Monday, 29 March 2010
Not An Onion Headline
Posted on 05:15 by hony
NASA spends $62,000 on bagels for 317 people during conference to train NASA's procurement teams.
Time for NASA to get a reboot.
_
Time for NASA to get a reboot.
_
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Projects
Posted on 10:52 by hony
TAE likes to keep himself busy with projects. Currently I am designing:
1. A DIY sous vide cooker for my brother-in-law.
2. A small, battery-charging wind-generator to go out at my parents farm.
3. A wall-clock with a geneva drive for my wife.
4. A new, revolutionary snowboard for Shaun White.
Now I just need to think of a project for me!
_
1. A DIY sous vide cooker for my brother-in-law.
2. A small, battery-charging wind-generator to go out at my parents farm.
3. A wall-clock with a geneva drive for my wife.
4. A new, revolutionary snowboard for Shaun White.
Now I just need to think of a project for me!
_
California Cannabis
Posted on 10:03 by hony
TAE hopes, if legalized, they tax the unholy hell out of it.
_
_
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Everything is Solvable, So Why Haven't We Solved It?
Posted on 09:41 by hony
As I scanned the news networks yesterday, trying to find news about anything, anything other than HCR, I noticed that almost everything in this world is bad news. Earthquakes in Central and South America, volcanoes in Iceland, flooding in North Dakota, starvation in Africa, droughts in Australia, conflict in the West Bank, insurgency in the Middle East. Domestically, we've got unemployment soaring, health care costs soaring, deficits soaring, pollution soaring, obesity soaring, unplanned pregnancy soaring, the standard of living difference between our rich and poor is growing, our bellies are growing, the number of people with heart issues is growing and depending on who you ask, this is the most dangerous time in American history to be an American!
So it would be natural to assume, given all these local and international ailments of humanity that all is hopeless, and the best we can do is try to improve our lot a little, and hope the next generation does the same, on and on and on in some intricate but endless dance down a logarithmic curve that grows infinitely close to utopia, but after an infinite amount of time is yet never quite there.
And yet, I remain optimistic. For there is not a single thing I have listed above that we do not currently have the technology to defeat. Disease, hunger, drought, and war are not things that are unconquerable. 60% of HIV transmission in Africa can be remedied using simple hygiene tricks. Some estimate that HIV will be extinct in our lifetimes, as the rate of transmission is plummeting. Obesity and all its related maladies could be instantly remedied if people adjusted their diet by a mere 500 calories a day. Not to mention one third of all cancers are preventable simply by being healthy. The global food production stands at a level where, given the right distribution networks, every human being could eat a nutritious, though simple, diet. Certainly beluga caviar might be less attainable. But in exchange for healthy, bright minds developing all over this planet, that is a small price to pay.
Though dry weather is unavoidable (or is it), what is possible is to rearrange humanity into a less sporadic arrangement that allows us to be shielded from nature's ebb and flow.
As it is, we (humans) clearly possess all the technology necessary to solve all our problems - today. We could build solar energy plants and electric cars and end our use of coal and petroleum-based gasoline completely. We could all start exercising a little more. We could build better transportation systems, and rezone our cities to increase their density and decrease sprawl. We could scrap our SUVs and buy plug-in cars. We could give a little more of our income to set up organizations that built schools and internet infrastructure in developing nations. We could pay teachers more.
I am not a techno-utopian because the implication there is that future technology will lead to future utopia. Instead, I am an extreme cynic because I believe that current technology could give us instant utopia...only our species is so selfish and lazy that it will never happen.
Because really, why am I drinking a Pepsi while I write this? Because I prefer dying a slow death from caffeine poisoning to not having my Pepsi. I prefer my pickup to my old Honda. I prefer living 13 miles from work to living in the city. I prefer not working out every day. I prefer Chipotle burritos with sour cream to grilled chicken salads.
And we are all like that. We all do so many things out of convenience, not accepting, or not knowing, that the repercussions help maintain the status quo of non-utopia on this planet.
Utopia will not come because of technological breakthroughs, this much is clear. Otherwise it would have happened already. Utopia will come because of cultural breakthroughs.
_
So it would be natural to assume, given all these local and international ailments of humanity that all is hopeless, and the best we can do is try to improve our lot a little, and hope the next generation does the same, on and on and on in some intricate but endless dance down a logarithmic curve that grows infinitely close to utopia, but after an infinite amount of time is yet never quite there.
And yet, I remain optimistic. For there is not a single thing I have listed above that we do not currently have the technology to defeat. Disease, hunger, drought, and war are not things that are unconquerable. 60% of HIV transmission in Africa can be remedied using simple hygiene tricks. Some estimate that HIV will be extinct in our lifetimes, as the rate of transmission is plummeting. Obesity and all its related maladies could be instantly remedied if people adjusted their diet by a mere 500 calories a day. Not to mention one third of all cancers are preventable simply by being healthy. The global food production stands at a level where, given the right distribution networks, every human being could eat a nutritious, though simple, diet. Certainly beluga caviar might be less attainable. But in exchange for healthy, bright minds developing all over this planet, that is a small price to pay.
Though dry weather is unavoidable (or is it), what is possible is to rearrange humanity into a less sporadic arrangement that allows us to be shielded from nature's ebb and flow.
As it is, we (humans) clearly possess all the technology necessary to solve all our problems - today. We could build solar energy plants and electric cars and end our use of coal and petroleum-based gasoline completely. We could all start exercising a little more. We could build better transportation systems, and rezone our cities to increase their density and decrease sprawl. We could scrap our SUVs and buy plug-in cars. We could give a little more of our income to set up organizations that built schools and internet infrastructure in developing nations. We could pay teachers more.
I am not a techno-utopian because the implication there is that future technology will lead to future utopia. Instead, I am an extreme cynic because I believe that current technology could give us instant utopia...only our species is so selfish and lazy that it will never happen.
Because really, why am I drinking a Pepsi while I write this? Because I prefer dying a slow death from caffeine poisoning to not having my Pepsi. I prefer my pickup to my old Honda. I prefer living 13 miles from work to living in the city. I prefer not working out every day. I prefer Chipotle burritos with sour cream to grilled chicken salads.
And we are all like that. We all do so many things out of convenience, not accepting, or not knowing, that the repercussions help maintain the status quo of non-utopia on this planet.
Utopia will not come because of technological breakthroughs, this much is clear. Otherwise it would have happened already. Utopia will come because of cultural breakthroughs.
_
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Note to self
Posted on 07:04 by hony
NASA's Republican Blowhards Unite!
Posted on 05:51 by hony
There is no argument for moon missions I find less appealing than the "we must go there or [insert foreign nation name here] will beat us there." The fact that we are the sole country that has been to the moon in the entire history of humanity means nothing to these people, someone could still beat us there!
So when I received my April issue of Popular Mechanics, and saw Tom Jones article entitled "Don't Kill NASA!" I was a little irritated.
I was also less than surprised that Jones, a FoxNews contributor, glossed very weakly over the fact that President Bush slashed science funding with a zeal known only to crusaders. Nor was I surprised that he barely mentions that President Obama actually increased funding for NASA by $1 billion dollars a year.
Instead he makes vague arguments like "$787 billion was available for stimulus but finding $3 billion for NASA was impossible?"
But what really galls me about this type of thinking is the obscene nationalism that people seem to exhibit when it comes to space. Jones does it in his article; he basically rewrites history and argues that the ISS was built by Americans. He argues that American dominance in space should be a national priority.
Why?
Name a single science fiction novel in which a single nation controls space? In virtually every science fiction series, a global conglomerate has conquered space, and nations are history. For example, in Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the "UN" is the dominant democratic entity that governs all the human worlds in known space.
The building of the ISS was a huge step forward in human spaceflight. For the first time ever, nations came together for the common goal of increasing knowledge of space, and built an international entity, neutral to the conflicts below, where astronauts of many nations could go to conduct experiments. Why not more of that? Why not put this America First bullshit away and concentrate on humanity?
These people huffing and puffing about NASA's budget cuts are the same people who want the government to stay out of health care. "Let free enterprise do its work! The government should stay out of the private sector!" they trumpet, but when President Obama signals that he wants to open space up to the private sector, and pursue other avenues with NASA, they scream and holler.
I can imagine Karl Rove helping Jones with this hilarious tripe:
One final note: when Obama signaled that moon missions weren't going to happen, and gave NASA a fiscal slap on the wrist, it actually increased my interest in space. Responsible, goal-oriented project management (and a little fiscal conservatism?) is what NASA needs, not some vague plan and a cavernous budget. NASA could divert Constellation program funds into education programs, to get youth interested in robotic exploration of space, which anyone with a brain acknowledges is cheaper and easier than manned exploration (why is Afghanistan full of UAVs?).
Jones disagrees:The president's rejection of a clear goal to send humans into deep space by a certain date eliminates a future in space for the brightest of our young scientists and engineers. The space talent pool began emptying Monday, as promising innovators turn to careers in other industries. What student would pursue a career in space science or astronautics with the knowledge that the country deems leadership in space unimportant?
It has been made clear that in early April President Obama will announce his new plan for NASA. What will Jones say if that plan includes education programs and incentive programs aimed at increasing young person's interest in space?
_
So when I received my April issue of Popular Mechanics, and saw Tom Jones article entitled "Don't Kill NASA!" I was a little irritated.
I was also less than surprised that Jones, a FoxNews contributor, glossed very weakly over the fact that President Bush slashed science funding with a zeal known only to crusaders. Nor was I surprised that he barely mentions that President Obama actually increased funding for NASA by $1 billion dollars a year.
Instead he makes vague arguments like "$787 billion was available for stimulus but finding $3 billion for NASA was impossible?"
But what really galls me about this type of thinking is the obscene nationalism that people seem to exhibit when it comes to space. Jones does it in his article; he basically rewrites history and argues that the ISS was built by Americans. He argues that American dominance in space should be a national priority.
Why?
Name a single science fiction novel in which a single nation controls space? In virtually every science fiction series, a global conglomerate has conquered space, and nations are history. For example, in Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the "UN" is the dominant democratic entity that governs all the human worlds in known space.
The building of the ISS was a huge step forward in human spaceflight. For the first time ever, nations came together for the common goal of increasing knowledge of space, and built an international entity, neutral to the conflicts below, where astronauts of many nations could go to conduct experiments. Why not more of that? Why not put this America First bullshit away and concentrate on humanity?
These people huffing and puffing about NASA's budget cuts are the same people who want the government to stay out of health care. "Let free enterprise do its work! The government should stay out of the private sector!" they trumpet, but when President Obama signals that he wants to open space up to the private sector, and pursue other avenues with NASA, they scream and holler.
I can imagine Karl Rove helping Jones with this hilarious tripe:
With no ability to launch humans past the ISS, we will watch, helpless to follow, as China pursues its determination to be the next nation to send its explorers into deep space.Fearmongering at its finest. God help us if those dirty communists manage to land on the fertile, resource-laden rock that orbits us and begin to extract deuterium and helium for their hyperdrive Bussard ramjet reactors on their cloaking device-equipped Klingon Birds-of-Prey.
One final note: when Obama signaled that moon missions weren't going to happen, and gave NASA a fiscal slap on the wrist, it actually increased my interest in space. Responsible, goal-oriented project management (and a little fiscal conservatism?) is what NASA needs, not some vague plan and a cavernous budget. NASA could divert Constellation program funds into education programs, to get youth interested in robotic exploration of space, which anyone with a brain acknowledges is cheaper and easier than manned exploration (why is Afghanistan full of UAVs?).
Jones disagrees:The president's rejection of a clear goal to send humans into deep space by a certain date eliminates a future in space for the brightest of our young scientists and engineers. The space talent pool began emptying Monday, as promising innovators turn to careers in other industries. What student would pursue a career in space science or astronautics with the knowledge that the country deems leadership in space unimportant?
It has been made clear that in early April President Obama will announce his new plan for NASA. What will Jones say if that plan includes education programs and incentive programs aimed at increasing young person's interest in space?
_
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
