I think it's stupid to compare the importance of such projects, that can and will be done only by the people in the future, when they will see the effects of what we are doing now.
> he's spending his considerable capital on things likely to make an impact on the world, not on frivolous applications like social networks.
While I agree that the guy is awesome, his projects are inspiring and I dislike this social everything wave as much as you probably do, social networks do make an impact on the world, probably even faster and more direct than space ships.
Good point - I guess my biggest complaint is that companies like Facebook and Twitter pull some of the most brilliant minds. These minds, in my opinion, could be better spent finding solutions to big problems like cancer, space exploration, green energy, clean water etc. I guess it's not so much that I dislike social networks, more that I dislike the opportunity cost of having smart people go work for them.
"It has always appalled me that really bright scientists almost all work in the most competitive fields, the ones in which they are making the least difference. In other words, if they were hit by a truck, the same discovery would be made by somebody else about 10 minutes later."
-Aubrey de Grey
Space exploration has little benefit to the average person, esp. for the environmental damage it does. For most people it's just interesting news. I'd like to see more of that innovative talent and gov't money applied to environmental concerns. (That said, I'm still looking forward to tuning into Mars via a microphone/video placed there. Just no ultra-expensive humans, please.)
Doubtful a net benefit. Those come at tremendous cost to the public, like years of extra work per person. We haven't even paid for the Vietnam War yet, and the interest is compounding on that. We're quickly approaching half of every tax dollar spent on interest. Add space exploration, it could reach 90%.
Extra work compared to what? Is there any other reasonable way that space-derived technologies (e.g. those on this list[0]) could have been invented?
If the US wants to pay off it debts, maybe the first thing to do is reduce the amount spend on, for example, the military. The US spends $700+ billion dollars (or 4% of GDP) on its military[1], on something that is even less of a net benefit to humanity: killing people.
Surely the $20 billion[2] currently spent on NASA pales in comparison to that, and the benefit to humanity of non-military technological improvement is far larger. (Clearly, DARPA et al. fund technological improvement too, but the purpose, and first use, of these technologies is normally quite saddening.)
Well, that's not space exploration. For example we knew about the benefit of satellites before we spent a dime to achieve orbit; there was no exploration required.
So much cheaper and environmentally better to tax people for having 3 or more kids instead. Get the population down and we don't need to mine so much. Rockets pollute our atmosphere.
P.S. It looks like a Falcon 9 uses about 25000 gallons of kerosene. Assume everyone drives Priuses and gets 50 mpg while driving a reasonable 18000 miles per year. A Falcon 9 launch burns less fuel than less than 100 people do in a year of just living their boring old lives.
Rocket launch pollution is pissing in a metaphorical ocean.
I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public in full for each 25000 gallons of kerosene burned in the atmosphere (perhaps times thousands of rockets), I'm fine with that. But that's unlikely to happen. It'll just become another public cost instead, to make rich people richer, so I'm against it.
25k Gallons of Kerosene is roughly half the fuel capacity of a 747. (48-65k gallons, depending on which 747). So, that's equivalent to one plane flight from the US to Europe/Asia.
That may be what you wish the world was like, but you must realise that expecting that to actually happen is absurdly unrealistic. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
I do realise that expecting the world to be improved for the general public is unrealistic, and the vast majority effectively don't support it. Should I just shut up then?
Cheap Space Exploration is like planes or ships were for various generations in the past. It is hard for a man in the old stone age to think of the value of the ships or planes. They look like pointless "advanced technology" to go to places that do not matter. But then time passes and we figure out things like carts,trains,ships,planes and space elevators or solar sails or ion engines are just an obvious part of our economies.
I get your point, and it's a good one. I just don't think it'll work that way with space exploration. I don't believe that spending $trillions we don't have (we'd have to borrow it) will pay off enough to make that money, and the ten times more in interest we'd have to pay, worth it to the general public. As it is my kid will likely have to work until he drops dead at work (no retirement for future average Americans). We've been off course for a long time, and space exploration is part of that veering.
It's 1.4% of discretionary spending today. That's only the principal; another 10X+ is interest payments. Exploring beyond what we have explored so far (e.g. humans on Mars) would take it far higher.
Regardless, people like you are actually the reason I am thankful that SpaceX exists. It really doesn't matter to them what people like you think, thank FSM...
Do you really believe that spending trillions fighting for oil is somehow money better spent?? Do you have any clue how much the US blows away on airconditioning in Afghanistan?
Study: Patent Trolls Cost Companies $29 Billion Last Year
It sad that people still believe Space Colonization is so pointless.
Well Vic, it is a social network and the integration of identity in all your previous services and it is your response to the Facebook threat, so of course people compare them.
Unfortunately yes, I think the message from Google has not been great it is not well understood.
it became common, when companies design something the techies don't like instead of just sticking to what they are used to, to call it "they think they know what I want better than I do", forgetting that's the whole point of design.
Edit: I don't pretend to really know how to do it, or what the outcomes could be, but I guess I'm talking about socializing social networks (part of the business value itself), if that makes sense.
It is pretty good instead, you and all the other people making noise over here since yesterday should try it instead of making assumptions just for the love of bashing iOS.
There is much more to a browser than the rendering engine.
It often feels faster than Safari (no matter how much people complain it being THREE TIMES slower than Safari because it doesn’t have JIT), incognito mode is much better as I don’t have to go to Settings every tim, passwords sync, omnibox.
The only big issue is that you cannot set it as default.
I obviously tried it before commenting, but props to you for implying a statistically possible situation of me being a troll. Well I'm not :P
Chrome works slower and that's a fact. Its keyboard is custom, but inferior to Mobile Safari by far. Its syncing options are superior, but all in all you cannot say it's better than Mobile Safari. Unfortunately, you cannot say Mobile Safari is better either... But not being able to set Chrome as default effectively renders it useless.
I've been using Chrome in iOS since it went on the App Store yesterday, and so far not being able to set it as my default browser doesn't seem to be holding me back too much. It replaced Safari on my dock, and my browser is usually within a single swipe on the multitasking tray at the most. Sure, you'll be thrown into Safari here and there, but that's the case for Mail as well, and I can still enjoy Sparrow.
I ordered one yesterday as soon as it was available, but I'm a little disappointed at Google forcing me to pay $14 for two day shipping on something that "delivers in 2-3 weeks".
Not really. Andy Rubin said this is being sold at cost, so either Google is paying for Asus' margin or none of them is getting a margin on this device, setting a price point even harder for manufacturers to match.
It would make more sense to me that "at cost" is relative to Google. Google pays Asus to manufacture these devices. I'm pretty sure that the payments to Asus include Asus' margin. The point being that Google is getting no margin.
If Asus can make it for Google with a margin for themselves, then other manufacturers could do the same. I doubt that Asus is making these devices for Google at no profit.
Project Glass is interesting ... but this demo didn’t show anything new.
But when Apple copies Android's notification center (which has now been massively bumped in JB) that is a huge thing and everyone is up in arms about what sort of geniuses the people at Apple are.
They released the next step in their roadmap. The device will be released to US developers in the IO audience who pre-order and they will be able to hack on it at the beginning of 2013.
What hasn’t happened? live video streaming and two way audio, over commercial cellular networks, using commodity hardware?
I have been doing that with my phone for a few years.
Also, look at the part of the glasses behind the ear, now look at any recent smartphone teardown and see how they compare in size.
I’m sure Project Glass will eventually be interesting, this demo was really cool, but hardly a technological achievement. You can do the same thing by strapping a phone to your helmet.
I'm referring to the "shrinking at will." If you can back, well, anything you're saying up about how Glass isn't impressive beyond "lol open up a phone," I'd love to hear it!
> I’m sure Project Glass will eventually be interesting, this demo was really cool, but hardly a technological achievement. You can do the same thing by strapping a phone to your helmet.
Yeah... you don't see any technical challenges going from the latter to the former? Sounds like you made up your mind a "years ago" when this apparently already existed.
