Slashdot Mirror


Company to Settle and Mine Mars

Rutgersen writes "Wired is reporting that a new startup is planning to colonize and mine Mars by 2025. From the article: 'The new company, 4Frontiers, plans to mine Mars for building materials and energy sources, and export the planet's mineral wealth to forthcoming space stations on the moon and elsewhere.'"

4 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. FIRST KATRINA 419 POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    DEAR SIR,

    WITH DUE RESPECT AND HUMILITY, I WRITE THIS LETTER THAT I MAY REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE IN A DELICATE MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. I RECEIVED YOUR ADDRESS FROM A CONTACT AT THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) WHO WAS IN NEW ORLEANS. MY FATHER WAS CAUGHT IN THE TRAGIC AFTERMATH OF THE TERRIBLE STORM HURRICANE KATRINA, AND THOUGH HE FOUGHT VALIANTLY, DROWNED IN HIS HOME. IT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE THAT HE INFORMED ME OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCKED BOX ON UNHARMED LAND IN THE FRENCH QUARTER CONTAINING VALUABLES AND CASH SUM OF $20,350,000 DOLLARS (US).

    I HAVE ESCAPED THE STORM IN NEW ORLEANS AND AM CURRENTLY RESIDING IN HOUSTON IN THE ASTRODOME STADIUM. IN ORDER TO AVOID RAISING AN EYEBROW OVER THE HUGH SUM OF MONEY CONTAINED IN THIS LOCKED BOX, I DESPOSITED IT WITH A SECURITY ORGANIZATION FOR SAFEKEEPING PURPOSES. BE INFORMED THAT THE SECURITY ORGANIZATION IS UNAWARE OF THE TRUE CONTENTS OF THIS BOX AND WE DO NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW OF ITS VALUE.

    YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO OPEN A NON RESIDENCE BANK ACCOUNT IN ANY BANK OF YOUR CHOICE IN TEXAS AND GET THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT, THERE AFTER YOU ORDER THE BANK MANAGER TO TRANSFER THE MONEY TO YOUR ACCOUNT. YOU SHALL SOURCE FOR GOOD INVESTMENT FOR US SO THAT WE MAY INVEST THE MONEY WISELY.

    CONCERING THE MONEY, WE ARE PREPARED TO GIVE YOU A REASONABLE SUM OF 40% OF THE TOTAL MONEY AND 5% MAPPED OUT FOR ANY INCUURED EXPENSES. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ASSIST US, YOU MAY RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO PREPARE ARRANGEMENTS. NO OTHER PERSON KNOWS OF THIS MONEY SO DEISCRETION IS A MUST.

    GOD BE WITH YOU,

    MR. HUGH G RECTION, 419TH ORDER OF THE ROYAL COCKBLOCKERS

    1. Re:FIRST KATRINA 419 POST by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: -1, Offtopic


      Just one question: how on earth did you get all those caps past the lameness filter?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  2. Re:Optimistic numbers by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    However, if one must believe in the baby jesus and all that stuff, why is it so unreasonable to believe "there was some intelligent being that created the universe... and the method he used to initiate it could have been the big bang and evolution" and so on? Is that not also creationism?

    Right, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it's rational and not dogmatic. It doesn't deny the existence of a supreme being, and puts forth a hypothesis which attempts to reconcile the existence of a deity with current scientific theories.

    This goes against religion, because it disagrees with what is written in a certain holy book. Religion isn't about being rational and using your brain (which god gave you), but about being irrational and dogmatic, and refusing to accept any new evidence which contradicts what your particular religious sect tells you.

  3. Genesis and the Big Bang by benhocking · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Getting further off-topic - if that was possible :) - Genesis and the Big Bang is a good read (even if it's science is a little out of date). It explains how one can read the Torah literally and not eliminate the Big Bang. I believe (it's been a long time since I read this book) that he also explains how it can allow for evolution. This book is written from a Jewish point of view, but that shouldn't matter.

    I can't remember if I read this in the same book or somewhere else, but the real danger for Christians (et al.) is the practice of making God the "God of the gaps". I.e., squeezing Him into ever smaller holes so that there is nothing left for him to do. I have no idea what the answer to this is for the religious, but it does seem like a legitimate problem. Another problem I've heard of is tying God to close to a particular scientific world-view. For example, if religious leaders go to great lengths explaining how the religious texts predict exactly this new scientific discovery, then if scientists say "whoops" and change their minds on scientific beliefs (as happened rather drastically from Hoyle to Hubble), it makes the religious leaders lose that much more credibility.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?