|
twodot posted:Tezzor is a moron, and I have no interest in defending the DoD, but you realize that DARPA is a DoD agency right? As in inventor of The Internet, Google Street View, and TOR, (the DoD built GPS, but I don't think DARPA specifically had a big role), and whose list of active projects are basically a sci-fi novel. Yes, I do, but DARPA's annual budget is only something like a meager ~$2.8 billion, out of the DoD's $496 billion (2015) budget.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:If you were basically sapient you will immediately understand that it is a deliberately absurd hypothetical that highlights the failings of the argument "but spending a lot on this thing would give us new technologies" If you were basically able to rub two braincells together you will[sic] immediately understand that it is a deliberately absurd hypothetical that misses the whole point of the scenario you're trying to disprove with it. Tezzor posted:I agree! That's why my argument wasn't based on "they want something" but rather why they want something, the reasons for which are messianic and teleological. Next time you might consider taking a deep breath before posting to avoid making such obvious mistakes. 1. because it's there 2. do you believe curiosity driven research that does not have a "and this is how we plan to save the world" paragraph in the grant application should exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
twodot posted:Tezzor is a moron, and I have no interest in defending the DoD, but you realize that DARPA is a DoD agency right? As in inventor of The Internet, Google Street View, and TOR, (the DoD built GPS, but I don't think DARPA specifically had a big role), and whose list of active projects are basically a sci-fi novel. Basically this. The DoD has created basically every blockbuster technology developed in the last ~25 years. Throw in NIH and you've got, like 90% of the innovation game covered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Basically this. The DoD has created basically every blockbuster technology developed in the last ~25 years. Throw in NIH and you've got, like 90% of the innovation game covered. But effectively the innovation coming out of the DoD represents less than 5% of the total DoD budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But effectively the innovation coming out of the DoD represents less than 5% of the total DoD budget. Sounds like an argument for giving more budget to DARPA rather than NASA then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Sounds like an argument for giving more budget to DARPA rather than NASA then. DARPA and NASA work together on a lot of projects. I'd argue we should boost funding to both of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
In addition, allow NASA to build things which actually deserve the name Space Launch System instead of the Senate's Pork Launch System 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You speculated that it was teleological, then shat out catch-phrases to prove your pseudo-intellectual credentials.You didn't argue anything. Of course, I'm know the trite arguments you were thinking of, because I don't suspect you're a creative person. But today, today you get to turn that all around and prove me wrong. Find a serious post itt, deconstruct it and 'reveal' its teleology. here's the original claim Tezzor posted:Any argument that We Must Go To Space because It Is Our Destiny because Man Must Dream or even because it's inevitable that we'll go extinct otherwise are very very common and messianic and or teleological and that's not even getting into other very common claims that it will bring universal peace and understanding, fix the environment, remove scarcity, find benevolent aliens, etc. These are all very common rationales. Here are three examples from this thread: CommieGIR posted:We do it because we can, because a single point of failure for humanity is stupid, and because its inevitable that we end up traveling space anyways. Paradoxish posted:There are a lot of resources out in space. Like, a lot. If we could magic up the technology and infrastructure to exploit and utilize them, we would literally be living in a post-scarcity society within a generation. Effectronica posted:Mars is the natural next step for long-term space travel and developing spaceborne infrastructure. Working in an environment with the relative abundance of Mars will prepare us for the asteroids, and for orbital habitats. Arguments from destiny or inevitability are teleological. Arguments from solving all problems are messianic. These are basic definitions. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you were basically able to rub two braincells together you will[sic] immediately understand that it is a deliberately absurd hypothetical that misses the whole point of the scenario you're trying to disprove with it. Actually it perfectly made the point that any arbitrary selected large project to attempt something new would always come with it new technologies and technological developments, thus easily and flawlessly dismantling the argument that space exploration has any unique or specific value as a result of the fact that it came with new technologies and technological developments. That's a pretty big mistake you made here. quote:1. because it's there I think publicly funded research should attempt to serve the public good intentionally and not incidentally. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
A rat done bit Tezzor's sister nell
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
I love tech AND amoral masturbation, and I'm sapient, basically. Do I get to go to space?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A rat done bit Tezzor's sister nell and whitey is kinda thinking of maybe being on the moon
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think publicly funded research should attempt to serve the public good intentionally and not incidentally. If you actually look at scientific history, a good proportion of the most important discoveries of all time were made before anyone including the people who made said discoveries could see a practical use for them, out of pure curiosity. See e.g. penicillin (literally drawing smiley faces on petri dishes), radioactivity (huh why is my film getting exposed in the dark), evolution (the obvious day-to-day applications of natural philosophy). Funding only research that has an already-apparent application means you end up funding a bunch of short term applications which is cool and good on its own. However, after the roughly 20-30 years it takes most fundamental research to get to the point of potential applications, you will only be funding exercises in mediocrity because firstly the low hanging fruit of potential applications have already been picked so you get hosed by diminishing returns, secondly any future potential applications are a generation away because you didn't do fundamental research over the previous generation, and thirdly because even if you suddenly notice that fundamental research is cool and good you have to wait for the previous generation of scientists to get out of their narrow application-focused mindsets again. In summary, you know nothing of research and creativity, but would be perfectly suited for a career in middle management: no thinking beyond the next office and the next quarter, and you can  goofing off on the job. It's funny how you claim to be a leftist but have the perfect capitalist mindset, and I can only hope you die in a ditch forgotten by the world you are doing a disservice.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
protip tezzor: reality is not a 4x game where you can reallocate research points from Space Rockets XXI to Cure for Cancer III or Biospheric Engineering II in one turn
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think publicly funded research should attempt to serve the public good intentionally and not incidentally. There. There is is. You have zero idea how research works and are looking at it from a ROI perspective, which makes zero sense and outs you, again, as a moron. You are a capitalist. Plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There. There is is. You have zero idea how research works and are looking at it from a ROI perspective, which makes zero sense and outs you, again, as a moron.  (rinse and repeat for 9 out of 10 r&d projects)quote:You are a capitalist. Plain and simple. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Has anyone ever tried to communicate with the Sun? What if it's trying to talk to us?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
clammy posted:Has anyone ever tried to communicate with the Sun? What if it's trying to talk to us? WARNING: Do not look directly into the sun while on LSD. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
clammy posted:Has anyone ever tried to communicate with the Sun? What if it's trying to talk to us? We're listening, good luck figuring it out though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWCJkG31h0c
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
We've been having these same space shitfests in D&D for over decade, and the space fetishists are as dishonest as they've always been. Stop being useful idiots for government defense contractors. If space travel is so easy and lucrative, spend your own money on it. If it isn't, stop wasting everyone else's on your lovely pipe dreams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Attacking DoD spending by slashing NASAs budget is probably the dumbest thing I've read in this subforum and I've read Jrod's threads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Morally bankrupt technofetishism is the way and the life. Use Afghanistan as a launch point for nuclear pulse heavy lift vehicles. There'd probably be a lot of indigenous resistance to the idea beforehand but there'd be significantly less after the first launch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Attacking DoD spending by slashing NASAs budget is probably the dumbest thing I've read in this subforum and I've read Jrod's threads. I think very few people are talking about slashing nasa. However, the technowank dreams of the space maximimalists are not remotely close to being acheived by nasas budget. Despite the claims of cheapness and achievable goals, the space industry has a history of lowballing projects by orders of magnitude. I oppose the bloating of the space budget to attempt to acheive these goals. If nasa could actually send someone to mars on their current budget, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Venus isn't as bad as it sounds. The surface is horrible, hot, caustic, and crushing. But at the altitude where pressure is more hospitable, the temperature is better, and the caustics are below you. A Venus floating habitat wouldn't have so many engineering problems, aside from building a floating habitat in the first place. On the plus side, the lower atmosphere is dense enough that a floating habitat would be halfway between a boat and a balloon. edit:maybe the acid isn't all below you, but it's better than the surface. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Venus isn't as bad as it sounds. The surface is horrible, hot, caustic, and crushing. But at the altitude where pressure is more hospitable, the temperature is better, and the caustics are below you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Why would you build a floating habitat if you could just build one in space? If you plop it into the Venusian atmosphere, the atmosphere can help burn up random space things before they can impact it. Besides that though, it makes it easier to study Venus itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
My chemistry sucks, but okay so gaseous sulfur dioxide doesn't seem like it would pose a threat to a craft other than if it leaked and killed everyone inside, but I mean if your spacecraft is leaking then you're already dead before you get there. The gaseous sulfuric acid could be a big problem, but wikipedia says concentrated sulfuric acid works differently from dilute sulfuric acid. What if you react tin with 2 H2SO4 from the martian atmosphere, save the byproducts, drink the water, and use solar power to reconvert the burnt tin back into regular tin? Kind of like how carbon dioxide scrubbers work? Then your floating biosphere made out of copper and plexiglass acrylic http://www.eplastics.com/Plastic/Plastics_Library/Chemical-Resistance-of-Plexiglass-Acrylic will survive just fine
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
There's also apparently loads of CO2 in the venutian mesosphere, which means you can harvest carbon for making things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
clammy posted:There's also apparently loads of CO2 in the venutian mesosphere, which means you can harvest carbon for making things. Pretty much. Plants can grow with CO2 and copious Venusian sunlight, which produce oxygen and food. Once you're only 30 miles up, it's much easier to descend to the surface (for resource collection) and go back to the habitat - launching resources into space is much harder. Water is still scarce, but it's scarce on most planets/moons. Venus is probably the only body on the solar system (besides Earth) where survivable temperatures exist. Venus also has more solar energy available, and every ounce of power will be necessary to do industrial processes like extracting hydrogen from ores (or atmospheric acid).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
you raise a couple good points. Basic research shouldn't be application-oriented, at least not in the near term. The results of basic science research can never be known ahead of time. But why is a manned Mars program a good avenue for science? It's very application oriented, and would probably consist largely of engineering, rather than basic research. Might as well try something equally pointless, like making IRL Pokemon or building sexbots or whatever. All have an equal chance of trickling down to something useful, as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
using desalinization and radical geoengineering, let's make a huge freshwater sea in california. Also, let's find the northwest passage, by making one with the californian sea as a starting point
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Human emigration to the asteroid belt would free up Earth for the possible development of new civilization-building species. We should abandon Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
500 new breeds of high-function dogs by 2025. (a border collie is an example of a high function dog. maybe we could have dogs that detect valuable natural gas deposits?? or ones that smell lies?) e: Engineering a kind of grass which is edible for humans, provides all necessary proteins and vitamins, and also can quickly cross with existing lawn grasses to turn all of those useless lawns into free bounty for all. find a way to wrangle asteroids and smush them together to create a second moon so we can harness the changes in tidal patterns to innovate new surf moves we never before couldve dared to imagine make a really tall robot Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:The Internet is to the early 21st century what electricity was to the early 20th century, beyond that even. It's touched and changed absolutely everything. My jedi mind powers sense deep selection bias. Nintendo Kid posted:Absolutely. Especially when you consider that the internet is a lot more than just what you use to browse facebook. Cool, thanks. I hope technology keeps improving and evolving. I want to see lots of cool stuff before I die, and see the world become a better place. I mentioned virtual reality earlier but that's just for games: neat but probably not game changing for most people. I saw something about a girl getting a new robotic hand and I thought that was really cool. Guavanaut posted:Automation will be the next big one of this, in terms of a step change in how people are employed. I've heard a lot of buzz about automation, A.I., and even robotics. Supposedly they are advancing slowly but surely, but it's hard to tell what's genuinely worth getting excited about because there's so much bullshit about Kurzweil and Singularities. Anyway, I'm sure there's still a ton of jobs that can't be automated, such as ones that require creativity or interpersonal skills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Cool, thanks. I hope technology keeps improving and evolving. I want to see lots of cool stuff before I die, and see the world become a better place. neither will happen kill you are self
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Arguments from destiny or inevitability are teleological. Arguments from solving all problems are messianic. These are basic definitions. You're not half as clever as you think you, all you're doing is parroting arguments you've heard before that sound kind-of right. Here, let me help you out, since you're struggling with what words mean so much: a teleological narrative has, at its core, a purpose behind it's progressional narrative. A progressional narrative alone does not necessarily imply a teleology, it does not necessarily imply a final state of 'perfection'. Every single one of the posts you quoted makes a case based on the utility of that action in and of itself (preference for humanity to survive in general vs. space resources -> abundance vs. mars as easier to do that space in general (assuming you want to do space anyway)), not on the basis of any kind of teleological purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Pretty much. Plants can grow with CO2 and copious Venusian sunlight, which produce oxygen and food. Once you're only 30 miles up, it's much easier to descend to the surface (for resource collection) and go back to the habitat - launching resources into space is much harder. 30 miles up the venusian atmosphere is still about 167 degrees with sulfuric acid clouds (albeit yes, better than the surface where the air is just a haze of acid), 'survivable' is a little bit of a stretch and tapping atmospheric CO2 without immensely wasteful filters would be a fantastically futuristic engineering challenge. Temperatures become reasonable when atmospheric pressure is about 0.5 bar, so your habitat would need actual lifting gasses and a very small payload. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I mentioned virtual reality earlier but that's just for games: neat but probably not game changing for most people. http://www.livescience.com/44384-oculus-rift-virtual-reality-uses-beyond-gaming.html I think you're seriously underestimating what AR and VR can and will do to the economy in the future, especially since it hasn't really started penetrating the market yet. I wouldn't underestimate emerging tech of any kind, especially when APIs for AR and VR are starting to come out and allow people to come up with basically anything they can imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Thankfully, not just for games: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Thankfully, not just for games: Disappointed that fancy porno was nowhere on that list. Obviously the writers don't know what actually drives the mass acceptance of new technology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:33
|
|
