I'm not sure why you have such a negative view on our capabilities and drive. Rather I think we just realize that we don't have as much to gain from traveling to mars as we have to gain by investing elsewhere the extraordinary amount of money it would take.
In time, with technology advances (and yes, technology is still advancing without going to mars), it will become easier to accomplish travel to mars.
Sure, I can buy that fancy new Ferrari now - or I could invest that money in my new widget factory, and buy 10 Ferrari later.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, as an engineer/scientist myself I can only applaud more dosh coming our way!
No but it proves that our endevours have been stunted. How then are we to progress if we do not foster our abilities? Its like locking up a child in a closet and wondering why they can't talk. Technology builds on itself. I dare say that if we had pursued going to the moon and Mars other advances would be sure to accompany them.
Originally posted by whodeyat some point, the goal becomes not a moon colony, etc., but to suck up money.
I was watching part of 2001 a space oddyssey the other day and something struck me. This was the vision of the world for a man who lived in the 1960's that has long since past. It was an optimistic vision that saw mankind excelling in technology as they began exploring our never ending universe.
So what went wrong with this vision? It certainly was no ...[text shortened]... our pig pen to realize such potential. Perhaps if mankind discovered oil on Mars...... 😛
bureaucracies are quite TALENTED at sucking up money.
Originally posted by whodeyInteresting how you shoot your original post in the foot.
I completly disagree. I say that if mankind detects an astroid due to hit earth and wipe it out, with a reasonable amount of time to respond, we find a way to divert it. In short, necessity is the mother of invention. In fact, I have heard countless scientists come up with various theories for space travel and habitation in space. What is needed is a reason to do so so they fork over the $$$$.
You start a thread asking why we don't go after 'lofty goals' then suggest it is all due to our selfish nature etc.
Now you point out that even as a whole we don't really have much motivation for going into space.
I think that the writers of science fiction would like to think that there are enormous benefits to going into space and colonizing other planets, but the truth of the matter is that at the current time it is not particularly beneficial to mankind and there are better things to do with our money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
And Intel could produce those PCs without the technology required for it how exactly?
Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed the first patent for a transistor in Canada in 1925, describing a device similar to a Field Effect Transistor or "FET".[1] However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices,[citation needed] and in 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar device.[2]
In 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States observed that when electrical contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, the output power was larger than the input. Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in this, and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors, and thus could be described as the "father of the transistor". The term was coined by John R. Pierce.[3] According to physicist/historian Robert Arns, legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and Gerald Pearson had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles.[4]
The first silicon transistor was produced by Texas Instruments in 1954.[5] This was the work of Gordon Teal, an expert in growing crystals of high purity, who had previously worked at Bell Labs.[6] The first MOS transistor actually built was by Kahng and Atalla at Bell Labs in 1960.[7]
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnd the transistor was invented without the technology required for it how exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed the first patent for a transistor in Canada in 1925, describing a device similar to a Field Effect Transistor or "FET".[1] However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices,[citation needed] and in 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar ...[text shortened]... ] The first MOS transistor actually built was by Kahng and Atalla at Bell Labs in 1960.[7]
Look, you can pursue this as far as you want, but the vast majority of all science has been conducted through universities.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrascience is useless unless it's applied.
And the transistor was invented without the technology required for it how exactly?
Look, you can pursue this as far as you want, but the vast majority of all science has been conducted through universities.
think of all the little starving children in africa that could have been saved by the tons of money spent by useless bureaucracies, and pile upon pile of critiques of shakespeare.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe children would be starving everywhere without those useless bureaucrats.
science is useless unless it's applied.
think of all the little starving children in africa that could have been saved by the tons of money spent by useless bureaucracies, and pile upon pile of critiques of shakespeare.
much and even most of the contribution of government is useless foam. at some point the focus becomes just to pull in more money and to spend it.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy
American science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle has proposed a theory he refers to as "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy", which states:
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
This robust tendency is purported to operate to the effect that:
"...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."
http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=h&ncl=dJu1Ttvs_3xdR8MBIazEZhE48fMlM
Austin pilot's Web rant: 'I am finally ready to stop this insanity'
Los Angeles Times - Richard A. Serrano - ‎38 minutes ago‎
Joseph Andrew Stack, identified by authorities as the man who crashed a plane into a Texas building, had a website in which he complained about the IRS, the US healthcare system and big business. By Richard A. Serrano Reporting from Washington - The ...