It's not the calculating equipment they're paying for that's so expensive. It's labor, tooling, new signs/materials, and other overhead.
You have to pay someone to train everyone else on the new system and make sure they can do it properly. You have to pay someone to sit down and do the conversion. You have to pay someone to check that engineer's conversions, and the drawing in general. You have to pay someone to approve the drawing, and keep track of all the changes. You have to pay someone to update your vault/stored data. You have to pay someone to go around and change all of the data placards, signs, labels, and other equipment. You have to pay someone to remake some particular parts to the new standard. You may have to pay someone to convert drawings in older formats to the current CAD standard, in addition to just updating the units.
Decoys aren't nearly as effective or useful as they're hyped to be. Simple devices like chaff, and some inflatable decoys might be effective above atmosphere, but they'll quickly be left behind once you hit even very high altitudes. At that point, you need a decoy that can simulate the radar, infrared, and ballistic characteristics of a real warhead. That means you need about the same size, shape, mass, and IR signature. And once you get to that point, you might as well just use a real warhead instead of taking up a big chunk of valuable mass for a decoy--assuming, of course, that there aren't artificial limits (like treaties) on warhead numbers.
Also, MIRV busses need to deploy the warheads fairly low in order to get high accuracy. That puts the undeployed bus within range of some interceptors, meaning you can get multiple kills with one shot if done correctly.
Again, the problem is made much simpler with the use of nuclear-tipped interceptors. Kinetic kill ones may work for a limited system intended to defend against small-scale attacks or accidental launches, but they aren't by any means an invincible "Star Wars"-style shield.
Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam
on
Hitler's Stealth Fighter
·
· Score: 4, Informative
To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon. It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.
Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous. Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft. But all of this was a trial-and-error process. We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71. However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we had
A. The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).
B. The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.
C. The control technology to make such shapes flyable.
And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity. It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.
Really, once the booster kicks off, ICBM warheads are pretty predictable. Given a powerful enough radar and good coverage, you can predict their general impact point well in advance, since the warheads are simply ballistic--they don't maneuver.
Also note that working terminal-phase interceptors (ie, warhead-killers) were in service in the early 70s. They just happened to be nuclear-tipped themselves. Kinetic-kill (ie, direct physical impact) is a little trickier.
Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.
Umm, not quite. The N-1M, N-9M, YB-35, and YB-49 were all flying wings developed and flown well before the advent of computerized flight controls. All of them were naturally stable to varying degrees, with yaw stability (rotation about the vertical axis) often being weak and poorly damped, but still positive.
So flying wings can be made stable without computers. But having computerized controls may buy you other advantages (better payload or less trim drag, for example).
every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.
Not exactly. You will never be invisible, and stealth technology/employment is a lot more complicated than "we'll just be invisible". Even today, remaining undetected until past the threat is a fairly well-used technique. Just look at the F-22. And even if your airframe isn't fully-LO, you see a lot of emphasis on reducing frontal RCS. The B-1, Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet all use some degree of RCS reduction, which buys them that much more time to get in close. Modern cruise missiles use the same principle.
Interestingly enough, raw speed can buy you some of the same advantages. Go fast enough and high enough, and the defenses just won't have enough time to react, even if you're lit up like a billboard.
Pretty much. Still, however connivingly and backhandedly twisted the reasoning, they at least tried to pay lip service to following the Constitution. Now they just don't give a shit.
As I understand it, it was a four-step process that went something like this:
Step 1: Congress can regulate pot nationwide because it is something that could possibly be traded across state borders.
Step 2: Since Congress couldn't outright ban it, they regulated it instead--pot was classified as a "controlled substance" that required a federal tax stamp to trade or acquire.
Step 3: Simply refuse to issue tax stamps. Ergo, de facto ban.
Step 4: Profit!
This same tactic was adopted and used to enable de facto bans of other things, too, like NFA weapons (short-barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, machine guns). They couldn't ban them outright, so they required a tax stamp to build or transfer ownership, and made the tax very high for the time ($200 in 1934).
the reason we helped them had absolutely zilch to do with altruism or genuine interest in their welfare or in the principles of democracy or anything high-minded, and instead had everything to do with our own self interest with complete disregard for how things turned out for them provided we got what we wanted
News flash: that's all countries have ever done. Countries do not act out of genuine altruism. Friends, neighbors, people in general might... but countries do not--especially if doing so is harmful to that self-interest. Only recently (relative to human history) have we seen the first truly "humanitarian" actions by nations; see relief efforts after the tsunami, Katrina, etc.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that acting in pure self-interest is by far the rule for nation-states, not the exception.
No, no, no... you've got it all wrong. See, there's the possibility that you might jaywalk across state lines while carrying items to be sold. Therefore, jaywalking falls under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, and federal regulation applies to all street crossings and incidents of jaywalking.
To be completely fair, in most cars you can move the parking brake handle far enough to close the "parking brake engaged" microswitch without actually applying the brakes. It's just like the regular brakes; the taillights are set to come on with any pedal displacement whatsoever, whereas brake application itself usually takes a little bit more.
So no, he's probably not actually applying the brakes as he drives. Doesn't make it smart, though.
Now, I'm a fan of small government and a general "hands-off" policy. But there are reasons why we don't get rid of things like basic food regulations, safety regs for airlines and buses, and really, market regulations in general. Those reasons are rooted in the basic flaws of the free market: lack of information, and externalities. I'll play a "devil's advocate" for a minute.
Let's say you completely deregulated the airline system, and got rid of all FAA safety and certification regulations. Let's also say you cleared the market out, and started up ten new airlines. Some are safe, some are not. But how do you know which one's which? The average person without aviation experience or an engineering degree can't make an informed judgment because he doesn't know anything about it, and he doesn't have the time or knowledge to learn all about it, inspect the facilities, measure competency of the employees, etc. If we waited for incidents and accidents to happen to judge the relative safety of these airlines, people will die--and as a society, we have generally decided that having the general population test products with their lives is a bad thing (except in very specific circumstances like clinical trials). We've also decided that the penalty for doing so shouldn't just be "lose your business". It's one of those tradeoff-for-living-in-civilization things.
Further, the relative safety of an airline does not affect just the paying customers, but also everyone else under the aircraft's flight path. Someone who wants no part of the airline's business can still be killed by it. Diseases from contaminated food may spread to other people. Bad medical providers can hinder, or even actively reverse, efforts to deal with widespread public health emergencies. There's an old saying about a lot of FAA requirements having being "written in blood"; design, maintenance, and operational safety standards often come about only after accidents, and many times the operators and manufacturers have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance.
Finally, private analysis groups may work well for evaluating, say, consumer electronics, but they lack (among other things) the accountability of a government group like the FAA. It's one thing if the standards board screws up and your washing machine turns out to be a piece of crap; it's another when the standards board screws up and people die. Private groups are merely accountable to their shareholders; government ones are (at least in theory) accountable to everyone. Agencies like the FAA and FDA may have their own problems (don't even get me started on the FAA), but when you're dealing with matters of public safety and health, they're the best we've come up with so far.
So, what are they going to do if you take the initiative? File a union grievance
No, they'll probably prosecute you. We had a case just recently where a guy's truck was stolen; he encountered it later that day and gave chase, with the police on the phone. They didn't give a shit until he said "oh, and once they stop I'm going to pull my shotgun out and hold them for you". That got them to respond real quick.
I'm not saying it's right to just have to write off stolen property... but quite frankly, I don't want somebody getting hurt and then suing my ass claiming I told them to take matters into their own hands.
The real issue would be getting the police to care in the first place. They often have bigger things to worry about than random petty thieves; property crimes are probably pretty low on the priority list (unless someone got hurt in the process). They might write up a report declaring it stolen, and put it on a "stolen goods" list, and advise you to call your phone company and get the phone canceled... but unless they're really, really bored, they aren't going to go after it.
Chasing it yourself can be pretty stupid; confronting the thief is beyond idiocy. I'm all for citizens reacting in self-defense when threatened with immediate bodily harm--but that doesn't excuse doing so for mere property crimes, or vigilantism. Chasing criminals and stolen property is the job of the police. One might justify following discreetly and calling in the police from a safe distance, but walking up to a known criminal and saying "hey dude, you stole my phone!" is just plain stupid.
Battery tech has improved, but the computer manufacturers use that extra ability to run more stuff. It's just like how computers don't seem to work any faster than they did ten years ago--advances in memory and processor power get eaten up by bloated software and additional "features". And 4-5 hours seems to be what most people consider acceptable; few are willing to trade off power, screen size/brightness, features, etc. for longer built-in battery life.
Getting enough energy to achieve orbit is merely a matter of money and engineering. You know it's solvable, it just takes work.
Government red tape is another matter, because governments (particularly bureaucracies like the FAA and elected officials) tend to act in irrational ways. Convincing them to allow $activity can be quite hard, if not impossible.
I'd argue that, even bigger than government, humanity's shortsightedness is probably an obstacle. Nobody wants to invest in space, because they aren't going to get a quick return. They might not see a return for 15 or 20 years. Why invest in that when the latest internet startup or "green" company is offering returns in the near term?
Tell me again why it's better to have your telescopes stuck in a gravity well that's expensive to get in and out of, where they'll be constantly exposed to electrostatic lunar dust and not able to readily angle in any direction, rather than just in orbit?
For one thing, maintenance is easier with gravity. And if you can seal off the area and add atmosphere, your techs can work in shirtsleeves instead of bulky, restrictive suits. They'll work faster, longer, and more comfortably, and can respond quickly in case of problems, rather than having to schedule and launch a flight each time something breaks. Data storage and relay will also probably have higher bandwith because you have better computing and power resources. One telescope alone might not justify a lunar base, but several might. And if you already have a base, adding a telescope is rather trivial at that point.
Perhaps the biggest benefit would come in the field of radio astronomy. On the back side of the moon, you're essentially isolated from all the radio noise emanating from earth and low orbit.
Fuel itself isn't expensive... but the fallout from having to carry a lot of it is. Your vehicle gets bigger, you need more exotic materials, you spend a lot of effort trying to trim off every ounce of unneeded mass, because everything snowballs. Carrying more weight? Well, you need more fuel. More fuel requires a bigger structure, which means more weight, which means more powerful engines, which means more weight, which means more fuel... and so on.
The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space. Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.
I am compelled to disagree with this.
There are plenty of compelling reasons to go into space:
Growth of the species - Humanity is expanding in population very quickly. Eventually, assuming that holds, the planet will reach the point where sustaining that population is impossible, even with advances in technology. Your choices, then, are either to limit/reduce the population (sterilization, limitations on childbearing, war, disease, organized extermination, etc) or expand off the planet. The second option seems a little more friendly and ethical.
Survival of the species - There are several things which can cause the population to be essentially wiped out. Asteroid impacts, war, deadly pandemics, biowarfare (which I personally consider the greatest threat at the moment), and so on. It's possible that some may survive these things by digging deep underground, but I doubt enough infrastructure and population will survive to maintain society as we know it. The best long-term solution I can see is to expand off-planet and establish self-sustaining colonies. You don't keep all of your company's data and server hardware in one location, do you? The same should hold with humanity as a whole.
Additional resources - This fits with the first point. There is only so much stuff available to us on this planet. Whether we use it all up, or decide to preserve it, we will eventually reach the point where we can't use any more. What are we to do at that point? Well, I see a whole bunch of stuff sitting up in space just waiting to be used. Now before anyone starts, I am not promoting the "strip earth bare and trash it, then move on" approach. Instead, I'm promoting the "let's make use of all those barren rocks out there so we don't have to trash earth" approach.
Overall, unless we're going to take that self-ridiculing, defeatist position that humanity should draw down into a little ball and live the remainder of its existence shut in from the universe as a whole, like a pathetic and sick individual afraid to even get out of bed*, we will have to go into space eventually. It's just a matter of time. The only question is "when?"
Some will argue that it's too expensive, that we should wait until we have better technology. But how will we get that technology in the first place? It doesn't just fall into your lap one afternoon; you have to work for it. Imagine if we'd decided 100 years ago that trying to develop airplanes was stupid, that airplanes at the time were too dangerous and impractical, and that we should wait until we had technology like the 777 oir A380... I'll tell you right now, we probably wouldn't be to that point for a couple hundred more years. You don't learn how to build entirely new stuff or do new things by sitting around dreaming about it or making powerpoint charts... you learn by doing that stuff as best you can, learning from your mistakes, and doing it again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Yes, doing it is expensive. But it's worth it. The only reason it seems like it's not is that the payoff takes a little longer to come. Corporations don't undertake it because the shareholders probably won't see the benefit within their lifetimes. Governments don't do it because they don't think beyond the next election. Joe Public doesn't think about it because his attention span lasts for 20 seconds and all he's interested in is what keeps him entertained. The benefit is there, but it might be a few generations before it's realized.
Remember, too, that money spent on developing this stuff isn't just launched away into the sun or something. It stays on earth, paying the engineers and mechanics and managagers (spit) that work on it. It fosters a need for more engineers and mechanics, driving bet
In other countries, certain things (eg healthcare) are regarded as a right everyone has (akin to freedom of speech in the US - which conveniently costs nothing),
There's a fundamental difference between those two examples.
Negative rights, like freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search, are protections of things you already have. They are things which are truly free--as you point out, it costs me nothing to speak my mind--and you can exercise them at any time, even if nobody else is around.
Positive rights, like the "right to health care" or the "right to an education" are different. They are not free. In order for you to have your "right" to health care, someobdy else must provide it for you--and claiming it's a "right" implies that you can force them to provide that service to you. Also remember that someone else has to pay for that health care; does that give you the right to take that money from them by force, even if they don't want to pay?
You must present a photo ID and signature for any transaction
Please pick something besides signature. It's mostly useless for real comparison, and some of us can't get a consistent one--it looks different every time.
I would be extremely wary about including any "positive" rights in a constitution. The temptation is very strong for people to start including all kinds of things they think of as "basic rights", but without any reasonable way to accommodate that.
See, it's one thing to argue that the government may not restrict the press; it's another to argue that the government must supply them with the ink. Of course, denying them the ink is a violation of even the first construction. Similarly, it's one thing to prohibit the government from making any barriers or prohibitions regarding internet access; it's another to say that the government must provide it to you--which is another way of saying your fellow people. Because if you have a right to a house, that means that (a) your fellow citizens have to pay for it if you don't, and (b) somebody has to build it. If you have a right to a cup of coffee in the morning (absurd, but just for discussion), it means that somebody has to grow the beans, and someone has to make the coffee, and someone has to pay for all that--and since it's a government-guaranteed right, the government will use force to make them do so if they refuse.
IMO, protections of rights should fall out starting from the most basic of things. And I would make declarations of such rights explicitly un-repealable, even if the rest of the constitution might be. Put them in the clearest, simplest language that you can, and avoid any possibly confusing phrases like the militia clause. Include justification and reasoning, if you want, but be careful that you don't limit yourself.
-Right to life. Government can't take it from you, and others can't either. Also, should include the means to defend that right.
-Right to property and the fruits of one's labor. No arbitrary restrictions on what I own, no seizure without due process, etc.
-Right to liberty. Freedom of speech and expression, religion, association, trade, etc. No imprisonment without due process, no slavery or conscription, etc.
-Right to privacy. Protection against search without due process, protection of one's records, prohibition against quartering of troops, etc.
As others have said, clearly delineate the government's powers, and provide for sanction of those who try to violate it.
geek-thinking high schooler can put an entire development package, complete with web server and database, on a 2 GB stick and have huge amounts of room for code monkey play. How could any kid interested in science or engineering resist this?
Err, maybe they'd resist it because they just don't care about programming? You're still thinking inside the box of a CS person here. Just because it's easy to get all of that programming now doesn't mean the kids are going to be interested in it. They're likely to be spending that time doing something else that's interesting to them--maybe taking flying lessons or building model airplanes (for the aero guys), working on cars (for the mechanical engineers), or working a summer job in the construction field (target^H^H^H^H^H^Hcivil engineers).
I'm a recent college graduate (got out two years ago); went to Georgia Tech. I still keep in touch with several friends still attending, and though them meet a lot of the freshmen coming in. Very few of the non-CS majors have any kind of programming experience at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the calculating equipment they're paying for that's so expensive. It's labor, tooling, new signs/materials, and other overhead.
You have to pay someone to train everyone else on the new system and make sure they can do it properly.
You have to pay someone to sit down and do the conversion.
You have to pay someone to check that engineer's conversions, and the drawing in general.
You have to pay someone to approve the drawing, and keep track of all the changes.
You have to pay someone to update your vault/stored data.
You have to pay someone to go around and change all of the data placards, signs, labels, and other equipment.
You have to pay someone to remake some particular parts to the new standard.
You may have to pay someone to convert drawings in older formats to the current CAD standard, in addition to just updating the units.
Decoys aren't nearly as effective or useful as they're hyped to be. Simple devices like chaff, and some inflatable decoys might be effective above atmosphere, but they'll quickly be left behind once you hit even very high altitudes. At that point, you need a decoy that can simulate the radar, infrared, and ballistic characteristics of a real warhead. That means you need about the same size, shape, mass, and IR signature. And once you get to that point, you might as well just use a real warhead instead of taking up a big chunk of valuable mass for a decoy--assuming, of course, that there aren't artificial limits (like treaties) on warhead numbers.
Also, MIRV busses need to deploy the warheads fairly low in order to get high accuracy. That puts the undeployed bus within range of some interceptors, meaning you can get multiple kills with one shot if done correctly.
Again, the problem is made much simpler with the use of nuclear-tipped interceptors. Kinetic kill ones may work for a limited system intended to defend against small-scale attacks or accidental launches, but they aren't by any means an invincible "Star Wars"-style shield.
To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon. It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.
Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous. Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft. But all of this was a trial-and-error process. We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71. However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we had
A. The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).
B. The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.
C. The control technology to make such shapes flyable.
And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity. It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.
Theoretically.
Really, once the booster kicks off, ICBM warheads are pretty predictable. Given a powerful enough radar and good coverage, you can predict their general impact point well in advance, since the warheads are simply ballistic--they don't maneuver.
Also note that working terminal-phase interceptors (ie, warhead-killers) were in service in the early 70s. They just happened to be nuclear-tipped themselves. Kinetic-kill (ie, direct physical impact) is a little trickier.
Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.
Umm, not quite. The N-1M, N-9M, YB-35, and YB-49 were all flying wings developed and flown well before the advent of computerized flight controls. All of them were naturally stable to varying degrees, with yaw stability (rotation about the vertical axis) often being weak and poorly damped, but still positive.
So flying wings can be made stable without computers. But having computerized controls may buy you other advantages (better payload or less trim drag, for example).
every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.
Not exactly. You will never be invisible, and stealth technology/employment is a lot more complicated than "we'll just be invisible". Even today, remaining undetected until past the threat is a fairly well-used technique. Just look at the F-22. And even if your airframe isn't fully-LO, you see a lot of emphasis on reducing frontal RCS. The B-1, Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet all use some degree of RCS reduction, which buys them that much more time to get in close. Modern cruise missiles use the same principle.
Interestingly enough, raw speed can buy you some of the same advantages. Go fast enough and high enough, and the defenses just won't have enough time to react, even if you're lit up like a billboard.
Pretty much. Still, however connivingly and backhandedly twisted the reasoning, they at least tried to pay lip service to following the Constitution. Now they just don't give a shit.
As I understand it, it was a four-step process that went something like this:
Step 1: Congress can regulate pot nationwide because it is something that could possibly be traded across state borders.
Step 2: Since Congress couldn't outright ban it, they regulated it instead--pot was classified as a "controlled substance" that required a federal tax stamp to trade or acquire.
Step 3: Simply refuse to issue tax stamps. Ergo, de facto ban.
Step 4: Profit!
This same tactic was adopted and used to enable de facto bans of other things, too, like NFA weapons (short-barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, machine guns). They couldn't ban them outright, so they required a tax stamp to build or transfer ownership, and made the tax very high for the time ($200 in 1934).
the reason we helped them had absolutely zilch to do with altruism or genuine interest in their welfare or in the principles of democracy or anything high-minded, and instead had everything to do with our own self interest with complete disregard for how things turned out for them provided we got what we wanted
News flash: that's all countries have ever done. Countries do not act out of genuine altruism. Friends, neighbors, people in general might... but countries do not--especially if doing so is harmful to that self-interest. Only recently (relative to human history) have we seen the first truly "humanitarian" actions by nations; see relief efforts after the tsunami, Katrina, etc.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that acting in pure self-interest is by far the rule for nation-states, not the exception.
No, no, no... you've got it all wrong. See, there's the possibility that you might jaywalk across state lines while carrying items to be sold. Therefore, jaywalking falls under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, and federal regulation applies to all street crossings and incidents of jaywalking.
To be completely fair, in most cars you can move the parking brake handle far enough to close the "parking brake engaged" microswitch without actually applying the brakes. It's just like the regular brakes; the taillights are set to come on with any pedal displacement whatsoever, whereas brake application itself usually takes a little bit more.
So no, he's probably not actually applying the brakes as he drives. Doesn't make it smart, though.
Now, I'm a fan of small government and a general "hands-off" policy. But there are reasons why we don't get rid of things like basic food regulations, safety regs for airlines and buses, and really, market regulations in general. Those reasons are rooted in the basic flaws of the free market: lack of information, and externalities. I'll play a "devil's advocate" for a minute.
Let's say you completely deregulated the airline system, and got rid of all FAA safety and certification regulations. Let's also say you cleared the market out, and started up ten new airlines. Some are safe, some are not. But how do you know which one's which? The average person without aviation experience or an engineering degree can't make an informed judgment because he doesn't know anything about it, and he doesn't have the time or knowledge to learn all about it, inspect the facilities, measure competency of the employees, etc. If we waited for incidents and accidents to happen to judge the relative safety of these airlines, people will die--and as a society, we have generally decided that having the general population test products with their lives is a bad thing (except in very specific circumstances like clinical trials). We've also decided that the penalty for doing so shouldn't just be "lose your business". It's one of those tradeoff-for-living-in-civilization things.
Further, the relative safety of an airline does not affect just the paying customers, but also everyone else under the aircraft's flight path. Someone who wants no part of the airline's business can still be killed by it. Diseases from contaminated food may spread to other people. Bad medical providers can hinder, or even actively reverse, efforts to deal with widespread public health emergencies. There's an old saying about a lot of FAA requirements having being "written in blood"; design, maintenance, and operational safety standards often come about only after accidents, and many times the operators and manufacturers have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance.
Finally, private analysis groups may work well for evaluating, say, consumer electronics, but they lack (among other things) the accountability of a government group like the FAA. It's one thing if the standards board screws up and your washing machine turns out to be a piece of crap; it's another when the standards board screws up and people die. Private groups are merely accountable to their shareholders; government ones are (at least in theory) accountable to everyone. Agencies like the FAA and FDA may have their own problems (don't even get me started on the FAA), but when you're dealing with matters of public safety and health, they're the best we've come up with so far.
So, what are they going to do if you take the initiative? File a union grievance
No, they'll probably prosecute you. We had a case just recently where a guy's truck was stolen; he encountered it later that day and gave chase, with the police on the phone. They didn't give a shit until he said "oh, and once they stop I'm going to pull my shotgun out and hold them for you". That got them to respond real quick.
I'm not saying it's right to just have to write off stolen property... but quite frankly, I don't want somebody getting hurt and then suing my ass claiming I told them to take matters into their own hands.
The real issue would be getting the police to care in the first place. They often have bigger things to worry about than random petty thieves; property crimes are probably pretty low on the priority list (unless someone got hurt in the process). They might write up a report declaring it stolen, and put it on a "stolen goods" list, and advise you to call your phone company and get the phone canceled... but unless they're really, really bored, they aren't going to go after it.
Chasing it yourself can be pretty stupid; confronting the thief is beyond idiocy. I'm all for citizens reacting in self-defense when threatened with immediate bodily harm--but that doesn't excuse doing so for mere property crimes, or vigilantism. Chasing criminals and stolen property is the job of the police. One might justify following discreetly and calling in the police from a safe distance, but walking up to a known criminal and saying "hey dude, you stole my phone!" is just plain stupid.
Battery tech has improved, but the computer manufacturers use that extra ability to run more stuff. It's just like how computers don't seem to work any faster than they did ten years ago--advances in memory and processor power get eaten up by bloated software and additional "features". And 4-5 hours seems to be what most people consider acceptable; few are willing to trade off power, screen size/brightness, features, etc. for longer built-in battery life.
Getting enough energy to achieve orbit is merely a matter of money and engineering. You know it's solvable, it just takes work.
Government red tape is another matter, because governments (particularly bureaucracies like the FAA and elected officials) tend to act in irrational ways. Convincing them to allow $activity can be quite hard, if not impossible.
I'd argue that, even bigger than government, humanity's shortsightedness is probably an obstacle. Nobody wants to invest in space, because they aren't going to get a quick return. They might not see a return for 15 or 20 years. Why invest in that when the latest internet startup or "green" company is offering returns in the near term?
Tell me again why it's better to have your telescopes stuck in a gravity well that's expensive to get in and out of, where they'll be constantly exposed to electrostatic lunar dust and not able to readily angle in any direction, rather than just in orbit?
For one thing, maintenance is easier with gravity. And if you can seal off the area and add atmosphere, your techs can work in shirtsleeves instead of bulky, restrictive suits. They'll work faster, longer, and more comfortably, and can respond quickly in case of problems, rather than having to schedule and launch a flight each time something breaks. Data storage and relay will also probably have higher bandwith because you have better computing and power resources. One telescope alone might not justify a lunar base, but several might. And if you already have a base, adding a telescope is rather trivial at that point.
Perhaps the biggest benefit would come in the field of radio astronomy. On the back side of the moon, you're essentially isolated from all the radio noise emanating from earth and low orbit.
Fuel itself isn't expensive... but the fallout from having to carry a lot of it is. Your vehicle gets bigger, you need more exotic materials, you spend a lot of effort trying to trim off every ounce of unneeded mass, because everything snowballs. Carrying more weight? Well, you need more fuel. More fuel requires a bigger structure, which means more weight, which means more powerful engines, which means more weight, which means more fuel... and so on.
I think GP meant 24k MPH, as in 24,000. Really, the answer is closer to 17,000mph. 24,000 better approximates escape velocity.
The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.
Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.
I am compelled to disagree with this.
There are plenty of compelling reasons to go into space:
Growth of the species - Humanity is expanding in population very quickly. Eventually, assuming that holds, the planet will reach the point where sustaining that population is impossible, even with advances in technology. Your choices, then, are either to limit/reduce the population (sterilization, limitations on childbearing, war, disease, organized extermination, etc) or expand off the planet. The second option seems a little more friendly and ethical.
Survival of the species - There are several things which can cause the population to be essentially wiped out. Asteroid impacts, war, deadly pandemics, biowarfare (which I personally consider the greatest threat at the moment), and so on. It's possible that some may survive these things by digging deep underground, but I doubt enough infrastructure and population will survive to maintain society as we know it. The best long-term solution I can see is to expand off-planet and establish self-sustaining colonies. You don't keep all of your company's data and server hardware in one location, do you? The same should hold with humanity as a whole.
Additional resources - This fits with the first point. There is only so much stuff available to us on this planet. Whether we use it all up, or decide to preserve it, we will eventually reach the point where we can't use any more. What are we to do at that point? Well, I see a whole bunch of stuff sitting up in space just waiting to be used. Now before anyone starts, I am not promoting the "strip earth bare and trash it, then move on" approach. Instead, I'm promoting the "let's make use of all those barren rocks out there so we don't have to trash earth" approach.
Overall, unless we're going to take that self-ridiculing, defeatist position that humanity should draw down into a little ball and live the remainder of its existence shut in from the universe as a whole, like a pathetic and sick individual afraid to even get out of bed*, we will have to go into space eventually. It's just a matter of time. The only question is "when?"
Some will argue that it's too expensive, that we should wait until we have better technology. But how will we get that technology in the first place? It doesn't just fall into your lap one afternoon; you have to work for it. Imagine if we'd decided 100 years ago that trying to develop airplanes was stupid, that airplanes at the time were too dangerous and impractical, and that we should wait until we had technology like the 777 oir A380... I'll tell you right now, we probably wouldn't be to that point for a couple hundred more years. You don't learn how to build entirely new stuff or do new things by sitting around dreaming about it or making powerpoint charts... you learn by doing that stuff as best you can, learning from your mistakes, and doing it again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Yes, doing it is expensive. But it's worth it. The only reason it seems like it's not is that the payoff takes a little longer to come. Corporations don't undertake it because the shareholders probably won't see the benefit within their lifetimes. Governments don't do it because they don't think beyond the next election. Joe Public doesn't think about it because his attention span lasts for 20 seconds and all he's interested in is what keeps him entertained. The benefit is there, but it might be a few generations before it's realized.
Remember, too, that money spent on developing this stuff isn't just launched away into the sun or something. It stays on earth, paying the engineers and mechanics and managagers (spit) that work on it. It fosters a need for more engineers and mechanics, driving bet
In other countries, certain things (eg healthcare) are regarded as a right everyone has (akin to freedom of speech in the US - which conveniently costs nothing),
There's a fundamental difference between those two examples.
Negative rights, like freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search, are protections of things you already have. They are things which are truly free--as you point out, it costs me nothing to speak my mind--and you can exercise them at any time, even if nobody else is around.
Positive rights, like the "right to health care" or the "right to an education" are different. They are not free. In order for you to have your "right" to health care, someobdy else must provide it for you--and claiming it's a "right" implies that you can force them to provide that service to you. Also remember that someone else has to pay for that health care; does that give you the right to take that money from them by force, even if they don't want to pay?
You must present a photo ID and signature for any transaction
Please pick something besides signature. It's mostly useless for real comparison, and some of us can't get a consistent one--it looks different every time.
I would be extremely wary about including any "positive" rights in a constitution. The temptation is very strong for people to start including all kinds of things they think of as "basic rights", but without any reasonable way to accommodate that.
See, it's one thing to argue that the government may not restrict the press; it's another to argue that the government must supply them with the ink. Of course, denying them the ink is a violation of even the first construction. Similarly, it's one thing to prohibit the government from making any barriers or prohibitions regarding internet access; it's another to say that the government must provide it to you--which is another way of saying your fellow people. Because if you have a right to a house, that means that (a) your fellow citizens have to pay for it if you don't, and (b) somebody has to build it. If you have a right to a cup of coffee in the morning (absurd, but just for discussion), it means that somebody has to grow the beans, and someone has to make the coffee, and someone has to pay for all that--and since it's a government-guaranteed right, the government will use force to make them do so if they refuse.
IMO, protections of rights should fall out starting from the most basic of things. And I would make declarations of such rights explicitly un-repealable, even if the rest of the constitution might be. Put them in the clearest, simplest language that you can, and avoid any possibly confusing phrases like the militia clause. Include justification and reasoning, if you want, but be careful that you don't limit yourself.
-Right to life. Government can't take it from you, and others can't either. Also, should include the means to defend that right.
-Right to property and the fruits of one's labor. No arbitrary restrictions on what I own, no seizure without due process, etc.
-Right to liberty. Freedom of speech and expression, religion, association, trade, etc. No imprisonment without due process, no slavery or conscription, etc.
-Right to privacy. Protection against search without due process, protection of one's records, prohibition against quartering of troops, etc.
As others have said, clearly delineate the government's powers, and provide for sanction of those who try to violate it.
It's just an idea, bud. Nowhere did I say that was the best option, or the one I preferred. Just something I threw out for discussion...
geek-thinking high schooler can put an entire development package, complete with web server and database, on a 2 GB stick and have huge amounts of room for code monkey play. How could any kid interested in science or engineering resist this?
Err, maybe they'd resist it because they just don't care about programming? You're still thinking inside the box of a CS person here. Just because it's easy to get all of that programming now doesn't mean the kids are going to be interested in it. They're likely to be spending that time doing something else that's interesting to them--maybe taking flying lessons or building model airplanes (for the aero guys), working on cars (for the mechanical engineers), or working a summer job in the construction field (target^H^H^H^H^H^Hcivil engineers).
I'm a recent college graduate (got out two years ago); went to Georgia Tech. I still keep in touch with several friends still attending, and though them meet a lot of the freshmen coming in. Very few of the non-CS majors have any kind of programming experience at all.