The 'materials' aren't being sent. They're using the regolith from the moon.
Even if you send some feedstock for the process, if you just build 1 building or small colony it may not make sense. But long term production on the moon's surface is going to MUCH cheaper than flying in everything.
The submariners are certainly decent test cases, but a Mars mission has more implications. The Sub 'can' surface and go to port if someone gets deathly ill. Mars you don't have that option.
But as you say, it's something being researched, but we haven't fully explored it all yet.
Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?
Practice in an environment that is reachable by a rescue team? The moon is the perfect place for us to work out the problems with starting to colonize other planets/asteroids.
Everything else is a one way trip if you run into trouble.
I think the water is an internal area for super shielding in the event of a radiation event. The 'core' area astronauts can retreat to for short term (a week or two) safety. Though I think that's more on the trip to Mars rather than ISS. Same concept I think though.
Photovoltaic is far from a 'gimmick'. Different tools for different jobs.
Solar thermal is more energy 'storage' than power generation. And that's what will be necessary for grid scale deployments - store the sun's energy for use when it isn't shining.
You mean like government funding of the interstate highway system? Or the national power grid? Or the water systems?
Yeah those were all horrid disasters for this country.
If we don't subsidize our emerging industries...the Chinese will. And we will lose because the investment and breakthroughs won't be made here.
You are against the 40 BILLION a year the oil and gas industry get right? I mean we should just be letting them do their thing rather than weighing them down with government subsidies...right?
As someone else said, the world simply doesn't have the resources to allow everyone to live a US lifestyle. Let alone if we top 10 billion population. It certainly has geo-political implications, but not being able to power the planet via solar due to lack of energy isn't one of them.
Also, factor in improvements in efficiency of all of our gadgets. We're not using nearly the amount of power we'd expect with the additional people in the last 30 years. And we're doing more with that energy as well. I believe the per capita energy consumption today is actually lower in the US than it was 30 years ago.
And of course lastly, all this solar energy is quite literally free.
Solar, wind and hydro are power GENERATORS, not power storage techs. Our current storage tech is the water behind the dam, and the oil and the uranium.
Take your renewable and intermittent power generation and generate hydrogen via electrolysis and now you have your power when you need it.
Thorium is promising but needs more work (and I support its research and development). The Solar side doesn't need any more research, the tech exists 'now' and is ready to go.
Even if we just power things during the day, we significantly reduce the spikes and valleys of usage which is better for the grid anyway.
We'll still need nuclear in some form for at least 50-100 years, but it has downsides of magnitudes that no other power source has - though thorium nuclear may have less than uranium based plants. It still has waste, it's still life threatening should it 'fail'.
Windmills just fall over, they don't kill people for 100 sq miles radius.
"... but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random."
Of course they're not. But I'm wondering what your point is.
You said they were random. Your implication was it would make it hard for authorities to track down. My point is you are wrong.
I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that simple not-for-profit copyright infringement would be justification.
Seriously, did you miss the tragic Aaron Schwartz saga?
I wasn't suggesting anybody host one in their home.
The article was saying exactly that - "users anonymizing each others' downloads.....would be required to allow their machine to be used as a proxy".
My point was how did the proposed solution to this differ from TOR. You suggested it did and so far haven't offered any reasonable claims to that effect. 'What' the crime is seems to matter very little since we are ALREADY seeing courts involved in issuing subpoenas. The TOR reference is simply that somebody has to be publicly visible and that person will be the one being hassled, however that hassle might materialize.
Maybe so, but I would strongly assume that current legal precedent has said that an end user isn't a 'provider' of services and thus not eligible for the DMCA safe harbor protections.
Specifically your user agreement with your ISP almost certainly bans you running 'servers'; granted many in the tech industry may pay for upgraded service to do such things legally, but you're fighting an uphill battle me thinks.
Exit nodes are not random. They are fixed nodes with assigned and traceable IP addresses. 'Which' node you use as a TOR 'USER' is perhaps random, but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random.
Nobody says they monitor nodes for the fun of it. They find someone with Child Porn, and rightfully get a list of places he's received data from from his ISP. One of those IP addresses just happens to be a TOR exit node. Bingo, warrant issued to monitor that exit node's activity.
Running a TOR exit node out of your own house is a recipe for legal issues. Running it out of a hosted server somewhere is much less problematic, but legally speaking, that's the IP address spewing child porn and that's what's going to attract the attention (once they catch someone routing through that exit node).
I suspect you're right that the DMCA doesn't really adequately define these things. However, I'm fairly confident that legal precedent has said that end users are end users, even if they share their bandwidth with others by default.
Circumstantial evidence has done lots of bad and good in cases.
I think what you're saying is that without 'good' legal representation you can get screwed by the system. And since he said 'it may take quite a lot of your personal time and money to prove it', and good representation ain't cheap, you're both saying the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Dig hole. Put in habitat. Cover hole. Instant 'cave' :)
No but you can make your own 'caves' and get the same thing.
Dig hole. Put in habitats. Cover hole back up. Instant cave.
The 'materials' aren't being sent. They're using the regolith from the moon.
Even if you send some feedstock for the process, if you just build 1 building or small colony it may not make sense. But long term production on the moon's surface is going to MUCH cheaper than flying in everything.
The submariners are certainly decent test cases, but a Mars mission has more implications. The Sub 'can' surface and go to port if someone gets deathly ill. Mars you don't have that option.
But as you say, it's something being researched, but we haven't fully explored it all yet.
Which season of Big Brother are you talking about?
Flying was impossible for the average joe to pay for only 70 years ago....
Well they considered it...but the projected revenues were 'flat'....
And a whole lot fewer people would die than did trying to cross the atlantic by just 'going'.
And of course it being inherently harder than just 'sailing'...
Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?
Practice in an environment that is reachable by a rescue team? The moon is the perfect place for us to work out the problems with starting to colonize other planets/asteroids.
Everything else is a one way trip if you run into trouble.
I think the water is an internal area for super shielding in the event of a radiation event. The 'core' area astronauts can retreat to for short term (a week or two) safety. Though I think that's more on the trip to Mars rather than ISS. Same concept I think though.
Photovoltaic is far from a 'gimmick'. Different tools for different jobs.
Solar thermal is more energy 'storage' than power generation. And that's what will be necessary for grid scale deployments - store the sun's energy for use when it isn't shining.
Photovoltaics will be a needed part as well.
You mean like government funding of the interstate highway system? Or the national power grid? Or the water systems?
Yeah those were all horrid disasters for this country.
If we don't subsidize our emerging industries...the Chinese will. And we will lose because the investment and breakthroughs won't be made here.
You are against the 40 BILLION a year the oil and gas industry get right? I mean we should just be letting them do their thing rather than weighing them down with government subsidies...right?
As someone else said, the world simply doesn't have the resources to allow everyone to live a US lifestyle. Let alone if we top 10 billion population. It certainly has geo-political implications, but not being able to power the planet via solar due to lack of energy isn't one of them.
Also, factor in improvements in efficiency of all of our gadgets. We're not using nearly the amount of power we'd expect with the additional people in the last 30 years. And we're doing more with that energy as well. I believe the per capita energy consumption today is actually lower in the US than it was 30 years ago.
And of course lastly, all this solar energy is quite literally free.
Those furnaces were recently banned in the state because they reduced revenue for gas and oil companies.
Can you post a link to this? That seems wildly stupid...but then PA has gone GOP crazy of late ;-)
Solar, wind and hydro are power GENERATORS, not power storage techs. Our current storage tech is the water behind the dam, and the oil and the uranium.
Take your renewable and intermittent power generation and generate hydrogen via electrolysis and now you have your power when you need it.
Switching to renewable energy sources will be a snap once we stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry
Fixed that for you.
Funny how they're trying to corner the solar panel market at the same time
Actually the GOP expressly tries to KILL any green tech work here in America. We're actually helping the Chinese corner the market.
Thorium is promising but needs more work (and I support its research and development). The Solar side doesn't need any more research, the tech exists 'now' and is ready to go.
Even if we just power things during the day, we significantly reduce the spikes and valleys of usage which is better for the grid anyway.
We'll still need nuclear in some form for at least 50-100 years, but it has downsides of magnitudes that no other power source has - though thorium nuclear may have less than uranium based plants. It still has waste, it's still life threatening should it 'fail'.
Windmills just fall over, they don't kill people for 100 sq miles radius.
Or, you go back to old fashioned boiler plate tech using mirrors to concentrate the light to generate heat to create steam or melt salt
Fortunately this is still 'solar' power :) Though perhaps not quite as useful as photovoltaic cells on every surface.
But tech is always improving - solar panels without rare earths (or at least significantly fewer)
More energy hits the earth in solar energy in about 8 minutes than the entire world uses in an entire year.
And that's just one source. When every manmade surface is producing electricity, we'll have more than enough to go around for literally centuries.
Since they are getting closer and closer to actual governmental power, their resources may be larger than you might think.
"... but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random."
Of course they're not. But I'm wondering what your point is.
You said they were random. Your implication was it would make it hard for authorities to track down. My point is you are wrong.
I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that simple not-for-profit copyright infringement would be justification.
Seriously, did you miss the tragic Aaron Schwartz saga?
I wasn't suggesting anybody host one in their home.
The article was saying exactly that - "users anonymizing each others' downloads.....would be required to allow their machine to be used as a proxy".
My point was how did the proposed solution to this differ from TOR. You suggested it did and so far haven't offered any reasonable claims to that effect. 'What' the crime is seems to matter very little since we are ALREADY seeing courts involved in issuing subpoenas. The TOR reference is simply that somebody has to be publicly visible and that person will be the one being hassled, however that hassle might materialize.
It's exactly the same as TOR.
Maybe so, but I would strongly assume that current legal precedent has said that an end user isn't a 'provider' of services and thus not eligible for the DMCA safe harbor protections.
Specifically your user agreement with your ISP almost certainly bans you running 'servers'; granted many in the tech industry may pay for upgraded service to do such things legally, but you're fighting an uphill battle me thinks.
Exit nodes are not random. They are fixed nodes with assigned and traceable IP addresses. 'Which' node you use as a TOR 'USER' is perhaps random, but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random.
Nobody says they monitor nodes for the fun of it. They find someone with Child Porn, and rightfully get a list of places he's received data from from his ISP. One of those IP addresses just happens to be a TOR exit node. Bingo, warrant issued to monitor that exit node's activity.
Running a TOR exit node out of your own house is a recipe for legal issues. Running it out of a hosted server somewhere is much less problematic, but legally speaking, that's the IP address spewing child porn and that's what's going to attract the attention (once they catch someone routing through that exit node).
provider of online services or network access
I suspect you're right that the DMCA doesn't really adequately define these things. However, I'm fairly confident that legal precedent has said that end users are end users, even if they share their bandwidth with others by default.
Circumstantial evidence has done lots of bad and good in cases.
I think what you're saying is that without 'good' legal representation you can get screwed by the system. And since he said 'it may take quite a lot of your personal time and money to prove it', and good representation ain't cheap, you're both saying the same thing.