This argument never fails to frustrate me and I'm sure it's going to come up in this discussion.
Here's the thing, the federal budget is well over a trillion dollars. NASA's budget is around 17 billion. It's roughly 1 percent of the national budget. People get so scared about the word billion that they forget the scale of cash that the US has to allocate.
Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed? Have we yet cured hunger, poverty, or undereducation? No? Well, we've been throwing billions at them so far. If you're looking for funds to cut and inefficiencies to uproot, look in defense and welfare. Diverting funds from NASA to domestic programs will not change anything except to kneecap our development as a multi-planet species.
Another misassumption is that if money is cut from one department, it automatically gets redistributed to others. That's not the way it works. And yes, I know we're running a deficit but a 1 billion increase over the next 5 years isn't going to contribute significantly to it. And IIRC, every administration except for 1 (maybe 2) has run a deficit and the country has not yet fallen.
But won't this cost a trillion dollars? No, not if done right. Father Bush's plan was scrapped because the estimate he was given was based on an outmoded model for Mars exploration. On top of that, it was subjected to a committee that took it as a chance to write themselves a blank check with their 90-day report. Bust the first was ignorant to any alternatives so he abandoned it. Read up on Mars Direct. It's a plan to do Mars missions on the same budgetary scale as the Apollo missions. Those were done for about the same budget that NASA currently gets. NASA doesn't need more money, just proper direction and it looks like they're finally getting some of that.
See my other post for more on the case for Mars and space exploration.
fair enough. Space mirrors and solar sails are generaly predicted to be vast expanses (hundreds of square kilometers!) of what amounts to be birthday baloon mylar. thin, light, strong plastic with an aluminum coating on one side.
For the protein to work, it would have to be able to withstand a vacuum, all types of radiation, and bitter cold. Probably a tall order for an organic molecule. It would also have to be lighter than aluminum and the manufacture process would have to be less troublesome. Yeah, probably a tall order but I'll keep it under my hat so I can make millions 500 years from now.
I wonder how light and durable these reflective proteins are. One big problem with getting solar sails and space mirrors to work is deploying them. One solution is to build them in place but having a factory in space is just about as troublesome as launching them pre-made and trying to unfold them properly.
If there's a biological way to grow something with the right properties, it may be a better solution.
There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.
- Mars exploration is expensive
Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.
Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.
- Mars exploration is dangerous
True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.
- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars
Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.
Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.
Ok, I've been trying to respond to people post for post and I can feel RSI setting in so I'm going to just put this all here.
First with the Jose thing. I said that "good riddance" thing tongue-in-cheek. He should be afforded his rights but I would feel worse if he were a school teacher than a gang thug. He will have his day in court and if he is innocent, he's probably got a pile of cash waiting for him when he gets out.
My original point was that this FBI power isn't a violation of your 4th amendment rights. A lot of people argued that it's a privacy violation but that's besides the point and I probably should have made that clear. Why isn't it a violation? Because the bank records are owned by the bank, not you. Period. Further, if you tried to contest this in court, your case would be weakened by the fact that they are not confidential and the bank and you don't share privileged confidentiality.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not a 4th amendment violation. In fact, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a right to privacy. Now you might say that it's implied or unwritten but laws usually have to be written to carry any weight:)
If you feel that this power is wrong or that the right to privacy should be explicitly spelled out, there are some things you should consider doing:
- Know who you're voting for and vote.
I would hate to think that the extent of your political action is complaining on a web forum.
- Write to your congressman.
That's the quickest way to get somewhere close to being active in the issue if not very affective.
- Join the FBI/CIA/NSA/Government prosecutors or run for office.
This may sound counterintuitive since they are the 'bad guys' but think about it. If you're in their ranks, you can make sure that the work you do is on the up and up. You'll be protecting people's rights with everything you do. Also, you'll be in an excellent position to blow the whistle if you do see something fishy going on. You would be able to do a lot of good not by subversion or resistance but by doing a good job and upholding the constitution with your actions rather than your words.
I know he's not allowed to see one now. It seems like everyone is only reading half of what I'm writing on this subject.
as far as the conditions of his release, I'm pretty sure that he can sue for violation of his constitutional rights. Those rights can't be voided with a contract and any contract that violates a law is itself void.
he will have lawyers crawling all over him for the chance to get a slice of the cash that he may be entitled.
he has to be released at some point. once that happens, he can sue. if he's in there for life, his relatives can either sue for his release or compensation after his death.
Even if true, that really doesn't make me feel any better.
everyone keeps saying this but I disagree. If I could spend a year in prison in return for getting a settlement that meant I never had to work again, I'd be pretty upbeat. Of course nothing's a sure thing.
I hope someone does since they may be entitled to some big payouts by the government if they don't ever have charges pressed. It would keep my hope alive if I knew that I could look forward to giving the government a big fat lawsuit.
Dude, that's the beauty of the constitution, it's agruable. As times change, laws can change. It's not like a religion that must remain static forever. If you want the laws changed, go out and vote for someone as like-minded as you can or run for office yourself.
by the way, the constitution is upheld more often than you probably think and thousands of people have struggled and died to create it and make it work. Saying that it's just a bunch of suggestions is doing it and them a disservice.
no one ever said he'd be happy but he would have legal recourse and that's the point.
Besides, in this case, the guy is an ex-Chicago gang member. I've come into contact with Chicago gang members and I'd like to see a lot more of them imprisoned:)
You missed the bigger point. As long as those records don't fit the legal definition of private, they're fair game.
Can you provide me with the legal definition of the word private with respect to information? The legal one, not one that feels good or that you found in the dictionary.
I will ask him what the legal definition of private documentation is but I'm willing to bet that bank records don't fall into the definition. That's the rub, the 4th ammendment covers documentation that is legaly private. If bank records don't fit that definition (legal, not dictionary), then the 4th doesn't cover them.
Also, the information is created by the bank about you, not by you. If they FBI asked him for his old plane tickets, paper bank records or emails he could tell them to go to hell and he'd be entitled. They could then either take them illegaly, which would get them in trouble if they tried to use it agaist him or they could go to the ISP, bank or travel company which could either give it up or say no and go to court if need be.
I've never given the slipperly slope argument much credit. If my doctor, spouce or rabbi belongs to the bank (somehow) they can't be forced to talk about my illness, sex life or sins because they're still covered by their respective privilages.
Garbage is public domain and that's why I destroy anything of interest before I throw it out. Pics and audio recordings of you in your dwelling are already protected by the 4th.
by the way, if you can fish my DNA out of a hundred tons of shit, my hat's off to you.
I hope so, but as it stands right now they could keep you in the can indefinitely while they investigate, without charges and without access to an attorney -- just because they suspect you.
In my book, that's a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. At least.
True enough and that's something that I don't like. However, we're not talking about that right now. Also, if you're imprisoned without being arrested or arrested without being told why, you are in a good position to sue the shit out of whomever is doing it.
My diary My phone conversations Letters that I write...
Those are all private communications and records that I either own or personaly created. The FBI still needs a warent to tap a phone even though the phone company probably has people who can listen in on me.
No, I'm making the argument that the information isn't yours because:
1. It's not legaly privlaged information. and 2. It's not yours in the sense that you own it in any legal way.
If there was never any expectation of privacy then why originally was a court order necessary?
What makes you think that the FBI was getting court orders before. At least this way, the FBI will have to follow a procedure and be open to congressional investigation for their adherence to this new policy.
Like I said, the bank's. Do you have some legal documentation saying that the information on your bank account is your legal property?
It may fall under the category of papers but that's debatable.
Perhaps the ammendment needs to be readjusted to fit the information age, but in its current form, I don't see it being violated in this particular case.
IANAL but since there are specific laws saying that the creator of a patented idea "owns" it, it doesn't fall into the same category as bank records.
It might indeed weaken the argument that an idea belongs to the creator but the patent says that the creator is entitled to certan privlages because he or she originated the idea.
Right but my point was that it doesn't violate the 4th ammendment. They're not doing anything illegal or immoral. If I get flagged as being something I'm not, further investigation will reveal that I'm not doing anything wrong.
Information isn't property. It might fall under the category of "papers" but even so, those belong to the institution.
I'm playing DA here with an argument that my soon-to-be lawyer friend used.
The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.
shouldn't be anything. CO2 doesn't react with aluminum, at least at the low temperatures of Mars unless I'm mistaken. Dust might wear it down after a while but that should be a really long time since the low pressure winds won't hit it very hard.
I'm guessing that it will get dusty at most. They proably made it out of aluminum because it's light and plastic would probably degrade faster.
Before you decty money going to NASA, take a look at this. NASA gets about 17 Billion as opposed to the trillion that goes to welfare of one form or another. Please put things into perspective. The 80 cents that you spent on this Mars mission wouldn't have gotten you that battery.
Now on what NASA does that that money, that's a different story. A manned mission to Mars would be about the same cost of the shuttle program or the ISS money-sucker. The perfered way to go is obvious to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This argument never fails to frustrate me and I'm sure it's going to come up in this discussion.
Here's the thing, the federal budget is well over a trillion dollars. NASA's budget is around 17 billion. It's roughly 1 percent of the national budget. People get so scared about the word billion that they forget the scale of cash that the US has to allocate.
Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed? Have we yet cured hunger, poverty, or undereducation? No? Well, we've been throwing billions at them so far. If you're looking for funds to cut and inefficiencies to uproot, look in defense and welfare. Diverting funds from NASA to domestic programs will not change anything except to kneecap our development as a multi-planet species.
Another misassumption is that if money is cut from one department, it automatically gets redistributed to others. That's not the way it works. And yes, I know we're running a deficit but a 1 billion increase over the next 5 years isn't going to contribute significantly to it. And IIRC, every administration except for 1 (maybe 2) has run a deficit and the country has not yet fallen.
But won't this cost a trillion dollars? No, not if done right. Father Bush's plan was scrapped because the estimate he was given was based on an outmoded model for Mars exploration. On top of that, it was subjected to a committee that took it as a chance to write themselves a blank check with their 90-day report. Bust the first was ignorant to any alternatives so he abandoned it. Read up on Mars Direct. It's a plan to do Mars missions on the same budgetary scale as the Apollo missions. Those were done for about the same budget that NASA currently gets. NASA doesn't need more money, just proper direction and it looks like they're finally getting some of that.
See my other post for more on the case for Mars and space exploration.
fair enough. Space mirrors and solar sails are generaly predicted to be vast expanses (hundreds of square kilometers!) of what amounts to be birthday baloon mylar. thin, light, strong plastic with an aluminum coating on one side.
For the protein to work, it would have to be able to withstand a vacuum, all types of radiation, and bitter cold. Probably a tall order for an organic molecule. It would also have to be lighter than aluminum and the manufacture process would have to be less troublesome. Yeah, probably a tall order but I'll keep it under my hat so I can make millions 500 years from now.
I'm a space nut so bear with me.
I wonder how light and durable these reflective proteins are. One big problem with getting solar sails and space mirrors to work is deploying them. One solution is to build them in place but having a factory in space is just about as troublesome as launching them pre-made and trying to unfold them properly.
If there's a biological way to grow something with the right properties, it may be a better solution.
Like I said, far out idea.
There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.
- Mars exploration is expensive
Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.
Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.
- Mars exploration is dangerous
True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.
- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars
Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.
Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.
Ok, I've been trying to respond to people post for post and I can feel RSI setting in so I'm going to just put this all here.
:)
First with the Jose thing. I said that "good riddance" thing tongue-in-cheek. He should be afforded his rights but I would feel worse if he were a school teacher than a gang thug. He will have his day in court and if he is innocent, he's probably got a pile of cash waiting for him when he gets out.
My original point was that this FBI power isn't a violation of your 4th amendment rights. A lot of people argued that it's a privacy violation but that's besides the point and I probably should have made that clear. Why isn't it a violation? Because the bank records are owned by the bank, not you. Period. Further, if you tried to contest this in court, your case would be weakened by the fact that they are not confidential and the bank and you don't share privileged confidentiality.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not a 4th amendment violation. In fact, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a right to privacy. Now you might say that it's implied or unwritten but laws usually have to be written to carry any weight
If you feel that this power is wrong or that the right to privacy should be explicitly spelled out, there are some things you should consider doing:
- Know who you're voting for and vote.
I would hate to think that the extent of your political action is complaining on a web forum.
- Write to your congressman.
That's the quickest way to get somewhere close to being active in the issue if not very affective.
- Join the FBI/CIA/NSA/Government prosecutors or run for office.
This may sound counterintuitive since they are the 'bad guys' but think about it. If you're in their ranks, you can make sure that the work you do is on the up and up. You'll be protecting people's rights with everything you do. Also, you'll be in an excellent position to blow the whistle if you do see something fishy going on. You would be able to do a lot of good not by subversion or resistance but by doing a good job and upholding the constitution with your actions rather than your words.
I know he's not allowed to see one now. It seems like everyone is only reading half of what I'm writing on this subject.
as far as the conditions of his release, I'm pretty sure that he can sue for violation of his constitutional rights. Those rights can't be voided with a contract and any contract that violates a law is itself void.
he will have lawyers crawling all over him for the chance to get a slice of the cash that he may be entitled.
he has to be released at some point. once that happens, he can sue. if he's in there for life, his relatives can either sue for his release or compensation after his death.
Even if true, that really doesn't make me feel any better.
everyone keeps saying this but I disagree. If I could spend a year in prison in return for getting a settlement that meant I never had to work again, I'd be pretty upbeat. Of course nothing's a sure thing.
I hope someone does since they may be entitled to some big payouts by the government if they don't ever have charges pressed. It would keep my hope alive if I knew that I could look forward to giving the government a big fat lawsuit.
Dude, that's the beauty of the constitution, it's agruable. As times change, laws can change. It's not like a religion that must remain static forever. If you want the laws changed, go out and vote for someone as like-minded as you can or run for office yourself.
by the way, the constitution is upheld more often than you probably think and thousands of people have struggled and died to create it and make it work. Saying that it's just a bunch of suggestions is doing it and them a disservice.
no one ever said he'd be happy but he would have legal recourse and that's the point.
:)
Besides, in this case, the guy is an ex-Chicago gang member. I've come into contact with Chicago gang members and I'd like to see a lot more of them imprisoned
You missed the bigger point. As long as those records don't fit the legal definition of private, they're fair game.
Can you provide me with the legal definition of the word private with respect to information? The legal one, not one that feels good or that you found in the dictionary.
I will ask him what the legal definition of private documentation is but I'm willing to bet that bank records don't fall into the definition. That's the rub, the 4th ammendment covers documentation that is legaly private. If bank records don't fit that definition (legal, not dictionary), then the 4th doesn't cover them.
Also, the information is created by the bank about you, not by you. If they FBI asked him for his old plane tickets, paper bank records or emails he could tell them to go to hell and he'd be entitled. They could then either take them illegaly, which would get them in trouble if they tried to use it agaist him or they could go to the ISP, bank or travel company which could either give it up or say no and go to court if need be.
I've never given the slipperly slope argument much credit. If my doctor, spouce or rabbi belongs to the bank (somehow) they can't be forced to talk about my illness, sex life or sins because they're still covered by their respective privilages.
Garbage is public domain and that's why I destroy anything of interest before I throw it out. Pics and audio recordings of you in your dwelling are already protected by the 4th.
by the way, if you can fish my DNA out of a hundred tons of shit, my hat's off to you.
I hope so, but as it stands right now they could keep you in the can indefinitely while they investigate, without charges and without access to an attorney -- just because they suspect you.
In my book, that's a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. At least.
True enough and that's something that I don't like. However, we're not talking about that right now. Also, if you're imprisoned without being arrested or arrested without being told why, you are in a good position to sue the shit out of whomever is doing it.
My diary ...
My phone conversations
Letters that I write
Those are all private communications and records that I either own or personaly created. The FBI still needs a warent to tap a phone even though the phone company probably has people who can listen in on me.
No, I'm making the argument that the information isn't yours because:
1. It's not legaly privlaged information.
and
2. It's not yours in the sense that you own it in any legal way.
If there was never any expectation of privacy then why originally was a court order necessary?
What makes you think that the FBI was getting court orders before. At least this way, the FBI will have to follow a procedure and be open to congressional investigation for their adherence to this new policy.
Like I said, the bank's. Do you have some legal documentation saying that the information on your bank account is your legal property?
It may fall under the category of papers but that's debatable.
Perhaps the ammendment needs to be readjusted to fit the information age, but in its current form, I don't see it being violated in this particular case.
IANAL but since there are specific laws saying that the creator of a patented idea "owns" it, it doesn't fall into the same category as bank records.
It might indeed weaken the argument that an idea belongs to the creator but the patent says that the creator is entitled to certan privlages because he or she originated the idea.
no it can't. There is no such privlaged confidentiality between yourself and a bank.
Right but my point was that it doesn't violate the 4th ammendment. They're not doing anything illegal or immoral. If I get flagged as being something I'm not, further investigation will reveal that I'm not doing anything wrong.
Information isn't property. It might fall under the category of "papers" but even so, those belong to the institution.
I'm playing DA here with an argument that my soon-to-be lawyer friend used.
The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.
Let me know what holes to poke in that argument.
shouldn't be anything. CO2 doesn't react with aluminum, at least at the low temperatures of Mars unless I'm mistaken. Dust might wear it down after a while but that should be a really long time since the low pressure winds won't hit it very hard.
I'm guessing that it will get dusty at most. They proably made it out of aluminum because it's light and plastic would probably degrade faster.
I wasn't aware of that. What's the source of that quote?
Before you decty money going to NASA, take a look at this. NASA gets about 17 Billion as opposed to the trillion that goes to welfare of one form or another. Please put things into perspective. The 80 cents that you spent on this Mars mission wouldn't have gotten you that battery.
Now on what NASA does that that money, that's a different story. A manned mission to Mars would be about the same cost of the shuttle program or the ISS money-sucker. The perfered way to go is obvious to me.