Zooniverse

[SilentHill]

I am a science addict, ill keep this short as possible. Become part of the scientific process. Help the human race by increasing are knowledge and understanding of space which ultimately is are future if we wish to survive. Also, its a pretty awsome way to spend free time or multitask when waiting on something slow.

http://www.galaxyzoo.org - Classify specific information about Galaxies that computers are just to inaccurate, expensive and slow to do.

http://www.milkywayproject.org - Help with the understanding of galaxy formation by observing and identifying supernova anomalies.

http://www.moonzoo.org - Explore every square kilometer of the moon, and identify the surfaces structures of many sorts.

http://www.solarstormwatch.com/ - This one i have never tried. Its about solar flares from the sun. http://www.solarstormwatch.com/why_scientists_need_you for more info.

http://www.planethunters.org - Help in the search for planets, The best way to find life is to look for earth like planets. The Hubble looked and recorded the brightness of a huge number of stars. Help find inconsistencies. (Stars get duller when a planet is blocking the light.)


When you got free time, why not view some of the most amazing images the world has. Share what you see and what interests you about them. The projects provide a service that tracks what you have done and favorites to.

[toaster Assassin]

Not bad. Quick question however, what do you think of the space exploration/transport/studying being done by corporations (private sector) rather than by government. I had to ask this question because this is becoming rather big. Private sector has more funds so they can do more, but their main purpose is for profit (Businesses are established to make money) and they will eventually alter their ways to make more. Government has lesser funding (budgets) but seems to be more for research than profit. The articles about the privatization of space shuttles (By virgin/Boeing/ect..) made me wonder.


The 2030 Toyoda Cosmos, 3 Lightyears/gal (Space) & 1 Lightyears/gal (Planet)*





Recall on defective breaks.

[SilentHill]

I consider space quite a lot like the ocean, though we do much more damage to the ocean every time we put something in it, then we do space. Exploration, extraction and study, private or not, would be good because it will help with the overall goal, of independent space ecosystems.

Space should not be any single government or companies property and we all should have legal right to do business of moral sorts in space, Also most companies eventually do publish private work, at least work that is successful.
But they also crash and fail, A study of over 23,000 companies showed all companies rise, stable then fail and apparently its not if, but when Google will fail. This and the fact that capitalism cannot sustain and will probably end in the next 40-60 years suggests to me that maybe companies won't be a problem in the very distant future. Though that is another topic.

There is obvious risk in letting self-maintained companies have & utilize space flight but like society it has for everything else (Cruise ships, vehicles, Planes) law and responsibility will create a set of realistic rules and regulations to what both people, governments and companies can and can't do.
I think most people would prefer that chemicals are extracted for use from a rock in space then a plot of earth that use to be filled with life.

In summary I think. Every bit helps, companies won't outlast humanity, and Society will develop with technology as it has before.

The 2030 Toyoda Cosmos, 3 Lightyears/gal (Space) & 1 Lightyears/gal (Planet)*
Recall on defective breaks.

[toaster Assassin]

That is a very good thought, comparing oceans to space. I was thinking however, that when space travel becomes a little more accepted/desirable/affordable that it will exhibit situations quite similar to the Wild-West/Somali pirate/Age of exploration types. (That and companies not following regulations/cutting corners,taking risks,ect..) In the end it will benefit the world greatly, but without any type of regulators it will initially repeat the same scenarios as previous explorations. Also I wonder how/if near space will be split into territories or will be like international waters. I just find this fascinating, and I truly wonder how the early stages will be?

My whole question is will early space travel exhibit the same scenarios as earlier human exploration, or has society learned from the past? (My post above was not meant to be about politics/corporations, but rather the human experience with exploration)

Another thought v
Is technology making humans smarter, or just faster? (Supplement vs compensator)

[SilentHill]

Intresting question, I can only speculate.

I quite agree It probably would be simular to the age of exploration, The first human settlements in space (Like The internation space station) will probably be mining towns and other simular 'objective based settlements'. I think the colonization of canada would be a good way to see it, ports, farm towns, lumber and minning camps, et-cetra would result in the first settlements. In space's case it would be all about resources and energy. Eventually when you get enough people there, they will become the first space cities. Most of canada's largest cities are original settlements from explorers & exploiters.

I'm not sure we can treat space like international waters, The main diffreance between space and the ocean is size, When we first exploited the ocean we fished and came back in a day or hours, But the first time we exploit space it will have to be permenent settlements. We can't just jump to giant rock collectors.

Of course that is all speculation, By then there is any number of possibilities. Maybe technology will make crime in space near impossible. Maybe people will agree that no one can claim anything in space we can only study it and take resources without bias of selling (International minning?). Maybe we will succefully create independent space stations that wont need resources to sustain themselfs, there would be no point to claiming anything. But Hopefully atleast by then Humanity will be united, either through war or just the majoirty absorbing the minorities, becuse in a current position we cannot go to space without conflict.

As for technology, Its very very hard to answer. We have much more avialable to us because of technology, but has are potential changed? or just how much of that potential is actually being used? I Don't know, I think knowing some things makes us think more and theoretically should help us become smarter.
Im the youngest in a 6 sibling family, In a normal family the eldest has about a 3 IQ advantage and 1.5 per each child after. so I'm suppose to be 9 IQ points lower then my eldest sibling. But I am higher by 8. A diffreance from the norm by 17 points. the rest of my siblings have never had IQ tests. They act and socialize as im a sperior, smarter, but without IQ proof so i wont get into that. What i am getting at is that my brother hasent heard of a large number of the things i have, hes ignoranrt of quantem physics almost entierly, he knows very few of accepted theories. This opens the question, has my (self) education of these subjects (avialable to me because of technology) made me smarter then he is? Possibly.

100 Is the avrage IQ no matter what, Smarter or dumber is the stander deviation away from 100. So we should recored how smart 100 is, and compare as technology advances.

We would also have to define smart in a appropriate way, If technology would suddenly collapse most people would not know how to feed themselfs. are they dumb or just not knowladgable in the catagories like farming, hunting, cooking etcetra.


Damn this got much longer then i wanted it to be, Ill leave it here....

[toaster Assassin]

So to make a long paragraph short, you mean that in most cases it is how the people use the technology. (they choose if it is supplementary or for compensation) This is true only if they have free reign over how they use it. At UPS our consoles (that had LCD screens to read data) were replaced by a keyboard/printer (no screen) workstation that was dependant on a central server. Our manager gathered all of the workers into a room and explained to us that this "upgrade" was an improvement because we (the workers) no longer had to think . (His exact words wtf) So if the central server craps out (and it has many times) every workstation becomes inoperable (Cannot batch mode,cannot read data because of no screen). The "improvement" was initiated not as a means to supplement the worker, but rather as a means to increase production. (The new technology had less capability than the old tech) Technology can only be supplementary if it is allowed, though many a time it is created mainly to increase speed of task.(more money)

I myself know only a little about quantum physics.(Stroger's cat scenario, bomb-check with particles scenario) Quantum physics is very fascinating, but sadly when it boils down to the math aspect of Quantum physics I am a complete idiot. ( My interests are more down the line of Political Science (World politics to be specific)) However, discussing politics in any forum is just asking for trouble (Not even going to go there)

Stupid vs ignorant?. Well I do think that the portrayed social norms in mass media may very well be closing the gap between the two. When does the stupid realize they are ignorant? Ha, it seems that every time I get an answer I find another question.

Side note: Science/technology/philosophical topics = long posts

[SilentHill]

So to make a long paragraph short, you mean that in most cases it is how the people use the technology.

Yes but i should add the environment as a factor as well, I made software to save me time, but I can use that saved time in a good way. I never got to work in anything like a UPS might be, but I can imagine that even when the job is not difficult it might be performed in a way that multitasking is not allowed or not even possible, in which case i can very much agree that it just makes things faster instead of smarter. Infact i didint think much about the work force (was thinking more humans as a whole) i can see many cases where it does not make people smarter only faster.
Personally if theres a job where you don't have to think in any sence of the word i would remove it. Computers are made to 'not think', Its such a waste of potential to put the human brain to the task of 'nothing'. We really need to pay more attention to the amazing ideas people have.

Stupid vs ignorant?. Well I do think that the portrayed social norms in mass media may very well be closing the gap between the two. When does the stupid realize they are ignorant? Ha, it seems that every time I get an answer I find another question.

Thats great irony when two diffreantly defined words are used the same, ignorance is to blame.

[txfirefighter]

you know, weapons development as well as military vehicles sea vessels are all done by the private sector.

lockheed and boeing are some of the biggest. yes they are in it for profit but also they are in it for research. government funding plus income from private businesses. why can this not be done with the space program?

one it would open it up for quicker and different mods of space transportation plus it would free up billions of dollars from the federal budget. trillions even.

the government would benefit from it just as much as they do now i believe. velcro was developed my NASA. would we still have it if it was left up to the private sector? yes.

[toaster Assassin]

I agree that the private sector does have allot more money to allocate to R&D and would save the government quite some money. I am just leery when the private sector has access to resources/opportunities that are normally government held. The primary reason a business exists is to make money, while the government work is normally order and maintaining/providing infrastructure. Also a company is controlled mainly by one person or a few CEOs, while a government institution has has checks and balances. I do not believe that a company would act toward certain expectations if those expectations would create a loss for them.(Pressure from shareholders as well) One example would be the Google tracking issue. Google tracking was established to sell people's info to advertising companies (For Profit), but it also was a breach of privacy. If I recall the EU was trying to sue Google for this and Google's only defence was that they would loose profit by not being allowed to sell people's data. EX ops (formally Blackwater) is infamous for how they handled their private contractor duties in Iraq. (If I recall, they shot up a busy Iraq market place. Secfor (I think that is what they are named) used their connections/geopolitical data to make a profit by investing/shifting money in certain events/companies involved in current political issues. These are/were just a few current events in the news.(Back to the main point (Not trying to make this an anti-private rant))
The benefits of outsourcing to the private sector is that they are cheaper to maintain than government institutions and can allocate allot more money to R&D and their focus. The problem is that allot of companies cut corners and work in their own interests (for profit) and I think that some resources/abilities should stay government only. Private sector has no country loyalty, only responds to client rather than public and lacks proper checks and balances. (i.e. they love to bribe, while gov institutions lack funding and wouldn't bribe itself) I don't mind that projects are contracted to the private sector because they can make great advancements in research, but I am leery to some extent of the ethics of the private sector. I am not saying that all private companys act unethically, but when dealing with issues on a country-wide scale I wonder if most companies would act ethically even if it means that their company would be negatively effected.

These are just the private defence contractors.

-Boeing was caught price-fixing and bribing officials in 2006.
-Lockheed Martin scandals, 1950s -1970s.
-Northrop Grumman knowingly sold defective aircraft to US Navy, 1999.
-Northrop knowingly over charged US government for space projects 1990s.
-Northrop Grumman knowingly breached International Arms traffic regulations and sold US Airforce computer source codes to Russia, 1998.
-Northrop Grumman secretly sold computer guidance systems to countries like China and Yemen, 1994 -2003.
Ex ops (formally Blackwater): Massacred a bunch of people in market place. Multiple contractors involved, continued to fire when ordered to stop,2007

Besides over charging, I wonder what corners would be cut by private sector in unregulated space. (who would stop them, most space traffic would be private). Government saves money, but in the process it loses some of its power. (i.e. by giving a private company that operates in a global market control of a project/utility that can affect the entire country, meaning the company could act toward the highest bidder, rather than staying loyal to parent company. (data leaks?))
We just need to limit what abilities/opportunities we give to the private sector, and/or watch who we contract to.
Edit: Wow this was unnecessary long.

[txfirefighter]

not unnecessarily long. thanks for posting it.

i understand everything that you say. its hard not to agree with you too.

my only argument against it is money. our government is broke. severely broke. billions of dollars wasted every year. granted-two wars fought has drained our economy, as well as political corruption when it comes to the housing markets, social security. the list goes on.

certain steps need to be taken to avoid a total collapse of our infrastructure. those steps include cutting funding to governmental organizations such as NASA, military, domestic agencies (FBI, ATF etc) medicaid, immigration problems (loads of corruption there).

if left up to the private sector, then yes, we run the risk of things like what you mentioned happening. but we take that risk every time we step into a vehicle, or drive over a bridge. (i named a few defense contractors, we can have the same list for road construction, contractors for buildings, automobile manufactures).

[SilentHill]

I agree a government is more trustworthy. But in the end corruption is down to the individual, government corruption is just as possible as a companies.

[toaster Assassin]

txfirefighter said: but we take that risk every time we step into a vehicle, or drive over a bridge. (i named a few defense contractors, we can have the same list for road construction, contractors for buildings, automobile manufactures).

So true, everything has risks and if we believe that every private contractor is going to be unethical or cut corners, then progress will not be made. We do need the private sector, but we just have to watch who we pick or who does the picking. (Lobbying, and PACs kinda distort the filter process). Your argument about money and our government is very true, we need to drastically cut costs and the private sector may be our only option. However, things like moving government servers to Cloud (No matter how cost effective) is completely messed up. (Cloud = all eggs in one basket).

SilentHill said: I agree a government is more trustworthy. But in the end corruption is down to the individual, government corruption is just as possible as a companies.

However, government has more checks an balances (internal affairs) and most government corruption is a by-product of services/bribes from contributing companies/lobbyists/PACs. But anyone can become corrupt, (like you said) so there is never just one clean cut answer.

[txfirefighter]

So true, everything has risks and if we believe that every private contractor is going to be unethical or cut corners, then progress will not be made. We do need the private sector, but we just have to watch who we pick or who does the picking. (Lobbying, and PACs kinda distort the filter process). Your argument about money and our government is very true, we need to drastically cut costs and the private sector may be our only option. However, things like moving government servers to Cloud (No matter how cost effective) is completely messed up. (Cloud = all eggs in one basket).

you hit the nail on the head regarding Lobbying and PACs. congress serves their wallets, not the people (most that is).
and yes, putting all eggs into one basket is a big, big mistake. i had not heard of this to be honest, and moving to cloud drives to cut out some other forms of backup is a good idea. but there must always be a back up for the backups. dallas ran into this problem when the courthouse flooded and destroyed lots of documents. can we say 'oops?'

good talking points, man.

SilentHill said: I agree a government is more trustworthy. But in the end corruption is down to the individual, government corruption is just as possible as a companies.

agreed. and as toaster said, governments do have more checks and balances. albeit not fail safe, at least its better than 100% unregulated. a good mix of private/public is the only way it will work. but government bullying the private to do what they want is wrong.