Couldn't said costs be viewed as upfront costs of a very, very long term investment in the human race? The more we spend on astronaut safety for a small number of astronauts in the present, the cheaper it'll be in the future for a large number of astronauts and the sooner we'll be able to send large numbers of them. If we wanted to think in the long term, we'd remember that our population is growing and will continue to do so. Investing in solutions on where to put people and how to feed them now will save us a lot headaches compared to waiting until it really is a problem. (granted there are plenty of potentially habitable spaces here on the globe to explore, such as floating on/under the ocean, re-greening the deserts, or perhaps carved out of the icecaps, but eventually those spaces will run out as well).
Yep, you're right. I honestly don't know why they haven't (or at least a class-action suit or something similiar). I'd love it if one of those "IAAL" types could fill me (and others) in on that. My point was simply that it would seem prudent to plan for worst-case senerios. I would think that profit-seeking entities would someday learn how profitable risk management can be, in the long run.
Yes, I'm also aware "the long run" doesn't seem to be in our current corporate culture's lexicon. Hmm... it's possible I just answered one of my own questions.
Events like this seem to have become a near-monthly event. I would've thought banks and credit card companies and thier ilk would have learned thier lesson the first time something like this made news and started at least encrypting this stuff. Or at least the second time it happened. Or the third, maybe if we're cutting them a lot of slack. Yes, it's expensive and yes it's hard work, but it'd be less expensive than a potential 4.5 millian lawsuits and less work than the PR mess that they now have to clean up.
Is there a reason we have to simplify things down to the black and white, "outsourcing is good" or "outsourcing is bad"? Can't it be both? Is there anything wrong with saying "Outsourcing is good for us as consumers, bad for us workers"?
No, I don't. I'm simply illustrating the point that the threat of an armed civiallian isn't much of a threat. And yes, I spell terribly, paritally because of laziness, partially because it's fun to see who's gonna be anal about it. I also made "a lot" one word.
Why is he being modded down? He's absolutely right!
The American Revolution would never have happened if the populace was not armed to the teeth. I hate to say it, but if our government ever collapses into a blatant dictatorship, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be unarmed.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 That Jefferson quote made alot of sense and was absolutly correct when the best weapon the government had available was the musket and the best weapon that the average civillian had was also a musket. But when the government has bombs, planes, nuklear/biological/chemical weapons, special forces, various kinds of armor, tanks, etc., and the best weapon that a civillian has available is a gun, really just an Nth generation musket, the situation is a little different.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't said costs be viewed as upfront costs of a very, very long term investment in the human race? The more we spend on astronaut safety for a small number of astronauts in the present, the cheaper it'll be in the future for a large number of astronauts and the sooner we'll be able to send large numbers of them. If we wanted to think in the long term, we'd remember that our population is growing and will continue to do so. Investing in solutions on where to put people and how to feed them now will save us a lot headaches compared to waiting until it really is a problem. (granted there are plenty of potentially habitable spaces here on the globe to explore, such as floating on/under the ocean, re-greening the deserts, or perhaps carved out of the icecaps, but eventually those spaces will run out as well).
Yep, you're right. I honestly don't know why they haven't (or at least a class-action suit or something similiar). I'd love it if one of those "IAAL" types could fill me (and others) in on that.
My point was simply that it would seem prudent to plan for worst-case senerios. I would think that profit-seeking entities would someday learn how profitable risk management can be, in the long run.
Yes, I'm also aware "the long run" doesn't seem to be in our current corporate culture's lexicon. Hmm... it's possible I just answered one of my own questions.
Events like this seem to have become a near-monthly event. I would've thought banks and credit card companies and thier ilk would have learned thier lesson the first time something like this made news and started at least encrypting this stuff. Or at least the second time it happened. Or the third, maybe if we're cutting them a lot of slack. Yes, it's expensive and yes it's hard work, but it'd be less expensive than a potential 4.5 millian lawsuits and less work than the PR mess that they now have to clean up.
Is there a reason we have to simplify things down to the black and white, "outsourcing is good" or "outsourcing is bad"? Can't it be both? Is there anything wrong with saying "Outsourcing is good for us as consumers, bad for us workers"?
No, I don't. I'm simply illustrating the point that the threat of an armed civiallian isn't much of a threat. And yes, I spell terribly, paritally because of laziness, partially because it's fun to see who's gonna be anal about it. I also made "a lot" one word.
The American Revolution would never have happened if the populace was not armed to the teeth. I hate to say it, but if our government ever collapses into a blatant dictatorship, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be unarmed.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 That Jefferson quote made alot of sense and was absolutly correct when the best weapon the government had available was the musket and the best weapon that the average civillian had was also a musket. But when the government has bombs, planes, nuklear/biological/chemical weapons, special forces, various kinds of armor, tanks, etc., and the best weapon that a civillian has available is a gun, really just an Nth generation musket, the situation is a little different.