I think you have missed the point of my second paragraph, "If you want to justify space exploration on economics, then you must accept that economics will set the schedule." In economic arguments, you cannot simply treat imagined future needs as if they were actual current needs.

A lot of space boosterism displays confusion over the proper use of the present and future tenses.

Good, then the prof. is right - there's no point in the government spending money on developing technology that private enterprise can so easily and profitably create.

Water on on earth is needed, and in large quantities. Water in orbit is currently only being used by a few nations' vanity projects.

If you want to justify space exploration on economics, then you must accept that economics will set the schedule.

Thanks for your informative post. In addition, there is an issue that I was unaware of until I read it in the original article here: "...Challenger's external fuel tank disintegrated, throwing the orbiter into the local airflow at forces way above design tolerances. It ripped apart, claiming the lives of seven astronauts."

Implying that even if Challenger could have been separated cleanly and undamaged from the exploding tank, it would not have survived. A stronger, and therefore heavier or smaller orbiter, does not seem to be feasible, given the extent to which the shuttle design was already stretching the envelope.

That's why we are back to capsules, I guess.

"We are trying to identify the technologies that can help human workers minimize their contact with Ebola." said Taskin Padir, an assistant professor of robotics engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

That technology exists: protective clothing, properly used, and sanitary waste disposal. If you can't get that, you won't be able to get robots. If you have it but cannot organize its correct use, there is an effective solution, but it doesn't involve robotics.

Only if he claims to have achieved those original goals.

This new definition of AI is several steps down from what Minski, McCarthy and company were aiming for. While this work is the direct descendent of theirs, and is often significant and sometimes impressive in its own right, there is an odor of self-congratulatory aggrandizement about the current usage.

All the results presented in the linked article show measures of perceived warmth, not trustworthiness. The author of the article clearly thinks a measure of warmth is also a measure of trustworthiness, but makes no attempt to justify making that highly dubious association, nor states whether she got it from the researcher (given the tone of the article and the title of the paper, I suspect she did.)

To anyone with a mature theory of mind, your position is clearly intended to indicate doubt, and your claim of open-minded curiosity is a pretense, as is made obvious by your self-confessed lack of effort to correct your ignorance, and your bogus dismissal of valid sources. You are apparently not only a denier, but a passive-aggressive one.

You seem to be confusing science with religion - that is where you find the 'truth' written down once and for all. Where do you think science comes from? A bible-like collection of textbooks? In reality, science starts in uncertainty and reaches a consensus only if and only if the evidence is strong. In the case of global warming, that is what has happened.

So by your own admission, you either haven't tried very hard to inform yourself, or you are too prejudiced to accept valid information. The latter certainly counts as denial. The former - claiming that there is little evidence on the basis of only "briefly attempt[ing] to search for evidence online" - is also a form of denial.

In-depth analysis requires a real understanding of statistics as well as of the domain. CS knowledge, at least as commonly taught, is not a substitute for for the statistics requirement.

This is not a valid analogy. HLLs automated some of the rote, mechanical aspects of implementing algorithms. They do not automate away the need for a higher-level understanding of what you are doing.