Slashdot Mirror
Low-Budget Indian Satellite Launch
Geekonomical writes "On Thursday afternoon, for a mere 15 million U.S. dollars, India launched a meteorological satellite into geo-synchronous transfer orbit some 36,000 kilometres above the equator using a modified version of its highly successful space workhorse, the polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV). The article also claims that China spends 12 times as much as this for a launch!"
If they're truly doing that for a twelfth (what a horrid word) of the cost that China spends, the what the hell is China doing wrong?! Or does China send up a system 12 times better?
..hell, at that price, I'll launch 3! :)
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
A common argument in populist economics is that jobs go to the third world because of lower labor costs. Others counter this argument that it is unskilled labor, and that high-end technologically advanced labor stays within 'advanced' economies (US, Europe, Japan).
So-- is this a case that disproves the counterargument-- that even 'skilled' labor industries can skip to the third world, or is it an indictment against the regulatory pressures/infrastructure costs of trying to launch something under a US/EU umbrella?
There is clearly a glut of satellite launching capacity, yet prices have remained high because?
davejenkins.com |
Why exactly should third world countries be dependant on first-world countries for satellite data ?
.. a lot of this technology is dual use. Deal with it.
Why exactly should third world countries have to pay a stiff price to launch satellites in space when they can do it cheaper ?
Why exactly should anybody have to pay a stiffer price to launch satellites in space when a third world country can do it cheaper (provided they can prove that they can do it reliably).
BTW, India was not a signatory to any treaty prohibiting nuclear testing, but that is a whole other debate. I personally did not support the testing not because I am against it in principle, but because I think it did not serve Indian strategic interests. The problem is that a conservative right-wing party rules the federal govt. in India and they've had "we must have nukes" in their election manifesto for the last 30 years !
In anycase, the US is attempting to limit space research by forcing Russia not to deliver cryogenic engines. However, every attempt to block technology by denial only leads to a determination to develop it on your own. Once you have achieved a certain basic scientific-industrial complex, there is precious little one can do to keep the inexorable march of technology from moving forward.
So, yup
If the US had been more proactive about limiting space research by unstable and undeveloped nations, then we wouldn't have to worry about this.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
The US could just have easily have placed nuclear weapons in space as India could have, as it is only speculation that India has done.
And, although India is less developed than, for example, the US, why should they be forced to stay that way?
You seem to suffer from several misconceptions.
Maybe you are still a teenage kid.
a) India has not signed any treaties including
the big one; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT). Other countries that have not signed
the NPT are Pakistan and Israel.
b) India shocked no-one when they tested
nuclear weapons. Their first test (conducted
quite openly) was in 1974.
c) When you say "we", you don't include
most of the US Population unless you are an
anti-semites and/or anti-Indian's. No one is
worried about India, since it's a stable
"democracy" and has been for 50 years. In
fact, several export controls were recently removed for India and China.
d) The phrase "Third-world" was invented by
India. Look up what it means.
I wouldn't worry about it. The rest of the world has been living with a rogue nuclear (sorry; nukular) state that launches covert satellites for, oh, decades now.
India has not signed any treaties including the big one; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Other countries that have not signed the NPT are Pakistan and Israel.
Israel is rumoured to have nuclear missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the planet and they have made themselves a lot more enemies than India.
I didn't know George Bush was a /.er!!
What a crock of shit. India is a more sophisticated and advanced society than large parts of North America, with one of the most educated populations in the world. To call it third world is insulting, to refer to it as unstable and undeveloped is offensive.
I suggest you find out a bit about the world.
The US recently shocked the global community when it announced an intention to blow the shit out of a country on the other side of the globe just because they didn't like the leaders style, they would continue to pollute the atmosphere at dangerous rates, and continue to fund the biggest damn military threat to world peace ever to have existed.
Fuck the US. Space does not belong to them. The Russians were there first, dammit!
"Information wants to be paid"
I have to wonder if this story doesn't have a more sinister side to it. Recall that India shocked the global community recently when satellite data indicated that they had developed nuclear weapons, despite treaties against such activities. If they can put a weather satellite up this cheaply, then they can probably get nuclear missiles up there for not much more.
What country, other than Pakistan, would India target with nuclear weapons? Attacking Pakistan from India would not require techniques such as FRactional Orbit Bombardment.
If the US had been more proactive about limiting space research by unstable and undeveloped nations,
The attempts by the US, and other Western nations, to manipulate third world countries provide plenty of motivation for most of the world to consider the USA a danger to their national security.
As for danger to rest of the world India is far less of an issue than Israel.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
The US government certainly does not accept this principle. As has frequently been the top story in TV news programmes for the last few months and weeks.
The US could just have easily have placed nuclear weapons in space as India could have, as it is only speculation that India has done.
The US could have done so a lot more easily, simply by virtue of having put far more stuff up there.
Or maybe they already have. If the US had been more proactive about limiting space research by unstable and undeveloped nations, then we wouldn't have to worry about this.
Have you ever wondered why it is that the US wants to regulate (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Saddam Hussein, but hasn't tried to do the same to (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Musharraf? It's because Musharraf already has nuclear weapons, and Saddam doesn't.
The point is: there is a limit to how proactive even the US can be in today's world. I don't think that India would permit itself to be regulated - they have always been fiercely independant people (one of the reasons the British Empire, proportionally stronger in the world back then than the US is now, couldn't hold on to them).
Yes, of course we have to do something about places that have unstable, posssibly insane, unelected leaders, maintain massive nuclear stockpiles, regularly violate international treaties, actively block biological and chemical weapons monitoring, fund active space programs and have had a desire to have weapons in space for years (as long as no-one else can have them).
just like there is no motivation for France, Germany, Japan, UK, Brazil or a few others with nukes to attack the West).
At which point did these fine European nations drop out of "The West". Before the USA we were "The West".
Typical American assh*le syndrome. Where's a moderator when you need one?
The only countries that demonstrably have nuke capabilities (weapon and delivery system) are: US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel. Check out the Federation of American Scientists for further info on matters concerning the weapons of mass destruction.
They already have.
Maybe the US should spend some amount of efforts in being good world citizens and stop meddling about just to get cheap oil? The US have also been very efficient in alienating countries on account of other partner countries they like to protect.
If there are threats against the US its not only because muslims and other non wealthy countries are evil by nature. Something has brought them to this conclusion and its not just the koran or lack of money that is to blame here.
The US is working hard to have a reason to fight Iraq when most other countries dont want war in that region.
Whos the warmonger now?
HTTP/1.1 400
You may be surprised to know that in 2000 years of indian civilisation, India has never ever attacked another nation.
As for nuclear weapon development look at this way, supposed USA didnt have nuclear weapons but canada and mexico did and were hostile to US, how would you feel, scared.. right. So when you have two nulcear armed dictatorships sitting at your borders you cannot expect otherwise.It is real funny a developed nation has a moral right to have nuclear weapons but an underdeveloped dosent.
As far as space reasearch is concerened satellite launches came much after nuclear weapons. India achieved nuclear capability in 1971. Satellite lauches are for an economic reason. Already france and other european and african contries are looking at ISRO as a launchpad for their satellite and this will bring in much needed cash.My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
India is a more sophisticated and advanced society than large parts of North America, with one of the most educated populations in the world. To call it third world is insulting, to refer to it as unstable and undeveloped is offensive.
"Third world" orginally ment not alligned with either the "first world", NATO or the "second world", USSR and Warsaw Pact. IIRC the term originally came from India as a way of indicating their non alignment. Only later did it come to mean "poor".
At which point did these fine European nations drop out of "The West". Before the USA we were "The West".
Typical American assh*le syndrome. Where's a moderator when you need one?
Hey Stuck Up british boy! Hows your "empire" ?? OH wait!! ITS AN ISLAND, A TINY ISLAND!
Make an order for 66 satellites
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
This fits very vell with the "HOWTO spend a billion dollars" story further down on the Slashdot front page today. Imagine how many satelites a billion dollars could get into orbit at this price!
Have you ever wondered why it is that the US wants to regulate (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Saddam Hussein,
Thing is that Saddam Hussein is more of a secular socialist than a radical Moslem.
but hasn't tried to do the same to (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Musharraf? It's because Musharraf already has nuclear weapons, and Saddam doesn't.
More likely the real reason is that Hussein will no longer allow himself to be pushed around the US. The whole "terrorism" thing is a smokescreen. The US is quite happy to let all sorts of terrorists operate in the US, the British government is quite happy to let all sorts of terrorists operate in the UK. Both governments also give some of their tax payers money to supporting terrorists. So it would hardly be suprising if Iraq was prepared to harbourer any terrorists not considering attacking Iraq.
third world... unstable and undeveloped ...
No I disagree -- India might not be as sophisticated and wealthy as some of the other nations but the article talks about a Satellite Launch, which puts India along with a handful of other nations (USA, Russia, France, China and Japan) who can do this.
So, whoever with one billion dollar to spend could launch 66 indian weather satellites ! Very neat, I like that =)
ol' Indian rope trick .
Very Cost effective.
I am sick and tired of this debate. Everytime there is a news item about Inidia, we go into this debate of first world, second worlk and third world. Tell me something guys, is this really important?? I mean the fact is that India launched a satellite, why not just concentrate on that??
I will tell you the truth about Infratstructure in Indian universities. Its pathetic. But this is also a fact that when U have 1 billion ppl and so few unis, the competition to get into a decent university is intense. Infact for admission into IIT( India Institute of Technology) about 300,000 ppl appear in the test and only the top 1000 or so make it. So to get admission into a decnt university in India, you have to be in top 0.33% of the population. Now atleast some of such guys( those who are not lured away bu US companies) join organisations like ISRO. They are already intelligent enough and soon they get grip of whats going on. Thats the story of India.
But always remember, behind every thousand who made it, there are 299,000 who din't.
What's under yellowstone?
I'm afraid that the label "third world" is sticking in the minds of many westerners even though some "third world" countries have technological accomplishments that are getting closer and closer to our own. Lumping India among nations that are "unstable and undeveloped" seems to fly in the face of the facts, but is still a common perception. India is the world's largest democracy (well more than twice the size of the U.S.) and has been quite stable for many decades. Technologically, India builds their own nuclear weapons, launches satellites into geosync orbit (a BIG challenge), and is home to more and more contract programming from U.S. firms. While it is also true that India has large numbers of horribly impoverished individuals, India is well on it's way to being a true world power. The "third world" label applied to India appears less and less accurate with each passing year. We're making a big mistake if we continue to think of them as such.
Life is short: void the warranty.
Your lacking understanding of politics is frightening...
The US would NEVER try to keep India from developing!
the fact is that they're already too busy keeping the middle-east from developing...
Supporting dictatorships (saudi-arabia), destabilizing large regions (israel/palestine) and waging war (iraq) is pretty expensive.
The middle-east manages to turn a profit because of the oil... India doesn't pose a threat and hasn't got enough oil.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
and...
Just goes to show how the NASA bureaucracy is wasting tax payer dollars. Don't misunderstand me, I think the idea of a government-funded space program for the purposes of non-commercial research is a necessary thing. But the agency running it so wasteful.
They throw millions/billions of dollars to contractors to produce shoddy equipment (anyone remember the Hubble?). They plan important scientific missions to Mars and then forget to convert from imperial to metric?? They remotely turn off a probe, and then (surprise) they can't turn it back on.
I guess no one there was ever a network administrator. Anyone who's ever run a server farm can tell you it's generally not a good idea to reboot a vital server from remote (because it might not come back up again). It's bad when you are 10 miles across town, it's really bad when you are a couple million miles away.
And after all of this, you don't hear about the director of operations getting fired, or resigning in shame. They just shrug. Oh, well. Lost another one. Only 350 million dollars. No big deal.
The Italians successfully put a satellite in space for what amounts to government pocket change. Maybe this sort of thing will be wave of the future. Built for cheap, launched for cheap. Shoestring everything. We shouldn't make fun of Italy for being cost-conscious. If it works, we should be applauding them, and trying to follow their example. If we could have built the ISS for 1/12 the cost, maybe it would have been completed 5 years ago and we'd be on our way to building a station on the moon.
Count the errors in parent by a known troll.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Wrong nationality. I was thinking Indians and wrote Italians. I must have fettuccini on my mind or something. Red Warrior needs pizza badly.
"Traditional Western scientific endeavors ..." ?
...) limited only by the amout of funding availabe for such activities. I don't see any scientific / tech activity in India, which can be killed by US or anyone outside by putting restrictions (of course unless Indians themselves choose to do so - which I doubt.). This has origins in the early days of Indian republic, when they invested heavily on establishing a scientific/tech research infrastructure, and supporting industries (mostly government controlled). In recent years a lot of similar stuff has come in the private sector also. These industries reange from chip maufacturing / design to biotech,aerospace, pharmaceutical / drug-design, ...
You are completely out of touch with reality.
India has an advanced tech R&D and maufacturing infrastructure (Looks like you have seen only indian software personall working
That's strange, I would have figured they'd have spent their local currency on the project, not American Dollars.
If you don't get it, just let it go, and move on
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Looks like Bush isn't an "US diplomacy" kind of guy, at least he's not at all working on the "eliminating motivation" part.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Just FYI: SpaceImaging is the world's biggest supplier of hi-res satellite imagery. It would surprise many on this forum to know that 4 of the 7 satellites SpaceImaging uses are Indian (the IRS series of satellites are Indian satellites).
India has a decent history (20+ years) of building and launching satellites. They have been helped along the way by the Russians to some extent, because the US refuses to sell them some of the advanced propulsion technology (like Cryo engines), which then they have to develop on their own.
All in all, more competition is good, I say.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
And, although India is less developed than, for example, the US, why should they be forced to stay that way?
Personally, I don't think the US needs to bully India over this. But with respect to your thoughts, the US could say that they are threatened by another nation being capable of delivering nuclear weapons to our doorstep. I don't think the US has any intention of worrying about this now.
That said, if India becomes more advanced than the US, then the US is going to have a lot to say about that. That's just the nature of the beast. Americans have an elitist complex when it comes to other nations (yes, I'm an American and yup, I've got the complex, too). Most all Americans believes that the US is the greatest nation in the world and those same individuals are willing to prove it over and over again. If India starts to compete with the US, we will be directly affected and the US won't be happy. The US will likely force India to remain comfortably beneath; or another cold war will begin.
Anyways, you're right that the US shouldn't worry about what other countries do, unless it directly affects us. The problem is that everything directly affects us. Well, at least so we always seem to think. That's just the way it goes. I can't say I'm always proud of that.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
Well maybe he isn't but I am. When you are the strongest and most powerful nation on the planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
I don't know how near sighted you are, but having a potential nuke in space is a threat to my freedom; even if it's not pointed at the US.
It's about time we start our Space Defense Initiative. I forget who, but some dolt in govt stated that we shouldn't bother with a Space Defense system now cause we won't need it for another 20 years. Like in 20 years we can just say "Launch the space defense system!"
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little puke nations telling us what we can and can not do. In the history of our planet, how many super powers were there that didn't seek to expand their empire. They should be thankful we're content with what we already have.
Live web cams
Okay Oktagon. I live in Surrey, you punter.
You misunderstood my point-- denoting different nouns does NOT imply opposing positions. France, Germany, Japan, UK and Brazil ARE part of "the West".
Where's a grammar teacher when you need one?
davejenkins.com |
India has been in satellite business since long, and currently the man who was behind all this, who has been the scientific advisor to the indian government, who has been awarded the highest civilian honour of the country, is its President. Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, President of India, has always talked about self reliance in the field of space and defence. This is one more step towards it.
You guys working in big companies must have seen vision statements for a big company, which drives the whole company, but have you heard that India too has a Vision, and working towards it ?
visit www.abdulkalam.com for details.
Also, "Wings of Fire" the autobiography of the president, is worth a read.
As for danger to rest of the world India is far less of an issue than Israel
this is either blind prejudice or blind ignorance. But just in case someone doesn't know the facts, I'll bite:
size of India : 2,973,190 sq km
Area - comparative: slightly more than one-third the size of the US
# of citizens : 1,029,991,145 (July 2001 est.)
these data (unlike your prepostrous claim) are not blown out of my ass, but can be found here
size of Israel : 20,330 sq km
Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey
# of israelly citizens : 5,938,093 (yes, that's six millions, not billions
again, this is from the same source
so, wether or not India should be viewed as a potential threat by the US, it is a laughable to claim a country the size of New Jersy, with 1/200 the population of india, is anywhere near the military threat that can potentially be posed by india.
(this is not to say india is a threat to the US, just that Israel and India are of completely different o.o.m.
but, I suspect mpe will not let such shaky facts stand in the way of his solid prejudices.
Working for necessity's mother.
Extremely well said. This may very well be the entire explanation.
Come on, give it up, that's
When you are the strongest and most powerful nation on the planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.
I don't know how near sighted you are, but having a potential nuke in space is a threat to my freedom; even if it's not pointed at the US.
Hmmm. The US has the potential to destroy every man, woman and child on the planet many times over. Does that mean that every man, woman and child has the right to use any means necessary to deny the US the use of these weapons and thus ensure their personal safety?
It's about time we start our Space Defense Initiative. I forget who, but some dolt in govt stated that we shouldn't bother with a Space Defense system now cause we won't need it for another 20 years. Like in 20 years we can just say "Launch the space defense system!"
There are these things called "international treaties". One of these international treaties (one of the ones that the US hasn't unilaterally reneged on - yet) outlaws the use of space-based weapons.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little puke nations telling us what we can and can not do.
Personally, it's clear to me that a lot of the "little puke nations" are sick of the US telling them what to do, whilst simultaneously playing by its own set of rules when it wants to.
Russia can't invade former Soviet states to take out terrorists and India can't do the same in Kashmir but the US can waltz into Iraq as and when it pleases? Nice double standards you've got there, bud.
In the history of our planet, how many super powers were there that didn't seek to expand their empire.
Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.
They should be thankful we're content with what we already have.
Right on, bro! We've got the biggest guns and all those other shitty nations, even the ones that we call friends, should be quaking in their boots. If we want something then we'll take it, simple as that. Why shouldn't we? We're the biggest and the best. Fucking, yeah!
Yeah, right. I hope you don't mind when the large family down the road comes into your house and strips you of everything that you've got. Why shouldn't they? There's more of them then there are of you, there more powerful, etc. Enjoy your TV, etc while you can and be thankful that they're content with what they already have - for now. Because, when they kick down the door, you're going to be shit out of luck, pal.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The second world does have some high end labor, at least.
So the skipping can and does happen. Indeed, arguably most 3rd world countries have been first world or 2nd world at some time, and have simply fallen to larger nations -- and pay tribute, via the IMF, equal to most of their production.
Ummm.... America should take a lesson. At one time, the Middle East was very much the center of the world, culturally, militarily, educationally, and even (quite long ago) technologically.
There isn't a lot that corruption can't destroy, and a "taking" attitude (as opposed to a building attitude) breeds corruption like crazy.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I've recently started a lowkey campaign to make Slashdot blurbs more user-friendly...
You really need to get out more.
It's interesting that the new president of India was also the father of its space and missile programs - the PSLV is a descendant of the original Satellite Launch Vehicle, SLV-3, which was also the basis for a short-range SSM, Prithvi ("Earth"). Under Dr. Abdul Kalam's tutelage, the DRDO embarked on an ambitious program to develop a suite of missiles, many of which have either been inducted or are being tested. It's quite possible that his popularity as head of the Indian Space Research Organization, and later as DRDO chief, led to his choice as president.
this is either blind prejudice or blind ignorance. But just in case someone doesn't know the facts, I'll bite: ...)
again, this is from the same source [cia.gov]
size of India : 2,973,190 sq km Area - comparative: slightly more than one-third the size of the US # of citizens : 1,029,991,145 (July 2001 est.) these data (unlike your prepostrous claim) are not blown out of my ass, but can be found here [cia.gov]
size of Israel : 20,330 sq km Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey # of israelly citizens : 5,938,093 (yes, that's six millions, not billions
The size of a country has little to do with how many enemies they have. The only country India is in conflict with is Pakistan, which is also a nuclear power. So MAD applies.
Israel is currently in conflict with Lebanon and Syria, who have no nuclear deterance. Also Israel has effectivly been in a state of civil war for over half a century.
Only one of these countries makes a habit of invading it's neighbours, ignoring UN resolutions and even tried to sink a US navy ship.
Everybody seems to be missing the larger point here. This capability is the stepping stone to being able to put up spy satellites. In a few years India will be able to keep tabs on Pakistans cross border infiltration and nuclear installations, and hopefully, in the case of fundamentalists taking over( which I dont think will happen, Pakistan being to a large extent a fairly sensible country), be able to make a pre-emptive strike.
If you want to learn more about the origins of this programme read Abdul Kalam's Wings of Fire. Its a very inspiring book. That Kalam is now President of India(which is a titular position without much power, unlike the Prime Minister), is
itself a testament to where self-reliance and competition in science and technology can take one.
Hopefully the programme can now be commercially self sufficient, and the pace of space exploration and missile defence research becomes faster. As you have probably realized in the last year, South Asia ia a tough neighborhood: a dictatorship to the west and east(Pak and Burma), the worlds largest communist state to the North, and ofcourse, central asia and the unstable 'stan's near by..
Lastly, such development can only serve as a long term counterpoise to scary go-it-alonists and US supremacists like some members of this administration...
The Inscrutable Gargoyle
> Well maybe he isn't but I am. When you are the
> strongest and most powerful nation on the
> planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
"dictate"... so America should be the worlds "Dictator" for our benefit... I like it. Very liberal of you. Thank you for looking after us and listening to our own countries beliefs and ideals (I live in the UK).
> Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little
> puke nations telling us what we can and can not
> do.
What an idiot.... the US spends all it's time talking about a global economy & politics and it's "responsibility on the world stage" but makes the assumption that the global economy & politics will be made up of western (read US) ideals and that the US is the only one to have a say.
Then when the realisation that through sheer weight of population numbers, land mass & available resources other nations outside of the US are capable of the same achievements (sometimes a lot more effeciently) they get all insular and over-protective (ref: Agricultural, Steel & manufacturing subsidies) to f&ck up those developing nations.
Who says a global community will reflect only US ideals? It's foolish and ultimately dangerous to think like that. Be a bit more open minded about congratulating other countries on their achievements.
> In the history of our planet, how many super
> powers were there that didn't seek to expand
> their empire. They should be thankful we're
> content with what we already have.
What you already have is a highly unbalanced, global, political make up where one nations population is using up far more resources than it has at it's disposal and one nations beliefs over represented to the rest of the world. This is at the cost of the rest of the world and every move the US makes is designed to protect that situation.
You may be content with what you already have but the rest of the world isn't, cos you're f&cking us over to keep it.
For comparison, how much do US launches cost?
What about the European Arienne rocket?
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Maybe the US should spend some amount of efforts in being good world citizens and stop meddling about just to get cheap oil?
Even though the US has plenty of its own oil.
The US have also been very efficient in alienating countries on account of other partner countries they like to protect.
Usually what the US is interested in protecting are the interests of US corporations operating abroad. From this POV the "best" government is something along the lines of a dictator friendly to the corporate interests in question.
If there are threats against the US its not only because muslims and other non wealthy countries are evil by nature. Something has brought them to this conclusion and its not just the koran or lack of money that is to blame here.
Lack of money is more likely to be an effect of US intereference. Maximising the profits of US corporates dosn't do much to help the economies of the countries they operate in.
The US is working hard to have a reason to fight Iraq when most other countries dont want war in that region.
The US wants a war for reasons more to do with domestic US politics. Virtually none of the rest of the planet is interested in a war with Iraq. Apart from the US only the UK and Israeli governments appear to think there is cause.
finders, keepers! ...come and take it!
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I'm glad you look at it that way...
if only more americans were aware of their own role maybe I wouldn't have to listen to people sobbing about 9-11...
heard this jerk saying something like:
"I don't know why anyone would wan't to do something like this to us... I guess some people are just evil"
comments like that makes me sick to my stomach
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Your comment could apply to so many countries, remind us which one you are posting from? ;-)
I don't know directly about their space programme but when I worked at the Pacific Weather Centre we had a guy there from China on exchange and he couldn't believe we just had two meteorologists on duty. He said they would have had thirty to do the same thing. It wasn't just that our computers are better, they just had a lot of people to employ. If their space programme is similar then I can see where the money is going.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
The size of a country has little to do with how many enemies they have.
...
it has to do with its danger to the rest of the world, which was your original claim.
can a mouse, no matter how many enemies it has, realisticly pose more of a threat than an grisly ? get real.
Also Israel has effectivly been in a state of civil war for over half a century.
so is Israel weak or strong ? if it cannot control a 'civil-war' for half a century, how can it be a danger to other nations ? make up your mind.
The facts, as usual with your posts in this thread, are different. Israel has had civil war ONCE. and that is in 1948. It had clashes with arab citizens, and an uprising in the west-bank and gaza, which were occupied, but never joined to the state of israel.
In all of these, it is true there was a certain threat (mainly terror, not anihilation) from arab-citizens of israel, but never anything remotely like a civil-war (for examples of real civil wars, lookup spain, or the US, to get the concept ).
read a history book, it will do you good.
Only one of these countries makes a habit of invading it's neighbours
Hello ? does the name Kashmir ring any bells ? I repeat my advice, read some history.
ignoring UN resolutions
Ahh, that unbiassed, appolitical body, the UN, some of its soldiers actively helped abduct israelly soldiers from within it's border. Ignoring its resolutions is really raving lunacy. Only the antichrist can ignore the words of such a holy, pristine, uncorrupt entity.
and even tried to sink a US navy ship.
This I don't know much about, so, surprize, surprize, will not respond on.
But even if this were true, to project from such an incident on the relative threat to human-kind, is really quite an impressive logical leap. Or should I say, a leap of faith
Working for necessity's mother.
If you want to look at it from the "What are they trying to say to the world?" angle, Then I think it boils down to two things:
1. We can launch satellites for you at an attractive price, let's do some business.
-and-
2. We can afford to play the ICBM game, too, so don't mess with us.
It seems a shame that joining the ICBM club is kind of a prerequisite for having a voice in the global market place, but that seems to be how it is for now.
Ebola is a pretty crappy biological weapon - it kills too fast so it doesn't spread well - why do you think there are still people alive in Africa ?
> Israel is rumoured to have nuclear missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the planet and they have made themselves a lot more enemies than India.
And at the same time, Israel gets sold many missle defense technologies from the US, which they consequently sell to other countries (India being one of them).
Yeah, jeez. Indians=Pakistani until just 50 years ago. The British should have never partitioned India (they did, over Gandhi and other's objections.)
Of course India is 3rd world. In fact, it was India who coined the term during the non-aligned movement.
And, currently, Montana's per capita income is roughly ten times higher than India's. Also, it's literacy rate is about 30-40% (depending on the census year) higher.
It's not about spying or ICBM's or anything, the key factor here is, believe it or not, agriculture. I know other patriotic Indians have problems accepting this, but India is still largely an agriculture-based economy, with the population especially concentrated in rural areas. With the exploding population creating pressure on food resources, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research actively involves itself in creating better yielding food varieties .
Students of Indian history would have heard about the green revolution that created self-sustainence in food; a crucial post-independence achievement considering food scarcity situations such as the 1943 Bengal Famine (the one on which Amartya Sen did economic research and won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics).
Now with satellite technology, ICAR can identify which land areas are suitable for which crops and therefore goad farmers into growing those varieties (remember that India is a sub-continent; you have all sorts of terrain, from deserts to plains to plateaus to, of course, mountains.
So accurately knowing which crop goes best where is critical information for the hungry masses (over-cliched, but it's true). Methinks that this will be the biggest use, followed closely by telecommunications and satellite television AND then by urban planning (Mumbai will have 24.7 million people by 2005).
PS:- Note that I'm not saying that satellite technology wont be used for other purposes; I definitely want India to use cutting-edge technology against a couple of motherfuckers, but talking only about that would be misleading.
More than mere navel gazing.
At my University, there are plenty of older students from India and Pakistan who are trying to get a 'Western' education. I've sat in classes of engineers who can't get work cause their foreign education is considered worthless.
So they end up coming here, just to find out that their education is worthless, and they find out they have to go BACK to University again here. I feel really bad for these people.
So when people complain saying that immigrants are stealing their jobs in the tech industry, many times it's just not true. (or not as pervasive as some make it seem to be) The only immigrants that maybe stealing tech jobs are rich immigrants.
At which point did these fine European nations drop out of "The West".
:)/2
Sometime in the 60's, give or take a decade, as best I can figure.
"You may be surprised to know that in 2000 years of indian civilisation, India has never ever attacked another nation."
Which is not to say India has never ever engaged in war. I guess attacking another nation during war is ok. Another thing that makes war completely ok is to not recognize the entity that you are fighting as a nation. I like the rest of your comment. Unfortunately I believe all nations are guilty of engaging in violence at sometime in their history, and not always for moral reasons. Saying that a nation never started a fight is at worst lying, and at best a glib attempt to justify violence.
Although India does not seem to be interested in building a world empire, things would be better if they could just leave Pakistan and Kashmir alone. I have heard too much rhetoric justifying violence in those regions.
Sputnik doesn't compare because it was communist grandstanding that created a communist agency within the West, NASA, that succeeded in suppressing progress in space for decades. This challenge from the Dravidian-Aryans hybrids of India is bound to light a fire under the moribund pioneering culture of the West -- particularly the nations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and hopefully the US (assuming if the US can hold together in the face of such challenges to its pioneering heritage -- which I doubt and hope it cannot for the sake of the remnant of its pioneering subpopulations).
Seastead this.
Albert Einstein once said something like:
"I dont know with what weapons will be fought the third world war, but I know the fourth will be fought with sticks and rocks".
That's no measure of anything. Last time I heard, many people in the United States were getting freaked out by a couple of baseball fields and tennis courts. (The pun here is that the picture of Area 51 is from a satellite. Not Indian, though.)
As for Indian techies, I'm sure you haven't heard the fact that the Cartosat 2 will have a panchromatic resolution of 1m; same as that of the current leader Ikonos.
Here's a gentle hint:- Science is peer-reviewable in scientific terms. Not racial.
More than mere navel gazing.
Third world is a term from early in the Cold War. Those who coined the term saw all developed Western nations lined up against a monolithic communist bloc. In those days there was hardly any trade between Capitalist countries and Communist countries. It was like they were on two separate planets. The third world referred to technologically underdeveloped, non-aligned nations.
Nowadays third world may have lost its idealogical roots. But it still bugs me when people invent their own meanings for 2nd world, 4th world, etc.
The 2nd world would be former communist bloc nations. Don't use it for other meanings, OK?
I like MickLinux's characterization of IMF loan repayments as "tribute". In the most (formerly?) corrupt nations the west made huge loans to these countries. On paper the loans were made to aid development, but corrupt cronies the west installed, like Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, diverted those funds offshore to their Swiss bank accounts.
Yes, the "middle east" was more advanced than Europe for a long time. I am not sure that corruption is the explanation of Europe's rise over the "middle east". By today's standard things were pretty corrupt in Britain even 200 hundred years ago. Somewhere I have a copy of Marvin Kitman's very funny "The making of the President, 1789" and "George Washington's expense account". By today's standards Washington's corruption make the Gates, Ballmer, and the CEOs of worldcom, ENRON etc look like choir-boys.
We may think of India as a very poor country. But I had an Indian buddy, 20 years ago in University, who used to remind me that India was the 10th most industrialized nation on Earth. Kind of like that saying that inside every large person there is a skinny person screaming to get out. So the billion or so people in India includes more college grads than many smaller nations.
I don't know where India ranks now. But I read an editorial when the leaders of the G7 were thinking of letting Russia join them, to make the G8. The editorial writer said that the G7 would really have to be enlarged to be the G18 to include Russia if admission was based solely on GNP.
Concerning the term "middle east" -- this is also a new term. What we now call the "middle east" used to be referred to as the "near east".
Typical American assh*le syndrome. Where's a moderator when you need one
;-) )
;-)
Ack. Just because one guy is an idiot here don't call it typical "american"
I live in the county and I should know. That's not typical.
(Most American's havn't heard of those other countries
P.S. in defense of that guy, read more carefully. Brazil and "a few others" are the ones with nukes to attack the west. Of course, technically Brazil doesn't HAVE nuclear weapons capability. Just the capability to have the capability
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
I'll go with your reading that the Pakistanis are, to a large extent, a sensible people. But the leaders of their government/power centres there fail to infuse the same level of confidence in their sensibility.
Agree with your other points
http://www.indianembassy.org/special/president.htm
The current indian president is Dr. K.R Narayanan. He's not a missile scientist nor an army man. and the bullshit thats being typed up bout Abdul Kalam being the president is pure er..well Bull Shit.. so get ur story straight. Abdul Kalam aint the current Indian president. Its Narayanan..and he isnt a missile researcher dammit.
http://www.indianembassy.org/special/president.htm
... doot doot doot !!!
Given that the biggest barrier to popular acceptance of Linux is its user-unfriendliness, and given that Slashdot is the world's most popular forum for Linux enthusiasts, isn't the idea of a campaign to raise Slashdot's collective standards for user-friendliness actually rather significant and important?
Ooo. Yes, and the world quakes under the thumb of that rouge terrorist nation "Israel".
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Russia is paying the real cost of their expenses under about 70 years of communism. Things weren't good before and bad now because communism works and capitalism doesn't. Things were "good" before because the real cost was hidden. Things are "bad" now because the real cost is painfully evident.
Hang in there, in the long run it'll all work out for the better. The last thing you should do is stick your head back in the sand by going back to communism and blindly thinking that'll fix everything. To the contrary, that's what got you into this mess to start with.
One of the things that makes me sick @ ./ers are the lack of scientific/ethical critic and common sense. Nobody think that maby at 15 millions, there's a trick? Americans can't launch a satellite properly for a G$! Imagine indians! At 15$M bucks, I call this an orbital nuclear bomb. No matter what India's intentions, it's playing with bad fire.
I really hope i'm wrong, but those low quality, low cost sats are full of plutonium. It's the only fuel thay can afford (having a few plutionum operated power plants helps a bit). The space waste falling down on our back is getting more and more of a problem each week. And most sats will fall down one day.
For those who arent' aware, we, all citizens of the world, are bearing a deadly heritage from the mid-60 American Space Program, where a sat just came back and exploded in the stratosphere. And, yes, it was full of plutonium.
Interesting fact; go to the nearest lab and grab a Geiger counter, and stick it near your head. You'll see that every human on earth now bears a highly radioactive charge. And since it was only in the 60ies, nobody now what kind of reverse effect or mutation our children will bear.
Space programs, sats launching, and gigantic power consumption projects bear their danger; rendering them useless by the force of the fact that we will all die from it.
F**k the NASA and all those clowns, and the pseudo-intellectuals who support every space project blindly without facing the facts.
Quote begins:
...
Besides, the point which Tanveer was making was that, India has been invaded in the past by Alexander, and the Afaghans and mongols besides others, but no India rules has ever invaded any other country. India(n) influence in other parts of the world is primarily cultural and socio-religious. Indian religions, and in which I include hinduism, skikhism, buddhism, jainism besides others, have always preached peace and not war ( for example "jihad") against others. Please get your facts right. thanks.
Quote ends
I don't know how far the above is true. There certainly was a greater India in South East Asia during the time of the Cholas (was it 7th Century? I forget my history.) Indian Kings had established colonies here. The colonies of course broke free of the motherland in an age when ships took ages to cross the seas
I would agree with the main thrust of the post though, India certainly has been less agressive even at the height of her power.
I have seen the most creative and advanced solutions come out of constrained environments. With the population India has - you have to be *very* smart to get into good engineering colleges. And with poverty comes a desire to innovate without depending on other market-driven economies.
And the Australian Government. But we are basically the 51st state of the US under our current government.
Who you calling a teenager? ;-)
Live web cams
pipsqueak.. sounds like something the US can easily overtake in about 2 minutes. ;-)
Then when the realisation that through sheer weight of population numbers, land mass & available resources other nations outside of the US are capable of the same achievements (sometimes a lot more effeciently) they get all insular and over-protective (ref: Agricultural, Steel & manufacturing subsidies) to f&ck up those developing nations.
That's just a cop out. The US is world power, partly because of it's location, a good ocean away from it's potential enemies [although Canada has been pissing me off lately], it's mostly because of our freedom and pride which make us a great country. If it was just a case of natural resources making a great country, then Russia should have been a world power 10x the US. I think you feel a little disgruntled because the UK is so small and *does* lack natural resources and is probably limited by it's lack of those natural resources. Absolutely no offense to the UK too. I consider your country to be our greatest ally and respect your ideals and culture immensely.
What you already have is a highly unbalanced, global, political make up where one nations population is using up far more resources than it has at it's disposal and one nations beliefs over represented to the rest of the world. This is at the cost of the rest of the world and every move the US makes is designed to protect that situation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but someone must have cause you have a score of 3. I think you're telling me that because of America's growth and natural resource consumption, we'll eventually have to seek an expansionist policy, which will lead to US initiated attacks. Personaly, I don't see this happening with the potential advances in science; which hopefully one day will free us from our strangle hold on the need for oil.
Cheers and we'll see you in Iraq.
Live web cams
Them chinky ostriches will say anything to make China looks good.
They will say that China never need anything from abroad, they can invent everything. In fact, that ostrich that you replied to was implying to the world that China's space program is 100% indigenous, without parts nor ideas from abroad.
Go back several decades, near the end of WW II, it was the Germans who invented the jet engine, as well as the rocket (in modern sense), US, USSR and the rest of the world, in one way or another, got hold of the technology and add on to it.
So whichever chink who think that it was the Chinese who invented the modern rocket, please unplug your head from the sand pit.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Employing 30 people to do the job of 2 is not only a waste of scarce resources. It is also a form of CORRUPTION.
The problem of corruption in China is RAMPANT. And it is getting worse.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Now I have to type a bunch of crap down here to make slashdot pass through my editorial comment.
What waste of bits and bytes.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
And... India is STILL Third World by the original definition as they are not considered Allies to the US or to Russia/Former Soviet Bloc countries. Making them still a part of the Third World politically. Economically I would consider them on par with the former Second World countries, but not quite up to First world status simply due to having SO MUCH population that it drags down their average.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
> Only one of these countries [India/Israel] makes a habit of invading it's neighbours >> Hello ? does the name Kashmir ring any bells ? I repeat my advice, read some history. Young grasshopper: be not strident, take your own advice, give every man thy ear but few thy voice and so on. Bad example. India invade Kashmir? The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. The only time India may conceivably have 'invaded' Kashmir, in 1947, in response to a request by the legal ruler of the state [admittedly under pressure], and under the guidance of a former colonial governor [Mountbatten], sent troops in to counteract an irregular army which had already been sent in. My personal opinion is that to call this an invasion would be a stretch, especially in the context of (magical, sleight of hand) nation formation that was taking place at the time, when oodles of princely states, (podunk and larger) became the [ relatively] modern state of India. Little grasshopper, just because you heard the word on CNN, does not mean that you should run out and quote it. No, the example you are looking for is ... Goa.
Go ahead, follow your own advice. Read.
--
*Incidentally, both these examples seem tied to the concept of self and nation formation. A slippery slope, especially when Saddam claims Kuwait as a province (But think about it - what if the US had not responded - would the native population have a similar self-identity by now ?). IMO opinion again, though, Goa is a far cry from Kuwait, and must be seen against the context of :
* Colonial history - How did Goa become Portuguese
* Similar nation building elsewhere - west and east
* General non-violent nature of the building of a Governement of India from Bristish rule [A strange bird]
--
Due disclosure: am Indian.
ObLinks:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/define77.htm
[No links on Kashmir as I would prefer not to bias a true reader]
Bad example. India invade Kashmir? The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. My personal opinion is that to call this an invasion would be a stretch . The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. The only time India may conceivably have 'invaded' Kashmir, in 1947, in response to a request by the legal ruler of the state [admittedly under pressure]..
OK, viewed in that context, I wrote something too extreme, I clarify: I did not mean (though it can be interpreted that way) india is making a habit of invading either it's neighbours or Kashmir, but for rebuttal, I showed a case of invasion. (BTW, when a leader under duress invites foreign forces in, that constitutes an invasion, AFAIK.)
Due disclosure: am Indian
have no quarrel with you, or your country. notice that in my original post I specificly did NOT claim India was an active threat to the rest of the world, only that it is larger and more powerful by several o.o.m. than Israel, thus being a larger potential threat than Israel can ever conceivably be.
Working for necessity's mother.
Threats need three things:
* weapons
* delivery system
* motivation
Most western democracies have the first two, but lack the third.
I would like to add that to use a nuke, you don't have to fire it. You can "use" it by threatening others quite well (worked in the cold war). A threat also implies that you are willing to fire. So I would say that countries who have the first two certainly have the third, in other words the motivation to "use" them, one way or another. And they do quite frequently, the US, China, India, Pakistan, etc. do it all the time (implicitly threatening).
Your statement is also wrong in another aspect: in fact, most "western" countries do not have nukes, even though they may have the technology to build them should they so desire. Most European countries do not have their own nukes, Germany being one particular example that you got wrong. Germany never built their own nukes, though nukes of NATO allies were stationed in Germany during the cold war (though not under direct control of the German military).
So maybe you should catch up on some history reading. I suggest you start with Sun Tsu's "The Art of War", quote: "All warfare is based on deception." So much for perceived threats.
</offtopic>
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.