Forgot your password?

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Displaying poll results.
Deep under the Earth's surface
  1238 votes / 4%
The oceans
  4226 votes / 14%
The surface and top layers of the Earth
  599 votes / 2%
Earth's atmosphere
  417 votes / 1%
The solar system
  6315 votes / 21%
Outer space
  8264 votes / 27%
The human mind
  6100 votes / 20%
How to get through L.A. in rush hour.
  2365 votes / 8%
29524 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Comments Filter:
  • by CityZen (464761) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:26PM (#42236943) Homepage

    Then I think the first thing we need to do is fix stupidity (thus I chose "the human mind").
    That ought to keep us going until we find a better rock to cling to (and a way to get there).

    • by fonitrus (1763632) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:36PM (#42237037)

      this would work if we only didit try so hard to babyproof the whole nation. stupid is what stupid does and eventually the really stupid ones get into the Darwin awards and help the clensing of the gene pool. But with stupid politicians at the helm trying to Politically correct the nanny state they are trying to create it kinda provides assylum fo all retards :)

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The genes you destroy aren't necessarily the ones which would impact survival, and the genes you allow would not necessarily allow for survival. Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

        • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:00PM (#42237945)

          Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

          There likely isn't an "intelligence gene" but the number one predictor of individual accomplishment in life is parental achievement. There have been interesting twin studies where the twins, raised in different environments, ended up with quite similar lives. So the evidence points to some level of intelligence being hereditary. Sure, there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene, but evidence shows a hereditary link.

          Do you actually believe that intelligence isn't hereditary, or are you just arguing for the fun of it?

          • You're assuming "parental achievement" equals "intelligence". This, to my knowledge, is not true. Yes, probably some values of "intelligence" help, but intelligence brings its problems too, and it's also obvious that charisma, strength, agility etc. also help "achievement" a great deal. So yes, while "achievement" seems to be hereditary to a significant degree, that doesn't say much about intelligence.

            Intelligence definitely depends on genes. A pine tree is not as intelligent as I am, and the difference can

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              Intelligence is (in the vernacular, at least) defined not only by knowledge and processing power (IQ being tested as mainly processing power), but the ability to employ that in situations. And the ability to function in society is a form of useful intelligence that leads to success.
              • by jlehtira (655619) on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @07:47AM (#42259053) Journal

                If you define intelligence as the ability to function in a society, then there's no wonder (and no merit) in finding that this correlates with success in functioning in a society!

                I recall intelligence being defined as the capability of functioning in a meaningful way in new situations, such that it doesn't depend on stuff you learned before. This still incorporates a wide variety of traits (and genetic effects), but at least clearly rules out "knowledge".

                I like to think Intelligence is measured in IQ (certainly many people assume that in their work), and thus intelligence is what the tests measure. That's the most exact definition you can get ;-). And the tests deliberately try to not measure knowledge.

                If I recall correctly, the most successful tend to have an IQ like 120. Higher than that, and the "success" starts to drop. But then, there's also problems (and very serious ones) in the ways we measure success!

            • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:26AM (#42269579) Journal

              I think that probably most of variation in intelligence, as measured by Mensa in logic tests, doesn't come from genetics, though.

              I have strong doubts that Mensa's logic tests measure anything that an intelligent person would regard as intelligence.

          • by tqk (413719)

            Do you actually believe that intelligence isn't hereditary ...

            Yes. If a mind wants to turn on, it will, and pretty much any of them can. Most prefer to waste away watching sitcoms or ET. C'est la vie.

            There's plenty of examples of children of exceptional people who turned out to be extraordinarily boring/normal. People who choose to use their heads productively are the exception. It takes will power and effort; things that most people can't be bothered to expend.

      • by Kelbear (870538)

        I also chose "the human mind" and I think education will have to go hand in hand with fixing stupidity. It's not just about educating savages so that they can take part in civilization rather than taking it down, but also finding the best and the brightest and educating them to do accomplish great things. As technology grows more and more complex, it will take more study to gain a mastery of the existing subject matter, and many breakthroughs will come from interdisciplinary work. In Star Trek, it seems lik

      • by Synerg1y (2169962)
        Well, if fixing the human mind means fixing human nature we're probably SOL. If we can accept it rather than live our lives in denial following some book to try and make things right, that'd be more progress than we've made in the last several thousand years. People aren't anymore equal to each other than the jock who kicks the nerd's ass after practice, but winds up working for the nerd a couple decades down the line.

        In regards to baby proofing, it gets a little more complicated than you make it out t
      • by jbeach (852844) on Monday December 10, 2012 @06:39PM (#42246805) Homepage Journal
        Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
        The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda - it means that people are blaming the poor for what the government's doing rather than the rich and powerful who are most often ignoring the best interests of the poor and middle class as much as possible.
        • by mjwx (966435)

          Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
          The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda

          The phrase "nanny state" often indicates that people haven't and aren't capable of thinking objectively about an issue. It's the same as "socialist" and "fascist". These are all highly emotive words meant to discorage meaningful thought and conversation on a subject.

          More specifically "nanny state" tends to be used in anti-government propaganda which is often used by powerful, non governmental organisations wishing to effect change on a government policy they disagree with. This is why Newscorp publicatio

      • by darkonc (47285) <(moc.neergcb) (ta) (leumas_nehpets)> on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:00AM (#42257801) Homepage Journal
        That's mostly the work of lawyers and insurance adjusters. The laws are (mostly) OK, but when you've got the threat of someone suing you for $3M if they slip and break their head, and your insurance company only agreeing to indemnify you if you force everybody to use walkers, you're stuck between a rock an a hard place.

        Lack of health care is part of the problem. If the only way to pay your hospital bill is to sue the people who's sidewalk you fell on, then only the lawyers go away winners.

        I live in Canada where basic health insurance is a given. If I get hurt, I go to the hospital.period. No questions ask. I never really considered what it's like for Americans until a friend of mine, visiting from the states fell and smacked his head. All of us Canadians were going "Dude, we should take you to the hospital to get checked out for a possible concussion."

        He Freaked out.

        "Dude, we're only going to the hospital to get your head checked out."

        "The last time I did that, I ended up with a $20,000 second mortgage that I'm still paying off!"

        "woah... well' we're in Canada now. Health care isn't that expensive here -- even for foreigners."

    • by Kittenman (971447)
      All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...). And they were themselves considerably smarter than the crowd around at year dot.

      And we'll all be considered much dumber when compared to the kid stuck in the corner for failing "Basic Space Piloting skills" in Kindergarten in the year 2500.
      • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:11PM (#42238017)
        That's not how it's done. We don't say we are smarter than someone from the 1700s because we can drive better than they can. Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid. The guy failing basic piloting skills may laugh at us, but mainly because he knows he's stupider, so it's about ego, not intelligence. I'm not smarter than Samuel Clements or Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton, but I know how to work a computer better than any of them. So I can always think of myself as smarter if it makes me feel better.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid.

          So true. It bothers me when I hear people parrot "we're living in a more complex world now". No, we're not. Every basic need is addressed with trivial ease now that we have shifted the burden of work to corporate-structured entities like businesses and governments.

          Want to eat? Give 99 cents to Walmart for a can of beans trucked into town from a cannery in another state. Don't have 99 cents? Get food stamps. Done.

          Embarking on a long journey? Step into car, apply right foot as needed. Done.

          W

          • We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

            If your car breaks down on a lonely road in a snowstorm, you're going to freeze to death if you go outside and try to fix it. You probably don't have enough tools or supplies on you to do so, and poking around outside in the hope that it's fixable is a good way to waste a lot of energy and heat on a lost cause.

            • We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm;

              If your car breaks down on a lonely road in a snowstorm, you're going to freeze to death if you go outside and try to fix it. You probably don't have enough tools or supplies on you to do so, and poking around outside in the hope that it's fixable is a good way to waste a lot of energy and heat on a lost cause.

              You're also going to freeze to death if you don't plan ahead and stock your auto with food, water, blankets, and other basics, regardless of whether or not you exit the vehicle.

              Steel gets really, really cold when it's encased in frozen water for long enough.

              • Snow insulates

                If your car broke down, you would want the snow to drift over it or have the car partially encased in it. A car encased in snow will better protect a person from frigid temperatures and wind.

                Its the basic concept behind any type of snow shelter: https://www.google.ca/search?q=snow+shelter&hl=en&tbo=u&rlz=1C1CHMO_en-GBCA468CA468&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Kj7GUKC_KNLOyAH214HQDg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1074&bih=763 [google.ca]

                • Snow insulates

                  So do refrigerators.

                  Couple problems with that plan:

                  - snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.
                  - car bodies are made of steel; more specifically, very thin sheet steel, which exchanges heat at a much, much higher rate than snow-packed dirt.

                  - cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, furthe

                  • - snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.

                    65 degrees? Are you serious?

                    - cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, further chilling the vehicle's interior.

                    Maybe just close the vents?

                    - once the car is completely covered, you don't have to worry about cold air coming in through the vents; instead, you get to slowly asphyxiate as the oxygen depletes from the now-sealed steel sarcophagus you're inhabiting.

                    Suffocation isn't a problem. http://weestimatethat.blogspot.com/2012/04/it-takes-150-days-to-suffocate-if.html [blogspot.com]

                    • - snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.

                      65 degrees? Are you serious?

                      Around 65 degrees; yes. Feel free to introduce any data that you think dispute that.

                      - cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, further chilling the vehicle's interior.

                      Maybe just close the vents?

                      Doesn't work that way; there are certain vent points on a car that cannot be closed - otherwise, when you "close the vents" on the HVAC system, you'd suffocate.

                      - once the car is completely covered, you don't have to worry about cold air coming in through the vents; instead, you get to slowly asphyxiate as the oxygen depletes from the now-sealed steel sarcophagus you're inhabiting.

                      Suffocation isn't a problem. http://weestimatethat.blogspot.com/2012/04/it-takes-150-days-to-suffocate-if.html [blogspot.com]

                      Slight problem with your 'example' here - it specifically refers to how long it would take for a single person to run out of oxygen in a 5m X 15m x 5m room. Unless all your friends happen to drive school bus', I don't think you're going to find many people's cars have

                    • Underground temperature mirrors with a delay that of the air above it. Somewhere where you're likely to need a snow shelter, and have enough snow to do it, the ground's probably at or below freezing (otherwise it would melt the snow away). The temperature doesn't change very much, unless you're prepared to dig many meters of dirt.

                      The reason it might be convenient to dig to the ground is that your body heat won't melt snow and make everything wet. That said, I've been (shortly) trained to make a snow shelter

                    • That's the average yearly temp for what geographic reigon? There doesn't really seem to be a valid source for that number in the link. The questioner lived in San Diego, not exactly a place you'd be in a snow storm.

                    • That said, I've been (shortly) trained to make a snow shelter, and we did not dig to the ground but rather had a snow floor. That might be useful for its insulating properties - lying down on freezing ground makes you very, very cold indeed pretty quickly.

                      Either way, you're going to want a layer of something to insulate you from the ground. I recommend (assuming you don't have a space blanket or other sort of artificial ground cover) pine boughs.

          • by Githaron (2462596)

            We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

            While it might be true most people don't understand the technology they use, you are forgetting on key aspect of "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario: infrastructure. Infrastructure plays a key role in any modern technology. You might understand a specific technology backwards and forwards but if you don't have the tools, materials, or simply a way to transport them to the same place, you wouldn't be able to build said technology.

          • Life hasn't gotten easier. All this technology has not enabled stupidity or laziness, it has instead allowed us to reach further. There is always other work to fill the time we manage to free up.

        • I'm not smarter than Samuel Clements or Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton, but I know how to work a computer better than any of them.

          To be fair, no on is smarter than Isaac Newton, with the possible exception of Archimedes. Both of those dudes were off the charts. Any idiot can figure out a computer. Most people even after years of study could never come close to figuring out from scratch the stuff that Isaac Newton and Archimedes did. I'm convinced that if we could go back in time right before each's death, bring them to today, and give them a few extra years, either one could probably cure cancer or solve some of the weirdest quest

      • by riverat1 (1048260) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:52PM (#42238695)

        The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...).

        I don't think that's true at all. It may be true that the dumbest human alive today knows more than Joe Average of the 10th century. It may even be true that because of poor nutrition while growing up the average 10th century person was less intelligent than the average person today. But I doubt the human capacity for intelligence is much greater today than it was 1,000 years ago.

        • by Kelbear (870538)

          I would agree that the human capacity for intelligence today is likely not all that different than it was 1000 years ago. With that said, the environment today makes greater demands on that capacity for intelligence.

          Obviously a great deal of information was needed to survive, learning how to navigate geography without GPS or signposts, learning how obtain/grow food from the land, or learning and improving a trade. However, once you've mastered these fundamental skills needed to survive, you might not have t

        • Agreed.

          Knowledge and Intelligence are two separate but related things. Just because you are smart, doesn't mean you know Jack and Just because you know about Jack, doesn't make you smart.

          As a kid, I would always get frustrated when watching some sitcom or cartoon and then the episode would occur when one of the characters would get hit on the head/walk into the lab at the wrong time... and invariably end up with greater intelligence. This in itself was not the annoying piece - It was how they would demonstr

      • by azalin (67640)

        All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...). And they were themselves considerably smarter than the crowd around at year dot. And we'll all be considered much dumber when compared to the kid stuck in the corner for failing "Basic Space Piloting skills" in Kindergarten in the year 2500.

        Nice try, but false. You might get away with averages (though I doubt that) or with knowledge (that would work, depending in the scale used), but I think the far end of the scale ("dumbest") has remained pretty constant. I'd imagine it has even dropped, because some severe brain damages are no longer fatal. By the way as for the scale issue mentioned above, if you use "knows x percent of the world knowledge" 21st century Joe wouldn't look so damn bright anymore either.

      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...).

        What you are probably trying to say: "the dumbest human alive is doing better on an IQ test than Joe Average in the 10th century". Which might just be true, considering the emphasis on technology that then barely existed, and language, making literacy a key component in "intelligence".

      • by angel'o'sphere (80593) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @08:32PM (#42255775) Homepage Journal

        The dumbest human alive todsy is certainly not more inteligent than an average in the 10th century.
        I even would chalange the idea that they know "more" (looking towards the US education system e.g.)
        They only know DIFFERENT things.

        Can you cross the atlantic in a sailing ship? How many people do you know who can?
        For a typical 10th century Viking that was a no brainer.

        Can you forge sword? You know one who can?

        Can you navigate by the sun under fog? Using a crystal? Did you even know that is easy? Do you know one who can?
        Can you navigate by the stars?

        Can you bake your own bread? Brew your own beer? Build a house on your own (in a few days/weeks)? Build a boat? Make your own tools?

        Do you know when to bring out seeds? When the best time is to harvest? Can you forcast weather for a single day at least?

        Can you provide simple first aid? Clean a wound? Sew a wound?

        Can you make a fire from nothing? Can you hunt a deer? Open it? Skin it?

        Should I continue ....

    • by CityZen (464761)

      Btw, I'd define "stupidity" (in this case) as all those tendencies which will tend to send us (ie, earth inhabitants) toward a premature doom.

      For example, while the desire to procreate might be necessary for our survival, the tendency to over-procreate is a sure recipe for early demise.

      This is what I meant when I said that "good" is hard to define: things that are good on a small scale can be bad at a big scale. Everything has its level of balance, if continuity is the goal.

      This leads to some interesting t

      • by idontgno (624372)

        What should we do to inform our successors of all that we know? Aside from creating space probes that provide hallucinogenic memories to whatever random aliens it encounters, that is?

        Big rocks. Big cubic rocks engraved with our technology. That way, when the elephants evolve into sentience, they can learn our wisdom and take up our self-extincting ways, until they have to send a generational colony ship to conquer another inhabited world. Hilarity will ensue.

        What? It worked for Niven and Pournell. [wikipedia.org]

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Btw, I'd define "stupidity" (in this case) as all those tendencies which will tend to send us (ie, earth inhabitants) toward a premature doom."
        so you are saying the only way to be smart is to be able to see into the future?

        try again.

    • With that though comes regret. What if we become smart enough to realize we should've been working LA's traffic problem instead?

      • With that though comes regret. What if we become smart enough to realize we should've been working LA's traffic problem instead?

        At that point, we'll probably decide, collectively, that the best solution is to just nuke the whole area from orbit.

    • by jamesh (87723) on Monday December 10, 2012 @12:44AM (#42239289)

      Then I think the first thing we need to do is fix stupidity (thus I chose "the human mind").
      That ought to keep us going until we find a better rock to cling to (and a way to get there).

      According to that documentary I watched[1], the situation is utterly hopeless without some sort of breeding program, which is never going to happen.

      [1] Idiocracy [wikipedia.org]

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      The problem with that exploration is that a good part is already done, and abused of it by advertisers, politics and PR people, making us agree, not rebel against, or even reelect people no matter what they do.
    • by tsa (15680)

      There most probably is no better rock we can cling to. And if we find a rock that is good enoug and a way to get there, don't you think we'll mess it up just as badly as this one? People will be people, also on another planet.

      • by deimtee (762122)

        And if we find a rock that is good enoug and a way to get there, don't you think we'll mess it up just as badly as this one? People will be people, also on another planet.

        No. I think there will be a strong selection effect on who goes. A distant planetary population descended from those smart, tough, and brave enough to get there is going to be several sigma better than this one.

    • Actually we need to study them all. We really need to put more focus on research and science, and come up with a sustainable way to fund these researchers and scientists, at the same time getting the media away from proclaiming "A Scientist Said this so it must be true!" for every paper that hasn't been peer reviewed, and accepted.

      The biggest problem is all this proclamation from unfinished science making science look bad. Because it seems like they are waffling back and forth on every issue. Because the pr

  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:07PM (#42237223)
    It is imperative the human race generates settlements OFF this planet...everything else pales in comparison. Now as to whether or not the hairless monkeys are worthy of continued survival...that's a discussion for another forum.
    • by warrigal (780670) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:15PM (#42238815)
      With 70% of our planet's surface under at least 1 mile of water it makes more sense to develop ways of exploring (and exploiting) the oceans. We really have no idea what's down there. The "abyssal plains" of the '70s are disproved. What next? Of course, a nice big phallic rocket with lots of noise, fire and smoke will thrill Joe SixPack but where's the payoff? Mining asteroids? You're kidding, right? We can't even get back to the moon.
      • Settlements beneath the waves could ease the burdens on the Earth's finite resources caused by exponential human population growth trends...but it does little to ensure our species continued survival if something untoward happens to the rock we sail through space on. And we're not shooting for the moon. An interplanetary expedition is next!
    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      It would be the way to go if earth life shall survive in the long term - find other places in the galaxy to settle. Not all will be successful, and maybe humans won't thrive there but the chance is that some parts of life from Earth still can take foothold somewhere else.

      The sun ages and will in a billion years or two be hotter and burn Earth - so much that our current talk about Global Warming is just petty bickering.

    • by SirGarlon (845873) on Monday December 10, 2012 @11:20AM (#42242403)

      I'm troubled when intelligent people regard our planet as disposable.

      Due to speed-of-light limitations, huge fuel requirements, and the medical effects of microgravity and radiation exposure, I am not convinced an interstellar voyage will ever be survivable by humans, even as a multi-generational undertaking.

      We can live on this rock just fine as long as we keep this environment survivable. Stabilize population size and advance technology to the point where we can live comfortably on renewable and recycled resources, and we're good until the sun becomes unstable. I count that as "long term."

      • I'm troubled when intelligent people regard our planet as disposable.

        Well, given that environmentalism has gone from a fringe ideology espoused by hippies to a major political platform, I'd say we're moving in the right direction. The real question is whether we'll get there in time.

      • Rather than disposable, let's call the Earth what it is at the moment: indispensable. Rather than imagine what interstellar plight or earthly blight could render us back to the dark ages, or worse, the primordial mix, let's acknowledge that such things are plausible. The lack of redundancy leaves us wide open for a disaster with no mulligan.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        All things end, all thing are finite. The planet will get used up.
        We can, and should, do what is reasonable to slow the process, but we can not stop it.
        So we have to mitigate it, and look to outside sources. That process is energy intensive, and takes a long time. This is why we need to start now.

  • Missing option (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Subatomic Particles!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:04PM (#42238753)

    I object to this poll. I never have to deal with LA rush hour. I'm tired of this LA-centric site! There are cities in California besides LA you know! Where is the option for me?

    Oh wait. There it is... "Outer space." My bad!

    • Trust me, if we can solve LA at rush hour, quantum computing, protein folding and FTL travel will be a breeze.

      • by Cenan (1892902) on Monday December 10, 2012 @02:57AM (#42239817)

        Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

        • by azalin (67640)
          I would pay money to see the press conference where this plan gets into motion. On second thought the riots shortly afterwards would probably be even more entertaining.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

          Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

          Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

          • by xaxa (988988) on Monday December 10, 2012 @08:39AM (#42241059)

            Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

            Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

            That is why American society is so car-centric.

            The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

            • Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

              Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

              That is why American society is so car-centric.

              The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

              ..and "Disallow private vehicles.." enables people to travel how?

              Here's a clue for you: People wanting to drive places in cars isn't a USA thing; it's a worldwide thing, due to a number of fundamental practical differences between driving in one's own car and using public transport of any type.

              • by xaxa (988988)

                That is why American society is so car-centric.

                The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

                ..and "Disallow private vehicles.." enables people to travel how?

                So did you accept my point?

                Disallowing all private vehicles is extreme for a wide area, but common for small areas (bus lanes, bus-only roads). Increasing the cost to use a private vehicle (tolls, parking charges, fuel tax) can increase the overall efficiency, or decrease the overall costs. That's what I hope city planners aim for, rather than simply wondering how to fit more cars into the city.

                One out of nine developers in this office drove here. It's not like we can't afford it: the preferable journey

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              It's not that we're car centric, it's that we're gently anti social and cars enable that.

              Not seriously anti-social, despite what the anti-gun psychotics, or the pro-healthcare movement think. But it is gentle, and it is socially pervasive.

              We don't want public transportation. We don't want to live in cities.

              Yes, there are younger, highly socialized demographics that crave urban areas...public transportation, a new restaurant every night. A small, 'simple' apartment. But oddly enough that isn't a demograp

        • by Dynedain (141758)

          Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

          This works in a lot places, like London, New York, or Chicago, but why doesn't it work in LA?

          Because LA doesn't have a city center.

    • I had a couple business trips to LA and, maybe it was where I was at, but I was neither intimidated by the freeways or bogged down in traffic. In fact, I found the drivers to be way more considerate about allowing you to merge than I see here in KC.

  • The first four+. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by riverat1 (1048260) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:06PM (#42238763)

    If I could I would vote for the Earth system as a whole. It's all a huge interactive machine with many interconnections. The better we understand how it all works together, the better we understand how we fit into the picture the better we can manage our civilization. And I would include the Moon in the Earth system. Once we're established on the Moon the rest of the Solar System is much closer* than from the surface of the Earth.

    *Closer in terms of the energy (or delta-v) required to get there.

  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NoJustice (2791593) on Monday December 10, 2012 @02:25AM (#42239709)
    If you look at a long enough time scale the only correct answer is outer space. Lets be real. Earth is limited. There is only so much space (assuming resources are not an issue) and humanity (myself included) do not enjoy being packed into a smaller and smaller living space. I say screw entitlements, and increase NASA funding tenfold. Let the stupid people take earth, and Ill see you on the beaches of HD40307g (otherwise known as planet Bob)
    • It would take more than a ten fold increase to just put a permanent habitat on the moon. If you want to put humans in another star system you're talking something more like a ten thousand fold increase and even then, those pesky laws of physics mean that the trip is going to take you a few hundred years minimum.

  • My carpool ride and I had to suffer through two hours even in freeways' carpool lanes and local streets for a 35 miles evening commute on Thursday. Ugh.

  • ... to the substance of my existence and being able to separate it from the mortal ball and chain of my biological matter---avoiding the philosophical aspects, I'm implying something sort of ... technological.

  • by Burning1 (204959) on Monday December 10, 2012 @03:42AM (#42239981) Homepage

    ...do it on a motorcycle.

    Personally, I'd like to explore forbidden or deadly places. Islands that are restricted to humans, old military missle silos... The inside of the Chernobyl reactor.

  • by RR (64484) on Monday December 10, 2012 @04:45AM (#42240187)

    At its essence, L.A. rush hour is a product of industry, run on fossil fuels.

    If we can change our lifestyle so people travel smaller distances every day, and use fewer cramped ground vehicles to get there, then we can go a fair way toward solving the climate change problem. And we'd have less traffic at rush hour.

    • by addie (470476)

      That's exactly why I voted for that option, even though I think it was meant as a joke.

      Redesigning our infrastructure and economy to be more sustainable is far more preferable than driving ourselves into the ground and needing to escape the planet sooner than we would have to otherwise. I'm all for space exploration, but let's not forget about our own backyards.

  • the beauty of the female body!

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Monday December 10, 2012 @12:43PM (#42243237)

    Probably the best shot we have at finding life in this solar system.

  • I voted for 'The Human Mind.'

    Once we have a complete understanding of the Self, all else will come.
  • by Chrisje (471362) on Friday December 14, 2012 @05:07AM (#42285053)

    I just did a ctrl-f on this thread and nobody mentions the word woman.

    I've been married for slightly over 2 years now, and quite frankly I would love to explore the hot body of a woman outside of my marriage more so than outer space. I've had good experiences with Russians, but then I am curious about Brazilians and Moroccans. I'm a liberal man, I can swing many ways.

    Seriously. People. The *only* reference to sex I spotted was Natalie Portman's Beowulf cluster with Cowboy Neal.

    We are a sad, sad forum.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

 



Forgot your password?
Working...