Militarization of space is something that has to happen if more than a dozen humans move out of Earth. Leaders of US & other bigger countries have to face it - either they would be prepared to defend their nations' interests outside Earth or soon others will take their place and there would be no interests to defend. US will either be prepared to secure its interests in space or others will do it. Third option - the one shown in the infamous ownership-prohibiting space treaty - exists only as long as no one is able to really go outside LEO and do something significant.
Dreams that outside Earth surface humans turn into a combination of angels and communists are just that - dreams, good for kids. Saying that there should be only peaceful science-gathering in space is wishful thinking - and a very stupid one. Politics are not for kiddies or wishful thinkers.
Yeah, you're right. This site is supposed to be News for nerds, stuff that matters". This story is no news. I'm a nerd, I think, but it doesn't matter for me where is the reporter making a story as long as it is accurate.
Are you sure about that? IIRC it states that no country can claim extraterrestrial territory. I'd bet that if you were to mount a private mission to Mars and staked out and improve a reasonable claim (a few hundred or thousand acres, as opposed to, say, the entire planet), I would guess that the governments that matter would recognize it.
It's interesting what you write here. Unfortunately, wording of the treaty is very strict in that respect:
Article 11, point 3: Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.
Fortunately, the treaty only applies to bodies within the Solar System so theoretically claiming ownership of or on celestial bodies outside of it is allowed by it.
However, I sustain my previous opinion that as soon as a planetary settlement will become self-sustaining this treaty would be simply ignored. Of course, it would be better if it was to some abolish right now and replaced by something similar to the rules that govern the geostationary orbit - assign pieces of land to each country in relation to its size or/and population and then let it govern such land internally. That would in turn allow for buying pieces of land on Mars or Moon by private entities which would then have private interest in exploring their own land.
I'd like to add that I think Davies has come up with a good idea, but it needs one thing - property rights.
You are right. No society can function without property rights - at least not one composed of humans as it has been demonstrated to Earth many times. Unfortunately, all these space efforts are state-run and there is this stupid UN treaty signed in the sixties that prohibits any private ownership outside Earth (Lenin would be proud). Abolishment of that treaty is the first step towards property rights.
But, I don't think we should worry about it right now. Let's first concentrate on putting enough people on Mars for these questions to matter. And then people out there would quickly resolve it without looking at such funny obstacles as the treaty I've mentioned. A self-sustaining Mars colony would be able to just laugh at it.
Potential settlers would be volunteers. They won't complain. If some of them (or all) would die it would be easier to sell to the general (stupid) public over TV if they were not meant to return from the start. And if some of them (or all) survive it would the first real step of humanity outside Earth.
If you want sheer speed then spend your holidays in Germany. Autobahn network is still there, with no speed limit at all in many places (and still they have better safety record than other EU nations when it comes to accidents on highways).
If you want a different type of thrill go to Eastern Europe. They don't have road network in the modern sense of the word, but you can speed on most small roads. And if you happen to get caught by a radar equipped policeman (happens on main roads) just give him a 20 Euro banknote and drive on.
In 3 billion years, as the sun swells and consumes the Earth, the super-intelligent arachnid overlords will have left and colonized 2/3 of the galaxy, long since having learned to live in harmony with each other and harvest the energy of black holes.
Nevermind the nay-sayers, what about the facts? Machines BREAK after hours/days on the surface. The radiation, alone, kills. We have no way to stop it.
Do you have any idea how long the Viking landers lasted on Mars?
It's people like the Bushs (and Nikita Khrushchev, perhaps) that give manned space flight a bad name (as a sole propaganda device).
Khrushchev has actually helped it greatly by creating the space race, by threatening America's national pride. Without Khrushchev there would be no Kennedy's speech and no Apollo program.
Right now the situation in space programs is really bad. Few robotic probes are not going to help us out of this place. Something has to be done and what Bush proposes is the best chance for years - despite the fact that he probably doesn't care about space, humanity etc. and does that only to boosts his chances of being re-elected.
I've read through the comments and I see that most folk (including myself) concentrate on bashing the proposed system, calling it Orwellian, proving that it won't increase security etc. But maybe it's a waste of mental powers - maybe Slashdot folk should try to use their brains to tackle the problem government has to face: how to prevent events like 9/11 from happening again? How to prevent terrorists from entering planes? How to prevent terrorists from smuggling dirty bombs into the country? How to prevent them from poisoning water supplies? The list goes on.
This isn't easy. CAPPS II isn't the right answer. What could be it?
Why don't you Americans stop interfering with other countries, stop being so paranoid, vote someone decent into power, and start trying to show the world that you don't purely have your own interests in mind when carrying out actions?
Show me someone besides Pope and Mother Theresa who doesn't act with his own interests in mind. Same goes for countries. US gov. should act with US own interests in mind. That's obvious.
Whether Orwellian and privacy-demolishing systems like fingerprinting everyone who comes in or classifying someone as high risk passenger because he bought his ticket with cash (and thus evaded bank systems registering behavior of cards holders) serve US best interest is quite another question.
There is nothing -- nothing at all -- more dangerous to humanity than the growing inequities of unbridled capitalism.
This is a leftist prejudice that yielded many more victims in the last century than the "unbridled capitalism" of the 19th. It's sad that people who claim to be intellectuals still believe in this whole crap devised by Marks & friends.
At the same time a simple rock 20 miles across on the right course is far more dangerous to humanity than any social system.
All you hardcore space exploration people have one country above all others to thank for this...
And we are thankful to China! At least I am and many space enthusiasts I know.
When Chinese started to talk about manned mission to the Moon (which was even before the first taikonaut went to LEO) I already saw a chance there for the thing we need badly since the Soviet Union collapsed - the space race! I personally think that US will win in the long run, but it badly needed the kick in the ass (well, national pride actually) that China provided.
Let us all hope that Chinese will deliver some new kicks.
But without a "be able to get them back to Earth" mechanism, the US would never go for it. Depsite the fact that that's precisely how their country was pioneered/settled. And which is also why China is more than likely to be the ones to establish such a colony, first.
Why?? Why should we explore space when we have so many struggles here on Earth where the money could be (arguably) better spent.
This is by far the lamest excuse for not going into space and here is why:
there will always be something important to do on Earth, human society and world at large will never ever be an ideal place, so that we could say "well, now since everything on Earth is perfect we can start exploring space".
all the efforts we make on Earth are good as long as the Earth exists - and is habitable to us. No matter what we do here, on the planet, that time is limited. Sooner or later the Earth as we know will be destroyed - by us, by a collision with a large enough celestial body or by Sun itself as it reaches next stage of its evolution. This is a sure fact, the only unknown factor is how much time is left.
This is precisely the time we have to develop technology that would enable us to move substantial part of the population (and probably some other species) out of Earth or shield the Earth from danger (or both). The only way to achieve that goal is through space exploration.
So it all boils down to this: either we will become a space faring race or an extinct one. In the later case all our efforts, centuries of civilization advancement would be in vain.
The Spirit photos are exciting, but let's figure out how to go to Mars without bankrupting ourselves or putting more workers on the streets.
1. If going to the Mars would be a start of serious space exploration by the human species then it is well worth putting more workers on the streets. Trading space exploration for more social welfare is more than stupid, it is dangerous for humanity in the long run.
2. Look here. And read Zubrin's book. He might be wrong on some details but his general idea is far better than NASA's approach (at least as demonstrated in previous missions and programs) also when it comes to costs.
How is it secret? It tells you exactly what it has just done.
There are quite a few secrets here.
First of all: the fact that it was silently added. This new "feature" was not mentioned at the product launch, the company didn't tell they added it. In fact, as a customer, you wouldn't know it was there until you bought the product and installed it (only to find out that it made you unable to use currency images in advertisements for example).
Furthermore, we now know this analysis & block is there but we still don't know why it was put there. Was it Adobe's own imitative? Was it even their own code? Were they pressured into adding this code to their products? By whom? If by government then how were they pressured if such a block is not required by law? And what they, and other software makers, were pressured into that we don't know about?
What is worrying here is not the fact that this feature was built into Photoshop but that it was done secretly. This kind of secret arrangement between companies and government has long tradition in the US, but think about other nice features that can be put into closed source software as a result. Some may not be as easy to detect.
GSM phones with encryption have been available for years, only not known to the general public. I learned of them when I worked at an GSM operator and it turned out that the military was buying some so that generals could chat securely over GSM (which was cheaper for the army than to build & maintain their own mobile network). These units are basically normal GSM phones with hardware based voice encryption added.
True, there are numerous exceptions in both directions. Like everywhere. But those, who the "Polish Jokes" are about, are scarce in Poland. Most of them moved to America.
How would you explain then that Andrzej Lepper was elected to parliament, Leszek Miller is prime minister?
Note that when you win NASCAR, the trophy you get isn't for "Safest Commuter Driver" either. TopCoder, however, supposedly ranks developers according to their talent and ability.
Winning NASCAR shows definitely some talent and ability in driving a car in extreme conditions. It is a reasonable assumption that such abilities can be of benefit also in normal conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Dreams that outside Earth surface humans turn into a combination of angels and communists are just that - dreams, good for kids. Saying that there should be only peaceful science-gathering in space is wishful thinking - and a very stupid one. Politics are not for kiddies or wishful thinkers.
Yeah, you're right. This site is supposed to be News for nerds, stuff that matters". This story is no news. I'm a nerd, I think, but it doesn't matter for me where is the reporter making a story as long as it is accurate.
It comes with Win XP...can XP do anything 64 bit??
From their home page:
I guess it does. They wouldn't recommend it if it was a bunch of crap, wouldn't they?
Are you sure about that? IIRC it states that no country can claim extraterrestrial territory. I'd bet that if you were to mount a private mission to Mars and staked out and improve a reasonable claim (a few hundred or thousand acres, as opposed to, say, the entire planet), I would guess that the governments that matter would recognize it.
It's interesting what you write here. Unfortunately, wording of the treaty is very strict in that respect:
Fortunately, the treaty only applies to bodies within the Solar System so theoretically claiming ownership of or on celestial bodies outside of it is allowed by it.
However, I sustain my previous opinion that as soon as a planetary settlement will become self-sustaining this treaty would be simply ignored. Of course, it would be better if it was to some abolish right now and replaced by something similar to the rules that govern the geostationary orbit - assign pieces of land to each country in relation to its size or/and population and then let it govern such land internally. That would in turn allow for buying pieces of land on Mars or Moon by private entities which would then have private interest in exploring their own land.
I'd like to add that I think Davies has come up with a good idea, but it needs one thing - property rights.
You are right. No society can function without property rights - at least not one composed of humans as it has been demonstrated to Earth many times. Unfortunately, all these space efforts are state-run and there is this stupid UN treaty signed in the sixties that prohibits any private ownership outside Earth (Lenin would be proud). Abolishment of that treaty is the first step towards property rights.
But, I don't think we should worry about it right now. Let's first concentrate on putting enough people on Mars for these questions to matter. And then people out there would quickly resolve it without looking at such funny obstacles as the treaty I've mentioned. A self-sustaining Mars colony would be able to just laugh at it.
What social negatives?
Potential settlers would be volunteers. They won't complain. If some of them (or all) would die it would be easier to sell to the general (stupid) public over TV if they were not meant to return from the start. And if some of them (or all) survive it would the first real step of humanity outside Earth.
Learn how the Patent system works, direct that energy into trying to fix it.
Waste of energy.
When people drive they accept the laws of the road. Why are they always so upset every time there's an initiative to stop people speeding?
This is precisely the type of thinking that leads to police state.
UK drivers!
If you want sheer speed then spend your holidays in Germany. Autobahn network is still there, with no speed limit at all in many places (and still they have better safety record than other EU nations when it comes to accidents on highways).
If you want a different type of thrill go to Eastern Europe. They don't have road network in the modern sense of the word, but you can speed on most small roads. And if you happen to get caught by a radar equipped policeman (happens on main roads) just give him a 20 Euro banknote and drive on.
In 3 billion years, as the sun swells and consumes the Earth, the super-intelligent arachnid overlords will have left and colonized 2/3 of the galaxy, long since having learned to live in harmony with each other and harvest the energy of black holes.
Help them. Kill yourself today.
Nevermind the nay-sayers, what about the facts? Machines BREAK after hours/days on the surface. The radiation, alone, kills. We have no way to stop it.
Do you have any idea how long the Viking landers lasted on Mars?
It's people like the Bushs (and Nikita Khrushchev, perhaps) that give manned space flight a bad name (as a sole propaganda device).
Khrushchev has actually helped it greatly by creating the space race, by threatening America's national pride. Without Khrushchev there would be no Kennedy's speech and no Apollo program.
Right now the situation in space programs is really bad. Few robotic probes are not going to help us out of this place. Something has to be done and what Bush proposes is the best chance for years - despite the fact that he probably doesn't care about space, humanity etc. and does that only to boosts his chances of being re-elected.
I've read through the comments and I see that most folk (including myself) concentrate on bashing the proposed system, calling it Orwellian, proving that it won't increase security etc. But maybe it's a waste of mental powers - maybe Slashdot folk should try to use their brains to tackle the problem government has to face: how to prevent events like 9/11 from happening again? How to prevent terrorists from entering planes? How to prevent terrorists from smuggling dirty bombs into the country? How to prevent them from poisoning water supplies? The list goes on.
This isn't easy. CAPPS II isn't the right answer. What could be it?
Why don't you Americans stop interfering with other countries, stop being so paranoid, vote someone decent into power, and start trying to show the world that you don't purely have your own interests in mind when carrying out actions?
Show me someone besides Pope and Mother Theresa who doesn't act with his own interests in mind. Same goes for countries. US gov. should act with US own interests in mind. That's obvious.
Whether Orwellian and privacy-demolishing systems like fingerprinting everyone who comes in or classifying someone as high risk passenger because he bought his ticket with cash (and thus evaded bank systems registering behavior of cards holders) serve US best interest is quite another question.
It's only sad if you're an American. ;-)
No, it's not sad only if you are a Chinese.
There is nothing -- nothing at all -- more dangerous to humanity than the growing inequities of unbridled capitalism.
This is a leftist prejudice that yielded many more victims in the last century than the "unbridled capitalism" of the 19th. It's sad that people who claim to be intellectuals still believe in this whole crap devised by Marks & friends.
At the same time a simple rock 20 miles across on the right course is far more dangerous to humanity than any social system.
All you hardcore space exploration people have one country above all others to thank for this...
And we are thankful to China! At least I am and many space enthusiasts I know.
When Chinese started to talk about manned mission to the Moon (which was even before the first taikonaut went to LEO) I already saw a chance there for the thing we need badly since the Soviet Union collapsed - the space race! I personally think that US will win in the long run, but it badly needed the kick in the ass (well, national pride actually) that China provided.
Let us all hope that Chinese will deliver some new kicks.
But without a "be able to get them back to Earth" mechanism, the US would never go for it. Depsite the fact that that's precisely how their country was pioneered/settled. And which is also why China is more than likely to be the ones to establish such a colony, first.
It is sad but you are probably right...
Why?? Why should we explore space when we have so many struggles here on Earth where the money could be (arguably) better spent.
This is by far the lamest excuse for not going into space and here is why:
This is precisely the time we have to develop technology that would enable us to move substantial part of the population (and probably some other species) out of Earth or shield the Earth from danger (or both). The only way to achieve that goal is through space exploration.
So it all boils down to this: either we will become a space faring race or an extinct one. In the later case all our efforts, centuries of civilization advancement would be in vain.
The Spirit photos are exciting, but let's figure out how to go to Mars without bankrupting ourselves or putting more workers on the streets.
1. If going to the Mars would be a start of serious space exploration by the human species then it is well worth putting more workers on the streets. Trading space exploration for more social welfare is more than stupid, it is dangerous for humanity in the long run.
2. Look here. And read Zubrin's book. He might be wrong on some details but his general idea is far better than NASA's approach (at least as demonstrated in previous missions and programs) also when it comes to costs.
How is it secret? It tells you exactly what it has just done.
There are quite a few secrets here.
First of all: the fact that it was silently added. This new "feature" was not mentioned at the product launch, the company didn't tell they added it. In fact, as a customer, you wouldn't know it was there until you bought the product and installed it (only to find out that it made you unable to use currency images in advertisements for example).
Furthermore, we now know this analysis & block is there but we still don't know why it was put there. Was it Adobe's own imitative? Was it even their own code? Were they pressured into adding this code to their products? By whom? If by government then how were they pressured if such a block is not required by law? And what they, and other software makers, were pressured into that we don't know about?
What is worrying here is not the fact that this feature was built into Photoshop but that it was done secretly. This kind of secret arrangement between companies and government has long tradition in the US, but think about other nice features that can be put into closed source software as a result. Some may not be as easy to detect.
GSM phones with encryption have been available for years, only not known to the general public. I learned of them when I worked at an GSM operator and it turned out that the military was buying some so that generals could chat securely over GSM (which was cheaper for the army than to build & maintain their own mobile network). These units are basically normal GSM phones with hardware based voice encryption added.
How would you explain then that Andrzej Lepper was elected to parliament, Leszek Miller is prime minister?
Winning NASCAR shows definitely some talent and ability in driving a car in extreme conditions. It is a reasonable assumption that such abilities can be of benefit also in normal conditions.
Same applies to TopCoder.