Depends on what you want to accomplish. If all you care about is scientific knowledge, then I'd agree that robots give more science/$ (although we'll see how the balance shifts with the new HSF plans).
However, for me, the ultimate goal of space exploration isn't simply knowledge, its colonization. All the robots in the world won't accomplish the end goal for expanding the human species. While useful precursors and tools, in the end, we need to learn how people can live outside of our biosphere, and learn by doing. Antarctica, the Mars Society desert research station and the ISS are getting us there, but we need to keep pushing the boundaries. At least if one agrees that colonization is a worthwhile goal.
I choose the corporations i buy from, and the cost of switching platforms is relatively easy. However, I don't have nearly as much control over the government I live under, and emigrating to another country to switch is a much more difficult thing. Also, the penalties for buying from an oppressive tech company are much less significant than living under an oppressive government.
We'll hopefully have a lot more data this time next year as well. The GRAIL mission, which will map the gravity of the moon and get a better sense of it's internal structure, is launching in the fall.
Thanks for your detailed explanation. I'm supposed to start working on that mission soon, and this gave me a much better grasp on the background.
She's also been a major contributor to the debate over the space program (given that her husband is an astronaut).
More importantly though, this has the potential to be a major political event for the US right now, depending on the motivations of the perpetrator. Slashdot normally covers major political events (congressional elections, repeal of DADT, etc.) that aren't primarily techy or nerdy, and this is no different.
JPL never did any work with jet engines. It was founded between 1936 and 1941 (depending on what you consider founding) to work on rocket motors.
However, during that time, jet propulsion was all the rage (a 100mph difference would have been very important during WWII dog fights,) which led to the choice of names. Easier to get funding when you use the right buzzwords.
Well where are you then? Its never been an issue that ive seen in any part of the US I've spent much time in, so it seems like its pertinent information.
At any rate, it seems pretty clear that on the whole, at least in the US, licensing requirements for engineers are much laxer than requirements for doctors/dentists/lawyers, etc.
Except that most engineering jobs don're require a PE license.
My job title is "Navigation Engineer," I have a BS and MS in Aerospace Engineering, have responsibilities for systems worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and I identify myself as an engineer. I haven't bothered to take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, and I doubt I ever will. My father (a chemical engineer) worked for 20-30 years before going through the licensing process, and he only did that because he started his own business.
In the modern engineering job market, unless you wish to be self employed, a PE license is largely unnecessary. A degree from an ABET accredited university is usually sufficient.
I never claimed that war between the US and China isn't possible -- in fact strong nationalism on both sides and potential for embitterment as one power fears that it is falling and the other fears that the world order seeks to hold them back has a lot of potential for conflict.
What I do think is that the Cold War -- characterized by brinksmanship, proxy wars, containment and a partition of the world into blocks solely supporting one side or the other -- is not a good model for what the future holds. The instability and hostility inherent to that situation is bad for business, so if anything is bad enough to lead to closing off economic ties, its likely to lead to a real shooting war. Pre-WWI is probably the best model, although the different dynamics of 2 superpowers compared to multiple great powers and the addition of nuclear weapons limits the applicability of that analogy as well.
Well, the idea of an Ask Slashdot is to not only answer the original question, but to share related information that others might find useful. So while the original post may not be interested in an iPhone app, other readers may be. Personally, as a contented iOS user, I find iSSH a valuable tool for doing quick things on our main work cluster when I'm away, and if I didn't know about it I'd be glad someone mentioned it here.
Additionally, the semi-transparent keyboard technique they use partially mitigates the requirement for a physical keyboard, at least for me. The existence of a semi-transparent software keyboard may not be something the original poster considered and might appreciate knowing its an option (although I imagine they probably don't want an iOS device anyway).
A shooting war is certainly possible. I was actually thinking pre-WWI was the best model I could think of.
However, I'm not sure what different dynamics it being between two superpowers rather than multiple great powers will be -- the infamous train of treaty obligations that brought everyone into the war obviously doesn't really apply, so the analogy only goes so far.
Certainly a shooting war is a possibility, almost certainly fueled by nationalism as you suggest (although hopefully pragmatic business concerns will limit that as well).
However, if we can keep from shooting at each other the mutual economic benefits of stable relations should keep the brinksmanship and proxy wars characteristic of the cold war to a minimum -- plus China has no interest in spreading their governmental model so there is no need for containment.
Except the Chinese and American economies are too interlocked to repeat something like the that. Its hard to say what Sino-American relations will look like in the future, but I don't think the Cold War is a particularly good model.
Because there is no established leader in the digital streaming set-top box segment. I'm hoping to replace my HTPC with one of these small boxes in the near future (3-6 months maybe) and if the MS offering is good I'll consider it, even though I don't have any windows machines, or an xbox, or anything but a student copy of Office and an MS wireless mouse.
If they have something like the newer Zunes or WP7 quality (which have good reviews but suffer from being too late to have much impact), I'd say they have a good shot. I'm glad they're making an effort and hope they have a good offering, even if its not my eventual choice. Real competition in a segment too long smothered by cable monopolies and paranoid networks is a good thing.
Really? The party for a good, adaptable, expandable, extensible set top box has just started.
Personally, I think there are so many things out there right now about to take hold its hard to know what to do. Boxee Box and their new less ugly version they announced today are promising, but the software is missing important features. Apple TV has potential, but it really needs apps and get more content. Google TV needs to get the content providers on board. The consoles, Roku and the WD solutions are decent but have less refined UIs (I really like the computer Boxee interface).
I'm planning to keep my power hungry computer hooked up to the TV with boxee for another 3-6 months and then figure it out then -- showing up now to the party is just being fashionably late.
Most airliners are designed to fly as close to Mach 1 as they can. Usually around Mach 0.85, in the so-called transonic region. As you get closer to the speed of sound, some parts of the plane (tops of the wings in particular) begin to start tripping the sound barrier. This provides the practical upper barrier of what a subsonic aircraft can do.
As you reduce your speed, assuming engine and airframe efficiencies stay the same, your fuel economy improves as you reduce the effects of the transonic zone.
I'm not so sure. Ive always heard that the disadvantage of long commutes to most people is the time wasted rather than the money. Anecdotally, I chose to ride the bus rather than drive to work primarily because our parking situation is terrible and requires a longer walk and makes my whole commute quite a bit longer. The bus is quicker and less stressful . The fact that I only drive ~150 miles a month and spend almost no money on gas is just a nice secondary effect in my mind.
I'm also much more likely to go someplace I can take the train to, rather than deal with the hassle of LA traffic... If only the LA metro actually went anywhere.
Except as others have pointed out, this yields two incredibly important things:
1. More available hours to work. This means improved education (more time to study) and increased productivity. 2. More reliable communications - the solar power system allows villagers to charge cellular telephones and radios.
These things will improve the villagers abilities to do things for themselves rather than rely on aid dollars. Education and productivity produce wealth, not coal plants built by foreigners. With education and communication will come stability, and with stability the ability to create the solid infrastructure that will be important. Unfortunately I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.
I don't think theres any likely discovery that will get us moving.
Instead whats going to get us moving is getting it to the point that its cheaper. Hopefully with the albatross of the shuttle no longer around NASA's neck we'll create an infrastructure that makes it (relatively) easy to go anywhere in the solar system. Cheap transport to orbit, orbiting fuel depots and built-in-space spaceships that never enter the Earth's atmosphere -- sustainable exploration. Hopefully the administrations proposed NASA budget will get us to that point, even after congress got done with it. Only external geopolitics will up the NASA budget above $20B (in 2010 dollars) again, so if its going to happen in the mid-term future without hoping for a cold war, it has to be done this way.
Don't forget fuel. The least 'sci-fi' way to really open up the solar system is to use something like railguns to get fuel (and water too) to orbit for cheap, and get the crew and food to orbit using cheap things like the Dragon/Dream Chaser/Orion Lite capsules.
Most of the Saturn V stack was fuel. If we can get a reliable on-orbit refueling infrastructure in place, you could launch a moon landing on a Saturn I and do it easily within the current NASA budget. No heavy lift needed.
Thats not a normal person solution. I have boxee on a home media server, used to do mythtv but I moved out of a place where I had provided cable and without cable it wasn't worth the hassle. Its certainly possible, and its great once its set up, but it requires active maintenance.
My personal desires are for a single, low-power, easy-setup box that can: - Stream from Netflix - Stream from Hulu/Hulu Plus (to be legit it probably requires hulu plus) - Stream from Pandora - Run local/LAN-shared video and audio with good codec support - Extensible to help future proof it (i.e. easy to integrate some new streaming service) Additionally, I'm sure there are those who would appreciate some kind of DVR functionality in it as well.
So far the Boxee Box is supposed to be that, but between the hideous hardware, and the fact that they screwed up the interface and that it doesn't work with Hulu or Netflix anymore., its just not quite there. Maybe the next iteration. The Wii with a few more apps would do a decent job too (although the resolution might annoy some).
Sadly, its impossible to have a good, easy to use solution at this point, not due to technological challenges, (I think Google TV, Apple TV and Boxee all have a lot of potential), but because the content providers are scared to death of us not tuning in 8 eastern/7 central with everyone else. I suppose in time it will turn around, but for now its very frustrating for those of us who dont want to have to hack together 'creative' solutions.
Because those things are hard. He's the president, not a magician. He can't travel back in time and make sure that proper procedure is handling the capture of certain procedure that would make a prosecution possible, or convince other states and governments to take the prisoners instead. He can't use that time machine to give evidence of the lack of WMDs in Iraq and prevent attention from being diverted from Afghanistan, nor can he magically convince Pakistan to do a better job of policing their border. These are all messes that are believe it or not, difficult to fix now, regardless of how easy it might have been to avoid them at first.
What he can do, however, is use his position as commander in chief of the armed forces and leader of his party to eliminate a gratuitously bigoted policy who's time has come due to huge shifts in public opinion over the past 15 years. That seems like a good thing to me.
I understand that they would be capable of it en masse, although they would probably require some significant leadership (is there a significant expatriate community?). However, I don't think most North Korean peasants realize that. Their Kims have managed to cut them off from historical understanding and outside philosphies, the things that might plant the seeds of that possibility, and brainwashed them on top of it.
More than anything I take issue with the idea that "they should just revolt". Having never felt that I was in a situation where that was necessary, I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.
Have you ever mounted a rebellion while struggling to keep your family in food and shelter? Particularly after living in a closed off regime that has taught you its impossible? If so, I apologize, and will take your opinion to heart. Not having ever been in that situation, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I'd rather support a national policy of encouraging China to constructively engage the Kim regime instead of silently letting it get away with it's bullshit. Chinas support (or at least lack of condemnation) is a critical pillar of the NK system. Seems much more humane than advocating mass destruction on people who's main crime is livIng under am oppressive regime and being too meek to do anything about it.
When the government has created the most closed off nation on the planet, keeps thhe people in absolute poverty, and spreads insidious propaganda, this is a cruel position to take. With a small country, only one un-mined border with a country that only looks free in comparison, and a leadership thats come to understand the poverty of their people is key to keeping them in line, this kind of control is possible.
When a vast majority of the population struggles to feed their family, and has been actively brainwashed to believe they'd have no hope of overthrowing the government, I have trouble blaming the people for the actions of their leaders. You cant mount a rebellion when you're exhausted from day to day living.
Plus North Korea has no desire to actually cause this kind of thing, they just act out to try and get the international community to get them to stop by giving them legitimacy and aid. The Kims have no desire to die, they've got a great system set up for themselves.
Not many, because the people are kept in absolute poverty, are kept from any contact with the outside world, and their internal media feeds them stories of the near deity of their dear leader. Though the leaders feign insanity on a regular basis (the better to receive international recognition and aid), they have deftly managed to create a system that's probably the single most impervious to internal dissent of any nation.
It's easy to say that the people should rise up, but you and me are sitting here, well fed, relatively secure, and capable of debating the pros and cons of various views of life, government, faith, and discuss all kinds of "subversive" ideas we can read about from most any source. With little education and historical context, little outside contact, propaganda saying the leadership is extremely strong, and a life consisting of struggling form subsistance, there is little room for revolutionary thought.
Internal dissent may pose a great hope to deal with governmental oppression in places like Iran, china, south Asia, Africa, etc. (perhaps i should say the US as well to please the libertarian in us all). Unfortunately North Korea is incredibly well secured against this and change will depend on external factors to bring them a slight bit of prosperity despite their leadership, if not something more drastic. They certainly don't deserve a radiation poisoned death for the actions of their leadership.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on what you want to accomplish. If all you care about is scientific knowledge, then I'd agree that robots give more science/$ (although we'll see how the balance shifts with the new HSF plans).
However, for me, the ultimate goal of space exploration isn't simply knowledge, its colonization. All the robots in the world won't accomplish the end goal for expanding the human species. While useful precursors and tools, in the end, we need to learn how people can live outside of our biosphere, and learn by doing. Antarctica, the Mars Society desert research station and the ISS are getting us there, but we need to keep pushing the boundaries. At least if one agrees that colonization is a worthwhile goal.
I choose the corporations i buy from, and the cost of switching platforms is relatively easy. However, I don't have nearly as much control over the government I live under, and emigrating to another country to switch is a much more difficult thing. Also, the penalties for buying from an oppressive tech company are much less significant than living under an oppressive government.
Comparing one to the other is ridiculous.
We'll hopefully have a lot more data this time next year as well. The GRAIL mission, which will map the gravity of the moon and get a better sense of it's internal structure, is launching in the fall.
Thanks for your detailed explanation. I'm supposed to start working on that mission soon, and this gave me a much better grasp on the background.
She's also been a major contributor to the debate over the space program (given that her husband is an astronaut).
More importantly though, this has the potential to be a major political event for the US right now, depending on the motivations of the perpetrator. Slashdot normally covers major political events (congressional elections, repeal of DADT, etc.) that aren't primarily techy or nerdy, and this is no different.
JPL never did any work with jet engines. It was founded between 1936 and 1941 (depending on what you consider founding) to work on rocket motors.
However, during that time, jet propulsion was all the rage (a 100mph difference would have been very important during WWII dog fights,) which led to the choice of names. Easier to get funding when you use the right buzzwords.
Well where are you then? Its never been an issue that ive seen in any part of the US I've spent much time in, so it seems like its pertinent information.
At any rate, it seems pretty clear that on the whole, at least in the US, licensing requirements for engineers are much laxer than requirements for doctors/dentists/lawyers, etc.
Except that most engineering jobs don're require a PE license.
My job title is "Navigation Engineer," I have a BS and MS in Aerospace Engineering, have responsibilities for systems worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and I identify myself as an engineer. I haven't bothered to take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, and I doubt I ever will. My father (a chemical engineer) worked for 20-30 years before going through the licensing process, and he only did that because he started his own business.
In the modern engineering job market, unless you wish to be self employed, a PE license is largely unnecessary. A degree from an ABET accredited university is usually sufficient.
I never claimed that war between the US and China isn't possible -- in fact strong nationalism on both sides and potential for embitterment as one power fears that it is falling and the other fears that the world order seeks to hold them back has a lot of potential for conflict.
What I do think is that the Cold War -- characterized by brinksmanship, proxy wars, containment and a partition of the world into blocks solely supporting one side or the other -- is not a good model for what the future holds. The instability and hostility inherent to that situation is bad for business, so if anything is bad enough to lead to closing off economic ties, its likely to lead to a real shooting war. Pre-WWI is probably the best model, although the different dynamics of 2 superpowers compared to multiple great powers and the addition of nuclear weapons limits the applicability of that analogy as well.
Well, the idea of an Ask Slashdot is to not only answer the original question, but to share related information that others might find useful. So while the original post may not be interested in an iPhone app, other readers may be. Personally, as a contented iOS user, I find iSSH a valuable tool for doing quick things on our main work cluster when I'm away, and if I didn't know about it I'd be glad someone mentioned it here.
Additionally, the semi-transparent keyboard technique they use partially mitigates the requirement for a physical keyboard, at least for me. The existence of a semi-transparent software keyboard may not be something the original poster considered and might appreciate knowing its an option (although I imagine they probably don't want an iOS device anyway).
A shooting war is certainly possible. I was actually thinking pre-WWI was the best model I could think of.
However, I'm not sure what different dynamics it being between two superpowers rather than multiple great powers will be -- the infamous train of treaty obligations that brought everyone into the war obviously doesn't really apply, so the analogy only goes so far.
Certainly a shooting war is a possibility, almost certainly fueled by nationalism as you suggest (although hopefully pragmatic business concerns will limit that as well).
However, if we can keep from shooting at each other the mutual economic benefits of stable relations should keep the brinksmanship and proxy wars characteristic of the cold war to a minimum -- plus China has no interest in spreading their governmental model so there is no need for containment.
Except the Chinese and American economies are too interlocked to repeat something like the that. Its hard to say what Sino-American relations will look like in the future, but I don't think the Cold War is a particularly good model.
Because there is no established leader in the digital streaming set-top box segment. I'm hoping to replace my HTPC with one of these small boxes in the near future (3-6 months maybe) and if the MS offering is good I'll consider it, even though I don't have any windows machines, or an xbox, or anything but a student copy of Office and an MS wireless mouse.
If they have something like the newer Zunes or WP7 quality (which have good reviews but suffer from being too late to have much impact), I'd say they have a good shot. I'm glad they're making an effort and hope they have a good offering, even if its not my eventual choice. Real competition in a segment too long smothered by cable monopolies and paranoid networks is a good thing.
Really? The party for a good, adaptable, expandable, extensible set top box has just started.
Personally, I think there are so many things out there right now about to take hold its hard to know what to do. Boxee Box and their new less ugly version they announced today are promising, but the software is missing important features. Apple TV has potential, but it really needs apps and get more content. Google TV needs to get the content providers on board. The consoles, Roku and the WD solutions are decent but have less refined UIs (I really like the computer Boxee interface).
I'm planning to keep my power hungry computer hooked up to the TV with boxee for another 3-6 months and then figure it out then -- showing up now to the party is just being fashionably late.
Most airliners are designed to fly as close to Mach 1 as they can. Usually around Mach 0.85, in the so-called transonic region. As you get closer to the speed of sound, some parts of the plane (tops of the wings in particular) begin to start tripping the sound barrier. This provides the practical upper barrier of what a subsonic aircraft can do.
As you reduce your speed, assuming engine and airframe efficiencies stay the same, your fuel economy improves as you reduce the effects of the transonic zone.
I'm not so sure. Ive always heard that the disadvantage of long commutes to most people is the time wasted rather than the money. Anecdotally, I chose to ride the bus rather than drive to work primarily because our parking situation is terrible and requires a longer walk and makes my whole commute quite a bit longer. The bus is quicker and less stressful . The fact that I only drive ~150 miles a month and spend almost no money on gas is just a nice secondary effect in my mind.
I'm also much more likely to go someplace I can take the train to, rather than deal with the hassle of LA traffic... If only the LA metro actually went anywhere.
Except as others have pointed out, this yields two incredibly important things:
1. More available hours to work. This means improved education (more time to study) and increased productivity.
2. More reliable communications - the solar power system allows villagers to charge cellular telephones and radios.
These things will improve the villagers abilities to do things for themselves rather than rely on aid dollars. Education and productivity produce wealth, not coal plants built by foreigners. With education and communication will come stability, and with stability the ability to create the solid infrastructure that will be important. Unfortunately I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.
I don't think theres any likely discovery that will get us moving.
Instead whats going to get us moving is getting it to the point that its cheaper. Hopefully with the albatross of the shuttle no longer around NASA's neck we'll create an infrastructure that makes it (relatively) easy to go anywhere in the solar system. Cheap transport to orbit, orbiting fuel depots and built-in-space spaceships that never enter the Earth's atmosphere -- sustainable exploration. Hopefully the administrations proposed NASA budget will get us to that point, even after congress got done with it. Only external geopolitics will up the NASA budget above $20B (in 2010 dollars) again, so if its going to happen in the mid-term future without hoping for a cold war, it has to be done this way.
Don't forget fuel. The least 'sci-fi' way to really open up the solar system is to use something like railguns to get fuel (and water too) to orbit for cheap, and get the crew and food to orbit using cheap things like the Dragon/Dream Chaser/Orion Lite capsules.
Most of the Saturn V stack was fuel. If we can get a reliable on-orbit refueling infrastructure in place, you could launch a moon landing on a Saturn I and do it easily within the current NASA budget. No heavy lift needed.
Thats not a normal person solution. I have boxee on a home media server, used to do mythtv but I moved out of a place where I had provided cable and without cable it wasn't worth the hassle. Its certainly possible, and its great once its set up, but it requires active maintenance.
My personal desires are for a single, low-power, easy-setup box that can:
- Stream from Netflix
- Stream from Hulu/Hulu Plus (to be legit it probably requires hulu plus)
- Stream from Pandora
- Run local/LAN-shared video and audio with good codec support
- Extensible to help future proof it (i.e. easy to integrate some new streaming service)
Additionally, I'm sure there are those who would appreciate some kind of DVR functionality in it as well.
So far the Boxee Box is supposed to be that, but between the hideous hardware, and the fact that they screwed up the interface and that it doesn't work with Hulu or Netflix anymore., its just not quite there. Maybe the next iteration. The Wii with a few more apps would do a decent job too (although the resolution might annoy some).
Sadly, its impossible to have a good, easy to use solution at this point, not due to technological challenges, (I think Google TV, Apple TV and Boxee all have a lot of potential), but because the content providers are scared to death of us not tuning in 8 eastern/7 central with everyone else. I suppose in time it will turn around, but for now its very frustrating for those of us who dont want to have to hack together 'creative' solutions.
Because those things are hard. He's the president, not a magician. He can't travel back in time and make sure that proper procedure is handling the capture of certain procedure that would make a prosecution possible, or convince other states and governments to take the prisoners instead. He can't use that time machine to give evidence of the lack of WMDs in Iraq and prevent attention from being diverted from Afghanistan, nor can he magically convince Pakistan to do a better job of policing their border. These are all messes that are believe it or not, difficult to fix now, regardless of how easy it might have been to avoid them at first.
What he can do, however, is use his position as commander in chief of the armed forces and leader of his party to eliminate a gratuitously bigoted policy who's time has come due to huge shifts in public opinion over the past 15 years. That seems like a good thing to me.
I understand that they would be capable of it en masse, although they would probably require some significant leadership (is there a significant expatriate community?). However, I don't think most North Korean peasants realize that. Their Kims have managed to cut them off from historical understanding and outside philosphies, the things that might plant the seeds of that possibility, and brainwashed them on top of it.
More than anything I take issue with the idea that "they should just revolt". Having never felt that I was in a situation where that was necessary, I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.
Have you ever mounted a rebellion while struggling to keep your family in food and shelter? Particularly after living in a closed off regime that has taught you its impossible? If so, I apologize, and will take your opinion to heart. Not having ever been in that situation, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I'd rather support a national policy of encouraging China to constructively engage the Kim regime instead of silently letting it get away with it's bullshit. Chinas support (or at least lack of condemnation) is a critical pillar of the NK system. Seems much more humane than advocating mass destruction on people who's main crime is livIng under am oppressive regime and being too meek to do anything about it.
When the government has created the most closed off nation on the planet, keeps thhe people in absolute poverty, and spreads insidious propaganda, this is a cruel position to take. With a small country, only one un-mined border with a country that only looks free in comparison, and a leadership thats come to understand the poverty of their people is key to keeping them in line, this kind of control is possible.
When a vast majority of the population struggles to feed their family, and has been actively brainwashed to believe they'd have no hope of overthrowing the government, I have trouble blaming the people for the actions of their leaders. You cant mount a rebellion when you're exhausted from day to day living.
Plus North Korea has no desire to actually cause this kind of thing, they just act out to try and get the international community to get them to stop by giving them legitimacy and aid. The Kims have no desire to die, they've got a great system set up for themselves.
Not many, because the people are kept in absolute poverty, are kept from any contact with the outside world, and their internal media feeds them stories of the near deity of their dear leader. Though the leaders feign insanity on a regular basis (the better to receive international recognition and aid), they have deftly managed to create a system that's probably the single most impervious to internal dissent of any nation.
It's easy to say that the people should rise up, but you and me are sitting here, well fed, relatively secure, and capable of debating the pros and cons of various views of life, government, faith, and discuss all kinds of "subversive" ideas we can read about from most any source. With little education and historical context, little outside contact, propaganda saying the leadership is extremely strong, and a life consisting of struggling form subsistance, there is little room for revolutionary thought.
Internal dissent may pose a great hope to deal with governmental oppression in places like Iran, china, south Asia, Africa, etc. (perhaps i should say the US as well to please the libertarian in us all). Unfortunately North Korea is incredibly well secured against this and change will depend on external factors to bring them a slight bit of prosperity despite their leadership, if not something more drastic. They certainly don't deserve a radiation poisoned death for the actions of their leadership.