Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Neutral [chat] Hotel

18911131485

Posts

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    tax credits are socialist if you're not a white male
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    I think it's more that people just aren't aware that making guns isn't some super tricky arcane art that only wizards can do.

    They think that, and then see 3D printed guns and go "oh shit!"

    Possibly a failure of the printer analogy.

    CNC equipment is much closer to "load up file on computer, put raw material in machine, send file to machine, completed part comes out" than 3D printing is at the moment, but people don't know what a CNC mill is, what it does, or how it works, but do know what a printer is.

    Ok that's totally true.

    I thought stuff like the maker replicator was basically like that.

    It's also SIGNIFICANTLY less cost prohibitive than a CNC mill for anything but really tiny stuff.

    like, star trek replicator? or?

    because if not then no

    guns, for example, are generally made of metal, or something that can get similar properties, and you'd be hard pressed to print that out.

    If you want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can buy a 3d printer like thing that does metal. Like, it's existing technology in industrial use.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkwd2YXNy9I
  • TehSlothTehSloth On that ass like Charmin Registered User regular
    Pretty sure when I eventually buy a house one of my first major expenditures is going to be a nice 3d printer.

    So I can build a gun to defend my property from the government.
  • CindersCinders Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    I went to the doctor last week and got weighed.

    Apparently I have lost weight on estrogen?

    Not complaining, but... what? That's entirely unexpected!

    Huh, I'd have figured the opposite as you adjust to needing fewer overall calories.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong and a cast of thousands Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Um defense technology is a vital industry how else are we going to defend ourselves Jeez William!

    i'm not totally against it. besides it being my paycheck, there have been a lot of advancements that are really important.

    drones, for instance, have saved countless lives and saved billions of dollars.

    on the other hand, the jsf, the osprey, etc.

    THE OSPREY IS THE GREATEST YOU SHUT YOUR GODDAMNED MOUTH IT IS A RECRUITMENT TOOL AND ALSO AWESOME
    Donkey Kong on
    dkmouthsig.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2013
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.
    Irond Will on
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    Frankly we need to just face facts. Space travel is required for continued existense. Humans are not very compatible with space travel. We should create our robotic successors and die out safe in the knowledge that 'earthlings' will still go on.
    _J_ wrote:
    If we only allowed pedophiles to be parents, then we would never have to worry about children being left alone, unwatched.
    XBL: Fanatical One AIM: itskagera
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    you've got my vote
  • TavTav Registered User regular
    I kinda want a Rasp Pi for xbmc
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby

    Why?

    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    defense technologies are a close second.

    science and technology aren't strictly speaking the same thing!

    astronomy is still a good thing to spend money on, the technology from it is just a bonus

    There's a problem of finite resources.

    If we had infinite resources to spend, putting a few billion dollars in space flight would be trivial. Hell, they could take a few trillion, the greedy bastards. I'm guessing Will would agree, not to put words in his mouth.

    But we don't have infinite resources, so we need to worry about where they'd best go. Doing prestige things like landing a guy on the moon or working to land a guy on Mars are cool, but are they necessarily the best use of our finite resources?

    working out a way to land a guy on mars and landing a guy on mars are different projects and the first thing isn't a half-bad way to spend resources.

    anyway, for science! is a good reason a lot of the time.

    besides, it's pocket change compared to say, your defense spending. Most of which isn't developing any tech or doing any science at all.
    xlh6c3.png
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2013
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    you're back in the defense industry?
    Dynagrip on
    worrisomeSig.jpg
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    Because it's cool and because I read an article saying it'll totally work and because it was in a scifi book that I liked.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    redx wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    I think it's more that people just aren't aware that making guns isn't some super tricky arcane art that only wizards can do.

    They think that, and then see 3D printed guns and go "oh shit!"

    Possibly a failure of the printer analogy.

    CNC equipment is much closer to "load up file on computer, put raw material in machine, send file to machine, completed part comes out" than 3D printing is at the moment, but people don't know what a CNC mill is, what it does, or how it works, but do know what a printer is.

    Ok that's totally true.

    I thought stuff like the maker replicator was basically like that.

    It's also SIGNIFICANTLY less cost prohibitive than a CNC mill for anything but really tiny stuff.

    like, star trek replicator? or?

    because if not then no

    guns, for example, are generally made of metal, or something that can get similar properties, and you'd be hard pressed to print that out.

    If you want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can buy a 3d printer like thing that does metal. Like, it's existing technology in industrial use.

    you can buy a lathe and a dude who knows how to work for a lot less money
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    Will u r the wurst
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    I think you're pretty off-base here. Progressivism isn't about stopping people from excelling on principle. It's about making sure people don't excel at the direct expense of others. It's about making sure people don't create massive power structures that oppress blocks of people. It's about making sure that everyone has a fair chance at a decent life.

    There's nothing inherently in progressivism that says you can't genetically modify your children to have an IQ of 200. All progressivism is interested in is making sure that your genius kids don't use their intelligence to effectively enslave people. And maybe if the disparity in the population becomes too great, progressivism will tax your genius billionaires to supply genetic engineering resources to everyone.

    It's about pulling people up, not stomping everyone down.

    I wish I could believe you about that, but I'm not sure [chat] is the place to dive into it. I see progressives very much aligned toward taking from the successful they believe have enough, toward equality of outcome rather than opportunity.

    But we were only talking about what we imagine tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about, not trying to get into a discussion of the nature of the progressive mindset. Maybe you believe that tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about nothing at all!

    I don't.

    The government takes from me, proportionally, the most it takes from just about anyone in the entire country. I'm single, I have a high-paying job, I don't own a home. At no point have I felt the government actively hindering my success. They aren't taking so much from me that I cannot eat, cannot provide myself housing, or even buy myself great stuff any time I want. My life outside work is easy and my money provides me with everything I need. It would be crazy to say I'm being held back to promote equality. I am being taxed an amount I can spare to provide a bare minimum life for those who don't have what I have. That's progressivism.

    OK you're happy with your lot. Your needs are met and I guess that's what's important to you, so you feel we should be generous to others?

    I am not in the same situation. Even narrowing the focus to taxation, it's not as rosy for me, but more broadly...

    ... any way I can finish that sentence will just draw a chorus of mockery and a fucking speech from somebody about privilege.


    Let just say that I would not be satisfied with your life, as you describe it. My focus is somewhat more broad than considering what I need and what makes me happy.
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    I agree with this so hard.

    At least, for manned space flight in particular.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HzHSeV9v8

    Ugh. Ugh. Fuck this speech.

    We're supposed to feel good about ourselves because we let a talented musician die in the ruins of his house, because, some years after his death, a recording of his music is floating through space?

    How about we, y'know, fucking built him a new house?

    You want to do something uplifting for all mankind? We could end poverty. We have the resources and the technology to eliminate extreme poverty for the entire world. Not a single human being would lack shelter, food, or clean water due to inability to pay.
    I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes. - Roger Ebert, I Do Not Fear Death
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    I'd prefer Arcane Jetpacks and Æther powered telepathy, thanks.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    To be fair, I do on occasion glance at the untaxed income portion of my paycheck and declare that I am voting republican next election.
    i, on the other hand, look at the gifts (to which i am entitled) i receive from Comrade Obama and know that no matter what, i will never betray him
    Per3th.jpg
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby

    Why?

    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    defense technologies are a close second.

    science and technology aren't strictly speaking the same thing!

    astronomy is still a good thing to spend money on, the technology from it is just a bonus

    There's a problem of finite resources.

    If we had infinite resources to spend, putting a few billion dollars in space flight would be trivial. Hell, they could take a few trillion, the greedy bastards. I'm guessing Will would agree, not to put words in his mouth.

    But we don't have infinite resources, so we need to worry about where they'd best go. Doing prestige things like landing a guy on the moon or working to land a guy on Mars are cool, but are they necessarily the best use of our finite resources?

    working out a way to land a guy on mars and landing a guy on mars are different projects and the first thing isn't a half-bad way to spend resources.

    anyway, for science! is a good reason a lot of the time.

    besides, it's pocket change compared to say, your defense spending. Most of which isn't developing any tech or doing any science at all.

    Yes, and I'd like to shift around a lot of that defense spending in the long term, too!
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    Frankly we need to just face facts. Space travel is required for continued existense. Humans are not very compatible with space travel. We should create our robotic successors and die out safe in the knowledge that 'earthlings' will still go on.

    our robot progeny meeting xeno ai

    declaring intergalactic war over proprietary charging cables
  • redxredx Dublin, CARegistered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    I think it's more that people just aren't aware that making guns isn't some super tricky arcane art that only wizards can do.

    They think that, and then see 3D printed guns and go "oh shit!"

    Possibly a failure of the printer analogy.

    CNC equipment is much closer to "load up file on computer, put raw material in machine, send file to machine, completed part comes out" than 3D printing is at the moment, but people don't know what a CNC mill is, what it does, or how it works, but do know what a printer is.

    Ok that's totally true.

    I thought stuff like the maker replicator was basically like that.

    It's also SIGNIFICANTLY less cost prohibitive than a CNC mill for anything but really tiny stuff.

    like, star trek replicator? or?

    because if not then no

    guns, for example, are generally made of metal, or something that can get similar properties, and you'd be hard pressed to print that out.

    If you want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can buy a 3d printer like thing that does metal. Like, it's existing technology in industrial use.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkwd2YXNy9I
    Yay! even more expensive bike parts!

    That's basically the sort of awesomeness I was talking about.
    RedX is taking a stab a moving out west, and will be near San Francisco from May 14 till June 29.
    Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    Also 'prestige' shit like landing on the moon does things for humanity other than concrete practicals it spurs creativity and wonder and shit pragmatism never does.
    _J_ wrote:
    If we only allowed pedophiles to be parents, then we would never have to worry about children being left alone, unwatched.
    XBL: Fanatical One AIM: itskagera
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    If a company wants to find an asteroid and mine then let them God damnit
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Um defense technology is a vital industry how else are we going to defend ourselves Jeez William!

    i'm not totally against it. besides it being my paycheck, there have been a lot of advancements that are really important.

    drones, for instance, have saved countless lives and saved billions of dollars.

    on the other hand, the jsf, the osprey, etc.

    oh yeah

    there's tons and tons of waste

    just about all the big projects that make war hobbyists hard are horrible boondoggles.
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    I agree with this so hard.

    At least, for manned space flight in particular.

    yeah, until launch costs are drastically reduced manned space flight is a total waste. I think a lot of cool and useful science has come out of the unmanned program (which is routinely cannibalized to feed the manned side).
    worrisomeSig.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Um defense technology is a vital industry how else are we going to defend ourselves Jeez William!

    i'm not totally against it. besides it being my paycheck, there have been a lot of advancements that are really important.

    drones, for instance, have saved countless lives and saved billions of dollars.

    on the other hand, the jsf, the osprey, etc.

    THE OSPREY IS THE GREATEST YOU SHUT YOUR GODDAMNED MOUTH IT IS A RECRUITMENT TOOL AND ALSO AWESOME

    yeah i kind of reflexively wanted to defend it too

    but damn

    it really hasn't worked out that well
  • CasualCasual IT'S CRIME TIME MOTHAFUCKAS WE OUTRegistered User regular
    Fuck me, this weekend turned out to be a bit of a disaster. It was supposed to be a weekend of LANing but one stupid accident later one of the guys has broken his leg in two places and is going to need surgery. I ended up taking him to hospital and waiting in the ER for five hours. Worse still the poor bastards family all live down in England so I've spent the day talking with his dad to get insurance sorted for his car so I could move it for him, get all his equipment back to his house and get all the shit he needs for the hospital to him.

    I'm pretty tired now.

    Still, at least I don't have a broken leg.
    R.I.P Sir Check
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    ??/02/2009 - 19/04/2013
    He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    i daresay your last sentence undermines your whole argument, good sir
    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    You want to do something uplifting for all mankind? We could end poverty. We have the resources and the technology to eliminate extreme poverty for the entire world. Not a single human being would lack shelter, food, or clean water due to inability to pay.

    Interestingly this would also be a far more effective means of going about the "war on terror".

    It's harder to radicalise people that aren't desperate in the first place. Not impossible, but harder.
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    surface of the moon has platinum like woah, for example

    also for example having, some time in the future, automatic rocket fuel making on the moon could make sending space probes errywhere a lot cheaper in the long run

    for example.
    xlh6c3.png
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    we should be exploring our oceans and making them habitable

    but fucking aquaman keeps getting in the way
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Assuming we would have gotten the spin-off benefits of defense spending (in a macro historic context) is a fairly nebulous counterfactual. Would we have gotten The Internet without DARPA? Who knows; eventually someone would probably have figured out that we should probably connect all these bigass room-sized computers to one another, but who knows how long it would've taken, and how different the end result might have been. Historically, spending on defense (read: technology designed to confer an advantage in large- and small-scale conflict) has had a definitive impact on things as big as the advent of nationalism and the nation-state system. It's arguable that we only have modern nation-states because of war.

    That's not a normative statement; I'm not saying this is the best possible way things could be, but afaik they are they way things are presently. To go back and say we shouldn't have landed on the moon or invested so heavily in space exploration generally is to create an alternate universe where literally any series of events could have transpired, with outcomes potentially completely different (for better or worse) than the ones we have now.

    Going forward, though, I would suggest that spending on defense is definitely not the sole or even primary source of innovation, and can be pretty easily reduced substantially with basically no impact on our technology or security situation. Investment in space exploration, though, I'm not as sure about.

    But then, I'm not a fucking expert in either of those things, so wtf.
    network_sig2.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    OK you're happy with your lot. Your needs are met and I guess that's what's important to you, so you feel we should be generous to others?

    I am not in the same situation. Even narrowing the focus to taxation, it's not as rosy for me, but more broadly...

    ... any way I can finish that sentence will just draw a chorus of mockery and a fucking speech from somebody about privilege.

    Let just say that I would not be satisfied with your life, as you describe it. My focus is somewhat more broad than considering what I need and what makes me happy.

    I guarantee you that whatever problem you're having with your life, if it is a problem that could be fixed by money, you would see more personal benefit from a more progressive tax schedule than a less progressive one.
    I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes. - Roger Ebert, I Do Not Fear Death
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby

    Why?

    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    defense technologies are a close second.

    science and technology aren't strictly speaking the same thing!

    astronomy is still a good thing to spend money on, the technology from it is just a bonus

    There's a problem of finite resources.

    If we had infinite resources to spend, putting a few billion dollars in space flight would be trivial. Hell, they could take a few trillion, the greedy bastards. I'm guessing Will would agree, not to put words in his mouth.

    But we don't have infinite resources, so we need to worry about where they'd best go. Doing prestige things like landing a guy on the moon or working to land a guy on Mars are cool, but are they necessarily the best use of our finite resources?

    working out a way to land a guy on mars and landing a guy on mars are different projects and the first thing isn't a half-bad way to spend resources.

    anyway, for science! is a good reason a lot of the time.

    besides, it's pocket change compared to say, your defense spending. Most of which isn't developing any tech or doing any science at all.

    but

    there is literally no actual scientific value to landing a guy on mars

    like

    it doesn't actually answer any questions except the ones that might pop up in trying to implement it, and those will almost entirely be engineering questions.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    I am really not seeing the downside here.
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby

    Why?

    because the only real historical benefits of sending people into space are spinoff technologies that you could get from doing less-expensive research into something actually useful.

    i am all for government investment into science and technology, but believe that space is one of the worst, least efficient and most pointless ways to spend that investment.

    defense technologies are a close second.

    Spinoff technology is basically the entire point of speculative or academic physical research, isn't it? We are researching because we want to know, but we also want to see what we can do with that new knowledge.

    We COULD have discovered it another way - but we didn't. A research path that is interesting and captivating is as good a way as any to struggle with new challenges to produce new technology.

    Manned space exploration is quite silly, I agree, but sending automated or autonomous devices into space to learn more about our planets and solar system, etc?

    I also think it is pretty important on a number of levels to work on the technology for superior propulsion and power generation for our spacecraft, but that's something private industry and academic research can totally handle (and are doing right now, political issues with it aside)
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    Man will could suck the wonder out of Einstein and then he'd just be a plain old cousin fucker good fucking job will!
    _J_ wrote:
    If we only allowed pedophiles to be parents, then we would never have to worry about children being left alone, unwatched.
    XBL: Fanatical One AIM: itskagera
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    Okay, i'll go do my workout soon...

    I'm gonna add jumping jacks to my work-out routine today...

    Is... is that a good idea?
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Will would you like Space Exploration done with robots?

    as long as those robots are telescopes

    yes

    So you're not a fan of mining in space either?

    of course not.

    it's science fiction

    we haven't even found an asteroid with a composition any more valuable than rocks on earth

    to say nothing of the cost and risk of getting out there and getting the materials back

    why would anyone be for space mining?

    might as well be for quantum magic spells and bioengineered fire-breathing dragons.

    you're back in the defense industry?

    yeah sort of :(

    doing SBIR work for a small company in cambridge
This discussion has been closed.