If all you want to do is live up there then you don't need any laws from earth. But if you were to go to the Moon, mine it and return the materials to Earth for sale, chances are you would get some government agency claiming that you don't have the legal right to sell those materials. At that point something is going to have to change. Someone is going to have to give you a legal claim, or get out of your way. Otherwise you're just going to sell your product on a black market and governments will miss out of possibly the biggest tax income in history.
Not that any of this is going to happen any time soon. That is, unless that pesky space elevator gets built in the next 10 years.
Therein lies the rub. Either the UN should be able to grant it to you, or any state that has signed a revised outerspace treaty should be able to. But I guess it will all come to a head as soon as the first homesteaders land on the Moon.
What's wrong with the existing homesteading laws? If you want to claim a plot of land on the Moon all you should have to do is go fence it and live on it. After a specific period the land becomes yours and you can apply for a title, which you can then trade with anyone you want, or you can apply for geological survey and mining rights. Sure, it currently costs billions of dollars to get to the Moon, but that hardly makes it unfair to apply the same homesteading rules there as anywhere else.
Uh huh. If I tell you I don't own something and then offer to sell it to you I've broken no laws. If you buy it you're not necessarily an idiot either. You might find some novelty value in pretending to be the owner.
If you get off your ass, spend billions of dollars of your own money and go land on the Moon you should have some legal right to fence off a bit of land and claim it as your own. Once you've lived on the property for some set period of time you should be free to do a geological survey and apply for mining rights. If it wasn't for homesteading laws like this the west of the United States wouldn't have been settled (and all them native americans wouldn't have been killed, but that's hardly relevant to this discussion).
But one reason for moderation is to remove the clutter of trolls, off topic and so on for most people. A negative moderation os not automatically a bad moderation.
It is when nothing has been moderated up.
And naturally, this whole discussion right here fully deserves to get modded down too.
Crap. Discussing the summary is just as valid as discussing the article. Discussing the weather or Bill Gates' haircut is Offtopic, this aint.
Follow the guidelines for moderation. Moderate UP not DOWN. And browse at -1 Newest Posts First, No Threading. I metamoderate three times daily and anything that is modded offtopic or flamebait or troll that isn't obviously so will earn you black mark that will reduce your chances of being selected as a moderator again.
Friend of mine works for a megacorp in a non-IT field. They get all their software developed in Malaysia and no-one else in the corporation has access to the source code. So whenever they need some small customization they do shit like screen scraping and dodgee Visual Basic hacks. If they ask for a customization or a bugfix from the development team they won't get it for 6 to 12 months, if they get it all, and it won't do everything they need.
So yeah, next time you try to tell someone about the benefits of Open Source, consider the fact that most consultants in their own god damn company don't have access to custom developed software.
Same reason they teach religion in the classroom. Oh wait, you were talking about US public schools right? Well in that case, no, it has no place in that classroom.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
I don't smoke, but what really pisses me off is the massive amounts of tax payer money wasted on "scare" campaigns. Here in Australia we have the worst in the world. Not only do I, a non-smoker, have to put up with seeing diseased organs on prime time television, I also have to put up with blatantly false and exaggerated claims that just make people ignore the campaign in the first place. The first being that everyone who smokes gets cancer. The second being that everyone who gets cancer (lung cancer or otherwise) will die from it. The third, and worst, being the complete bullshit claims like smoking causes blindness. Riiight. If smoking caused blindness, wouldn't it be likely that I'd know at least one blind person? I've know lots of smokers for lots of years, surely one of them would have gone blind by now? But hey, this is Australia, I'm used to paying the highest taxes in the world and having my government do nothing good with it. I guess I should be happy that they decided to spend it on "public education" than just let it sit in the surplus earning 0% interest like they do with the majority of my tax dollars.
The difference is that ID isn't science. By the two tests: is it disprovable? Do scientists think it is science? ID fails both. So yeah, teach ID in schools if you like, just teach it in something other than the science classroom.
I know you're kiding, but honestly I've never seen a suggestion for how we can reverse global warming. I've seen lots of suggestions that we cut back on production and give the earth time to "heal itself" but that's about the extent of it. I think a space scientist suggested that we build a big-ass mirror in space to reduce the amount of energy hitting the earth, but frankly that's about as useful as your suggestion.
Yeah true. But that just means their a company being run by engineers and have poor ability to bring things to market. What I would be asking is where are these physicists that have apparently reviewed and reproduced the experiments?
None of it matters. If they release a product and it works then people have to take them seriously. Sure, they'll probably come up with an explaination that is completely different and fits with current physics theory, but whatever floats your boat. What matters is the technology.
Pfft. Here's a question for you, say my twin brother Tom goes and deposits sperm. Technically he has the same genetic material as me right. So when Tom Jr comes to track down his genetic parents you gotta ask, who's your daddy?
Genius, 99.9% of your DNA is functionally identical to my DNA. So it doesn't matter if it came from your mother or your father or your pet rock. Genetic variation is largely insignificant and what variation there is doesn't necessarily lead to phenome variation.
Slashdot Mirror
If all you want to do is live up there then you don't need any laws from earth. But if you were to go to the Moon, mine it and return the materials to Earth for sale, chances are you would get some government agency claiming that you don't have the legal right to sell those materials. At that point something is going to have to change. Someone is going to have to give you a legal claim, or get out of your way. Otherwise you're just going to sell your product on a black market and governments will miss out of possibly the biggest tax income in history.
Not that any of this is going to happen any time soon. That is, unless that pesky space elevator gets built in the next 10 years.
Therein lies the rub. Either the UN should be able to grant it to you, or any state that has signed a revised outerspace treaty should be able to. But I guess it will all come to a head as soon as the first homesteaders land on the Moon.
What's wrong with the existing homesteading laws? If you want to claim a plot of land on the Moon all you should have to do is go fence it and live on it. After a specific period the land becomes yours and you can apply for a title, which you can then trade with anyone you want, or you can apply for geological survey and mining rights. Sure, it currently costs billions of dollars to get to the Moon, but that hardly makes it unfair to apply the same homesteading rules there as anywhere else.
Uh huh. If I tell you I don't own something and then offer to sell it to you I've broken no laws. If you buy it you're not necessarily an idiot either. You might find some novelty value in pretending to be the owner.
Uhhh, how can you be subject to a treaty you never signed?
If you get off your ass, spend billions of dollars of your own money and go land on the Moon you should have some legal right to fence off a bit of land and claim it as your own. Once you've lived on the property for some set period of time you should be free to do a geological survey and apply for mining rights. If it wasn't for homesteading laws like this the west of the United States wouldn't have been settled (and all them native americans wouldn't have been killed, but that's hardly relevant to this discussion).
You must have missed the point where I said these were in-house developers.
Probably the same way they detect cosmic rays, built gigantic facilities underground and cover them in water.
But one reason for moderation is to remove the clutter of trolls, off topic and so on for most people. A negative moderation os not automatically a bad moderation.
It is when nothing has been moderated up.
And naturally, this whole discussion right here fully deserves to get modded down too.
Crap. Discussing the summary is just as valid as discussing the article. Discussing the weather or Bill Gates' haircut is Offtopic, this aint.
I thought people just paid this site to run ads as stories.
Oh! You ment the subscribers. Yeah, misplaced guilt I guess.
Follow the guidelines for moderation. Moderate UP not DOWN. And browse at -1 Newest Posts First, No Threading. I metamoderate three times daily and anything that is modded offtopic or flamebait or troll that isn't obviously so will earn you black mark that will reduce your chances of being selected as a moderator again.
The word is imminent. immanent means something completely different.
Here I was hoping it was going to be a story about the commercialization of space.
Friend of mine works for a megacorp in a non-IT field. They get all their software developed in Malaysia and no-one else in the corporation has access to the source code. So whenever they need some small customization they do shit like screen scraping and dodgee Visual Basic hacks. If they ask for a customization or a bugfix from the development team they won't get it for 6 to 12 months, if they get it all, and it won't do everything they need.
So yeah, next time you try to tell someone about the benefits of Open Source, consider the fact that most consultants in their own god damn company don't have access to custom developed software.
Same reason they teach religion in the classroom. Oh wait, you were talking about US public schools right? Well in that case, no, it has no place in that classroom.
I don't smoke, but what really pisses me off is the massive amounts of tax payer money wasted on "scare" campaigns. Here in Australia we have the worst in the world. Not only do I, a non-smoker, have to put up with seeing diseased organs on prime time television, I also have to put up with blatantly false and exaggerated claims that just make people ignore the campaign in the first place. The first being that everyone who smokes gets cancer. The second being that everyone who gets cancer (lung cancer or otherwise) will die from it. The third, and worst, being the complete bullshit claims like smoking causes blindness. Riiight. If smoking caused blindness, wouldn't it be likely that I'd know at least one blind person? I've know lots of smokers for lots of years, surely one of them would have gone blind by now? But hey, this is Australia, I'm used to paying the highest taxes in the world and having my government do nothing good with it. I guess I should be happy that they decided to spend it on "public education" than just let it sit in the surplus earning 0% interest like they do with the majority of my tax dollars.
The difference is that ID isn't science. By the two tests: is it disprovable? Do scientists think it is science? ID fails both. So yeah, teach ID in schools if you like, just teach it in something other than the science classroom.
I know you're kiding, but honestly I've never seen a suggestion for how we can reverse global warming. I've seen lots of suggestions that we cut back on production and give the earth time to "heal itself" but that's about the extent of it. I think a space scientist suggested that we build a big-ass mirror in space to reduce the amount of energy hitting the earth, but frankly that's about as useful as your suggestion.
The best way to manage geeks? Well, I pretty much treat them like any other employee.
That's what I said, "with evil".
Imagine Google Home with more control over how fast you fetch feeds.
Yeah true. But that just means their a company being run by engineers and have poor ability to bring things to market. What I would be asking is where are these physicists that have apparently reviewed and reproduced the experiments?
effort.
None of it matters. If they release a product and it works then people have to take them seriously. Sure, they'll probably come up with an explaination that is completely different and fits with current physics theory, but whatever floats your boat. What matters is the technology.
Duh. Sarcasm, learn it.
Pfft. Here's a question for you, say my twin brother Tom goes and deposits sperm. Technically he has the same genetic material as me right. So when Tom Jr comes to track down his genetic parents you gotta ask, who's your daddy?
Genius, 99.9% of your DNA is functionally identical to my DNA. So it doesn't matter if it came from your mother or your father or your pet rock. Genetic variation is largely insignificant and what variation there is doesn't necessarily lead to phenome variation.