Slashdot Mirror


No Billboards in Space

An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting that the Federal Aviation Administration proposed Thursday to amend its regulations to ensure that it can enforce a law that prohibits 'obtrusive' advertising in zero gravity." From the article: "For instance, outsized billboards deployed by a space company into low Earth orbit could appear as large as the moon and be seen without a telescope, the FAA said. Big and bright advertisements might hinder astronomers."

74 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by caluml · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And sorry, who is enforcing this law? I wasn't aware that the US owned space.

    1. Re:Huh? by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 5, Funny

      The politicians and bueraucrats will be enforcing it... we'll be firing them into space at the billboards! =)

    2. Re:Huh? by Spetiam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Big and bright advertisements might hinder astronomers."

      Not to mention the proliferation of space junk.

      I wasn't aware that the US owned space.

      Wow, even when we propose keeping space clean, you just can't pass up the chance to do a little US-bashing, can you?

    3. Re:Huh? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The U.S. owns the space the space above the U.S.. I guess the question would be how far up do you consider U.S. airspace.

      Besides, this is a good thing. It was only a matter of time until somebody started doing it...

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The regulation undoubtedly is not of space as that is impossible for any nation or group of nations. Rather, so far as is logical, the regulation would apply to and be imposed on companies under jurisdiction of the US-that is, this seemingly makes it so that no US company may act to place that sort of advertisement under penalty of the US, purely within its current bounds.

    5. Re:Huh? by vwjeff · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope ads do appear in space. We can then use them as target practice. ICBM target practice, that is.

    6. Re:Huh? by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, you just have to keep up with the memos. I think you'll find this one actually under the leopard. He likes to sit on odd bits of paper.

      The whole thing reminds me of a 20 or 30 year old Playboy cartoon though. Two guys are standing on a highrise balcony looking at the moon, which, instead of "The Man in the Moon" displays a Playboy rabbit head logo and one is saying to the other:

      "I wonder how much it cost him?"

      I guess it'll mean war with the Lunatics when they actually do it, for deploying Weapons of Mass Delusion, or something.

      KFG

    7. Re:Huh? by MrDomino · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It was only a matter of time until somebody started doing it...

      True, but I can't be the only one who's a little disgusted that advertising is so invasive and prevalent that something like this can even be considered a possibility in the first place.

    8. Re:Huh? by clem.dickey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I wasn't aware that the US owned space.

      It would be silly to say that the US owns space. That would be like saying that it owns, oh, Iraq. Historically nations have had "ownership" according to how far they can project force. The "three mile limit" for ocean ownership was determined by the range of shore guns. The USSR did not "own" its airspace until it proved that it could shoot down a U2 spy plane.

      If the US Air Force succeds in militarizing space, the US may indeed "own" it. That may prove easier than "owning" Iraq. :-)

      On a separate topic, it seems to me that a LEO banner would be visible mostly at dusk or dawn. How would it be lit in the middle of the night? Reflection from terrestrial lights maybe, or flourexcent paint?

    9. Re:Huh? by daveo0331 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The U.S. can't unilaterally say "no billboards in space" but they can certainly say things like "US based companies can't put billboards in space" or "no launching rockets from US territory to put a billboard in space" or similar things. Also, outlawing it here in the US could be a step toward getting other countries and/or international organizations to outlaw the practice too. Then if you wanted to put a billboard in space, you'd have to launch it from someplace like North Korea or Syria or international waters (but your ship couldn't be registered in a country that signed onto the treaty), and once in orbit it would last about 10 minutes before a UN missile shot it down (as agreed previously in a UN resolution).

      So yes, if just the US outlaws this, it's silly, but it could be a step toward something more meaningful.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    10. Re:Huh? by nickptar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Historically nations have had "ownership" according to how far they can project force.
      Don't you mean 0wnership?

      On the subject of lighting - reflection from terrestrial light and fluorescent paint (which converts UV into visible light) wouldn't be enough. I suppose the back would be covered in solar cells, which would charge batteries when the sign was on the day-side, and the batteries would power lights on the night-side. (If that's not enough, power could *theoretically* bebeamed from Earth - hmm, maybe space ads are what will finally get power beaming going.)

    11. Re:Huh? by Harker · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We are not in anybody's airspace. There is no air.

      H.

      --
      When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
    12. Re:Huh? by sconeu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Heinlein thought of it first. In "The Man Who Sold the Moon", he got support by raising the spectre of the Commies putting a huge Hammer-and-Sickle on the moon. He also got funds from "Moka-cola" by suggesting that "6+" had offered him money to put a 6+ logo on the moon.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:Huh? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Funny

      If a US company is behind it, then it would be easy to prosecute. If a non-US company was behind it, I don't think it would be difficult to find some means to accidentally destroy it.

    14. Re:Huh? by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Darn right!
      Stick an oversized billboard in space and the next
      thing you know, some hillbilly country with nukler
      tipped missiles will be taking pot-shots at it.
      Shebang!
      Next thing you know, there goes the whole neighborhood...

    15. Re:Huh? by kulakovich · · Score: 2, Funny



      I am told that the proper spelling is pwn3d.

      kulakovich

    16. Re:Huh? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if someone placed an ad over the Atlantic Ocean in geo-synch orbit? International waters and all, but it would STILL be visable from most of the US and Western Europe.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    17. Re:Huh? by mikapc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "and once in orbit it would last about 10 minutes before a UN missile shot it down (as agreed previously in a UN resolution)." More like 10 years.

    18. Re:Huh? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The US has a flag on the moon, so until someone else claims another piece of space with another flag, it's all theirs.

      Actually, the USSR got their flag to the moon first. They were the first to land space probes on the moon, and they made sure to include Soviet flags.

    19. Re:Huh? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that you're overreacting.

      **My Opinion, brought to you by X10**

    20. Re:Huh? by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative
      The U.S. owns the space the space above the U.S..

      If that were true, the Soviet Union would not have been able to fly over U.S. territory and vice-versa. It was a deliberate choice Eisenhower made in 1955 when he proposed his "Open Skies" initiative. When Sputnik flew a few years later, he didn't complain about its flying over US territory because he wanted the right to do the same thing. In 1960 when Corona flew, it made a hash of the fear that the Soviets had an advantage over us and enabled Eisenhower to focus on domestic issues instead of meeting a non-existant military threat.

      Outer space is open to whomever can get there.

    21. Re:Huh? by igny · · Score: 2, Funny

      ICBM target practice

      Instead of inter-continental ballistic missiles. It should be called AAM, Air-to-Ad-Missiles.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    22. Re:Huh? by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      mercury and halogen streetlights (the blue/white ones) were a lot more harmful to astronomers than sodium ones were, last I checked. Sodium lights have a much lower and more narrow emission band.

      As to space ads... never underestimate the budget of an advertising department ;)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    23. Re:Huh? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Meaningful?!?!?! What was the last space ad you saw?!?! Get real.
      So far as I'm concerned, the best time to kill it is before somebody is making money off it. By that point, whoever it is will feel entitled to some sort of compromise.

      Perhaps the US cannot unilaterally legislate "no billboards in space," but we can say, "nothing advertised in space may be sold in the US" which may be effective enough.

      Astronomers aren't my greatest concern. The fact is, looking straight up into the sky is about the *only* place to escape advertising these days. I hope future civilizations are able to pull back advertising from the ridiculous extremes to which we have taken it. They will look back on us and conclude, rightly, that our central guiding principle was branding.

    24. Re:Huh? by slashdot.org · · Score: 3, Insightful


      - I wasn't aware that the US owned space. -

      Wow, even when we propose keeping space clean, you just can't pass up the chance to do a little US-bashing, can you?


      Heheh. Yeah, you are right. Over the last years the US has been such a formidable world-citizen that that comment was certainly uncalled for.

      I'm sure the US will try everything it can to keep space clean. From non-US stuff. *ducks*

    25. Re:Huh? by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is interesting is that this isn't even a new concept.

      Forget about Heinlein and other authors who have talked about this before (which unfortunately was only brought up by one enlightened /. poster so far), this has already happened, but admittedly on a much smaller scale so far.

      In 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as part of the advertiseing for the movie "Last Action Hero", had his name put on the side of a rocket that went up to LEO.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Schwarzen egger+rocket+advertising+%22Last+Action+Hero%22 (Cached)
      http://www.intouchgroup.com/press/Mar8_93-2.html
      http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/SSHP/sshp_fun.htm

      The point here is that regulating advertisement beyond this is just a matter of scale, rather than anything that has any substance. And when the vehicles themselves get so big that they are visible from LEO? (Aka like the "mothership" in Red Dwarf?)

      What about the NASA "meatball" logo that is plastered to the side of each space shuttle? What about Boeing logos on all Delta rockets? Space Ship One had a whole bunch of stuff on its side, including ads for Virgin Galactic and the X-Prize itself. Should that be banned as well?

      While by itself this sort of advertising is not going to pay for activities in space, it will make a marginally profitable company be able to run in the black.

      The #1 think I that is going to blow the FAA regulations out of the water is that it is going to be unenforcable, unless the U.S. Air Force is going to assert American soverignty over all LEO patterns that cross visually over U.S. territory. I wouldn't put it past the current administration to do something bold like that, but the implications to that level of enforcement would be counter productive and dangerous to America itself.

  2. The DOT needs to do the same by ForestGrump · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No big, bright billboards by highways either- because they are a distraction to drivers.

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:The DOT needs to do the same by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they don't. Because high crime areas are populated by the stupidest, most drugged out criminals.

      If you're going to die in the line of duty, you want it to be rescuing an infant from a burning hospital, not getting it in the back because Levron lost his favorite hi-tops.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:The DOT needs to do the same by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2, Funny

      I forget where it was, but I recently read a claim (by some advertiser, IIRC--go figure) that these huge billboards in rural interstate and interstate-ish driving help drivers by breaking the monotony .

      No, I don't really believe it ... but I really just read this somewhere. Wish I could find the source now...

      --
      R.Mo
    3. Re:The DOT needs to do the same by onepoint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not sure if they help, but the idea is correct. the roads in the USA are very straight, for long periods of time, this causes our brain to wander ( highway hypnosis ) and reduced attention time.

      curvy roads keep our attention.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  3. In other news.. by AndOne · · Score: 5, Funny

    Europe annouces a space billboard initiative. Part of this initiative involves a unilateral declaration that any attempt to remove their billboards will be seen as an act of agression. Followed by what sounded like muffled laughter.

    --
    I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
    1. Re:In other news.. by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget the French have got the bomb. And the Brits.

      I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of *any* nuclear payload, even if it is just a french one.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:In other news.. by Catamaran · · Score: 4, Funny
      Don't forget the French have got the bomb. And the Brits.

      The French don't have the Brits, we do. Get your facts straight.

      --
      Test 1 2 3 4
  4. Disc-shaped ads... by jemenake · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they occupy as much solid-angle as the moon, then they could eclipse the sun (or moon). Can you imagine disc-shaped billboards? I can see it now... "This eclipse brought to you by Coca-Cola!" Better yet, "All your photons are belong to us". - Joe

    1. Re:Disc-shaped ads... by dustmite · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm .. I think you may have struck upon the answer to global warming, just have dozens of orbiting ads that block the sun for a few hours total each day ..

  5. Don't read the news much, huh? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  6. Country's flags by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine if China put its flag in orbit. What is the US going to do, shoot it down?

    1. Re:Country's flags by maczealot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pretty much yep. Especially if it is visible from the U.S. and/or interferes with any of our satellites or other devices.

      Seriously though, why would China do this? *boggle* To advertise their government: "Look everybody, its Communism Lite, now with half the fanatical controlling of markets for the priviledged few!"

  7. I'm still waiting... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for when they forbid obtrusive advertising in CYBERspace.

  8. Launch sites. by redfenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, the FAA controls the US airspace, right? So, they probably won't allow any of these LEO Billboards to be launched in the U.S.

    Of course, there's virtually nothing they can do if an LEO craft is launched from some other location and meanders over the U.S. from time to time.

    Perhaps they could do something if it were placed in a geostationary orbit over the U.S. but then it wouldn't be in LEO.

    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
    1. Re:Launch sites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except LEO is maybe 120 miles up, whereas geostationary orbit is about 34000 miles up. I don't think people realize how far 34,000 miles is. You can see mountains 100 miles away on a clear day, so a sign in LEO is not unreasonable. But just try to make a sign so big it can be seen from GEO. Go ahead.

    2. Re:Launch sites. by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I'm sure the U.S. government would sit there and do nothing. I mean, it's not like us to, say, blow something up if we feel it threatens us. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:Launch sites. by grnwmn · · Score: 2, Informative

      This reminds me of the "freedom rights of the air," an the agreement made in 1919 about sovereignty rights in the air space above each nation.

      1. The right to overfly one country en-route to another.

      2. The right to land in an other country for a technical stop.

      3. The right to carry traffic to a foreign state.

      4. The right to carry traffic from a foreign state to the home state.

      5. The right to carry traffic to/from third countries en route.

      6. The right to carry traffic between two foreign states via the state in which the airline is registered.

      7. The right to carry traffic between two foreign states entirely outside the territory of its home state.

      8. The right to carry traffic between two points within the territory of a foreign state on a route with origin/destination in its home country.

      9. The right to carry traffic within a country by an airline of another country.

      It's good that the US is thinking about this issue. I only hope that the regulations will go far enough. A beautiful "ad lit sky" just doesn't sound right and somehow removes the appeal of an evening walk. Not only astronomers will be bothered by ads in space. Talk about light pollution!

  9. Buy Jupiter, but leave at least one moon. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    > be seen without a telescope
    >
    > So we could still make a deal if aliens drop by wanting to buy Jupiter.

    Jupiter? Yeah, we at AlienClick [mttp://1.3.9.27.81.243] can do that. In fact, all these worlds can be yours for $39.99 per line, except Europa, which has been reserved by a prior bidder.

  10. Fiction because Fact by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Blade Runner (1982) I believe employed the use of either low orbit billboards, or just random hovering billboards. Hard to tell what the effect was intended to be.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  11. How far up? by soupdevil · · Score: 2

    Good question, considering that as the earth turns, our cone of airspace, or spacespace, if extended infinitely, would cover a significant portion of the universe.

  12. Re:Commie advertisements? by SafteyInNumbers · · Score: 3, Funny

    Team America: World police http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/ FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

  13. Re:Rats. by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why, are you about to execute a file? In space?

  14. Might?! by GreyOrange · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a member of the astronomy club here in Orlando and Disney World about 35 miles away impedes our observations. Any astronomer will tell you that a full moon can ruin observations for the night and any billboard that's as bright as the moon and is in full brightness all the time is going to tick every astronomer off within the viewable region. I feel sorry for any country's astronomers where one of these things get put up.

    --

    Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
    1. Re:Might?! by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Any billboard that's as bright as the moon and is in full brightness all the time is going to tick every astronomer off within the viewable region

      Pardon, but there's a slightly bigger issue, which is how disgusting the concept is. Photographs of the great outdoors? Brought to you by Nikon and Kodak. Night out camping? Brought to you by Hummer, buy one for your next trip and get there in style. Advertisements will universally become part of the landscape. It's so horrifyingly commercial, it makes me want to throw up. That you wouldn't be able to see Star XYZ is, sorry, rather secondary.

      I keep waiting for the backlash, and I never see it. First it was the horizon with billboards. Then product placement (no, it's not a new trend, it's been around since the advent of TV). Then clothing. Most recently, people's bodies. Now we're talking about throwing up giant billboards so that you'll have to go inside to avoid them. Where will we stop? When will the backlash begin?

      I've noticed that many "futuristic" movies have had floating advertisements in space/the sky (a few that come to mind- Judge Dread, The Fifth Element, and I believe Blade Runner, to name a few) and I think it was almost intended to get us used to the concept. I seriously hope it backfired, sickening people. I know it made my stomach turn.

      Thankfully I think this is one area the conservative right will be with us on- they're probably even more horrified of "God's kingdom" being defiled than we are.

    2. Re:Might?! by syrion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Generally, in science fiction, this sort of thing serves a dystopic purpose. It is basically intended to disgust you. It's hardly an optimistic vision of the future.

    3. Re:Might?! by loqi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's pretty clear that God's kingdom takes a backseat to profits with these guys. They're not exactly where they might be as far as environmental concern goes.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  15. Re:The USA owns space? by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pretty sure Dubya stated that he wants to bring democracy to the country of Space.

    --
    Anonymous Coward
  16. Loophole by Oooius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like there's a pretty big loophole to me - technically speaking, low earth orbit is not zero-gravity. The gravity that close to the earth is almost as strong as it is here on the surface. The onyl difference is that you're zinging around at 20,000 MPH, thus keeping yourself from falling out of the sky.

  17. I swear... by PyWiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...you slashdotters just can't help making desperate attempts to cynically imply the US government is trying to overstep its boundaries and turn into some fascist regime. Sorry, but companies based in the US CAN be regulated by the US government. Many European countries will likely follow with similar laws and thus most major companies will be stopped from displaying billboards in space. Note this is NOT a violation of anyone's rights, simply a reasonable use of regulatory power.

    Good try, though.

    --
    -py
  18. Zero gravity? by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In other words: forget the static billboards and welcome the spinning billtorusii thanks to the general relativity theory and the equivalence principle in non-inertial frames of reference. Another example of politicians who want to write laws to control the entire universe without any knowledge of the real laws of said universe. (Pun most definitely intended.) Sad. Very sad.

    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
  19. Re:Astronomers?! by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, I don't think doing something like this would be a positive step for a company to take. They'd get a whole lot of publicity out of it right at the beginning, but pretty soon it'd become a major eyesore, and there'd be a lot of loathing towards them for putting it there. Looking at it would get old really quick.

    There'd probably be some significant protesting outside their HQ and whatnot. There would be calls for boycotting, which would probably gain some traction, as people become more and more tired of it.

    If some company did it, and it was only visible up there for a few days, they'd get some serious publicity, and if they let it die while it was still a novelty, they'd get mostly good press and an excited public. I'd check a website to find out when it'd be overhead, and then go watch it pass over a few times. Just as long as it doesn't stay long enough to become an eyesore.

    After a few of these advertisements happened, it'd cease to be a novelty, and the excitement of seeing one would wear off, and people would turn against them.

    That's how I imagine it at least.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  20. Old and silly Joke by elgrinner · · Score: 5, Funny

    An American Officer runs up to his superior and says excitedly: "Sir, Sir! The Soviets have painted the moon red, what should we do?"
    After a little contemplation the man replied: "Take a bucket of white paint to the moon and write Coca Cola on it."

    --
    But my Mom says I'm cool! -Milhouse
  21. Blocking progress by Symb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FCC can't mandate broadcast flag. The FCC can mandate what goes in space.

    Religion can't stop suicide, but it can stop stem cell research.

    I'm so damn confused.

    Won't it be nice when nationalism fades?

  22. The rules by agent0range_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    1) arrive first

    2) arrive armed

    There! you own space! Works for solar systems, planets, moons, asteroids. Quite simple, really.

    I was hoping to make a fortune selling rocket-propelled 'adblockers' but now I have to think of another get-rich-quick scheme.

  23. oblig... by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing...block it out!
    [presses a button raising a shield over the model town]

  24. Inevitably... by setirw · · Score: 2, Funny

    "That's no moon... that's an oversized advertisement for the next generation Whopper(tm)"

    --
    This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
  25. Zapping by orzetto · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, the pleasure of shutting down ads with nuclear weapons... It gives the concept of zapping an entirely new meaning!

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Zapping by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Ah, the pleasure of shutting down ads with nuclear weapons... It gives the concept of zapping an entirely new meaning!"

      In ..... ......, concave satelite addboards are zapping you!

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  26. What?!? No "CHA" on the moon? by FrankieBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chairface Chippendale will be real disappointed.

    SPOON!!!!

  27. uhhh... Zero Gravity? by koushy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    anyone find the actual text of this proposal? last time i checked there was no such thing as 'zero gravity'...

  28. I can see the headlines now... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Funny

    George Lucas sues AT&T after logo in space is confused with the Death Star.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  29. Meanwhile, back in the 70s.. by henni16 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..somewhere at the NASA:

    "Sir! Sir! The Russians! The Commies have started to paint the moon red! What shall we do?!"

    "Hmm...don't stop them. Load up a shuttle with white paint and when they are finished we'll go up and write 'Coca Cola' on it."

  30. Moon Sponsored by Pepsi(TM)... by gellenburg · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Sun is being presented to you today by Sun Microsystems. "Use Solaris. Please! Hey, we even run Linux!"

    Mercury is being presented to you this evening by the new Oral-B Thermometer.

    Venus is being presented to you by Arista Records... home to Abba! (1)

    The Earth is being presented to you this evening by Miracle-Gro. Your lawn will thank you.

    Mars is being presented to you this evening by M&M/ Mars Candies. Because sometimes you feel like a nut!

    Jupiter is being presented to you this evening by Jupiter Research, because we really really want to know what you think!

    Saturn is being presented to you this evening by On Star! Who will call 9-1-1 when *your* airbags deploy?

    Neptune is being presented to you this evening by Microsoft. When do you want your computer to crash, today?

    Uranus is being presented to you this evening by Preparation-H. It's not just for removing bags from a model's eyes you know!

    Pluto is being presented to you this evening by Walt Disney World. Celebrate the magic!

    --

    (1) Who gives a shit if Abba is signed with Arista or not. Don't be so anal-retentive.

  31. Re:Astronomers?! by jag2k · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's like internet spam. The first few times they do it it will be a novelty, then nobody will use spam because it's not worth it.

    Oh, wait, something's going overhead now:

    'Erectile problems? Reach this sign with FREE VIAGRA!!!'

    I'm glad we didn't regulate the skies...

  32. Re:This is just silly. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Space-based ads seem more likely than the "chimera" genetic engineering debate I keep hearing about.

    But then, so does subsequent private development of anti-orbital-advertising technology. I wonder how much gunpowder it would take to lob a lead slug to orbital altitude. Doesn't actually need to go into orbit. In fact, it's more likely to do damage if you let the satellite billboard come to it.

    Of course, one slug wouldn't do it. You'd need the equivalent of grape shot to have a significant effect.

  33. Re:No such thing as "geostationary orbit over the by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Likewise, a lot of satellites never pass directly over US soil, but could still appear as large as the Moon to Americans.
    That's virtually impossible. If my math is right, an advertisement in geosynchronous orbit would have to be about 325km accross in order to be the same size as the moon. Since it'd have to be at least semi-ridged (and assuming it was square), the cost of building a sign with a surface area of 105625 square kilometers would be enormous.

  34. Blade Runner by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "blimps" in BR weren't supposed to be in orbit, they were just flying through the city. That's why you could hear the "Let's go to the colonies!" spiel coming from them. They looked pretty heavy, maybe they were supposed to be anti-grav instead of just lighter-than-air craft.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  35. Because... by Presence1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sodium Vapor lights do indeed have a very narrow spectrum. They are also more economical than mercury and halogen lights. Yet mercury and halogen lights are indeed replacing sodium lights becuse the narrow spectrum is actually a hazard.

    Low Pressure Sodium lights are almost completely monochromatic at 589nm, that characteristic yellow-orange color. High Pressure Spdium lights include some other elements (thus colors), but still have a very limited spectrum. The result is that it is almost impossible to see colors under these lights, for example the color of a car leaving a crime scene.

    Oversimplifying, the retinas in our eyes have Cone Cells, and Rod Cells. The Cone Cells see color and are concentrated in the center of our vision, and so also give us high resolution. The Rod Cells see gray scale, are distributed, and have the ability to dark adapt to see in low light.

    The spectrum of Sodium Vapor is insufficient to activate our Cone Cells. Yet the intensity of the light kills the ability of our Rod Cells to dark-adapt. So we are stuck with the low resolution of our Rods, with only their daytime photon-gathering ability, and orders of magnitude fewer photons than in daytime.

    It is almost the worst possible combination, in some cases worse than a decent night sky. Sodium lighting has actually been shown to increase industrial accidents. So, though cheap to buy and run, sodium lights are frequently being replaced, unfortunatey for the astronomers.

    I suggest that they abandon area lighting and just issue every citizen some good night vision gear (or tax credits for it). It would be much more fun that way.