Why are Wasting Money on Space?

Beauty and wonder are lost on some.

Why spend billions on space research when there are hungry people on Earth?

Perspective Time: NASA gets seven billion dollars annually. Americans spend one hundred and fifty-four billion a year on alcohol.

The Space Program is only one half of one percent of the budget. It’s also one of the few investments that pays back. For every dollar spent on Space Program research, it gives back eight dollars to the economy. All the money from the patents owned by NASA go directly into the US economy. Can we afford to give this up?

We went to a desert and didn't kill anyone. That's noble.

I could also rephrase the question: Why do you feel you need to spend money on luxuries when you know you could help people? It’s more apt to say “Why would you spend money to further your own education if you could just give your tuition money to the poor?” It’s an investment. Learning and exploring is always worth it; it just happens that the Space Program is paying back wonderfully on paper, too.

I’m glad that it is paying back, because people don’t understand the true value of exploration. If there is a population greater than 1, we can assume there will always be problems that affect people. If we believed we could cure the problems by staying put and learning nothing, fine.

That’s nowhere near the case.

Have humans done anything worthwhile without exploring?

Two things motivate human learning and progress: exploration and war. As a race, the need to advance, to become more, is absolute and I would much rather have my money go to exploration. I’d rather learn the beauty of a distant nebula when viewed in different wavelengths, than spend hundreds of times more to learn that 2000 more Americans died in the Middle East last month.








Space program research had led to:

• Miniaturization and mass-production of electronics. We’d still have clunky black and white TV’s and room-sized computers that do little more than a calculator without the Space Program.
• Health. We have more accurate and affordable ways of detecting and treating breast cancer. We all know a breast cancer survivor, even if we don’t know we do. Thanks, Space Program! We also have the artificial hearts.
• Ball-point pens. Wouldn’t you love to have to carry around an inkwell?
• Food. TONS of benefits in growing food and making it healthier. When the USDA adopted measures learned from the Space Program, salmonella dropped two-fold. We can now produce much more food with the same or fewer resources. There’s your hunger argument right there.
• GPS has and will continue to save lives, allowing first-responders immediate location details.
• Heroes that don’t wage wars, or shoot one another. Not only that, but we go the extra mile to cooperate internationally and foster good will. Children have hope that they can do something big. To make a difference without being a warmonger or Hollywood piece of fluff.
• Why Mars? The technology developed for examining the surface of Mars has been turned on documents charred in the eruption of Mount Freakin’ Vesuvius. There is text being read that was destroyed 2000 years ago.

There has always been the need to explore. What makes us “intelligent”, in human terms, is our ability to question. “Why are we here?” and “Are we alone?” are big ones. If you don’t believe me, look at how well churches are doing.

We need to explore, to learn, to challenge ourselves, and rise to those challenges. It’s in our nature. We would never survive as a species if we didn’t push our limits. Nor would we deserve to.

Geek Gals

This will be my first non-tech post on this blog. I usually post mental ramblings on my What's in Ben's Head blog, but this suits geekdom and nerdiness so much more.

THIS

A friend of mine, Kristin Mason of “The Comfy Chair Popcast”, posed an interesting geek question.

I'm female and I am a self-proclaimed geek. I enjoy geek culture. I talk to other geeks and go to cons when I can afford to. I am annoyed at the online portrayal of female geeks by geeky websites. I should specify the photos. I enjoy sexy geek pictures, both male and female, but why do 99%+ of photos of female geeks have to be sexual in nature. Ugh! Am I just subscribed to the wrong blogs/pages?!

NOT THIS. 

She adds:

Of course I want geeky women (and men) to flaunt their sexy if they feel so inclined. I think that's normal and fun. I just wish there were was slightly less use of women as sexual objects in our geek culture. There are many strong female cosplayers that we might find sexy, but aren't presenting themselves as sexual objects.

It got me thinking. I’ll wait while you crack jokes at my expense and giggle to yourselves.

Okiedokie, then, I had a pretty well-reasoned answer to the question, then my brain wouldn’t shut up. The short answer is: Guys, as a whole, are perverts, and geeks are no exception. There’s a little more to understand, though.

For the record, I’m a geek, but those costumed girls(cosplay) do nothing for me. I will admit that a photo of a woman with a book or glasses just plain looks more attractive.

Yeah, geek gals do this to me. I have a brain in my head, but  I'm a  guy.

Growing up, it was exceptionally hard to talk to a female that I thought was attractive. I was a geek. Not the kind today that’s just a different kind of cool, but a real geek. I read books, I didn’t watch sports and my interests were always my own. I loved “discovering” things. Be it books, movies, shows, that relatively few were even aware of. The more obscure, the better. I was hardly popular.

Girls were, and remain, a mystery to me. When I see a photo of a beautiful woman, even a pretty one, I automatically think that it’s no one who ever would have given awkward teenage Ben the time of day. That’s okay, because, as much as he would love to, he would have nothing to say.

When Teenage Ben got familiar with a girl he liked, he turned into a dweeb. He would automatically agree with anything she said, try, at least, to like anything she liked, and wouldn’t say “no” to save his life, all for the chance to be closer to someone he had on a pedestal. This was tortuous, but he felt being himself would just be a big turn-off.

It’s a sad, lonely-feeling existence for a boy. Not a lot makes one hate themselves more than knowing all this obscure stuff, while at the same time thinking you’re not interesting enough.

The geek, however, learns to appreciate being more cerebral. Some turn to comic books, which are literary and visual flights of fancy, which also serve to categorize types of people s/he may not interact with regularly. Some prefer movies, TV shows, Sci-fi/Fantasy. There’s an escape there, but one which requires imagination and understanding to a certain degree. As such, we don’t rely on societal standards for what we should enjoy, or who we should find beautiful

Enter the “Geek Girl”. This is a woman who, we are to believe at least, is a beauty as well as a geek. We see pictures in costumes. Pictures in glasses. Pictures with books. (The last two, for me, has me acting  like a wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon...in my mind.). The woman tends to fit the generally accepted definition of attractive as well. It’s perplexing. The thought of some odd interest or hobby taking on a sexual twist. Plenty of geeks can’t ignore it.

Sometimes, it’s simply that the geekiness in an image of a woman hints at what may be on the inside. It gets the mind going. It’s purely fantasy, just a photo. Geeks aren’t used to being sold this, however.

For years, girlie pictures have been pretty standard. Women with a certain body type, dressed in as little as possible. Mindless fluff. (Not that some of the girls are mindless, but we’re not being sold on that)

Geeks are suddenly having girlie pictures aimed at THEM. As a whole, our social filters aren’t the best, and many of us haven’t quite worked out how to handle objectification of the opposite sex, and too many get carried away. Just look at “Sexy Pikachu”. Look it up online, I'll have none of it here, as I find that disturbing.

The overtly sexual geek girl pictures aim for guys who may not realize that they are basically looking at porn. It's a geek picture that happens to feature a pretty girl. At least, it’s not how he justifies it in his head. It’s the geek equivalent of “I read Playboy for the articles.”.

There is something special about a woman who is comfortable with being a geek, and has a positive physical self-image, too. There is a huge difference between being comfortable with yourself and begging for validation. Not everyone sees it, though. Those people tend to be the ones seeking validation.

On to the real geek girl, not the fake ones in pictures.

The real thing is much better. A real geek girl doesn’t just have hobbies, she is fascinated by something. Most anything. There’s a true love of learning, mainstream society be damned. She knows what she likes, so isn’t needlessly threatened by things she doesn’t like or understand. The mere ability to carry on a passionate conversation about something obscure makes her attractive. 

You know what? The real thing wins out over a picture any time. In this case, the picture isn’t worth nearly enough words.

Fortunately, I know one or two geek girls. One was mentioned at the top of my page, another has a book blog: Honesty in Book Reviews. What a great blog title.

Old-School Rural Geekery

I grew up in central Maine.
I had a computer when I was 7 - in 1982.
Man, did I not ever fit in.

Insane in the membrane keyboard

There were two computers I considered my "first". One was an Atari 400 with a membrane keyboard, and a cassette tape drive. Loading from those sounded fun. CLOAD, anyone? 

I absolutely loved messing around with the computer. There were a few games that were available. I played "Snooper Troopers" and "In Search of the Most Amazing Thing" from long-defunct Spinnaker Software. Those were great thinky games.

I loved the "click" the keyboard made.

Two whole games, oddly enough, did not satisfy this naturally curious mind. My uncle, who handed down the computer - an IBM PC with 2, count 'em, TWO, 5.25" floppy drives. It was heavily upgraded, with a 380k memory expansion card on top of the original 128k, and mouse interface card. Sweet deal, with CGA graphics.

I'll wait while you Google most of that stuff.

There were boxes of floppies, some of which had interesting programs - written in BASIC, that I could mess with. Mess I did.

I broke so many programs. I did so incrementally, so I could go back and fix it if it became unusable. I managed to write some nifty little programs - again, which kids didn't do in the early 80's - and I had my fun.

Here's the thing - both computers were at my great-grandmother's house, but she lived next door. I would go over and ask to use the computer, and for every hour I spent on the computer I had to do different chores for her. I thought it was a pretty sweet deal, and made me get real use out of the things.

It would be several years before people commented on how great kids were doing in learning computer skills. That would be with the advent of the Commodore 64. I never had one of those. I never needed it.

Even to this day, grow-ups are amazed at how much kids know about computers.

Not this "grown up".

When I was in high school, I had to read about the internet. The IBM PC was just plain not capable of connecting, even if there were a connection available, and the Atari had long since fried. The local college had a computer center that I could go into and practice my "skills", and I got familiar with command-line internet. There were "chat rooms", or "talkers", one could log into if you knew the address. TELNET was how I spent my internet time, I rarely delved into HTTP, as it was too new.

I made several friends online - no one was perving for kids because kids didn't know about the net. I got kicked off campus several times - the closest thing I had to troublesome teen years.

Then the mid-nineties happened. Available tech was more and more powerful, thanks to Moore's law, and there was a thing called CompuServe. People handed me the "free" sign-on floppies, because I had a computer. I told them I couldn't connect without a modem. They invariably told me to try it out anyway. 

 I taped over the write-protect tab so I could format and use the floppies, until the 3.5" floppy became standard. That brought an abrupt end to my home computing days, for a few years. I still used what I could to write short stories. I found out I had a sense of humor! I also found out that said sense of humor was not for everyone.

AOL, GEnie and Prodigy came on the market, innundating people with "FREE" minutes of service - almost none of it connecting to the internet - they were glorified BBS - Bulletin Board Systems - with a Graphical User Interface (GUI).

When they started advertising on TV, I knew people were getting stupid. "AOL is the internet!" is a phrase I can't scrape from my brain no matter how hard I try.

Then Y2K came. That will be an entirely different post, with a lot of ranting and colorful language.

Internet is so common now, it's almost a giving, and kids have no idea how technology works, so long as they can access funny cat videos.

I'm constantly having to answer "Do you have the internet?" if I visit someone and bring my laptop. Kids say things like "They don't have internet here, can I use your computer?". I try to get them to think about it.

"If there's no internet here, how will I connect?" I ask.
"Don't you just have the internet?"

I try oh so hard to explain what the internet is. I couldn't possibly bring it with me. The child seems to get it.

"Oh.", he'll say, "Can I just download Minecraft then?"

This is a repeated conversation. How my head hasn't exploded yet, I don't know. I do have one serious point to make after all this.

Like guns or cars, information and access to it is powerful, and should be handled responsibly. Children should not have such rampant access without having to understand what it is and at least a basic understanding of how it works.

"Smart" Phones

Oddly enough, there are still people that haven't jumped head-first into the ocean of smartphones. Every so often, someone will ask my advice, though more often than that I'll put in my two cents. Before going on much more, I want to explain some things:

• I will NOT tell you what phone to buy.
• I will NOT tell you what NOT to get.
• I prefer the Android OS(Android is not a phone)
• iPhones are JUST FINE. I say that because you may expect the opposite after me stating my Android preference.
• I want to help people make their own decisions, not tell them to get what I might like.

 The Elephant in the Room: Do I even want a smartphone?

 I had similar issues with people when I was working on computers for a living: People want the newest and most powerful, assuming that makes it "best". And if they make it, you need it.

Do you want your phone making noise every time you get an email, Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/blahblahblah notification? If you never get any of those anyway, you may not want a smartphone. If you just need to talk(people STILL do that!) or even text, think about the extra expense.

Smartphones require an often pricey data package. That means you are paying extra for another internet connection. Most programs(apps, short for "applications") use the heck out of this connection, and often in the background. It also is to blame for shorter battery life. No, really. Something uses more power when it does more. It makes certain sphincters clench every time I hear someone complain about battery life.

If you love the idea of apps, but don't want to be connected, an e-book reader or low-end tablet is a good start, coupled with a more traditional phone. It's a lot cheaper, and you can buy a tablet from  somewhere besides a cell phone provider, and not worry about being stuck with it for two years. If you know you need this stuff to be on your phone, there will be better and cheaper ones by the time you come to that conclusion.

Tablets are essentially the same technology as smartphones, without the telephone radio. It's all radio waves, based on nearly century-old police radio technology. Nothing magic. No microwaves(those would be terribly inefficient for carrying voice calls anyway).

Off on a Tangent...

I mention that last bit, because some people are afraid of cell phones. There is a video of four cell phones that pop a kernel of popcorn when they ring.  There is so much wrong with that video.

• It's the same type of signal as FM radio. Put popcorn near a bunch of radios. Nothing.
• To ring, the phone recieves a signal. It doesn't generate or magically pull radio waves out of the air. This is stuff going through the air all the time, whether or not you have a phone.
• It states on the original source of the video that is was not a real thing, and it was done as a viral marketing campaign

 If there's something new that someone doesn't understand, they will say it causes cancer. You know what? Cell phone users, regardless of usage, have no higher rate of cancer than any other type of person. Anyone who shows you X-rays of tumors "near" where a person has there phone is picking and choosing from literally millions of brain pictures in existence. You can prove anything that way. You could pick and choose tumors that look like letters and spell out a stern warning from God if you wanted. The real statistics from people NOT trying to make you purchase their products don't back it up.
People like to make up danger. They get the thrill of danger, while remaining perfectly safe.

Back on track...

 If you've come this far, and want to get a smartphone for real, that's fine. They're fun! They can be handy, or they can aid in the destruction of the family unit. Like anything with any amount of power(that you let it have), it's about what you do with it.

I'm going to cover the three main flavors. I'll cover some alternatives in another post: Windows Phone, Android and iPhone.

Windows Phone

If you're an avid Windows user, this still may not be for you. Windows phone and the traditional Windows environments are not as similar as they would like you to believe. Windows 8, however, is designed for tablets. I like having a computer with a real keyboard, but to each his own. My first computer was an Atari 400(anyone?) with a membrane keyboard. I'll take touchscreen over that any day.

If you plan on getting Windows 8, you may enjoy Windows phone. It will be a nearly seamless transition working with files on your computer and phone. You can sync. You can use "The Cloud"(don't get me going again on that term).

Microsoft has money to blow in expanding their app market, so you can rest a little easier on the future. They ARE blowing vast sums, and it's actually paying off. It does help that translating an app from Windows to mobile will be a snap. Good for encouraging developers.

iPhone

I don't care what you've heard. iPhone didn't start it all. They sunk the most into showing people what they could do with a smartphone. They got a solid app market. They made it an experience, not just a thing to have. Good on them for their marketing skills. That's all it is, really: marketing.

Hello, world.

The iPhone is solid, and reliable. What you get, hardware-wise, is not worth the money. If the condescending Android user calls iPhone users dumb, the condescending iPhone user calls Android users "poor".

What I consider the real drawbacks, a non-power-user would consider a benefit. Apple runs the show. That means it's their butt on the line if there's a bug in the system, and they fix it. They give you a consistent experience, stuff crashes, like anything complex, but not so much. It's the lack of choice and customization, comparitively,  that makes it work so well.

You hear a lot about the Retina(tm) display. That means there's a ton more pixels than the average phone, giving you a clearer picture. Rather than a phone advertising 1080p (HD), Retina(tm) is a trademark.

The iPhone is not a device to do great, innovative things. It is a device to do what you know you want to do already, and to do it reliably, and pretty. And boy, is it pretty. And smooth, boy howdy! If you can afford it, and don't want to mess with it, it may be a fine choice.

Android

Trivia: This guy's name is Andy

Android is an operating system, developed by Google, for free. FREE. FREE. I don't just mean they let you use it and don't charge you for it, they let you do what you want. Hack it, run stuff they don't approve of. It's based on a Linux core, which is a user-developed operating system, about as good an OS as you can get. (Apple's OSX is also Linux-based, but they charge money for other people's work, by making it pretty.).

Android launched with multi-tasking (having more than one program run at once), and over-the-air updates allowed early Android users camcorcer functionality without having to buy a new device. With the innovation of the open-source community, an Android phone can be a thing of power. That's why people complain about battery use. The phone is doing so much more, at once, but a lot of it is in the background. I've ranted enough about that.

If you're adventurous, you can visit xda-developers.com or cyanogenmod.com. You can learn everything about the system. What it can do, where it's going, and interesting "hacks" the open-source community has to offer. You can even find forums full of helpful people that would help you learn write your own Android app.

What you get on the surface with Android, out of the box, is similar to an iPhone. There's more customizability with Android. You get 5-7 home screens, you can customize the wallpaper and all the sounds. Free apps on the market offer further customization, which should be the main selling point, aside from price.

The ability to do so much comes at a price. There may be sloppy programming by some developers, or two apps can try to use the same block of memory, resulting in a crash (force close) much more frequently. Such is the price of freedom, I say, but only because I'm OK with picky technology. I've learned to be it's boss. Don't try to do more at once than you need to, and you should be fine.

You're also not set to the device that one company tells you to buy. You can shop around, from something basic to something that rivals a good home computer.  You can get a device that looks slick as snot, or blocky, menacing, or pretty. I love choice.

Unlike Windows and Apple, Android doesn't add to the cost of the phone. Anyone can make an Android device. I'm reminded of the 1980's Microsoft vs. Apple.

Story Time

In the 80's, Windows was in it's infancy, and wasn't even an operating system. IBM had developed the home PC(Personal Computer), and shipped DOS(Disk Operating System). Microsoft quickly developed a DOS which was far superior, and MS-DOS replaced the previous PC-DOS. IBM could make computers and let Microsoft focus on software.

IBM soon realized it's main consumer group was business. Microsoft shipped it's specs to all the tech companies, and soon everyone was building the "PC Compatible". You got a choice of computer, Microsoft stuck with what it did best, and prices for computers fell through the floor, thanks to competition.

Apple, about the same time, had been dabbling in the home computer market, and certain higher-ups from Microsoft and Apple had a falling out, and Apple's vision was realized: We'll make the software, and the computer. That means with an apple - Apple, Apple II, AppleIIe(Oregon Trail!), Newton, and Macintosh were what Apple said they had to be. Less people bought them, due to price.

That is why Windows is so ubiquitous nowadays. Competition always benefits the consumer. For all the "Windows COPIED Mac!!" arguments, Modern Macs are designed with what people in the PC market like the most. If it weren't for the competition of the PC market, home computing would still be in it's infancy.

None of this makes either option "better", but one or the other may be better for you.

Back on Track...

There is no magic answer to "What phone should I get?", but you should know the non-fanboy reasoning behind the three main types of phones. iPhone gives you design and a status symbol, and a bit more reliability. From what I've read, the phones don't last(in general). Then again, people say that about anything.

NEVER listen to the argument that any carrier makes bad phones. Carriers don't make phones at all. Any piece of technology will have people that had one of them, had a bad experience, and says that all of that product suck because of that. They say it loudly and often. There are a ton more people that are just fine with their device. They use it like it's an extension of themselves,  but they don't make a fuss about it.

People are much more likely to state a negative experience.

Take the basics, look at certain models of phones, and figure out what it's supposed to do for you that another one may not. Decide if it's something you want with you all the time. Most importantly, make sure when you buy a device of exactly what the return policy is, if you're having the slightest doubts in the return period - take it back. Being stuck with something less than stellar becomes a huge burden over the course of a two year contract.

OMG! Change, on the INTERNET???

Did you know it really is possible to disable the Facebook timeline? Most links that promise this are scams of some sort. What they do, is have your computer tell the internet it's running an older version of Internet Explorer. Any extra programming goes into suppressing the many errors this causes. Do you hate the timeline enough to cripple the whole internet?
Go to FBPURITY.COM.  
Most other apps that promise the same thing infect your computer with malware. That's what happens with bandwagons.

The Facebook timeline is now "mandatory". This is one of the worst examples of people hating change just for the sake of hating it. You know how I know?
"i hope i never get timeline too much like myspace" is a comment I see on most every thread regarding it. People who haven't even tried it, complaining and swearing because of a complaint that isn't even valid.

To be fair, it is a lot like Myspace, in that it isn't at all like Myspace.

Myspace had boxes all over your screen, you could change your layout, add backgrounds, music, blah de blah... timeline is a two-column view, with a cover photo. No boxes. No music playing in the background while cutesy little hearts fall like snow. Nothing on Myspace was two columns. Timeline is two columns. I don't get the association.

Before I go much further, I should mention I DO differentiate between people hating something because it's new, and people who genuinely prefer a bland list of everything.

There are people circulating pictures and posts saying "Get rid of timeline". They aren't going to. The modern internet is still in it's early stages. No company wants to put "The social network for people who hate new things" as a bullet point. Everything changes. Technology moves fast.

When I ask people why they hate the timeline, it usually winds up being something about their games being harder(different) to access. That is not facebook's fault. Facebook is not a gaming site. It is a social network, on which you are able to access games. FB sends it's app developers all the info they need to make their games as user friendly as possible with any future changes. If the app developer wants to, they can tweak their programming, if not, it's subject to the default formatting style of Facebook.

The next most common argument is that it's confusing. It's different, yes. It takes some getting used to, yes. If you honestly acquaint yourself with the new layout, and still think two columns are confusing, then please leave a comment below as to how you ever got through a newspaper or textbook in your life.

Facebook even has a help section for the timeline. I wonder, out of how many people post pictures and reposts about how much the timeline sucks, who has taken the time to read anything about it, or even try and get used to it. Because it doesn't seem like people are even trying.

Things to try:
Have you had a child? On your timeline, click the year they were born. If a happy little birth announcement doesn't show up, you can put it in. You don't have to.

Have fun with the cover photo! It really looks nice.

There are some posts you want to give more weight to? Click the star in the upper-right corner. It gets "highlighted" and spans over both columns.

The idea behind Timeline is that it's more like a scrapbook. You know where they got the idea? From the millions of profiles that list "scarpbooking" as a like or a hobby. Who knew? They actually listened to you.

You're not under any obligation to maintain your profile. Nothing new is being shared. If you don't want people looking at something you posted a year ago, hide it. Don't like having to do that with all the posts you want hidden? Maybe you shouldn't have posted it to begin with. And whose fault is that? Maybe with that in mind some people won't post things that shouldn't be posted. I can dream.

The internet is a powerful tool. It also changes faster than most people can get used to. Huddling in masses with torches and pitchforks, waiting to go after something because it looks a little different doesn't help matters. If you're going to use a powerful tool, you should take the time to learn about it.

Again, some people want the "original" look back because it's what they are used to. I chuckle at that, because what they want is NOT the original look at all, but one of the many layout changes in Facebook's short history. I miss my "Drink Recipe of the Day" and "Graffiti" boxes on my profile, and thought the list view was bland. I didn't write a post for people to forward, I got used to it. Now, I have some customization ability back, but not so much where I can make my page blast country music and rain smileys. I think it's a great balance. Not my own personal ideal, but I really do think it's more user-friendly and pleasant to look at than a list.

If you want a list, go shopping. If you don't like timeline as a matter of preference, fine. This is not about you. If you are one of the many who spends all your time complaining about it, instead of seeing what you might actually like about it - Don't have kids. There will inevitably be a time where you have to say "How do you know you don't like it if you won't try it?" or "Tough. You have to have what everyone else has."

And then you'd be the tiniest bit hypocritical.