Originally Posted by Steely Glint
See those disk things on the side? Well, when the spin in opposite directions to one another derp derp magnetic field hargle bargle space-time and then you're at Alpha Centauri.
Cor! A fuel scoop.
See those disk things on the side? Well, when the spin in opposite directions to one another derp derp magnetic field hargle bargle space-time and then you're at Alpha Centauri.
Cor! A fuel scoop.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Does any of this really matter...can anyone prove that sending humans into space has any real benefit? Other than modding Hubble what else has human space flight achieved over the last 20 years? Also what has the ISS actually delivered in tangible benefits/scientific advancement?
While we're at this train of thought, please do try to explain to me how better iPods or the latest gadgets have any real benefit?
Science (unlike engineering) is not a closed circuit. You don't know whether your ideas have merit or not until you have tried it.
People like you ask: "What do we get from this?"
Well, what is the benefit of anything we do, really? Unless you're a solipsist who thinks that the world only exists for his whims alone, that question is not really valid.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The difference is I choose to pay for my consumer electronics...but if I were a US taxpayer why would I want to be paying for NASA to send shuttles into space to test children's school experiments like "can ants survive low gravity," etc. Ok thats from the Simpsons, but they do alot of that wish-washy crap.
I just cant remember ever hearing of NASA do anything with the shuttle program for a long time that seems worthwhile for a manned mission...or worth being funded by the tax payer other than Hubble which is a truly remarkable scientific instrument. Maybe there is some things I don't know about, but please tell me what they are...
I get the impression that NASA is a subsidized agency that is probably holding back the need for the private sector to get into space...I mean how much has NASA innovated in space travel since the shuttle program began?
You did not answer the question: What is the long-term purpose of an iPod? What benefit does it pose to mankind?
That is the question you were asking about the ISS. And in all fairness, that is the question that should be targeted at EVERYTHING we do to make that question valid.
You're twisting the boundary parameters to make one look good and the other look bad. That's not a fair basis for comparison.
So, again: What real benefit does an iPod have? And what is your background to be able to say that their experiments are "whish-washy crap"? Do you even know what kind of experiments they're running up there?
edit: Oh, and since you did not choose to educate yourself on the real and tangible benefits of the ISS, I think it now falls to me to make you look like a fool. 10 seconds search with Google: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...olstation.html
And is this whish-washy crap? Don't think so. Just one of many examples.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The iPod delivers no great benefit, but it doesn't matter because I paid for it by choice with my own money that I earned (I don't actually have an iPod). The government, however, does not earn money, it just takes it because it wants to and we all have to pay up. This is fine provided that I can see it is delivering a benefit to the nation. I if that means spending on unprofitable but necessary commuter rail, thats fine. If it is spending on a space program for the point of spending on a space program, thats not. Luckily we don't have a space program here, and we don't need one.
Great you take me to the NASA page to show the benefits of the ISS. Of course they are not going to say its a load of crap. That page smacks of desperate PR and self justification. Looking over the list briefly I come across a stack of micro gravity and biological experiments. Given that none of us will be living in space any time soon I contend these are pretty much a waste of time. Everyday, however, I read of advancements in computing, electronics, medicine and engineering...right here on earth in full gravity conditions!
Wiki gives a counter-balance:
"Critics of the ISS contend that the time and money spent on the ISS could be better spent on other projects—whether they be robotic spacecraft missions, space exploration, investigations of problems on Earth, colonisation of Mars, or tax savings.
The research capabilities of the ISS have been criticised, particularly following the cancellation of the ambitious Centrifuge Accommodations Module, which, alongside other equipment cancellations, means scientific research performed on the station is generally limited to experiments which do not require any specialised apparatus. For example, in the first half of 2007, ISS research dealt primarily with human biological responses to living and working in space, covering topics like kidney stones, circadian rhythm, and the effects of cosmic rays on the nervous system.[217][218][219] Other criticisms hinge on the technical design of the ISS, including the high inclination of the station's orbit, which leads to a higher cost for United States-based launches to the station."
Again, show me a list of CONCRETE advancements that have come out of the Shuttle program and the ISS.
It takes because WE vote for people who themselves vote to have us all pay for it. If you don't like paying for something, vote for politicians who won't do that, and convince others to do the same. I'm getting pretty tired of this myth that voters have no power and no choices.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Okay, let's try another angle: Which real benefit does your all-mighty Hubble provide?
I'll help you: Zip. Zilch. Nada. Niente. Nothing.
And yet, you choose the Hubble over the ISS. Hypocrisy much?
Case in point, if you still have not grasped it: It's research. NOT engineering. Are you really that daft that you expect every kind of research to yield real-world applications? If so, I desperately hope that you're never in the position to decide anything about research funding. Because you don't have don't have the faintest of fucking clues what you're yammering about.
Oh, and that Wiki-page is funny. Because it mentions "colonization of Mars" and "exploration of space". How exactly do they propose to get and live there without having researched the effect of zero- and low-gravity conditions on biological systems first? Do they really want to send people on a multi-years trip through the solar system without having at least a faint inkling of what problems might await them?
Yes, of course, we can always send geriatrics on a one-way trip where it does not matter if they're sterile at their destination or cancer-ridden due to radiation. Does not fit my criteria of "colonization", though.
Oh, which reminds me: What is that magical "real-world" anyway? And what is your definition of "real benefit"? Because if we go by your metric, we can throw away about 90% of all human achievement. Or care to explain why we're spending money on "Jersey Shore"?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
For me it does not matter, as we don't have a space program. For US citizens I think it does matter when the government or a government agency fabricates the benefits of a program just to keep the dollars flowing. This is not a debate about democracy, but rather about the benefits of the manned space program.
I just saw a BBC documentary about the ISS from the 90's before it was even put up...this thing is a white elephant with no purpose...Regan started it as an answer to MIR...then the Soviet Union collapsed and they had to find a mission for it...and internationalize it to share the costs. Aside from being 11 years late and many times over budget at the point of this documentary that claimed lifetime costs of 100 billion (NASA quoted 8 billion to Regan), most of the scientists on the program said they didn't need it, the experiments could be done from earth and that the money would be better spent on literally hundreds of robotic probes.
This is more useless than another cold war dinosaur...the F-22. Aside from the taxpayer being shafted I would say this thing has only held science back by sucking up precious funds.
Sorry but I can't see why your opinion has more value than mine...and why I should be insulted just because you seem to be sentimental about the manned space program.
You make the mistake of believing I am anti research. I am not. But I have first hand experience of being in teams and on projects that have no defined goals or endpoints and open checkbooks. It is a bad combination, yields little benefit to anyone and sucks up funds that could be better deployed. It becomes a gravy train. As an aside: In my field of Software development (which granted is an engineering field, not a scientific one) I can tell you that most projects I have worked on either should not have started because of being poorly scoped/no real end goal/unclear requirements, or should have been dumped when it was clear it was going nowhere...before you say thats a reflection on my role in the team and that I am a shit dumbarse coder, it's not...most software projects actually fail. Hubble itself I believe was delayed 6-7 years because the code was not done, F-35 is facing the same problem, but at least there is an end goal here (though I think the F-35 project has its own scoping issues).
Any project needs to have a clear purpose...even if it is upstaging the Soviets, else it should be cut and left to die. From all the information I have ever had about the ISS...and especially this documentary I have watched tonight by the BBC...who has no vested interest, unless I can be shown otherwise, sorry but I can't see the ISS or manned space flight as being anything other than going through the motions for the sake of having people in space.
Hubble has defined goals...the ISS does not. Hubble has at least shown the world amazing images of deep space...it at least has a public profile that NASA can be proud of for a mere fraction of the cost of the ISS. I am not saying that the value of a scientific experiment is its public perception, but when these enormous costs are incurred over such a long period with no purpose, it is only fair that questions are asked.And yet, you choose the Hubble over the ISS. Hypocrisy much?
Sorry but I do. Not everything deserves funding. Not even all forms of research deserve function. Dollars are limited and you have to spread them around efficiently to where they are going to have the greatest impact.Case in point, if you still have not grasped it: It's research. NOT engineering. Are you really that daft that you expect every kind of research to yield real-world applications? If so, I desperately hope that you're never in the position to decide anything about research funding. Because you don't have don't have the faintest of fucking clues what you're yammering about.
In my opinion colonization of Mars is another BS dream waste of time and money. Its also not going to happen any time soon because no one can afford to do it, except the Chinese, but they are not known for wasting money on bullshit pie in the sky projects. Furthermore the ISS was not designed specifically as a first step to Mars...thats a role it was given when its original purposes vaporised. It had other goals when it was designed, few of which it has actually met. Amongst these was to make a 700% return on investment by providing a huge boost to US engineering advancement and industry. Given that the cost has ballooned from 8 billion to an estimated 100 billion, this has never happened. Certainly is a gravy train for NASA engineers and managers though...Oh, and that Wiki-page is funny. Because it mentions "colonization of Mars" and "exploration of space". How exactly do they propose to get and live there without having researched the effect of zero- and low-gravity conditions on biological systems first? Do they really want to send people on a multi-years trip through the solar system without having at least a faint inkling of what problems might await them?
Yes, of course, we can always send geriatrics on a one-way trip where it does not matter if they're sterile at their destination or cancer-ridden due to radiation. Does not fit my criteria of "colonization", though.
In fact, the manned space program sounds like a Make Work scheme to me.
I don't know what that is...Oh, which reminds me: What is that magical "real-world" anyway? And what is your definition of "real benefit"? Because if we go by your metric, we can throw away about 90% of all human achievement. Or care to explain why we're spending money on "Jersey Shore"?
Benefits can be anything that benefits man, or a nation (at the expense of other potentially) or individuals in everyday life. I just believe that given there is so many things to do back here on earth, money should be spent wisely where it will have more effect. Projects need to be justified, expenditure needs to be justified.
As an Australian I don't really care how the US chooses to waste their money...
Again: Science IS NOT engineering. Please refrain from posting further until you have understood the difference.
And thank God you're not the one deciding what is "justified". Because then we would not have your precious Hubble, by the way. We probably wouldn't even have made it out of the ocean, let alone down from the trees, considering your mindset.
Something does not have an immediate, clear-defined purpose? Away with it!
And if you think that the Hubble has a clear-defined goal then you're deluding yourself. Try to dig that clear-defined goal out, if you please. Have fun. Oh, and if that goal ends up being something like "Furthering our knowledge about the universe" then I'll be over here. Laughing. At you.
Oh, and since you don't know "Jersey Shore": Take "American Idol" or any other craptastic TV show. Please "justify" spending that money.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 07-29-2011 at 08:05 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Why do people here keep referring to iPods?
Enjoyment. Pretty strong point for that alone.
iPods brought on the iPhone which for me is all in one:
Electronic diary to be more efficient
Sat-nav to get from A-Z
Internet from anywhere to get any of humanities collective wealth of knowledge
Emails
Keeping in touch with others
Enjoyment
A torch
In fact apart from the very bottom section, it helps bring in almost all of the below:
I think we're fine, I think if russia reneges on it's deal with us, then we'll start up our shuttle program again, and do it ourselves until we can work something out.
I think they understand what engineering is, I think under their defintion (if this is their definition), is that engineering is a subset/a branch of science. I really don't think it's a big deal to bundle them all in one category. Nor do i think it really hinders communication.Again: Science IS NOT engineering. Please refrain from posting further until you have understood the difference.
Edit: I just read a few of the posts. I agree with him that even non-applicable, to the real world, projects should have clearly defined goals. Or else you risk not going anywhere. It's possible you get lucky and make something great and build on it, but it's much harder and much less likely to create anything useful without a good clear vision that all members are working toward.
Here's an example, double the fuel efficiency of this plane (clearly defined goal). As we try to do that, we'll likely create side inventions, and hopefully actually achieve the main objective.
Another one would be to find a new way to tranfser information through the air without the use of radio waves (called talking right haha, and satellites). Anyway, these are better goals, than to get talented people together and say "explore stuff". sometimes that works, and when you have no direction perhaps that is what we need, to find basis through trial and error. If we randomly are teleported to a new planet. We probably just need to "explore stuff" at first, that may be useful. Eventually we'll explore systematically, and in more logically driven formats (we just need the initial basis to do so).
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 07-30-2011 at 04:29 AM.
I completely understand what the difference is...and it has nothing to do with my argument. Both engineering and science have budgets...why is that so hard for you to get?
What you seem to be advocating is a policy of "investigate everything scientific all the time, no matter what the cost...we can build the ISS! Therefore we MUST do it." I am sorry but thats just wrong. Money for science is finite, you have to spend it wisely. The ISS and the manned space program of the last 20-30 years is not a wise use of funds. Science is not getting the most it can out of the spent money. If you can "discover" more from the unmanned program than the manned program for a tenth of the cost...then why bother with the manned program? Either save all that cash or reinvest it in the unmanned program: and launch 10 times as many unmanned probes.
I didn't say immediate...it just has to have some defined purpose and be worthwhile for the money being spent on it. Again the ISS is not and neither is manned space travel. I hope you are not in charge of any taxpayers money.And thank God you're not the one deciding what is "justified". Because then we would not have your precious Hubble, by the way. We probably wouldn't even have made it out of the ocean, let alone down from the trees, considering your mindset.
Something does not have an immediate, clear-defined purpose? Away with it!
The primary goal of Hubble was to determine the age of the universe, and yes, explore it for the sake of it. Scientists around the world have to wait for a long time to get use of Hubble there is such a demand for it as a scientific instrument. The same cannot be said about the ISS or the manned space program...if you asked most scientists working in the field they would probably have preferred another Hubble or other robotic probes/instruments instead.And if you think that the Hubble has a clear-defined goal then you're deluding yourself. Try to dig that clear-defined goal out, if you please. Have fun. Oh, and if that goal ends up being something like "Furthering our knowledge about the universe" then I'll be over here. Laughing. At you.
Personally I don't watch commercial TV (you probably think I do given that you clearly think I am so mindless). I prefer science/history/politics/world affairs and anything to do with the field that I work in and love, which is software development. Am I against craptastic TV shows...well I wish people paid more attention to things that are more important in the world...but then the market provides what the market demands. The government is not using my tax dollars for that crap...people are paying for it with their own cable subscriptions or through advertising royalties...so actually, I don't see what it has to do with anything.Oh, and since you don't know "Jersey Shore": Take "American Idol" or any other craptastic TV show. Please "justify" spending that money.
If Khen still replies negatively to your latest post, I wouldn't even reply any further. What you're saying makes perfect sense to me, and if someone wants to rant for the sake of ranting let them.
I agree it's sad to see an end to US shuttles manned flight, I hope they still intend to research ways to advance manned flights (make it cheaper and better); it'll obviously be important to us again at some point. With all things we need to be smart with our resources and perform cost-benefit analysis as best we can.
OR...
Lanie could make a comment about the scientific advances rooted in experiments done on Jews during the holocaust. (And, to be fair, those experiments cost much, much less than the ISS... and probably even less than an iPod, for that matter.) That would divert Khen's attention from making specious ISS analogies to making absurd arguments about the moral superiority of Germans. Personally, I find Khen much more amusing when rabidly proclaiming Germany's greatness, than when comparing the ISS to an mp3 player.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
You must mistake me for Nessus, I think.
Okay. So, pray tell me, what real benefit does the Hubble have? I mean, knowing the age of the universe is not exactly life-changing. And while the pictures of the Horsehead Nebula are pretty, similar pictures can be had for less money.
And, yes, if you ask astronomists if they want a space station or another telescope, of course they'll want the telescope. That's a pretty stupid argument you're making there.
What you are doing here is arbitrarily defining one area as "valid" and another as "invalid" based on your nebulous definition of "benefit".
And science is not getting the most it can out of the ISS and manned space expeditions? By what metric?
Oh, and Rand, that pyramid of yours is not valid either. I don't need an iPod/iPhone to communicate. A normal phone does that just fine. Orientation? Gee, maps did just fine before that. Internet anywhere was also not an invention of the iPhone. And so on.
Unless you now want to argue that before the iPhone no one was able to stay in contact with his family
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 07-30-2011 at 09:17 AM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It gives us information at a lower cost than the ISS to help direct future exploration. That perhaps one day will not only be for scientific advancement for the sake of it, but also to help maintain and handle the growths and growing pains of the human race. While I think at some point an ISS will be needed perhaps we were pre-emptive in it's construction.Okay. So, pray tell me, what real benefit does the Hubble have? I mean, knowing the age of the universe is not exactly life-changing. And while the pictures of the Horsehead Nebula are pretty, similar pictures can be had for less money.
And, yes, if you ask astronomists if they want a space station or another telescope, of course they'll want the telescope. That's a pretty stupid argument you're making there.
Go ahead and carry a rolled up map with you, a regular phone, and hope to be passing by a person with a laptop if you ever need the internet, and then you have to hope you're in a hot-spot. I think the iPhone is useful it's a bundling of many products, with an easy to use interface, coupled with portability (that saves time, offers more options that one can do at any given moment from virtually all places they go. It's really useful, convienience is a very valuable thing. I'm sure there is redundancy in many things, in houses (more than one bathroom) or in space ships (more than one area it's ok to eat in) for the sake of convienience.) So we gain the ambiguous part of human entertainment, then we get the time-saver part which we can attempt to convert to dollars of how much an average person's time is worth. If you'd like to quantify the benefits.I don't need an iPod/iPhone to communicate. A normal phone does that just fine. Orientation? Gee, maps did just fine before that. Internet anywhere was also not an invention of the iPhone. And so on.
We'll perform a similar task on the ISS vs the telescope. In this area we must talk about forseeable gains. Because clearly both rely on "chance" to return things of value, and there is some probability distribution.
Telescope: We dated the universe (very cool). This settles scientific questions, this knowledge can be used to learn more about ourselves, where we came from. This helps to debunk crazy or invalid ideas, and help all of society to be on the same page, and encourage rational discourse. These pluses are hard to quantify true, but they're clearly present, and useful in promoting science, understanding, and in use for future exploration in space, these will be things we want. I guess another plus would be our relative positioning to everything around us is really important for mapping our universe, while I agree we can't do much with that information now, many people value the information for it's own sake (which the scope is providing), and also it will have a pratical use in the future regarding exploration.
How about the for the ISS, what is it doing for us? Giving us experience with a space station, letting us learn the hiccups involved in it's construction, use and maintenance. It's construction helped push our engineering capabilities. That's about it, as far as i know... Which is good stuff to learn about. We'll need to know it at some point, and it'll be needed for long-term operations in space, such as long-space journeys, and how to set up docking points. At some stage we should take down the device unless it can show other promise. What else do you want from the thing? If we're not making long space journeys at some point it can only teach us so much.
I guess since the thing is already up there we don't need to ask was it worth it overall, but is it worth it to maintain it. So we need to compare expected operational costs, and what benefits we have left to gain from it. (a lot probably already have been experienced, a lot of info will be redundant, but perhaps it can bring back a few more things of value)
If this speech is meant to move me you are mistaken. I know this guy, and like him, but his emotional persuasion falls short. First it's a strawman to equate removing of say teh ISS, or manned space flight (as was his concern) as the death or end of R&D. Second U.S. kids don't neccessarily need a U.S. person to be the one going out into space to be their role models. A russian astronaught could inspire them to be great, to be the next explorer, and study hard, and passionate about science.
I do agree about the need to "look up"; however, doing it in effective ways is important. If ISS is gaining us little at this point, it may be wortwhile to spend the funds elsewhere.
What a fan-fucking-tastic discussion going on in this here thread.
I don't own an iPod, but I have an iPad and boy is it fun. I watch tv on it. I play all kinds of games. I sometimes post here on it - though the keyboard sucks ass. I read, and respond sometimes, email on it. I check the weather and news on it. I read books on it - something I never thought I would like. Would I die without it? Hardly. Would I be less happy? After the addiction wears off, not likely.
Am I happy some of my tax dollars went to pay for Hubble and its repairs? You bet your hairy ass. IMHO Hubble and its like are among the most important endeavors humanity has yet taken on. I don't know if it will ever grant me the kind of time-wasting diversion that my iPad has, though I've looked at Hubble pictures on my iPad, but then that makes it all the more valuable in real terms, no? Hubble and the like tells us things about the nature of reality that we ourselves do not have the senses to investigate ourselves. Does that matter? Maybe. Maybe not. I could say something philisophical, something against ignorance, something about how knowing is better than guessing and how our guesses have been abused and destructive over the millenia, but you should all be pretty well aware of all that by now.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Again: How do you quantify research? You can't simply say: "Oh, that basic research did not yield anything! Basic research in that area if obviously worthless!"
IT'S NOT ENGINEERING. How fucking difficult is that to understand?
Show me the metric by which you quantify research. And I'll tell you that by your metric we'd have to abandon all kinds of research. Including the precious Hubble which some here seem to worship and which is for some reason unbeknownst to me above all reproach.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Er, hang on, now I'm confused. Why is the ISS basic/blue-skies research? Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think the iphone is the pinnacle of human ingenuity or anything, but...
It's not always easy (or meaningful) to "quantify" research, but it's often possible to get clues about its value. Eg. by asking, "what can we hope to get from this research? what questions can we hope to answer? what problems can we hope to solve?" Almost all research seems driven, to some extent, by these questions. and the answers can indirectly help us decide what research we should prioritise. I have no idea what that means for the ISS, maybe it'd help us in many amazing ways, what do I know
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I hope James Webb makes it. That thing will see things heretofor unimagined.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It's basic research regarding questions like "what's the long-term effect of space on [insert x here]". It's actually more useful than stuff we get from the Hubble or the LHC.
I mean, with the Hubble, great, we now know the age of the universe. And? Does that have any impact on our life? Or the James Webb thingie EyeKhan mentioned. Yeah, great. Now we now that exoplanet A in system B exists. Does that have any actual benefit? I mean, it only has an actual real calculable benefit if we were actually thinking about going there. But we don't, thanks to the same penny-pinchers which think that the Hubble is the best thing since sliced bread but exoplanetary expeditions (nevermind exosolar!) are hogwash.
I simply don't understand the mindset where one type of research is useful and the other isn't - according to a completely arbitrary standard which is obviously based on personal favourites (or pretty pictures!).
Hell, I would find having to compare the merits of any kind of basic research pretty daunting. And yet here we have some armchair scientists who proclaim that this kind of research is obviously useless. Because it has no real benefit. While ignoring that their favourite kind of research has no real benefit either!
Don't get me wrong, I like the LHC, the Hubble and the rest. But I would not go so far as to proclaim something useless unless you make your metric abso-fucking-lutely clear what exactly constitutes useless here. And then apply that selfsame metric consistently.
That's what I've been trying to do here - to get people to describe how they arrive at their conclusion. Which metric they are using.
And what do I get? Nothing. Thus I can only conclude that people are talking out of their asses here and have some kind of personal agenda by which they arbitrarily proclaim that this or that is useless - and don't have an actually rational reason for it.
It would be more honest of some people here if they just came out and said: "I simply don't like the ISS!" than their desperate attempts to rationalize their irrational behaviour.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You want me to come up with a way to quantifiy research? Alright, I'll make a video responese.Again: How do you quantify research? You can't simply say: "Oh, that basic research did not yield anything! Basic research in that area if obviously worthless!"
IT'S NOT ENGINEERING. How fucking difficult is that to understand?
Show me the metric by which you quantify research. And I'll tell you that by your metric we'd have to abandon all kinds of research. Including the precious Hubble which some here seem to worship and which is for some reason unbeknownst to me above all reproach.
Score one for the law of unintended consequences...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Right. Because a video is so much more concise. That's why scientific papers are always videos.... oh, wait...
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I didn't address if we should keep the ISS or Hubble (maybe a little on whether we should keep the ISS) but rather which one was more valuable, which should meet the cutting block first, and I did suggest somewhat not only should ISS meet it first, but that perhaps it's not worth it's maintenance cost.
You make me laugh. Hopefully, I'll make you laugh to, or get aroused, whatever either of your heads fancy.Right. Because a video is so much more concise. That's why scientific papers are always videos.... oh, wait...
Ye of little faith.Score one for the law of unintended consequences...
I note that you're still unable to provide a rational metric.
And I will NOT endure 15 minutes of some guy blabbing his mouth off. Either you're able to present your ideas in 2 minutes or, frankly, it's not worth listening to. And this guy even has the audacity to say: "Hei, I'll be more concise this time!" and then proceeds tell us that "now he has kinda an idea of what to say". THAT is your response? Good grief.
For that very reason I like transcripts. Because then I can skip the fluff parts and reread stuff later on without having to resort to skip through 15 minutes of video just to find the 20 seconds worth listening to. It's also a waste of my time because I can read quite fast. With video I'm stuck at the velocity the presenter deemed fit - which in this case is sloooow.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote