They have to be regulated because they are a government authorized monopoly.
As it turns out, they are not a government sanctioned monopoly. Maybe they were once, but not anymore. In fact there are regions of the country where multiple cable providers compete with each other. Remind me again why they need to be regulated?
For some it is a necessity, if they can not recieve broadcast TV.
Oh yes. Of course. Silly me. God forbid that people should actually be forced to live without any form of TV. I mean, this is a civilized nation after all. Think of the children.
It is the government's responsibility to protect the consumer from a monopoly they created.
See above regarding your whole monopoly argument. And maybe instead of spending time on idiotic legislation like this the government could just get out of the monopoly authorization business altogther. I mean seriously, can you name one government-authorized monopoly that hasn't "screwed the consumer"?
Or will they just upgrade ASAP (300kg per payload on Ariane 5) to allow bigger devices?
That still doesn't change the fact that ASAP launches are constrained to go when and where the primary payload wants to go, while Falcon launches are not.
Can you make a fully functional useful satellite in 300kg? Imagine launching 4 at the same time and then being able to offer a few hundred digital TV channels off your own satellite network... heh!
Yes. Globalstar satellites were ~300 kg. They were launched multiply-manifested (up to 8 at a time IIRC) on a variety of launch vehicles. However Globalstar was a LEO constellation. GEO sats tend to be much bigger, because they either need a lot more power, or a much larger antenna aperture, than a LEO sat in order to be able to offset the greater RF propagation loss that results from their greater distance from the Earth. That's why there was so much excitement about LEO constellations a few years back - the sats could be much smaller and cheaper. You need a lot more of them of course, but if you build enough (ala Iridium or Globalstar) you can realize economies of scale not available to one-off GEO comm birds.
Falcon is not competing against Ariane - they are in completely different markets (at least for now). Falcon is competing against the likes of OSC's Pegasus, and they are significantly cheaper than Pegasus (~1/4 of the cost).
The only potential clash with Ariane is, as another poster has pointed out, the ASAP ring that Ariane uses to launch small payloads. Falcon is more expensive than an ASAP launch. However, Falcon has a larger payload capacity than an ASAP slot. More importantly, a Falcon payload launches as the primary, rather than as a secondary. That means launching when you want, and to the orbit that you want. For many payloads that makes it worth paying a little more than an ASAP launch.
As a previous poster pointed out, a lot of the cost of a satellite is a direct result of the cost of the launch ("if I'm paying that much to get the damn up there then it better bloody well work").
From what I have seen, there are any number of customers eager to fly on Falcon. In particular, the USAF has been fawning all over SpaceX. The current doctrine in USAF Space is based around so-called "Responsive Space", which means launching small satellites fast and cheap in response to the needs of a specific conflict. Falcon is a natural for that kind of mission.
Of course, "Responsive Space" is pretty much a rehash of a previous USAF effort about 15 years ago (different name of course) that was supposed to use the OSC Pegasus to do the same kind of thing. Whether or not Falcon will go the way of Pegasus remains to be seen (it is at least a lot cheaper then OSC's offering).
Face it, most americans (remember, 65%) don't want to have to subsidize channels they don't ever watch.
Great! And I'm sure 100% of Americans would prefer not to pay for cable at all. So why don't we just legislate that as well? Look, the cable companies have developed a business model that allows them to successfully provide the diversity of channels and shows that "the people" want. "The people" have apparently decided that this is a reasonable model, since they are willing to pay for the privilege of watching cable. If you don't like the cable company's terms, perhaps you should just not buy cable. Or investigate satellite TV. Or listen to the radio. Or start your own cable company, since there's apparently a huge untapped market for unbundled programming.
BTW, I notice that you are not complaining (yet) about have to pay for an entire channel worth of programs, when you only watch four or five. May I assume that will be the next legislative gem I should expect from the almighty 66% of people "getting gouged by the cable companies"?
If you don't have cable, good for you, but I can hardly see how your input is needed in this conversation.
Perhaps my input is needed because my tax dollars will be wasted on developing, debating, and implementing this legislation?
the congress is in place for the good of the american people
And it's critical to the good of the American people that they have ala carte cable? If cable is now a "basic necessity" we have become a sick, sick culture.
cable companies have a monopoly just like the phone companies used to.
No, they don't. There is no regulatory monopoly in place. And while I might be willing to concede the argument that a phone is a "necessity" (due to things like 911) I don't for a second buy into the idea that cable is a necessity.
Actually it's now "+1 Flamebait", so I guess the mods are on your side today.
Regardless, my point is not so much that ala carte cable isn't as big a problem as, oh, say world hunger. My point is that ala carte cable is a non-problem. It exists only in the context of the wealth and TV-dependence of the American public. I mean, we're talking about legislating the how a TV company can sell its products. What the hell is the government doing telling a company that markets a luxury product, that people are not required to buy, how it should sell said product. This is what my tax dollars are being spent on?
It is truly mind-boggling how wealthy, secure, and decadent we have become. It seems like every time I turn around there's some politician preparing to legislate about something that, while I'm sure it may be annoying, is
(a) not really life-threatening, and
(b) the result of the aggregate free choices of "the people". Have we no bigger problems in the world than ensuring that people can get access to cable channels without having to buy entire packages, or keeping the world safe from telemarketers. These do not seem like Earth-shattering issues.
I wonder, do people actually write letters to their congress-critter begging them to tell those nasty cable companies to let them buy the channels they want without having to buy a package? Or is it simply the case that McCain wanted to get HBO without paying for Discovery, got annoyed that he couldn't, and decided that this was "an important issue" to legislate on.
You do realise that NASA launched a metric crapload of probes in the early days of the "space race", right? Things like Pioneer (of which there were several), and Mariner (of which there several). The Surveyor (IIRC) probe that the Apollo 12 mission deliberately landed near. Others I can't remember right now. To characterize the early US space program as focusing on manned missions only, is a gross distortion of the facts.
Mars Exploration Rover (aka Spirit and Opportunity) managed to go from "approval to proceed" to launch in around 3 years (mid-2000 to mid-2003). And they built two of them. If MSL is already in the planning phase (actually it's been in the planning phase for a while now) then there's a reasonable chance that they could get something built within the 5 year timeframe suggested by a 2009 launch date. Hopefully with a little less stress on the project team than the MER team faced:-)
I don't recall exactly what the intended mission duration of MSL is, but IIRC "long-term" counts as anything that is significantly longer than the 90 sol lifetime MER. My understanding is that MSL will be returning to using radio-isotope thermoelectric generators (rather than photovoltaic cells) as the primary power source for the rover - thus the long life compared to the curent set of rovers.
Ob/. language nitpick: Actually, it just "raises the question." To "beg the question" means to assume the conclusion as one of your premises. Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies has a good description.
The ancients who wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states. Those who wished to bring order
to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their
minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere. Those who wished to make their wills sincere would first
extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is
extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, the mind is rectified; when the mind is rectified, the
personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be
in order; when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world. From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard
cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation. There is never a case when the root is in disorder and yet the branches are in
order.
You'd think that the "Slashdot crowd" (to the extent that there is such a thing) would be in favor of strong enforcement of legitimate copyrights. After all, the GPL relies on copyright law for its validity. If copyrights are made meaningless, and anyone can copy anything they want, then the GPL would have no strength. MS Linux would probably follow in short order...
While I agree with the opinions expressed by a number of the other comments about this story regarding the brief amount of time the Internet has been available in these countries, and the fact that the Internet has transformed business, I can't help wondering if there's not another component missing from this picture.
It's all very well to talk theoretically about information setting people free, but the bottom line is that if you live in one of these countries and you make "dissident information" available online the authorities will very likely track you down. Similarly, if you are seen to be accessing the IPs associated with "dissident information" you will, at the very least, end up on some kind of watchlist. Sure, the availability of Internet cafes helps some - you obtain a veneer of anonymity by hiding in the crowd - but probably not enough to really let people speak out. What would really help is something like the old (and apparently now defunct) Freedom system that Zero Knowledge Systems put together, which used strong crypto to dissociate sender and receiver from each other. Of course, then the authorities will just pick up anyone producing encrypted traffic. But if all traffic ran through a Freedom-like system...
Ok, ok, I know that's wishful thinking on my part. But I can hope, can't I? And maybe if enough of us living in countries that still retain some (political) freedom started to make use of Freedom, and encouraging businesses and news orgs to do the same, then it would begin to permeate the 'net as a whole. Sigh, there goes that wishful thinking again...
Mmmm... like the succession of the Dalai Lama proves that Buddhism is true. I don't think so.
tradition,
Oh. Tradition. Why didn't you say so before? Guess that means that all those other traditional gods, like Odin, Apollo, Ra, Coyote, Shiva, and Toutatis are also real. Must be pretty crowded up there. Do we also include traditions like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
non-biblical writers such as Josephus
Non-biblical writers generally don't mention Jesus, unless they are Christian non-biblical writers. The major exception to this is Josephus. But, ignoring for the moment that he gives Jesus a very few lines (surprising given the miracles he supposedly performed), Josephus is now generally accepted to have been doctored by early Christians attempting to provide "proof" for their faith. If you actually read Josephus you'll find that the lines mentions Jesus fit awkwardly into the flow of the text.
miracles
Which are inconsistently reported even among the gospels themselves, and go unmentioned outside of Christian writings. You're right. It is easy to question the miracles.
These may seem like scraps of evidence but it is the same type of scaps of evidence that lead me to believe that China exists. No one fact will prove to me that China exists, but I take it on faith because a number of things point to its existance.
The difference being that you are not being asked to run your life around the belief that China exists. And you can actually visit China yourself to verify its existence if you do decide that it is critical to your well-being to know that it exists.
Yet I am too often struck by the fact that there were groups of followers (first-person witnesses) who were willing to undergo horrible executions because they believed something outlandish to be true.
Because large numbers of people never, ever die for beliefs that aren't true. Uh huh. By your reasoning we'd better all convert to Islam ASAP, since modern Muslims seem far readier to die for their beliefs than do modern Christians.
Every single piece of evidence of Christ's existence has to be re-interpreted in some other way - and consistently.
Given that much of the "evidence" consists of "historical scraps" that have provided support for the Christ myth only when they are interpreted through the lens of Christian belief I doubt it would be that difficult to revert to a non-Christian interpretation. For example your citations of Thallus and Phlegon may be just what they appear to be: records of a fairly impressive eclipse event around 32 AD.
Every single piece of verifiable history which is mentioned by the NT authors has to be somehow seperated from their eyewitness testimonies of Jesus.
Right. Just like every single piece of verifiable history in a James Michener novel has to be somehow separated from the fictional parts of his story. The fact that a text mentions historical events does not automatically make it unquestionably authentic in all respects.
So our two competing explanations are (if I have yours right - if not please correct me):
* Mine: Jesus rose from the dead because he was who he claimed to be - God become man. He then appeared to his frightened followers who were transformed by the sight and experience of their risen Messiah into fearless preachers of the new faith.
* Yours: Jesus died and sometime over the weekend the followers stole the body from a heavily guarded tomb and hid it somewhere else. Then they popped up and started claiming he was alive. All of them stuck to this same story for decades with no inconsistencies or cracking - all but one meeting horrible deaths because of this claim. ALong the way, thousands of others who they convinced also met horrible deaths.
Er, yeah. Occam's razor.
Here's an even simpler explanation: Jesus never existed. The whole crucifixion event is a myth.
Neither a complex conspiracy to spirit away the body, nor a convoluted supernatural explanation is required.
And there is plenty of historical evidence free of bias. A Roman historians called Thallus tried explaining away the darkness at the crucifixion by calling it an eclipse.
Actually, it's not clear what Thallus actually wrote, or when he wrote it. Our knowledge of Thallus' writing comes through Africanus. Since Africanus doesn't actually quote Thallus it is hard to say what Thallus really wrote. From what Africanus does say it is apparent that Thallus wrote something about an eclipse that occurred somewhere around the supposed time of the crucifixion. But it is unclear whether or not Thallus mentioned Jesus in connection with the eclipse, or even whether he mentioned him at all.
Another Roman historian corrected him later, pointing out it was full moon at passover time.
That would be Africanus. Who was incidentally a Christian writing in the 3rd century. He thus is both well removed from the actual events, and had a vested interest in bolstering the Christian version of history.
There are others: Pliny, Phlegon and Josephus.
Phlegon does not mention Jesus at all. He merely records an eclipse and an earthquake that apparently occurred in 32 AD. Josephus does give Jesus a few brief mentions, but those lines are placed awkwardly in the flow of the text, and are generally accepted to have been inserted by early Christians (not to mention the fact that if Jesus had done all the things he is purported to have done you would think he'd rate more than a few lines). Pliny mentions Christians as a sect in a letter to Trajan, but there is nothing in the letter to suggest that Christ was other than a myth.
The "scraps of historical data" are just that: scraps. Often they are scraps that make no reference to Jesus at all, but have been appropriated and reinterpreted by Christians in an attempt to prove the truth of the bible.
If we accept the bible's account of the crucifixtion as correct, one of the guards sunk a spear pretty deep into the side of Jesus, to make sure he was dead.
Just to be further nitpicky: which account? The spear incident is mentioned in only (IIRC) one of the gospels.
There are non-biblical reasons for trusting the veracity of the Bible.
Such as?
One can imagine a story in which the book was created in such a way as to "prove" a lie. I believe that story would require more faith than what the Bible expounds.
I don't know about that. Frankly, some people sitting around and making up a bunch of myths about the origins and operation of the world seems a lot more plausible than the whole son-of-god/resurrected-carpenter thing. I mean, people have a history of sitting around making up stories like that. So it seems to me that it takes far less faith to believe that they'd do it again in the case of the New Testament than to believe that the story is actually true. Unless you're claiming that all those other religions are also true too?
Can we be so sure that the end here (travel in space, colonization, etc.) justifies the means we as humans may need to take to get there (commercial interests)?
And what exactly do you think motivated "the discovery of the Americas"?* Or for that matter precipitated the colonization of the Americas?** Very little in the way of exploration and eventual colonization has been done for other than commercial interests (albeit sometimes indirectly).
* Answer: the search for a faster route to the spice wealth of the Indies - there's a reason that native Americans became known as Indians.
** Answer: initially, the desire to plunder the gold of the New World.
Given that the X-prize competition is (currently) geared towards suborbital launch vehicles I'd say there's no "if" about it. Whether or not they'd be nice enough to land in your backyard is separate question.
Slashdot Mirror
As it turns out, they are not a government sanctioned monopoly. Maybe they were once, but not anymore. In fact there are regions of the country where multiple cable providers compete with each other. Remind me again why they need to be regulated?
For some it is a necessity, if they can not recieve broadcast TV.
Oh yes. Of course. Silly me. God forbid that people should actually be forced to live without any form of TV. I mean, this is a civilized nation after all. Think of the children.
It is the government's responsibility to protect the consumer from a monopoly they created.
See above regarding your whole monopoly argument. And maybe instead of spending time on idiotic legislation like this the government could just get out of the monopoly authorization business altogther. I mean seriously, can you name one government-authorized monopoly that hasn't "screwed the consumer"?
That still doesn't change the fact that ASAP launches are constrained to go when and where the primary payload wants to go, while Falcon launches are not.
Can you make a fully functional useful satellite in 300kg? Imagine launching 4 at the same time and then being able to offer a few hundred digital TV channels off your own satellite network ... heh!
Yes. Globalstar satellites were ~300 kg. They were launched multiply-manifested (up to 8 at a time IIRC) on a variety of launch vehicles. However Globalstar was a LEO constellation. GEO sats tend to be much bigger, because they either need a lot more power, or a much larger antenna aperture, than a LEO sat in order to be able to offset the greater RF propagation loss that results from their greater distance from the Earth. That's why there was so much excitement about LEO constellations a few years back - the sats could be much smaller and cheaper. You need a lot more of them of course, but if you build enough (ala Iridium or Globalstar) you can realize economies of scale not available to one-off GEO comm birds.
The only potential clash with Ariane is, as another poster has pointed out, the ASAP ring that Ariane uses to launch small payloads. Falcon is more expensive than an ASAP launch. However, Falcon has a larger payload capacity than an ASAP slot. More importantly, a Falcon payload launches as the primary, rather than as a secondary. That means launching when you want, and to the orbit that you want. For many payloads that makes it worth paying a little more than an ASAP launch.
From what I have seen, there are any number of customers eager to fly on Falcon. In particular, the USAF has been fawning all over SpaceX. The current doctrine in USAF Space is based around so-called "Responsive Space", which means launching small satellites fast and cheap in response to the needs of a specific conflict. Falcon is a natural for that kind of mission.
Of course, "Responsive Space" is pretty much a rehash of a previous USAF effort about 15 years ago (different name of course) that was supposed to use the OSC Pegasus to do the same kind of thing. Whether or not Falcon will go the way of Pegasus remains to be seen (it is at least a lot cheaper then OSC's offering).
Great! And I'm sure 100% of Americans would prefer not to pay for cable at all. So why don't we just legislate that as well? Look, the cable companies have developed a business model that allows them to successfully provide the diversity of channels and shows that "the people" want. "The people" have apparently decided that this is a reasonable model, since they are willing to pay for the privilege of watching cable. If you don't like the cable company's terms, perhaps you should just not buy cable. Or investigate satellite TV. Or listen to the radio. Or start your own cable company, since there's apparently a huge untapped market for unbundled programming.
BTW, I notice that you are not complaining (yet) about have to pay for an entire channel worth of programs, when you only watch four or five. May I assume that will be the next legislative gem I should expect from the almighty 66% of people "getting gouged by the cable companies"?
If you don't have cable, good for you, but I can hardly see how your input is needed in this conversation.
Perhaps my input is needed because my tax dollars will be wasted on developing, debating, and implementing this legislation?
And it's critical to the good of the American people that they have ala carte cable? If cable is now a "basic necessity" we have become a sick, sick culture.
cable companies have a monopoly just like the phone companies used to.
No, they don't. There is no regulatory monopoly in place. And while I might be willing to concede the argument that a phone is a "necessity" (due to things like 911) I don't for a second buy into the idea that cable is a necessity.
Yeah! Just like food, or housing, or...
Oh wait...
Actually it's now "+1 Flamebait", so I guess the mods are on your side today.
Regardless, my point is not so much that ala carte cable isn't as big a problem as, oh, say world hunger. My point is that ala carte cable is a non-problem. It exists only in the context of the wealth and TV-dependence of the American public. I mean, we're talking about legislating the how a TV company can sell its products. What the hell is the government doing telling a company that markets a luxury product, that people are not required to buy, how it should sell said product. This is what my tax dollars are being spent on?
How true. Perhaps you should investigate a 12-step program, and see if you can break your expensive addiction now, before it's too late.
So why do you have a TV at all? :-)
(a) not really life-threatening, and
(b) the result of the aggregate free choices of "the people".
Have we no bigger problems in the world than ensuring that people can get access to cable channels without having to buy entire packages, or keeping the world safe from telemarketers. These do not seem like Earth-shattering issues.
I wonder, do people actually write letters to their congress-critter begging them to tell those nasty cable companies to let them buy the channels they want without having to buy a package? Or is it simply the case that McCain wanted to get HBO without paying for Discovery, got annoyed that he couldn't, and decided that this was "an important issue" to legislate on.
You do realise that NASA launched a metric crapload of probes in the early days of the "space race", right? Things like Pioneer (of which there were several), and Mariner (of which there several). The Surveyor (IIRC) probe that the Apollo 12 mission deliberately landed near. Others I can't remember right now. To characterize the early US space program as focusing on manned missions only, is a gross distortion of the facts.
"Never underestimate the power of Human stupidity"
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I don't recall exactly what the intended mission duration of MSL is, but IIRC "long-term" counts as anything that is significantly longer than the 90 sol lifetime MER. My understanding is that MSL will be returning to using radio-isotope thermoelectric generators (rather than photovoltaic cells) as the primary power source for the rover - thus the long life compared to the curent set of rovers.
Ob /. language nitpick: Actually, it just "raises the question." To "beg the question" means to assume the conclusion as one of your premises. Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies has a good description.
-- Confucius. The Great Learning.
You'd think that the "Slashdot crowd" (to the extent that there is such a thing) would be in favor of strong enforcement of legitimate copyrights. After all, the GPL relies on copyright law for its validity. If copyrights are made meaningless, and anyone can copy anything they want, then the GPL would have no strength. MS Linux would probably follow in short order...
It's all very well to talk theoretically about information setting people free, but the bottom line is that if you live in one of these countries and you make "dissident information" available online the authorities will very likely track you down. Similarly, if you are seen to be accessing the IPs associated with "dissident information" you will, at the very least, end up on some kind of watchlist. Sure, the availability of Internet cafes helps some - you obtain a veneer of anonymity by hiding in the crowd - but probably not enough to really let people speak out. What would really help is something like the old (and apparently now defunct) Freedom system that Zero Knowledge Systems put together, which used strong crypto to dissociate sender and receiver from each other. Of course, then the authorities will just pick up anyone producing encrypted traffic. But if all traffic ran through a Freedom-like system...
Ok, ok, I know that's wishful thinking on my part. But I can hope, can't I? And maybe if enough of us living in countries that still retain some (political) freedom started to make use of Freedom, and encouraging businesses and news orgs to do the same, then it would begin to permeate the 'net as a whole. Sigh, there goes that wishful thinking again...
Which AFAIK don't mention Jesus at all.
the Papal succession,
Mmmm... like the succession of the Dalai Lama proves that Buddhism is true. I don't think so.
tradition,
Oh. Tradition. Why didn't you say so before? Guess that means that all those other traditional gods, like Odin, Apollo, Ra, Coyote, Shiva, and Toutatis are also real. Must be pretty crowded up there. Do we also include traditions like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
non-biblical writers such as Josephus
Non-biblical writers generally don't mention Jesus, unless they are Christian non-biblical writers. The major exception to this is Josephus. But, ignoring for the moment that he gives Jesus a very few lines (surprising given the miracles he supposedly performed), Josephus is now generally accepted to have been doctored by early Christians attempting to provide "proof" for their faith. If you actually read Josephus you'll find that the lines mentions Jesus fit awkwardly into the flow of the text.
miracles
Which are inconsistently reported even among the gospels themselves, and go unmentioned outside of Christian writings. You're right. It is easy to question the miracles.
These may seem like scraps of evidence but it is the same type of scaps of evidence that lead me to believe that China exists. No one fact will prove to me that China exists, but I take it on faith because a number of things point to its existance.
The difference being that you are not being asked to run your life around the belief that China exists. And you can actually visit China yourself to verify its existence if you do decide that it is critical to your well-being to know that it exists.
Yet I am too often struck by the fact that there were groups of followers (first-person witnesses) who were willing to undergo horrible executions because they believed something outlandish to be true.
Because large numbers of people never, ever die for beliefs that aren't true. Uh huh. By your reasoning we'd better all convert to Islam ASAP, since modern Muslims seem far readier to die for their beliefs than do modern Christians.
Given that much of the "evidence" consists of "historical scraps" that have provided support for the Christ myth only when they are interpreted through the lens of Christian belief I doubt it would be that difficult to revert to a non-Christian interpretation. For example your citations of Thallus and Phlegon may be just what they appear to be: records of a fairly impressive eclipse event around 32 AD.
Every single piece of verifiable history which is mentioned by the NT authors has to be somehow seperated from their eyewitness testimonies of Jesus.
Right. Just like every single piece of verifiable history in a James Michener novel has to be somehow separated from the fictional parts of his story. The fact that a text mentions historical events does not automatically make it unquestionably authentic in all respects.
* Mine: Jesus rose from the dead because he was who he claimed to be - God become man. He then appeared to his frightened followers who were transformed by the sight and experience of their risen Messiah into fearless preachers of the new faith.
* Yours: Jesus died and sometime over the weekend the followers stole the body from a heavily guarded tomb and hid it somewhere else. Then they popped up and started claiming he was alive. All of them stuck to this same story for decades with no inconsistencies or cracking - all but one meeting horrible deaths because of this claim. ALong the way, thousands of others who they convinced also met horrible deaths.
Er, yeah. Occam's razor.
Here's an even simpler explanation: Jesus never existed. The whole crucifixion event is a myth.
Neither a complex conspiracy to spirit away the body, nor a convoluted supernatural explanation is required.
And there is plenty of historical evidence free of bias. A Roman historians called Thallus tried explaining away the darkness at the crucifixion by calling it an eclipse.
Actually, it's not clear what Thallus actually wrote, or when he wrote it. Our knowledge of Thallus' writing comes through Africanus. Since Africanus doesn't actually quote Thallus it is hard to say what Thallus really wrote. From what Africanus does say it is apparent that Thallus wrote something about an eclipse that occurred somewhere around the supposed time of the crucifixion. But it is unclear whether or not Thallus mentioned Jesus in connection with the eclipse, or even whether he mentioned him at all.
Another Roman historian corrected him later, pointing out it was full moon at passover time.
That would be Africanus. Who was incidentally a Christian writing in the 3rd century. He thus is both well removed from the actual events, and had a vested interest in bolstering the Christian version of history.
There are others: Pliny, Phlegon and Josephus.
Phlegon does not mention Jesus at all. He merely records an eclipse and an earthquake that apparently occurred in 32 AD. Josephus does give Jesus a few brief mentions, but those lines are placed awkwardly in the flow of the text, and are generally accepted to have been inserted by early Christians (not to mention the fact that if Jesus had done all the things he is purported to have done you would think he'd rate more than a few lines). Pliny mentions Christians as a sect in a letter to Trajan, but there is nothing in the letter to suggest that Christ was other than a myth.
The "scraps of historical data" are just that: scraps. Often they are scraps that make no reference to Jesus at all, but have been appropriated and reinterpreted by Christians in an attempt to prove the truth of the bible.
Just to be further nitpicky: which account? The spear incident is mentioned in only (IIRC) one of the gospels.
Such as?
One can imagine a story in which the book was created in such a way as to "prove" a lie. I believe that story would require more faith than what the Bible expounds.
I don't know about that. Frankly, some people sitting around and making up a bunch of myths about the origins and operation of the world seems a lot more plausible than the whole son-of-god/resurrected-carpenter thing. I mean, people have a history of sitting around making up stories like that. So it seems to me that it takes far less faith to believe that they'd do it again in the case of the New Testament than to believe that the story is actually true. Unless you're claiming that all those other religions are also true too?
And what exactly do you think motivated "the discovery of the Americas"?* Or for that matter precipitated the colonization of the Americas?** Very little in the way of exploration and eventual colonization has been done for other than commercial interests (albeit sometimes indirectly).
* Answer: the search for a faster route to the spice wealth of the Indies - there's a reason that native Americans became known as Indians.
** Answer: initially, the desire to plunder the gold of the New World.
Given that the X-prize competition is (currently) geared towards suborbital launch vehicles I'd say there's no "if" about it. Whether or not they'd be nice enough to land in your backyard is separate question.