Why do some Linux geeks have to respond to the parent's post with: "Oh, well, I didn't have that problem when I installed MY Red Hat 8.0, really it's pretty easy. I played starcraft, downloaded pr0n, and brushed my teeth while I installed Red Hat."
It's obvious that you condescending dorks have something to prove...get a girlfriend, then you can brag to her about your Linux skills.
Parent's post was an individual annecdote. It should be taken as such, and not as some kind of rant against Red Hat. He/She obviously knows how to get things done w/ a computer.
YES! And and even BETTER implementation of this would be to link it to government database showing a criminal profile of everyone in the whole country! Heck! Let's put a satellite transmitter in every felon so we can track them!!!
Please unstick your head from your ass...as another person on this thread pointed out, we have a system of justice for a reason, and when it has worked, we need to let criminals get on with their lives.
If I was a liberal flaimbaiter, I could even make a case for some racial bias in your statement.
The study did not say why this phenomenon occurred, but The Sunday Times quoted a specialist in evolutionary psychology as saying it could be because the children of "systemiser" parents appeared to encounter more testosterone in the womb, making their gender more likely to be male.
yeah, the above quotation from TFA destroys any reasonable claim to validity this study purports...in other words, this study/article/post is bullshit
Just more silly science. If they wanted to make this claim legitamitly, they would need to show a relationship between testosterone levels in men and women and the sex of their children, THEN they would have to show a relationship between a person's occupation and testosterone levels, while also accounting for any other variables (such as diet) that might alter testosterone levels in a person.
We've got a long way to go before this bullshit becomes actual science.
The researchers admit that their analysis is based on one contentious assumption: that all the songs presented are equally good, so that votes are a reflection of national taste rather than the absolute quality of the entries.
This is where science runs into trouble. From reading TFA and some posts on this thread, it's easy to see that some Euro-nations are colluding with their votes.
I think it is definitely irresponsible for these scientists to claim that their data reveals some kind over-arching euro-political mood.
This is basically like using 'American Idol' to get a sense of American's political feelings somehow. It's bullshit.
It seems like the language in this discussion is presenting a false dicotomy. People (including Gates) are taking an either/or approach...it's either iPods get a premature demise or not.
First of all, iPods aren't the only mp3/video players out there, and Gates doesn't address that at all.
Digital technologies merging is nothing new so Gates gets no special 'insightful' points for predicting that cell phones will expand their mp3 capability in the future. Cell phones w/ mp3 players have been available in where else Japan for years now...it's a logical progression.
Yes, once technology allows for 1 gig of music or video (or somethign close) to be stored on a palm-sized cell phone, then I'll be selling my mp3 player and current cell phone, but iPod is just one of many types of mp3 players, and companies like Sony, Rio, Kyocera, etc. (who have other beef w/ microsoft) will find a way to stay competitive in the market, even if it means making their own cellphone/mp3/mpeg players/digital cameras/pda's that fit in the palm of your hand.
The question for Gates is, why would consumers want a hand-held digi-device that runs on MS, when they are more familiar w/ a never crashing Google, and why would cell phone producers want to deal w/ MS when Google is so much cheaper/easier/more usable by consumers???
I had an mp3 player long before Apple started marketing iPods to the masses, and I will have an mp3/cell phone with 1 Gig or more before Apple, microsoft, etc. have the good sense to adapt and come up with their own product. Technology is always the driving force, businessmen just come up with clever ways to market the tech to the masses.
Look, the more Gates talks like this, the more people in the mainstream will realize that MS just isn't that good, and never really was anyway, they were just the *biggest*. Apple, google, linux, etc. etc. are providing viable options to replace MS bit by bit and anyone who doesn't see this (esp. Gates) doesn't deserve internet access.
Now that I have a little more context, I can see where you are comming from when you strongly advocate military development/exploration of space.
Basically, you are saying they have alot freedom to act in a way that achieves their goal, more than a body like NASA b/c of public/press interferance/other bullshit.
I agree w/ your criticisms of NASA wholeheartedly. For my part, I am an optimist, and I feel that if the right leadership was in place at NASA, it could get things done better than the military (alot of NASA are former military anyway).
I also agree that the military *might* be the more expedient way for us to get a better foothold in space, but I REALLY wish it wasn't like that, and it does not have to be, that's my point.
I think the American public should take notice of some of the implications of this type of military involvement in space. From TFA:
"A third program would bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high-altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," in the words of an Air Force plan."
This is real. We already have unmanned drones armed with hellfire missies. Space lasers and the like are not a big jump, they are the next logical step.
This technology is giving those in control of it unprecedented power to kill/spy on/etc. an individual and government. I know it's better for us to have it than say, the Chinese, but there has to be a better alternative.
Above all, Ameridcan citizens should lead the world in demanding civil rights.
You however, say the military is just part of a natural evolution of technology. You are only half right. Some new technologies have been developed by the military first, like the internet. There are also many other inventions/technologies that were the product of a small group of inventors researchers...like powered human flight.
The military's track record with developing new technologies is mixed at best.
As far as the best way to explore space? It has to be a partnership of industry (not necessarily corporations per se), national space agencies (NASA, etc.), private investors, and the military if absolutely necessary. Just like America was "developed". It might not be perfect but it's the best idea yet.
You write your post as if following that richtech link solves all the issues of using non-proprietary software in education.<br> <br> Software developers need to work hard to make their software usable by students, and work even harder to get the information out to educators about the benefits. That's the only way you'll ever see it in schools.
Ok flamebait...anyway, the only REAL way for developers to get schools to use their free/non-proprietary software is to make said software so damn good SCHOOLS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE IT
It sounds like these government schools are beng a little short-sightned in their reasoning
ok, take a deep breath...my friend, as a teacher I can say you are definitely wrong to say schools are short-sighted just b/c they don't use FOSS and other non-proprietary software.
Technology educators know more than most about their field. They know that Linux, etc. is free. They know that on paper it could save some $$$ in the long run.
However! These teachers have lives. They cannot be expected to take the HOURS of extra time commitment just to save the stingy school district a few thousand dollars 5 years from now. We aren't paid enough as it is, and YOUR kids are suffering on the global job market b/c of it.
You might think, "But non-proprietary software is really easy for me and all of my friends to use, why can't teachers use it, are they idiots or something???"
The fact is, teachers are not paid to save money, or promote open-source software, or be techies...they are paid to prepare students to function in the power system of our country and world.
You will not see SuSE, Linux, FOSS, or anything in schools until:
1. Software designers (you) make open-source software that does not require intimate technical knowledge. It should just work. That's the only things students will be able to learn with.
2. There is a constantly updated manual and user guide that high school students can understand, b/c the teacher cannont walk around the room solving every software conflict, etc.
3. Software developers (you) take the extra time to MAKE these wonderfully easy to use free programs truely better than windows for ALL or MOST users, not just those w/ the time to become proficient with code, and other technical computer knowledge
So, if developers bitch about schools not using open-source, then YOU DEVELOPERS need to make open-source software so damn good they have no option but to use it
I think this will be harder to get passed than the DMCS was
I disagree...it seems the Bush Whitehouse is content to regulate digital media at will regardless of how it effects the first amendment.
All the corporations need to do is convince lawmakers and citizens that *not* passing a bill like this will result in tremendous loss of revenue and thereby cause job loss (it's the economy stupid).
Until Congress decides to really take copyright law into the 'digital millenium' we will be at the mercy of tv news, corporations, and our own computer skills.
I live in a house full of ski and snowboard bums in colorado, and we have all been land line free for about 3 years now. 6 people in the house, all with their own cell phone, and we all share wifi
"You are simply repeating the creationist lies you have been taught."
I guess I'm a creationist now, I'm glad someone had the decency to tell me.
I think you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, buddy. Maybe you are afraid to admit that evolutionary science is full of holes, and you are using poor creationists (like me!) to vent your frustration.
I did not say anything about being a creationist, and I have heard MANY people creationist and not criticize researchers for their self-promoting illogical leaps of faith. Maybe you're one of them.
Oh brother, don't RTFA me...of course I read the fucking article. I read all about the spurrious claims about a whole people group based on finding one set of remains.
"The skulls are not similar to Homo Erectus,from which these creatures are thought to descend"
My question is, howso? They're smaller than ours??? From my own observation of the pic in the story, the single skull that was found looked very human, only smaller.
"See above. It is often debatable whether or not unique features (in this case size) represent a continum or a distinct species. It is not an exact science, and we may never know for sure. However, there is no other example of an adult human being so small."
So it's debatable that this could be a new species....hmm...I'll leave that alone. So what if this is a small specimen. I can think of many human beings that are small, they are called children.
"Pygmies are considerbly taller then these "hobbits". Also Pygmies are modern humans, the "hobbits" were not."
You say that these 'hobbits' were not human and just end it. What proof do you have that these specimines are not human? Where's the incontrivertible evidence? Plus, just because these humans are smaller than Pygmies, doesn't mean that they aren't still human.
"The findings are being reported in Nature, which has exceedingly high standards. There is absolutely no reason to make such accusations."
wow, I didn't realize what a huge journalistic paragon the good folks at 'Nature' have been building. In fact, the editors and contributors of Nature are the same entreprenurial researchers who I am rightly accusing of making an illogical leap in their findings to get support for their research projects.
Yes, I can make these accusations because that's what scientists do, be skeptical. I think that this research is based on bullshit science and I want someone to show me how I'm wrong.
I foresee problems with regulating space travel that are similar to the problems the government has regulating and UNDERSTANDING online file-sharing.
Space flight is a new beast altogether, different by definition, so of course existing laws will have to be ammended, but that is only the beginning. Space 'travel' is such a new and fluid industry that it will take some time for the leaders of our country and other countries to hammer out sensible aggreements on use of air space, emergency visits to the space station, waste disposal...etc.
"Obviously, space tourism is going to lower the prices of space travel"
>I think it may work out that way, say 75 years from now or longer, but to say 'obviously' like you know how human presence in space will proceed from here is an assumption and invalidates your point. Companies will compete, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices. Look at lift ticket prices, they just get more expensive. Your assumption is that tourism companies will work to colonize and develop space. The trend goes agains that in the tourism industry, now they are focused on delivering fat-ass office workers an 'experience'
"It is, on the grounds that it is the first privately developed spacecraft. If you disagree, please explain why ?"
>'the first privately developed spacecraft' wow that is groundbreaking...it's not like this was some crackpot genius tinkering in his garage, this is a 1950's concept for sub-orbital space flight developed, funded, and marketed by corporations...how can that be considered goundbreaking? Lance Bass of N'Sync tried to pay the soviets $20 million to fly his pasty ass into space, does that make him a pioneer in space tourism???
"Watered-down in what sense ? "
>In the sense that a condo on the moon is not moon colonization. It's the difference between the Brittish and Spanish models of colonizing North America. Brittain sought to place permanent settlements that were part of the mother country, while Spain just sent people there to get gold and leave. We need to work towards establishing a PERMANENT foothold in space otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.
"And, finally, tourism is a form of exploration."
>oh, it is? well, since you say so... How does this sentance you posted have any relevance? You have no support at all for your claim. Tourism, as it is envisioned today is, like I said above, basically marketing an 'experience' for the vast majority of the population (i'm a snowboarding instructor in Breckenridge, Colorado so I know about marketing 'experiences' and the mindset of the average tourist). It's really short on substance. I'm afraid that's the idea corporations will take as they attempt to profit from space.
"AFAIK there's nothing there that could be harmed by such mining..."
>really? well, that's good if you're right, which I thnk you are. I'm reluctant to mine the moon because it's a step that is really hard to take back. I'm comming from a slippery slope perspective. as long as they don't put billboards on the moon I'm ok.
About making space travel affordable for common people, that might not happen for centuries. Sure there are rich people everywhere, but the 'common man' in the global sense right now is FAR from ever seeing space. And seriously, who would want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to go up and down in a rocket plane. It's barely space travel and mostly just a gimmick. When I can travel to Mars and snowboard down Olympus Mons, then I'll worry how to pay for it, but that might be awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the deal?
Why do some Linux geeks have to respond to the parent's post with: "Oh, well, I didn't have that problem when I installed MY Red Hat 8.0, really it's pretty easy. I played starcraft, downloaded pr0n, and brushed my teeth while I installed Red Hat."
It's obvious that you condescending dorks have something to prove...get a girlfriend, then you can brag to her about your Linux skills.
Parent's post was an individual annecdote. It should be taken as such, and not as some kind of rant against Red Hat. He/She obviously knows how to get things done w/ a computer.
Hey man,i couldn't help but be touched by your story.
If true (and I assume it is) you deserve a big raise, not to a stern talking to for using 'non-approved' software.
I'm sure you're paid pretty well, but don't you think there's a better place for your talents?
ok already!
yeah, like i said...if...
When you see this kind of thing does it make you wonder how many of the other news stories we see are based on similarly flimsy science?
YES! And and even BETTER implementation of this would be to link it to government database showing a criminal profile of everyone in the whole country! Heck! Let's put a satellite transmitter in every felon so we can track them!!!
Please unstick your head from your ass...as another person on this thread pointed out, we have a system of justice for a reason, and when it has worked, we need to let criminals get on with their lives.
If I was a liberal flaimbaiter, I could even make a case for some racial bias in your statement.
The study did not say why this phenomenon occurred, but The Sunday Times quoted a specialist in evolutionary psychology as saying it could be because the children of "systemiser" parents appeared to encounter more testosterone in the womb, making their gender more likely to be male.
yeah, the above quotation from TFA destroys any reasonable claim to validity this study purports...in other words, this study/article/post is bullshit
Just more silly science. If they wanted to make this claim legitamitly, they would need to show a relationship between testosterone levels in men and women and the sex of their children, THEN they would have to show a relationship between a person's occupation and testosterone levels, while also accounting for any other variables (such as diet) that might alter testosterone levels in a person.
We've got a long way to go before this bullshit becomes actual science.
The researchers admit that their analysis is based on one contentious assumption: that all the songs presented are equally good, so that votes are a reflection of national taste rather than the absolute quality of the entries.
This is where science runs into trouble. From reading TFA and some posts on this thread, it's easy to see that some Euro-nations are colluding with their votes.
I think it is definitely irresponsible for these scientists to claim that their data reveals some kind over-arching euro-political mood.
This is basically like using 'American Idol' to get a sense of American's political feelings somehow. It's bullshit.
It seems like the language in this discussion is presenting a false dicotomy. People (including Gates) are taking an either/or approach...it's either iPods get a premature demise or not.
First of all, iPods aren't the only mp3/video players out there, and Gates doesn't address that at all.
Digital technologies merging is nothing new so Gates gets no special 'insightful' points for predicting that cell phones will expand their mp3 capability in the future. Cell phones w/ mp3 players have been available in where else Japan for years now...it's a logical progression.
Yes, once technology allows for 1 gig of music or video (or somethign close) to be stored on a palm-sized cell phone, then I'll be selling my mp3 player and current cell phone, but iPod is just one of many types of mp3 players, and companies like Sony, Rio, Kyocera, etc. (who have other beef w/ microsoft) will find a way to stay competitive in the market, even if it means making their own cellphone/mp3/mpeg players/digital cameras/pda's that fit in the palm of your hand.
The question for Gates is, why would consumers want a hand-held digi-device that runs on MS, when they are more familiar w/ a never crashing Google, and why would cell phone producers want to deal w/ MS when Google is so much cheaper/easier/more usable by consumers???
I had an mp3 player long before Apple started marketing iPods to the masses, and I will have an mp3/cell phone with 1 Gig or more before Apple, microsoft, etc. have the good sense to adapt and come up with their own product. Technology is always the driving force, businessmen just come up with clever ways to market the tech to the masses.
Look, the more Gates talks like this, the more people in the mainstream will realize that MS just isn't that good, and never really was anyway, they were just the *biggest*. Apple, google, linux, etc. etc. are providing viable options to replace MS bit by bit and anyone who doesn't see this (esp. Gates) doesn't deserve internet access.
Now that I have a little more context, I can see where you are comming from when you strongly advocate military development/exploration of space.
Basically, you are saying they have alot freedom to act in a way that achieves their goal, more than a body like NASA b/c of public/press interferance/other bullshit.
I agree w/ your criticisms of NASA wholeheartedly. For my part, I am an optimist, and I feel that if the right leadership was in place at NASA, it could get things done better than the military (alot of NASA are former military anyway).
I also agree that the military *might* be the more expedient way for us to get a better foothold in space, but I REALLY wish it wasn't like that, and it does not have to be, that's my point.
I think the American public should take notice of some of the implications of this type of military involvement in space. From TFA:
"A third program would bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high-altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," in the words of an Air Force plan."
This is real. We already have unmanned drones armed with hellfire missies. Space lasers and the like are not a big jump, they are the next logical step.
This technology is giving those in control of it unprecedented power to kill/spy on/etc. an individual and government. I know it's better for us to have it than say, the Chinese, but there has to be a better alternative.
Above all, Ameridcan citizens should lead the world in demanding civil rights.
you could theoretically hook these shoes up to regulate access to anything based on the ammount of movement
the possibilities are interesting...what if your insurance company required you move a certain ammount during each day to guarantee the lowest rates
there are other options as well...
Parent sounds like a hippie to me...
You however, say the military is just part of a natural evolution of technology. You are only half right. Some new technologies have been developed by the military first, like the internet. There are also many other inventions/technologies that were the product of a small group of inventors researchers...like powered human flight.
The military's track record with developing new technologies is mixed at best.
As far as the best way to explore space? It has to be a partnership of industry (not necessarily corporations per se), national space agencies (NASA, etc.), private investors, and the military if absolutely necessary. Just like America was "developed". It might not be perfect but it's the best idea yet.
You write your post as if following that richtech link solves all the issues of using non-proprietary software in education.<br>
<br>
Software developers need to work hard to make their software usable by students, and work even harder to get the information out to educators about the benefits. That's the only way you'll ever see it in schools.
Ok flamebait...anyway, the only REAL way for developers to get schools to use their free/non-proprietary software is to make said software so damn good SCHOOLS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE IT
It sounds like these government schools are beng a little short-sightned in their reasoning
ok, take a deep breath...my friend, as a teacher I can say you are definitely wrong to say schools are short-sighted just b/c they don't use FOSS and other non-proprietary software.
Technology educators know more than most about their field. They know that Linux, etc. is free. They know that on paper it could save some $$$ in the long run.
However! These teachers have lives. They cannot be expected to take the HOURS of extra time commitment just to save the stingy school district a few thousand dollars 5 years from now. We aren't paid enough as it is, and YOUR kids are suffering on the global job market b/c of it.
You might think, "But non-proprietary software is really easy for me and all of my friends to use, why can't teachers use it, are they idiots or something???"
The fact is, teachers are not paid to save money, or promote open-source software, or be techies...they are paid to prepare students to function in the power system of our country and world.
You will not see SuSE, Linux, FOSS, or anything in schools until:
1. Software designers (you) make open-source software that does not require intimate technical knowledge. It should just work. That's the only things students will be able to learn with.
2. There is a constantly updated manual and user guide that high school students can understand, b/c the teacher cannont walk around the room solving every software conflict, etc.
3. Software developers (you) take the extra time to MAKE these wonderfully easy to use free programs truely better than windows for ALL or MOST users, not just those w/ the time to become proficient with code, and other technical computer knowledge
So, if developers bitch about schools not using open-source, then YOU DEVELOPERS need to make open-source software so damn good they have no option but to use it
I think this will be harder to get passed than the DMCS was
I disagree...it seems the Bush Whitehouse is content to regulate digital media at will regardless of how it effects the first amendment.
All the corporations need to do is convince lawmakers and citizens that *not* passing a bill like this will result in tremendous loss of revenue and thereby cause job loss (it's the economy stupid).
Until Congress decides to really take copyright law into the 'digital millenium' we will be at the mercy of tv news, corporations, and our own computer skills.
i'd rather see them make none and call it a eulogy
Hey,
Dr. feelgood, why don't you just ignore the occasional cell phone call instead of wasting student's time dealing with it in class?
From all my time teaching in high school, I found it best to ignore a ringing cell phone. Most students are embarased when their cells ring in class.
If you make a big production out of disciplining a student, your students, especially if they are in college, will not respect you.
I live in a house full of ski and snowboard bums in colorado, and we have all been land line free for about 3 years now. 6 people in the house, all with their own cell phone, and we all share wifi
~j
"You are simply repeating the creationist lies you have been taught."
I guess I'm a creationist now, I'm glad someone had the decency to tell me.
I think you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, buddy. Maybe you are afraid to admit that evolutionary science is full of holes, and you are using poor creationists (like me!) to vent your frustration.
I did not say anything about being a creationist, and I have heard MANY people creationist and not criticize researchers for their self-promoting illogical leaps of faith. Maybe you're one of them.
Oh brother, don't RTFA me...of course I read the fucking article. I read all about the spurrious claims about a whole people group based on finding one set of remains.
"The skulls are not similar to Homo Erectus,from which these creatures are thought to descend"
My question is, howso? They're smaller than ours??? From my own observation of the pic in the story, the single skull that was found looked very human, only smaller.
"See above. It is often debatable whether or not unique features (in this case size) represent a continum or a distinct species. It is not an exact science, and we may never know for sure. However, there is no other example of an adult human being so small."
So it's debatable that this could be a new species....hmm...I'll leave that alone. So what if this is a small specimen. I can think of many human beings that are small, they are called children.
"Pygmies are considerbly taller then these "hobbits". Also Pygmies are modern humans, the "hobbits" were not."
You say that these 'hobbits' were not human and just end it. What proof do you have that these specimines are not human? Where's the incontrivertible evidence? Plus, just because these humans are smaller than Pygmies, doesn't mean that they aren't still human.
"The findings are being reported in Nature, which has exceedingly high standards. There is absolutely no reason to make such accusations."
wow, I didn't realize what a huge journalistic paragon the good folks at 'Nature' have been building. In fact, the editors and contributors of Nature are the same entreprenurial researchers who I am rightly accusing of making an illogical leap in their findings to get support for their research projects.
Yes, I can make these accusations because that's what scientists do, be skeptical. I think that this research is based on bullshit science and I want someone to show me how I'm wrong.
How can these researchers say for certain that these remains are of anything other than humans?
It is more probable that these remains represent a small group of homo sapiens that had genetic development problems, or some other kind of ailment.
Pygmies exist in Africa today, but are not considered a new species.
This report is more about research scientists getting more grant money than actually using the scientific method.
I foresee problems with regulating space travel that are similar to the problems the government has regulating and UNDERSTANDING online file-sharing.
Space flight is a new beast altogether, different by definition, so of course existing laws will have to be ammended, but that is only the beginning. Space 'travel' is such a new and fluid industry that it will take some time for the leaders of our country and other countries to hammer out sensible aggreements on use of air space, emergency visits to the space station, waste disposal...etc.
~j
"Obviously, space tourism is going to lower the prices of space travel"
>I think it may work out that way, say 75 years from now or longer, but to say 'obviously' like you know how human presence in space will proceed from here is an assumption and invalidates your point. Companies will compete, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices. Look at lift ticket prices, they just get more expensive. Your assumption is that tourism companies will work to colonize and develop space. The trend goes agains that in the tourism industry, now they are focused on delivering fat-ass office workers an 'experience'
"It is, on the grounds that it is the first privately developed spacecraft. If you disagree, please explain why ?"
>'the first privately developed spacecraft' wow that is groundbreaking...it's not like this was some crackpot genius tinkering in his garage, this is a 1950's concept for sub-orbital space flight developed, funded, and marketed by corporations...how can that be considered goundbreaking? Lance Bass of N'Sync tried to pay the soviets $20 million to fly his pasty ass into space, does that make him a pioneer in space tourism???
"Watered-down in what sense ? "
>In the sense that a condo on the moon is not moon colonization. It's the difference between the Brittish and Spanish models of colonizing North America. Brittain sought to place permanent settlements that were part of the mother country, while Spain just sent people there to get gold and leave. We need to work towards establishing a PERMANENT foothold in space otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.
"And, finally, tourism is a form of exploration."
>oh, it is? well, since you say so... How does this sentance you posted have any relevance? You have no support at all for your claim. Tourism, as it is envisioned today is, like I said above, basically marketing an 'experience' for the vast majority of the population (i'm a snowboarding instructor in Breckenridge, Colorado so I know about marketing 'experiences' and the mindset of the average tourist). It's really short on substance. I'm afraid that's the idea corporations will take as they attempt to profit from space.
"AFAIK there's nothing there that could be harmed by such mining..."
>really? well, that's good if you're right, which I thnk you are. I'm reluctant to mine the moon because it's a step that is really hard to take back. I'm comming from a slippery slope perspective. as long as they don't put billboards on the moon I'm ok.
About making space travel affordable for common people, that might not happen for centuries. Sure there are rich people everywhere, but the 'common man' in the global sense right now is FAR from ever seeing space. And seriously, who would want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to go up and down in a rocket plane. It's barely space travel and mostly just a gimmick. When I can travel to Mars and snowboard down Olympus Mons, then I'll worry how to pay for it, but that might be awhile.
thanks for reading this far!
~j