There's a difference between actual productive jobs that produce wealth by by building useful things from raw materials, and service jobs that just move existing wealth around.
Services are how most of the wealth in the world is built.
"According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
Timothy's post linked to a partisan blogger. Here are the threats, per Environment Texas:
--- "According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes."
--- "The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has many objections:
--- "noise, heat, vibration, fencing and hazardous material spills" from the project could harm endangered and threatened species and diminish the value of Boca Chica State Park (near Brownsville) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
--- TPWD previously declined SpaceX's request about "leasing parkland for the project"
--- "potential for significant contamination of very senstive resources in the event of a catastrophic event (i.e., hurricane)"
--- the area is "extremely susceptible to wildfires" which could result from launch failures and accidental fires
--- concern "with the loss of the function and value of all wetlands"
--- "recreational use of the TPWD lands as currently planned would need to be revised"
--- "the proposed project area is within the Central Flyway, a route through which over 500 species of birds migrate annually
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA started launching from there? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
It's interesting that people on Slashdot pushing science uber alles don't seem to use skeptical, critical thinking when it comes to projects they support.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
Just spraying "chemicals" all over the place isn't going to hurt anything, nor will some extremely occasional noises scare any animals or plants into oblivion. Different ecosystems may have achille's heels. Science will help to identify those and other issues.
Are your statements based on any 'science'? Do you know that Environment Texas' are not?
What definitely kills animals and plants is deforestation and destruction of the landscape, mostly (excluding extractive industries) committed by poor and indigent people all around the world because of lack of alternative economic opportunities.
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation? Really?
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I suspect Timothy has never been to Brownsville and is assuming everyone thinks like he does and doesn't weigh long-term costs and benefits.
And what will the people there think if their public lands are destroyed and 10 years from now SpaceX is out of business or simply thinks this spaceport is no longer viable? Maybe they get a better offer from another locale which makes the same mistake?
The citizens of Brownsville have these public resources, including the wildlife and pristine lands. Does SpaceX just get to consume them for free? Shouldn't they pay for what they use, instead of being given it by the local government as corporate welfare?
I think that's a fundamental question for society.
no matter how many laws we have, you can't stop everyone from being ignorant, gullible, greedy or flat-out foolhardy to the point of being Darwin Award candidates. Should all of us bear the burden of more laws because of the relative few that can't manage to stay out of trouble?
I agree, where do you draw that line? On one hand, we can't legalize highly enriched uranium because of the danger to most people. On the other, people drown in their cereal bowls and we can't realistically protect them from it.
we have shit-tons of regulations, now
Here I disagree; that's just what the pro-business lobbyists like to say, using anecdotal hyperbole as evidence. We've been eliminating regulations at the behest of those same interest groups. The lack of regulation is probably a big reason for the 2008 financial crisis, for example, and pollution from fracking.
Simple principled answers would be nice. It's like when people want to throw out the old hairball code and write a 'clean' program from scratch; nothing maps so simply to reality.
What happens if your policies result in lots more people dying, getting seriously hurt, or going bankrupt?
Products that could be dangerous? Stick a warning label on there and let people buy what they want.
What about illiterate people? People who don't read English? Confused elderly people? (Confused middle-aged and young people?). What about people who simply overlook the instructions? Is it ok for them to suffer injury or disfigurement?
Should a Wall Street con artist be able to push whatever he wants on your grandmother, as long as he sends her the prospectus to read? What about a contest where the fine print says losers forfeit their houses; would that be ok as long as there is a warning? Products that explode when left in the sun?
Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point...
It's setting up the conditions for the Second American Civil War.... They know it would only take a spark in the right, or wrong, place to set the country ablaze. The internment camps have been built and in place for decades
What Americans have to fear are paranoid ideologues. They are so afraid and dogmatic that they are willing to sacrifice everyone else's welfare for their causes, and listen to and respect no one else.
Which is why we have, and will have, thousands of other aircraft.
Same problem as the B-2s. Why do we keep flying B-52s in bombing missions instead of B-2s ?
Because it costs less? We've used B-2s regularly (as far as wars go), but once the enemy has no air defense, why pay more for a mission than necessary?
And if they start landing, they better pay attention to what a few Japanese generals stated about a rifle being behind every blade of grass Multiple conflicts throughout history have shown what local gurrila fighter can do against a "proper military" - now imagine what one of the best armed civilian populations could do... The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer, duck, or dove hunting - it is about fighting back against enemies both foriegn and domestic.
People sure do get excited about guns. Let's not confuse our excited daydreams with reality. The right to bear arms will never figure into national security, or not in our lifetimes. I'm willing to bet that the mostly likely way it will figure into your and my personal security is if someone shoots us.
The first post-enlightenment ToV was how we were able to determine the size of an AU, making it the first step in the chain to understanding the size of everything else in the universe beyond the Earth.
Would you care to expand on that for the not-yet-enlightented?
I understand the process of science well. I'm asking whose analysis you believe.
If you believe that global warming is going to be so severe that it will destroy civilization or perhaps even lead to the extinction of humanity, then one must take immediate action now no matter what. I used to believe that myself, because some global warming scientists and activists misrepresented the scientific results that way. But it turns out to be an unsupported conclusion even according to the IPCC report itself.
That is not the consensus or the belief of experts in the field. The belief is not that it will end civilization or humanity, nor that there is certainty. As with any decision, we are dealing with risk under uncertainty; the consensus is that there is a high risk of a very damaging outcome, in both lives (up to hundreds of millions) and money, and therefore we need to take action immediately. The IPCC report is clear about the range of outcomes.
But that brings us back to the question: Where do you get this information? Who told you that experts asserted both certainty and the extinction of humanity? Whoever told you isn't honest.
No ill intent is behind my message. I thought I challenged your ideas to a degree (fair game on/.) but I didn't say anything ad-hominem and was matter-of-fact. Sorry if I gave a different impression.
I look at the original literature. What about you?
I read summary and analysis by scientists with expertise or by journalists in scientific publications (e.g., Nature), and occasionally I'll read abstracts or rarely skim over original research.
I'm not sure what you mean, but you would have to be the smartest person in the world to understand specialized research in all those different fields, and read 10 times faster than a normal human to have time for it all. A one-person IPCC.
What I was trying to say was, why do you trust whomever you read? I think that's the essential question. It's not a scientific question, at least the for the broader issues the research has been done, the results leave us with a clear decision - if you believe them. If you don't believe them, then who do you believe and why?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between actual productive jobs that produce wealth by by building useful things from raw materials, and service jobs that just move existing wealth around.
Services are how most of the wealth in the world is built.
Where does this information come from? And what was the condition of Merritt before NASA?
If SpaceX was pushing hundreds of launches per year, that might affect wildlife.
Do you have any basis for that?
How about doing some research and having a scientific basis for what you say.
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge
What is the prerequisite for posting to Slashdot discussions?
It turns out it affects jobs too.
"According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge
Timothy's post linked to a partisan blogger. Here are the threats, per Environment Texas:
--- "According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes."
--- "The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has many objections:
--- "noise, heat, vibration, fencing and hazardous material spills" from the project could harm endangered and threatened species and diminish the value of Boca Chica State Park (near Brownsville) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
--- TPWD previously declined SpaceX's request about "leasing parkland for the project"
--- "potential for significant contamination of very senstive resources in the event of a catastrophic event (i.e., hurricane)"
--- the area is "extremely susceptible to wildfires" which could result from launch failures and accidental fires
--- concern "with the loss of the function and value of all wetlands"
--- "recreational use of the TPWD lands as currently planned would need to be revised"
--- "the proposed project area is within the Central Flyway, a route through which over 500 species of birds migrate annually
All from:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge
I said this elsewhere, but ...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA started launching from there? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
It's interesting that people on Slashdot pushing science uber alles don't seem to use skeptical, critical thinking when it comes to projects they support.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
Just spraying "chemicals" all over the place isn't going to hurt anything, nor will some extremely occasional noises scare any animals or plants into oblivion. Different ecosystems may have achille's heels. Science will help to identify those and other issues.
Are your statements based on any 'science'? Do you know that Environment Texas' are not?
What definitely kills animals and plants is deforestation and destruction of the landscape, mostly (excluding extractive industries) committed by poor and indigent people all around the world because of lack of alternative economic opportunities.
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation? Really?
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I suspect Timothy has never been to Brownsville and is assuming everyone thinks like he does and doesn't weigh long-term costs and benefits.
And what will the people there think if their public lands are destroyed and 10 years from now SpaceX is out of business or simply thinks this spaceport is no longer viable? Maybe they get a better offer from another locale which makes the same mistake?
The citizens of Brownsville have these public resources, including the wildlife and pristine lands. Does SpaceX just get to consume them for free? Shouldn't they pay for what they use, instead of being given it by the local government as corporate welfare?
You would be surprised. google around. Specifically gun owners/people WITH cameras have been targeted.
Targeted for what? Gun owners are having the recordings on their guns erased?
I think that's a fundamental question for society.
no matter how many laws we have, you can't stop everyone from being ignorant, gullible, greedy or flat-out foolhardy to the point of being Darwin Award candidates. Should all of us bear the burden of more laws because of the relative few that can't manage to stay out of trouble?
I agree, where do you draw that line? On one hand, we can't legalize highly enriched uranium because of the danger to most people. On the other, people drown in their cereal bowls and we can't realistically protect them from it.
we have shit-tons of regulations, now
Here I disagree; that's just what the pro-business lobbyists like to say, using anecdotal hyperbole as evidence. We've been eliminating regulations at the behest of those same interest groups. The lack of regulation is probably a big reason for the 2008 financial crisis, for example, and pollution from fracking.
The elephant in the room is that they rarely have a good reason to delete the recordings. Why would a police officer not want his work recorded?
(The rare reason: It violates the privacy of a citizen who is involved.)
Simple principled answers would be nice. It's like when people want to throw out the old hairball code and write a 'clean' program from scratch; nothing maps so simply to reality.
What happens if your policies result in lots more people dying, getting seriously hurt, or going bankrupt?
Products that could be dangerous? Stick a warning label on there and let people buy what they want.
What about illiterate people? People who don't read English? Confused elderly people? (Confused middle-aged and young people?). What about people who simply overlook the instructions? Is it ok for them to suffer injury or disfigurement?
Should a Wall Street con artist be able to push whatever he wants on your grandmother, as long as he sends her the prospectus to read? What about a contest where the fine print says losers forfeit their houses; would that be ok as long as there is a warning? Products that explode when left in the sun?
Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point ...
Nope.
US is afraid of China establishing its dominance in its own region (i.e. vs Taiwan, Korea, Japan)
... and in the rest of the world. Many Chinese leaders have the ambition of being the leading global superpower
It's setting up the conditions for the Second American Civil War. ... They know it would only take a spark in the right, or wrong, place to set the country ablaze. The internment camps have been built and in place for decades
What Americans have to fear are paranoid ideologues. They are so afraid and dogmatic that they are willing to sacrifice everyone else's welfare for their causes, and listen to and respect no one else.
200 aircraft is too small a number ...
Which is why we have, and will have, thousands of other aircraft.
Same problem as the B-2s. Why do we keep flying B-52s in bombing missions instead of B-2s ?
Because it costs less? We've used B-2s regularly (as far as wars go), but once the enemy has no air defense, why pay more for a mission than necessary?
And if they start landing, they better pay attention to what a few Japanese generals stated about a rifle being behind every blade of grass
Multiple conflicts throughout history have shown what local gurrila fighter can do against a "proper military" - now imagine what one of the best armed civilian populations could do... The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer, duck, or dove hunting - it is about fighting back against enemies both foriegn and domestic.
People sure do get excited about guns. Let's not confuse our excited daydreams with reality. The right to bear arms will never figure into national security, or not in our lifetimes. I'm willing to bet that the mostly likely way it will figure into your and my personal security is if someone shoots us.
The first post-enlightenment ToV was how we were able to determine the size of an AU, making it the first step in the chain to understanding the size of everything else in the universe beyond the Earth.
Would you care to expand on that for the not-yet-enlightented?
I understand the process of science well. I'm asking whose analysis you believe.
If you believe that global warming is going to be so severe that it will destroy civilization or perhaps even lead to the extinction of humanity, then one must take immediate action now no matter what. I used to believe that myself, because some global warming scientists and activists misrepresented the scientific results that way. But it turns out to be an unsupported conclusion even according to the IPCC report itself.
That is not the consensus or the belief of experts in the field. The belief is not that it will end civilization or humanity, nor that there is certainty. As with any decision, we are dealing with risk under uncertainty; the consensus is that there is a high risk of a very damaging outcome, in both lives (up to hundreds of millions) and money, and therefore we need to take action immediately. The IPCC report is clear about the range of outcomes.
But that brings us back to the question: Where do you get this information? Who told you that experts asserted both certainty and the extinction of humanity? Whoever told you isn't honest.
It's paranoid.
h264 is ubquitous. It's really stupid to deny the reality that people want to use it
The same was true of IE when Mozilla launched Firefox.
No ill intent is behind my message. I thought I challenged your ideas to a degree (fair game on /.) but I didn't say anything ad-hominem and was matter-of-fact. Sorry if I gave a different impression.
I look at the original literature. What about you?
I read summary and analysis by scientists with expertise or by journalists in scientific publications (e.g., Nature), and occasionally I'll read abstracts or rarely skim over original research.
I'm not sure what you mean, but you would have to be the smartest person in the world to understand specialized research in all those different fields, and read 10 times faster than a normal human to have time for it all. A one-person IPCC.
What I was trying to say was, why do you trust whomever you read? I think that's the essential question. It's not a scientific question, at least the for the broader issues the research has been done, the results leave us with a clear decision - if you believe them. If you don't believe them, then who do you believe and why?
And by using emotionally charged phrases like "climate change deniers" you feed into it.
Oops, that's an excellent point. I'm sorry, it was completely unintentional and not meant to be derogatory, but I can see how it is.