Re: Current pace of technology...SICKENING!!

[Jay Windley]

"Slickwater" > wrote in message
om...
|
| What the hell is the matter with scientists today.

Plenty, but you can't lay at their feet the problems with Pentium and
Panasonic. Consumer technology is purely a market (and marketing) animal.
We have barely incremental advances in technology in the popular CPUs and
the like because that's what makes those companies the most money. They
release the Pentium 4 2.6 GHz because they know they can make a pile of
money on it. And then four months later they release the Pentium 4 2.65 GHz
CPU because they know they can make *another* pile of money.

There are some of us who are upset at Intel for locking us into that
detestable x86 architecture for more than a *decade* with their incremental
revisions, when much slicker, cleaner, and more efficient designs were all
over the place.

When the driving force behind innovation is the bottom line, you find that
innovation is aimed more at the psychology of the buyer than at the
capability of the industry.

Thankfully science isn't driven by the bottom line. Or is it? Funding has
always been a big issue for professional scientists. They rely on people
funding their ideas. But very often you find that scientists make
themselves willing to study whatever's being funded that year.

| The fact that we haven't colonized the moon yet and
| had several manned missions to mars makes me want to puke.

Well, I have to ask what you expect to gain by colonizing the moon. Sure,
the "coolness" factor would be considerably high, but so would the cost.
And that's really the issue. We can spend billions of dollars a week
fighting terrorism because that's the hot button this year. Back in the
1960s space was the hot button. Nowadays space exploration has to be done
on a very small fraction of what was handed out to land on the moon. And so
we move slowly.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Andre Lieven]

John Beaderstadt ) writes:
> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> "Jay Windley" > on Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:11:08
> -0600, which said:
>
>>We can spend billions of dollars a week
>>fighting terrorism because that's the hot button this year.
>
> Is that all it is? My kid is over there getting RPGs shot at his head
> because it's "popular"?

Well, its popularly viewed as a necessary thing to do... Which was
kinda the case with Apollo, before the public " tuned out "... :-(

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Jay Windley]

"John Beaderstadt" > wrote in message
...
|
| Is that all it is? My kid is over there getting RPGs shot
| at his head because it's "popular"?

No, not "popular", but because security is where the priority of many of
today's Americans lies. Americans after 9/11 perceive terrorism as a
greater threat than before, and they are willing to expend exorbitant
amounts of money -- and put soldiers at bodily risk -- in order to attempt
to abate that threat. Whether that perception is accurate and whether the
risk is justified are entirely separate debates. My point is simply that
public finance follows public whim, and so it often displays the alternating
genius and fallacy of public whim.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Jay Windley" > on Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:35:33
-0600, which said:

>My point is simply that
>public finance follows public whim...

OK, I follow your point; it's your choice of words I disagree with.
Even if I didn't have some personal involvement, I would have trouble
calling the decision to go to war a "whim," public or otherwise. No
one goes to war on a whim; no parent sends his children off to be
killed because it seems like a good idea at the time, and no
politician risks his career without what he considers to be good and
sufficient cause.

---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
(Slickwater) on 7 Aug 2003 06:58:24
-0700, which said:

Just some more bitching.

<plonk>

---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Jay Windley]

"Slickwater" > wrote in message
om...
|
| Jay, retard, I don't care about the pentuim chip it was merely an
| EXAMPLE.

Good heavens, someone sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this
morning. Of course I realize that the Pentium and DVDs were just examples.
I was pointing out that they were *bad* examples if you want to talk about
space travel. You can't compare consumer electronics and space exploration
because they're two fundamentally different things governed by fundamentally
different political and economic rules. Now you can argue that they have
both stagnated, and I'll agree with you. But they're individually
stagnating for different reasons. Fixing the Pentium won't fix the space
program.

| ... so the US better get up there and colonized the moon,
| it's more landmass, an eventual necessity.

First, the U.S. is still party to a treaty that says we won't try to claim
the moon as our property. What do you propose to do with that treaty?

Second, it's still phenomenally expensive to go to the moon, whether it's to
pick up a few rocks or to dig the foundation for Fort Armstrong. Right now
few people in the United States seem interested in going back to the moon,
and so there are no public funds for doing it. Right now the United States
is primarily concerned about its domestic security, and the security of its
interests throughout the world. The people in the U.S. feel a need to abate
a worldwide terrorist threat.

Back in 1961 people feared a well-organized, technologically-proficient foe:
the Soviet Union. John F. Kennedy shrewdly realized that a moon mission
would solidify our resolve and give us pride in our technical ability to
protect our citizen from attack from that front. It would give the Soviets
reason to fear taking us on as a bona fide enemy. It had little to do with
any need to go to the moon.

If you could figure out a way to credibly tie colonizing the moon into a
defense against terrorism, then you probably would be able to generate
interest in it today and get public funding. But right now the U.S. public
feels that the most bang for its buck is to be had in the military
operations now underway.

Somehow the abstract notion of conquering new lands loses its luster when
you're talking about a place with a 500-degree F difference in temperature,
occasional blasts of solar particles, and where you have to bring your own
air, food, and water.

| Now, does anyone have a semi-intelligent response?

In the wake of all these personal insults from you, I'm waiting for a
semi-intelligent question.

Explain again why you're not a troll?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Scott Hedrick]

"Slickwater" > wrote in message
om...
> Why isn't new stuff like that being invented now

What makes you think it isn't? You can't dictate innovation.

Now, does anyone have a semi-intelligent
> response?

Yes: <plonk>
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Jay Windley" > on Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:20:21
-0600, which said:

>In the wake of all these personal insults from you, I'm waiting for a
>semi-intelligent question.

Do like I did, and plonk the asshole.

As for the question itself, it's rather ridiculous and demonstrates
virtually no knowledge of history, current events or, for that matter,
technology itself. Consider: Humanity is, at best, 10k years old (I
don't know about you, but *I* would be rather reluctant to attempt
mating with a member of the species from before that time). We have
been able to lift ourselves off the planet for only the last 1% of our
existence, and Yabbo is upset that there's no Hilton yet on Mars.

The world just doesn't work like that. As evidence, consider that
it's not just in America that progress hasn't been as rapid as some
pubescent, self-involved philosophers would like, none of the other
"advanced" nations have progressed any further in this same period.
In fact, most of the planet lags so far behind us that their
technological state isn't so very far removed from what it was all
those 10k years ago. Yet, Yabbo doesn't seem at all concerned about
the welfare of his fellow humans; he's upset because it just sunk in
that he won't live long enough to be neighbors with George Jetson.

And one last point: The history (something else I'll bet Yabbo knows
nothing about, and cares for even less) of colonization shows that
colonies are a drain on the mother country's resources for at least
the first century; that is, unless you get really, really lucky.
Colonies are a measure of wealth, they are *not*, except in very
special circumstances, contributors to that wealth until they have had
time to mature. No nation on earth has the resources to establish a
lunar or Martian colony, let alone sustain it through its growth.


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Derek Lyons]

John Beaderstadt > wrote:
>And one last point: The history (something else I'll bet Yabbo knows
>nothing about, and cares for even less) of colonization shows that
>colonies are a drain on the mother country's resources for at least
>the first century; that is, unless you get really, really lucky.
>Colonies are a measure of wealth, they are *not*, except in very
>special circumstances, contributors to that wealth until they have had
>time to mature.

History shows that your scenario is only true *when the colonies are
established primarily for reasons of national pride*. This was the
mistake most nation-states made in the late 1800's while attempting to
emulate Britain's colonial system, Britain understood the economics of
colonization, while the others didn't.

Even in the classical colonial period (1600's-1800's) you can plainly
see this as Britain built an Empire, and Spain colonized itself into
bankruptcy. Holland tried to steer a middle course, and ended up in
the middle of the pack.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[Jay Windley]

"John Beaderstadt" > wrote in message
...
|
| Do like I did, and plonk the asshole.

Good advice.

| And one last point: The history (something else I'll bet
| Yabbo knows nothing about, and cares for even less) of
| colonization shows that colonies are a drain on the mother
| country's resources for at least the first century ...

And that applies to colonies that have initial raw materials and resources
such as air and water. The barrier to a self-sustaining lunar colony is
severe.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Curtis Croulet]

"Lunar colony" implies that we'll be look up and see roads and strip mines on
the surface of the Moon. I'm not ready for that. OTOH, it would end all of
this faked moon-landing crap.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27'59"N, 117° 05' 53"W

[Jay Windley]

"Curtis Croulet" > wrote in message
...
| OTOH, it would end all of this faked moon-landing crap.

.... and the beginning of the protests by environmentalists to "Save the
Moon". It's a no-win situation.

I like the moon the way it is. I suppose in a century or two it might be
attractive to mine the moon for minerals, but most of what's up there is
also down here. So those of us who prefer the pristine moon are safe for
now. My biggest fear is seeing the moon turned into the Pepsi logo. I'd
rather see it mined than turned into something crass.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Damon Hill]

"Curtis Croulet" > wrote in
:

> "Lunar colony" implies that we'll be look up and see roads and strip
> mines on the surface of the Moon. I'm not ready for that. OTOH, it

At that distance, roads wouldn't be visible and the mines almost
unimaginably huge to be barely visible with a good telescope.

It's a dead world, nothing to 'save'.

--Damon

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Jay Windley" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with your point in general, however I work next to the Kennecott
> copper mine in Utah which is, for lack of a better expression, "freakin'
> huge." While a mine that size would still be invisible as seen with the
> naked eye from earth, Hubble could see it easily.

I'm sure if we get to that level of industry on the Moon, we can just as
easily do it on the back side.


>
> --
> |
> The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
> to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
>

[Scott Hedrick]

"Damon Hill" > wrote in message
32...
> "Curtis Croulet" > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Lunar colony" implies that we'll be look up and see roads and strip
> > mines on the surface of the Moon. I'm not ready for that. OTOH, it
>
> At that distance, roads wouldn't be visible and the mines almost
> unimaginably huge to be barely visible with a good telescope.

Well, some scenarios have roving robot factories that scoop soil, heat it,
extract the various materials, and dump the remainder behind, and are
occasionally serviced by robot haulers. When enough of those have operated
in a given area, they would have turned enough soil to be visible. I suspect
the sparkly lights from some lunar city would be visible sooner.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[NoLawyer]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote.....

Anyone have Troll Hedrick's real, present address? He needs to
be served with the Complaint in a certain civil action.....

[Joe Durnavich]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) writes:

>"Jay Windley" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I agree with your point in general, however I work next to the Kennecott
>> copper mine in Utah which is, for lack of a better expression, "freakin'
>> huge." While a mine that size would still be invisible as seen with the
>> naked eye from earth, Hubble could see it easily.
>
>I'm sure if we get to that level of industry on the Moon, we can just as
>easily do it on the back side.

Yeah, the last thing we want to see on the moon is a big hole in the
ground.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Paul Blay]

"John Beaderstadt" wrote ...
> As for the question itself, it's rather ridiculous and demonstrates
> virtually no knowledge of history, current events or, for that matter,
> technology itself. Consider: Humanity is, at best, 10k years old (I
> don't know about you, but *I* would be rather reluctant to attempt
> mating with a member of the species from before that time).

Yeah. That's looong past 'cold & stiff', far past 'smelly' and into the
'Post-supermodel-thinness' stage.

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Scott Hedrick" > on Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:36:30
-0400, which said:

>Well, some scenarios have roving robot factories that scoop soil, heat it,
>extract the various materials, and dump the remainder behind, and are
>occasionally serviced by robot haulers.

So, what could we be after, that would cover the cost of buying,
operating and maintaining such rigs, as well as their supporting
infrastructure, and still turn a profit for their owners?


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Slickwater]

(Slickwater) wrote in message >...
> Slickwater wrote:
>
> Someone tell me what the freakin deal is. 4 years ago, the cutting
> edge of technology was at an acceptable grueling pace. Now it has
> slowed down to a pitiful, stomach-wrenching crawl and it makes me
> sick. Then, for example, we invented the Pentium chip and the DVD
> player, now everyone thinks were makin the same leaps by making
> existing Pentium chips a few Megahertz faster and a DVD player that
> hold slightly more gigabytes. What the hell is the matter with
> scientists today. The fact that we haven't colonized the moon yet and
> had several manned missions to mars makes me want to puke. What the
> heck is takin these chumps so long? I'm so mad.
>
> -Slick



Good god, what a bunch of complete dumbasses. I thought I posted a
note to sci.space.history where supposedly somewhat intelligent people
sometimes collaborate. I didn't realize that I in fact posted it to
total.freaking.retarded.morons.who.need.to.be.shot .in.the.face oh
well, innocent mistake i guess. I DON'T CARE ABOUT A LUNAR COLONY OR
PENTIUM CHIPS YOU DEGENRATES. I am totally ****ed off because
technology is a sickeningly slow pace(HENCE THE TITLE OF THIS POST).
THAT IS ALL. god you guys are stupid.

-Slick

[Andre Lieven]

OM (om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org) writes:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:26:37 GMT, John Beaderstadt
> > wrote:
>
>>So, what could we be after, that would cover the cost of buying,
>>operating and maintaining such rigs, as well as their supporting
>>infrastructure, and still turn a profit for their owners?
>
> ...Narcotics, natch.

So, if you get the guys to come over, to share those products,
that'll mean you all intend to get " Moon faced " ? <g>

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[jeff findley]

(Slickwater) writes:
> I DON'T CARE ABOUT A LUNAR COLONY OR
> PENTIUM CHIPS YOU DEGENRATES. I am totally ****ed off because
> technology is a sickeningly slow pace(HENCE THE TITLE OF THIS POST).
> THAT IS ALL. god you guys are stupid.

Go play in some science fiction newsgroup and be happy. All you'll
find here is computer savvy space enthusiasts. Of course that's not
obvious from the forum (usenet newsgroup) and its name, is it?

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[OM]

On 8 Aug 2003 06:59:09 -0700,
(Slickwater) wrote:

>god you guys are stupid.

....You know, you can go **** yourself. Literally. And if you can't
figure out how to do that by yourself, then enjoy Killfile Hell with
the Maxson trash, where they'll be glad to pass you amongst each other
like a playtoy.

<PLONK>

Some people should not be allowed to access usenet, much less be
allowed to be born in the first place...


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:26:37 GMT, John Beaderstadt
> wrote:

>So, what could we be after, that would cover the cost of buying,
>operating and maintaining such rigs, as well as their supporting
>infrastructure, and still turn a profit for their owners?

....Narcotics, natch.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Michael Walsh]

jeff findley wrote:

> (Slickwater) writes:
> > I DON'T CARE ABOUT A LUNAR COLONY OR
> > PENTIUM CHIPS YOU DEGENRATES. I am totally ****ed off because
> > technology is a sickeningly slow pace(HENCE THE TITLE OF THIS POST).
> > THAT IS ALL. god you guys are stupid.
>
> Go play in some science fiction newsgroup and be happy. All you'll
> find here is computer savvy space enthusiasts. Of course that's not
> obvious from the forum (usenet newsgroup) and its name, is it?
>
> Jeff

OK, but if that is true where did all the other nuts come from?

Is Brad Guth a computer savvy space enthusiast?

Possibly. He can post so he knows how to use a computer and he
probably does rate the term "space enthusiast".

Also the term nut.

Mike Walsh

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Michael Walsh > on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:55:25
GMT, which said:

>Is Brad Guth a computer savvy space enthusiast?
>
>Possibly. He can post so he knows how to use a computer and he
>probably does rate the term "space enthusiast".
>
>Also the term nut.

The difference being, of course, that Brad is more fun to read than
the average wingnut. What else can you say about someone who sees no
contradiction in saying we've never sent a manned mission to the moon
because humans can't survive the radiation in the Van Allen belt, yet
is almost desperate to send a manned mission to Venus?


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Slickwater]

(Slickwater) wrote in message >...
> Slickwater wrote:
>
> Someone tell me what the freakin deal is. 4 years ago, the cutting
> edge of technology was at an acceptable grueling pace. Now it has
> slowed down to a pitiful, stomach-wrenching crawl and it makes me
> sick. Then, for example, we invented the Pentium chip and the DVD
> player, now everyone thinks were makin the same leaps by making
> existing Pentium chips a few Megahertz faster and a DVD player that
> hold slightly more gigabytes. What the hell is the matter with
> scientists today. The fact that we haven't colonized the moon yet and
> had several manned missions to mars makes me want to puke. What the
> heck is takin these chumps so long? I'm so mad.
>
> -Slick



I'm still waiting for a decent answer to my original post. Capable??


-Slick

[Slickwater]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote in message >...
> On 12 Aug 2003 10:53:31 -0400, jeff findley
> > wrote:
>
> (Worthless Troll) writes:
> >>
> >> I'm still waiting for a decent answer to my original post. Capable??
> >
> >It's clear that you're incapable of understanding the basics of
> >technological advancements.
>
> ...The punk's just a troll, Jeff. Send him to Killfile Hell with the
> Maxson trash and let him fetch the soap down there.
>
>
> OM



I'm trying to get a decent answer and jerks like LD are always
screaming troll trool like a bunch of reclusive losers would. I hate
OM. But I would like to some answers. Does anyone know a good
techwatch site that outlines advances in technology?


-Slick