NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The WashingtonPost.

On 5/22/2013 9:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.
We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
destinations.

Define "Robot", or this discussion is meaningless. If you mean
something that looks like us, or perhaps like R2D2, then I can only
agree! We're "not there yet" and possibly never will be.

On the other hand; if you mean some "smart" programmable general purpose
machine that can replace humans in at least a narrow range of jobs, well
that stuff has been common for decades now. Just visit most any
corporate assembly line or virtually any machine shop.

As for airliners, the technology to make them taxi and fly by themselves
has been around for decades and is already installed in some planes.
For many human non-technology reasons, pilotless airliners aren't likely
to happen anytime soon.

In article 212388be-26d7-4271-a64e-
, says...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ts-hurting-job...

Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.

And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
in robots for exploring other planets". *The point of the program was
that somehow robots are taking our jobs.

just look around you today robots have taken many jobs.

A customer of mine is GM lordstown ohio plant.

they used to have over 15,000 employees, today around 3000. jobs have
moved to robots, the proof of previous employment? the vacant parking
lots, esclators shut down, employee gates permanetly closed...

its amazing walking thru there the level of automation is amazing. the
vacant lunchrooms speak to of what used to be....

just go to a ATM, that sed to be a teller. the ATM needs no days off,
no retirement, no benefits. banks around here are closing branches
replacing them with convenient ATMs....

You forget that someone has to design, build, and maintain those robots.
Those are higher educated, higher paid jobs that are added to the
economy. And, the products they produce are cheaper today than
comparable products built by hand in prior decades. So even people who
work minimum wage jobs can afford smart phones, laptops, tablets, high
definition flat screen TV's and the like.

This is simply a continuation of the Industrial Revolution. It's been
going on for hundreds of years now and our standard of living just keeps
on improving, even for the lower class. You crying gloom and doom about
jobs lost to robots is just alarmist Luddite yammering.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 8aad9a48-b52a-4c5b-b4a0-
, says...

from the MIT article......

Robots won?t have to be as good as the humans they replace.

Consider the automated checkout line at your local grocery store. It
makes more mistakes than a human clerk, it is harder to use, and it is
slower because of the rotating error light that loves to interrupt the
whole process every few minutes. Is it better than a human? Of course
not. It is simply good enough. And so begins the march of mediocre
robots that can defensibly replace humans, not because they advantage
the customer, but because they save money for a corporation. Robots
will be able to fix your car poorly before they can fix it well. They
will cook food that is bland and mealy before they garner a Michelin
star. But they will take on middle-class jobs and win, not because of
their qualitative merits, but because they look good in the antiseptic
light of financial balance sheets

Of course MIT is going to predict a rosy future where *their* research
bears fruit. MIT is in the business of getting money to do that
research. This is simply good sales and marketing. This is not an
attempt to accurately predict the future.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On 5/22/2013 9:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.
We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
destinations.

Define "Robot", or this discussion is meaningless. If you mean
something that looks like us, or perhaps like R2D2, then I can only
agree! We're "not there yet" and possibly never will be.

Bobbert thinks that "robots" that can operate on Mars semi-autonomously
will be cheap and easy to produce in massive quantities.

This is why he often refers to cars that can drive themselves. Auto-
drive cars are a research topic that is billed as being ready "any day
now", but they're not ready yet. On top of that, state laws are already
being passed which require a licensed driver in the car to take over
when the auto-drive tries to do something stupid.

On the other hand; if you mean some "smart" programmable general purpose
machine that can replace humans in at least a narrow range of jobs, well
that stuff has been common for decades now. Just visit most any
corporate assembly line or virtually any machine shop.

But that's not what Bobbert is predicting. He's predicting robots with
intelligence that's only found in sci-fi.

As for airliners, the technology to make them taxi and fly by themselves
has been around for decades and is already installed in some planes.
For many human non-technology reasons, pilotless airliners aren't likely
to happen anytime soon.

You mean like the fact that autopilots can't deal with the unexpected?
Pilots and co-pilots are required for very valid reasons. They aren't
there just to make the passengers "feel good".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On May 22, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
, says...



it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars

It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars

fred the robots will be sterilized.......

bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
on mars........

no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
perfect....

It doesn't have to be "perfect" you ignorant git, it just needs to
contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
That's called a waste holding tank. *I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.

all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
current life on mars.

There is no definitive proof that life currently exists on Mars. *On top
of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. *This is especially
true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
on Mars.

the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
in robots for exploring other planets can help *with keeping the US
competive...

This is what I hear from you: *bla, bla, bla, bla...

None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.

Jeff


well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
on contaminating mars.

its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
real earth shattering development.

robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters,

And US farms are just LITTERED with such things!

Hint: *Most farm labour is still muscles.


In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in
agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker
supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90
consumers.

most farm labor hasnt been muscles for a long time, source wikipedia

In article 5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...
well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
on contaminating mars.

It's awfully hard to prove a negative, so your argument is invalid
unless you *never* want to send people to Mars.

its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
real earth shattering development.

The chance of this "might" coming true is so infinitesimally small that
it can safely be ignored.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article bd70c917-370d-46be-8984-
, says...
robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters,

And US farms are just LITTERED with such things!

Hint: *Most farm labour is still muscles.

In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in
agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker
supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90
consumers.

most farm labor hasnt been muscles for a long time, source wikipedia

He meant that there is still a "man in the loop" (i.e. labor) instead of
a completely autonomous, computer controlled, system.

Along those lines, I am not aware of a single commercially sold tractor
or combine that can drive itself without an operator being present in
the cab. Yes, it's a research topic. Yes, several companies and
universities are playing with prototype autonomous tractors and the
like.

But, that does *not* mean that my cousin, who is a farmer, can buy one
today.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On May 23, 10:00*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...

well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
on contaminating mars.

It's awfully hard to prove a negative, so your argument is invalid
unless you *never* want to send people to Mars.

its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
real earth shattering development.

The chance of this "might" coming true is so infinitesimally small that
it can safely be ignored.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

things from remote rainforsests have been found to have medicinal
uses.

robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
completed before manned exploration begins.......

thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
some deep space manned missions...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On May 23, 10:00 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...

well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
on contaminating mars.

It's awfully hard to prove a negative, so your argument is invalid
unless you *never* want to send people to Mars.

its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
real earth shattering development.

The chance of this "might" coming true is so infinitesimally small that
it can safely be ignored.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

things from remote rainforsests have been found to have medicinal
uses.

robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
completed before manned exploration begins.......

thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
some deep space manned missions...