|
Technological research don't actually work in real life like it does in Civ IV. Another advantage real life has is that you can research more than one thing at the same time.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I find that most engineer-autistic types slobber over space exploration more than most. I'm not saying just give money and say "make something!", I'm saying provide goals that are more useful at the present. Like, I don't know, finding a way to make mosquitoes incapable of carrying malaria, for example. You do realize these goals aren't mutually exclusive, right? As in, you can have an engineer working on propulsion system and still have a biologist tinkering with artemisinin derivatives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. Do you really not see any possible future advantages of having a functional automated skycrane system? The achievement of that alone is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. Even if the buggy doesn't do poo poo, the entire process of landing something on another planet is replete with opportunities to improve operational procedures for missions of that type. 2.5 billion is not a lot to pay for the institutional knowledge and techincal expertise gained by a task of this complexity. That's not even counting what the buggy itself pays in scientific dividends. Basically the whole "we could spend that money here!" is a flawed line of thinking because: A. We did spend it here - we didn't just jettison cash into space, we paid highly proficient people to build and develop the program/mission and B. There is never a scenario in which that statement isn't true. We could always just give that money to the poor or use it to build bridges here in the US. Thankfully, we have enough money to do both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I find that most engineer-autistic types slobber over space exploration more than most. I'm not saying just give money and say "make something!", I'm saying provide goals that are more useful at the present. Like, I don't know, finding a way to make mosquitoes incapable of carrying malaria, for example. Okay cool. Let's put our aerospace engineers to work on a medical problem. Good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Not to mention it wasn't a choice of "Help the disadvantaged" or "Wheeee! Space Toys!". If anything it was more of a "How much of a pittance should we give them instead of 'spending' (Gifting) it to the MIC or TBTF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Also, people come up with useful things when working on something else entirely. Television, Radio and the Internet were not intended for public use as entertainment. That was probably the last thing on a list of several more "practical" uses and yet that's what they became known for. Describing why Space exploration has tangible uses is difficult because if we knew exactly what those uses were, we wouldn't have to jump through hoops in the first place, but we don't. So we aim for something broad like space exploration and let the secondary and tertiary benefits come as they may. You can only dump so much money into various projects. If we dropped all other research and focused it onto curing cancer right now it might speed up the process but it wouldn't magically make a cure come into being tomorrow because there's certain logistical hurdles we still need to overcome, that "extra" cash is wasted because cash alone only goes so far. So by spreading research funds out over various fields we not only accomplish several different developments all at once, there's often a synergy between various fields that feeds back into aiding development in another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Can't we be going to space simply because going to space is the next logical step in human exploration? It's crazy to think that there's this huge expanse of unknown out there and that we're just supposed to sit here and not try to engage with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
And just coincidentally the mosquito example picked was poorly chosen because if I recall correctly a research team has a test run right now in some Australian town to see if their anti-malarial engineered mosquitos can out compete and supplant the native population. On my phone so can't dig the link right now but I know NPR or PRI or one of those guys did a piece on him within a few weeks ago. Fake edit: forgot to say that it perfectly illustrates that we can run parallel research across multiple disciplines instead of setting science to 30 beakers and pick away at Future Tech X.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Crossposted from the GBS thread: My answer to that kind of question is this: If you take a brilliant engineer and tell him "We want you to design a better oven for cooking," he might give you something that uses less electricity, or maybe takes up less space. If you take a brilliant engineer and tell him "We're sending some people to another planet and we want you to design the oven that's going to cook their food," you might get something that changes everything. This engineer is going to be waking up in the middle of the night to jot down something he thought of in a dream. When he's at dinner with his wife he's going to be thinking about space ovens. When he's supposed to be watching his kids play soccer he's going to be thinking about space ovens. The final result might be a sonic oven, or some sort of new way of concentrating heat. Worst case it's just a better microwave. At the same time there's an army of engineers half-listening to their husbands/wives while they dream up space chairs, space door handles, space pens, space food and space light bulbs. It's not hard to figure out why so many amazing technological advancements come out of the space program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Every scientific endeavour has value and worth, if only because each new thing discovered is there for someone to pick up later and apply. Engineering benefits from biology for instance, in that there are some structural problems nature solved long ago. Theoretical research is best done by governments because that research generally isn't a money maker and because private entities are all too happy to lock up new discoveries under patent law. 2.5. Billion is a pittance to the government, a fraction of a fighter plane built using yesterday's tech. It may seem like a priveliged Western fantasy, but space exploration is a necessity. We live on a finite planet with finite resources with an infrastructure increasingly dependent on the rarest of those resources-even the thriftiest of societies will eventually run out of poo poo. Better that the countries who can most afford it lay out the groundwork before we start bombing people for rare earth metals to put in iPhones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:If you take a brilliant engineer and tell him "We want you to design a better oven for cooking," he might give you something that uses less electricity, or maybe takes up less space. Or possibly the Pontiac Aztek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. No one said it was the only one, just that it's different and provides different avenues for advancement than other ones do. No one is saying "we should cancel all medical research to invest in sending people to Mars". If anything people are saying, "We should build less tanks and bombs so we can invest more in wiping out malaria AND send people to Mars." It's not, why this research over that research; its all important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Oh what's the point of it all, he lamented through the global packet-switched internetwork assisted by interface technologies designed to aid scientific research. This thing will never be of any use!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
This is my go-to data point at times like these:
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Guys, guys, this argument has been conclusively settled throughout the world and the Something Awful internet forums: it is immoral to do anything while something is bad somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Doesn't the adult industry, whether porn, strippers or prostitutes/escorts, tend to be really drat libertarian as well? This is from a page or two back but I just had to add -- you are correct. I post on an adult industry forum and there are tons of far-right conservative and libertarian posters. They are tea-party degrees of insane, and they agree with the far right on everything except for social issues (abortion, pornography obviously, etc) Since most of these people are self-employed, make cash under the table, etc. they tend to be proud of their individual initiative, and there is a vested interest in avoiding taxes of all kinds if possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
This probably doesn't deserve its own thread, and I can't think of a better place to ask, but, when did the whole "social justice warrior hurrr" thing get started? I only heard the term a few months ago, and now I feel inundated with it, like the seal was broken or something. It seems to be centered on people who do a lot of armchair activism online, and stand up for offbeat or strange causes in the spectrum of sexuality/race/gender/etc. But now it seems to be spreading to encompass anyone that can spot racism that doesn't involve someone in a KKK robe beating a minority, or homophobia that doesn't involve a fag drag. The internet seems to be eating itself, as otherwise decent people are consumed with ire for anyone that gives a poo poo about anything related to equality or oppression. Is this backlash from the Kony debacle, are more rednecks getting on the net or what is it?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. Yea, loving engineers and astronomers, why aren't you...doing biology? Like, you know there's more than one kind of scientist and those different kinds focus on different lofty goals, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea, loving engineers and astronomers, why aren't you...doing biology? Also with over 7 billion people on the planet including who knows how many millions of engineers, scientists, and technicians, I think we have room to multitask.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. Fortunately our society is more than capable of funding all of these projects and more. Arguably, what greater purpose does our species have than to expand our technological development and our knowledge of the universe? This "buggy" may provide valuable insight into the nature of planetary development and the feasibility of life existing on other worlds. No doubt even getting it there in the first place required many advances in many fields of scientific inquiry and many new engineering techniques that could easily be adapted to helping the poor. And all of those people working on these amazing technologies are earning money, spending it elsewhere, and supporting jobs that keep people out of poverty. In the future, a manned mission to Mars would require much in the way of biological research which could be used to allow food to grow in a wider variety of environments right here on Earth, or more efficient ways of purifying water and cleaning contaminated food. Hell, RTG generators such as those on the rover could be adapted to provide power for isolated villages. I doubt anyone here is suggesting we seriously stop spending money on welfare and helping the poor to launch rovers instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
I got a crazy gossiping "oh my god welfare abuseeeeeeeeeeeee " from a friend. I'm unfortunately really bad at finding stuff to counter that on google but I seem to remember that welfare fraud is in the single digit percentage or something, anyone know where I can find some more information on that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
angrytech posted:I got a crazy gossiping "oh my god welfare abuseeeeeeeeeeeee http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-06/news/31028844_1_food-stamp-food-assistance-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-usa-food-foodstamps-idUSTRE8150PP20120206 http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/22/fox-news-botches-basic-facts-about-food-stamp-p/186094 Food stamps, the largest benefit program has a fraud value estimated at around $750 million, also known as a staggering 1% of its budget.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I find that most engineer-autistic types slobber over space exploration more than most. I'm not saying just give money and say "make something!", I'm saying provide goals that are more useful at the present. Like, I don't know, finding a way to make mosquitoes incapable of carrying malaria, for example. Optimal allocation tends to be about finding the lowest hanging fruits with the most dynamic results rather than saying "hey, let's throw every dollar into X until we succeed because we deem it the most important!". Marginal utility of spending lends itself to the world we see today and have seen for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. That's why we spend .000000001% of world GDP on that, do that 10 000 times, and hope some of them come through with breakthroughs. I don't know, I think exploring the closest and most earth-like planet in our galaxy has some potential for discovery of something yet unknown to us, but maybe I'm crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
You want ME to pay taxes so some guy can find a quicker route to India?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Food stamps, the largest benefit program has a fraud value estimated at around $750 million, also known as a staggering 1% of its budget. I bet if we invested a billion dollars a year into investigating fraud we could cut than number in half!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I bet if we invested a billion dollars a year into investigating fraud we could cut than number in half! You jest but most people would support this idea. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Also with over 7 billion people on the planet including who knows how many millions of engineers, scientists, and technicians, I think we have room to multitask. And specialize our workers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I'm just not seeing why something as utterly useless as a buggy on another planet is the only possible "lofty goal" that leads to tangential discoveries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc hth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:This probably doesn't deserve its own thread, and I can't think of a better place to ask, but, when did the whole "social justice warrior hurrr" thing get started? It's a very, very extreme form of armchair activism. It's basically a bunch of well to do (moneywise, at least), white high school and college kids thinking they know everything about the discrimination minorities (racial, religious, mental disabilities, etc.) suffer, then try to actually speak for people that've actually suffered discrimination. At the very core, they have their hearts in the right place, but they've gone so far up the deep end they've devolved into a giant circle jerk about how special they are and how every minority are pure, traumatized and innocent angels that need high school and college kids to speak for them because they don't have a voice of their own. This leads to some pretty hilarious "activism", such as trying to defend the Scottish by getting mad about the movie Brave because they think it gives Scots a bad image, but in reality no Scots actually give half a poo poo and don't think the movie is derogatory in the slightest. Of course, these people have and never will participate in actual activism, because it requires them to interact with people and actually do something besides write strongly-worded posts on Tumblr. Internet creeps and weirdos also use it as a front to create excuses for their own weird fetishes and creepy behavior, but that's getting off the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:This leads to some pretty hilarious "activism", such as trying to defend the Scottish by getting mad about the movie Brave because they think it gives Scots a bad image, but in reality no Scots actually give half a poo poo and don't think the movie is derogatory in the slightest. Holy Christ this is amazing. I think my favorite part is when she tries to claim Scotland is an occupied country. Admittedly, I'm not a Scot, but I don't think most of them consider their country occupied in any realistic sense of the term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
1stGear posted:Holy Christ this is amazing. I think my favorite part is when she tries to claim Scotland is an occupied country. Admittedly, I'm not a Scot, but I don't think most of them consider their country occupied in any realistic sense of the term. Either her knowledge of history is centuries out of date or she's confusing Scotland with Northern Ireland. Being only quasi-independent isn't even close to the same thing as being an "occupied nation," especially since the SNP is planning on holding a referendum on independence in 2014.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Either her knowledge of history is centuries out of date or she's confusing Scotland with Northern Ireland. Being only quasi-independent isn't even close to the same thing as being an "occupied nation," especially since the SNP is planning on holding a referendum on independence in 2014. No, I think she legitimately believes modern-day Scotland is an occupied country. You know, regardless of what the Scots actually think about the situation. I can only imagine she would straight-up poo poo herself over Northern Ireland, assuming the Irish fit into the sphere of things she defends on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
1stGear posted:No, I think she legitimately believes modern-day Scotland is an occupied country. You know, regardless of what the Scots actually think about the situation. What's even more hilarious is that many of the criticisms she has about the media in general and "Brave" specifically as being racist, stereotypical, etc. towards Scots are exactly the same loving things that are applied to the Irish, from ginger hair, to mocking Gaelic, etc. I'm mostly just puzzled how some of the examples cited are actually bad things, like Mrs. Doubtfire. I watched that movie several times as a kid and I don't remember the humor being focused on her being Scottish as much as it was about crossdressing and the tension brought about with every near-miss of the mother finding out her ex-husband was in disguise as their nanny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
I don't know why you all are laughing at that poor person.quote:Scottish stereotypes have shown up as sidekicks, comic relief characters, Magical Celts, and noble domestics at least as far back as Scotty on Star Trek (who wasn't even played by a Scot). One of Disney's most famous secondary characters is Scrooge McDuck, an embodiment of the stingy Scot stereotype. The Simpsons have Groundskeeper Willie. The Smurfs were updated with Scottish stereotype "Gutsy Smurf." Robin Williams cross-dressed his way into his children's hearts as Mrs. Doubtfire. Ewen Bremmer, best known as Spud from Trainspotting, often pops up as a token Scottish caricature, often with a "hilariously" impenetrable Teuchter accent, like kooky pilot Declan in The Rundown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
In the 1980s, you could replace every instance of "Scotland" with "Australia" and go from there with the various cultural references. Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious, whatever has become of you???
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
katlington posted:I don't know why you all are laughing at that poor person. Do those various examples have anything in common beyond "they have an accent?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Do those various examples have anything in common beyond "they have an accent?" I'm trying to figure out which she finds more offensive, the depiction of Scotty as a character or that James Doohan was Canadian, not Scottish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 08:31
|
|