Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.
First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.
If it is flown via visual observation of the aircraft by someone with a hand held remote control, and it stays under a few hundred feet, it may not fall under FAA regulation at all.
Now, putting that aside, the question you're really asking is, "what is the difference with getting paid?"
I'll tell you... If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.
If you go out and pay Joe Blow $100 to do it, then you likely don't have enough knowledge to assess the risks, and you don't have enough skin in the game to care. Then when Joe Blow crashes, it creates a public safety risk.
These laws were not written to take your fun away, they were written to provide for the safely and welfare of the general public. It provides a way for the FAA to have oversight of someone who is operating for profit to prevent them from cutting corners and putting the general public at risk.
If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.
If it is just a fleet of aircraft that some business owns and hires pilots to fly, and at the end of the day there are business owners who want profits (and they don't fly the aircraft and probably don't know how), there is pressure to cut corners and operate in an unsafe manor to make extra profit.
The commercial pilot and commercial operator rules are designed to provide pushback against such for-profit pressures.
And how much schooling do you need to be able to get that certificate? I suppose that's free right?
No, but that money isn't paid to the FAA, which was the original point made, that the FAA just wants money.
The FAA's job is to provide for the safety of flight and more importantly, the safely of the general public below the flight.
The point of additional training is to enhance safety. I suppose you could make the arguement that ALL pilots should meet the commercial pilot requirements, but that misses the point. Commercial pilots DO need more skill, they often have to fly when the weather is less than perfect, they fly when the boss wants them to, not when they choose to for fun.
A private pilot can look a the sky and say, "hmm, that weather looks kinda iffy, maybe I'll go do something else instead". He/she doesn't need the level of training of a commercial pilot because he/she has that choice.
All this just so I can take a few pictures with a little quad copter that is too small to hurt anyone at an event I happen to be charging admission to?
First, even a 5lb object falling from 100ft can kill, so be careful when you say something can't hurt anyone.
Second, are you talking about a small radio controlled quad copter that you fly only via visual observation, or via remote link? Not all RC aircraft are "drones", some are just RC aircraft.
Finally, if you are taking the pictures for personal use and not selling them, even if it was a real aircraft, it may not be a commercial operation. Depends on what you're doing with the pictures and why you're taking them.
Or how about the farmer who wants to monitor his own damn fields that nobody else has any business being in? Good thing the FAA is there to protect the company he will have to hire!
The farmer is free to buy his own aircraft and fly it around taking pictures of his own field all he likes, no commercial operation there.
If he HIRES a company to do it, then the company he hires must have a commercial pilot, and depending on what they are doing, might need a Part 135 operators certificate as well.
The purpose of these is to protect the general public. The farmer likely has no way of knowing if the company he hires is safe, has any idea of what they are doing, etc. The requirement for increased oversight provides a level of assurance to the general public that the companies that are operating for pay are doing so safely.
When you go to Las Vegas or Hawaii and get on a sight seeing helicopter, be happy that Part 135 rules exist, they help keep you safer and keep the for-profit operator of that helicopter at least somewhat in line, for it is very easy to cut corners until it crashes. And they still sometimes do, but not as often as they would without such rules.
Look at the airlines, they are very safe, in part because of the rules of operating under Part 121 of the rules is so strict.
Why is commercial vs non-commercial even an issue? So that the FAA can make more money?
No, it is so that people like you, who don't know what you're talking about, can come onto Slashdot and spout off about it.:)
There is the pilot's requirements, a private pilot certificate vs. a commercial pilot certificate, then there is the operation itself, it could be a Part 91 operation, or a Part 135 operation.
Each has various levels of oversight required to enhance safety, from maintenance of the aircraft to how often the pilot needs a medical exam.
As for money, the FAA doesn't charge a dime for its services, obtaining a Part 135 certificate doesn't cost anything other than the time to go through the process. They do this specifically to avoid the appearance of accepting money to provide services.
Helicopters frequently fly at 300 ft. And I think a drone is more of a hazard to a helicopter than an airplane.
Quite true...
The thing is, most of the drones that you are likely to be flying aren't THAT much of a hazard to the helicopter...
I've knocked down some pretty large birds with my helicopter before, some of the better helicopters can chop down small trees with their blades (UH-1 is a good example).
The RC drones that are sold for $300 on eBay? Those aren't really the threat... the bigger issue is commercial drones costing thousands of dollars and able to fly for hundreds of miles. Those are real aircraft and yes, THOSE would bring down a helicopter... or a light airplane...
And yes, the issues involved in having them fly in the national airspace system are more complex than a few sentences on SlashDot will ever cover.
Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?
He/she wouldn't be, the OP above you doesn't know what they are talking about.
Having cameras on an aircraft means nothing... getting PAID for it is what counts...
You are welcome to put a camera on your helicopter and take pictures of your own land, or anything else you want, for your own use, without a commercial pilot certificate.
You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.
Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
There isn't anything to "agree or disagree" about it, it is a commercial operation at that point, it is black and white.
Now, that is the letter of the law, in reality, does anyone care? No, and I doubt even the FAA cares unless they had their feet held to the fire and were forced to make a case out of it.
The law is very clear, any exchange of consideration (it doesn't have to be money) in return for flight, with very, very limited exceptions, is a commercial operation.
Now that being said, I'd turn down the $10 and do it for free, because my pilot certificate is worth a whole lot more to me than $10.:)
When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
From your point of view, yes... what happens when the other side doesn't agree with you?
You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?
It could be, if that is the moral point of view of those doing it. "moral" and "immoral" are not absolute terms.
Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.
We used nuclear weapons against Japan, and I consider that to be a quite moral act, it saved far more lives than it took. What Japan was doing was immoral, and had to be stopped, no matter the cost. Germany too...
Frankly, had we been willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan 10 years ago, back when Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, this whole nonsense might have been over long ago. The radicals that we're fighting don't respect western values, they think that we are weak. They do respect power, and there is something to be said for the power of a nuclear weapon.
Yes, yes, they are terrible and horrible and the end of the world... no, they really aren't... thousands of them have been set off over the years, 5 more wouldn't make much of a difference, other than to impress on our enemy that they can either join our way of life and point of view, or be exterminated.
Just like Japan... who ultimately made the choice to join us, rather than face extinction.
First, the term "restricted airspace" isn't really the right term.
The terms you're looking for are "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace.
There are some places where controlled airspace goes all the way to the surface. Take off in a helicopter and go up 50 feet and you're in controlled airspace.
Other places, mostly out west in the mountains, sometimes controlled airspace doesn't start until 10,000 feet MSL, but those are rare outside of the Rockies.
Yes, but what REALLY happens is the FAA comes in and tells the local city/town/whatever "if you want this airport to remain open, you'll pass a local ordinance that restricts whatever we want".
And it generally happens that way.
I speak from experience, many years of working with the FAA, and they do generally get their way.
People love to sit in front of their keyboards and Goggle search this and that, then you have the real world.
Part of the problem with open source is freedom. Not enough people sat down at their desk and told to fix it instead of working on what interests them.
This...
The thing is, a bunch of programmers donating their time are likely to work on whatever interests them, rather than what the project really needs...
The ability to sit the programmers down and say "this week is bug fixing week, nothing new gets done, just fix bugs", usually requires that you PAY those programmers.
If they are getting paid, then it is a job, and it likely isn't really free open source software, since the company wants a return on investment.
But people are less inclined to deal with that when they are just volunteering their spare time.
Amen...
Pay me a quarter of a million dollars a year and I'll play the office politic game, I'll work with the management that I am dealt and the staff that I have, and get the project done because that is my job and I'm paid well to do it.
Because of money. With commercial code, programmers are paid, and people will put up with a lot of crap to keep their jobs. More importantly, paying customers are much harder to ignore than freeloading users. If you don't give customers what they want, they go elsewhere, and you go out of business. When you have to meet payroll in a week, and you don't have enough money in the bank account to cover it, you will find a way to refocus your priorities away from petty power games.
^ This is the truth, and it is a shame that it is so buried on this story...
Ideally we'd do away with the ICEs entirely and eliminate all that crap, get down to worrying about how to eliminate it from the tires. But what's really pathetic is that we've had the technology at least since the 1800s to solve all of these problems. It's called electrified rail. With modern levels of traffic, it is worthwhile to have people in packets smaller than train cars, however, yet with the distances which must be covered the vehicles must have their own power storage.
Yea, get stuffed... I have no interest in riding public transport, bleah...
I'm quite happy with my personal vehicle, thank you very much...
While there are indeed missiles that do leave a smoke trail, few remain in service with the US or Russia, they are more likely to be in service of Iran or similar nations.
An AIM-7 Sparrow would, but an AIM-9 Sidewinder would not, at least not one fired off a wing tip rail. Those launch right off the rail and do not "free fall" at all.
The most dramatic example is the AIM-54 Phoenix, being a very long range, very heavy missile, and frankly, it doesn't fall very far before firing.
No it isn't. How many countries have ever considered the right to bear arms as a right in the last couple of hundred years?
Sure it is... A few hundred years ago, slavery was normal in most of the world, it was still a violation of those people's human rights, even if it was legal in more than 50% of the world.
Perhaps if America got rid of its army you could argue the need for the right to bear arms.
This comment points out that you have no idea of WHY we have the right to keep and bear arms.
It is exactly to fight against said standing army that the right exists. Or did you miss the whole Revolutionary War where we defeated the British Empire to form the United States of America? And we did it undermanned, undergunned, and always on the run.
Since there's a strong correlation between violence and poverty, it seems plausible that eliminating poverty would also reduce violence.
I would agree with that statement.
So what is the solution? We have had a "war on poverty" for a long time, has it done any good?
Should we raise the minimum wage? Make it $15/hr and those automatic hamburger makers look more attractive. Then more people are out of work, not less, even if it does help those who still have jobs. Even $15/hr isn't much of a living anymore, shall we double down and make it $25/hr?
Or should we just go to a basic income? But if we do that, people will sit at home and make babies they can't afford. Perhaps we should provide a basic income to everyone, but subtract something for each kid you have, if you have 8 kids, clearly you can afford them and don't need our help. Otherwise, stop having kids.
Of course, that implies that poor people make logical decisions, which they don't. Perhaps we should require permits to have children? Boy that is a can of worms, but unless the population stops growing, we'll have to do it sooner or later, we can't support a trillion people on Earth, now can we?
Slashdot Mirror
Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.
First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.
If it is flown via visual observation of the aircraft by someone with a hand held remote control, and it stays under a few hundred feet, it may not fall under FAA regulation at all.
Now, putting that aside, the question you're really asking is, "what is the difference with getting paid?"
I'll tell you... If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.
If you go out and pay Joe Blow $100 to do it, then you likely don't have enough knowledge to assess the risks, and you don't have enough skin in the game to care. Then when Joe Blow crashes, it creates a public safety risk.
These laws were not written to take your fun away, they were written to provide for the safely and welfare of the general public. It provides a way for the FAA to have oversight of someone who is operating for profit to prevent them from cutting corners and putting the general public at risk.
If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.
If it is just a fleet of aircraft that some business owns and hires pilots to fly, and at the end of the day there are business owners who want profits (and they don't fly the aircraft and probably don't know how), there is pressure to cut corners and operate in an unsafe manor to make extra profit.
The commercial pilot and commercial operator rules are designed to provide pushback against such for-profit pressures.
And how much schooling do you need to be able to get that certificate? I suppose that's free right?
No, but that money isn't paid to the FAA, which was the original point made, that the FAA just wants money.
The FAA's job is to provide for the safety of flight and more importantly, the safely of the general public below the flight.
The point of additional training is to enhance safety. I suppose you could make the arguement that ALL pilots should meet the commercial pilot requirements, but that misses the point. Commercial pilots DO need more skill, they often have to fly when the weather is less than perfect, they fly when the boss wants them to, not when they choose to for fun.
A private pilot can look a the sky and say, "hmm, that weather looks kinda iffy, maybe I'll go do something else instead". He/she doesn't need the level of training of a commercial pilot because he/she has that choice.
All this just so I can take a few pictures with a little quad copter that is too small to hurt anyone at an event I happen to be charging admission to?
First, even a 5lb object falling from 100ft can kill, so be careful when you say something can't hurt anyone.
Second, are you talking about a small radio controlled quad copter that you fly only via visual observation, or via remote link? Not all RC aircraft are "drones", some are just RC aircraft.
Finally, if you are taking the pictures for personal use and not selling them, even if it was a real aircraft, it may not be a commercial operation. Depends on what you're doing with the pictures and why you're taking them.
Or how about the farmer who wants to monitor his own damn fields that nobody else has any business being in? Good thing the FAA is there to protect the company he will have to hire!
The farmer is free to buy his own aircraft and fly it around taking pictures of his own field all he likes, no commercial operation there.
If he HIRES a company to do it, then the company he hires must have a commercial pilot, and depending on what they are doing, might need a Part 135 operators certificate as well.
The purpose of these is to protect the general public. The farmer likely has no way of knowing if the company he hires is safe, has any idea of what they are doing, etc. The requirement for increased oversight provides a level of assurance to the general public that the companies that are operating for pay are doing so safely.
When you go to Las Vegas or Hawaii and get on a sight seeing helicopter, be happy that Part 135 rules exist, they help keep you safer and keep the for-profit operator of that helicopter at least somewhat in line, for it is very easy to cut corners until it crashes. And they still sometimes do, but not as often as they would without such rules.
Look at the airlines, they are very safe, in part because of the rules of operating under Part 121 of the rules is so strict.
Why is commercial vs non-commercial even an issue? So that the FAA can make more money?
No, it is so that people like you, who don't know what you're talking about, can come onto Slashdot and spout off about it. :)
There is the pilot's requirements, a private pilot certificate vs. a commercial pilot certificate, then there is the operation itself, it could be a Part 91 operation, or a Part 135 operation.
Each has various levels of oversight required to enhance safety, from maintenance of the aircraft to how often the pilot needs a medical exam.
As for money, the FAA doesn't charge a dime for its services, obtaining a Part 135 certificate doesn't cost anything other than the time to go through the process. They do this specifically to avoid the appearance of accepting money to provide services.
Helicopters frequently fly at 300 ft. And I think a drone is more of a hazard to a helicopter than an airplane.
Quite true...
The thing is, most of the drones that you are likely to be flying aren't THAT much of a hazard to the helicopter...
I've knocked down some pretty large birds with my helicopter before, some of the better helicopters can chop down small trees with their blades (UH-1 is a good example).
The RC drones that are sold for $300 on eBay? Those aren't really the threat... the bigger issue is commercial drones costing thousands of dollars and able to fly for hundreds of miles. Those are real aircraft and yes, THOSE would bring down a helicopter... or a light airplane...
And yes, the issues involved in having them fly in the national airspace system are more complex than a few sentences on SlashDot will ever cover.
Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?
He/she wouldn't be, the OP above you doesn't know what they are talking about.
Having cameras on an aircraft means nothing... getting PAID for it is what counts...
You are welcome to put a camera on your helicopter and take pictures of your own land, or anything else you want, for your own use, without a commercial pilot certificate.
You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.
Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
There isn't anything to "agree or disagree" about it, it is a commercial operation at that point, it is black and white.
Now, that is the letter of the law, in reality, does anyone care? No, and I doubt even the FAA cares unless they had their feet held to the fire and were forced to make a case out of it.
The law is very clear, any exchange of consideration (it doesn't have to be money) in return for flight, with very, very limited exceptions, is a commercial operation.
Now that being said, I'd turn down the $10 and do it for free, because my pilot certificate is worth a whole lot more to me than $10. :)
When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
From your point of view, yes... what happens when the other side doesn't agree with you?
You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?
It could be, if that is the moral point of view of those doing it. "moral" and "immoral" are not absolute terms.
Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.
We used nuclear weapons against Japan, and I consider that to be a quite moral act, it saved far more lives than it took. What Japan was doing was immoral, and had to be stopped, no matter the cost. Germany too...
Frankly, had we been willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan 10 years ago, back when Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, this whole nonsense might have been over long ago. The radicals that we're fighting don't respect western values, they think that we are weak. They do respect power, and there is something to be said for the power of a nuclear weapon.
Yes, yes, they are terrible and horrible and the end of the world... no, they really aren't... thousands of them have been set off over the years, 5 more wouldn't make much of a difference, other than to impress on our enemy that they can either join our way of life and point of view, or be exterminated.
Just like Japan... who ultimately made the choice to join us, rather than face extinction.
First, the term "restricted airspace" isn't really the right term.
The terms you're looking for are "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace.
There are some places where controlled airspace goes all the way to the surface. Take off in a helicopter and go up 50 feet and you're in controlled airspace.
Other places, mostly out west in the mountains, sometimes controlled airspace doesn't start until 10,000 feet MSL, but those are rare outside of the Rockies.
Yes, but what REALLY happens is the FAA comes in and tells the local city/town/whatever "if you want this airport to remain open, you'll pass a local ordinance that restricts whatever we want".
And it generally happens that way.
I speak from experience, many years of working with the FAA, and they do generally get their way.
People love to sit in front of their keyboards and Goggle search this and that, then you have the real world.
If I have to get a new e-mail address, that gives me a chance to consider someone other than Google.
They would be nuts to remove all those customers, but stranger things have happened.
A dosimeter won't tell you you picked up a hot particle in your shoe that is killing your foot.
Personally I find it amazing that such things even exist, and can be simply laying on the ground.
Something the size of a grain of rice can find itself into your shoe and kill you.
Part of the problem with open source is freedom. Not enough people sat down at their desk and told to fix it instead of working on what interests them.
This...
The thing is, a bunch of programmers donating their time are likely to work on whatever interests them, rather than what the project really needs...
The ability to sit the programmers down and say "this week is bug fixing week, nothing new gets done, just fix bugs", usually requires that you PAY those programmers.
If they are getting paid, then it is a job, and it likely isn't really free open source software, since the company wants a return on investment.
But people are less inclined to deal with that when they are just volunteering their spare time.
Amen...
Pay me a quarter of a million dollars a year and I'll play the office politic game, I'll work with the management that I am dealt and the staff that I have, and get the project done because that is my job and I'm paid well to do it.
Ask me to do ALL THAT FOR FREE?
Yea, no thanks...
Because of money.
With commercial code, programmers are paid, and people will put up with a lot of crap to keep their jobs.
More importantly, paying customers are much harder to ignore than freeloading users.
If you don't give customers what they want, they go elsewhere, and you go out of business.
When you have to meet payroll in a week, and you don't have enough money in the bank account to cover it, you will find a way to refocus your priorities away from petty power games.
^ This is the truth, and it is a shame that it is so buried on this story...
I know who George Washington, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler all were, long after they are all gone...
All I can say is that you're living in a dream world if you think cars and trucks are going away.
Even suggesting it isn't worth discussing, it simply isn't going to happen. Not in our life time anyway.
Ideally we'd do away with the ICEs entirely and eliminate all that crap, get down to worrying about how to eliminate it from the tires. But what's really pathetic is that we've had the technology at least since the 1800s to solve all of these problems. It's called electrified rail. With modern levels of traffic, it is worthwhile to have people in packets smaller than train cars, however, yet with the distances which must be covered the vehicles must have their own power storage.
Yea, get stuffed... I have no interest in riding public transport, bleah...
I'm quite happy with my personal vehicle, thank you very much...
Is it really immoral to fraud a company which systematically refuses to pay its workers anything near a living wage?
Yes, because two wrongs don't make a right. Or did your parents not teach you that?
If you punch me, does that mean I can punch your sister? Does that make it "ok"?
No, they really didn't... no legal grounds anyway...
Of course, war isn't about law, no matter how much people like to say it is... The reality is that the winners decide what happens, no more or less...
While there are indeed missiles that do leave a smoke trail, few remain in service with the US or Russia, they are more likely to be in service of Iran or similar nations.
That problem was solved a long time ago.
For many reasons, modern air to air missiles do not produce much of a smoke trail.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
That is what an AIM-9 Sidewinder looks like leaving the wingtip rail of a F-16 Falcon. Note the almost complete lack of a smoke trail.
Here is another, leaving an A-10 launch rail.
http://chivethebrigade.files.w...
Not all missiles work that way.
An AIM-7 Sparrow would, but an AIM-9 Sidewinder would not, at least not one fired off a wing tip rail. Those launch right off the rail and do not "free fall" at all.
The most dramatic example is the AIM-54 Phoenix, being a very long range, very heavy missile, and frankly, it doesn't fall very far before firing.
Then perhaps the solution lays in figuring out how to turn those examples into the norm?
No it isn't. How many countries have ever considered the right to bear arms as a right in the last couple of hundred years?
Sure it is... A few hundred years ago, slavery was normal in most of the world, it was still a violation of those people's human rights, even if it was legal in more than 50% of the world.
Perhaps if America got rid of its army you could argue the need for the right to bear arms.
This comment points out that you have no idea of WHY we have the right to keep and bear arms.
It is exactly to fight against said standing army that the right exists. Or did you miss the whole Revolutionary War where we defeated the British Empire to form the United States of America? And we did it undermanned, undergunned, and always on the run.
Since there's a strong correlation between violence and poverty, it seems plausible that eliminating poverty would also reduce violence.
I would agree with that statement.
So what is the solution? We have had a "war on poverty" for a long time, has it done any good?
Should we raise the minimum wage? Make it $15/hr and those automatic hamburger makers look more attractive. Then more people are out of work, not less, even if it does help those who still have jobs. Even $15/hr isn't much of a living anymore, shall we double down and make it $25/hr?
Or should we just go to a basic income? But if we do that, people will sit at home and make babies they can't afford. Perhaps we should provide a basic income to everyone, but subtract something for each kid you have, if you have 8 kids, clearly you can afford them and don't need our help. Otherwise, stop having kids.
Of course, that implies that poor people make logical decisions, which they don't. Perhaps we should require permits to have children? Boy that is a can of worms, but unless the population stops growing, we'll have to do it sooner or later, we can't support a trillion people on Earth, now can we?