Given that it is impossible to prevent people from owning guns, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and regulate than to try to ban, which doesn't work? Sorta like the whole sex education/contraception versus abstinence issue? I guess that is the sensible thing to do. We can't really get rid of guns as they're just too powerful as phallic symbols. Besides, they form the livelihood of an obscenely high fraction of humanity (armies, police, workers in armament factories...) so it would be political suicide to even seriously attempt to phase them out on the civil stage (any apparent efforts are just that - apparent). So, I agree with drinkypoo: we are led to this point not by choice, but by inevitability. I give up already.
Gun control is a pipe dream. What we need instead are more advanced weapons. YES! I say more advanced weapons because those can be better controlled. Imagine if the whole gun + ammo paradigm were dissolved through progress in handheld weaponry so that you had things like stunners or any sort of electrical weapon which could be charged and which would be thoroughly computerized. Why is this better? Well, for one thing, guns would no longer be the realm of any noob with a machine shop in his garage - they would be specialized, requiring experts to handle their innards. The same thing has happened with the advent of a new generation of cars with greater computerization - it has become harder for ordinary people to treat cars like toys. Also, it would be much easier to set up safe zones where these things just wouldn't work. These concepts are no longer in the realm of science fiction - it only takes a little ingenuity to bring these into the commercial market.
Further, I find it extremely strange that we have not seen the advent of more non-lethal handheld weaponry. You'd think that some kind of projectile stunner (a longer range taser for instance) would be welcomed by the gun proponents. You get defense and you don't have to kill. How can that be a bad thing? Or do you really want to destroy every badass mugger who dares attack you? Is cold-blooded revenge the point here?
Again, the only point I'm trying to make is why do people insist on thinking in binary? Why is the only choice we have "kill or be killed?". There are other alternatives, and the one I suggested above is only one of several that can be thrashed out if only the right people (gun manufacturers? gun activists?) use their imagination instead of their testosterone. By all means, have your guns. Just rise above the barbarism of the common lethal pea-shooter. Maybe I'll start carrying a crossbow around and see how you like it:P. Pathetic!
The Chinese focus on pompous national goals (e.g., space weapons and the like) Foolish, but inevitable. How else would you inspire an apathetic populace to DO stuff? The moon landing was the same. So is the White House's Mars fetish. Personally, I don't give a damn if at least some useful technology comes out of it. People dig their own graves. If a huge population such as China's can't demand and obtain human rights from their tiny ruling minority, perhaps they actually believe in all the "national glory" horseshit. So be it. After generations of innovation by someone else, at least now they can contribute to the sum total of human knowledge for a change and return to their roots as an innovative society.
I think if they were operating systems Serenity would be Linux (small market share in general, but popularised in geek circles by very loyal fans/users). Star Wars would be Windows (huge market share, almost no loyalty). Pardon me for interrupting what is sure to be an exciting flamewar:P, but I'm afraid true science fiction fans find that kind of "OS war" attitude applied to stories amusing at best and contemptible at worst (unless you were trying to be funny in which case it would be merely droll). I personally love Star Wars and absolutely adore Firefly (the series). The movie provided a nice catharsis to the series but the spirit of the story was captured much better in the short vignettes of the series.
Further, to even attempt to compare two visions in a genre as open and imaginative as science fiction is akin to the age-old folly of trying to compare apples and oranges or subtracting kilograms from Newtons:P.
To waste your (the "YOU" here refers to everyone guilty of this cardinal sin:P) time and effort and love of wonder on a single phenomenon like Star Wars or Serenity is something I would expect from elementary school kids, but not grown ups who consider themselves to be science fiction fans. THAT is the difference between "fans" and that subhuman species we call "fanbois".
There was also a case with the RIAA where someone did have traces that the harddrive was cleaned, and the judge ruled in favor of the RIAA. I hear what you're saying, but isn't that rather presumptuous of the judge? Perhaps the cleaning was to cover up another crime, or even simply to prevent embarassment ("But your Honour, I was merely trying to erase all the nu*** p*** before my wife saw them":P), in which case this judge wouldn't really have authority. Also, you don't really need intimate knowledge of HDD cleaning techniques to physically destroy it ("Your Honour, my pet elephant sat on it when I took it out for dusting") and get a new one. And I mean this the moment they hear about the mere possibility. Of course it would be illegal after you're served with a subpeona.
I wonder if judges should have a required computer literacy course in law school before they are allowed to preside over these cases (since so many of them are ex-lawyers, not always of course:P and the rest are probably qwango appointments =D *oink*). It is getting rather ludicrous the way people can get away with the most outrageous claims because of judicial ignorance. One is reminded of the short story "Galley Slave" by Isaac Asimov where a robot leased by U.S. Robots is sued by some noob and the judge (of course *roll*) discounts all technical evidence simply because he doesn't understand it. Would this same level of ignorance be tolerated in tort law or banking fraud? ("Objection sustained! The question is irrelevant because I really don't understand what embezzlement means. Rephrase your question please:P").
Some of them get expensive, but the RIAA can wright it off as PR funding. I LOL'D!!
Besides, once it is even mentioned that your computer may be this close to getting poked around by strangers (think of all the pr0n =D), surely anyone can purge the HDD of anything they want to in a matter of hours? Failing that, a quick replacement and a strong magnet should do the trick
'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. I see nothing wrong with that statement. The poll was secretly designed to test the credulity of the American public:P. I would say it was a resounding, albeit depressing success =D. Perhaps another bad habit that Americans should be weaned of is expressing an opinion while knowing absolutely nothing about the evidence or the nature of the scientific community. Also, I wonder if perhaps we should just introduce Creationism (not just ID, but the full-flanged "C") into schools? The benefit here that no one seems to have thought of is that this would enable students to FINALLY question the Bible and other mainstream religion(s) in a classroom, where at least theoretically, questions are encouraged and mindless answers from teachers are frowned upon. While the Creationists think of ID as a wedge to gain access to public schools, perhaps atheists should think of ID as a sneaky way to REALLY bring intelligent discussion and scathing critical inquiry of religion back into scholarly debate. You wanna bring the Bible into a classroom? Well, don't blame us for the ensuing carnage *evil grin* and shredding of paper tigers. In a classroom, they won't be able to hide behind "because God made it so" like they do in more private mileux.
What laypersons should realize is that when a flaw is discovered in a well-established physical theory, it usually reduces the domain of validity of the theory, but RARELY makes that theory useless as a calculational tool (it just tells us when the theory will break down, as ALL current theories eventually do - the triumph of modern physics is to push those breakdown points to the farthest reaches of the imaginable). In this, physics has been an unqualified success - a fraction of the predictive power that we have today would have been enough to condemn several "soothsayers" to a grisly demise at one point in history:P. To digress for a moment here, it amuses me greatly that people can be obsessed with psychics and the contemptible Nostradamus while taking such exquisitely detailed predictions as tomorrow's weather for granted. It's rather like being impressed with a mythical flying superman while thinking of an airplane as mundane.
An example to illustrate the breakdown of theories: the Special theory of Relativity modified Newtonian mechanics on a fundamental level. However, for speeds much less than the speed of light (which is what most of us experience in daily life), it is STILL Newtonian mechanics that we use, even in several cutting edge research fields. The rule of thumb in research is: never use a full model when an approximate one is just as accurate in the domain of interest. In much the same way, even if MOND were true, any deviations from Newton would kick in at EXTREMELY LOW accelerations (of the order of 10^-20 m/s^2 which is about 10^-21 g, something next to impossible to duplicate in a lab because of ambient vibrational noise which is usually MUCH higher (say, about 10^-9 g is a VERY quiet environment)). This is the reason why the paper (which attracted our group's attention a few weeks ago) proposes an experiment at such well-defined times and locations. To put it bluntly, this is an ad-hoc modification in the sense that there is just no justification for the modification. Of course, I don't even think MOND would replace the Dark Matter hypothesis. One might even argue that this modification is simply a way of expressing the effect of Dark Matter (just a thought).
This way, they'll just offload the responsibility for copyright infringement off on the schools, who will just force students to release their work, or refuse to give them a grade. You're probably right. Of course, this lawsuit totally subverts the entire educational process. It is obvious that these students are simply trying to destroy a service that makes things inconvenient for them (or others like them) in terms of plagiarism. I'm afraid I'm with the anti-plagiarism service in this case - they provide a necessary service and students are worried about copyright protection of the *CRAP* they usually turn in, I can only point and laugh at them:P.
One crucial question that the students should be asked is how exactly they justify the assumption that their work is actually worth money in the first place? Is it a copyright violation if the work is appropriated by someone who has THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to make money out of it? Further, in most cases, the teachers give an ENORMOUS amount of input in how these papers are written; do they have any rights as co-authors? How about the fact that the original inspiration for these papers usually arises from the course being taken and discussions therein. Another piece of the pie? My point is that students writing papers for a class are fundamentally different from someone writing a book or article with the intent of getting it published.
along comes IBM and makes them rough and it cools better:) Hmm, I am not a modder, but I am a lab rat and roughening is a common technique used to increase the effective available surface area that is in contact with the heat-sink compound. This is not limited to CPU cooling and it's a little strange that it's taken so long to implement. Chemists play the same trick when they want to increase the rate of a reaction, powder up your reagents, or your catalysts. Of course, this will work only up to the point where the heat-sink particles (micron sized here I'd guess) can SEE the extra surface area. Hence, there exists a limit to how rough or how fine you want the surface beyond which range the cooling gets less efficient. A fine grit sandpaper (as a responder suggests in this thread) should be the way to go.
Most geeks' dress sense hasn't changed much since 1989;) Fancy that:P. How foolish of us geeks not to buy into the "hip" mantra. But hey, come up with a less idiotic accessory than a tie (which, seriously was probably invented by a closet S&M freak) and we'll talk business =D. Another fancy I have is that the suit was invented by the same sadist who invented the corset and high heels for women. Gimme a tshirt and pair of jeans anytime. The Linux fanbois can have the penguin suits =D.
Let's agree to disagree on how much EG highlights the human condition More mature than I was. Sorry about the story chauvinism on my part =D.
But that is true in every genre of literature, not just sci-fi. True, but it is a matter of degree, as Tibannist says here:
Romance novels and action adventures, on the other hand, translate well because they spent a lot of time describe actions. Entire pages of explanation of actions can be reduced to seconds of movie time. Emotions can be acted out. How do you act out the process of thought itself? Narration is frowned upon in movies.
I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash. Certainly, but what do your beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter) have to do with what's true? I presume people still maintain that the question of whether aliens have visited Earth is a serious scientific question and not another of those loony Gallup poll deciders:P. Simple matter of examining the evidence and evaluating whether "aliens" are the most probable explanation for the observed phenomena.
If you still feel aliens are here already, well, they'll contact us when they're good and ready. Meanwhile, have a beer and relax dude:P. The Government is too incompetent to govern well, you think they have the intelligence to cover these things up? No wonder they don't deny these things, it lends them an aura of secret abilities =D.
Re:Might this yet change (Re: Ender's Game)?
on
The Sci-Fi Movie Stigma
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Bad example IMO. While Ender's Game was brilliantly written, to say that
It has much to say on the human condition is a stretch. The fact is, and SF fans (like myself) should get used to it, most serious SF is NOT simple enough to be adapted to a 2 hour movie without serious losses in clarity. "2001" was understandable only if you'd read the book. Well, by understandable, I mean, all the nuances and the undercurrents. I would say that SF is more suited to the mini-series arena, with Dune being a perfect example. The ill-fated Riverworld is another. SF has a LOT to say about the human condition. However, I feel that the best medium for it will remain books because unlike other genres, which are fairly easy to visualize, the SF writer is precisely the person who goes beyond current memes, else he/she is a failure. Instead of blaming Lucas for the current state of SF cinema, I would applaud him for bringing at least one facet of SF into the public perception, Gordonian though it may be:P. Perhaps if the Sci-Fi channel focused on promoting more intelligent shows instead of the mindless dribble that panders to the paranoid schizoid crowd (wtf do psychics or Government conspiracies have to do with SF?:O), we have a better chance of seeing some of the greater SF works (Asimov's Foundation or Clarke's RAMA - a superb PC game was made of this a decade ago) showcased in all their glory. Of course, the sad fact is that most "SF fans" or at least people who call themselves that are simply X-files fanbois who never grew up.
If you need both parents working to barely make ends meet, why are you paying for internet access that poisons the minds of your sweet children anyway? Seems you could save some money and your offspring's innocence by pulling the plug on satan's information superhighway in the home. Let them check their email on library computers running the filter software you're too dumb or too busy to install for the home computer. Hard to jerk it at the library anyway, I would imagine. Or you could just lighten up a bit and trust that your careful parenting can't be completely undone by pixels on a computer monitor. Beautiful point. Every once in a while, someone on/. comes up with a masterpiece of logic. Nice one floritard. Mod parent +1 insightful!!
Never attribute to conspiracy what may be explained by mere incompetence:P. It explains the last six years of American politics and it explains your current issue.
These things almost seem like the WMD of the future, the ability to wipe out all life within almost half a galaxy with a single explosion due to the concentration of gamma rays... kindof makes any nuke look insignificant... Yes. Also extremely stupid unless you can deliver it from more than "half a galaxy" away:P.
Oh no, I just mentioned a weapons application... so if we suddenly see lots of funding of this research by the bush administration... we know why! Getting old and tired there. Never attribute to conspiracy what may be explained by mere incompetence:P.
Next up... legitimate pirates (like Tony) join forces with the MPAA and RIAA to battle the scourge of P2P. LMFAO! I wondering when the RIAA and the MPAA would make it into the thread *roll*. But yeah, it is rather disturbingly sweet how people seem to care so much for the small guy here:P. Screw those rich freaks who actually write the software yeah? Wait...
All good points, but it is rather irrelevant whether egos will clash or if this will work. The plain fact of the matter is that the resources of any one country can only take you so far where space is concerned. Already, (to give you an example), the American public is being roused against space exploration through the (I must reluctantly say - very good) argument that it costs too much. I say it is a good argument because no administration has tried to create a coherent plan that will span more than 5 years. You just can't pour money into this thing through quangoes and then just forget about it. If there is no lucid vision about "what next?", then it becomes pure grandstanding to say something like, "we'll put a man on mars". I know some people I'd like to put on Mars:P.
It is not a question of WHO will explore the solar system but whether our civilization can mature to the point where global resources can be managed by a central planning intitution that can effectively and non-redundantly take us into space, one step at a time. It is ludicrous that the old Sputnik crap can still persist in today's atmosphere. That sort of naive version of capitalism died with Heinlein's dreams of a merchant prince spacefaring economy. It's just plain hokum and fit only for the pages of a vibrant yet outmoded style of science fiction. Another important reason we need this collaboration to succeed and build upon itself is that the political problems are massive and every major power that has the ability to seriously undercut someone else's space efforts MUST be wooed into this collaboration. Look at it this way - if they have a stake in what goes up there, they won't be actively opposing it. Nuclear power will be essential for any serious foray into space. As such, the childish treaties that exist today to prevent weapons proliferation into space MUST be rewritten to recognize that fact. Trying to accomplish major space engineering projects based solely on chemical rockets is simply shooting yourself in the foot.
In conclusion, whether this may work or not, remember that NOTHING says that we WILL succeed in going into space in a serious way. Either it will happen or it won't and the outcome is NOT preordained as some rather mystical futurians seem to believe. This "Morpheus mentality" is self-destructive and must cease. If a large fraction of the world's richer governments (rich in terms of physical or labor or intellectual resources) do NOT get together for this purpose, this WILL be a heroic but short-lived dream.
+1. Parent has the right insight into this. At what point in this charade are we going to expect the students to show some initiative for their own education? This disease is spreading right upto high school and even unto college now. If it takes such extreme measures to get students interested in their own education, perhaps we should rethink our goals here. Have a merit based education system (golly gee what a novel concept:P) and impress upon the students the reality of the outside world. Given a choice between "burger-flipping" and "professional career", I'm sure even the most ludicrous inhabitant of the "entitled generation" would get motivated =D. An education is simply an environment wherefrom the proactive student can extract the skills one needs to fulfil his/her goals in life.
The following is addressed to the disaffected student:
<rant>
Have trouble getting motivated in class? Feel the teacher is not doing his job? You have a brain, use it. Go to the library, hop on the internet (or into the tubes:P) and learn FFS. Demonstrations and compaints and whining are all GOOD things and they will make society a better place (no sarcasm there). However, none of those things will help YOU learn at this moment. So, you don't like the way a teacher teaches or feel he's incompetent? (This is quite possible and entirely plausible.) Do what we used to do - OWN the subject and then attempt to display that teacher's ignorance in open class, keep him on his toes. Ask the difficult questions, point out logical flaws. After all, that is the ultimate purpose of a course - to attempt go beyond what your teacher knows. If a subect fails to motivate you, there's always pleasure to be gained in treating it like a sport and showing your coach the time of his life *evil grin*. Heck, it works for sports, and no sport even has a meaningful goal to begin with:P. Academics could be a sport in itself, at least there's some things you can walk away with at the end. Does this make you a nerd? Possibly. Should you care? That's upto how much importance you attach to peer pressure. I think if you have the right attitude towards learning (for instance: I'm gonna learn this stuff with or without the teacher's help), no one can stop you from understanding ANYTHING. So, seriously, let's stop with the "decelerated pace learning". Video games! Humbug!
and possibly force cable companies to let subscribers opt out of paying for channels that run brutal content Right idea, wrong reasons. At the moment, cable companies are forcing tons of crappy channels on me when I only ever watch a few of them. Do I really want to pay for HSN or the Jewelery Channel?:P So, the opt-out thing is a marvellous idea, again, enforced for the wrong reasons, but hey, we're in no position to be picky here =D.
Many people think the safest thing to do is shrug and conclude "a pox on both their houses", and ignore the whole business. Unfortunately, the situation is not like that. At this point it is inescapably true that at least one side of the perceived debate is lying. (I suppose it's not excludable that both sides are lying, but you'd have to wonder where the real scientists are in that case.) The public is forced to determine which "side" is lying and which "side" is accurately representing the state of the science.
As a member of the scientific community I could tell you which "side" bears any resemblance to the underlying state of knowledge, but you'd still have to decide if I am real or astroturfing. You do actually have to do that in a sense, because abstaining is as a decision with consequences. Very good point; that is precisely how I feel and I have therefore "opted out" of this frustrating "debate". Surely this is a case of swamping the average Joe with data on the part of the dishonest side and hoping that enough people refuse to examine it. And this leads again to the expert wars that news stations like so much. In such wars, the side with the best sound bites usually wins. Now, before I get onto a tangent again and self-indulge in spewing bile =D, I would like to ask you as a mere physicist to a geophysicist - how do I go about the disambiguation process without having to switch departments =D? What advice would you give an average Joe who doesn't have the same resources as I do?
It wasn't an intelligent AC post at all. It was simply quoting someone (and citing his ref, so good for him =D). Not a bad comparison at all although the phrase "analogy rape" comes to mind. LOL. If religious associations are indeed getting to be such close descriptions of the IT industry, then perhaps Dilbertization is the least of your problems:P.
The "truth" is not taboo. However, if the so-called truth relies on your BELIEFS, then yes, it shouldn't be associated with science. It is a historical fact that any issue which gets politicized to such an extent as global warming has (other examples include evolution and abortion), has been firebombed out of legitimate scientific enquiry. And when this happens, the public makes "decisions" based on their emotions and that corrupts what used to be the truth. These issues are not the lame binary questions that are paraded in the media by brain-dead reporters who have no clue what the issue is or what the consequences are for the future. In short, if the people want to decide these issues, fine, let them. But we MUST require a certain level of education in this matter before that can be allowed to happen. Asking a random noob off the street a question is merely proves the intelligence of the examinee, not the merits of the argument itself.
You can't vote on scientific truth. For example, if even a majority of America is seen to believe in Global Warming in some kind of inane Gallup Poll, well tough noogies if the evidence shows otherwise (random pov, the reverse is also true). People's opinions DO NOT matter unless they are informed decisions rather than the "close-your-eyes-and-pick-one" sprt of decisions that are ruining this country.
Slashdot Mirror
Further, I find it extremely strange that we have not seen the advent of more non-lethal handheld weaponry. You'd think that some kind of projectile stunner (a longer range taser for instance) would be welcomed by the gun proponents. You get defense and you don't have to kill. How can that be a bad thing? Or do you really want to destroy every badass mugger who dares attack you? Is cold-blooded revenge the point here?
Again, the only point I'm trying to make is why do people insist on thinking in binary? Why is the only choice we have "kill or be killed?". There are other alternatives, and the one I suggested above is only one of several that can be thrashed out if only the right people (gun manufacturers? gun activists?) use their imagination instead of their testosterone. By all means, have your guns. Just rise above the barbarism of the common lethal pea-shooter. Maybe I'll start carrying a crossbow around and see how you like it :P. Pathetic!
Further, to even attempt to compare two visions in a genre as open and imaginative as science fiction is akin to the age-old folly of trying to compare apples and oranges or subtracting kilograms from Newtons :P.
To waste your (the "YOU" here refers to everyone guilty of this cardinal sin :P) time and effort and love of wonder on a single phenomenon like Star Wars or Serenity is something I would expect from elementary school kids, but not grown ups who consider themselves to be science fiction fans. THAT is the difference between "fans" and that subhuman species we call "fanbois".
I wonder if judges should have a required computer literacy course in law school before they are allowed to preside over these cases (since so many of them are ex-lawyers, not always of course :P and the rest are probably qwango appointments =D *oink*). It is getting rather ludicrous the way people can get away with the most outrageous claims because of judicial ignorance. One is reminded of the short story "Galley Slave" by Isaac Asimov where a robot leased by U.S. Robots is sued by some noob and the judge (of course *roll*) discounts all technical evidence simply because he doesn't understand it. Would this same level of ignorance be tolerated in tort law or banking fraud? ("Objection sustained! The question is irrelevant because I really don't understand what embezzlement means. Rephrase your question please :P").
Some of them get expensive, but the RIAA can wright it off as PR funding. I LOL'D!!Besides, once it is even mentioned that your computer may be this close to getting poked around by strangers (think of all the pr0n =D), surely anyone can purge the HDD of anything they want to in a matter of hours? Failing that, a quick replacement and a strong magnet should do the trick
An example to illustrate the breakdown of theories: the Special theory of Relativity modified Newtonian mechanics on a fundamental level. However, for speeds much less than the speed of light (which is what most of us experience in daily life), it is STILL Newtonian mechanics that we use, even in several cutting edge research fields. The rule of thumb in research is: never use a full model when an approximate one is just as accurate in the domain of interest. In much the same way, even if MOND were true, any deviations from Newton would kick in at EXTREMELY LOW accelerations (of the order of 10^-20 m/s^2 which is about 10^-21 g, something next to impossible to duplicate in a lab because of ambient vibrational noise which is usually MUCH higher (say, about 10^-9 g is a VERY quiet environment)). This is the reason why the paper (which attracted our group's attention a few weeks ago) proposes an experiment at such well-defined times and locations. To put it bluntly, this is an ad-hoc modification in the sense that there is just no justification for the modification. Of course, I don't even think MOND would replace the Dark Matter hypothesis. One might even argue that this modification is simply a way of expressing the effect of Dark Matter (just a thought).
One crucial question that the students should be asked is how exactly they justify the assumption that their work is actually worth money in the first place? Is it a copyright violation if the work is appropriated by someone who has THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to make money out of it? Further, in most cases, the teachers give an ENORMOUS amount of input in how these papers are written; do they have any rights as co-authors? How about the fact that the original inspiration for these papers usually arises from the course being taken and discussions therein. Another piece of the pie? My point is that students writing papers for a class are fundamentally different from someone writing a book or article with the intent of getting it published.
______
"What's flamebait daddy?"
If you still feel aliens are here already, well, they'll contact us when they're good and ready. Meanwhile, have a beer and relax dude :P. The Government is too incompetent to govern well, you think they have the intelligence to cover these things up? No wonder they don't deny these things, it lends them an aura of secret abilities =D.
Never attribute to conspiracy what may be explained by mere incompetence :P. It explains the last six years of American politics and it explains your current issue.
It is not a question of WHO will explore the solar system but whether our civilization can mature to the point where global resources can be managed by a central planning intitution that can effectively and non-redundantly take us into space, one step at a time. It is ludicrous that the old Sputnik crap can still persist in today's atmosphere. That sort of naive version of capitalism died with Heinlein's dreams of a merchant prince spacefaring economy. It's just plain hokum and fit only for the pages of a vibrant yet outmoded style of science fiction. Another important reason we need this collaboration to succeed and build upon itself is that the political problems are massive and every major power that has the ability to seriously undercut someone else's space efforts MUST be wooed into this collaboration. Look at it this way - if they have a stake in what goes up there, they won't be actively opposing it. Nuclear power will be essential for any serious foray into space. As such, the childish treaties that exist today to prevent weapons proliferation into space MUST be rewritten to recognize that fact. Trying to accomplish major space engineering projects based solely on chemical rockets is simply shooting yourself in the foot.
In conclusion, whether this may work or not, remember that NOTHING says that we WILL succeed in going into space in a serious way. Either it will happen or it won't and the outcome is NOT preordained as some rather mystical futurians seem to believe. This "Morpheus mentality" is self-destructive and must cease. If a large fraction of the world's richer governments (rich in terms of physical or labor or intellectual resources) do NOT get together for this purpose, this WILL be a heroic but short-lived dream.
The following is addressed to the disaffected student:
Have trouble getting motivated in class? Feel the teacher is not doing his job? You have a brain, use it. Go to the library, hop on the internet (or into the tubes/obligatory GATTACCA reference =D
It wasn't an intelligent AC post at all. It was simply quoting someone (and citing his ref, so good for him =D). Not a bad comparison at all although the phrase "analogy rape" comes to mind. LOL. If religious associations are indeed getting to be such close descriptions of the IT industry, then perhaps Dilbertization is the least of your problems :P.
You can't vote on scientific truth. For example, if even a majority of America is seen to believe in Global Warming in some kind of inane Gallup Poll, well tough noogies if the evidence shows otherwise (random pov, the reverse is also true). People's opinions DO NOT matter unless they are informed decisions rather than the "close-your-eyes-and-pick-one" sprt of decisions that are ruining this country.