Where is the big financial payoff for going into space? If we get to Mars, how is that going to provide a financial windfall for the country that does it?
One single small asteroid, about 1km or slightly smaller, holds the equivalent in non-ferrous metal ores of nearly $20 trillion dollars of value. I'd say that is a financial windfall that can be incredibly useful for any spacefaring nation that cares to make the effort to extract ore from something like that.
Oh, BTW, there are nearly a million asteroids about that size too, many of them that also pass near enough to the Earth that you can easily get to them too using spacecraft technology we already have today.
In addition, there is nearly limitless energy resources in space that can also amount to trillions of dollars worth of economic activity, and there are also significant applications of space technology that is already "mature" and has been used for quite some time. Things like telecommunications (I guess you've never seen a satellite television broadcast?), weather forecasting/tracking, resource management/photo reconnaissance, and navigation satellites (GPS/Magellan). The truth is that the ROI is not only not zero, we have already been getting a huge payback from space already and we have just barely thought up different ways to economically utilize space.
Other significant areas that are just beginning to be utilized include developing new organic chemistry processes (primarily pharmaceuticals but other chemical processes too), metallurgy (mixing different metals that won't normally mix on the Earth), and material science in terms of new fabrics and building materials. This is stuff that is happening right now and is also already profitable, with real investors willing to spend money to make this stuff happen.
Frankly, the oceans will never be exploited to the extent that some of the dreamers claim, as going to 500 feet below water is far more dangerous than going to Mars. The fabled underwater cities of the future simply won't happen, or it will be an order of magnitude cheaper, safer, and easier to accomplish building those cities on the Moon than even on the continental shelf off Florida, much less at a place like the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. Please try to prove me wrong here.
Also note, I'm not necessarily against oceanographic studies, and I think some very important and interesting science can be done underwater. None the less, this comment is so far off the mark and trying to pit one science against the other than I really can't think this is a credible comment other than by somebody grossly mis-informed.
Considering that we now spend less than 0.5% of the federal budget (not even GDP here, just the budget) on exploration, what does that say about the USA now?
BTW, I'd have to agree it is a national disgrace, but then again most of the money if NASA was fully funded would be piddled away in wasteful spending. At least now some realistic priorities are being set for how money allocated for space exploration and development is happening, and NASA is willing to get back into the game of actual real physical exploration by both robots and people. Indeed it is the robotic missions that are going to get a major boost with the latest budget proposal, but plans for getting back to the Moon and going to Mars are also happening.
Concorde isn't flying in part due to the so-called security screenings in airports (I'll concede that point) and because it was simply getting old. With the crash of the Concorde in France, the needed changes to make the vehicle safer and to bring it up to date simply weren't economical.
The other problem is that the range of the Concorde was incredibly limited. The New York to London route was pretty much near its routine operational flying range, and certainly couldn't get to Los Angeles or South America.
Still, it is important to note there is a market for those flights, and it wasn't a lack of customers which forced the discontinuing of the Concorde flights. Tickets on those flights also cost about $10k each.
As for speeding up the security screenings, keep in mind that they are kept deliberately slow and long as a matter of principle. It is the government asserting it sovereignty upon the common serfs of the country and letting them know full well that they no longer have a say in the operations of the government. It certainly isn't to stop a terrorist, as Flight 93 on 9/11 showed exactly the best way to deal with a terrorist who wants to crash into a building. Do you think millions of people taking their shoes off is actually protecting air travel?
I know that ZeroG has been hired by a porn studio and the video is available if you really want to dig for it. With their version of weightlessness, you only have about a minute of free-fall at a time, but it is also much more affordable.
SS2 gives you about 5-10 minutes of free fall and it comes in one huge chunk of time rather than paced out over a bunch of different parabolas like the Vomit Comet does. More significantly, there are windows to look back at the Earth and you can clearly see the black sky of space and the curvature of the Earth from that altitude.
For myself, I think I would be more interested in looking back home than trying to make a baby with my wife/girlfriend when all that is happening.
Well, to be fair, when you look at this proposed space suite isn't it conceptually just a large space suit?
Considering that module has the same interior volume as 1/3rd of the ISS, I'd have to say no.
On the other hand, the BA-330 might allow you to do something like the Battle Room of Ender's Game Even on a more modest scale than the novel, that would be something genuinely unique as an experience. Certainly floating in a room large enough that you can't touch the walls would be an amazing experience.
"the people" voted for somebody who wasn't a blue blood country club Republican. As much as I like the guy on a personal level, John McCain was hardly the most conservative guy in the Republican Party. Indeed, it has been suggested that he might do something like Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat, or at least a "moderate independent" and caucus with the Democrats.
The choice was either a 3rd party candidate that was cannon fodder, somebody from the liberal wing of the Republican Party, or Obama. With weak support for McCain by his supposed base, Obama won by default. It also didn't hurt that folks were blinded by the fact that Obama was black and that they were voting for his skin color more than his actual policies.
The USA population as a whole has a center-right political viewpoint, and Obama certainly does not represent that sort of philosophy.
Sadly, I think it is the bluebloods that are going to take back control of the US government, which is something I don't want to see. Bush was a blueblood Republican too, which also tended to hurt his popularity among Republicans.
I only hope that you are correct. I don't trust anything in this bill, and my fear is that it will simply add an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already onerous level of red tape and management of the whole system.
The problem with insurance companies is that the patients aren't the customers, they are merely the product. In order to clean up the insurance companies, it is the patients that need to become customers again. This bill did nothing to solve that problem at all.
It doesn't create nor encourage new insurance companies to be formed, it doesn't provide options for new ideas to be formulated in the marketplace of ideas in the insurance industry, and it doesn't allow creative people to be "self-insured" in some other fashion.
I'll have to do a "wait and see" with the exchanges, but generally a top-down approach is something open to fraud and manipulation for political purposes. I'll bet you that those involved with setting up these exchanges are going to be donating very generously to the political campaigns of many congressmen (and likely already have) to get this kind of scheme in place.
They are quitting due to the bureaucracy, the red tape, and being told what to do by some idiot who doesn't have a clue what a medical procedure is all about in the first place. It also doesn't help that the have to face huge pay cuts and increased workloads due to some of the changes being proposed.... and increased workload from those who have previously called it quits too.
These guys are pretty smart (which is one of the reasons why they are called "doctor").
Check up on it if you think I'm full of bull here. The med schools in America are hurting real bad right now, and this bill is only going to make things much, much worse.
The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.
In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience. This impact is already being felt in med schools right now, where those who are training to be the next generation of doctors are getting inferior quality instruction due to the loss of these brilliant people who are already out the door. By the time this mess is cleaned up, we will be having interns treating us with knowledge passed onto them by other interns.
The damage has already been done, and some of it is unfortunately irreparable. At best a Republican take over in Congress will shore up the damage and try to start the mop-up job that is needed from a legislative and executive branch who has been spending like a drunken sailor on liberty. But in doing so they will get the blame for having to cut the mountain of social welfare programs that have pushed us into this mess and pissing off the constituents that benefit from all of those programs.
If anything, it would be interesting to simply have the Republicans sit it out entirely this next election cycle and see what the Democrats would do when the bills from all of this spending come due. It is too bad we can't do that experiment and then see what our country would end up being like with this sort of whacked out spending.
This should not have been marked as a troll, as it is completely factual and noting concepts that have been in this legislation for some time. At least if you can believe anything that is in this legislation.
This is indeed a jobs killing bill and I'm glad to see that somebody had the guts to cite just why that would be the case. Troll (-1) does not mean "I disagree with your viewpoint", and the comment was spot on in terms of being a related comment to the main post of this slashdot article.
Seriously, where do you get those numbers in the first place? I've seen them thrown around in other news articles, but it is mostly self-referential and not based on any legitimate primary sources of information.
There are many reasons why folks go without health insurance, and poverty is only part of the equation. Mankind survived for millions of years without medical insurance, so why is it such a big deal?
I admit that the health insurance shell games that are played where they take your money and then refuse to pay for legitimate services when problems arise is a problem. Some of that has been fixed with previous legislation, and some of it by more responsible insurance companies stepping up to the plate to deal with things in a reasonable manner. That is one of the reasons why paying the cheapest rate for insurance isn't necessarily the best idea (for any kind of insurance).
BTW, if you can tell me what is going to be in the final law, please tell me. I'd really like to know! I know what folks have been saying is in the legislation, but the powers that be don't really want ordinary folks like myself to be able to read this potential law until after the ink has dried with Obama's signature on it. For that matter, they don't want the folks voting for it in Congress to have read it either. Do you honestly expect me to believe that your elected representative to Congress actually read the whole text of the bill before they cast the vote?
Congrats US citizens! You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!
We could only be so lucky. This bill by and large doesn't change anything. Most of us have health insurance that we purchase through our employers, provided by insanely profitable corporations. And for almost none of us will that change.
Unfortunately our government doesn't do change this year.
If profits are insanely high, it sounds to me like something that needs to be changed by increasing competition in the marketplace and deliberately encouraging new insurance companies to be formed. Keep in mind that most insurance companies operate on a state level and not a federal level, and that they need to be licensed by the individual state government before an ordinary citizen can get access to their services. Of course the regulatory boards that govern the insurance companies are made up of the executives of these same insurance companies, and the rules are set up in such a fashion that any new competitors are deliberately going to be losing money if they try to start up such competition for that business.
Unfortunately there are also economies of scale that apply as well in the insurance business, which also tends to drive out competition. If a hospital is built, few communities are willing or even financially able to support a second or third hospital, to give an example.
There is some legitimate room for reform of the medical community, but I'd have to agree that this legislation doesn't really change much of anything, other than provide an easy way for companies to get rid of their employee health care plans and turn those costs into something perhaps a bit more predictable on a year to year basis.
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
Actually, I don't if you want me to be honest. I'm sure that there is some sort of logic to the whole thing and I've sort of accepted it so far as "I can't fight city hall" type of attitude and a fatalistic attitude about government, but it still seems like a legalized scam of sorts.
At the very least, I can choose to go without car insurance by simply choosing not to drive a motor vehicle, and instead use a bicycle or other alternative forms of transportation, including moving to a part of the world (at least my country... it is big enough) where I won't need to have an automobile. I lived about 10 years of my adult life without an automobiles, but I had to make some substantial sacrifices including impacting my earning potential in a negative manner and limiting my mobile freedom by doing so.
In this case, I suppose that I can choose not to pay this tax by:
1) Checking out of this life. Likely in a dramatic fashion that shows up on the 10 o'clock news. It is debatable if an honor guard goes with me in this case. 2) Moving out of this country and finding some place I don't have to pay such a tax. The question there is.... where? 3) Going to prison.
None of those options appeal to me. This isn't the same thing.
BTW, Yes, I have been turned away by a hospital. Worse yet, on a couple occasions I've had my wife and kids (in separate treatments) go in, have somebody essentially hold their hands saying "oh, I guess that hurts" as the only treatment (not even some pain reliever pills), and get stuck with a $10k bill.... with the billing done by a dozen different entities that I had to ultimately find out the last ones by checking my credit report as they wouldn't even send me a bill.
I'll also note that it is less than comforting to note that in the local hospital I walk through the halls, see the list of employees at the hospital, and note that the "business" staff of the hospital (mainly those processing insurance claims) outnumbers the medical staff by nearly a two to one ratio. Something is seriously screwed up when that is the case. Due to a lawsuit, at least the first person you talk to at that hospital isn't a billing representative that is asking for your credit card when you show up. That used to be the case.
BTW, the next closest hospital is nearly 150 miles away, so choosing the "competition" doesn't cut it here either.
I completely agree that the U.S. medical system is screwed up. Something needs to be fixed, but I seriously doubt that this particular legislation is going to be the "fix" that will correct the problems. There are also some very good people in the medical profession that want to genuinely help people and do the right thing. I don't mind that a well trained physician gets a generous salary. There is a whole lot of fat that can be trimmed, and some responsible ways to get people the medical treatment that they need.
It is too bad that ways to genuinely improve the health care system in the USA was not legitimately debated, and instead it was "my way or the highway" attitude.
Also, if there are some details about the "health care reform legislation" that you can legitimately point out to me that are going to be in the final bill signed by Obama, I'd like to know them. A bunch of promises were made, no doubt, but a lot of broken promises as well and backroom deals with other grunge that is the worst of the worst that comes from the U.S. Congress. I have yet to find a link to the actual text of the actual bill that is likely to become law. No, you can't find it on THOMAS either, and yes I've tried. My own elected representatives in Congress tell me they can't get the text of the bill either. What was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives was not the actual legislation.
This can't be anything but good news for America. Everyone will be better off, and the only people who even might lose out are a few big corporations.
This is actually a rather horrible day, at least for me. The devil is in the details, and the details of this legislation simply stink.
I'll be the first to admit that the health care system in America is in need of a major reform and that some things needed to change. There are some huge problems with how ordinary Americans work with medical personnel and how they are charged or how payments for those services are rendered.
All this said, I don't think this legislation is going to get the job done and it only helps out those political constituencies that helped get Obama and the Democrats into power. I'd love to tell you exactly what is going to be in this legislation myself, except that it has been changing on a daily basis and the political leaders in charge have been deliberately trying to keep the legislation secret from the ordinary American people because it is so awful that it can't stand details review in the public.
Even now, the actual law that will finally be signed by Obama, if it clears the Senate (still not a guarantee), is not completely disclosed nor will it published for public consumption until after it has Obama's signature. If you know what is in this legislation or think it can compare to what is going on in Britain, I'd like to know your source. Quite literally major sections are being rewritten even now.
BTW, it was precisely this sort of legislative churn and the lack of even being able to know what was in the legislation that is a major source of the resentment against this bill. This is not typically how legislation is dealt with in Congress, and when the final details come out I think even you being across the pond will see just how bad it really is.
At best, the legislation right now is whatever Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have in their heads and can think up in the next week before it is signed. All the U.S. House of Representatives did was sign a blank check for those three to be given dictatorial powers to do whatever the hell they care to do on this issue.
Bankruptcy. U.S. is on the verge of it, especially with talk of it being downgraded from AAA to AA status, as if it were a second world nation.
That is particularly interesting as the "Three world" philosophy was not about wealth or who was superior to everybody else, but simply enumerating the three major worlds:
1) Western Democracies 2) Communist Bloc 3) Everybody else
If the USA is becoming a second world nation, that would imply that the USA "won" the cold war by becoming communist. Arguably, it could be said that the USA has moved into the communist bloc of countries with this legislation.
Somehow I don't think that is what you intended, but I think it fits too.
Actually, the AC poster was wrong. It stand for Shoulder Pork and hAM. Or something like that, there have been multiple backronyms that have been applied to the word, even by Hormel.
The name came from a contest that was held in the 1940's on the behalf of Hormel by a Madison Avenue (their office was literally on Madison Avenue in NYC) marketing firm, and advertised on the weekly comedy radio show performed by George Burns and Gracie Allen. From several thousand entries submitted, the name SPAM was selected as suggested by a housewife who listened to the radio show and sent in an entry. I lost track of the exact name of this lady, but it wasn't even a Hormel employee that suggested the name in the first place.
As for how the e-mail variety of spam got its name, that should be rather famous too, but I'll leave that to others if you are ignorant of that history.
The difference between you being an American and claiming property on the Moon by virtue of American hardware sitting on the Moon is that the primary policy making body of America, the United State Senate, ratified a treaty that renounced any such claim upon the Moon by the American people.
So no, your claim isn't as valid as Richard Garriott's. That claim has been undone by your elected representatives. If you don't like it, get the Senate to invoke the "escape clause" that gets the USA out of that treaty, but until that happens any such claim can't be legitimately considered. My suggestion is that you run for the U.S. Senate and try to get in there yourself to get that to happen, as the current clowns still don't have a clue about what they gave up nearly 40 years ago.
"Lord British", on the other hand, owns personal property on the Moon... something neither you nor I have at the moment. As for the personal items left behind by the astronauts who went up there, that could be in dispute other than the fact that they were government officers on official business when they went there. With their diplomatic status, they couldn't make claims to the Moon either.
The guys sending stuff up with the Google Lunar X-Prize are going to be private citizens... if they ever get up there. Those guys might be able to make a legitimate claim too.... presuming that they get there with a private spaceflight and don't use government services except for traffic control and regulations. If you join one of those teams, you too might be able to make a similar claim to the Moon, or at least a part of it.
I'm sorry you have such a huge chip on your shoulder and are annoyed at however the land that I live on got into the hands of my countrymen.
Big whoop. If you want it, come get it. Just carry a big gun and be willing to die in the attempt. And don't be surprised if you do die. I'd prefer that you not kill anybody, my family in particular, but if you are that big of an ass I can't stop you anyway.
All land is "stolen land" after a fashion if you really get down to it. The question is really over who can enforce a "civilizing" force upon that land and keep people from having to kill each other ever other year to maintain possession of that land. Even the so-called native peoples of America or elsewhere have often moved or had land change hands even before they got there in the first place. This is all a moot argument.
My point about the Moon or any extra-terrestrial real-estate is that the same principles apply, and some silly group like the Lunar Embassy is a joke that won't really be recognized in the future except as perhaps an "initial claimant" on the property.
I'm not sure how it is going to happen, but at some point in the future blood will be spilled to defend some piece of real estate off of the Earth. In addition, there will be some folks who will be willing to offer "protection" from those who would be bullies. These may be private corporations, sovereign entities like some of the larger governments on the Earth, or perhaps something else dreamed up by those living in space.
As for my personal claim to the Moon, I'll claim the eastern rim of the Tycho crater. Still, there is no way for me to enforce that claim until I get there and try to kick off any squatters. So tell me, what is the difference between a squatter and the person who holds the title? I still say it is whoever has the bigger gun.
Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days, and I imagine most gamers have never played a single player Ultima these days.
It is inaccurate to suggest that "Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days". He has moved on in his life and is doing other things besides playing and making video games.
His latest venture, since he has been to the International Space Station, is to get into the pharmaceutical industry and working with processing of chemicals that are easier to do in a low-gravity environment. What is really cool, he can get that to work at a profit and justify a return trip to the ISS as a legitimate business expense. He is planning a return trip too.
As for if he will make it to the Moon and service his own property when he gets there, that is something to legitimately question. Supposedly he is also sponsoring one of the Google Lunar X-Prize teams and offering some technical advise for them as well.
One ity bitty tiny detail about owning real estate:
You have to take possession of it and physically use it at some point in order to "prove" that you own it. Or on a more practical matter you must have a bigger gun to scare away those that might try to challenge your claim.
Of the so-called lunar real-estate companies, not a single one of them can maintain that claim through such action. Yes, you can have governments that can take such kind of possession and then in turn grant title to that land under the sovereignty of that same government, but it takes some government to do that. Since the USA and most major space-faring nations have renounced any claim on the Moon, any such title can't even be recognized since the granting authority isn't legitimate.
For the hunk of real-estate on North America that I happen to own, I have received title from a sovereign entity and have cleared claims to my land from previous title holders, including surprisingly the Spanish Crown (aka the Spanish king) at one point. If somebody decides to challenge my right to this land, I have the ability to defend this hunk of land with increasingly more sophisticated weapons including the potential to call upon the U.S. Marine Corps and to defend this land with nuclear weaponry if necessary. That sort of gives some legitimacy to my legal claim that is hard to pass up. No, I'm not saying that I personally have a nuke, but that collectively I and my fellow citizens have them as a shared collective, and it is through these land claims that we all defend each other.
Richard Garriott is now the only person who can legitimately claim a part of the Moon by physically taking possession of that parcel and occupying it. Somebody with a bigger gun might challenge his claim, but he now has something that is his that is there to occupy that land. Since nobody else has made any sort of move in that direction and the Earth governments have renounced any such claim, it can thus be proven that simply put, Richard Garriott is the only legitimate claimant for ownership of the Moon.
Well, 50% of the population has below average intelligence, by definition. What is even scarier to think about is that they vote too (in places with elected representatives).
The problems with most geeks is that they tend to hang out in circles where there are substantial social filters to weed out those with lower intelligence, and you tend to think that average intelligence is somebody who can do a derivative in their sleep and understands the concept of a coefficient of friction from a mathematical viewpoint.
Nothing personal, but the average NASCAR fan would be surprised to learn that the race cars they are watching even have brakes, much less try to understand how the coefficient would apply to how a driver can avoid a crash and how those brake systems interact under racing conditions. Still, a geek can appreciate the wonder of how a bunch of cars can crash together at 200+ mph and that the drivers can live to see another day.
I had a friend who said this interesting philosophical statement: A mathematician can certainly appreciate fine art, but it is an exceptionally rare artist who can appreciate an elegant proof. Q.E.D.
If you happened to be one of the initial "founders" of the MLM or are a close buddy to the founder and are in on the scheme from the beginning, yeah, you can live a cushy life without much effort. Otherwise, good luck with that.
Of course that could be said about any sort of scheme.
What is sad, however, is that the effort to put together most schemes generally take more time, effort, and money to get started than doing a "legitimate" business. The problem is that the mentality of those who are planning schemes is that they are constantly looking for that one big score, and occasionally through circumstances and the chaos that we call life that sometimes these parasites on society do get lucky.
If you add in the ruined lives from those who have been scamming along the way, the end result for society as a whole is negative in most of these schemes, and it is the guys at the bottom that as a whole we need to be concerned about, not the sleaze at the top.
I use this criteria for telling off a MLM distributor:
If you can get me a better deal by buying your product through you as opposed to what I can buy at the local Wal-Mart or from other local retailers, I'll buy it from you.
Sadly, I have yet to get a single MLM marketer to take me up on the offer. The truth is they can't compete except on sky high promises and on schemes that ultimately put so many hands into the profit stream that you can't get a reasonably priced product even if you tried. In fact, as a part of the sales pitch they will start to tell me that I can get these fabulous discounts if you become a high ranking salemen, which is where you can start to have prices compete with conventional retail outlets. The truth is even with these so-called discounts they still aren't all that good of a deal.
What these companies are selling is dreams, and as such it is a scam. The 17% to non-members may even be high, but I'd have to agree with you that it is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the big financial payoff for going into space? If we get to Mars, how is that going to provide a financial windfall for the country that does it?
One single small asteroid, about 1km or slightly smaller, holds the equivalent in non-ferrous metal ores of nearly $20 trillion dollars of value. I'd say that is a financial windfall that can be incredibly useful for any spacefaring nation that cares to make the effort to extract ore from something like that.
Oh, BTW, there are nearly a million asteroids about that size too, many of them that also pass near enough to the Earth that you can easily get to them too using spacecraft technology we already have today.
In addition, there is nearly limitless energy resources in space that can also amount to trillions of dollars worth of economic activity, and there are also significant applications of space technology that is already "mature" and has been used for quite some time. Things like telecommunications (I guess you've never seen a satellite television broadcast?), weather forecasting/tracking, resource management/photo reconnaissance, and navigation satellites (GPS/Magellan). The truth is that the ROI is not only not zero, we have already been getting a huge payback from space already and we have just barely thought up different ways to economically utilize space.
Other significant areas that are just beginning to be utilized include developing new organic chemistry processes (primarily pharmaceuticals but other chemical processes too), metallurgy (mixing different metals that won't normally mix on the Earth), and material science in terms of new fabrics and building materials. This is stuff that is happening right now and is also already profitable, with real investors willing to spend money to make this stuff happen.
Frankly, the oceans will never be exploited to the extent that some of the dreamers claim, as going to 500 feet below water is far more dangerous than going to Mars. The fabled underwater cities of the future simply won't happen, or it will be an order of magnitude cheaper, safer, and easier to accomplish building those cities on the Moon than even on the continental shelf off Florida, much less at a place like the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. Please try to prove me wrong here.
Also note, I'm not necessarily against oceanographic studies, and I think some very important and interesting science can be done underwater. None the less, this comment is so far off the mark and trying to pit one science against the other than I really can't think this is a credible comment other than by somebody grossly mis-informed.
Considering that we now spend less than 0.5% of the federal budget (not even GDP here, just the budget) on exploration, what does that say about the USA now?
BTW, I'd have to agree it is a national disgrace, but then again most of the money if NASA was fully funded would be piddled away in wasteful spending. At least now some realistic priorities are being set for how money allocated for space exploration and development is happening, and NASA is willing to get back into the game of actual real physical exploration by both robots and people. Indeed it is the robotic missions that are going to get a major boost with the latest budget proposal, but plans for getting back to the Moon and going to Mars are also happening.
Concorde isn't flying in part due to the so-called security screenings in airports (I'll concede that point) and because it was simply getting old. With the crash of the Concorde in France, the needed changes to make the vehicle safer and to bring it up to date simply weren't economical.
The other problem is that the range of the Concorde was incredibly limited. The New York to London route was pretty much near its routine operational flying range, and certainly couldn't get to Los Angeles or South America.
Still, it is important to note there is a market for those flights, and it wasn't a lack of customers which forced the discontinuing of the Concorde flights. Tickets on those flights also cost about $10k each.
As for speeding up the security screenings, keep in mind that they are kept deliberately slow and long as a matter of principle. It is the government asserting it sovereignty upon the common serfs of the country and letting them know full well that they no longer have a say in the operations of the government. It certainly isn't to stop a terrorist, as Flight 93 on 9/11 showed exactly the best way to deal with a terrorist who wants to crash into a building. Do you think millions of people taking their shoes off is actually protecting air travel?
I know that ZeroG has been hired by a porn studio and the video is available if you really want to dig for it. With their version of weightlessness, you only have about a minute of free-fall at a time, but it is also much more affordable.
SS2 gives you about 5-10 minutes of free fall and it comes in one huge chunk of time rather than paced out over a bunch of different parabolas like the Vomit Comet does. More significantly, there are windows to look back at the Earth and you can clearly see the black sky of space and the curvature of the Earth from that altitude.
For myself, I think I would be more interested in looking back home than trying to make a baby with my wife/girlfriend when all that is happening.
Well, to be fair, when you look at this proposed space suite isn't it conceptually just a large space suit?
Considering that module has the same interior volume as 1/3rd of the ISS, I'd have to say no.
On the other hand, the BA-330 might allow you to do something like the Battle Room of Ender's Game Even on a more modest scale than the novel, that would be something genuinely unique as an experience. Certainly floating in a room large enough that you can't touch the walls would be an amazing experience.
"the people" voted for somebody who wasn't a blue blood country club Republican. As much as I like the guy on a personal level, John McCain was hardly the most conservative guy in the Republican Party. Indeed, it has been suggested that he might do something like Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat, or at least a "moderate independent" and caucus with the Democrats.
The choice was either a 3rd party candidate that was cannon fodder, somebody from the liberal wing of the Republican Party, or Obama. With weak support for McCain by his supposed base, Obama won by default. It also didn't hurt that folks were blinded by the fact that Obama was black and that they were voting for his skin color more than his actual policies.
The USA population as a whole has a center-right political viewpoint, and Obama certainly does not represent that sort of philosophy.
Sadly, I think it is the bluebloods that are going to take back control of the US government, which is something I don't want to see. Bush was a blueblood Republican too, which also tended to hurt his popularity among Republicans.
I only hope that you are correct. I don't trust anything in this bill, and my fear is that it will simply add an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already onerous level of red tape and management of the whole system.
The problem with insurance companies is that the patients aren't the customers, they are merely the product. In order to clean up the insurance companies, it is the patients that need to become customers again. This bill did nothing to solve that problem at all.
It doesn't create nor encourage new insurance companies to be formed, it doesn't provide options for new ideas to be formulated in the marketplace of ideas in the insurance industry, and it doesn't allow creative people to be "self-insured" in some other fashion.
I'll have to do a "wait and see" with the exchanges, but generally a top-down approach is something open to fraud and manipulation for political purposes. I'll bet you that those involved with setting up these exchanges are going to be donating very generously to the political campaigns of many congressmen (and likely already have) to get this kind of scheme in place.
They are quitting due to the bureaucracy, the red tape, and being told what to do by some idiot who doesn't have a clue what a medical procedure is all about in the first place. It also doesn't help that the have to face huge pay cuts and increased workloads due to some of the changes being proposed.... and increased workload from those who have previously called it quits too.
These guys are pretty smart (which is one of the reasons why they are called "doctor").
Check up on it if you think I'm full of bull here. The med schools in America are hurting real bad right now, and this bill is only going to make things much, much worse.
The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.
In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience. This impact is already being felt in med schools right now, where those who are training to be the next generation of doctors are getting inferior quality instruction due to the loss of these brilliant people who are already out the door. By the time this mess is cleaned up, we will be having interns treating us with knowledge passed onto them by other interns.
The damage has already been done, and some of it is unfortunately irreparable. At best a Republican take over in Congress will shore up the damage and try to start the mop-up job that is needed from a legislative and executive branch who has been spending like a drunken sailor on liberty. But in doing so they will get the blame for having to cut the mountain of social welfare programs that have pushed us into this mess and pissing off the constituents that benefit from all of those programs.
If anything, it would be interesting to simply have the Republicans sit it out entirely this next election cycle and see what the Democrats would do when the bills from all of this spending come due. It is too bad we can't do that experiment and then see what our country would end up being like with this sort of whacked out spending.
This should not have been marked as a troll, as it is completely factual and noting concepts that have been in this legislation for some time. At least if you can believe anything that is in this legislation.
This is indeed a jobs killing bill and I'm glad to see that somebody had the guts to cite just why that would be the case. Troll (-1) does not mean "I disagree with your viewpoint", and the comment was spot on in terms of being a related comment to the main post of this slashdot article.
At least those voting on such a bill can read the dang thing before they vote on it.
The legislation that was just passed was so terse in legalese and so huge that I doubt if any single human has ever actually read the whole thing.
{{citation needed}}
Seriously, where do you get those numbers in the first place? I've seen them thrown around in other news articles, but it is mostly self-referential and not based on any legitimate primary sources of information.
There are many reasons why folks go without health insurance, and poverty is only part of the equation. Mankind survived for millions of years without medical insurance, so why is it such a big deal?
I admit that the health insurance shell games that are played where they take your money and then refuse to pay for legitimate services when problems arise is a problem. Some of that has been fixed with previous legislation, and some of it by more responsible insurance companies stepping up to the plate to deal with things in a reasonable manner. That is one of the reasons why paying the cheapest rate for insurance isn't necessarily the best idea (for any kind of insurance).
BTW, if you can tell me what is going to be in the final law, please tell me. I'd really like to know! I know what folks have been saying is in the legislation, but the powers that be don't really want ordinary folks like myself to be able to read this potential law until after the ink has dried with Obama's signature on it. For that matter, they don't want the folks voting for it in Congress to have read it either. Do you honestly expect me to believe that your elected representative to Congress actually read the whole text of the bill before they cast the vote?
Congrats US citizens! You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!
We could only be so lucky. This bill by and large doesn't change anything. Most of us have health insurance that we purchase through our employers, provided by insanely profitable corporations. And for almost none of us will that change.
Unfortunately our government doesn't do change this year.
If profits are insanely high, it sounds to me like something that needs to be changed by increasing competition in the marketplace and deliberately encouraging new insurance companies to be formed. Keep in mind that most insurance companies operate on a state level and not a federal level, and that they need to be licensed by the individual state government before an ordinary citizen can get access to their services. Of course the regulatory boards that govern the insurance companies are made up of the executives of these same insurance companies, and the rules are set up in such a fashion that any new competitors are deliberately going to be losing money if they try to start up such competition for that business.
Unfortunately there are also economies of scale that apply as well in the insurance business, which also tends to drive out competition. If a hospital is built, few communities are willing or even financially able to support a second or third hospital, to give an example.
There is some legitimate room for reform of the medical community, but I'd have to agree that this legislation doesn't really change much of anything, other than provide an easy way for companies to get rid of their employee health care plans and turn those costs into something perhaps a bit more predictable on a year to year basis.
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
Actually, I don't if you want me to be honest. I'm sure that there is some sort of logic to the whole thing and I've sort of accepted it so far as "I can't fight city hall" type of attitude and a fatalistic attitude about government, but it still seems like a legalized scam of sorts.
At the very least, I can choose to go without car insurance by simply choosing not to drive a motor vehicle, and instead use a bicycle or other alternative forms of transportation, including moving to a part of the world (at least my country... it is big enough) where I won't need to have an automobile. I lived about 10 years of my adult life without an automobiles, but I had to make some substantial sacrifices including impacting my earning potential in a negative manner and limiting my mobile freedom by doing so.
In this case, I suppose that I can choose not to pay this tax by:
1) Checking out of this life. Likely in a dramatic fashion that shows up on the 10 o'clock news. It is debatable if an honor guard goes with me in this case.
2) Moving out of this country and finding some place I don't have to pay such a tax. The question there is.... where?
3) Going to prison.
None of those options appeal to me. This isn't the same thing.
BTW, Yes, I have been turned away by a hospital. Worse yet, on a couple occasions I've had my wife and kids (in separate treatments) go in, have somebody essentially hold their hands saying "oh, I guess that hurts" as the only treatment (not even some pain reliever pills), and get stuck with a $10k bill.... with the billing done by a dozen different entities that I had to ultimately find out the last ones by checking my credit report as they wouldn't even send me a bill.
I'll also note that it is less than comforting to note that in the local hospital I walk through the halls, see the list of employees at the hospital, and note that the "business" staff of the hospital (mainly those processing insurance claims) outnumbers the medical staff by nearly a two to one ratio. Something is seriously screwed up when that is the case. Due to a lawsuit, at least the first person you talk to at that hospital isn't a billing representative that is asking for your credit card when you show up. That used to be the case.
BTW, the next closest hospital is nearly 150 miles away, so choosing the "competition" doesn't cut it here either.
I completely agree that the U.S. medical system is screwed up. Something needs to be fixed, but I seriously doubt that this particular legislation is going to be the "fix" that will correct the problems. There are also some very good people in the medical profession that want to genuinely help people and do the right thing. I don't mind that a well trained physician gets a generous salary. There is a whole lot of fat that can be trimmed, and some responsible ways to get people the medical treatment that they need.
It is too bad that ways to genuinely improve the health care system in the USA was not legitimately debated, and instead it was "my way or the highway" attitude.
Also, if there are some details about the "health care reform legislation" that you can legitimately point out to me that are going to be in the final bill signed by Obama, I'd like to know them. A bunch of promises were made, no doubt, but a lot of broken promises as well and backroom deals with other grunge that is the worst of the worst that comes from the U.S. Congress. I have yet to find a link to the actual text of the actual bill that is likely to become law. No, you can't find it on THOMAS either, and yes I've tried. My own elected representatives in Congress tell me they can't get the text of the bill either. What was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives was not the actual legislation.
This can't be anything but good news for America. Everyone will be better off, and the only people who even might lose out are a few big corporations.
This is actually a rather horrible day, at least for me. The devil is in the details, and the details of this legislation simply stink.
I'll be the first to admit that the health care system in America is in need of a major reform and that some things needed to change. There are some huge problems with how ordinary Americans work with medical personnel and how they are charged or how payments for those services are rendered.
All this said, I don't think this legislation is going to get the job done and it only helps out those political constituencies that helped get Obama and the Democrats into power. I'd love to tell you exactly what is going to be in this legislation myself, except that it has been changing on a daily basis and the political leaders in charge have been deliberately trying to keep the legislation secret from the ordinary American people because it is so awful that it can't stand details review in the public.
Even now, the actual law that will finally be signed by Obama, if it clears the Senate (still not a guarantee), is not completely disclosed nor will it published for public consumption until after it has Obama's signature. If you know what is in this legislation or think it can compare to what is going on in Britain, I'd like to know your source. Quite literally major sections are being rewritten even now.
BTW, it was precisely this sort of legislative churn and the lack of even being able to know what was in the legislation that is a major source of the resentment against this bill. This is not typically how legislation is dealt with in Congress, and when the final details come out I think even you being across the pond will see just how bad it really is.
At best, the legislation right now is whatever Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have in their heads and can think up in the next week before it is signed. All the U.S. House of Representatives did was sign a blank check for those three to be given dictatorial powers to do whatever the hell they care to do on this issue.
Bankruptcy. U.S. is on the verge of it, especially with talk of it being downgraded from AAA to AA status, as if it were a second world nation.
That is particularly interesting as the "Three world" philosophy was not about wealth or who was superior to everybody else, but simply enumerating the three major worlds:
1) Western Democracies
2) Communist Bloc
3) Everybody else
If the USA is becoming a second world nation, that would imply that the USA "won" the cold war by becoming communist. Arguably, it could be said that the USA has moved into the communist bloc of countries with this legislation.
Somehow I don't think that is what you intended, but I think it fits too.
Actually, the AC poster was wrong. It stand for Shoulder Pork and hAM. Or something like that, there have been multiple backronyms that have been applied to the word, even by Hormel.
The name came from a contest that was held in the 1940's on the behalf of Hormel by a Madison Avenue (their office was literally on Madison Avenue in NYC) marketing firm, and advertised on the weekly comedy radio show performed by George Burns and Gracie Allen. From several thousand entries submitted, the name SPAM was selected as suggested by a housewife who listened to the radio show and sent in an entry. I lost track of the exact name of this lady, but it wasn't even a Hormel employee that suggested the name in the first place.
As for how the e-mail variety of spam got its name, that should be rather famous too, but I'll leave that to others if you are ignorant of that history.
The difference between you being an American and claiming property on the Moon by virtue of American hardware sitting on the Moon is that the primary policy making body of America, the United State Senate, ratified a treaty that renounced any such claim upon the Moon by the American people.
So no, your claim isn't as valid as Richard Garriott's. That claim has been undone by your elected representatives. If you don't like it, get the Senate to invoke the "escape clause" that gets the USA out of that treaty, but until that happens any such claim can't be legitimately considered. My suggestion is that you run for the U.S. Senate and try to get in there yourself to get that to happen, as the current clowns still don't have a clue about what they gave up nearly 40 years ago.
"Lord British", on the other hand, owns personal property on the Moon... something neither you nor I have at the moment. As for the personal items left behind by the astronauts who went up there, that could be in dispute other than the fact that they were government officers on official business when they went there. With their diplomatic status, they couldn't make claims to the Moon either.
The guys sending stuff up with the Google Lunar X-Prize are going to be private citizens... if they ever get up there. Those guys might be able to make a legitimate claim too.... presuming that they get there with a private spaceflight and don't use government services except for traffic control and regulations. If you join one of those teams, you too might be able to make a similar claim to the Moon, or at least a part of it.
I'm sorry you have such a huge chip on your shoulder and are annoyed at however the land that I live on got into the hands of my countrymen.
Big whoop. If you want it, come get it. Just carry a big gun and be willing to die in the attempt. And don't be surprised if you do die. I'd prefer that you not kill anybody, my family in particular, but if you are that big of an ass I can't stop you anyway.
All land is "stolen land" after a fashion if you really get down to it. The question is really over who can enforce a "civilizing" force upon that land and keep people from having to kill each other ever other year to maintain possession of that land. Even the so-called native peoples of America or elsewhere have often moved or had land change hands even before they got there in the first place. This is all a moot argument.
My point about the Moon or any extra-terrestrial real-estate is that the same principles apply, and some silly group like the Lunar Embassy is a joke that won't really be recognized in the future except as perhaps an "initial claimant" on the property.
I'm not sure how it is going to happen, but at some point in the future blood will be spilled to defend some piece of real estate off of the Earth. In addition, there will be some folks who will be willing to offer "protection" from those who would be bullies. These may be private corporations, sovereign entities like some of the larger governments on the Earth, or perhaps something else dreamed up by those living in space.
As for my personal claim to the Moon, I'll claim the eastern rim of the Tycho crater. Still, there is no way for me to enforce that claim until I get there and try to kick off any squatters. So tell me, what is the difference between a squatter and the person who holds the title? I still say it is whoever has the bigger gun.
Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days, and I imagine most gamers have never played a single player Ultima these days.
It is inaccurate to suggest that "Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days". He has moved on in his life and is doing other things besides playing and making video games.
His latest venture, since he has been to the International Space Station, is to get into the pharmaceutical industry and working with processing of chemicals that are easier to do in a low-gravity environment. What is really cool, he can get that to work at a profit and justify a return trip to the ISS as a legitimate business expense. He is planning a return trip too.
As for if he will make it to the Moon and service his own property when he gets there, that is something to legitimately question. Supposedly he is also sponsoring one of the Google Lunar X-Prize teams and offering some technical advise for them as well.
That doesn't sound like doing nothing.
One ity bitty tiny detail about owning real estate:
You have to take possession of it and physically use it at some point in order to "prove" that you own it. Or on a more practical matter you must have a bigger gun to scare away those that might try to challenge your claim.
Of the so-called lunar real-estate companies, not a single one of them can maintain that claim through such action. Yes, you can have governments that can take such kind of possession and then in turn grant title to that land under the sovereignty of that same government, but it takes some government to do that. Since the USA and most major space-faring nations have renounced any claim on the Moon, any such title can't even be recognized since the granting authority isn't legitimate.
For the hunk of real-estate on North America that I happen to own, I have received title from a sovereign entity and have cleared claims to my land from previous title holders, including surprisingly the Spanish Crown (aka the Spanish king) at one point. If somebody decides to challenge my right to this land, I have the ability to defend this hunk of land with increasingly more sophisticated weapons including the potential to call upon the U.S. Marine Corps and to defend this land with nuclear weaponry if necessary. That sort of gives some legitimacy to my legal claim that is hard to pass up. No, I'm not saying that I personally have a nuke, but that collectively I and my fellow citizens have them as a shared collective, and it is through these land claims that we all defend each other.
Richard Garriott is now the only person who can legitimately claim a part of the Moon by physically taking possession of that parcel and occupying it. Somebody with a bigger gun might challenge his claim, but he now has something that is his that is there to occupy that land. Since nobody else has made any sort of move in that direction and the Earth governments have renounced any such claim, it can thus be proven that simply put, Richard Garriott is the only legitimate claimant for ownership of the Moon.
Well, 50% of the population has below average intelligence, by definition. What is even scarier to think about is that they vote too (in places with elected representatives).
The problems with most geeks is that they tend to hang out in circles where there are substantial social filters to weed out those with lower intelligence, and you tend to think that average intelligence is somebody who can do a derivative in their sleep and understands the concept of a coefficient of friction from a mathematical viewpoint.
Nothing personal, but the average NASCAR fan would be surprised to learn that the race cars they are watching even have brakes, much less try to understand how the coefficient would apply to how a driver can avoid a crash and how those brake systems interact under racing conditions. Still, a geek can appreciate the wonder of how a bunch of cars can crash together at 200+ mph and that the drivers can live to see another day.
I had a friend who said this interesting philosophical statement: A mathematician can certainly appreciate fine art, but it is an exceptionally rare artist who can appreciate an elegant proof. Q.E.D.
If you happened to be one of the initial "founders" of the MLM or are a close buddy to the founder and are in on the scheme from the beginning, yeah, you can live a cushy life without much effort. Otherwise, good luck with that.
Of course that could be said about any sort of scheme.
What is sad, however, is that the effort to put together most schemes generally take more time, effort, and money to get started than doing a "legitimate" business. The problem is that the mentality of those who are planning schemes is that they are constantly looking for that one big score, and occasionally through circumstances and the chaos that we call life that sometimes these parasites on society do get lucky.
If you add in the ruined lives from those who have been scamming along the way, the end result for society as a whole is negative in most of these schemes, and it is the guys at the bottom that as a whole we need to be concerned about, not the sleaze at the top.
I use this criteria for telling off a MLM distributor:
If you can get me a better deal by buying your product through you as opposed to what I can buy at the local Wal-Mart or from other local retailers, I'll buy it from you.
Sadly, I have yet to get a single MLM marketer to take me up on the offer. The truth is they can't compete except on sky high promises and on schemes that ultimately put so many hands into the profit stream that you can't get a reasonably priced product even if you tried. In fact, as a part of the sales pitch they will start to tell me that I can get these fabulous discounts if you become a high ranking salemen, which is where you can start to have prices compete with conventional retail outlets. The truth is even with these so-called discounts they still aren't all that good of a deal.
What these companies are selling is dreams, and as such it is a scam. The 17% to non-members may even be high, but I'd have to agree with you that it is a problem.