Yes because I'm sure that Bush really could have reversed decades of environmental damage caused by previous administrations in a matter of 5 years.
The point to my comment was that, regardless of the circumstances surrounding an event in the history of an Administration, it is *always* the responsibility of the sitting President to respond to a disaster. Whether the disaster was worse because of some problems from a previous Administration is irrelevant to the people who are suffering through it. The fact is that you take the job of President to accept responsibility, not dodge it.
And I don't engage in debates of Democrats are worse than Republicans because I find them both to be two sides of the same bad penny. Bush is the President and has been for four years. Any attempt to dodge responsibility for anything that happens on his watch is just political grandstanding. It *is* his responsibility. The fact that Republicans have been preaching to the rest of America about taking personal responsibility for their actions makes his attempt to dodge it now all the more hypocritical.
This is assuming that global warming even "caused" Katrina in the first place, which is doubtful.
What caused you to come to the conclusion that it is doubtful that Katrina is caused by global warming?
Could be that they are looking at the numbers as much as the synergy....
I think so. Certainly no one would question why General Electric or General Motors would own credit companies. They own them because they are an important tool for helping their customers to finance their products. But they are also a revenue stream from which they make money by lending to other borrowers who are not necessarily buying a washing machine or car. They make money just like regular credit companies do: making loans. It isn't surprising that during some periods of GE's and GM's business history, their credit divisions actually made more money than their principle line of business.
That is what good businesses do - they look for initial synergy in a purchase, but they ultimately invest because it will also make them a boatload of cash in areas that diversify their holdings.
The same process that creates Coronal Mass Ejections will finally free humanity from the constraints of energy dependency! Charles Cagle, friend to everyone on sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion has created an unlimited energy supply patterned after CMEs.
But beware: you must never show disdain for the New and Apocalypic Physics! Disbelievers will be CONSUMED by the fires of the sun in a mighty CME that will lay waste to those who do not follow Brother Charley!
While they have a strong track record for supporting business and tracking developments in the business world, I take nearly everything they offer as rumor or opinion with a grain of salt. Remember that it was the WSJ that was an early flogger of Cold Fusion. They were speculating about the enormous potential of a science "discovery" that hadn't even been vetted by the larger scientific community. I wonder why they don't have a cold fusion section in their paper an more.
This marriage between Ebay and Skype does have some marginal plausibility due to the need for Ebay to spend some of its reserves capturing markets outside of the online auction business. Skype needs cash to fend off Microsoft's entry into VOIP. The rumor has some potential traction, but the market has given its opinion to the deal. A drop of nearly 5% in your stock price is something a CEO and board of directors can't easily ignore.
The lower layers of an object will not compact in a zero-gravity environment.
Zero-gravity is a misnomer. All matter possess gravity. Zero-gravity referrs a region of low Earth orbit where the gravitational effect of Earth is extremely low. But because you are still in orbit, you are still under the influence of Earth's gravity.
Actually, it is how businesses operate. Or haven't you heard of research and development (R&D) costs?
Yes, I have. I work for a company that does nothing but research and development. And sitting on this side of the fence, I can tell you that NO ONE would put the kind of money down for a commercial mission to Mars to build the same stuff we can manufacture here on Earth. Period.
Besides, for the investor that invests in this company, assuming their R&D pans out and this all works, they'll get back far more than they invested in the end.
There is a lot of 'assuming' going on in this venture. If you are talking about pharma-companies shelling out millions to make billions, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about a group of idealistic investors (I'm being gracious here) taking a risk to make trillions, I think they have been smoking too much crack.
Where is the money for this venture coming from again? Are you claiming these people are pulling the money for this mission out of their *own* pockets? I doubt it. They are trying to attract venture capital. Walk down to your neighborhood venture capitalist with a good idea on how to make money here on Earth and he will grill you for more detail than has been offered to date by these yeah-hoos.
I would agree that sounds like the case. However, my experience has been that snow packed loosely together into a projectile can hurt. I got pelted by nearly 100 snowballs as a freshman and one left a cut above my eye.
No rocks or other debris was packed into the snow. It was a loose powder compressed by punk-assed kids - you guys know who you are. I'm still comin' for ya.
"The Washington Post reports that the comet struck by the Deep Impact projectile had higher than expected concentrations of carbon. The July collision with Comet Tempel 1 produced a cloud of ice and other debris that was analyzed by an accompanying space craft. Although the composition of the comet appears to be frozen water, other analytes found in the debris stream include formaldehyde and cyanide. I guess the EPA should be notified."
A space elevator for Mars is certainly possible 20 years from now.
Yes, but would you bet your investment now on the possibility that it will exist *sometime* in the future?
If so, then I have a bridge I'd like to have you invest in that *may* be built *someday* to join Manhattan to Brooklyn.
Businesses do not invest in highly speculative ventures without some expectation of an astronomical return on investment. For a Mars enterprise, you wouldn't expect some stupid 18-40% return. No, you are expecting magnitudes more in return because the likelihood that this Mars venture has of succeeding is slim to none.
Notice I didn't say impossible. A trip to Mars by humans may happen in the next 20 years. It will be a trip funded by countries who have no expectation of future financial gain. It will certainly NOT be made by a group of private investors unless they got together and shelled out billions with the expectation of trillions in return.
And the products that would be the result of that venture had better either be worth more than they could be made for here in Earth, or a one-of-a-kind item that could *never* be made here for less.
I don't see any compelling investment angle in this announcement.
Getting said gold out of low earth orbit would not cost as much as putting it into orbit.
It is if you plan your recovery on the premise of a round trip.
Whether you go to Hawaii by jet to bury gold, or LEO to suspend gold in orbit, you still have to make a round trip.
And if you think that weight will be a factor, it most certainly is. The problem with getting gold into the air is the energy to make reaching escape velocity. The problem with retreiving gold from LEO is the energy it takes to slow down from escape velocity.
Both are very expensive prospects when viewed as a geologist. I can go to Indonesia and mine gold for $300USD and make a profit. Can you take gold from LEO and make a profit? Not if you use the shuttle. It costs $1.3BUSD each time it leaves the ground. If you can move freight for a lower cost than what it takes to put a satellite into orbit, then you might be able to make money from mining imaginary LEO gold.
...140 watts of power for up to four hours per martian day.
So less heating capacity than my daughter's blowdryer.
That is not nearly enough energy to power an industrial park. As I said, the venture will probably have to rely on nuclear power. Not that I wouldn't use nuclear energy if I were to operate on Mars, but where is that economic inflection point at which you can turn a profit? How much would a business have to import to make a manufacturing prospect work out?
And once you have produced your goods, how much to ship them to market? UPS charges more than the USPS, but if I am shipping large volumes of manufactured goods, I would want to use a large craft. How much to build a fleet of space-trucks? Some of that data exists, but we know that there are tremendous losses that have to be factored in.
And what about insurance underwriting? How much is insurance going to cost, for one trip to the Red Planet, provided anyone would underwrite the policy?
If you are willing to pay $1MUSD for the first television set manufactured on Mars just for bragging rights, I'm rooting for you. I will pick the same "Hencho en Mexico" version for $50USD brand at the local discount store.
They have panels roughly the size of a golf cart....
To power even a light manufacturing plant, I'd say you are probably looking at a football field's worth of panels. I'm sure an EE can give you more precise numbers, but I think we can agree that it would not be a couple of golf cart's worth.
You see, the futurists of the 1950's envisioned an era when nearly everyone would be flying a car.
The only thing preventing me from buying mine is the FAA saftey process, which is REALLY slow.
Boy, I'd say. But I doubt regulatory issues are the only thing that keeps us from having flying cars. There are infrastructure considerations as well. Unless we ban all of the cars in the US so we can use the current roads for runways, we are seriously short on landing space.
And, really - don't you think that half a century is long enough to get the technical wrinkles out of flying cars?
Remember jet packs? Those were supposed to be the future of personal transportation too. But they do exist and have for decades. But the reason we don't use them is because they are too costly to operate for the miles traveled. I suspect that is the real reason we are not using flying cars too.
Check the FAQ section for the M400 model.
They look great. I wish I had one. I'd be streaking though the canyons near my house. What a rush!
I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars.
That isn't how businesses operate. They have these things solved before they start shoveling out large piles of cash to build factories, dirty or clean, in places that are FAR from their intended market.
If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars...
Therein lies the crux of the problem. I don't beleive they know enough about the technical problems they face before pronouncing that they will be on Mars by 2025. They don't know how much it will cost, yet they set an end date?
That is a bad business practice.
Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now.
Which is even more reason to find it suspect.
They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025.
That's a good bet. The technology will certainly be different in 20 years. But not enough to make this venture any less bullshit.
Other than the internet, software, and the speed of computers, how much is technology different than 1985? We still drive cars, right? Our primary space exploration vehicle is (or was) still the shuttle.
It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power).
Entirely unreasonable? No, but how likely? Not likely.
If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you.
Twenty years is just a few years.
Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.
Cars haven't changed much since they were invented. They have gotten more efficient and faster, but they still use four wheels and a steering wheel. They still burn fossil fuels.
If you are considering the minor but important changes that have happened to cars as being a tremendous shift in personal transportation, then I can see how you would get the idea that the Mars venture could be possible.
But considering the HUGH technological challenges, much less the basic science questions yet to be answered, as being insignificant in a twenty year timeframe, then by all means, ship them your money.
It really doesn't matter, because they've already developed and implemented a method to make a profit by seperating the bond between a fool and his money.
I hope they didn't try to patent their method. I think Enron has prior art.
My point is, reaching orbit is going to get cheaper, one way or the other
Possibly. But to formulate a business plan on the slimest of possibilities sounds like a scam. We might be able to levitate the stuff into orbit; want to invest?
And Gerald Bull was killed in Belgium because of his obsession with building his space cannon. I don't think I want to end up like ol' Gerald.
Not just mining, but think about manufacturing processes.
Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?
That is the same problem that faces these folks who want to move far away from civilization here on the EARTH. They pick some lonely stretch of highway, put a trailer on the side of the road, and open up a store. The number of potential customers is 5 per month. They wonder silently why they are going broke.
This plot is right out of the Martian Chronicles.
As for energy, there are the obvious sources (like nuclear or solar).
1) No one knows how much uranium exists on Mars, much less where it is.
2) The amount of solar radiation hitting Mars is less than Earth.
Not enough power to make shit for people who aren't around to buy it.
All of these future claims are just investment ballons floated to fleece the easily duped. There are plenty of technological problems associated with mining Mars including lifting the mined material off the surface. Bob Park wrote in his book "Voodoo Science" that it would cost more than $800USD to put ~$300USD of gold into orbit. His conclusion was that if gold were available in low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't pay to go get it. That is the first thing they teach in an economic geology course.
The materials on Mars are no different than here on Earth, only the abundances are different. So you mine a bunch of aluminosilicates and then what? Do these people realize how much energy it takes to break those bonds? Where is their proposed power source? The amount of solar energy reaching Mars is less than here on Earth. I hope they weren't counting on that source. Nuclear energy might be useful, but I don't know of anyone who has done a uranium assay of Martian ores. Are we going to ship power to Mars? How is that cost effective?
Unless these people have gone through a complete analysis of what it costs to go to Mars then I can't see how any of them can make any claim of profitability, let alone put a target date on their venture.
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping that this post would bring out the best in "Alternative Science".
;)
I am not disappointed!
Yes because I'm sure that Bush really could have reversed decades of environmental damage caused by previous administrations in a matter of 5 years.
The point to my comment was that, regardless of the circumstances surrounding an event in the history of an Administration, it is *always* the responsibility of the sitting President to respond to a disaster. Whether the disaster was worse because of some problems from a previous Administration is irrelevant to the people who are suffering through it. The fact is that you take the job of President to accept responsibility, not dodge it.
And I don't engage in debates of Democrats are worse than Republicans because I find them both to be two sides of the same bad penny. Bush is the President and has been for four years. Any attempt to dodge responsibility for anything that happens on his watch is just political grandstanding. It *is* his responsibility. The fact that Republicans have been preaching to the rest of America about taking personal responsibility for their actions makes his attempt to dodge it now all the more hypocritical.
This is assuming that global warming even "caused" Katrina in the first place, which is doubtful.
What caused you to come to the conclusion that it is doubtful that Katrina is caused by global warming?
Could be that they are looking at the numbers as much as the synergy....
I think so. Certainly no one would question why General Electric or General Motors would own credit companies. They own them because they are an important tool for helping their customers to finance their products. But they are also a revenue stream from which they make money by lending to other borrowers who are not necessarily buying a washing machine or car. They make money just like regular credit companies do: making loans. It isn't surprising that during some periods of GE's and GM's business history, their credit divisions actually made more money than their principle line of business.
That is what good businesses do - they look for initial synergy in a purchase, but they ultimately invest because it will also make them a boatload of cash in areas that diversify their holdings.
I thought Republicans belonged to the "Party of Personal Responsibility(tm)".
I guess that only means responsible for the good stuff?
The same process that creates Coronal Mass Ejections will finally free humanity from the constraints of energy dependency! Charles Cagle, friend to everyone on sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion has created an unlimited energy supply patterned after CMEs.
But beware: you must never show disdain for the New and Apocalypic Physics! Disbelievers will be CONSUMED by the fires of the sun in a mighty CME that will lay waste to those who do not follow Brother Charley!
While they have a strong track record for supporting business and tracking developments in the business world, I take nearly everything they offer as rumor or opinion with a grain of salt. Remember that it was the WSJ that was an early flogger of Cold Fusion. They were speculating about the enormous potential of a science "discovery" that hadn't even been vetted by the larger scientific community. I wonder why they don't have a cold fusion section in their paper an more.
This marriage between Ebay and Skype does have some marginal plausibility due to the need for Ebay to spend some of its reserves capturing markets outside of the online auction business. Skype needs cash to fend off Microsoft's entry into VOIP. The rumor has some potential traction, but the market has given its opinion to the deal. A drop of nearly 5% in your stock price is something a CEO and board of directors can't easily ignore.
I'd have thought that zero gravity refers to any place where there is little or no net gravitational force.
As long as two chunks of matter are in space, there will be gravitational attraction.
Q. What do you call the Superdome filled with milk?
A. White-ees
The lower layers of an object will not compact in a zero-gravity environment.
Zero-gravity is a misnomer. All matter possess gravity. Zero-gravity referrs a region of low Earth orbit where the gravitational effect of Earth is extremely low. But because you are still in orbit, you are still under the influence of Earth's gravity.
How does it feel to be potential parents to an alien species?
Like a Scientologist?
(rimshot!)
Very clever. ;)
Actually, it is how businesses operate. Or haven't you heard of research and development (R&D) costs?
Yes, I have. I work for a company that does nothing but research and development. And sitting on this side of the fence, I can tell you that NO ONE would put the kind of money down for a commercial mission to Mars to build the same stuff we can manufacture here on Earth. Period.
Besides, for the investor that invests in this company, assuming their R&D pans out and this all works, they'll get back far more than they invested in the end.
There is a lot of 'assuming' going on in this venture. If you are talking about pharma-companies shelling out millions to make billions, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about a group of idealistic investors (I'm being gracious here) taking a risk to make trillions, I think they have been smoking too much crack.
Where is the money for this venture coming from again? Are you claiming these people are pulling the money for this mission out of their *own* pockets? I doubt it. They are trying to attract venture capital. Walk down to your neighborhood venture capitalist with a good idea on how to make money here on Earth and he will grill you for more detail than has been offered to date by these yeah-hoos.
I would agree that sounds like the case. However, my experience has been that snow packed loosely together into a projectile can hurt. I got pelted by nearly 100 snowballs as a freshman and one left a cut above my eye.
No rocks or other debris was packed into the snow. It was a loose powder compressed by punk-assed kids - you guys know who you are. I'm still comin' for ya.
"The Washington Post reports that the comet struck by the Deep Impact projectile had higher than expected concentrations of carbon. The July collision with Comet Tempel 1 produced a cloud of ice and other debris that was analyzed by an accompanying space craft. Although the composition of the comet appears to be frozen water, other analytes found in the debris stream include formaldehyde and cyanide. I guess the EPA should be notified."
... oops, the GOP already bought it. Sorry ;-(
Kind of sad when you think about it. These people used to proclaim that they were the responsible stewards of the people's money.
Though, I might have a seaport in Wyoming to sell soon.
Ummm... I think the Supervolcano will put that under about 40 ft of ash and debris.
Jackson "Hole" will have a whole new meaning if Yellowstone pops.
A space elevator for Mars is certainly possible 20 years from now.
Yes, but would you bet your investment now on the possibility that it will exist *sometime* in the future?
If so, then I have a bridge I'd like to have you invest in that *may* be built *someday* to join Manhattan to Brooklyn.
Businesses do not invest in highly speculative ventures without some expectation of an astronomical return on investment. For a Mars enterprise, you wouldn't expect some stupid 18-40% return. No, you are expecting magnitudes more in return because the likelihood that this Mars venture has of succeeding is slim to none.
Notice I didn't say impossible. A trip to Mars by humans may happen in the next 20 years. It will be a trip funded by countries who have no expectation of future financial gain. It will certainly NOT be made by a group of private investors unless they got together and shelled out billions with the expectation of trillions in return.
And the products that would be the result of that venture had better either be worth more than they could be made for here in Earth, or a one-of-a-kind item that could *never* be made here for less.
I don't see any compelling investment angle in this announcement.
Getting said gold out of low earth orbit would not cost as much as putting it into orbit.
It is if you plan your recovery on the premise of a round trip.
Whether you go to Hawaii by jet to bury gold, or LEO to suspend gold in orbit, you still have to make a round trip.
And if you think that weight will be a factor, it most certainly is. The problem with getting gold into the air is the energy to make reaching escape velocity. The problem with retreiving gold from LEO is the energy it takes to slow down from escape velocity.
Both are very expensive prospects when viewed as a geologist. I can go to Indonesia and mine gold for $300USD and make a profit. Can you take gold from LEO and make a profit? Not if you use the shuttle. It costs $1.3BUSD each time it leaves the ground. If you can move freight for a lower cost than what it takes to put a satellite into orbit, then you might be able to make money from mining imaginary LEO gold.
His conclusion is faulty.
You misunderstood the premise.
...140 watts of power for up to four hours per martian day.
So less heating capacity than my daughter's blowdryer.
That is not nearly enough energy to power an industrial park. As I said, the venture will probably have to rely on nuclear power. Not that I wouldn't use nuclear energy if I were to operate on Mars, but where is that economic inflection point at which you can turn a profit? How much would a business have to import to make a manufacturing prospect work out?
And once you have produced your goods, how much to ship them to market? UPS charges more than the USPS, but if I am shipping large volumes of manufactured goods, I would want to use a large craft. How much to build a fleet of space-trucks? Some of that data exists, but we know that there are tremendous losses that have to be factored in.
And what about insurance underwriting? How much is insurance going to cost, for one trip to the Red Planet, provided anyone would underwrite the policy?
If you are willing to pay $1MUSD for the first television set manufactured on Mars just for bragging rights, I'm rooting for you. I will pick the same "Hencho en Mexico" version for $50USD brand at the local discount store.
They have panels roughly the size of a golf cart....
To power even a light manufacturing plant, I'd say you are probably looking at a football field's worth of panels. I'm sure an EE can give you more precise numbers, but I think we can agree that it would not be a couple of golf cart's worth.
Uh, who says we don't have flying cars?
Me, I don't have one.
You see, the futurists of the 1950's envisioned an era when nearly everyone would be flying a car.
The only thing preventing me from buying mine is the FAA saftey process, which is REALLY slow.
Boy, I'd say. But I doubt regulatory issues are the only thing that keeps us from having flying cars. There are infrastructure considerations as well. Unless we ban all of the cars in the US so we can use the current roads for runways, we are seriously short on landing space.
And, really - don't you think that half a century is long enough to get the technical wrinkles out of flying cars?
Remember jet packs? Those were supposed to be the future of personal transportation too. But they do exist and have for decades. But the reason we don't use them is because they are too costly to operate for the miles traveled. I suspect that is the real reason we are not using flying cars too.
Check the FAQ section for the M400 model.
They look great. I wish I had one. I'd be streaking though the canyons near my house. What a rush!
I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars.
That isn't how businesses operate. They have these things solved before they start shoveling out large piles of cash to build factories, dirty or clean, in places that are FAR from their intended market.
If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars...
Therein lies the crux of the problem. I don't beleive they know enough about the technical problems they face before pronouncing that they will be on Mars by 2025. They don't know how much it will cost, yet they set an end date?
That is a bad business practice.
Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now.
Which is even more reason to find it suspect.
They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025.
That's a good bet. The technology will certainly be different in 20 years. But not enough to make this venture any less bullshit.
Other than the internet, software, and the speed of computers, how much is technology different than 1985? We still drive cars, right? Our primary space exploration vehicle is (or was) still the shuttle.
It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power).
Entirely unreasonable? No, but how likely? Not likely.
If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you.
Twenty years is just a few years.
Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.
Cars haven't changed much since they were invented. They have gotten more efficient and faster, but they still use four wheels and a steering wheel. They still burn fossil fuels.
If you are considering the minor but important changes that have happened to cars as being a tremendous shift in personal transportation, then I can see how you would get the idea that the Mars venture could be possible.
But considering the HUGH technological challenges, much less the basic science questions yet to be answered, as being insignificant in a twenty year timeframe, then by all means, ship them your money.
Mine is staying in less speculative ventures.
It really doesn't matter, because they've already developed and implemented a method to make a profit by seperating the bond between a fool and his money.
I hope they didn't try to patent their method. I think Enron has prior art.
Ahhh yes, and computers are so big nobody will ever have on in their home.
And we will have flying cars by the year 2000 (claim made circa 1950).
The number of futuristic claims that have been busted far exceed those claim that were underestimated and came true.
My point is, reaching orbit is going to get cheaper, one way or the other
Possibly. But to formulate a business plan on the slimest of possibilities sounds like a scam. We might be able to levitate the stuff into orbit; want to invest?
And Gerald Bull was killed in Belgium because of his obsession with building his space cannon. I don't think I want to end up like ol' Gerald.
Not just mining, but think about manufacturing processes.
Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?
That is the same problem that faces these folks who want to move far away from civilization here on the EARTH. They pick some lonely stretch of highway, put a trailer on the side of the road, and open up a store. The number of potential customers is 5 per month. They wonder silently why they are going broke.
This plot is right out of the Martian Chronicles.
As for energy, there are the obvious sources (like nuclear or solar).
1) No one knows how much uranium exists on Mars, much less where it is.
2) The amount of solar radiation hitting Mars is less than Earth.
Not enough power to make shit for people who aren't around to buy it.
Sorry, but this is just a pure business scam.
All of these future claims are just investment ballons floated to fleece the easily duped. There are plenty of technological problems associated with mining Mars including lifting the mined material off the surface. Bob Park wrote in his book "Voodoo Science" that it would cost more than $800USD to put ~$300USD of gold into orbit. His conclusion was that if gold were available in low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't pay to go get it. That is the first thing they teach in an economic geology course.
The materials on Mars are no different than here on Earth, only the abundances are different. So you mine a bunch of aluminosilicates and then what? Do these people realize how much energy it takes to break those bonds? Where is their proposed power source? The amount of solar energy reaching Mars is less than here on Earth. I hope they weren't counting on that source. Nuclear energy might be useful, but I don't know of anyone who has done a uranium assay of Martian ores. Are we going to ship power to Mars? How is that cost effective?
Unless these people have gone through a complete analysis of what it costs to go to Mars then I can't see how any of them can make any claim of profitability, let alone put a target date on their venture.