A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
... If the #2 pencil is the most popular, why's it still #2?What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years since anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed a technological feat that we havne't repated in my lifetime.
What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years
since anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed
a technological feat that we havne't repated in my
lifetime.
Gamgee wrote to All <=-
A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to All on Wed Jul 20 2022 07:38 pm
A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years since
anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed a
technological feat that we havne't repated in my lifetime.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
I've been watching "For All Mankind". It's interesting seeing the
people that were part of the lore during the "space race" and
more than a little depressing that we went from walking on the
moon to a couple of dedcades with a LEO truck called the Space
Shuttle.
Season 3 is interesting - there's a 3-way race to Mars between
the Russians, NASA and a private venture backed by a billionaire.
Gamgee wrote to All <=-
A little late in the day..., but it was on this day in 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out for a stroll on the moon.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
That was 53 years ago. Doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.
I've been watching "For All Mankind". It's interesting seeing the people that were part of the lore during the "space race" and more than a little depressing that we went from walking on the moon to a couple of dedcades with a LEO truck called the Space Shuttle.
Season 3 is interesting - there's a 3-way race to Mars between the Russians, NASA and a private venture backed by a billionaire.
... Not building a wall but making a brick
Ogg wrote to MRO <=-
** On Thursday 21.07.22 - 15:30, MRO wrote to Ogg:
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event.
All it takes is ONE successful
unmanned landing by a 3rd-party or unbiased country/enterprise
to visit the original landing area. It's almost like every
attemp has been sabotaged to fail.
Hello MRO!
** On Thursday 21.07.22 - 15:30, MRO wrote to Ogg:
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event. All it takes is ONE successful
unmanned landing by a 3rd-party or unbiased country/enterprise
to visit the original landing area. It's almost like every
attemp has been sabotaged to fail.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event. All it takes is ONE successful
unmanned landing by a 3rd-party or unbiased country/enterprise
to visit the original landing area. It's almost like every
attemp has been sabotaged to fail.
Why is space the measure? The coordinated attack on the twin
towers on 9-11 was extraordinary, so was Stuxnet. The man-made
islands in Dubia and the continued pursuit to build the
"tallest" buildings in the world require new tech all the time.
What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years since anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed a
technological feat that we havne't repated in my lifetime.
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next step
is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is in
late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go
beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the
moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
More info here:
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/world/artemis-i-launch-preparations-scn/index .html
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event. All it takes is ONE successful
unmanned landing by a 3rd-party or unbiased country/enterprise
to visit the original landing area. It's almost like every
attemp has been sabotaged to fail.
If there was evidence it was faked, it wouldn't come from some crackpot living in his mother's basement. It would be an official statement by a forie gn nation such as the Russians or the Chinese, who understand the science and have tried to land on the moon. They would be the ones with the assets to credibly debunk NASA's work. Also look at how many thousands of people
worked on the space program. I can't suspend reality to think they could all keep their mouths shut considering revealing a secret like that could be worth millions of dollars.
The 'moon landing was a hoax' thing really pisses me off because people who buy into these theories won't be swayed by evidence. The 9/11 truthers are just as bad. Not even first hand video evidence is enough.
I mean, to seriously believe that the government and NASA were able to cover such a huge hoax up, for so long? They they managed to avoid any leaks or a "Hunter Biden's laptop" kind of event?
What is worse is the argument themselves are dumb. "The astronauts moonwalk is just regular walking slowed down" the say, then the show footage of the astronauts walking sped up, which does NOT look anything like walking, and say this is proof. "You can't see the stars" they say. Well, look at all the photos you've taken say at night at a party,a nd tell me how many stars you might see in the sky.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:25 pm
What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years since anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed a
technological feat that we havne't repated in my lifetime.
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next step
is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is in
late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go
beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the
moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
More info here:
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
There is a good argument to be had that it is pointless to send
humans to the moon, when probes can do most of the work, far
cheaper with far less risk. And that is true, but what has also
been lost is the dream of using the moon.
Maybe space travel wasn't really that important for humans after
all? Even so, I can't help but think that in many other areas,
we still lack the creativity and dynamism that existed before.
We make faster and faster computers, but when I go to work and
use the OS (Windows), I'm using almost the same paradigms and
processes as back in 2002, with the exception I have enough CPU
and bandwith to make video calls. Travelling around the city is
the same as 50 years ago, albeit a bit safer, but slower and less efficient.
Yeah.. The moon landing hoax, 9/11 truther, and flat earth conspiracy theorists all seem to just want something to believe in that goes against common knowledge. Many of the arguments in favor of these conspiracy theories seem to be a misunderstanding of the evidence, physics, or just how things work in general.
Exactly.
One of my favorites is the Flat Earth conspiracy theory, and some who supposedly believe that gravity is just due to the earth constantly accelerating upward. If that was true, then we'd be well beyond the speed of light by now, with the earth accelerating for the last 4.8(ish?) billion years.. And that also suggests that the stars and our solar system would have to be accelerating in the same direction along with us in order for us to keep obvserving them.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/world/artemis-i-launch-preparations-scn/index .html
There is a good argument to be had that it is pointless to sendI'd counter that argument with this: The human race is doomed if we
don't find a way to get off of this planet. That's still a long way in
the future (the extinction), but it's a foregone conclusion, IMHO. The
only way to get off this planet and establish a new home is to....
travel in space. You begin that process by traveling to the moon, and
then Mars, and then.... wherever. The point being that you have to "practice" doing it if you want to get better at it. An over-simplification, granted, but I think you see my point.
I agree that creativity and the "pioneer spirit" seem to be gone. Maybe this new space program will re-ignite that rocket. ;-)
That is all true, but it's bigger than that. 50 years ago nobody could
even *IMAGINE* some of the things that we take for granted today.
Internet, wireless communications, medicine, etc... With the same
logic, we can predict that future generations, in 50 or 100 years will
have things that we can't see right now. Hopefully one of them will be "routine" space travel. Even that isn't really enough, though, in the
long term picture. We must eventually learn how to travel through space
at (very near) the speed of light in order to get out of our solar
system, and probably the imaginary (?) concept of "warp" travel to
really get anywhere meaningful. I believe that will indeed happen one
day.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to Boraxman on Fri Jul 22 2022 09:40 pm
There is a good argument to be had that it is pointless to send
I'd counter that argument with this: The human race is doomed if we
don't find a way to get off of this planet. That's still a long way in
the future (the extinction), but it's a foregone conclusion, IMHO. The
only way to get off this planet and establish a new home is to....
travel in space. You begin that process by traveling to the moon, and
then Mars, and then.... wherever. The point being that you have to "practice" doing it if you want to get better at it. An over-simplification, granted, but I think you see my point.
The problem is finding somewhere habitable. That is a much
harder problem than we thought. Scientific bases in space make
sense, but we can't live there. We are too tied to the specifics
on Earth to live anywhere else.
Extinction is a foregone conclusion anyway, as all stars will
burn out, so space colonisation will only delay it. Worthwhile,
but doesn't solve the extinction problem.
The barrier to space colonisation is not getting there, its
making it work when we get there. We can't get it right on
Earth, so what hope on Mars?
Consider this. People on Earth, in civilised areas, today, who
are working, are finding themselves living out of tents because
we just don't seem to be able to get housing affordable. Others
are competing hard for space.
And thats on Earth, in a very hospitable part, with civilisation
built up. First world civilisation.
We can't get it right here. We WON'T get it right on Mars or
wherever. It could not possibly work the way we run our society
here, and only with a new 'system', which would threaten the
status quo here, could there be a chance.
I agree that creativity and the "pioneer spirit" seem to be gone. Maybe this new space program will re-ignite that rocket. ;-)
That is all true, but it's bigger than that. 50 years ago nobody could
even *IMAGINE* some of the things that we take for granted today.
Internet, wireless communications, medicine, etc... With the same
logic, we can predict that future generations, in 50 or 100 years will
have things that we can't see right now. Hopefully one of them will be "routine" space travel. Even that isn't really enough, though, in the
long term picture. We must eventually learn how to travel through space
at (very near) the speed of light in order to get out of our solar
system, and probably the imaginary (?) concept of "warp" travel to
really get anywhere meaningful. I believe that will indeed happen one
day.
I dispute that. 50 years ago was 1972. The early stages of the
Internet were already in place then. ARAPANET had been around a
little bit, and people were writing about it, science fiction
writers. Book from that era described the current world. They
got a lot wrong, but things like working from home, doing grocery
shopping from home and a world wide network were imagined.
Maybe the lay person didn't really think about it, but more
astute people, people at the forefront of technology saw it. The specifics are different. For example, in the movie 2001 A Space
Odysee, we see a video call using a type of phone booth. We got
that capability, but in a different format. I think what would
impress people is the success in minaturisation, being able to
fit so much capability in a small space.
The great achivement in computing is really just overcoming the
technical challenges of making things smaller and faster.
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
The 'moon landing was a hoax' thing really pisses me off because people who buy into these theories won't be swayed by evidence. The 9/11 truthers are just as bad. Not even first hand video evidence is enough.
I mean, to seriously believe that the government and NASA were able to cover such a huge hoax up, for so long? They they managed to avoid any leaks or a "Hunter Biden's laptop" kind of event?
Yeah.. The moon landing hoax, 9/11 truther, and flat earth
conspiracy theorists all seem to just want something to believe
in that goes against common knowledge. Many of the arguments in
favor of these conspiracy theories seem to be a misunderstanding
of the evidence, physics, or just how things work in general.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15,
Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were
those "faked" too?
There were also at least SIX unmanned landings by Russia
since then, and at least THREE unmanned landings by China.
Three of the Russian landings (the 'Luna' spacecraft
series) returned rock samples to the Earth.
You should really try to study some science before making
such ridiculous statements. It makes you look ignorant.
Space is not THE measure, but for me the measures that matter are the ones tha
bring life changing improvement and changes. I would say the Internet is the e major advancement now
If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have never let the world hear th
end of it. They tracked the mission too.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15,
Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were
those "faked" too?
There were also at least SIX unmanned landings by Russia
since then, and at least THREE unmanned landings by China.
Three of the Russian landings (the 'Luna' spacecraft
series) returned rock samples to the Earth.
MOST (not necessarily those) were crash/failed landings.
I was at a party with a Flat Earther, and someone showed him footage from the space station showing the curvature of the Earth. He said it was due to a fish eye lens.
I thought Flat Earthers were trolls, but they are serious!
The problem is finding somewhere habitable. That is a much harder problem than we thought. Scientific bases in space make sense, but we can't live
i've been to the air and space museum. i have seen all that shit.
no way did anybody shoot astronaughts into space, land it, have
You truly are stupid. Moronic. Uneducated. Delusional.
Ogg wrote to Gamgee <=-
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15,
Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were
those "faked" too?
There were also at least SIX unmanned landings by Russia
since then, and at least THREE unmanned landings by China.
Three of the Russian landings (the 'Luna' spacecraft
series) returned rock samples to the Earth.
MOST (not necessarily those) were crash/failed landings.
You should really try to study some science before making
such ridiculous statements. It makes you look ignorant.
I don't need to "study science". It seems that I have been
behind the "news". :/ Those were indeed extraordinary
accomplishments. I stand corrected. ;)
Re: Apollo 11
By: Ogg to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 08:09 am
Why is space the measure? The coordinated attack on the twin
towers on 9-11 was extraordinary, so was Stuxnet. The man-made
islands in Dubia and the continued pursuit to build the
"tallest" buildings in the world require new tech all the time.
The 9/11 attacks were quite low tech. What was "amazing" was the audacity a
Stuxnet, can't comment, maybe. As for Dubai, the Islands and the Burj Khali ajor engineering advances and opened up the heavens to us.
Look at other measures. Travel overseas is as slow as it was in the 80's an would see fewer changes as soemone from 1942 looking at 1982. Someone from
Space is not THE measure, but for me the measures that matter are the ones t
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:25 pm
What is even more crazy is that it has been about 50 years since anyone's been to the moon. My grandparents witnessed a technological feat that we havne't repated in my lifetime.
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next step is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is in
late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
More info here:
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/world/artemis-i-launch-preparations-scn/in .html
There is a good argument to be had that it is pointless to send humans to th
Maybe space travel wasn't really that important for humans after all? Even d use the OS (Windows), I'm using almost the same paradigms and processes as less efficient.
Gamgee wrote to Boraxman <=-
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next
step is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is
in late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
Gamgee wrote to Ogg <=-
You should really try to study some science before making such
ridiculous statements. It makes you look ignorant.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Maybe space travel wasn't really that important for humans after all?
Boraxman wrote to Ogg <=-
Most, if not all of the 'evidence' used to argue the landings were fake
is fairly easily explained and dismissed. I watched a documentary
about how the landings were faked when I was a teenager, and even THEN
I could easily tell how the 'proof' was based on a misunderstanding and poor interpretation.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Extinction is a foregone conclusion anyway, as all stars will burn out,
so space colonisation will only delay it. Worthwhile, but doesn't
solve the extinction problem.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next
step is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is
in late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
Hopefully, this time, people will pay attention. I remember being
a kid and being totally excited for Apollo 17, Skylab, and
Apollo/Soyuz. It seemed like the adults had all moved on after
Apollo 11.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
You should really try to study some science before making such
ridiculous statements. It makes you look ignorant.
We all know it was blown out of orbit in 1999, and the fake moon
put in its place.
No argument with that. In order to find somewhere habitable, we need to
get out there, and look. We can't do that until we get (much) better at space travel. We're back to my point - we need to be learning how to do space travel.
Ahhhh, but it does! Yes, all stars burn out, and end life on the
planets orbiting them. But, they don't all burn out at the same time.
We just keep moving, and expanding. Eventually we reach a point where
that issue won't cause extinction of the species.
Getting there is also a huge barrier, for now at least. I'd argue that
we have got it right on Earth. Sure, it's not perfect, and some have it much harder than others, but we're still here. There will always be problems when you look at things on a global scale.
Very small percentage of the whole are doing that. Yes, that problem exists, but in the BIG PICTURE of things, it's not that relevant. You
have to think about this on a bigger scale.
We can't get it "perfect" here, agreed. That isn't the goal. It
absolutely will not work the same on Mars as it does here, and it
doesn't need to be the same. Again that's not the goal. We learn and
adapt to the location as needed.
Okay, then use whatever time measure you like. Use 100 years instead of
50. Use 500 years. Any of those measures are 'microseconds' on the
time scale of the universe. If it takes us another 1000 years to be
able to travel to another solar system, that is fine. That accomplishes
the goal, which is to be able to move off of this planet. You have to
think differently with topics like this. If it takes 10,000 years,
that's fine too. Our sun has another 4-5 billion years of life. We
just need to figure it out by then.
You're probably right on the above points, but that is largely
"semantics". When we are talking about something as big as long
distance space travel, the timeline stretches out. My main point is
that we have a LONG time still left to us to get it figured out, and I believe we will. All of this in spite of the "climate change" worriers wringing their hands and predicting doom. Yes, that is an issue, but
it's not going to end life on Earth anytime soon.
Not so much a "misunderstanding", but a complete "lack of
understanding". The idiots who believe such things are either
inherently stupid, or completely uneducated, or both.
Unfortunately, it still brings about changes, but a lot of them are not improvements. I see it as more of a source of potential disinformation, scams, fraud, etc., than any source before it.
They had a ship "in the air" over the Moon during the period that Apollo 11 their mission was unmanned and (maybe) did not ever land there.
Is it really harder than we thought? I thought it was fairly well understood that finding a habitable planet would be fairly rare, since it seems all up to chance that the conditions are good enough on a planet to support human life. We've been seeing more and more planets in the galaxy, and I think I've only heard of maybe a couple that they think might be habitable, and they're fairly far out there.
We all know it was blown out of orbit in 1999, and the fake moon
put in its place.
The bastards! ;-)
I think this is more a function of how the Internet is organised, and Social M
ia, which is surveillance driven Capitalism.
Social Media really amped these problems, and they exist because of a business
odel, not a technology. A lot of "tech advancements" is really just some 'inn
ation' of a new business model. Uber, Twitter, Canva, all those online serves
the business model is the problem.
Dumas Walker wrote to OGG <=-
To my knowledge, most of the US Apollo missions before Apollo 11 did
not have landings as part of their mission. There was at least one
that was meant to orbit only (9 or 10), and it was a success.
Gamgee wrote to Ogg <=-
MOST (not necessarily those) were crash/failed landings.
Wrong again. All that I listed above were successful landings by
unmanned spacecraft. Not all of the Russian ones made it back to
Earth, and they did have some crash landings.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
MOST (not necessarily those) were crash/failed landings.
Wrong again. All that I listed above were successful landings by
unmanned spacecraft. Not all of the Russian ones made it back to
Earth, and they did have some crash landings.
Some, like the early Soviet and US launches were designed to
crash into the moon, as we hadn't figured out how to land there
yet.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
To my knowledge, most of the US Apollo missions before Apollo 11 did
not have landings as part of their mission. There was at least one
that was meant to orbit only (9 or 10), and it was a success.
No, if you look at the mission profiles, NASA took it all very methodically. Apollo 7 tested removing the LM and stayed in orbit
as long as a trip to the moon would take. Apollo 8 orbited the
moon. Apollo 9 did more tests. Apollo 10, if I remember, sent two astronauts in the LM to the moon, but didn't land.
If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have never let the world hea end of it. They tracked the mission too.
They had a ship "in the air" over the Moon during the period that Apollo 11 was on the surface. IIRC, they were trying to beat us to the Moon, but their mission was unmanned and (maybe) did not ever land there.
* SLMR 2.1a * My grubby halo, a vapour trail in the empty air...
1969. we did NOT have the technology to bring a spacecraft with people, dr m off, let them walk around on the moon and bring them back safely.
The Nazis were a bad, bad group, but they did a lot to quickly accelerate science, especially when it came to rocketry and other tech. They were intent on using it for future warfare and were desperate to get an edge on the British, Americans, and Soviets. Their immediate goals were rockets that could travel long distances within the Earth's atmosphere or near-orbit but they also had goals for moving beyond into space. They had all sorts
of ideas, some ludicrous and some with potential, when it came to advancing warfare via space.
After the war, there were a lot of smart people with new ideas that were liberated/taken prisoner/accepted into the science communities of the US
and Soviet governments.
The rocket tech was there as early as the 1940's, but needed refinement to g it resized and working correctly for any goals beyond "near-Earth" space. They took ~20 years to get it there.
* SLMR 2.1a * A restless eye across a weary room...
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15,
Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were
those "faked" too?
There were also at least SIX unmanned landings by Russia
since then, and at least THREE unmanned landings by China.
Three of the Russian landings (the 'Luna' spacecraft
series) returned rock samples to the Earth.
MOST (not necessarily those) were crash/failed landings.
The Russian and Chinese ones might have been (I don't know enough about their programs), but the Apollo missions he lists were all successful landings.
I know there have been failures by all three countries but, IIRC, the only US mission that failed after Apollo 11 was Apollo 13. Russia had some failures before Apollo 11 for sure. As far as we know, all but possibly
one were unmanned.
To my knowledge, most of the US Apollo missions before Apollo 11 did not hav landings as part of their mission. There was at least one that was meant
to orbit only (9 or 10), and it was a success.
* SLMR 2.1a * A momentary lapse of reason that binds a life to a life..
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Boraxman to Gamgee on Sat Jul 23 2022 05:05 pm
The problem is finding somewhere habitable. That is a much harder probl than we thought. Scientific bases in space make sense, but we can't liv
Is it really harder than we thought? I thought it was fairly well understoo ore and more planets in the galaxy, and I think I've only heard of maybe a c
Nightfox
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
Yup, it is crazy indeed. But, in case you hadn't heard... The next step is called the Artemis Program, and the first (unmanned) launch is in late August or early September. This won't land on the moon, but go beyond it and come back. The schedule has actual humans landing on the moon again by 2025. Exciting stuff.
Hopefully, this time, people will pay attention. I remember being
a kid and being totally excited for Apollo 17, Skylab, and Apollo/Soyuz. It seemed like the adults had all moved on after
Apollo 11.
Yup, I hope so too. It's about the coolest thing going, IMHO. Sure
would like to see things go smoothly and for them to get additional
funding. We waste so much money on garbage, and this kind of thing
seems to get overlooked. I think it's very important, perhaps even critical, for the future of the entire planet.
... You can't save yourselves. But you can save your legacy. -Hari Seldon
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
You should really try to study some science before making such ridiculous statements. It makes you look ignorant.
We all know it was blown out of orbit in 1999, and the fake moon
put in its place.
The bastards! ;-)
... Strip mining prevents forest fires.That's what you get when you store radioactive waste on the dark side of the moon.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Jul 23 2022 05:55 pm
We all know it was blown out of orbit in 1999, and the fake moon
put in its place.
The bastards! ;-)
You can thank Dr. Evil and his moon base team for that.
Nightfox
Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 02:31 pm
they have literal interviews with nasa employees recorded inside of nasa NO. they say they don't understand how it happened and they
could not duplicate it.
what i dont understand is how you can lose telemetry data AND the origina recordings.
Did they lose all the recordings? You can download a lot of them which they
And which interviews? Have a link?
They didn't lose all the data, they lost some of the video which exists else
This wasn't the 2000's, where you would have APOLLO11_TELEMETRY_1.DAT files
But to believe this somehow proves the entire thing was fake, flies in the f
It's just insane and your reasoning is shoddy. Apollo 11 was not the only m
I'm supposed to believe they managed to get away with faking it all over a p
You have no evidence at all that it was faked. Nothing, only "this doesn't
In other words, it is only worthwhile moving to other planets, it will only really work, when we've eliminated all t
problems that we create or exacerbate here which might make us need to move. Human created climate change is the be
argument AGAINST seeking to move, as we would just transfer this problem, this disease with up. Colonise new areas
when you are free of pathogens.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Jul 23 2022 05:55 pm
We all know it was blown out of orbit in 1999, and the fake moon
put in its place.
The bastards! ;-)
You can thank Dr. Evil and his moon base team for that.
Nightfox
To my knowledge, most of the US Apollo missions before Apollo 11 did
not have landings as part of their mission. There was at least one
that was meant to orbit only (9 or 10), and it was a success.
No, if you look at the mission profiles, NASA took it all very methodically. Apollo 7 tested removing the LM and stayed in orbit as long as a trip to the moon would take. Apollo 8 orbited the moon. Apollo 9 did more tests. Apollo 10, if I remember, sent two astronauts in the LM to the moon, but didn't land.
The rocket tech was there as early as the 1940's, but needed refinement to it resized and working correctly for any goals beyond "near-Earth" space. They took ~20 years to get it there.
When Von Braun was testing the V2 rockets during WWII, he said the tests were a success, exept they were pointing them at the wrong planet.
faeempress wrote to MRO <=-
1969. we did NOT have the technology to bring a spacecraft with people, drop them off, let them walk around on the moon and bring them back safely. no fucking way.
O.o What the f..? You'd get along great with my stepdad, he
thought Covid was a hoax. I don't understand the ignorance of
people...
It wouldn't be the first time humans have focused their time, money, and mental energies on vacations while letting
their homes rot.
That said, from our point of view there is very little to lose on other celestial bodies we know of and have a
reasonable capability to reach -- they all appear to be devoid of all forms of life _as we know them_ -- so I'm not too
worried about screw up the Martian biosphere, but I am worried that in our lust for achievement we're willing to cause
major damage here in the process (our history is also littered with examples of technological progress at the price of
ecology).
Boraxman wrote to Dux <=-
It wouldn't be the first time humans have focused their time, money, and mental energies on vacations while letting
their homes rot.
That said, from our point of view there is very little to lose on other celestial bodies we know of and have a
reasonable capability to reach -- they all appear to be devoid of all forms of life _as we know them_ -- so I'm not too
worried about screw up the Martian biosphere, but I am worried that in our lust for achievement we're willing to cause
major damage here in the process (our history is also littered with examples of technological progress at the price of
ecology).
The thing is if you leave your house to rot, you don't move to
another to escape until you've worked out why your original
rotted in the first place.
People are positing space travel as a
way to get away from catastrophes, but some of them are ones we
are generating, so we are likely to replicate the problems
elsewhere.
Natures limits will follow us around wherever we go.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
That's what you get when you store radioactive waste on the dark side
of the moon.
O.o What the f..? You'd get along great with my stepdad, he people...
people...
I think you're relatively new here... Meet 'MRO', the resident moron of DoveNet. This is what he does. Just laugh at him like everyone else does. He's a special case.
Boraxman wrote to Dux <=-
It wouldn't be the first time humans have focused their time, money, and mental energies on vacations while letting
their homes rot.
That said, from our point of view there is very little to lose on other celestial bodies we know of and have a
reasonable capability to reach -- they all appear to be devoid of all for of life _as we know them_ -- so I'm not too
worried about screw up the Martian biosphere, but I am worried that in ou lust for achievement we're willing to cause
major damage here in the process (our history is also littered with examp of technological progress at the price of
ecology).
The thing is if you leave your house to rot, you don't move to
another to escape until you've worked out why your original
rotted in the first place.
I'd argue that point by saying that if a person is the type that would
leave his house to rot, that's *EXACTLY* what they would do. They don't *CARE* what the reason was, and are not interested in fixing the
problem.
People are positing space travel as a
way to get away from catastrophes, but some of them are ones we
are generating, so we are likely to replicate the problems
elsewhere.
Probably, but that gives them a fairly long interval to have a "fresh start", and meanwhile be looking for yet another place to live. It gets
you down the road a piece, as they say.
Natures limits will follow us around wherever we go.
Probably, unless "Nature" has a different definition than we're used to,
on a different planet... <BOGGLE>
... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
That's what you get when you store radioactive waste on the dark side of the moon.
I love the odd programming you can find on the channels on Roku TVs. One of the sci-fi channels has UFO and Space:1999 on, two shows I loved growing up.
... How does this work, is there an orientation?
I love the odd programming you can find on the channels on Roku TVs. One of the sci-fi channels has UFO and Space:1999 on, two shows I loved growing up.
I'd argue that point by saying that if a person is the type that would
leave his house to rot, that's *EXACTLY* what they would do. They don't *CARE* what the reason was, and are not interested in fixing the
problem.
Probably, but that gives them a fairly long interval to have a "fresh start", and meanwhile be looking for yet another place to live. It gets
you down the road a piece, as they say.
Probably, unless "Nature" has a different definition than we're used to,
on a different planet... <BOGGLE>
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Probably, unless "Nature" has a different definition than we're used to,
on a different planet... <BOGGLE>
Even if we found a compatible plkanet, we would be an invasive
species. All of our germs, bacteria, microbes that live in our
lungs, skin, and digestive system will also be invasive. Native
plants may be toxic because we were not developed as part of that ecosystem. We'd have to bring more invasive species with us.
Let us hope they take hold without destroying the current
ecosphere of the planet.
Boraxman wrote to Gamgee <=-
Probably, unless "Nature" has a different definition than we're used to,
on a different planet... <BOGGLE>
I think we'll see similar limitations. Climate that is affected
by atmospheric changes, ecosystems and feedback loops that
respond to human induced changes. Any planet that we are going
to live on would need to have an ecosystem or ecosystems of
sorts, and they too will be affected by our actions.
Earths ecosystems are quite resilient, with 4 billion years of
evolution, and about half a billion of years to establish things
on land. Any new planet would have brand new systems that would
be quite delicate and the system could easily fall over.
Even if we found a compatible plkanet, we would be an invasive species. All of our germs, bacteria, microbes that live in our lungs, skin, and digestive system will also be invasive. Native plants may be toxic because we were not developed as part of that ecosystem. We'd have to bring more invasive species with us. Let us hope they take hold without destroying the current ecosphere of the planet.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Mon Jul 25 2022 07:31 am
I love the odd programming you can find on the channels on Roku TVs. On of the sci-fi channels has UFO and Space:1999 on, two shows I loved growing up.
They were good shows my favorites however were BattleStar Galactica , Babylon 5 and Space Above and Beyound and a few others. I also watch roku tv
BrokenMind
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Probably, unless "Nature" has a different definition than we're used to, on a different planet... <BOGGLE>
Even if we found a compatible plkanet, we would be an invasive
species. All of our germs, bacteria, microbes that live in our
lungs, skin, and digestive system will also be invasive. Native
plants may be toxic because we were not developed as part of that ecosystem. We'd have to bring more invasive species with us.
Let us hope they take hold without destroying the current
ecosphere of the planet.
Probably all true, but changes nothing about the need to find another
place to live. We'll have to deal with those types of things. Adapt
and overcome.
... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
I love the odd programming you can find on the channels on Roku TVs. One of the sci-fi channels has UFO and Space:1999 on, two shows I loved growing up.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Probably all true, but changes nothing about the need to find another
place to live. We'll have to deal with those types of things. Adapt
and overcome.
It's an ethical dilemma I'm sure some would justify panetary
genocide of alien pant and animal species in the name of
preserving human life. The alter native for long term habitation
is genetically altering humans so they can eat otherwise inedible
or toxic plants.
Moondog wrote to MRO <=-
How would you explain the tracks left by the astronauts? They're observa by probes sent to the moon. In later missions they brougt along a moon buggy. There are tracks left by that as well. Way more than would've be possible trying to drive a remote vehicle would've done.
our own probes and tests say it's legit. sounds legit.
Other nations sent probes to orbit the moon. why aren't they
calling foul?
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Gamgee on Tue Jul 26 2022 04:31 pm
Even if we found a compatible plkanet, we would be an invasive species. All of our germs, bacteria, microbes that live in our lungs, skin, and digestive system will also be invasive. Native plants may be toxic beca we were not developed as part of that ecosystem. We'd have to bring mor invasive species with us. Let us hope they take hold without destroying the current ecosphere of the planet.
I'd think the risk isn't much worse than a group of people moving to a diffe
Nightfox
I love the odd programming you can find on the channels on Roku TVs. One o the sci-fi channels has UFO and Space:1999 on, two shows I loved growing u
We used to get COMET here which I think had Space:1999 and I know it had
the 1990's The Outer Limits. Unfortunately, the TV station that was carrying it as a subchannel dropped it in favor of another, non-sci-fi network.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Don't touch me...I'll wound your inner child!" - Beavis
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Probably all true, but changes nothing about the need to find another place to live. We'll have to deal with those types of things. Adapt
and overcome.
It's an ethical dilemma I'm sure some would justify panetary
genocide of alien pant and animal species in the name of
preserving human life. The alter native for long term habitation
is genetically altering humans so they can eat otherwise inedible
or toxic plants.
Well, honestly, if we went to all the trouble of traveling (however far
to this new world), wouldn't it be assumed that we'll do what we have to
in order to survive? The alternative would be to just roll over and
give up the mission. Pretty standard procedure for an "invading force"
to try and take over by force if necessary, and let the strongest
survive. Top of the food chain kind of thing. <SHRUG>
... Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
It's an ethical dilemma I'm sure some would justify panetary
genocide of alien pant and animal species in the name of
preserving human life. The alter native for long term habitation
is genetically altering humans so they can eat otherwise inedible
or toxic plants.
Well, honestly, if we went to all the trouble of traveling (however far
to this new world), wouldn't it be assumed that we'll do what we have to
in order to survive? The alternative would be to just roll over and
give up the mission. Pretty standard procedure for an "invading force"
to try and take over by force if necessary, and let the strongest
survive. Top of the food chain kind of thing. <SHRUG>
Agreed, there is no turning back. But lets go one step further
and disocover we brought along something that creates massive
kill offs of life down to the viral or microbial level, when in
turn affects the planet's ability to recycle CO2 into oxygen?
Entire jungles die off. Animals run out of food. P rairies with
wind resilient grass turn into arid desert. Oceans becoime
devoid of life. Whatever replaces it must grow pretty damn
quick, if possible. Plants will have to be adapted to grow in
the alien soil. in that case, the microbes may be essential for
the conversion.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
It's an ethical dilemma I'm sure some would justify panetary genocide of alien pant and animal species in the name of
preserving human life. The alter native for long term habitation
is genetically altering humans so they can eat otherwise inedible
or toxic plants.
Well, honestly, if we went to all the trouble of traveling (however far to this new world), wouldn't it be assumed that we'll do what we have to in order to survive? The alternative would be to just roll over and
give up the mission. Pretty standard procedure for an "invading force" to try and take over by force if necessary, and let the strongest survive. Top of the food chain kind of thing. <SHRUG>
Agreed, there is no turning back. But lets go one step further
and disocover we brought along something that creates massive
kill offs of life down to the viral or microbial level, when in
turn affects the planet's ability to recycle CO2 into oxygen?
Entire jungles die off. Animals run out of food. P rairies with
wind resilient grass turn into arid desert. Oceans becoime
devoid of life. Whatever replaces it must grow pretty damn
quick, if possible. Plants will have to be adapted to grow in
the alien soil. in that case, the microbes may be essential for
the conversion.
I suppose that could happen. Seems like it would take a little while
for that scale of destruction - enough time for us to realize what was happening and *TRY* to counter-act it. If it seems we'd be unable to do that then you'd have to step back and remember the "big-picture"...
There are probably millions of inhabitable planets. If this one is a failure, then we move on and try another one. It's "survival of the fittest" on a galactic scale. When you look at it like that..., how important is any one planet? Including our native Earth...
... All the easy problems have been solved.
The writers probably didn't think much of it, but one of the alien species that was the bad guy of the week were known as the Vegans.
The writers probably didn't think much of it, but one of the alien species that was the bad guy of the week were known as the Vegans.
LOL, that is a good one. :) I never saw any of those Space Academy or Jason of Star Command episodes. They sound interesting.
Most of what I watch lately are the original Twilight Zone, original The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, One Step Beyond, and Tales of Tomorrow. :) Those, and the British dramas that PBS shows on Thursday and Sunday nights.
* SLMR 2.1a * The number you have dailed...9-1-1...has been changed...
You're making a big assumption that a new planet we might find would be "new". Why couldn't it also be 4-5 billion years old? I'm sure it
wouldn't be exactly like Earth, but maybe very similar?
I'd think the risk isn't much worse than a group of people moving to a different continent on our planet..?
Nightfox
I suppose that could happen. Seems like it would take a little while
for that scale of destruction - enough time for us to realize what was happening and *TRY* to counter-act it. If it seems we'd be unable to do that then you'd have to step back and remember the "big-picture"...
There are probably millions of inhabitable planets. If this one is a failure, then we move on and try another one. It's "survival of the fittest" on a galactic scale. When you look at it like that..., how important is any one planet? Including our native Earth...
The thing is if you leave your house to rot, you don't move to another to escape until you've worked out why your original rotted in the first place.
For some time it may a one shot attempt, and the ship that gets you there wi be expended and act as construction materials to build your new colony. If there is no sentient life detectable, it may be ok to kill everything off as part of the terraforming process. I think it will be tragic if a colony disappears because it had no contingency plan for a planet being toxic or so frail it cannot accomodate Earthlings and all the germs they bring with them
Most of what I watch lately are the original Twilight Zone, original The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, One Step Beyond, and Tales of Tomorrow. :) Those, and the British dramas that PBS shows on Thursday and Sunday nights.
Add Ray Bradbury Theatre to your watch list. the series I mistook for Earth
You've made an assumption here that logic and thought is being put into this...
another potential analogy:
You live in a big house w/ a lot of family... the ones in charge don't care what's going on, they're fine with it rotting as long as they have their booze
and TV... others can see the problem but refuse to be part of the solution...
others would be part of the solution but the problem is beyond what they can handle alone--but they can move out.
I just think it's more likely the booze and TV ones will be buying the rockets to
Mars and allow all new terrible problems to occur.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Gamgee on Thu Jul 28 2022 10:45 am
For some time it may a one shot attempt, and the ship that gets you there be expended and act as construction materials to build your new colony. there is no sentient life detectable, it may be ok to kill everything off part of the terraforming process. I think it will be tragic if a colony disappears because it had no contingency plan for a planet being toxic or frail it cannot accomodate Earthlings and all the germs they bring with t
Given our current ethics, I can't imagine a trip somewhere that we haven't planned for every contigency -- up to an including "you'll live out the rest your lives orbiting that star in this ship".
I would guess that before any human missions go on any one way trips we'll h thoroughly probed the area and planned for the likely situations faced.
We might at some point change our collective opinion and decide that being t first human to each another star system is worth the risk of finding it a wasteland and having insufficient supplies to return... those Apollo folks seemed to be pretty darn close to that level of risk, but even they had a reasonable return plan.
I think our collected opinion of tragic has, and will, continue to change ov the decades. Things that would tragic here on Earth 50-60 years ago barely register as newsworthy. We may find that in 150 years it's not considered unbearbly tragic for a group to die trying to pioneer new places in space, j as folks lost in the 1700s-1800s to treks across the united states trying to find new homesteads (and they often had established destinations!)
Most of what I watch lately are the original Twilight Zone, original Th Outer Limits, Night Gallery, One Step Beyond, and Tales of Tomorrow. : Those, and the British dramas that PBS shows on Thursday and Sunday nig
Add Ray Bradbury Theatre to your watch list. the series I mistook for Ear
I am not sure if I have a station here that shows that one now. I am watching the non-PBS shows above on DVD, except Tales of Tomorrow, which can be found on youtube.
If I can find it I will give it a watch!
* SLMR 2.1a * IBM = Institute of Black Magic
Hydroponics work in space. If terraforming fails, then people must live in pressurized structures. Hydroponics do not require dirt. Before any colony is created, a source of water would have to be discovered. From water you sustain life, create oxygen, rocket fuel, and fuel for hydrogen cells to produce electricity.
is created, a source of water would have to be discovered. From water you
All this is quite theortical. The closest we've come was the BioDome.
Probes can tell you only so much, and even then there may be signs we don't recognize, like 100 year flood plains, or gravitational changes
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Jul 29 2022 10:53 pm
Hydroponics work in space. If terraforming fails, then people must live pressurized structures. Hydroponics do not require dirt. Before any col is created, a source of water would have to be discovered. From water y sustain life, create oxygen, rocket fuel, and fuel for hydrogen cells to produce electricity.
I would expect that people would trial this on Earth first. Making a sustai
All this is quite theortical. The closest we've come was the BioDome.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Jul 29 2022 10:53 pm
is created, a source of water would have to be discovered. From water y
Recycled urine, of course!
I think you mean BioSphere II. BioDome was a comedy movie.
In some ways BioSphere II was successful giving us a glimpse of things required to have such a colony. In most other ways, though, it was a failure, showing us we are nowhere near ready to launch such an endeavor.
At least that's what I got out of it :D
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Gamgee on Thu Jul 28 2022 10:45 am
For some time it may a one shot attempt, and the ship that gets you there be expended and act as construction materials to build your new colony. there is no sentient life detectable, it may be ok to kill everything off part of the terraforming process. I think it will be tragic if a colony disappears because it had no contingency plan for a planet being toxic or frail it cannot accomodate Earthlings and all the germs they bring with t
Given our current ethics, I can't imagine a trip somewhere that we haven't planned for every contigency -- up to an including "you'll live out the rest your lives orbiting that star in this ship".
I would guess that before any human missions go on any one way trips we'll h thoroughly probed the area and planned for the likely situations faced.
We might at some point change our collective opinion and decide that being t first human to each another star system is worth the risk of finding it a wasteland and having insufficient supplies to return... those Apollo folks seemed to be pretty darn close to that level of risk, but even they had a reasonable return plan.
I think our collected opinion of tragic has, and will, continue to change ov the decades. Things that would tragic here on Earth 50-60 years ago barely register as newsworthy. We may find that in 150 years it's not considered unbearbly tragic for a group to die trying to pioneer new places in space, j as folks lost in the 1700s-1800s to treks across the united states trying to find new homesteads (and they often had established destinations!)
i totally forgot about biodome/biosphere i guess it all
fell apart, but they still learned a few things.
[...] Earth's atmosphere is 21% oxygen, and theirs dropped to 14.2.
[...] People became lethargic, had trouble concentrating,..
[...] crew also had morale issues ..
[...] The crew felt like zoo animals from all the tourists
tapping on the glass to t ake pictures of them.
Jason of Star Command was more of a swashbuckler action series. They recycled sets and sometimes Space Academy (the station, not the cast) would make an appearance. Bad guy was big hairy dude with one good eye and the other is covered by an eyepiece that glows red. Each week Jason would thwar the bad guy's plan to control the universe.
Hello Moondog!
** On Sunday 31.07.22 - 19:00, Moondog wrote to MRO:
i totally forgot about biodome/biosphere i guess it all
fell apart, but they still learned a few things.
[...] Earth's atmosphere is 21% oxygen, and theirs dropped to 14.2. [...] People became lethargic, had trouble concentrating,..
[...] crew also had morale issues ..
[...] The crew felt like zoo animals from all the tourists
tapping on the glass to t ake pictures of them.
Any real human trip to Mars will most certainly be a suicide
mission.
Re: the latter element, allowing people to access the location
and take pictures.. seemed in contrevention to emulate
isolation from outside contact.
The basic elements for sustaining life (oxygene, food, shelter)
on another planet are NOT likely to be met at all. So, why
bother?
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Dumas Walker on Thu Jul 28 2022 12:11 am
Jason of Star Command was more of a swashbuckler action series. They recycled sets and sometimes Space Academy (the station, not the cast) wou make an appearance. Bad guy was big hairy dude with one good eye and the other is covered by an eyepiece that glows red. Each week Jason would th the bad guy's plan to control the universe.
Don't forget about James Doohan as the commander! Not his finest hour, I'm s :)
o
(O)
BeLLy
I think the objective was to build a sustainable environnment we can bring along
with us rather than adapt one.
The concept of terraforming is to take an environent incapable of sustaining life, then re-engineer it so it could sustain life. This may take centuries even if we have all the ingredients. In scifi, terraforming is usually portrayed as being done on arid, lifeless rocks. In the 2014 series Defiance, Earth was devasted by probes designed to alter the planet for refugees escaping a dying star system.
I was watching a PBS series where they reviewed different planets, and Venus could have been a sister planet to Earth if it had an organic moderator to regulate co2 and other chemical buildups in their thicker atmosphere. Even though they are in a position where the temperature should be 100 dgrees warmer, their thicker atmosphere could've kept the planet cooler instead of ma. king it a pressure cooker.
Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Ogg on Tue Aug 02 2022 07:48 pm
I think the objective was to build a sustainable environnment we can brin along
with us rather than adapt one.
The concept of terraforming is to take an environent incapable of sustain life, then re-engineer it so it could sustain life. This may take centur even if we have all the ingredients. In scifi, terraforming is usually portrayed as being done on arid, lifeless rocks. In the 2014 series Defiance, Earth was devasted by probes designed to alter the planet for refugees escaping a dying star system.
I was watching a PBS series where they reviewed different planets, and Venus could have been a sister planet to Earth if it had an organic moderator to regulate co2 and other chemical buildups in their thicker atmosphere. Even though they are in a position where the temperature sho be 100 dgrees warmer, their thicker atmosphere could've kept the planet cooler instead of ma. king it a pressure cooker.
A private for-profit company is going to embark on a project which takes cen
When people talk of terraforming, I wonder how it is that others don't burst The company will have to remain solvent, and not decide to refocus.
I'm sick and tired of techno-utopians who talk out of their ass, and Elon i
can bank on.
Building companies here in Australia are all folding because of the speculat
Keep dreaming though...
Moondog wrote to Belly <=-
I did forget! Afew years earlier Doohan and thmost of the TOS cast
worked on the Star Trek animated series. Some of the dialog sounds
flat, and the reason I heard why was because the studio would mail
scripts to the actors, th en they would record their lines on a tape
and send it back to the studio. Doohan and Nichols had additional work doing voice acting for additional characters.
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
When people talk of terraforming, I wonder how it is that others don't burst out in riotous laughter. Companies want profit NOW.
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
When people talk of terraforming, I wonder how it is that others don't burst out in riotous laughter. Companies want profit NOW.
I think terraforming is on the next scale of human civilization. We'll need to be one people and focused on survival of the species to make it happen.
... Good {$Greeting_Time}, $User!
When people talk of terraforming, I wonder how it is that others don't burst out in riotous laughter. Companies want profit NOW.
I think terraforming is on the next scale of human civilization. We'll need to be one people and focused on survival of the species to make it happen.
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Part of terraforming may require altering what we consider "human."
There was a short-lived BBC series, I think it was called Outcasts, and
it was about a colony on a very Earthlike world. Among the colonists
were a group known as "pioneers" who came early on and were genetically altered so they could live off the land, while the other residents in
"the fence" required greenhouses and livestock in pens and cages fed withstrains of grains from Earth.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Aug 05 2022 07:28 am
When people talk of terraforming, I wonder how it is that others don burst out in riotous laughter. Companies want profit NOW.
I think terraforming is on the next scale of human civilization. We'll ne to be one people and focused on survival of the species to make it happen
Dude, we haven't changed! We're still focused on profit, ego, acquisition,
Technophiles (like Musk) always overlook this. We have the means to house e
So it is with terraforming. I cannot see how it is possible for us HUMANS t
Which company is going to pay for it? Who is going to stump up the cash and
in space?
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Part of terraforming may require altering what we consider "human." There was a short-lived BBC series, I think it was called Outcasts, and it was about a colony on a very Earthlike world. Among the colonists were a group known as "pioneers" who came early on and were genetically altered so they could live off the land, while the other residents in "the fence" required greenhouses and livestock in pens and cages fed withstrains of grains from Earth.
I watched that show - took a while to get going, but I liked it.
Netflix had a movie where Earth had a limited amount of time left before it would be uninhabitable, and they were trying to genetically modify people
to be able to live on Titan unassisted. If memory serves, the program ended poorly and they realized that by changing humanity, they lost what it meant to be human.
... DON'T EAT CABBAGE
Dude, we haven't changed! We're still focused on profit, ego, acquisition,
Technophiles (like Musk) always overlook this. We have the means to house e
So it is with terraforming. I cannot see how it is possible for us HUMANS t
Which company is going to pay for it? Who is going to stump up the cash and
in space?
Since companies are not bound to treaties that nations make regarding colonization and claiming other worlds as territory, whoever establishes a colony and gets industry going is going to live like a king in that sphere of influence. Think of the overseas mining industry and the company store concept from the late 19th century and early 20th century. The only way to knock down these fiefdoms was to make the islands into US controlled territories. I doubt any nation would spend the money to manage or regulate a corporate colony. This might result in corporate controlled worlds. The map may not say it, but when you land you are breathing corporate air.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Since companies are not bound to treaties that nations make regarding colonization and claiming other worlds as territory, whoever
establishes a colony and gets industry going is going to live like a
king in that sphere of influence.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Aug 07 2022 01:55 pm
Dude, we haven't changed! We're still focused on profit, ego, acquisition,
Technophiles (like Musk) always overlook this. We have the means to house e
So it is with terraforming. I cannot see how it is possible for us HUMANS t
Which company is going to pay for it? Who is going to stump up the ca and
in space?
Since companies are not bound to treaties that nations make regarding colonization and claiming other worlds as territory, whoever establishes colony and gets industry going is going to live like a king in that spher of influence. Think of the overseas mining industry and the company stor concept from the late 19th century and early 20th century. The only way knock down these fiefdoms was to make the islands into US controlled territories. I doubt any nation would spend the money to manage or regul a corporate colony. This might result in corporate controlled worlds. T map may not say it, but when you land you are breathing corporate air.
I don't believe they would be allowed to claim planets and asteroid as their
If the future of space colonisation is that companies will essentially becom
is economically viable, you will have exploit labour awfully to get away wi
For the moment, space will be for tourists like Bezos. Lets hope next time
A private for-profit company is going to embark on a project which takes cen
In Spain we have this saying that one sets a winery so his descendants make a profit from it. Vines take quite a long time to get mature enough to produce top tier grapes. Before that point they kind of suck. If I plant vines today, I will be dead before they start producing their A grapes.
Re: Apollo 11
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Fri Aug 05 2022 08:25 am
A private for-profit company is going to embark on a project which takes
Wine production, and by that I mean _good_ wine production (not what most English speakers consider wine these days) is pretty much just that.
In Spain we have this saying that one sets a winery so his descendants make profit from it. Vines take quite a long time to get mature enough to produce top tier grapes. Before that point they kind of suck. If I plant vines today will be dead before they start producing their A grapes.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
In Spain we have this saying that one sets a winery so his descendants make a profit from it. Vines take quite a long time to get mature enoug to produce top tier grapes. Before that point they kind of suck. If I plant vines today, I will be dead before they start producing their A grapes.
In California we say "Opening a winery is a great way to take a large fortun
Unless there's a board or shareholders, a company is a dictatorship. There are such things as benevolent dictators who provide a level of comfort and opportunity to make profits to their people. I agree being a complete despot will not bring in the talented people needed to maintain and improve a
colony. As a colony grows it may appear to be less of a dictatorship, however in the end there will be someone who is either active or silent in the colony's affairs that is getting their piece of the action.
Wine production, and by that I mean _good_ wine production (not what most English speakers consider wine these days) is pretty much just that.
In Spain we have this saying that one sets a winery so his descendants make a profit from it. Vines take quite a long time to get mature enough to produce top tier grapes. Before that point they kind of suck. If I plant vines today, I will be dead before they start producing their A grapes.
--
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Aug 09 2022 01:44 pm
Unless there's a board or shareholders, a company is a dictatorship. The are such things as benevolent dictators who provide a level of comfort an opportunity to make profits to their people. I agree being a complete despot will not bring in the talented people needed to maintain and impro a
colony. As a colony grows it may appear to be less of a dictatorship, however in the end there will be someone who is either active or silent i the colony's affairs that is getting their piece of the action.
This is the odd thing about Capitalism. People say it belongs in a Democrat
Ogg wrote to MRO <=-
** On Thursday 21.07.22 - 15:30, MRO wrote to Ogg:
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16,
and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were those "faked" too?
Re: Apollo 11
By: Ogg to MRO on Thu Jul 21 2022 07:55 pm
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event. All it takes is ONE successful
unmanned landing by a 3rd-party or unbiased country/enterprise
to visit the original landing area. It's almost like every
attemp has been sabotaged to fail.
What are you smoking? No landings since Apollo 11? Seriously?
Digital Man wrote to Gamgee <=-
** On Thursday 21.07.22 - 15:30, MRO wrote to Ogg:
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16,
and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were those "faked" too?
He did say "near side".
Just because *you* don't understand how it was possible and accomplished doesn't make it impossible. It wasn't impossible and we did it.
Digital Man wrote to Gamgee <=-
** On Thursday 21.07.22 - 15:30, MRO wrote to Ogg:
also the moon landing was faked.
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were those "faked" too?
He did say "near side".
Yes.... <confused look> All manned and unmanned landings (except for
maybe one Chinese in 2019-ish) have been on the near side.
Re: Apollo 11
By: Digital Man to MRO on Tue Aug 16 2022 01:14 pm
Just because *you* don't understand how it was possible and accomplished doesn't make it impossible. It wasn't impossible and we did it.
I think it's a little weird that people think we didn't and there was a conspiracy to fake it, and kept secret for this long. I've heard some people say Russia was watching, and they would have noticed if we didn't make it to the moon. Surely they would have made a big deal out of it if we hadn't made it.
Digital Man wrote to Gamgee <=-
It is interesting that there hasn't been one successful
subsequent successful landing on the near side (even unmanned)
since the Apollo 11 event.
Well, you mean besides the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions (all manned)? Or were those "faked" too?
He did say "near side".
Yes.... <confused look> All manned and unmanned landings (except for
maybe one Chinese in 2019-ish) have been on the near side.
I didn't know that. I thought there was some significance to the specificity of "near side". Moon landings are clearly something I
know very little about. But they did happen. :-)
Yup. And the thousands of Americans that were involved in these massive projects would have made a big deal too.
I think it's a little weird that people think we didn't and there was a conspiracy to fake it, and kept secret for this long. I've heard some people say Russia was watching, and they would have noticed if we didn't make it to the moon. Surely they would have made a big deal out of it if we hadn't made it.
Nightfox
Indeed they did! Yes, the "near side" is the part we can see from
Earth, it's always lit by the sun (moon doesn't spin in relation to Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never sees the light of the sun. It would be very difficult to see you on the Dark Side of the Moon, regardless of Pink Floyd's promise... ;-)
Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never sees the light of the sun.
[..] The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never
sees the light of the sun.
What are you smoking? No landings since Apollo 11? Seriously?
He did say "near side".
Yes.... <confused look> All manned and unmanned landings (except for
maybe one Chinese in 2019-ish) have been on the near side.
Indeed they did! Yes, the "near side" is the part we can see from
Earth, it's always lit by the sun (moon doesn't spin in relation to
Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never sees the light of the sun. It would be very difficult to see you on the Dark Side of the Moon, regardless of Pink Floyd's promise... ;-)
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Indeed they did! Yes, the "near side" is the part we can see from
Earth, it's always lit by the sun (moon doesn't spin in relation to Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never sees the light of the sun. It would be very difficult to see you on the Dark Side of the Moon, regardless of Pink Floyd's promise... ;-)
That's not true. at all.
The moon has phases as it orbits earth, in which only part of
the near side of the moon is lit, and part of the far side of the
moon is lit. during a new moon, the far side of the moon is lit,
and the near side is not.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never sees the light of the sun.
Never sees the light of the sun? Wouldn't the far side of the
moon get light from the sun during a solar eclipse (or other
times when the moon is anywhere between the earth and the sun)?
Belly wrote to Gamgee <=-
Indeed they did! Yes, the "near side" is the part we can see from
Earth, it's always lit by the sun (moon doesn't spin in relation to
Earth). The other side of the moon is always dark (and cold) and never
sees the light of the sun. It would be very difficult to see you on the Dark Side of the Moon, regardless of Pink Floyd's promise... ;-)
No, no, no! There is no 'dark side' of the Moon. Just a near and
far side. The Moon is tidally locked to Earth, so the same side
always faces us, but the far side gets just as much sunlight as
the near side does, as it orbits Earth. One might even argue that
the far side gets MORE sunlight, since it is never eclipsed by
Earth, as occasionally happens to the near side.
there's tons of evidence.
And yet..... you can't provide any.
That's not true. at all.
The moon has phases as it orbits earth, in which only part of the
near side of the moon is lit, and part of the far side of the moon is
lit. during a new moon, the far side of the moon is lit, and the near
side is not.
Same with a solar eclipse.
On 8/17/22 08:33, DaiTengu wrote:
That's not true. at all.
The moon has phases as it orbits earth, in which only part of the
near side of the moon is lit, and part of the far side of the moon is
lit. during a new moon, the far side of the moon is lit, and the near side is not.
Same with a solar eclipse.
The part that is shown in a "full moon" is the only part that ever gets sunlight... the moon rotates on its own access at the same rate it
travels around the earth. When you see part of the moon in darkness,
it's the Earth's shadow on the moon.
The part that is shown in a "full moon" is the only part that ever gets sunlight... the moon rotates on its own access at the same rate it travels around the earth. When you see part of the moon in darkness,
it's the Earth's shadow on the moon.
the moon rotates on its own access
.. When you see part of the moon in darkness, it's the
Earth's shadow on the moon.
On 8/17/22 08:33, DaiTengu wrote:
That's not true. at all.
The moon has phases as it orbits earth, in which only part of the
near side of the moon is lit, and part of the far side of the moon is lit. during a new moon, the far side of the moon is lit, and the near side is not.
Same with a solar eclipse.
The part that is shown in a "full moon" is the only part that ever gets sunlight... the moon rotates on its own access at the same rate it
travels around the earth. When you see part of the moon in darkness,
it's the Earth's shadow on the moon.
Digital Man wrote to MRO <=-
you might find out in your life time or maybe your grandchildren will find out that something fishy happend there and it was probably faked entirely or partially. there's too many odd occurances that don't add up.
I won't be holding my breath.
More likely, in my life time, we'll return to the moon again and
locate and broadcast many of the artifacts we left behind the
last time we were there.
Ogg wrote to Tracker1 <=-
The shadow is due to the sun, not the earth. The only time the
earth's shadow hits the moon is during a lunar eclipse.
Yup. And the thousands of Americans that were involved in these massive projects would have made a big deal too.
That's the biggest problem with conspiracy theories. There would need to be reams o
How would they find people to agree to do this? How would they vet these people? Ho
The inability of humans to keep secrets is all the evidence anyone needs to debunk
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/11 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to DaiTengu on Mon Aug 22 2022 08:46 pm
so why havent we had a man on the moon since the 70s? makes no sense.
I don't think we've had a real need to go back to the moon. Makes sense to
if we had the ability we would be up there playing around all the time.
Why? What would we need to be doing on the moon all the time?
Nightfox
Other than the fact we could go to the moon, we could not sustain a colony there at that time. We spent billions of dollars, and discovered we have more to learn before we could place even a short term colony in place. Moon dust over an extended period of time would act as microscopic razor blades, w earing away at fabrics, damaging seals, and would be detrimental if inhaled in larger quantities. In the long run Mars would be less harsh to live on.
The shadow is due to the sun, not the earth. The only time the
earth's shadow hits the moon is during a lunar eclipse.
Um... No. I wonder if out school systems are worse than I expect now.
By the time I was 5 (keep in mind that I was always interested in space exploration), I understood how all this worked.
Sun -> Earth -> Moon - in this configuration, depending on where the moon is in relation to the Earth, the moon will move from waxing crescent to full to waning crescent to New. This is due to the Earth blocking the sunlight. So the shadow on the Moon is caused by the Earth.
Sun -> Moon -> Earth - in this configuration, depdending on where the moon is in relation to the Earth, is where we get eclipses. The moon, blocks the light from the Sun. In this case, she Moon is casting a shadow on the Earth.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Why? What would we need to be doing on the moon all the time?
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Tue Aug 23 2022 03:47 pm
Other than the fact we could go to the moon, we could not sustain a col there at that time. We spent billions of dollars, and discovered we hav more to learn before we could place even a short term colony in place. Moon dust over an extended period of time would act as microscopic razo blades, w earing away at fabrics, damaging seals, and would be detrimen if inhaled in larger quantities. In the long run Mars would be less har to live on.
I think we're far from needing a colony on another planet right now, and eve
Nightfox
... So the shadow on the Moon is caused by the Earth.
The Apollo missions followed the standard "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick 2" rule. They were done fast and .. somewhat good, at great expense in order to beat Russia. The missions were "good enough" to get people to the moon and back safely a handful of times, but a lot of things weren't documented, a lot of parts were hacked together or custom fit for each mission. Thousands and thousands of parts were custom built in a very compartmentalized manner. many of the people who built those parts are long dead, and didn't document the process very well, if at all. The Apollo missions were incredibly expensive. the government wanted to stop throwing so much money at it, and NASA wanted to move on to other projects. In hindsight, after the issues both Apollo 13 and 15 had, we were incredibly lucky no one was killed.
Boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-
Ironic. The person complaining about the school system get basic
science wrong.
Am I reading this right?
(Artemis II) will do the same (a 10 day mission). Sometime in 2025, a 4-person crew (Artemis III) will land 2 people (one of them a woman) onFirst woman on the moon! Awesome! I love it!
DaiTengu wrote to MRO <=-
i'm not into conspiracies. i just see a lot of holes in information and odd things. you are blindly putting faith, believing people took that junk, went to the moon, landed and did all that junk and made it back alive. and nasa people were on camera saying we could not do it again if we wanted to.
Context matters. We could not do it again with the same
equipment if we wanted to, because we don't have the capability
to recreate that equipment. Things were poorly documented. For
example, The hundreds holes for the injector plate on the F-1
rocket engine were hand-drilled. Many bits and pieces were
assembled like that, and the people that have the knowledge to
recreate those pieces are either long dead, or have forgotten
most of it. reverse engineering 50+ year old technology to
recreate it is a step backwards. That said, a group of young
NASA engineers did reverse engineer the F-1 engine about 10 years
ago. That's where they found the hand-drilled injector plates.
Rocket technology has advanced a lot since then. Much more
complex, multi-stage combustion chambers provide a greater thrust-to-weight ratio. The Saturn V was powered by 5 F1 engines, providing 7.5 million pounds of thrust at sea level,
The SLS that's scheduled to launch monday is powered by 4 RS-254
engines, along with the solid rocket boosters, that give it 8.8
million pounds of thrust at takeoff. The SLS can carry over 50%
more weight to the moon that the Saturn V could, all while being
smaller and lighter. The price tag on the SLS's full develpment
is about 1/2 of what we spent on development of the Saturn V,
($23 billion vs $51.8 billion adjusted for inflation).
When it comes down to it, you're arguing semantics. The evidence
that we went to the moon, landed people there and brought them
home is overwhelming. The "holes in information" and "odd
things" have logical, reasonable explanations. Of course you'll
say they aren't "reasonable" because you simply don't want to
believe it. You want to believe that there's been a 50 year
conspiracy, and that governments and space agencies all over the
world have kept the secret that no one landed on the moon. That
thousands and thousands of people who worked on these projects
(and still work on these projects) all over the world kept that
secret. That, somehow, is far more believable to you.
No, you're not a conspiracy theorist at all.
Well written. I think it's pretty obvious to all of us participating in this discussion, that 'MRO' is indeed a conspiracy nut-job, and that
he's probably laughing his ass off as he trolls everybody to drag this out longer.
It's not possible for a (semi) mature adult to be as stupid as he is attempting to pass himself off as. He won't listen and we're wasting
our time trying to convince him of anything. Suggest we all stop
feeding the troll...
It's not possible for a (semi) mature adult to be as stupid as he is attempting to pass himself off as. He won't listen and we're wasting
our time trying to convince him of anything. Suggest we all stop
feeding the troll...
I recently did a youtube video where I reacted to someone claiming the earth was flat because of ... radio waves.
https://youtu.be/jZzLBwOFi0E
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Well written. I think it's pretty obvious to all of us participating in this discussion, that 'MRO' is indeed a conspiracy nut-job, and that
he's probably laughing his ass off as he trolls everybody to drag this
out longer.
The thought that he was trolling us has crossed my mind as I was
writing out paragraphs worth of information, but I got to flex a
few brain muscles I hadn't used in awhile, so it felt nice.
It's not possible for a (semi) mature adult to be as stupid as he is attempting to pass himself off as. He won't listen and we're wasting
our time trying to convince him of anything. Suggest we all stop
feeding the troll...
Oh it is. I've had conversations with actual adult humans who
really believe the earth is flat. Who believe that space doesn't
exist, and no matter what information I pepper them with, they
claim it's either "faked" or "done some other way" or that I'm
"lying".
I recently did a youtube video where I reacted to someone
claiming the earth was flat because of ... radio waves.
https://youtu.be/jZzLBwOFi0E
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
It's not possible for a (semi) mature adult to be as stupid as he is attempting to pass himself off as. He won't listen and we're wasting
our time trying to convince him of anything. Suggest we all stop
feeding the troll...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone convince MRO of anything.
The longer you try to debate with him, the higher the chances of
him going off and calling you a retard, autistic, or similar.
Then he'll likely say something like he's tired of talking about
it and wants to move on.
He has talked about this fake moon landing conspiracy before, and
it's all the same stuff again this time. I think it has dragged
out longer this time than last time.
I recently did a youtube video where I reacted to someone
claiming the earth was flat because of ... radio waves.
https://youtu.be/jZzLBwOFi0E
Wow. Staggering. Just can't really comprehend that somebody is
actually that stupid and can still breathe.
The movie was based on the non-fiction book ("Lost Moon") written by the commander of the Apollo 13 mission and the major events in the film are undisputed facts. Going to and landing on the moon was not "easy" by any measurement. --
There's a couple flat earthers that argued with me in the comments section. It was hilarious.
I recently did a youtube video where I reacted to someone claiming the earth was flat because of ... radio waves.
He has talked about this fake moon landing conspiracy before, and it's all the same stuff again this time. I think it has dragged out longer this time than last time.
He has talked about this fake moon landing conspiracy before, and
it's all the same stuff again this time. I think it has dragged out
longer this time than last time.
The thing is if you use a computer the technology all started with NASA and Appolo. So I guess we all use "fake" PC's. huh??
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to DaiTengu on Wed Aug 31 2022 03:17 am
i have just seen cut and paste stuff from people that are blind believe these people aren't fit to educate anybody.
You seem to be repeating a lot of the same stuff I've heard from other peopl
Nightfox
cost and risk associated. Instead, we've been sending robots to Mars and
a hand operated bellows to extract the air from the box. Supposedly the duct tape covered glove would react the same way a real space glove would in a vacuum, and be too inflexible to push buttons or move levers. It all sounded plausible until a former NASA employee who owned an actual moon suit glove built his own vacuum box and used an actual NASA modified camera to debunk the debunker.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Nightfox on Thu Sep 01 2022 03:55 am
the only thing i cut and pasted was the list of technological advanceme that we had thanks to space exploration.
DISPROVING your statement that there was no reason to go back.
Yes, we can get technological advancements with space missions, but (as has
Nightfox
cost and risk associated. Instead, we've been sending robots to Mars and
Isnt the Robot technology just amazing!! I have watched tons of youtube videos on Robots and AI and its almost scary a little bit... Really cool stuff though..
faeempress said to Gamgee: <=-
(Artemis II) will do the same (a 10 day mission). Sometime in 2025, a 4-person crew (Artemis III) will land 2 people (one of them a woman) on
First woman on the moon! Awesome! I love it!
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Irish_Monk on Thu Sep 01 2022 08:22 am
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Irish_Monk to Digital Man on Thu Sep 01 2022 08:38 am
cost and risk associated. Instead, we've been sending robots to M and
Isnt the Robot technology just amazing!! I have watched tons of youtub videos on Robots and AI and its almost scary a little bit... Really co stuff though..
that dog shaped robot is scarey as hell. the one that can shoot.
that's going to be our terminators.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
There is already a non-profit advocating for the permanent ban of robot sold think it is called "Stop Killer Robots" or something of the sort.
I don't think they are going to have any success since we humans love to pro to kill humans faster. And automated machine for killing humans is the gover wet dream.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
It is. I actually work on the develpoment of a robot taxi for my occupation. Shit's getting real.
There used to be a Discovery network TV program from 2007 caled Future Weapons, and they highlighted a tracked robot intended to carry an M-249 SAW o r a M24 rifle system. IIRC they took examples of the product to test in IRaq or Afghanistan without the rifle mounted, and ran into
other porblems they didn't anticipate. Truck convoys run radio jammers
to prevent IEDS form being remotely detonated. Between the jammers
other RF sources, the tracked platform could not be reliably piloted without other sources of RF interfering with it.
pretty cool era. In fact I think in 20 years we'll think back in horror
to the fact that all these people were hurtling around with tons of
metal at 70mph while playing with their phones. It'll feel like the wild west.
bex wrote to Mro <=-
Yes, that's how progress works. We didn't have the technology,knowledge,
progress??? wake up and smell what you are shoveling
Nice "Die Hard" But seriously, how do you think that science and technology progress? Ever heard of the phrase "standing on the
shoulders of giants"?
[2] I do disagree that we don't have a reason to go back. Eventually, we will need to set up at least a base on the moon to make it easier to strike out, whether it is to Mars, one of Jupiter's moons, or to another solar system. We need to survey what's there and find a good place to
Mro said to Digital Man: <=-
so apparently most people have been brainwashed
[1] yes we did go to the moon in the 70s
[2] there is NO reason to go back and it's too dangerous to try.
It's strange that you have three points but only numbered two of them. I'm going to fix the numbering and giving my own thoughts:
[1] Yes, we went to the moon. Multiple times. This is an established historical FACT, one that is documented including photos *and* videos.
[2] I do disagree that we don't have a reason to go back. Eventually, we will need to set up at least a base on the moon to make it easier to strike out, whether it is to Mars, one of Jupiter's moons, or to another solar system. We need to survey what's there and find a good place to eventually build a foundation. We aren't talking about something that can be done in years, nor decades. We are talking about time in centuries, we should already be moving forward on this.
[3] Yes, it is damned dangerous to strap a rocket to anything. You're talking about millions of tons of literal explosives. Hell, it's dangerous to put an airplane up into the sky, but we still put up hundreds per hour. Things that put us into (or above) the sky are filled with danger. It's a matter of mitigating the risk.
-- Bex <3
Walter, I love you, but sooner or later, you're going to have to realize
the fact that you're a god damn moron.
- The Dude, "The Big Lebowski"
-*- ASTG 1.8
* Q-Blue 2.4 *
There used to be a Discovery network TV program from 2007 caled Future Weapons, and they highlighted a tracked robot intended to carry an M-24 SAW o r a M24 rifle system. IIRC they took examples of the product to test in IRaq or Afghanistan without the rifle mounted, and ran into other porblems they didn't anticipate. Truck convoys run radio jammers to prevent IEDS form being remotely detonated. Between the jammers other RF sources, the tracked platform could not be reliably piloted without other sources of RF interfering with it.
This is the problem with "leader follower" technology. Which is what a lot o
You get passed only doing 70mph around here!! Hopefully that time comes soon. Will hopefully save a lot of lives.
It is. I actually work on the develpoment of a robot taxi for my occupation. Shit's getting real.
Really? Which one?
In the movies and video games the idea of autonomous weapons ranges from cool to horrifying. In reality I find it horrifying because the ways
used to identify an enemy can be false positives. If your friend or foe identification system can be jammed or confused, or if you rely on visual clues, I hope the robot is smart enough to ask for help if it is not 100% certain. In the Ukraine, both sides share common hardware ranging from trucks to armor to fighter jets. The only way to knwo where the enemy
is is know where your people aren't. As the enemy approaches, an enemy on the wrong side of the lines can be very dangerous. An armor unit
that is ahead of it'sgoal may appear to be retreating enemies.
Yes, really, zoox.com :-)
I'll bet $50 that asshole had Illinois plates.
In the movies and video games the idea of autonomous weapons ranges fro cool to horrifying. In reality I find it horrifying because the ways used to identify an enemy can be false positives. If your friend or fo identification system can be jammed or confused, or if you rely on visu clues, I hope the robot is smart enough to ask for help if it is not 10 certain. In the Ukraine, both sides share common hardware ranging from trucks to armor to fighter jets. The only way to knwo where the enemy is is know where your people aren't. As the enemy approaches, an enem on the wrong side of the lines can be very dangerous. An armor unit that is ahead of it'sgoal may appear to be retreating enemies.
I suspect we as a species will never agree to fully autonomous weapon system
The one exception is those systems that acquire incoming and try shooting it
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Irish_Monk on Fri Sep 02 2022 07:40 am
You get passed only doing 70mph around here!! Hopefully that time
comes soon. Will hopefully save a lot of lives.
i'm doing like 90 to work and some asshole is driving up my ass like he going to hit me and flashing his brights on me. ---
I'll bet $50 that asshole had Illinois plates.
DaiTengu
... Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
pretty cool era. In fact I think in 20 years we'll think back in horror to the fact that all these people were hurtling around with tons of metal at 70mph while playing with their phones. It'll feel like the wil west.
You get passed only doing 70mph around here!! Hopefully that time comes soon
|10I|02rish_|10M|02onk
... Read messages, not taglines
In the movies and video games the idea of autonomous weapons ranges from coo to horrifying. In reality I find it horrifying because the ways used to identify an enemy can be false positives. If your friend or foe identification system can be jammed or confused, or if you rely on visual clues, I hope the robot is smart enough to ask for help if it is not 100% certain. In the Ukraine, both sides share common hardware ranging from trucks to armor to fighter jets. The only way to knwo where the enemy is is know where your people aren't. As the enemy approaches, an enemy on the wrong side of the lines can be very dangerous. An armor unit that is ahead of it'sgoal may appear to be retreating enemies.
Besides, given the current state of self-driving technology, I would consider the imposition of self-driving cars a step backwards, since it would place transport in the hands of corporations which would run your car from a network of edge servers. If you have heard complaints about corporations owning your computer instead of you owning your computer, this is just the same idea.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Irish_Monk to esc on Fri Sep 02 2022 07:42 am
pretty cool era. In fact I think in 20 years we'll think back in hor to the fact that all these people were hurtling around with tons of metal at 70mph while playing with their phones. It'll feel like the west.
You get passed only doing 70mph around here!! Hopefully that time comes s
|10I|02rish_|10M|02onk
... Read messages, not taglines
The point is moot. We are past peak oil since 2019 so I predict in the near future people won t be able to afford private transport. Governments worldwi are forcing the situation to explode faster because scarcity of transport wo mean the government would get more powerful (ie. chances for taxed licenses industrial transport and the like).
Besides, given the current state of self-driving technology, I would conside the imposition of self-driving cars a step backwards, since it would place transport in the hands of corporations which would run your car from a netwo of edge servers. If you have heard complaints about corporations owning your computer instead of you owning your computer, this is just the same idea.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to esc on Fri Sep 02 2022 09:31 am
In the movies and video games the idea of autonomous weapons ranges from to horrifying. In reality I find it horrifying because the ways used to identify an enemy can be false positives. If your friend or foe identification system can be jammed or confused, or if you rely on visual clues, I hope the robot is smart enough to ask for help if it is not 100% certain. In the Ukraine, both sides share common hardware ranging from trucks to armor to fighter jets. The only way to knwo where the enemy is know where your people aren't. As the enemy approaches, an enemy on the wrong side of the lines can be very dangerous. An armor unit that is ahe of it'sgoal may appear to be retreating enemies.
The South Korean experimental ones walk around with the safeties on. If they find something that looks like an enemy, they will acquire a lock on it but will only open fire if set to hot mode.
They are currently using them for border patrol. The idea is that if they fi something, somebody in HQ will decide whether to switch the safeties off or on the spot.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
The point is moot. We are past peak oil since 2019 so I predict in the near future people won t be able to afford private transport.
Can a corporation do a better job maintaining a fleet of autonomous vehicles compare to a city or county government? The rent a car industry seems to always have more modern cars in good shape.
Personally, I like having a personal car that won't get shut off because the company's network can't see it due to poor cell reception or lack of related cell partnerships.
The point is moot. We are past peak oil since 2019 so I predict in the near future people won t be able to afford private transport.
Is this so terrible? What's the point? A car is typically the second biggest ing (vs other large expenses).
I think we've grown used to being in a world where everyone owns their own transportation but I don't think that's because it's needed...a future where I can press a button on my phone and the car shows up, I get in, and take a nap or use my computer or something and then arrive at my destination later, without having to worry about licensing/taxes/maintenance/etc, seems like a home run.
Is this so terrible? What's the point? A car is typically the second biggest investment someone will make (after the home) and it's one that is exceedingly likely to be a financial loss, and it's something people spend a trivial amount of time actually using (vs other large expenses).
I think we've grown used to being in a world where everyone owns their own transportation but I don't think that's because it's needed...a future where I can press a button on my phone and the car shows up, I get in, and take a nap or use my computer or something and then arrive at my destination later, without having to worry about licensing/taxes/maintenance/etc, seems like a home run.
I say this as a "car guy" that has several cars, it's one of my biggest hobbies.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: esc to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 02:39 pm
I think we've grown used to being in a world where everyone owns their transportation but I don't think that's because it's needed...a future where I can press a button on my phone and the car shows up, I get in, take a nap or use my computer or something and then arrive at my destination later, without having to worry about licensing/taxes/maintenance/etc, seems like a home run.
I'd be curious to see (or make) a cost analysis of owning a car vs. not owni nt; I like being able to get in my car and go wherever I want, when I want.
Nightfox
---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
esc wrote to Arelor <=-
The point is moot. We are past peak oil since 2019 so I predict in the near future people won t be able to afford private transport.
Is this so terrible? What's the point? A car is typically the
second biggest investment someone will make (after the home) and
it's one that is exceedingly likely to be a financial loss, and
it's something people spend a trivial amount of time actually
using (vs other large expenses).
I think we've grown used to being in a world where everyone owns
their own transportation but I don't think that's because it's
needed...a future where I can press a button on my phone and the
car shows up, I get in, and take a nap or use my computer or
something and then arrive at my destination later, without having
to worry about licensing/taxes/maintenance/etc, seems like a home
run.
I say this as a "car guy" that has several cars, it's one of my
biggest hobbies.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 08:14 am
in my country that shit wont fly. people only take so much bullshit until
americans love to take their cars out and drive around like idiots. i don
when i was at my old job, for a number of years i took public transportat my employer paid for it so i was like what the hell. in the morning i wo
that city supposely won awards for its great public transportation.
There is certainly a point there.
Government here has been pushing for people to give up private transport for ages, but the alternatives they offer just don't cut it. By this, I don't me they work worse, but that they just don't function - ie. the Junta would hav you give your car up and take the bus when you want a trip from the village the city, except there is no bus line for the trip to begin with.
Since they have made no progress erradicating cars, what they are doing inst is making private vehicless less usable so people turns to other means of transport. Ideas such as taxing certain roads so you don't dream of driving them down, closing streets to vehicles, etc. are thrown around. Still they don't offer a working alternative once the routes are closed to cars so the result isn't that people takes public transport, but that people stops circulating through afected areas.
I think it is no coincidence that the war on cars has become more gruesome j after BP's announcement that peak oil has been reached. I suspect administrations worthwhile are smelling the coffee and that they know they can't manage protestors on the streets angry because diesel prices have multiplied by two or three, so their plan is to get people used not to have transport before fuel becomes unaffordable. I don't even think electric cars are a planned substitute - they know they cannot replace combustion engines *everybody* with those - but they happen to be the carrot on the horizon to keep people walking forward as affordable cars are extinguished.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 08:25 am
Can a corporation do a better job maintaining a fleet of autonomous vehic compare to a city or county government? The rent a car industry seems to always have more modern cars in good shape.
Personally, I like having a personal car that won't get shut off because company's network can't see it due to poor cell reception or lack of rela cell partnerships.
I use plenty rental vehicles, so my opinion would be that a private rental fleet is more likely to be maintained than one operated by the administratio owever, that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the day in which manually driven vehicles become forbidde to the public for general use, and the public is expected to use automatic c instead. The pretext would be simple: "Automatic cars are safer and manual c get people killed." It is a very easy sell from the political point of view (asuming they can make autonomous cars that actually work).
However, the only thing you need to realize how disasterous such a thing wou be for the end consumer is to have a look at how the software industry and t whole Whatever-as-a-Service model is faring. Software and hardware developed actors hostile to the nations using them. Mission critical code written by identured workers in countries you would be uncapable of pointing at in a ma Functions the hardware includes which are locked behind paywalls and license agreements.
It is said that a technophile is a guy who likes to put microchips everywher in his life, and loves the idea that his fridge, toaster and lightbulbs are automated. It is also said that engineers know how really shitty this stuff gets so they have the toaster in chains just in case it decides to act funky When you see professional misson critical code written as:
if (true) {
statement
statement
}
or as
while (true) {
if (condition()) { break }
statement
}
then nobody is going to convince you that the people writing that code is go to be better at driving your car automatically than you XD
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows did to computing. Popularised it but also retarded it.
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. We need to rethink transportation, and make cities human centric and not car centric.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: esc to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 02:39 pm
Is this so terrible? What's the point? A car is typically the second bigg investment someone will make (after the home) and it's one that is exceedingly likely to be a financial loss, and it's something people spen trivial amount of time actually using (vs other large expenses).
I think we've grown used to being in a world where everyone owns their ow transportation but I don't think that's because it's needed...a future wh I can press a button on my phone and the car shows up, I get in, and take nap or use my computer or something and then arrive at my destination lat without having to worry about licensing/taxes/maintenance/etc, seems like home run.
I say this as a "car guy" that has several cars, it's one of my biggest hobbies.
The mass production of cars, and the design of cities around that assumption
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. We nee
You have to remember, autonomous vehicles will still need all the space and
The mass production of cars, and the design of cities around that assumption that everyone has, or should have, a car was one of the
biggest urban design mistakes that humanity has ever made. An utter disaster.
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows did to computing. Popularised it but also retarded it.
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. We need to rethink transportation, and make cities human centric and not
car centric.
Yes, I think it is so terrible.
Strange. For most any "car guy" that I ever knew, doing at least *some* of the maintenance, and actually *DRIVING* the car were major points in *being* a car guy. I generally enjoy driving, a lot.
Also, your scenario above makes one a slave to the entity that owns and operates the automatic car, whether that's a private enterprise or a government. Either way is a scary thing, to me. I'm not eager to give away still more of my freedom and become dependent on something else.
I mentioned in other threads I live in the country, and road conditions involve uneven roads due to potholes and repaired potholes. Some roads are partial paved, and transistions from dirt to pavement or gravel canplace a car out of control if you're going too fast. i imagine conditions like these would make autonomous driving difficult. Same applies of there is a coat of snow on the road, and the ditches are covered so there's no telling where the sides of the road begin or end. GPS would be very important then, and bad weather would impair it's accuracy.
Arelor wrote to Irish_Monk <=-
Besides, given the current state of self-driving technology, I would consider the imposition of self-driving cars a step backwards, since it would place transport in the hands of corporations which would run your car from a network of edge servers. If you have heard complaints about corporations owning your computer instead of you owning your computer, this is just the same idea.
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceries, unless I used grocery delivery services to deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fruits & vegetables & such, most of the time. There will also still be a need for larger vehicles for transporting large items such as furniture, home appliances, etc..Of course the car is useful, it just sucks when used as a universal means of transport. Sure, transporting furniture, driving to the country, this is best done by a car. Groceries, sometimes, but we have terrible urban design where the avialability of groceries is centralised to a few large supermarkets in commercial areas. Why not intersperce residential areas with commercial? More smaller corner general stores? I look at the new suburbs and weep. Houses laid out like carpet with a central "shopping centre" where all the shops are. A traffic snarl, shops lost in a sea of car park which you have to drive to get to because its a bit too far to walk. Wouldn't a store a couple of blocks away, evne if smaller, be easier?
Also, currently I have a fairly short drive to work. If I were to take public transportation to work, it would certainly also take longer for me to get to work.
Nightfox
I agree now more than ever. The whole "work from home" thing should really put a nail in the coffin of much of the need for scores of people to commute for work. Fewer people commuting is a benefit to everyone, if only we could get management from previous generations to just accept remote work as a reality and move on :)
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows did to computing. Popularised it but also retarded it.
Eh, I dunno. I love cars, I will probably always own cars. But for a lot of people, particularly young people, a car is more of a nuisance than anything else at this point. The rideshare app thing is an interesting interim solution, though I believe the markets will likely push us into a world where autonomous vehicles pick people up and drop people off more than traditional cars at some point.
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution.
We need to rethink transportation, and make cities human centric and not
car centric.
The only reason I am doubtful here is because of the amount of infrastructure that would be required to rethink transportation to this degree. Having roads, highways, etc., will probably be a big consideration for how things evolve.
esc wrote to Gamgee <=-
Strange. For most any "car guy" that I ever knew, doing at least *some* of the maintenance, and actually *DRIVING* the car were major points in *being* a car guy. I generally enjoy driving, a lot.
I enjoy driving when doing it for fun, but I certainly don't
enjoy driving to the airport or the office in rush hour. I'd
gladly sit in an autonomous car in those circumstances.
Also, your scenario above makes one a slave to the entity that owns and operates the automatic car, whether that's a private enterprise or a government. Either way is a scary thing, to me. I'm not eager to give away still more of my freedom and become dependent on something else.
You already have to pay for gas, insurance, licensing, not to
mention the cost of a car that will (with infrequent exceptions)
only ever depreciate in value.
But I digress. The markets will
decide all of this and the markets will belong to the next
generation before long. And the next generation grew up spoiled
with Uber and Lyft and has less of a need for owning a car. They
have an entirely different frame of reference. The rate of
actually getting a driver's license is on a significant decline.
It's fascinating to watch.
is best done by a car. Groceries, sometimes, but we have terrible urban design where the avialability of groceries is centralised to a few large supermarkets in commercial areas. Why not intersperce residential areas with commercial? More smaller corner general stores? I look at the new
I agree now more than ever. The whole "work from home" thing should really put a nail in the coffin of much of the need for scores of people to commute for work. Fewer people commuting is a benefit to everyone, if only we could get management from previous generations to just accept remote work as a reality and move on :)
Eh, I dunno. I love cars, I will probably always own cars. But for a lot of people, particularly young people, a car is more of a nuisance than anything else at this point. The rideshare app thing is an interesting
I enjoy driving when doing it for fun, but I certainly don't enjoy driving to the airport or the office in rush hour. I'd gladly sit in an autonomous car in those circumstances.
i strip away the old debris
that hides a shining car
a brilliant red barchetta
from a better, vanished time
fire up the willing engine
responding with a roar
tires spitting gravel
i commit my weekly crime...
I enjoy driving when doing it for fun, but I certainly don't
enjoy driving to the airport or the office in rush hour. I'd
gladly sit in an autonomous car in those circumstances.
Not everybody lives in a large city. That's not an issue for many
folks.
Personally, I like having a personal car that won't get shut off because the company's network can't see it due to poor cell reception or lack of related cell partnerships.
i have no idea what a fucking fip is.
F*cking Illinois Person. Not everybody from Illinois is one. You'll know them as soon you seen them driving on the road or when they open their mouths. They address the locals as if they were slack jawed yokels, and act like they own everything. In the movie The Great Outdoors, there is a scene where they introduce Dan Akroyd's character by showing the Illinois plate on the front of a Mercedes. Nearly everybody on the crowd yelled, "FIP!"
FIPS are Illinois tourists of the worst degree. It seems like everyone has at least one next door whose kids set off fireworks during work nights starting halfway through June until halfway through August. When the FIPS are in town, the prices all go up. The overpriced antiques stores along Red Arrow Hwy down by New Buffalo love them.
The mass production of cars, and the design of cities around that assumption that everyone has, or should have, a car was one of the biggest urban design mistakes that humanity has ever made. An utter disaster.
I agree now more than ever. The whole "work from home" thing should really p us generations to just accept remote work as a reality and move on :)
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows did to computing. Popularised it but also retarded it.
Eh, I dunno. I love cars, I will probably always own cars. But for a lot of markets will likely push us into a world where autonomous vehicles pick peop
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. W need to rethink transportation, and make cities human centric and not car centric.
The only reason I am doubtful here is because of the amount of infrastructur
I mentioned in other threads I live in the country, and road conditions involve uneven roads due to potholes and repaired potholes. Some roads are partial paved, and transistions from dirt to pavement or gravel canplace a car out of control if you're going too fast. i imagine conditions like these would make autonomous driving difficult. Same applies of there is a coat of snow on the road, and the ditches are covered so there's no telling where the sides of the road begin or end. GPS would be very important then, and bad weather would impair it's accuracy.
You may be interested to know that the military is investing heavily into of
Moondog wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Moondog on Sun Sep 04 2022 01:38 pm
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to MRO on Sun Sep 04 2022 08:12 am
thI'm in SW Michigan. From the shore of Lake Michigan we can see Chicago least Sears Tower and city skyline) from 60 miles away due west.
SWM is a tourist area. Wineries and Micro Breweries and Distillerys have taken over. FIPS have summer homes and invade every weekend. I94 is loaded with FIP cars and there is a long line going into Waren Dunes Stat Park.
i have no idea what a fucking fip is.
F*cking Illinois Person. Not everybody from Illinois is one. You'll
know them as soon you seen them driving on the road or when they open their mouths. They address the locals as if they were slack jawed
yokels, and act like they own everything. In the movie The Great Outdoors, there is a scene where they introduce Dan Akroyd's character
by showing the Illinois plate on the front of a Mercedes. Nearly everybody on the crowd yelled, "FIP!"
FIPS are Illinois tourists of the worst degree. It seems like everyone has at least one next door whose kids set off fireworks during work
nights starting halfway through June until halfway through August.
When the FIPS are in town, the prices all go up. The overpriced
antiques stores along Red Arrow Hwy down by New Buffalo love them.
I'd be curious to see (or make) a cost analysis of owning a car
vs. not owning one and using ride/taxi services. I wonder how
it would cost to continually use ride services and public
transportation vs. owning a car. Owning your own car is very
convenient; I like being able to get in my car and go wherever I
want, when I want.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
I enjoy driving when doing it for fun, but I certainly don't
enjoy driving to the airport or the office in rush hour. I'd
gladly sit in an autonomous car in those circumstances.
Not everybody lives in a large city. That's not an issue for many
folks.
Yes, but many people do live in large urban areas, so it is an
issue for those people.
You already have to pay for gas, insurance, licensing, not to mention the co tion before long. And the next generation grew up spoiled with Uber and Lyft cinating to watch.
Nevertheless, neither you nor I will decide any of this, the markets will.
transport because we can just be lazy and assume everyone will drive everywh rban model. Urban sprawl and isolation.
People are rejecting this, preferring to live in the denser inner city, with
If you don't have to work in an office every day, or if you live near your work, then it's better to not have a car and ride share. If you commute over 30 minutes each way, and take road trips through the year
or travel more, you're better off having transportation.
There's the freedom matter as well, not to mention shopping becomes more constrained if you like to shop in stores.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Mon Sep 05 2022 01:49 pm
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceries, unless I used grocery delivery services to deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fru & vegetables & such, most of the time. There will also still be a need f larger vehicles for transporting large items such as furniture, home appliances, etc..
Also, currently I have a fairly short drive to work. If I were to take public transportation to work, it would certainly also take longer for me get to work.
NightfoxOf course the car is useful, it just sucks when used as a universal means of roceries is centralised to a few large supermarkets in commercial areas. Wh g centre" where all the shops are. A traffic snarl, shops lost in a sea of
We're sold on a fake efficiency. We don't really see the costs involved in
about our children outside the house. The car has many shortcomings that w
---
If you don't have to work in an office every day, or if you live near
your work, then it's better to not have a car and ride share. If you commute over 30 minutes each way, and take road trips through the year
or travel more, you're better off having transportation.
I've heard that since the covid lockdowns, some companies have actually wanted to go to working from home permanently, because it could save the company money since they wouldn't have to pay a lease on an office building & related costs anymore. But some companies do prefer their employees to come into the office.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Boraxman on Mon Sep 05 2022 10:05 am
you're very wrong. infact, cars changed and improved society for the better. in the usa we even have our weekend due to car manufacturing.
The car is overrated, a pain the ass and did to transportation what Windows did to computing. Popularised it but also retarded it.
cars made everyting easier and better.
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. need to rethink transportation, and make cities human centric and not centric.
our entire world revolves around oil production, much of that going into vehicles.
You have to remember, autonomous vehicles will still need all the spac and infrastructure that cars require.
we already have that. we can also dedicate a lane just to autonomous vehicles. they did that in my region anyways for foxcon.
so i take it you don't OWN a vehicle?
I do own a car. I'm not against cars completely, I'm saying that they have ransport and amenities nearby.
Cars made things easier? All things? Consider the cost of the car, fuel, in alculation as to how many hours you would need to work to pay for the car an ic transport because we can just be lazy and assume everyone will drive ever an urban model. Urban sprawl and isolation.
People are rejecting this, preferring to live in the denser inner city, with
Without mass production and mass adoption of the car, we'd have better urban
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Mon Sep 05 2022 01:49 pm
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceries, unless I used grocery delivery services to deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fru & vegetables & such, most of the time. There will also still be a need f larger vehicles for transporting large items such as furniture, home appliances, etc..
Also, currently I have a fairly short drive to work. If I were to take public transportation to work, it would certainly also take longer for me get to work.
NightfoxOf course the car is useful, it just sucks when used as a universal means of groceries is centralised to a few large supermarkets in commercial areas. W ing centre" where all the shops are. A traffic snarl, shops lost in a sea o
We're sold on a fake efficiency. We don't really see the costs involved in y about our children outside the house. The car has many shortcomings that
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Nightfox on Mon Sep 05 2022 04:22 pm
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceri unless I used grocery delivery services to deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fruits & vegetables & such, most of the time. There will also still b need for larger vehicles for transporting large items such as furnitur home appliances, etc..
yeah, imagine carrying a case of bottled water and all your groceries fro the bus stop to your door. it's a good workout, but tedious.
I often do that, walk home with bags of groceries. I suppose we could all d
If I mainly worked from home, I think I'd feel stir-crazy after a while. Sometimes I just like getting out in order to do something (such as
work). However, lately I do feel like I wouldn't mind working from home more often. I could do that with my job, but my employer prefers people to be in the office when possible.
How are cars a nuisance to young people?
I don't like driving in rush hour either. An autonomous car would make
it easier, but I'd still rather not sit in a car during rush hour. I
feel like being stuck in traffic is a waste of time.
Miltary GPS runs at a higher strength signal than commercial GPS. it is less a victim to really bad weather.
To the military, autonomous diving would be a great improvement.
Imagine a convo that is automonous. No drivers to be killed. Imagine
an ambulance thaty could run with the driver injured. Smaller utility vehicles could haul injured or more ammo to troops.
The markets are not an abstract entity floating in the sky. They are no Monopoly boards being played in an alternate dimension. The markets are
US buying and selling, plain and simple.
The new generations around here are not giving up on cars because of infrastructure concerns or because they are using
transport-as-a-service. They are not getting cars because they can't afford transport and it is therefore much more cost efficient for them
to borrow uncle Francisco's van when needed.
But then they cannot afford housing either and have to borrow it, and we don't say it is the end of houses.
You have to buy them, they cost a lot and are typically a horrible financial investment, you have to maintain them, license/pay taxes,
insure them, gas, etc...young people grew up in a world where a ride is given on demand when you use an app on your phone.
Yep, you and me both. I hate traffic. It's time I could be working or spending time with my family. To me a huge WFH/hybrid work schedule advantage is decreasing traffic...during the beginning of the pandemic lockdowns, driving anywhere at any time was an absolute joy lol.
How are cars a nuisance to young people?
You have to buy them, they cost a lot and are typically a horrible financial investment, you have to maintain them, license/pay taxes, insure them, gas, etc...young people grew up in a world where a ride is given on demand when you use an app on your phone.
I often do that, walk home with bags of groceries. I suppose we could
all d
The nearest store to me is a Dollar General, and it is 7 miles away. Walking would take forever.
Housing is a smart investment; car ownership is not. This is not apples to apples.
esc wrote to Nightfox <=-
How are cars a nuisance to young people?
You have to buy them, they cost a lot and are typically a
horrible financial investment, you have to maintain them,
license/pay taxes, insure them, gas, etc...young people grew up
in a world where a ride is given on demand when you use an app on
your phone.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Boraxman to esc on Mon Sep 05 2022 09:55 pm
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: esc to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 02:39 pm
The car's days are numbered, and electric cars are not the solution. We nee
You have to remember, autonomous vehicles will still need all the space and
Everything in life is somewhere else, and you need a car to get there.
One of the very few positives of my job is I have a company vehicle.
Yes, it has a GPS and some other device that tracks speeds and probably everything else. But the good thing is, I work what we call 2nd shift, 1030am-7pm. My work truck leaves my driveway at 1030am and usually is pulling in my driveway at 7:01pm. So like you said, its more family time etc... and less miles on my personal truck....
Those same things apply to many things.. And regarding having to buy
them - Do young people these days expect to get things for free?
Also, I only remember the app-based ride services appearing within the last 10 years or so.. Unless they've been around longer, if someone is used to app-based ride services, they might not even be old enough to drive yet? Besides, taxi services have been around a lot longer and we haven't seen a bunch of people want to take taxis instead of owning
their own car. Taxis and things like Uber, Lyft, etc. can be expensive.
I don't think you can even really talk about a car as an investment. If you're buying a car to try to invest, then that's just a bad idea. A
car is meant to be used - The usefulness is in transportation, and if
you can make use of it, then I think you'll get its money's worth.
You are somehow equating *YOUR* experience/knowledge, which seems to be solely based on huge metropolitan areas (the Bay Area?). I can assure you that young people in my world do/did not grow up in a world where they get a ride with an app on their phone.
I say again: NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN A FREAKIN URBAN CRAP-HOLE!!!
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Arelor on Sun Sep 04 2022 08:25 am
Personally, I like having a personal car that won't get shut off becaus the company's network can't see it due to poor cell reception or lack o related cell partnerships.
Which reminds me. I bought a Lexus in 2018 (my wife's vehicle). It has a t
3G cellular networks.
3G is getting shut off in a few months, so all those features will just no l
Toyota (The Lexus parent company) thus far has refused to even offer any kin s able to do it via software) or hardware upgrades, others have a solution t
I shit you not, the cars that use 2G networks (older 2004-2010 models) will
I can't imagine how something like this would wreak havoc on an atonomous ve
DaiTengu
... The time to relax is when you don't have time for it.
You have to buy them, they cost a lot and are typically a horrible financial
Taxis can be expensive, sure, as can Ubers, but a car is typically the secon
I don't think you can even really talk about a car as an investment. I you're buying a car to try to invest, then that's just a bad idea. A car is meant to be used - The usefulness is in transportation, and if you can make use of it, then I think you'll get its money's worth.
Any financial advisor would tell you that purchasing a car is the single stu ake (after purchasing a house). The difference is, the house will appreciate orting.
You may think you get your money's worth, but more and more people are disag
to day work.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/11 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M
is best done by a car. Groceries, sometimes, but we have terrible urban design where the avialability of groceries is
centralised to a few large supermarkets in commercial areas. Why not intersperce residential areas with commercial?
More smaller corner general stores? I look at the new
That depends on the area. I'm about a 5 minute drive from my nearest grocery store, and in the past, I've generally lived
fairly close to a grocery store, so I think a lot of places are designed where that's the case. Where I live, many times
when I've seen residential areas far from a grocery store, it has usually been very rural areas where things are spread out
fairly far, or people living in farm communities where there isn't much around them but farm land, and that sort of thing.
Nightfox
I enjoy driving when doing it for fun, but I certainly don't enjoy driving to the airport or the office in rush hour.
I'd gladly sit in an autonomous car in those circumstances.
I don't like driving in rush hour either. An autonomous car would make it easier, but I'd still rather not sit in a car
during rush hour. I feel like being stuck in traffic is a waste of time.
Nightfox
transport because we can just be lazy and assume everyone will drive everywh rban model. Urban sprawl and isolation.
People are rejecting this, preferring to live in the denser inner city, with
It seems to me that your problem comes from living in an overpopulated area rather than because cars exist.
MOst people complaining about traffic issues and having to drive to work live in big cities. In Madrid so many people live
in suburbs and bedroom-neighbourhoods but they all decide to drive to the center of Madrid at once for work at dawn.
Mid and small sized towns just don't generate this environment. If you take the capitals of the Autonomies surrounding
Madrid, they are very much navegable without their administrations having taken any effort to make them navegable. In fact,
some are very navegable despite the fact their autonomies have worsened traffic by trying to manipulate it. Heck, Toledo
features middle-age style streets which are barely wide enough for a car, but there are not bad traffic issues because the
place is not massificated.
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceries, unless I used grocery delivery services to
deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fru & vegetables &
such, most of the time. There will also still be a need f larger vehicles for transporting large items such as
furniture, home appliances, etc..
Also, currently I have a fairly short drive to work. If I were to take public transportation to work, it would
certainly also take longer for me get to work.
NightfoxOf course the car is useful, it just sucks when used as a universal means of roceries is centralised to a few large
supermarkets in commercial areas. Wh g centre" where all the shops are. A traffic snarl, shops lost in a sea of
We're sold on a fake efficiency. We don't really see the costs involved in
about our children outside the house. The car has many shortcomings that w
---
The car is not necessary. During Spanish fascism there were lots of people who could not afford a car. If they wanted to go
to the market next town they just took a donkey and dedicated a whole day for the trip.
Places such as Madrid have convenience stores, grocery's and markets conveniently placed, but this does not void the need
for proper transport at all. In fact Madrid competes with Barcelona for the position as the Most Hostile City to Human Life
in Spain.
Without a car, I think it would be a lot more difficult to get groceries, unless I used grocery delivery services to
deliver grocies to my house (which add costs to buying groceries). I also like picking out my own fru & vegetables &
such, most of the time. There will also still be a need f larger vehicles for transporting large items such as
furniture, home appliances, etc..
Also, currently I have a fairly short drive to work. If I were to take public transportation to work, it would
certainly also take longer for me get to work.
NightfoxOf course the car is useful, it just sucks when used as a universal means of groceries is centralised to a few large
supermarkets in commercial areas. W ing centre" where all the shops are. A traffic snarl, shops lost in a sea o
We're sold on a fake efficiency. We don't really see the costs involved in y about our children outside the house. The
car has many shortcomings that
Supermarkets killed the general stores, and the big box stores and malls killed downtown. why go to the overpriced store with limited inventory when the specialty stores at the mall or plaza have
better prices and better variety? the little stores can only compete if they are more than just a retailer. They have to
offer services the big stores don't have. i would go to a local gun shop over going to a Cabelas or Dunhams for getting
better information or gunsmithing services. If i wanted cheap ammo that only a
giant corporation could offer because it could buy in larger volumes than mom and pop could ever afford, the big box is my
choice.
Im sure there could be a lot of different outcomes. But it would be interesting if someone bought/used a car for a certain
amount a time. Added that all up. And then for the same amount of time just used services like UBER or whatever and added
that up.Trying to stick to the same routine roughly. I wonder what would actually cost more? My kids have used UBER quite a
bit, I have never, So I dont really know the costs, sometimes when they would tell me real quick about the ride and how much
it cost, I thought it was expensive, but then sometimes it seemed they got a really good deal. Not sure why. Cars are very
expensive, like you said, when adding _EVERYTHING_ up, its more than you think..
|10I|02rish_|10M|02onk
... A program is used to turn data into error messages.
I don't think you can even really talk about a car as an investment. If you're buying a car to try to invest, then that's
just a bad idea. A car is meant to be used - The usefulness is in transportation, and if you can make use of it, then I
think you'll get its money's worth.
Nightfox
Nightfox
Our family car cost $37K. Have that for 20 years, max, that is nearly $2000
esc wrote to Gamgee <=-
You are somehow equating *YOUR* experience/knowledge, which seems to be solely based on huge metropolitan areas (the Bay Area?). I can assure
you that young people in my world do/did not grow up in a world where
they get a ride with an app on their phone.
I'm equating data, because in the world where I work, data is
what drives things, not anecdotes from me or you or anyone else.
Young people in your world will probably still buy cars, young
people in urban environments are trending in the opposite
direction, and there are more young people in urban environments
than anywhere else.
I say again: NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN A FREAKIN URBAN CRAP-HOLE!!!
Why are you being so combative, anyway? Nobody attacked you or
where you live. Don't be such a snowflake ;)
Nightfox wrote to Moondog <=-
The nearest store to me is a Dollar General, and it is 7 miles away. Walking would take forever.
He was talking about taking public transportation. Does your
town not have any public transportation?
Rural areas are of course different, but Australia is quite urbanised. In fact, I don't think I've ever lived anywhere which wasn't a walk from the shops, or at least a short walk from what used to be a corner store.
Any financial advisor would tell you that purchasing a car is the single stupidest thing most people do with their money. It is an investment when you consider how much it costs, and the fact that it's typically the second biggest purchase a person will make (after purchasing a house). The difference is, the house will appreciate, the car will depreciate. The car is useful for transportation but there are alternatives, which is I think the thing I'm trying to convey that the market is trending toward supporting.
Transport-as-a-service has been available for decades on your phone. We used to call it "taxi cab". It didn't make much of a dent on private transport.
Transport-as-a-service has been available for decades on your phone. We used to call it "taxi cab". It didn't make much of a dent on private transport.
Everybody here is talking about transport-as-a-service killing private transport, but here is this:
The government is also on a crusade against non-taxi transport as a service, so I really don't see it gaining much traction out of big, big, big cities (which should be avoided like the plague anyway).
Something that saves you money is not a money pit if it saves you from throwing even more money at different money pits.
Finantial advisors here usually tell you to own your main means of production instead of renting them. A fleet of trucks you own may devaluate. A fleet of trucks you rent is worth nothing at all after the money is gone.
Besides, I doubt a car is the second biggest investment people makes
since mid-to-high level education is more expensive, setting a corner business is more expensive, and healthcare that actually works is also more expensive (in the long run). I certainly spend more keeping my business up, in housing and in taxes than I spend in the car (and I am talking orders of magnitude here).
If I mainly worked from home, I think I'd feel stir-crazy after a while Sometimes I just like getting out in order to do something (such as work). However, lately I do feel like I wouldn't mind working from hom more often. I could do that with my job, but my employer prefers peopl to be in the office when possible.
To each his own, and I agree that full time WFH is not doable for a lot of p
businesses evolve to give employees more of a choice.
How are cars a nuisance to young people?
You have to buy them, they cost a lot and are typically a horrible financial ne.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Sep 06 2022 07:12 pm
I often do that, walk home with bags of groceries. I suppose we could
all d
The nearest store to me is a Dollar General, and it is 7 miles away. Walking would take forever.
He was talking about taking public transportation. Does your town not have
Nightfox
One of the very few positives of my job is I have a company vehicle. Yes, it has a GPS and some other device that tracks speeds and probably everything else. But the good thing is, I work what we call 2nd shift, 1030am-7pm. My work truck leaves my driveway at 1030am and usually is pulling in my driveway at 7:01pm. So like you said, its more family tim etc... and less miles on my personal truck....
Ah, nice. I live 45 mins (give or take) from my office and I work at a tech
and my final meeting was 4:30pm, and there were no 45+ minute gaps between o is young and doesn't have a family and he thinks that type of pace/commitm
I'll continue to act in defiance out of what I believe to be correct and am
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: esc to Nightfox on Tue Sep 06 2022 09:17 pm
I don't think you can even really talk about a car as an investment. you're buying a car to try to invest, then that's just a bad idea. car is meant to be used - The usefulness is in transportation, and i you can make use of it, then I think you'll get its money's worth.
Any financial advisor would tell you that purchasing a car is the single ake (after purchasing a house). The difference is, the house will appreci orting.
You may think you get your money's worth, but more and more people are di
to day work.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/11 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M
Finantial advisors here usually tell you to own your main means of productio instead of renting them. A fleet of trucks you own may devaluate. A fleet of trucks you rent is worth nothing at all after the money is gone.
Transport renting is something firms here do when their accountant tells the they need to get rid of money with expenses that can be justified.
Besides, I doubt a car is the second biggest investment people makes since mid-to-high level education is more expensive, setting a corner business is more expensive, and healthcare that actually works is also more expensive (i the long run). I certainly spend more keeping my business up, in housing and taxes than I spend in the car (and I am talking orders of magnitude here).
/S
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Not being combative, just trying to get you to open your eyes wide
enough to see past the concrete and glass skyscrapers. There's more to the world than that.
Yes. If owning a car is such a bad investment, then why isn't everyone taking taxis, Uber, Lyft, and public transit?
Now expand that thinking a little, and place yourself on a long straight road running as far as the eye can see alongside a cornfield in Iowa, or
the brown farmland in Idaho, or a white winter in Nowhere, North Dakota.
The government has been on a crusade against rideshare drivers being contrac
Anyway, I'm not here to argue the virtues of living in one place vs another,
Something that saves you money is not a money pit if it saves you from throwing even more money at different money pits.
Again in this thread you provide several anecdotes which are interesting but
Finantial advisors here usually tell you to own your main means of production instead of renting them. A fleet of trucks you own may devaluate. A fleet of trucks you rent is worth nothing at all after the money is gone.
Sure, but we're talking about everyday people and not someone dealing with a
Besides, I doubt a car is the second biggest investment people makes since mid-to-high level education is more expensive, setting a corner business is more expensive, and healthcare that actually works is also more expensive (in the long run). I certainly spend more keeping my business up, in housing and in taxes than I spend in the car (and I am talking orders of magnitude here).
Regarding education, fair point. But I was speaking in terms of an investmen
Again I'm talking about data here, "health care that actually works" and "ke
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/11 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M
Most of the places I worked at leased their IT assets and leased vehicles so we could move equipment from site to site. We were paying more to lease the machines than if we owned them, but the financial folks were looking at capital gains if we owned the equipment. Of course the firm we leased out assets from was a subsidiary of the company, but it was a legal form of work ound.
Everything in life is somewhere else, and you need a car to get there.
my uncle has a country place
that no one knows about
he says it used to be a farm
before the motor law
on sundays i elude the eyes
and hop the turbine freight
to fall outside the wire
where my white haired uncle waits...
i strip away the old debris
that hides a shining car
a brilliant red barchetta
from a better, vanished time
fire up the willing engine
responding with a roar
tires spitting gravel
i commit my weekly crime...
Any financial advisor would tell you that purchasing a car is
the single stupidest thing most people do with their money. It
is an investment when you consider how much it costs, and the
fact that it's typically the second biggest purchase a person
will make (after purchasing a house).
Transport-as-a-service has been available for decades on your phone.
We used to call it "taxi cab". It didn't make much of a dent on
private transport.
Yes. If owning a car is such a bad investment, then why isn't
everyone taking taxis, Uber, Lyft, and public transit?
Most of the places I worked at leased their IT assets and leased
vehicles so we could move equipment from site to site. We were paying
more to lease the machines than if we owned them, but the financial
folks were looking at capital gains if we owned the equipment. Of
course the firm we leased out assets from was a subsidiary of the
company, but it was a legal form of workaround.
Fair enough, but I'll say again that the overall data and trends are
what drives the markets to change, and the data overwhelmingly points
to a decline for desire of car ownership :)
Yeah, I have been doing so and continue to. It's frustrating but it's
not forever. Once this company IPOs I'll begin looking at other
options in earnest.
...
Totally. I'm sticking around here for now in spite of any frustrations really because I want a big payout, so I'm holding out hope that it
happens sooner rather than later hehe. I think after this I'm going to
work for myself, I'm growing sick of working for other people.
A finantial advisor I used to know would advise you not to won the car, but to
build a phantom company that owned the car, so you could get tax deductions for
the car \o/
esc wrote to Gamgee <=-
Not being combative, just trying to get you to open your eyes wide
enough to see past the concrete and glass skyscrapers. There's more to the world than that.
Fair enough, but I'll say again that the overall data and trends
are what drives the markets to change, and the data
overwhelmingly points to a decline for desire of car ownership :)
Arelor wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Gamgee to esc on Wed Sep 07 2022 07:42 am
Now expand that thinking a little, and place yourself on a long straight road running as far as the eye can see alongside a cornfield in Iowa, or
the brown farmland in Idaho, or a white winter in Nowhere, North Dakota.
So much stuff to see, so little time. If they had an
advertisement like that in some travel agency, I would fall for
it :-)
Nightfox wrote to Arelor <=-
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Arelor to esc on Wed Sep 07 2022 04:00 am
Transport-as-a-service has been available for decades on your phone. We used to call it "taxi cab". It didn't make much of a dent on private transport.
Yes. If owning a car is such a bad investment, then why isn't
everyone taking taxis, Uber, Lyft, and public transit?
esc wrote to Nightfox <=-
Yes. If owning a car is such a bad investment, then why isn't everyone taking taxis, Uber, Lyft, and public transit?
Use in these types of services are on a significant rise
So much stuff to see, so little time. If they had an advertisement like that in some travel agency, I would fall for it :-)
A finantial advisor I used to know would advise you not to won the car, but to build a phantom company that owned the car, so you could get tax deductions for the car \o/
The proof is in the pudding. When COVID-19 hit, it was businesses which heavily relied in rented assets which got wiped. If you owned the emplacement where your bar was located, you closed up and looked for something else to do, expecting to reopen the bar once the crisis was over. If you didn't own the emplacement, you closed the bar for good because you didn't have an emplacement to go back to, yet you could not afford to keep paying the rent.
It applies to so many assets. Lots of IT firms have gone down the drain because they ussed rented cloud assets which they lost to ToS conflicts, or whose conditions were changed by the provider, and they didn't have
the resources to bounce back.
People paying rent were pouring resources in stuff that disappeared. People purchasing stuff poured resources in things that stayed.
A car should not be thought of as an investment, at least not regarding how people think about investments. It's better to think of it as a
tool that will wear, break and (usually) depreciate in value over time until it's only worth scrap or salvage.
It's about the opportunity that a car gives you, and the entertainment value, assuming you enjoy driving. It allows you to have flexibility in terms of when/where/how you do things that are outside your immediate area. It also allows you to calculate the costs in a more consistent
way than service/delivery fees on demand. The absolute costs are not always better than the alternatives.
I'm kind of in a similar boat... took a job last year that includes a healthy amount of RSUs that are granted over the next few years... until IPO, really doesn't mean anything... if there's a 10x growth by the time I cash out, it could be retirement money and I could work on stuff I
want to do. I'd probably still do work for/with other people, just less concerned about the money and more about the job/satisfaction.
Right now, I'm very well paid for far less flexibility and autonomy than I'm used to and it's beyond frustrating and disheartening.
I don't ever plan to stop working, even if I had the money to do so... I'd be more inclined to focus on what I want to do and less on what others want.
Also fair enough, and I don't doubt that car sales will decrease in coming times. That will be due to the big-city population's decline in desire, but will not affect "country" folk in any significant way, because there isn't any realistic alternative for them.
Hahaha! I have seen all of those things, and more! But I do agree with you, there is still plenty not seen (yet). I have not yet been to
Spain, although my daughter lived there (Sevilla and Rota) for 2-3 years and loved it. I'll get there one day.
Before you say "that's just an anecdote"... it isn't. It's DATA that I see with my own eyes, and get from my own conversations and interactions with people. It's not made up, and it's not hearsay. It's fact.
Our family car cost $37K. Have that for 20 years, max, that is nearly $2000
Are those American Dollar, or Australian Dollar?
I am paying around 400 eur per year for full-risk insurance for my car. It is not particularly old. Also no parking fees since I just station it in front of a corn field next to my house XD
Any financial advisor would tell you that purchasing a car is the single stupidest thing most people do with their money. It is an investment when you consider how much it costs, and the fact that it's typically the seco biggest purchase a person will make (after purchasing a house). The difference is, the house will appreciate, the car will depreciate. The ca is useful for transportation but there are alternatives, which is I think the thing I'm trying to convey that the market is trending toward supporting.
i'm in a big urban area and to make good money i need to have a car. I'm no ---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
A finantial advisor I used to know would advise you not to won the car, but to build a phantom company that owned the car, so you could get tax deductions for the car \o/
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
I know it wasn't you who said a car is a bad investment... But that's
all wrong anyway. A car is not an investment at all. It's a TOOL that
is used to make life easier, like any other tool. Like a pair of
pliers, or a smartphone, or a piece of software. It's not *MEANT* to increase in value. When it wears out, you buy a new one. Just like you would with a coffee maker, or a toaster.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: esc to Arelor on Wed Sep 07 2022 10:30 am
Finantial advisors here usually tell you to own your main means of production instead of renting them. A fleet of trucks you own may devaluate. A fleet of trucks you rent is worth nothing at all after money is gone.
Sure, but we're talking about everyday people and not someone dealing wit
Besides, I doubt a car is the second biggest investment people makes since mid-to-high level education is more expensive, setting a corne business is more expensive, and healthcare that actually works is al more expensive (in the long run). I certainly spend more keeping my business up, in housing and in taxes than I spend in the car (and I talking orders of magnitude here).
Regarding education, fair point. But I was speaking in terms of an invest
Again I'm talking about data here, "health care that actually works" and
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/11 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M
The argument that a fleet of trucks you own won't disappear the same way as you rent is adjustable to different scopes. A bicycle you own will still be useful ages after you have paid for it. A bicycle you don't own will vanish a puff smoke, taking all your money with it, once you stop paying the rent.
Education is an investment and it also has a big potential to devaluate if y are unlucky. If some folk from the government decides your degree is no long good enough for the tasks you are performing, your degree devaluates. That stuff happens. If the education is actually good then it might still be usef but the papers themselves are only as valuable as the Guild Mafias and politicians allow them to be.
Healthcare that works is far from being an anecdote and I know for a fact patients at $workplace are paying much more for their insurance policies tha my friends or I (and most people I know) pay for a car. Hint: social securit taxes are also an insurance policy (by the look of trends since last year, i looks like it is a scammy one, but that is a different subject).
People building upo their own business is far from being anecdotic. There ar more family businesses on street level than there are big franchises and surfaces, by orders of magnitude. Plus, many instances of a franchise are paid by the entepreneour opening the instance anyway.
But let's keep the argument further and assume that purchasing assets that devaluate is stupid. In that case, I will let you know that bananas devaluat quite quickl¤y. Therefore, according to your logic, purchasing a banana and extracting value out of it before it becomes useless is stupid and everybody should be purchasing foods that gain in value (such as wine).
Good luck feeding of wine only. DOing that, however, would be stupid: it is wiser to let the wine go up in price instead of drinking it. You'll starve t death but the investment will be very smart.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Arelor on Wed Sep 07 2022 11:44 am
Most of the places I worked at leased their IT assets and leased vehicles we could move equipment from site to site. We were paying more to lease machines than if we owned them, but the financial folks were looking at capital gains if we owned the equipment. Of course the firm we leased ou assets from was a subsidiary of the company, but it was a legal form of w ound.
TBH it is quite fine to lease stuff you can afford to lose. If an IT company does not rely heavily on something it might make sense to rent instead. Most the times I see it done it is for tax engineering, which is quite an artific reason IMO.
There is a reason why some healthcare services I know have leased cars and leased IT, but they don't lease the surgery rooms or the radiodiagnostics equipment.
This reminds me of a firm which was delivering spam in order to promote thei products. I contacted their email provider (which was outsourced) and they l ALL their email infrastructure when the email provider kicked them out. It turns out that delivering advertisements was so importantr for this company that they kept phoning into my office for a whole week asking me to tell the email provider it had been a misunderstanding - and they eventually had to g with a different provider, whose prices were much worse by the look of their websites.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Sep 05 2022 05:23 pm
Everything in life is somewhere else, and you need a car to get there.
Not necessarily. Many people in dense urban environments (big cities) live t --
digital man (rob)
Sling Blade quote #6:
Karl: he should've had a chance to grow up. He would had fun some time. Norco, CA WX: 101.8øF, 31.0% humidity, 0 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
On 9/7/22 09:10, Nightfox wrote:
Transport-as-a-service has been available for decades on your phone.
We used to call it "taxi cab". It didn't make much of a dent on
private transport.
Yes. If owning a car is such a bad investment, then why isn't
everyone taking taxis, Uber, Lyft, and public transit?
I think it's mostly about population density... it makes more sense in
areas with greater density and lower ground travel necessary. In more sprawling cities like CA, TX, AZ it's much harder to persist on ride services and public transit.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
On 9/7/22 03:36, esc wrote:
Fair enough, but I'll say again that the overall data and trends are
what drives the markets to change, and the data overwhelmingly points
to a decline for desire of car ownership :)
Of course.. you can get most of what you need delivered to you the same
or next day at marginal additional cost (Amazon). I think the likes of Grubhub/Uber-Eats and similar are in a tough spot short of autonomous vehicles and drones for doorstep drop-off by comparison.
That said, there's a cost to society for these things and people not
leaving their homes. The increase in "social anxiety" is palpable to
say the least, and by all metrics the only way around it is to actually
get out and do things, not drugs, not therapy.
I think if I were the likes of Walmart/Amazon, I'd actually be investing
in larger/denser construction projects, using pod/floor systems like
high rises in the middle east. Building with a few hundred apartments, Whole Foods and Starbucks in the building including amazon returns/drop.
Get that population density up, own/control the market and increase dependency. While reducing last mile delivery costs. For western US cities, sprawling parking lot.. for other locations, multi-floor
garage... developed with 1.8 spaces per unit, each rented separately.
Not that it's what I want personally, just where my mind would be if I
had the funds to make such a thing happen.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
Also fair enough, and I don't doubt that car sales will decrease in coming times. That will be due to the big-city population's decline in desire, but will not affect "country" folk in any significant way, because there isn't any realistic alternative for them.
Yeah, true. We have business in Germany and it's interesting how different p rban centers are structured, and how populations are distributed.
I am sad to say that autonomy is going to render a lot of country work redun all proportion of people will reap the majority of any financial upside. All nclusion.
Digital Man wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
on sundays i elude the eyes
and hop the turbine freight
to fall outside the wire
Nice reference. One correction: "To *far* outside the Wire".
I think if I were the likes of Walmart/Amazon, I'd actually be investing
in larger/denser construction projects, using pod/floor systems like
high rises in the middle east. Building with a few hundred apartments,
Whole Foods and Starbucks in the building including amazon returns/drop.
Get that population density up, own/control the market and increase
dependency. While reducing last mile delivery costs. For western US
cities, sprawling parking lot.. for other locations, multi-floor
garage... developed with 1.8 spaces per unit, each rented separately.
Not that it's what I want personally, just where my mind would be if I
had the funds to make such a thing happen.
The concept of self-contained cities has been around for as long as I can reme
mber. A poor example would be the building in the movie Dredd, but the concept is there. Imagine a large self-contained complex with all the stores yoi'd want to visit, a health clinic, a gym, police and fire, and several buisnesses along with housing. Throw in a school as well, and a person can live and work their entire live in one building. Well, that's the idea...
Let's say the demand for jobs or variety of job skills surpasses what is offered and can possibly be staffed internally. That means working outside the complex. How about the clinic needs an MRI tech and cannot source one internally. Someone is drving or riding in from somewhere else. It's not too big a deal since each mega complex has it's own transit station. It draws away from the convenience of being all in one building.
On the down side, let's go back to the example in the movie Dredd. A criminal element moves in, or the place becomes a shithole that is not well maintained. The folks who can afford to leave and the good shops and industries pull out, which forces the police force to get defunded and cannot keep up with the crime level in the complex. You can offer incentives for police to get cheap housing, but who with a family will want to bring their family there?
Cost benefit ratio is ALWAYS a considering. The fact it is a tool makes little difference.I know it wasn't you who said a car is a bad investment... But that's all wrong anyway. A car is not an investment at all. It's a TOOL that is used to make life easier, like any other tool. Like a pair of pliers, or a smartphone, or a piece of software. It's not *MEANT* to increase in value. When it wears out, you buy a new one. Just like you would with a coffee maker, or a toaster.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. People buy cars because they're a tool, and their usefulness is transportation (not as an investment).
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Sep 08 2022 04:55 pm
So yes, I can see why this financial advice would be given. Buying a bigger house than you need isn't a bad investment, you'll see its valu rise, get more utility. Buying a bigger car, you still lose heaps of value, but get little in return.
well it depends on where you live. in my region they keep accessing the properties higher and higher. that's how they make money. they jack up t property taxes.
if you keep paying so much per year in property taxes, your investment devalues unless your gameplan is to flip it and sell it.
Houses generally don't go down in value. Cars almost always go down in valu l part of the investment too. We have to pay for all that as well.
So yes, I can see why this financial advice would be given. Buying a bigger house than you need isn't a bad investment, you'll see its valu rise, get more utility. Buying a bigger car, you still lose heaps of value, but get little in return.
well it depends on where you live. in my region they keep accessing the properties higher and higher. that's how they make money. they jack up t property taxes.
if you keep paying so much per year in property taxes, your investment devalues unless your gameplan is to flip it and sell it.
Houses generally don't go down in value. Cars almost always go down in valu l part of the investment too. We have to pay for all that as well.
A car is a consumable product. A house is not unless you own a trailer home.
By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Sep 09 2022 11:57 pm
move someplace where you can accomplish this.
Why should I move? If there is a problem, it should be fixed.
Running a from problems doesn't solve them.
that's probably what the ethiopians think.
Even if I move, the same issue will follow me there.
i think you are correct. you can't ditch yourself.Moving doesn't solve a problem. The problem remains if you live there or not. I live in an area where there are less than 10 houses per mile. Cable will
not run lines where there are less than 10 houses per half mile. People tell me to move, however the problem remains for those who live out there.
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Sep 09 2022 08:07 pm
So yes, I can see why this financial advice would be given. Buy a bigger house than you need isn't a bad investment, you'll see valu rise, get more utility. Buying a bigger car, you still los heaps of value, but get little in return.
well it depends on where you live. in my region they keep accessin the properties higher and higher. that's how they make money. they jack up t property taxes.
if you keep paying so much per year in property taxes, your investm devalues unless your gameplan is to flip it and sell it.
Houses generally don't go down in value. Cars almost always go down i valu l part of the investment too. We have to pay for all that as wel
A car is a consumable product. A house is not unless you own a trailer home.
A consumable product is one that is used up or transformed during use. Food
A car is not consumable. It is a durable good. Parts of the car are consum
Re: Re: Apollo 11
By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Sep 09 2022 08:13 pm
By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Sep 09 2022 11:57 pm
move someplace where you can accomplish this.
Why should I move? If there is a problem, it should be fixed. Running a from problems doesn't solve them.
that's probably what the ethiopians think.
Even if I move, the same issue will follow me there.
i think you are correct. you can't ditch yourself.Moving doesn't solve a problem. The problem remains if you live there or not. I live in an area where there are less than 10 houses per mile. Cab will
not run lines where there are less than 10 houses per half mile. People tell me to move, however the problem remains for those who live out there
That and I like civilisation. "Going bush" isn't an option for me. I make
well it depends on where you live. in my region they keep accessing the properties higher and higher. that's how they make money. they jack up the property taxes.
if you keep paying so much per year in property taxes, your investment devalues unless your gameplan is to flip it and sell it.
Almost like you cant win either way. Value goes up, taxes go up. I try not to be negative, but man, it just seems like the system is setup where cant succeed.
One thing Ive been working on in my life, is just wanting less. For some reason I have been following a lot of people on youtube who live out of RV's, some even Vans/cars. For one, I like seeing the inventions they come up with to be able to live like this. And also, most seem so happy to not be part of the "rat race." Most live off of like 500 bucks a month. And say they live very comfortable.
A car is not consumable. It is a durable good. Parts of the car are consum
Eventually the car will encounter such a major expense to maintain, and become no-longer reliable or safe to drive without considerable labor and expense. Unless I'm a collector or have the time, money, skills and parts, it's next owner is the scrap yard.
I think the system is set up to keep us in line, keep is chained and in debt so we don't get too much independence of power.
We will never ever get to be free. We will never get to enjoy the
massive productivity improvements for financial freedom. It is designed to keep us in a position where others can have power over us because we have to submit to earn money.
Tracker1 wrote to Moondog <=-
It's actually pretty much what a "Mall" was supposed to be. The concept was to include housing and offices.
Tracker1 wrote to Moondog <=-
It's actually pretty much what a "Mall" was supposed to be. The concept was to include housing and offices.
Fsacebook has been pretty quiet about their "campus" approach. They've been working on a combined housing/office campus in Silicon Valley, where you'd live in on-campus housing, dine with your co-workers in local cafes, and I'm sure they offered the same suite of amenities that all the other tech companies offered.
What do you do when there's a pandemic, or when you're laid off? I couldn't imagine losing my job and having to a) live where I was just laid off, and b) be forced to look for new housing while I was unemployed.
If you were fresh out of college, it might be an easy transition, and kinda cool. The last thing tech companies need are new workers thinking it's college all over again.
... Meaningless in the absence of time. What never was is never again.
Why should I move? If there is a problem, it should be fixed. Running away
Even if I move, the same issue will follow me there.
Any place you go will introduce it's own unique problems.
Why should I move? If there is a problem, it should be fixed. Running away
Even if I move, the same issue will follow me there.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Here is the thing: if you live in a rural area, you have worse than average Internet coverage and less diversity of services. It is not realistic to think you can fix those in a short ammount of time. In real life, if the place you live in has issues that really do bother you, you move to a place which does not bother you.
I'd love to have better Internet, but I love the fact I can grab my dinner from a bush anytime I feel like it better. If you live in a big city you get access to lots of services but you eat crap which has been stored in refrigerators for too long and your logistics are impaired and cut to serve the smaller common denominator. It comes with the package. You can't really have the benefits without the drawbacks.
*Some* companies don't want their people to work from home. Other companies (like the one I work at) love that their employees work remotely and provides all the resources necessary for those remote employees. My last three employers all preferred people work remotely, I haven't worked full-time in an office since 2010.
MRO wrote to esc <=-
I agree now more than ever. The whole "work from home" thing should reall put a nail in the coffin of much of the need for scores of people to comm for work. Fewer people commuting is a benefit to everyone, if only we cou
yeah but companies don't want people to work from home.
the middle managment needs something to do.
*Some* companies don't want their people to work from home. Other companies (like the one I work at) love that their employees work remotely and provides all the resources necessary for those remote employees. My last three employers all preferred people work remotely, I haven't worked full-time in an office since 2010.
-+- Brightening your day. -Bex <3
... "Hello, rock-stupid cop!" -- Crow T. Robot
Nightfox wrote to bex <=-
and provides all the resources necessary for those remote employees. My last three employers all preferred people work remotely, I haven't worked full-time in an office since 2010.
I think I might start to feel stir-crazy if I worked from home too
long, but there are times when I'd like to work from home rather than
go into the office.
.. When you see part of the moon in darkness, it's the
Earth's shadow on the moon.
Wrong.
The shadow is due to the sun, not the earth. The only time the
earth's shadow hits the moon is during a lunar eclipse.
Are you sure? I think it is the reflection of the sun and the shadow of the earth that you see. The earth is just blocking.. When you see part of the moon in darkness, it's theThe shadow is due to the sun, not the earth. The only time the
Earth's shadow on the moon.
earth's shadow hits the moon is during a lunar eclipse.
the rays.
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 415 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 184:53:43 |
| Calls: | 6,155 |
| Files: | 15,708 |
| Messages: | 750,060 |