People die in space, if you don't do it right. On Earth, things just get a little dirtier. Wait, people don't die on Earth? What about pollution related illnesses, industrial accidents, famine created by land misuse, natural disasters compounded by faulty infrastructure and administrative mismanagement? The physical risk is rarely to the people with the power and/or money, why would it be any different in space?
That's why I think 100% recycling, for example, will occur in space first. There's no incentive to do it on Earth except in order to get it right in space. Your suggestion is cyclical, and ignores hundreds of existing incentives for increased recycling on Earth.
The fact that people pay good money for tourism and entertainment is an indication of their value. Only if by value, you mean money, in which case your statement is little more than a tautology. Besides, I can put a bunch of money in a slot machine, or into Britney Spears CDs, but if I get nothing in return, there is no value to my investment.
And if the resources consumed were so expensive, then the price would be higher. Higher than what? Than it is now? It will be, if were carting steel to and from space. Whenever there is increased usage, the price increases. This is shown every summer when gasoline prices increase, for example. Or do you mean, perhaps higher than the price last year, ten, twenty years ago? It is higher, and continues to grow. And the resources themselves continue to be exhausted. And since we're talking about a venture that would take several decades to achieve, the cost and availability of resources becomes a bigger issue.
The things that have equal or greater potential are being fixed though at a very slow rate. Government corruption, lack of infrastructure and law, poverty, etc. These issues will not disappear just because we're doing things in space. Corruption, mismanagement, economic problems, legal issues, etc., are human issues, and will therefore follow people and their endeavors into space. It's just a change of venue. It doesn't change the means or motivation of these people concerned.
However, at some point we have to take the future into account. The Earth is limited. There's only so much we can do here. Industries, especially highly resource consumption industries like steel or aluminum refining will end up in space. There's far more material up there, far more energy, and the regulations will be a lot looser. Where and to what extent is this wealth of resources and energy that you describe available in space? Are we going to start mining the moon?
Regarding regulations, your suggestion is purely speculative. Regulations are not a natural phenomenon that diminish along with the atmosphere. They are created by humans to solve human problems. A major issue will be who has claim to the resources available in space, this or that particular location in space, etc.
I think you and these billionaires taking their little space rides have created a Utopian vision of a future in space based on enthusiastic speculation and little substantive evidence. For now, it is, for all practical purposes, nothing more than vaporware, and we'd all be better served if we focused this kind of attention on the issues facing us right now on Earth.
Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but there are so many steps/dollars/decades before anything like that is feasible, and the suggestions themselves raise a much simpler question: if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? And if you object to the suggestion that we can't do it right on Earth: If we can do it right here, then why sink so much energy into space?
I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. How about sinking time/money/resources into technologies to improve and fix our existing civilization here such as alternative energy? Why not 100% recycling on Earth? Why wait for a space colony?
I can definitely see practical uses within science and technology, but these still fall outside the "space travel for the general populace" realm, leaving tourism and entertainment. As far as T&E are concerned, besides your saying so, how can these be considered - taking issues of initial cost, environmental impact, increased consumption of natural resources, etc. into account - worthwhile? Some billionaires make more money? X number of jobs are created? T&E dollars "grow the economy?" Again, how, aside from the neat-o factor, is this a better solution than anything with equal or greater potential here on Earth?
I think that people are so seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving Earth's problems in space is overlooked.
Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but they raise the much simpler question - if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? How about sinking time/money/resources into technology to improve and fix our existing civilization here - alternative energy chief among them? I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. I think that people are naturally seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving these problems through space travel is overlooked.
So, space travel for the general populace is equivalent to eating?
Hmmm...
So, again, what is the value in space travel for general populace - if it even happens?
Its efforts like this that will eventually drop the price down enough for space travel to be worthwhile for the general populace. Price aside, what would make space travel for the general populace worthwhile?
Personally, I really can't see any real purpose for this, other than tourism/entertainment, and the energy used and pollution generated to put people in space for no good reason seems to significantly decrease any possible worth.
The linked editorial is an excellent example of how a group of facts can be stripped of their context and assembled in such a way that a particular point can be made.
Not that I support environmental destruction in the name of consumption, but the information on Sudbury is misleading. Here's some information from, er, Wikipedia that brings some of the evidence cited into question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Sudbury,_Onta rio
The ore deposits in Sudbury are part of a large geological structure known as the Sudbury Basin, believed to be the remnants of a 1.85-billion year old meteorite impact crater. Sudbury ore contains profitable amounts of many elements, especially transition metals, including platinum. It also contains an unusually high concentration of sulfur. When nickel-copper ore is smelted, this sulfur is released into the environment, where it is toxic to vegetation. Carried aloft, it combines with atmospheric water to form sulfuric acid. This contaminates atmospheric water, resulting in a phenomenon known as acid rain.
As a result, Sudbury was widely, although not entirely accurately, known for many years as a wasteland. In parts of the city, vegetation was devastated, both by acid rain and by logging to provide fuel for early smelting techniques, as well as wood for the reconstruction of Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The resulting erosion exposed bedrock, which was charred in most places to a pitted, dark black appearance. There was not a complete lack of vegetation in the region, however. Paper birch and wild blueberry are notable examples of plants which thrived in the acidic soils, and even during the worst years of the city's environmental damage, not all parts of the city were equally affected.
During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury, to become familiar with shatter cones, a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years.
In the late 1970s, private, public, and commercial interests combined to establish an unprecedented "regreening" effort. Lime was spread over the charred soil of the Sudbury region by hand and by aircraft. Seeds of wild grasses and other vegetation were also spread. In twenty years, over three million trees were planted. The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices, and in 1992 the city was given the "Local Government Honours Award" by the United Nations, in honour of its innovative community-based strategies in environmental rehabilitation. More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing the author's sources. I wonder if he'd be willing to produce them?
Asking for a list of Nobel prize winning boxers might be quite like asking for a list of physicists with Olympic gold medals.
How about a list of slashdotters who can name 192 countries in 10 minutes? http://andys.org.uk/countryquiz/
I assume that this is sarcasm of some sort, but considering for moment that it might not be:
AC, Do you propose instead that Google, Microsoft, et al, _not_ have free speech rights, and be _required_ to print, publish, display, etc. anything that a paying customer demands of them? Should this lack of a right to free speech extend beyond websites into other forms of publication? If I publish a novel, should I be required to fill it with ads if someone is willing to pay for it?
Essentially, this could be interpreted as saying that a company (which could be 1 person or 1,000,000 people) should not have rights that extend beyond the right of a person or organization with the money to pay for an offered service, i.e. the right to _consume_ trumps the right to speech, or the lack thereof.
I'm not sure I can follow this logic.
That's a reasonable perspective, but if you are, as you say, "paying with information," wouldn't you prefer that your decision to do so be an informed one? After all, Skype doesn't appear to be particularly straightforward with this information, and therefore your payment is taken without your knowledge, which could be considered by some to be fraudulent.
You are exactly right. And that is why the average "unwitting" user shouldn't be in the position to install software. There is nothing "draconian" about knowing what your employees have on their machines, and what they are doing - knowingly or unknowingly - with sensitive data.
I am a former corporate monkey (now a freelancer to small business) and it is amazing how easy it was for me - a database programmer - and even telephone tech support people, to easily get access to a major client's data - e.g. engineering drawings for not-yet-in-production vehicles of a Big 3 automaker.
I think the real problem is that, whether intentional, or unwittingly, there is too much openness within many corporations that not only allow those who need the info to get it, but those who might, and there is no differentiation.
This, combined with a willingness to allow users to have far too much freedom with the computers that they are given to do their jobs, enables breaches of any kind to happen.
It is easy to blame the software producer, but I think that those on this list who decided that GD is wrong for their company and banned it are doing the right thing.
This is not to say that GD is bad - this is just IT doing what it should do, and determining what is and is not safe and necessary. I can't do anything I want with a corporate expense account or a company car. I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want with a company computer.
I was looking at sensitive internal corporate data on my computer, and my web browser had this feature called 'Print' and so I pressed the 'Print' button and it let me send all of that top secret data corporate to the printer. It didn't even stop me.
So I figured that the printer wouldn't allow this sort of atrocity to take place, but I was wrong. This super ultra secret data just transformed itself into ink on several hundred pages.
After the printer was done, I thought to myself, This has got to stop. So I loaded up the copy machine, and when I tried to make several dozen copies of the entire document, the copier didn't stop me. It didn't even ask me for a password.
And when I placed each copy of the sensitive secret corporate document in an envelope, there was no resistance, nor by the pen used to address the envelopes containing the super ultra mega top secret sensitive confidential internal corporate document to several dozen of my company's direct competitors.
Likewise, the friendly people at the post office were more than happy to send these documents, no questions asked. They seemed to genuinely enjoy breaching corporate security.
Clearly the companies responsible for allowing me to do this have overstepped the mark. They are putting corporate security at risk!
Who will stop this madness!?!?!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
That was inspiring and everything, but where in the First Amendment does it require anyone to give the guy a job?
Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but there are so many steps/dollars/decades before anything like that is feasible, and the suggestions themselves raise a much simpler question: if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? And if you object to the suggestion that we can't do it right on Earth: If we can do it right here, then why sink so much energy into space? I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. How about sinking time/money/resources into technologies to improve and fix our existing civilization here such as alternative energy? Why not 100% recycling on Earth? Why wait for a space colony? I can definitely see practical uses within science and technology, but these still fall outside the "space travel for the general populace" realm, leaving tourism and entertainment. As far as T&E are concerned, besides your saying so, how can these be considered - taking issues of initial cost, environmental impact, increased consumption of natural resources, etc. into account - worthwhile? Some billionaires make more money? X number of jobs are created? T&E dollars "grow the economy?" Again, how, aside from the neat-o factor, is this a better solution than anything with equal or greater potential here on Earth? I think that people are so seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving Earth's problems in space is overlooked.
Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but they raise the much simpler question - if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? How about sinking time/money/resources into technology to improve and fix our existing civilization here - alternative energy chief among them? I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. I think that people are naturally seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving these problems through space travel is overlooked.
So, space travel for the general populace is equivalent to eating? Hmmm... So, again, what is the value in space travel for general populace - if it even happens?
So, essentially, they killed you a little bit each day.
Asking for a list of Nobel prize winning boxers might be quite like asking for a list of physicists with Olympic gold medals. How about a list of slashdotters who can name 192 countries in 10 minutes? http://andys.org.uk/countryquiz/
Is that Stallone in a firefighter costume?
I assume that this is sarcasm of some sort, but considering for moment that it might not be: AC, Do you propose instead that Google, Microsoft, et al, _not_ have free speech rights, and be _required_ to print, publish, display, etc. anything that a paying customer demands of them? Should this lack of a right to free speech extend beyond websites into other forms of publication? If I publish a novel, should I be required to fill it with ads if someone is willing to pay for it? Essentially, this could be interpreted as saying that a company (which could be 1 person or 1,000,000 people) should not have rights that extend beyond the right of a person or organization with the money to pay for an offered service, i.e. the right to _consume_ trumps the right to speech, or the lack thereof. I'm not sure I can follow this logic.
That's a reasonable perspective, but if you are, as you say, "paying with information," wouldn't you prefer that your decision to do so be an informed one? After all, Skype doesn't appear to be particularly straightforward with this information, and therefore your payment is taken without your knowledge, which could be considered by some to be fraudulent.
You are exactly right. And that is why the average "unwitting" user shouldn't be in the position to install software. There is nothing "draconian" about knowing what your employees have on their machines, and what they are doing - knowingly or unknowingly - with sensitive data. I am a former corporate monkey (now a freelancer to small business) and it is amazing how easy it was for me - a database programmer - and even telephone tech support people, to easily get access to a major client's data - e.g. engineering drawings for not-yet-in-production vehicles of a Big 3 automaker. I think the real problem is that, whether intentional, or unwittingly, there is too much openness within many corporations that not only allow those who need the info to get it, but those who might, and there is no differentiation. This, combined with a willingness to allow users to have far too much freedom with the computers that they are given to do their jobs, enables breaches of any kind to happen. It is easy to blame the software producer, but I think that those on this list who decided that GD is wrong for their company and banned it are doing the right thing. This is not to say that GD is bad - this is just IT doing what it should do, and determining what is and is not safe and necessary. I can't do anything I want with a corporate expense account or a company car. I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want with a company computer.
yes. that's right. the is dead.
If only they had listened. Then maybe the wouldn't all be dead...
I was looking at sensitive internal corporate data on my computer, and my web browser had this feature called 'Print' and so I pressed the 'Print' button and it let me send all of that top secret data corporate to the printer. It didn't even stop me. So I figured that the printer wouldn't allow this sort of atrocity to take place, but I was wrong. This super ultra secret data just transformed itself into ink on several hundred pages. After the printer was done, I thought to myself, This has got to stop. So I loaded up the copy machine, and when I tried to make several dozen copies of the entire document, the copier didn't stop me. It didn't even ask me for a password. And when I placed each copy of the sensitive secret corporate document in an envelope, there was no resistance, nor by the pen used to address the envelopes containing the super ultra mega top secret sensitive confidential internal corporate document to several dozen of my company's direct competitors. Likewise, the friendly people at the post office were more than happy to send these documents, no questions asked. They seemed to genuinely enjoy breaching corporate security. Clearly the companies responsible for allowing me to do this have overstepped the mark. They are putting corporate security at risk! Who will stop this madness!?!?!!!!