Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

 
User avatar
MobPsycho
Posts: 0
Joined: March 20th, 2002, 2:53 pm

Did NASA have a risk management failure

February 10th, 2003, 12:50 pm

*****I kind of agree with him that its better to work on immediate problems around us like Global Warming*****This is such a joke, you have completely missed the point. Global warming already has been solved. Because you see, the problem at the outset, was to discover a neat new package in which they could sell socialism. The challenge was to invent this "problem" and sell it to you. The fact that you now believe in it means their goal has been achieved. I am sure every idiot would like to come up with some scheme to convince you he is relevant.Good grief, Quantie, I don't see you flying around with a thermometer. Show me the evidence that global warming is a "problem." And next time you buy a new car, I am sure I can expect you to pay $1,500 extra for some special extra sealant or extended exhaust-system warranty!MP
 
User avatar
plessas
Posts: 2
Joined: March 9th, 2002, 10:23 pm

Did NASA have a risk management failure

February 10th, 2003, 1:41 pm

Global warming is not a threat... its an opportunity.. look how Prague was transformed into Venice in a week!rgds,Dimitris
 
User avatar
quantie
Posts: 20
Joined: October 18th, 2001, 8:47 am

Did NASA have a risk management failure

February 10th, 2003, 1:58 pm

I think i wrote that in haste and didn't get bashed up for it, they had several experiments on board which were not necessarily un-important.But like the author mentions some of the experiments could have been done using simulations or even unmanned crafts on earth..MP : I got some tapes for you, of the breaking antartic ice reefs and how they are changing the ocean currents and its resulting consequences... Ya before you dump them as another greenpeace PR tape I will send you some urls....
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 41
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Did NASA have a risk management failure

February 10th, 2003, 2:21 pm

unprecedented fineness of its simulations could result in a better understanding of meteorological phenomena, aTrue, but the arts graduate journo interpretation of this is simply wrong.I don't need to tell a quant community about how chaos simply defeats computation.Further, a computer needs data. A more powerful box needs more data.HIV and climate change will not be defeated by computational dynamics alone. 99% of the work will be test tubes, measurement and trying things to just see what happens. In any case without satellite data we simply wouldn't know about several problems on Earth. However the biggie is not AIDS or CO2, but the big nasty we don't yet know about. Neither can kill the human race, but there are things that could.Maybe Yellowstone is about to form a caldera and make N. America uninhabitable, maybe there is a huge volcano forming under the meditteranean, maybe a rock the size of Texas is heading this way. Maybe sun spots are going up a lot.Prabably not of course , but history shows we're never more than 500 years from a global scale nasty.The shuttle is a flawed platform, and should be replaced, but I'd rather squint at the stars than blunder around in the dark.