could be interpreted as probability of the event occurring, which they can't. They present all of these 5% things all over the world as if that is what could happen, while even with this poor interpretation of data, its a million to one that even a dozen of these predictions to come true. Its total misrepresentation of the model/data at best and scientifically dishonest.
Nothing is ever inconsistent with AGW predictions. Because it predicts everything.
This is not how a CME effects earth at all.