Time to let go of the white shirt/thin tie/pocket protector/black rimmed glasses look. T-shirts are the new uniform. Hair length is not a factor.
I know, I hate it too, but we are not far from everyone on the launch team Skyping in and being avatars on a plasma screen in front of the media videoconferencing system.
If that's accurate, then SpaceX is looking into a shutdown event, a LOT different than a destructive failure. The fairing imploding will either be the anticipated result, or a new issue to understand and resolve/document.
Shutdown may be accompanied by data, and there is a fix. Valves, pumps, all kinds of fairly well understood stuff to analyze and resolve. Destructive catastrophic failure would be much more disturbing.
So far, they seem to be doing at least as well as NASA did in the early days. Mercury was a real crap shoot, and early Saturn development was exciting to say the least. I filled a few scrapbooks with notes on those faiures. Fun times...
Somewhat, but you make an uncessary leap when you go from cable to 'local ISPs'.
My old home state of Maine has a competitive ISP that leases access to telco lines and regularly spanks both the incumbents and cable providers (or at least they were in 2006). Here in the Phoenix area, it's pretty much the cable provider and ILEC that own the wired business. There are niche players in stationary wireless, and of course the 3G/4G players.
We do have a competitive situation, though it is two players, and one leverages their all-in-one service while the other has a bit of a kludge. IF there were FTTH here, they could deliver the video and compete evenly.
The scarce resource, however, is NOT copper, or fiber, but pole and conduit (we have a lot of buried utility here including telco) space. These were old bargains, where municipalities granted exclusivity, sometimes because the first player in 'required' it (pledges of improved service in exchange for monopoly) or in a competitive situation the municipality offered exclusivity in exchange for concessions (mostly fees). If you open up the pole or pipe space, you make it possible to have a competitive environment.
My home in Mesa has two cable services. Some time in 2006-7 the secondary player gave up and sold out to the big guys. They built their own plant. But they lost. Now we have cable and DSL as the primary options. Tempe tried to build a municipal WiFi system, but the contractor was a failure, and the enconomics were flaky, giving it away downtown and then charging for it elsewhere, or something else similarly stupid.
In Maine, the ILECs were required by the MPUC to lease their networks at wholesale rates, effectively decoupling their copper from their services. It worked. This would allow us to consider the copper as the utility, and mirrors electrical utilities in many states, where supply and distribution are decoupled. I'm not sure it has changed much except the cost of the supply portion, and sometimes the source ('green' v non-'green').
My fear of limiting the utility to distribution is that we might extend the utility to routing etc. For cable systems, it is possible to offer more than one DOCSIS provider, but there are problems. In DSL, not nearly so simple, but by switching the local loop to one or another trunks, we have a way to offer more than one provider. But providers are what, routers and shapers? Connections to NAPS? Unlike TV, where channel lineup is a likely differentiator, what does my ISP offer me?
SO how do we give ISPs differentiators in a competitive environment?
The flaw in this is that 'early' means different things.
The Bells got into telephony early, and dominated. The Breakup tried to remedy the monopoly, and did so, though the aftermath was a new set of problems.
When cell service came to be, the government decided the Bells and Baby Bells would noobe allowed to dominate this market, so they created 'A' service and 'B' service, 'wireline' and 'non-wireline'. Does anyone remember which was which? And they oermitted CDMA and TDMA to slug it out. We now know TDMA as GSM, its successor.
Data service brought an entirely new set of options, and the telecoms were the logical leaders, going from slow speed leased lines to faster, and faster. Proprietary protocols, DDS2, T1/E1, and all the T3 and OC- speeds. SONET, MLPS, etc. The telecoms fought and lost the battle to keep their copper and fiber to themselves. But the CLECs failed to account for other players.
Cable companies jumped in and provided data service on their networks. Power companies toyed with it, but failed to deliver working solutions.
Today, Internet service is pretty much split into three providers in most areas, cable, telecom (DSL) and wireless. In the rural areas, the providers are either limited by range or nonexistent, but where service is avaialble, mostly it has 2-3 players. Please, before you flame me with the exceptions, it's generally true that cable reaches a little further than DSL, and wireless is generally limited to the cell footprint. Satellite is a poor quality solution, and is not germane to my examples. FIOS and other telecom or higher speed non-copper services only add competitors, though not many.
To turm Internet service into a utility in most of the US is to ignore the reality that there is a competitive market, and the utility model doesn;t seem to fit well, at least not to me.
BUT...
This is an issue of The Commons. And net neutrality is a disguised Commons issue.
If the Internet providers are still also providing other services, they have potential incentives to limit one in favor of the other. Case in point, cable services.
Video over the Internet is insanely popular for several reasons, but two come to mind as direct threats to cable providers: On-demand video, and non-real-time video.
On-demand video, like Netflix, competes directly with cable company movie channels, both the HBO model and on-demand/rental channels. this is revenue lost to them, and Netflix is literally eating their lunch.
Non-real-time video I think of as the Hulu model. While cable companies have DVR solutions, again Hulu takes the bread from their mouths. Direct competition.
BitTorrent is just another delivery method, with the added unpleasantness of rampant copyright violation, which then gets the cable companies in hot water with their bread and butter video providers.
Add in another factor - video is a bandwidth hog, at least more than even Flash gaming. Probably even PC gaming. This increases their network costs, and logically so, at every part of their network.
You could make the case that Internet service is a significant threat to the cable companies, yet they are stuck with being their own worst enemies, for now. too much money to turn down, at least at the moment.
Notice I haven't even mentioned the VOIP services they got into to scrape mor erevenue from their networks, and the threat of Skype etc, and the challenge of various videoconferencing solutions such as Facetime?
So video, to the cable provider, is a necessary and detested evil. The solutions? Traffic shaping, packet inspection, etc.serve to make the competitive services less useful, and discourage them. Bandwidth caps can nail Netflix and Hulu. Add speed caps, and the cable cos. can deal their competitors a blow. But users then might flee. To where? Well, DSL providers are not much better behaved. Any other provider with a relationship to broadcast media is also of divided loyaltes.
Well, IANAL, so I can apply common sense here, and this guy is in some trouble. One of my best lawyer friends, a prosecutor, shared with me once that she tends to distrust candidate jurors who are eager to serve. She just wants jurors who follow instructions and try to find the truth. Vigilantes never work out...
TMO is not always the driver when they don't offer boot unlockers. The manufacturers see that custom Android ROMs are a challenge to support (actually, unsupportable by them), so they resist letting us brick our phones with the latest zOMGTHIS ROM IS GREAT from who knows where. Your scorn is more accurately directed at the manufacturers. A lot of regional carriers also don't have the clout to get any perks from the manufacturers. This will help Metro subscribers in the end.
I've been a TMO use for 7 years. Can't say it's gotten worse when I get data speeds rising from 19KBto 12MB, texting from 200/mo to unlimited, and minutes from 300/mo to unlimited for the same money over that time. Yes, I pay more for the phone up front, but overall my service has improved, and despite a brief slip in customer care during the AT&T fiasco I'm happy with the service. Ask my wife how AT&T is for her iPhine plan, and she will bent about the rep attitudes, the 30% premium she pays for less service, and the inscrutible service problems here locally.
I don't think of the regional carriers as options because of my travel habits. And they don't try to sell to me.
My only question is, will Metro go GSM? LTE is not an issue, but I can't figure out if TMO will want to run both voice networks which pretty muich overlay each other in coverage. Is there a spectrum swap in the offing? Data capable spectrum is very dear now, and someone out there will make a deal.
So that would make him a witness, then, right? En expert witness, int he eyes of a jury with little knowlege of the matter, ie patent law?
Nice. If I ever serve on a jury, I'll be exerting all my limited faculties towards the evidence and judicial instructions, thank you, and not some other juror who's qualifications are essentially their personality.
And I hope the heck I never end up being judged by my peers.
Deposit? I've been a TMO customer for 7 years, never a deposit. They've unlocked phones for me no hassle, actually listened to me rant about dropped calls in specific locations, and are now working their way through finding the rogue tower in North Phoenix that is EDGE, just EDGE, no matter how hard I try to get HSDPA+ out of it. They do try.
My unlimited voice/txt/2GB data plan is $85/mo taxes and all. Last month I got to 1.87GB in a month by resetting my phone twice and reloading apps etc over 3G. UMTS or HSDPA+ run from 4-12MB down and 1-8MB up, depending on time of day and location. Coverage is less than most other carriers, so check carefully, and if possible have a subscriber over to your crib for dinner and drinks. And ask around your work how TMO users are doing.
My wife's AT&T iPhone plan is 700 mins/unl text/3GB data for about $109 taxes and all. Just enough difference that it;s annoying. She gets emails when data gets to 75% or so telling her to spend more money. The Apple tax is noticeable.
"Sure. And Obama had both the House and Senate for the first two years, he could have passed almost anything he wanted. The only reason that the healthcare bill almost didn't pass is because they didn't have enough Democrats to pass it!"
And stumbling past that, the healthcare bill was a HUGE distraction. It did not need to be done then, but we should be able to discern what is important to our President from that episode.
"Let's see, the film caused unrest..."
You got it right. Fakery.
"Economy.... do you think 4 years should be enough time (especially with a House and Senate on your side) to turn the economy around? I do. Two should be ample."
I'm not looking for a solution, just real progress. I don't see it.
"The banks... oky, you're uninformed here. The banks were regulated into having to create bad loans..."
You wren't thinking I was unformed, were you? This goes way back to the S&L scams, and the industry trying again to deregulate, and the various administrations trying to oblige in little ways, moderate ways, until key regulations were finally tossed aside. Not the bankers, so much, as the 'investment houses', who make money even when they lose yours.
"The thing is, the President IS accountable for all these things, because it is his responsibility to appoint the right people to get these things done. This president has proven himself to be ineffective at it. You could argue that Bush was ineffective at some of those same things, and I'd agree. But that was then, this is now."
Our President said he would 'fix it'. He not only hasn't, he's done a bunch of other things and not even attempted to fix core problems. Even discounting promises as purely electioneering, he's failed. Failed.
"it's so obvious! is there anything obama isn't responsible for?"
Yup.
The film caused all the unrest.
The economy is still Bush's fault. Either one, Doesn't really matter.
The banks are the Republicans' fault, collectively. They started it, and the whole financial industry precipitated all this.
Housing is a Republican problem too. Along with student loans. Same problem, but that's not at issue here. We are not really too involved in reality, just in avoiding holding our President accountable for a damned thing.
Because, after all, it was like that when he got there. It could be worse. Bush could have left it all for Obama to figure out. Oh,wait...
Actually, I would expect the corporate/educational sponsors to figure out how to get them turned around and put into high orbit while they figure out how to get the wayward samples to Earth for explotation.
Think 'Alien'. If there's a Ripley on board, we may survive.
So this is a good reason to commit to a manned mission to Mars, and permanent habitation on the Moon.
Bear with me. I am not advocating doing this on either celestial body.
First, a manned mission to Mars will teach us a lot about long-term operations in space, and this will come in handy.
Second, permanent presence on the Moon will teach us more about long-term operations, handy in this scenario:
- From the Moon, build a flying lab. In this lab, we can do long-term research into such genetics and biology. - If something bad happens, we will let the lab complete its flight into the Sun. While it's flying to oblivion, we can further study the problem. - When it reaches the Sun, our best available incinerator kills all. Hopefully we isolated the attendants, so they don't have to be sent to oblivion also.
None of this needs to touch Earth, or Mars, or really the Moon. For all I know, low to zero gravity is a benefit, but generating gravity is fairly simple, I think. Keeping the nasties from repopulating the Earth against our wishes, less so.I'll fix the gravity problem rather than the containment problem.
And I suspect there may be issues with containment in space also, so we have that to consider, but where do you want to fight that fight? On Long Island, or between Venus and the Sun?
SO, are such experiments worth a trillon or so, to start?
Or hire up a decent local firm to offer on-site support as a backup,either at a contracted rate or prepaid. If you're just sick with the flu, they can come in and do MAC or general AD stuff, etc. Certainly they can make your life tolerable by backstopping the simple stuff while you deal with critical issues as best you can.
Slashdot Mirror
I was 15 when Armstrong stepped off the LEM. I scrapbooked some of Mercury, all of Gemini, and Apollo. News clippings, magazine articles, notes.
IANARS. Sheesh, I'm not holding the keys to interplanetary glory, you sad miserable geese.
No. Mine.
Time to let go of the white shirt/thin tie/pocket protector/black rimmed glasses look. T-shirts are the new uniform. Hair length is not a factor.
I know, I hate it too, but we are not far from everyone on the launch team Skyping in and being avatars on a plasma screen in front of the media videoconferencing system.
If that's accurate, then SpaceX is looking into a shutdown event, a LOT different than a destructive failure. The fairing imploding will either be the anticipated result, or a new issue to understand and resolve/document.
Shutdown may be accompanied by data, and there is a fix. Valves, pumps, all kinds of fairly well understood stuff to analyze and resolve. Destructive catastrophic failure would be much more disturbing.
So far, they seem to be doing at least as well as NASA did in the early days. Mercury was a real crap shoot, and early Saturn development was exciting to say the least. I filled a few scrapbooks with notes on those faiures. Fun times...
Somewhat, but you make an uncessary leap when you go from cable to 'local ISPs'.
My old home state of Maine has a competitive ISP that leases access to telco lines and regularly spanks both the incumbents and cable providers (or at least they were in 2006). Here in the Phoenix area, it's pretty much the cable provider and ILEC that own the wired business. There are niche players in stationary wireless, and of course the 3G/4G players.
We do have a competitive situation, though it is two players, and one leverages their all-in-one service while the other has a bit of a kludge. IF there were FTTH here, they could deliver the video and compete evenly.
The scarce resource, however, is NOT copper, or fiber, but pole and conduit (we have a lot of buried utility here including telco) space. These were old bargains, where municipalities granted exclusivity, sometimes because the first player in 'required' it (pledges of improved service in exchange for monopoly) or in a competitive situation the municipality offered exclusivity in exchange for concessions (mostly fees). If you open up the pole or pipe space, you make it possible to have a competitive environment.
My home in Mesa has two cable services. Some time in 2006-7 the secondary player gave up and sold out to the big guys. They built their own plant. But they lost. Now we have cable and DSL as the primary options. Tempe tried to build a municipal WiFi system, but the contractor was a failure, and the enconomics were flaky, giving it away downtown and then charging for it elsewhere, or something else similarly stupid.
In Maine, the ILECs were required by the MPUC to lease their networks at wholesale rates, effectively decoupling their copper from their services. It worked. This would allow us to consider the copper as the utility, and mirrors electrical utilities in many states, where supply and distribution are decoupled. I'm not sure it has changed much except the cost of the supply portion, and sometimes the source ('green' v non-'green').
My fear of limiting the utility to distribution is that we might extend the utility to routing etc. For cable systems, it is possible to offer more than one DOCSIS provider, but there are problems. In DSL, not nearly so simple, but by switching the local loop to one or another trunks, we have a way to offer more than one provider. But providers are what, routers and shapers? Connections to NAPS? Unlike TV, where channel lineup is a likely differentiator, what does my ISP offer me?
SO how do we give ISPs differentiators in a competitive environment?
Which loops? Cable, Telco copper, or Telco fiber (assuming the Telco leaves the copper after the fiber).
Much focus on the 'loop', when in the competitive markets there are at least 2, and they need regulators, not public ownership.
The flaw in this is that 'early' means different things.
The Bells got into telephony early, and dominated. The Breakup tried to remedy the monopoly, and did so, though the aftermath was a new set of problems.
When cell service came to be, the government decided the Bells and Baby Bells would noobe allowed to dominate this market, so they created 'A' service and 'B' service, 'wireline' and 'non-wireline'. Does anyone remember which was which? And they oermitted CDMA and TDMA to slug it out. We now know TDMA as GSM, its successor.
Data service brought an entirely new set of options, and the telecoms were the logical leaders, going from slow speed leased lines to faster, and faster. Proprietary protocols, DDS2, T1/E1, and all the T3 and OC- speeds. SONET, MLPS, etc. The telecoms fought and lost the battle to keep their copper and fiber to themselves. But the CLECs failed to account for other players.
Cable companies jumped in and provided data service on their networks. Power companies toyed with it, but failed to deliver working solutions.
Today, Internet service is pretty much split into three providers in most areas, cable, telecom (DSL) and wireless. In the rural areas, the providers are either limited by range or nonexistent, but where service is avaialble, mostly it has 2-3 players. Please, before you flame me with the exceptions, it's generally true that cable reaches a little further than DSL, and wireless is generally limited to the cell footprint. Satellite is a poor quality solution, and is not germane to my examples. FIOS and other telecom or higher speed non-copper services only add competitors, though not many.
To turm Internet service into a utility in most of the US is to ignore the reality that there is a competitive market, and the utility model doesn;t seem to fit well, at least not to me.
BUT...
This is an issue of The Commons. And net neutrality is a disguised Commons issue.
If the Internet providers are still also providing other services, they have potential incentives to limit one in favor of the other. Case in point, cable services.
Video over the Internet is insanely popular for several reasons, but two come to mind as direct threats to cable providers: On-demand video, and non-real-time video.
On-demand video, like Netflix, competes directly with cable company movie channels, both the HBO model and on-demand/rental channels. this is revenue lost to them, and Netflix is literally eating their lunch.
Non-real-time video I think of as the Hulu model. While cable companies have DVR solutions, again Hulu takes the bread from their mouths. Direct competition.
BitTorrent is just another delivery method, with the added unpleasantness of rampant copyright violation, which then gets the cable companies in hot water with their bread and butter video providers.
Add in another factor - video is a bandwidth hog, at least more than even Flash gaming. Probably even PC gaming. This increases their network costs, and logically so, at every part of their network.
You could make the case that Internet service is a significant threat to the cable companies, yet they are stuck with being their own worst enemies, for now. too much money to turn down, at least at the moment.
Notice I haven't even mentioned the VOIP services they got into to scrape mor erevenue from their networks, and the threat of Skype etc, and the challenge of various videoconferencing solutions such as Facetime?
So video, to the cable provider, is a necessary and detested evil. The solutions? Traffic shaping, packet inspection, etc.serve to make the competitive services less useful, and discourage them. Bandwidth caps can nail Netflix and Hulu. Add speed caps, and the cable cos. can deal their competitors a blow. But users then might flee. To where? Well, DSL providers are not much better behaved. Any other provider with a relationship to broadcast media is also of divided loyaltes.
DSL providers are limited in
She's probably going to get better offers.
It's not about VOIP or IP phones vs analog/digital phones, it's about focusing limited time and attention on what needs to be.
Find a phone service provider, and let them propose what they know and can nail into place. You will be happy.
And do not let the boss rope you into working with the call director or voice response/menu tree. Gaaa!
Well, IANAL, so I can apply common sense here, and this guy is in some trouble. One of my best lawyer friends, a prosecutor, shared with me once that she tends to distrust candidate jurors who are eager to serve. She just wants jurors who follow instructions and try to find the truth. Vigilantes never work out ...
Ditto to most of the dissent.
TMO is not always the driver when they don't offer boot unlockers. The manufacturers see that custom Android ROMs are a challenge to support (actually, unsupportable by them), so they resist letting us brick our phones with the latest zOMGTHIS ROM IS GREAT from who knows where. Your scorn is more accurately directed at the manufacturers. A lot of regional carriers also don't have the clout to get any perks from the manufacturers. This will help Metro subscribers in the end.
I've been a TMO use for 7 years. Can't say it's gotten worse when I get data speeds rising from 19KBto 12MB, texting from 200/mo to unlimited, and minutes from 300/mo to unlimited for the same money over that time. Yes, I pay more for the phone up front, but overall my service has improved, and despite a brief slip in customer care during the AT&T fiasco I'm happy with the service. Ask my wife how AT&T is for her iPhine plan, and she will bent about the rep attitudes, the 30% premium she pays for less service, and the inscrutible service problems here locally.
I don't think of the regional carriers as options because of my travel habits. And they don't try to sell to me.
My only question is, will Metro go GSM? LTE is not an issue, but I can't figure out if TMO will want to run both voice networks which pretty muich overlay each other in coverage. Is there a spectrum swap in the offing? Data capable spectrum is very dear now, and someone out there will make a deal.
So that would make him a witness, then, right? En expert witness, int he eyes of a jury with little knowlege of the matter, ie patent law?
Nice. If I ever serve on a jury, I'll be exerting all my limited faculties towards the evidence and judicial instructions, thank you, and not some other juror who's qualifications are essentially their personality.
And I hope the heck I never end up being judged by my peers.
"ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness"
Well, if he was involved in 'dozens or hundreds of suits', he forgot dozens or hundreds of opporunities to answer truthfully.
You're not making a very good argument there.
Deposit? I've been a TMO customer for 7 years, never a deposit. They've unlocked phones for me no hassle, actually listened to me rant about dropped calls in specific locations, and are now working their way through finding the rogue tower in North Phoenix that is EDGE, just EDGE, no matter how hard I try to get HSDPA+ out of it. They do try.
My unlimited voice/txt/2GB data plan is $85/mo taxes and all. Last month I got to 1.87GB in a month by resetting my phone twice and reloading apps etc over 3G. UMTS or HSDPA+ run from 4-12MB down and 1-8MB up, depending on time of day and location. Coverage is less than most other carriers, so check carefully, and if possible have a subscriber over to your crib for dinner and drinks. And ask around your work how TMO users are doing.
My wife's AT&T iPhone plan is 700 mins/unl text/3GB data for about $109 taxes and all. Just enough difference that it;s annoying. She gets emails when data gets to 75% or so telling her to spend more money. The Apple tax is noticeable.
"GSM being TDMA has a strict limit of 20 per tower"
Citation please, or stuff it in your memory slot. I see T-Mobile towers around Phoenix that are being hit by way more than 20 user simultanously.
It's not your detector. On /. you rarely see sensible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconservative opinions that aren't modded into oblivion.
We are on the same page here, my friend. Mostly, anyways, and that's good enough for now.
"Sure. And Obama had both the House and Senate for the first two years, he could have passed almost anything he wanted. The only reason that the healthcare bill almost didn't pass is because they didn't have enough Democrats to pass it!"
And stumbling past that, the healthcare bill was a HUGE distraction. It did not need to be done then, but we should be able to discern what is important to our President from that episode.
"Let's see, the film caused unrest..."
You got it right. Fakery.
"Economy.... do you think 4 years should be enough time (especially with a House and Senate on your side) to turn the economy around? I do. Two should be ample."
I'm not looking for a solution, just real progress. I don't see it.
"The banks... oky, you're uninformed here. The banks were regulated into having to create bad loans..."
You wren't thinking I was unformed, were you? This goes way back to the S&L scams, and the industry trying again to deregulate, and the various administrations trying to oblige in little ways, moderate ways, until key regulations were finally tossed aside. Not the bankers, so much, as the 'investment houses', who make money even when they lose yours.
"The thing is, the President IS accountable for all these things, because it is his responsibility to appoint the right people to get these things done. This president has proven himself to be ineffective at it. You could argue that Bush was ineffective at some of those same things, and I'd agree. But that was then, this is now."
Amen.
Banking deregulation goes back decades. Plenty of blame to share among many past presidents. As for 'bunch' of wars, ymmv.
Our President said he would 'fix it'. He not only hasn't, he's done a bunch of other things and not even attempted to fix core problems. Even discounting promises as purely electioneering, he's failed. Failed.
"it's so obvious! is there anything obama isn't responsible for?"
Yup.
The film caused all the unrest.
The economy is still Bush's fault. Either one, Doesn't really matter.
The banks are the Republicans' fault, collectively. They started it, and the whole financial industry precipitated all this.
Housing is a Republican problem too. Along with student loans. Same problem, but that's not at issue here. We are not really too involved in reality, just in avoiding holding our President accountable for a damned thing.
Because, after all, it was like that when he got there. It could be worse. Bush could have left it all for Obama to figure out. Oh,wait...
Actually, I would expect the corporate/educational sponsors to figure out how to get them turned around and put into high orbit while they figure out how to get the wayward samples to Earth for explotation.
Think 'Alien'. If there's a Ripley on board, we may survive.
Why not ask the president? he will tell you whose fault it all is.
So this is a good reason to commit to a manned mission to Mars, and permanent habitation on the Moon.
Bear with me. I am not advocating doing this on either celestial body.
First, a manned mission to Mars will teach us a lot about long-term operations in space, and this will come in handy.
Second, permanent presence on the Moon will teach us more about long-term operations, handy in this scenario:
- From the Moon, build a flying lab. In this lab, we can do long-term research into such genetics and biology.
- If something bad happens, we will let the lab complete its flight into the Sun. While it's flying to oblivion, we can further study the problem.
- When it reaches the Sun, our best available incinerator kills all. Hopefully we isolated the attendants, so they don't have to be sent to oblivion also.
None of this needs to touch Earth, or Mars, or really the Moon. For all I know, low to zero gravity is a benefit, but generating gravity is fairly simple, I think. Keeping the nasties from repopulating the Earth against our wishes, less so.I'll fix the gravity problem rather than the containment problem.
And I suspect there may be issues with containment in space also, so we have that to consider, but where do you want to fight that fight? On Long Island, or between Venus and the Sun?
SO, are such experiments worth a trillon or so, to start?
Or hire up a decent local firm to offer on-site support as a backup,either at a contracted rate or prepaid. If you're just sick with the flu, they can come in and do MAC or general AD stuff, etc. Certainly they can make your life tolerable by backstopping the simple stuff while you deal with critical issues as best you can.
Since most property us owned by governments or despots, that sort of makes sense.