The technological hurdles are pretty high for private parties without very, very deep pockets. I hope to see it by 2010, but I'm not holding my breath.
One of the keys to building a sustainable presence in space is economics. Governments don't build markets, they build procurement lists paid for with confiscated private property (ie taxes). Once we get a space economy bootstrapped, probably initially by tourism, we'll have a steamroller.
There are people that will pay $20 million to spend a week on the ISS. I'm willing to bet that the market for a week on the Moon in a Moon Hotel is even larger. To get there requires a large infrastructure for lift, transport, support, and construction, not to mention property rights and enabling regulation.
I hope to see it within the next 50 years before I die.
Manned space travel should be given over to the sort of missions being run by Branson and Rutan. That's where the real innovation is going to come from
I agree. I think we'll see a private version of Mercury within 20 years, then things will start getting really wild.
Space is a frontier, and and expensive one at that. Government space agencies have a role in breaking the trails, but as we've seen with government-funded space exploration in the last 30+ years, government is not good at developing the frontier. That's where private enterprise will come in, IMO.
The hard choices have been made for them. The Shuttle is being retired in 2010. But the US is treaty-obligated to finish construction of the minimal ISS, so the money has to go into the shuttle for the short term. Its a collossal waste, IMO, but that's the hard choice. Some very interesting science has to be placed on hold in the meantime.
We're obligated to finish ISS, and we want to build the CEV and launch vehicles to take us to the Moon and Mars in this century. There's only so much of the pie to be cut up, so the science gets punted down the road. I feel for the space nerds (I'm one too) that don't like great projects like the Terrestial Planet Finder getting put on hold, but in the real world there are tradeoffs.
He may be right - or a court may judge that not helping was an act of negligence resulting in a wroingful death. Two pretty important principles are colliding here
Well, just as in your example, drug companies (like individuals) do not have a duty of care to the sick or dying. You do not have a duty to save another's life, unless your own acts have imperiled them. No duty, no negligence. Drug companies do not have a duty to provide others with life saving medicine. The drugs produced are the product of private effort. And those who have put forth the effort, and created a valuable property, have a right to ask what they wish for an exchange in value. People do not have the right to demand others relinguish their property. Would you think it fair that a homeless person demands you sell your house to him/her for $1? That's a "fair" price to him/her, after all, and he/she needs it. You're just being greedy by asking your equity in the house to be included in the purchase price.
You can ask government to subsidy the cost, or ask them to take it by force (subsuming patent rights or whatever). But that's another story, and a route you shouldn't want to tread down, at least not often.
I laughed my ass off at that. "Gee, I'm working at a law firm and I have publicly declared that I am prepared to break the law. Why did I get fired?"
Maybe because attorneys are licensed professionals and officers of the court with very strict ethics requirements? Maybe because breaking the law and a declared intent to do so is a very serious ethics violation? That if this shmuck was an attorney he would disbarred for making such a statement? Naaawww...
It happened in the USA right? Do you call that "foreign spying"...or have you quaffed so much coolaid you call it 'wiretaps for freedom and liberty'
No, actually it happened by data mining the stream of foreign calls coming into the United States, from known terrorists. That's surveillance of foreign powers or the agents of foreign powers. The targets are foreign powers, and those foreign powers are communicating to within the US, ie agents of foreign powers.
Congress did not declare war, and last I checked, Al Qaeda is not a nation
That's what the Authorization of the Use of Force pursuant to the War Powers Act is, exactly. And Congress authorized the use of all necessary force against all nations, organizations, or persons that perpetrated 9/11, and to further protect the national security of the US.
This is plain-language stuff. If you don't get it, you don't want to.
The Constitution does allow for warrantless searches.
The Fourth Amendment has two clauses - 1. no unreasonable search and seizures, and 2. the warrant clause. Not all searches and seizures require a warrant. For example, searches incident to arrest, "open container" vehicle searches, and (importantly for this discussion) foreign intelligence signals intelligence.
What's more, not all searches and seizures are forbidden, only those that are unreasonable. The interception of the communications of known foreign enemies of the US is per se reasonable.
Uh, no right back at ya. The Congress issued the Authorization for the Use of Force, which states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
This is an explicit authorization under the War Powers Act, ie a declaration of war against Al Qaeda, and empowers the President to use the full extent of his Constitutional War Powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
Surveilance of foreign communications to intercept enemy intelligence is, and always has been, an inherent aspect of waging war, and so is within the President's inherent Constitutional power.
As to the 72 hour provision - first of all, Congress does not have the power to limit the President's inherent Constitutional powers. Second, the AUMF is a later expression of sovereign will by the Congress, and supercedes FISA. Third, even though wiretaps are allowed for 72 hours without a warrant, the standard for approval by the Attorney General is the same standard required to get a warrant - in other words, there is no "get out of warrant free card" in FISA. Fourth, FISA's provisions were meant to cover surveiling of known foreign agents in known locations for purposes of observation, not detection. The "domestic spying" (which is a complete misnomer, btw) is for the purpose of uncovering foreign agents within the US when known terrorists abroad attempt to communicate with parties within the US.
Facts are not copyrightable, but compilations of facts are copyrightable. The catch: only the specific arrangement and selection of facts is copyrightable, not the underlying facts. So someone can copyright a specific arrangement of sports scores, but can't copyright the sports scores or use the form to prevent others from using those scores.
I have no idea what "IP law" is supposedly being infringed but its not copyright, trademark, or patent. Possibly some state misappropriation or unfair trade practice law.
The viability of this option depends on the quality of your local library
If China's research colleges are in such bad array that they don't have the most basic tools of research and have to rely on freakin Wikipedia (!!!!!), the hype about a "Chinese Century" are laughably empty.
No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think
That's such a false alternative. My suggestion: crack open a book. Remember what those things were, kids? They're in libraries - those rows of things beyond the computer terminals.
"Devoid of useful applications"? Isn't it always a big gripe when Microsoft attempts to prepackage apps with the OS? So then MS is also evil when it *doesn't* prepackage apps with the OS? That's quite an interesting position.
The first application that came to my mind after reading their site was air deployed rocketry.
I'd be interested to see the numbers for cargo tonnage carrying capacity and max altitude of a full size (~1000 ft) freighter craft.
Combine this airship with t/space's air-launched lanyard rocketry, and there is an awesome potential for large tonnage air launched private spacecraft.
It must be nice to have mainstream consumers for your main customers, rather than IT pros. You can sell 'em anything, and they'll never know it's crap, because they don't keep up with the industry
That's why I always skip all these "new Windows release" articles - they're pap. Usually just alot of mouth breathing over widgets and rather pedestrian implementations of mundane technology. Boring, and not very informative. Keeps alot of boring writers in jobs, though. Microsoft is like a 5 year jobs program for "IT Professional" writers that otherwise don't know their ass from their hat.
Slashdot Mirror
Help Wanted: Game Programmers
Must have 5 years experience coding in Assembly for the IBM Cell processor
That's the funniest (and most tragically true) post I've read on Slashdot in months. Bravo!
None of this is not legal advice
:)
Watch your double negatives there, my man.
as you would be dead from starvation
This problem is handily defeated by human hibernation technology.
And I think we are closer to realizing that technology than near-light-speed spacecraft.
I think it'll be sooner than that
:)
I like to play the estimates conservatively.
The technological hurdles are pretty high for private parties without very, very deep pockets. I hope to see it by 2010, but I'm not holding my breath.
One of the keys to building a sustainable presence in space is economics. Governments don't build markets, they build procurement lists paid for with confiscated private property (ie taxes). Once we get a space economy bootstrapped, probably initially by tourism, we'll have a steamroller.
There are people that will pay $20 million to spend a week on the ISS. I'm willing to bet that the market for a week on the Moon in a Moon Hotel is even larger. To get there requires a large infrastructure for lift, transport, support, and construction, not to mention property rights and enabling regulation.
I hope to see it within the next 50 years before I die.
Manned space travel should be given over to the sort of missions being run by Branson and Rutan. That's where the real innovation is going to come from
I agree. I think we'll see a private version of Mercury within 20 years, then things will start getting really wild.
Space is a frontier, and and expensive one at that. Government space agencies have a role in breaking the trails, but as we've seen with government-funded space exploration in the last 30+ years, government is not good at developing the frontier. That's where private enterprise will come in, IMO.
They really need to make some hard choices
The hard choices have been made for them. The Shuttle is being retired in 2010. But the US is treaty-obligated to finish construction of the minimal ISS, so the money has to go into the shuttle for the short term. Its a collossal waste, IMO, but that's the hard choice. Some very interesting science has to be placed on hold in the meantime.
We're obligated to finish ISS, and we want to build the CEV and launch vehicles to take us to the Moon and Mars in this century. There's only so much of the pie to be cut up, so the science gets punted down the road. I feel for the space nerds (I'm one too) that don't like great projects like the Terrestial Planet Finder getting put on hold, but in the real world there are tradeoffs.
He may be right - or a court may judge that not helping was an act of negligence resulting in a wroingful death. Two pretty important principles are colliding here
Well, just as in your example, drug companies (like individuals) do not have a duty of care to the sick or dying. You do not have a duty to save another's life, unless your own acts have imperiled them. No duty, no negligence. Drug companies do not have a duty to provide others with life saving medicine. The drugs produced are the product of private effort. And those who have put forth the effort, and created a valuable property, have a right to ask what they wish for an exchange in value. People do not have the right to demand others relinguish their property. Would you think it fair that a homeless person demands you sell your house to him/her for $1? That's a "fair" price to him/her, after all, and he/she needs it. You're just being greedy by asking your equity in the house to be included in the purchase price.
You can ask government to subsidy the cost, or ask them to take it by force (subsuming patent rights or whatever). But that's another story, and a route you shouldn't want to tread down, at least not often.
Re:yeah, blah blah
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, @01:47PM (#14661632)
This joker (thanks for the abuse of mod points, asshat) is why Slashdot will never be more than a sandbox for the emotionally challenged.
Just one more sign Stallman is a big fat idiot.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Stallman only sees things one of two ways: his way, or no way. No thanks, Dick.
Is it possible to moderate an entire story "Flamebait"?
I laughed my ass off at that. "Gee, I'm working at a law firm and I have publicly declared that I am prepared to break the law. Why did I get fired?"
Maybe because attorneys are licensed professionals and officers of the court with very strict ethics requirements? Maybe because breaking the law and a declared intent to do so is a very serious ethics violation? That if this shmuck was an attorney he would disbarred for making such a statement? Naaawww...
It happened in the USA right? Do you call that "foreign spying"...or have you quaffed so much coolaid you call it 'wiretaps for freedom and liberty'
No, actually it happened by data mining the stream of foreign calls coming into the United States, from known terrorists. That's surveillance of foreign powers or the agents of foreign powers. The targets are foreign powers, and those foreign powers are communicating to within the US, ie agents of foreign powers.
Congress did not declare war, and last I checked, Al Qaeda is not a nation
That's what the Authorization of the Use of Force pursuant to the War Powers Act is, exactly. And Congress authorized the use of all necessary force against all nations, organizations, or persons that perpetrated 9/11, and to further protect the national security of the US.
This is plain-language stuff. If you don't get it, you don't want to.
The Constitution does allow for warrantless searches.
The Fourth Amendment has two clauses - 1. no unreasonable search and seizures, and 2. the warrant clause. Not all searches and seizures require a warrant. For example, searches incident to arrest, "open container" vehicle searches, and (importantly for this discussion) foreign intelligence signals intelligence.
What's more, not all searches and seizures are forbidden, only those that are unreasonable. The interception of the communications of known foreign enemies of the US is per se reasonable.
Uh, no right back at ya. The Congress issued the Authorization for the Use of Force, which states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
This is an explicit authorization under the War Powers Act, ie a declaration of war against Al Qaeda, and empowers the President to use the full extent of his Constitutional War Powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
Surveilance of foreign communications to intercept enemy intelligence is, and always has been, an inherent aspect of waging war, and so is within the President's inherent Constitutional power.
As to the 72 hour provision - first of all, Congress does not have the power to limit the President's inherent Constitutional powers. Second, the AUMF is a later expression of sovereign will by the Congress, and supercedes FISA. Third, even though wiretaps are allowed for 72 hours without a warrant, the standard for approval by the Attorney General is the same standard required to get a warrant - in other words, there is no "get out of warrant free card" in FISA. Fourth, FISA's provisions were meant to cover surveiling of known foreign agents in known locations for purposes of observation, not detection. The "domestic spying" (which is a complete misnomer, btw) is for the purpose of uncovering foreign agents within the US when known terrorists abroad attempt to communicate with parties within the US.
For the first time EVAR!! I rule!
Astronomers suggest name for this new planet of frozen liquid surface: Hoth.
The etymology of the name was not entirely clear at press time.
Facts are not copyrightable, but compilations of facts are copyrightable. The catch: only the specific arrangement and selection of facts is copyrightable, not the underlying facts. So someone can copyright a specific arrangement of sports scores, but can't copyright the sports scores or use the form to prevent others from using those scores.
I have no idea what "IP law" is supposedly being infringed but its not copyright, trademark, or patent. Possibly some state misappropriation or unfair trade practice law.
The viability of this option depends on the quality of your local library
If China's research colleges are in such bad array that they don't have the most basic tools of research and have to rely on freakin Wikipedia (!!!!!), the hype about a "Chinese Century" are laughably empty.
Derek
No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think
That's such a false alternative. My suggestion: crack open a book. Remember what those things were, kids? They're in libraries - those rows of things beyond the computer terminals.
"How can I do my thesis now?" What sort of intellectual mouse uses Wikipedia (!!) for serious scholarly research?
What a joke. Lesson: be careful about citing to any Chinese research.
"Devoid of useful applications"? Isn't it always a big gripe when Microsoft attempts to prepackage apps with the OS? So then MS is also evil when it *doesn't* prepackage apps with the OS? That's quite an interesting position.
The first application that came to my mind after reading their site was air deployed rocketry.
n =projects.view&workid=EE0A866A-F1C1-C18B-7D3CB327B CAF3542
I'd be interested to see the numbers for cargo tonnage carrying capacity and max altitude of a full size (~1000 ft) freighter craft.
Combine this airship with t/space's air-launched lanyard rocketry, and there is an awesome potential for large tonnage air launched private spacecraft.
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseactio
It must be nice to have mainstream consumers for your main customers, rather than IT pros. You can sell 'em anything, and they'll never know it's crap, because they don't keep up with the industry
That's why I always skip all these "new Windows release" articles - they're pap. Usually just alot of mouth breathing over widgets and rather pedestrian implementations of mundane technology. Boring, and not very informative. Keeps alot of boring writers in jobs, though. Microsoft is like a 5 year jobs program for "IT Professional" writers that otherwise don't know their ass from their hat.