Well, in a sense he’s right, though, not having read the book, I can’t say whether he speaks in this context or not. By having a virtually inexhaustible supply of some commodity, we do become “wealthy”, in terms of not being restricted by limited access to the material. But people whose wealth is based upon limit future supply versus demand will be impoverished.
Ultimately, wealth isn’t cash in hand; it’s the ability to affect a change in your environment. Which, of course, is in itself a justification for scientific research.
Well, in a sense he’s right, though, not having read the book, I can’t say whether he speaks in this context or not. By having a virtually inexhaustible supply of some commodity, we do become “wealthy”, in terms of not being restricted by limited access to the material. But people whose wealth is based upon limit future supply versus demand will be impoverished.
Ultimately, wealth isn’t cash in hand; it’s the ability to affect a change in your environment. Which, of course, is in itself a justification for scientific research.
No. What I knew is what others have said, namely that Hubble is obsolete, that some earth based telescopes are already better than Hubble, and that it’s time to move on.
Why is it that I suspect that you knew nothing of the kind, yesterday? Perhaps it’s because you didn’t say anything like that, yesterday, instead choosing to quibble about who decides to spend money on stuff?
Your reply to Reeder is a non sequitur, and I strongly suspect that you know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.
'Cause Reeder was quibbling about money in his OP, which I read yesterday. Later, he said Hubble was the “best eye on the universe”, which I read this morning.
I’m afraid you have me confused with someone who gives a shit about what you suspect.
Well, the Keck in Hawaii, and the VLT in Chile are both much more sensitive to light and much less expensive. Hubble is 30-year-old technology. Microcomputers in the 1990s brought us technologies like adaptive optics.
Alright, if we’re going to use Wikipedia as a referee, you should note that it refutes your claim:
And since I’ve gone to the effort of actually looking things up for you, I expect a response more sensible than “It’s 1/7 the cost!”. I’ve got a pair of binoculars that cost maybe a billionth what the Hubble did, but they ain’t better than the Hubble.
The telescopes themselves are better than (ie. more sensitive to light than) the Hubble telescope, but they’re in an atmosphere which makes them marginally worse, overall. The money will be better spent on a telescope as good as the Earth ones, but in space.
Lib said nothing wrong. Your petty harrassment is undignified.
Um, Lib is pretty clueless on the subject, and despite what you say, he is wrong. And I’m not engaged in petty harassment, here. Lib started this with a nonsensical attack on Reeder.
Lib is a pretentious, uneducated, reasonably intelligent person, with some strongly held convictions, and a few mental health issues. You see some admirable qualities there, and so do I. But when he acts like a stupid asshole, I tell him. And you do too, I’ve seen you do it.
If you were quoting that paragraph honestly, you would have included the part where it notes that both the Keck and VLT are considerably more sensitive to light than Hubble, while having almost the same resolution and costing a seventh as much. It takes a pretty unusual interpretation to declare them outright worse, given this extra information. I’m sure that’s not why you elided that particular detail, though. Perhaps you feel that resolution is the sole measure of a telescope’s performance? If so, it strikes me as unusual that you’re accusing others of being clueless…
And just for the record, I have no “mental health issues”. The medication that I took (steroids) was for a pinched sciatic nerve, as I explained way back when.
