The most significant portion of communications infrastructure is the electronics, which requires sophisticated manufacturing, and highly refined materials, neither of which are not going to come from space. As for shielding, just dig up an old refridgerator or two from your local dump. Besides, communications infrastructure is such a relatively insignificant drain on material resources that going to space for materials is stupid. Space is just too expensive as a source of raw materials, except for use in space, and that's not going to happen for quite some time.
Communications isn't raw materials. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see space exploration take off:-), but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we are anywhere close to using extraterrestrial materials in a significant way. The easiest thing to do would be to use lunar soil as a base material for some form of concrete. Another thing would be to use local water (if any is ever found in significant quantity) to supplement life support. Mining the asteroids for metals, or extracting ores from Mars just ain't gonna happen in an economically significant way for a thousand years or more.
Quite simply, existing growth of energy and raw material apprears unlikely to continue without utilization of non-terrestrial materials.
Bunk and Hogwash! We have an entire planetful of resources right under our feet with a "class M" environment surrounding most of it. It will be decades, perhaps centuries, before we import more material from space than we export Space will not economically viable as a source of resources for at least a millennium. By that time we should have proper recycling in place, and have tempered our wasteful ways a little.
Setting aside the issue of who is getting a free ride off of whom, you seem to be not understanding the concept of economic efficiency. When two companies produce the same product, but company B produces it at a lower cost than company A, then company B is more efficient than company A.
When it comes to distributing music, you seem to think is more efficient to press the music onto a physical medium and move that medium, than to upload the music to a file server. Be assured that it is not. In fact, the cost of moving a song electronically is practically zero.
No. It is more efficient in that it can deliver the same result at a lower cost. The real "free riders" in the system are the musicians and producers of creative works. They're the ones ripping people off. They perform once, and expect to get paid over and over and over again. Well, technology is making their scam unprofitable. Soon they will have to work for a living just like everyone else.
I was only able to catch B5 sporadically. I saw an friend with a dvd boxed set the other day. He said he'd borrowed it from someone. Now I've got to track down that someone and see if I can borrow the dvds.
Gee, my former employer had to lay off 20 people (including me) because the privacy law meant that they could no longer sell access to the data they collected. They wound up shutting down the entire department.
Work the lock. Work the lock. Don't look at the dogs. Work the lock... You looked at the dogs. Magnum - To himself while picking the lock on the Ferrari.
The caloric content of food is measured by burning it and seeing how much heat it gives off. This produces an inflated value because it counts the energy in those parts of the food that the human body is unable to metabolize, cellulose for example. The very fact that one can extract usable energy from waste means that we only use a fraction of the food energy we consume. Excess food energy is not all converted into fat. Some of it gets dumped overboard.
You know, I've always figured there was a problem with all those calorie counting books. A single chocolate doughnut takes a half hour of aerobics to burn off. Riiight! Sure it does. Calories in=Calories out sure. The books all assume calories out=background metabolism+exercise. However, calories out=background metabolism +exercise+waste. They miss this third component.
Slashdot Mirror
The most significant portion of communications infrastructure is the electronics, which requires sophisticated manufacturing, and highly refined materials, neither of which are not going to come from space. As for shielding, just dig up an old refridgerator or two from your local dump. Besides, communications infrastructure is such a relatively insignificant drain on material resources that going to space for materials is stupid. Space is just too expensive as a source of raw materials, except for use in space, and that's not going to happen for quite some time.
Communications isn't raw materials. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see space exploration take off :-), but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we are anywhere close to using extraterrestrial materials in a significant way. The easiest thing to do would be to use lunar soil as a base material for some form of concrete. Another thing would be to use local water (if any is ever found in significant quantity) to supplement life support. Mining the asteroids for metals, or extracting ores from Mars just ain't gonna happen in an economically significant way for a thousand years or more.
Quite simply, existing growth of energy and raw material apprears unlikely to continue without utilization of non-terrestrial materials.
Bunk and Hogwash! We have an entire planetful of resources right under our feet with a "class M" environment surrounding most of it. It will be decades, perhaps centuries, before we import more material from space than we export Space will not economically viable as a source of resources for at least a millennium. By that time we should have proper recycling in place, and have tempered our wasteful ways a little.
What difference does that make? You should be modding the comment, not the person making it.
You'd think that a big company like Sony would build a robot with it's head on right side up.
Setting aside the issue of who is getting a free ride off of whom, you seem to be not understanding the concept of economic efficiency. When two companies produce the same product, but company B produces it at a lower cost than company A, then company B is more efficient than company A. When it comes to distributing music, you seem to think is more efficient to press the music onto a physical medium and move that medium, than to upload the music to a file server. Be assured that it is not. In fact, the cost of moving a song electronically is practically zero.
Sheesh! For $1600, I'd expect it to hurl itself at the sun.
No. It is more efficient in that it can deliver the same result at a lower cost. The real "free riders" in the system are the musicians and producers of creative works. They're the ones ripping people off. They perform once, and expect to get paid over and over and over again. Well, technology is making their scam unprofitable. Soon they will have to work for a living just like everyone else.
To devil with sorting ease. Clarity is what is important. A four digit year, and a text month (01-APR-2004) is completely unambiguous.
Also:
()Because Mom told me I couldn't. ()I lost the bet. ()Alcohol. ()"Eh, why not!"
Just like new.net?
Oops! I meant:
[]=
=[]
^
vs
=[]
=[]
^^
Where =[] is the side view of a gear, and ^ points out the degree of contact with the lower gear.
[]= vs =[]
=[] =[]
^ ^^
Personal Information Manager
Actually, I found this to be amusing.
I was only able to catch B5 sporadically. I saw an friend with a dvd boxed set the other day. He said he'd borrowed it from someone. Now I've got to track down that someone and see if I can borrow the dvds.
Thanks for the pointer. I stand (or rather sit) corrected.
Orbital inclination can only go up to 90 degrees.
Styrofoam has joined the ranks of kleenex, zippers, and aspirin. The brand name has become so engrained that it has become the name of the product.
Why would you point to a straw after asking for a thermos? :-)
Gee, my former employer had to lay off 20 people (including me) because the privacy law meant that they could no longer sell access to the data they collected. They wound up shutting down the entire department.
Well, perhaps by 2061 the government will have come to its senses.
The caloric content of food is measured by burning it and seeing how much heat it gives off. This produces an inflated value because it counts the energy in those parts of the food that the human body is unable to metabolize, cellulose for example. The very fact that one can extract usable energy from waste means that we only use a fraction of the food energy we consume. Excess food energy is not all converted into fat. Some of it gets dumped overboard.
You know, I've always figured there was a problem with all those calorie counting books. A single chocolate doughnut takes a half hour of aerobics to burn off. Riiight! Sure it does. Calories in=Calories out sure. The books all assume calories out=background metabolism+exercise. However, calories out=background metabolism +exercise+waste. They miss this third component.