Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Gore Pushes for Private Investment in Space 181

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the sponsored-by-pepsi dept.
dptalia writes "Al Gore said in a recent speech that more private enterprises need to invest in space. Gore pointed to the successful growth of the internet as proof that private investment is faster than government. Not surprisingly, Gore also lambasted President Bush's space policy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gore Pushes for Private Investment in Space

Comments Filter:
  • First Post (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:15PM (#16603512)
    I have to agree with him. Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by mnmn (145599)
      Actually it is Gore who is saying "First Post" so that 5 years later he can say he invented private space enterprise.

      Now if only he patented the Internet when he invented it, he could build spaceships himself now.
    • by Spetiam (671180) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:34PM (#16603642) Journal
      AND we'll get to credit him with inventing space!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cunamara (937584)

      Nah. Private investment is remarkably unwilling to lose billions of dollars on things like space exploration. They will let the taxpayers spend their money until some commercial reason to go to space has been found. When it comes to high dollar investments with vague or unlikely returns, the private sector finds something else more important to spend its money on like perks for CEOs. The private sector would never have built the interstate highway system, supersonic air travel, or funded the first steps

      • by Anonymous Coward
        I've always found it annoying whenever someone goes on about how the exploitation of space should be shifted TO private industry, but doesn't mention who it is that it should be shifted FROM. NASA isn't the one exploiting space, NASA doesn't even design most of the hardware being used in space.

        Almost all of the design and so forth are done not by NASA, but by NASA's private contractors. NASA acts as a funnel, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes into the high-tech research departments of thousan
        • What you say is totally true - and in fact, I would go further to say that if Xcor made the only rocket on Earth and NASA needed a rocket, the price would be about the same as it is now.

          The real point is not to change vendors from Lockheed to Xcor. The point is to 1) change pricing models from "cost plus a percentage" to fixed pricing, and 2) encourage competition, especially smaller companies where innovation is more likely to happen.

          The current pricing model for aerospace makes aerospace companies billio
    • There is not much stopping private space flight. Perhaps the whole reason that there is so little happening is because nobody has found a way to make it into a useful endevor.

      What exactly does a profit-driven private company get out of sending a probe/whatever to Jupiter/wherever to determine whether the air is purple/whatever?

      For all the flaws in military/governement expenditure, it is not limited by profitability.

      .

      • Energy.

        If a private company can get up there and make the Sun actually turn a profit --by converting solar energy into microwave energy, which in turn becomes electricity once it gets down here-- Space would be hella profitable. (if oil/gas/etc extraction costs go too much higher from it's all-time records, that wouldn't be too hard to justify).

        Sure, the initial outlay would be ungodly expensive, but the profits from feeding the grid with 24/7 solar power on a massive scale, plus the "we got all the ro

    • Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:40AM (#16604972) Homepage
      I have to agree with him. Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.

      Private investors have been ponying up for space investments since the 60's - it's a myth of recent creation that such investment has only occurred with the X-prize and subsequently.
    • by vtcodger (957785)
      ***Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.***

      Good logic based on two faulty assumptions:

      • Space exploration can be profitable using current or currently achievable technology.
      • Governments can't do anything right

      With current technology, there are a (pitiful) few applications where space can be profitably exploited. Communications, imaging, one or two others. There is not and has not been any problem attracti

  • Of COURSE we should be spending private money on space. Private investment is usually more efficient (and get's more results) than big government programs. It seems ironic that a self described liberal is espousing private investment and lambasting the president's government funded program.

    What's the world coming to? It's sad that the supposed "conservative" guy is encouraging so much government spending. Not that I trust Mr. Gore to shrink the federal government... but Mr. Bush has dissapointed me with his
    • by orcrist (16312) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:50PM (#16603798)
      Not that I trust Mr. Gore to shrink the federal government.

      Why not? He already did more to shrink the federal government as Clintons VP than any of these lip-service Republicans since they've been in power:
      • Reduced the size of federal civilian workforce by 426,200 positions between January 1993 and September 2000...The government workforce was for the first time the smallest it had been since the Eisenhower Administration.
      • Closed nearly 2,000 obsolete field offices and eliminated 250 programs and agencies, like the Tea-Tasters Board, the Bureau of Mines, and wool and mohair subsidies.
      • Procurement reform led to the expanded use of credit cards for small item purchases, saving about $250 million a year in processing costs.

      source: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/append ixf.html [unt.edu]

      Not that the mainstream "liberal" media covered this. sigh.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It didn't get covered because most of those were pushed through by a Republican congress.
          Ooops. Truth bites again.
        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by WindBourne (631190)
          Considering that it has been basically the same republican congress that we have had over the last 6 years, but with a different whitehouse, is a joke. The reality is that Clinton cut the same deal with Greenspan that greenspan had with bush (I will lower the interest rate if you lower the deficit). Clinton, like poppa bush, complied and paid attention to gov. deficits.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            "The reality is..."

            Well, as a fiscal conservative, I happend to like having a budget surplus, smaller government, negative national debt accumulation and a reduced deficit in addition enjoying record economic growth and the the largest real and relative redistribution of wealth in recorded U.S. history. Far from perfect, but the 90s had things headed in the right direction, economically speaking.

            That it all happened under the watch of a democrat should tell you all you need to know about the utility of pol
            • by dpilot (134227)
              As a fiscal conservative, apparently you're a liberal!

              Barry Goldwater said the same thing of himself.
            • hmmmm. Sorry. I can see where the problem is. W. and Clinton had basically the same congress. One ran deficits and the other balanced the budget that Reagan ran up. What I was trying to say was that Clinton continued the good works of Poppa Bush. After all, it was Poppa Bush who raised taxes in an effort to focus on balancing the budget. Clinton continued with the same focus and we had roughly a balanced budget. Hopefully, the next admin will push an amendment that requires a balanced budget except when 3/4
            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              That it all happened under the watch of a democrat should tell you all you need to know about the utility of political labels, as well as the fact that by any measure, this is the LEAST conservative administration in decades.

              Right, this administration is best described as "fascist, expansionist, populist" and I believe in that order, but you might juggle the first two terms because the fascism is really there to support the expansionism.

              I mean we've really seen it all from this administration... tell

            • but the 90s had things headed in the right direction
              Don't forget, tthe 90s also had a lot of things headed in the wrong direction. I mean, yeah, when the nasdaq was floating in the 4000's, of course everyone was quick to praise whatever government was in place and whatever policies were in place at the time.
              But that's just the shell of it. The 90s were full of bad and risky investments, (domestic and international) that saw massive returns because everyone was buying up stock and the prices were going
          • by wkitchen (581276)

            The reality is that Clinton cut the same deal with Greenspan that greenspan had with bush (I will lower the interest rate if you lower the deficit). Clinton, like poppa bush, complied and paid attention to gov. deficits.

            Your definition of "complied" must be different from mine. Deficits soared during GHW Bush's term, reaching a historically unprecedented $290 billion in his last year. A record that stood until 2003, when it reached a whopping $377 billion.

            Reference: Historical Budget Data [cbo.gov]

            • Poppa Bush was handed an out of control deficit. He turned it and started heading it downwards (with a democrat congress). Clinton kept it heading in the right direction. Poppa Bush and Clinton both deserve credit for stopping the irresponsible budget of Reagan's. Sadly, the president that W. elects to copy is Reagan and not his father.
              • by wkitchen (581276)
                He turned it and started heading it downwards (with a democrat congress).
                That simply never happened. Check the numbers. Deficits rose to record highs under Bush I. Bush's 3rd and 4th year deficits were higher even than Reagan's worst years.
      • by b17bmbr (608864) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:41PM (#16604118)
        which is exactly why I don't understand the liberal love fest for clinton. he signed welfare reform and balanced budgets and yes, cut government. sure it took divided goverment, but still, the current occupant the white house has been a huge disappointment. of course, he never claimed to be a reagan/goldwater disciple and he sure has been anything but. clinton was more a moderate republican than democrat. it's hell for libertarians like me. what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?
        • by Procyon101 (61366)
          what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?

          Totally! I've no idea how to go about applying for a Letter of Marque. Lazy bastards.
  • Now that the Republicans have completed their transformation into the party of the religious socialists, somebody had to stand up for free enterprise.

    I just never thought it would be Al Gore. Good for him.

  • well..... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Rooked_One (591287)
    I'd love to see more invested in our space program - perferably by a Global Allied Space Association. I guess GASA doesn't have the same ring....

    But then again, at this point in time, we can't even solve our problems on earth... and running from earth is pretty expensive last time I checked. It makes me wonder... if all the cash that the current administration has invested in the war was put towards space, where we would be right now? Its very cool that we are getting all this info about Mars, but in r

    • by MBC1977 (978793)
      Or maybe IASA... but that might bring down the wrath of the Peacekeepers, lol.
    • by dsanfte (443781)
      A 'GASA' would be NASA with a different name. The US could not resist controlling it either via witholding funds or knowledge, and China and Russia would never tolerate being restrained in their pursuit of space technology in any measure by US influence.

      US interests are a poison pill that would smother a 'GASA' in its crib. Not to say other countries' politics are much better.
    • "if all the cash that the current administration has invested in the war was put towards space, where we would be right now?"

      Cleaning up several more TW's, perhaps? You make the mistake that there is only one focus for spending at a time.
      • eh? are you a robot? Things are always more complicated than on and off.... there is a 2, even though 1's and 0's are nice.
  • Just when you want to give /. readers more credit something like this comes up. That quote [snopes.com] has been debunked [cnn.com] more [washingtonmonthly.com] times [everything2.com] then I care to remember. But I guess for some n00blets its more fun reguritating something stupid then bothering to get it right.

    "Vint Cerf: I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator."

    Al Gore

    • Ya, thats it. Cerf. Vint Cert.
    • by stevew (4845)
      Some people can't take a joke! Yeah I know who really invented the Internet - DARPA!
    • Umm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by billbaggins (156118)
      Maybe I'm reading a different summary and article than you did, but I don't see a reference to that misquote anywhere other than in your comment. Might want to have a neurologist look at that knee-jerk you're developing...
      • by squidfood (149212)
        Dudes, that's so 2001-2004. There's a new stupid politician-internet joke/meme/beat-to-death thing.

        It's the tubes, man, the tubes [youtube.com].

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by aliscool (597862) *
      Here are some real Al Gore quotes... they actually came from his mouth:)

      "We need to defend our planet against pollution. As well as dark wizards."

      "That's why I'm offering a bag moon saphires to the first scientist who can solve this problem once and for all." (In reference to global warming...)

      "I must go now. To help collect cans on Jupiter. Peace out, y'all!"

    • by Keebler71 (520908) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @11:20PM (#16604262) Journal
      Actually - I've found it a pretty weak debunking. While it is true that he never said he "invented" the internet, he did say he "took the initiative in creating the internet". While his congressional record is noteworthy on funding the early net, he was clearly trying to imply that he "created" the internet.

      I am detecting a pattern here though... Al Gore seems to find a good idea in progress, champion it, and (at least awkwardly) take some type of credit for it... in this case he is a bit behind the X-prize foundation [xprize.org] and NASA with its COTS Program [wikipedia.org] and Centennial Challenges [nasa.gov]. (I'll leave out his recent championing of Global Warming since he has a pretty well established environmental record)

      • His wording may have been unfortunate, but I think its fair to say he was not confused about the creation of the internet and just about anyone who was has pointed out his role (as advocate).

        Its stupid that we still need to have this conversation.
      • by JWW (79176)
        Ok, I'll agree with everything you said.

        Then why is it in this story he give private industry credit for the internet?

        Private industry may well have enhanced, added to, and populated much of the internet, but they never, ever would have created it in a million years. The government laid all the foundations and Gore should know this.

        Personally I agree that private industry needs to get into the space business, but I don't think the profits are there yet to make that happen. We'll have to see what happens w
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27, 2006 @04:46AM (#16606306)
        Actually - I've found it a pretty weak debunking. While it is true that he never said he "invented" the internet, he did say he "took the initiative in creating the internet". While his congressional record is noteworthy on funding the early net, he was clearly trying to imply that he "created" the internet.

        Funding the early net? That is an oversimplification of the facts and history of his involvement. The process of privatizing and building a national information infrastructure requires all kinds of government involvement (understandably). It especially requires someone to champion the idea to other members of government.

        All of the people involved with the evolution of the internet were important. Not just the Kahn and Cerf and the techies. It took a lot of people in a lot of different areas in order to evolve the way it did. It took Dennis Jennings and Steve Wolff at NSFNET (who helped NSFNET to make the decision on using TCP/IP and the infrastructure of DARPANET). It took a huge list of great contributors for it to come about as it did. In the realm of government (a crucial component to the NSFNET's policies and goals), it was Al Gore who was it's greatest contributor.

        The "internet" of the 1980's was mostly a collection of regional, small "nets". Many of them were purpose built and were incompatible with one another. NSFNET decided to use TCP/IP in 1985 (many thanks to Dennis Jennings for championing its use!). In 1986 Steve Wolff took over NSF and immediately saw the need for a wide area networking infrastructure. They took on DARPANET's internet infrastructure to encourage interoperability and scalability. The NSF then encouraged its regional (initially academic) networks of the NSFNET to seek commercial, non-academic customers, expand their facilities to serve them, and exploit the resulting economies of scale to lower costs. However, use of their backbone was limited only to use "in support of Research and Education". This is why you saw so very many "*NET"'s (PSI, UUNET etc). In 1988, they initiated a bunch of conferences in which they worked out this plan to privatize and commercialize the internet.

        The NRC produced a report commissioned by NSF titled "Towards a National Research Network" and presented it to Gore in 1988. This report had a profound effect on Gore, who took great interest in the subject and, became a champion of the cause.

        In 1991, he promoted legislation that would provide $600M dollars for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking. Also brought about by the bill was the NII (National Information Infrastructure), i.e. the "information superhighway". As a side note, the bill also wound up funding the development of MOSAIC.

        In 1992, we all got sick of the term "information superhighway" during the 1992 election season (perhaps foreshadowing another oft-repeated phrase used by Gore during the 2000 election season, "lock-box" ;).

        In 1993, Clinton and Gore submitted a report entitled "Technology for America's Economic Growth". Gore championed and expanded these ideas in speeches that he made at UCLA and to the Telecommunications Union in 1994. In addition, he "became the first U.S. vice president to hold a live interactive news conference on an international computer network".

        Also in 1994, an NRC report, entitled "Realizing The Information Future: The Internet and Beyond" was released. This report, commissioned by NSF, was the document in which a blueprint for the evolution of the information superhighway was articulated and which has had a lasting affect on the way to think about its evolution. It anticipated the critical issues of intellectual property rights, ethics, pricing, education, architecture and regulation for the Internet.

        In 1995, NSF's privatization policy culminated with the defunding of the NS
      • by kabocox (199019)
        I am detecting a pattern here though... Al Gore seems to find a good idea in progress, champion it, and (at least awkwardly) take some type of credit for it... in this case he is a bit behind the X-prize foundation [xprize.org] and NASA with its COTS Program [wikipedia.org] and Centennial Challenges [nasa.gov]. (I'll leave out his recent championing of Global Warming since he has a pretty well established environmental record)

        Um, maybe our problem with Gore is that we don't typically "reward" politicans whe
        • by jackbird (721605)
          We remember Leonardo AND the Medicis.

          We remember Macarthur AND Roosevelt.

          We remember Neil Armstrong AND Kennedy.

          We remember Dr. King AND Johnson.

          See a pattern?

          We can remeber Cerf AND Gore.

          • by kabocox (199019)
            We remember Leonardo AND the Medicis.
            We remember Macarthur AND Roosevelt.
            We remember Neil Armstrong AND Kennedy.
            We remember Dr. King AND Johnson.

            See a pattern?

            We can remeber Cerf AND Gore.


            Um, We know Leonardo as a brillant ancient inventor/painter. Who was Medicis again?
            MacArthur was a general or admiral during WWII that left his men behind. We don't remember him kindly. Roosevelt tends to bring back vague memories of the New Deal.
            Neil Armstrong got sent to the moon, Kennedy was the second President shoot a
            • by jackbird (721605)
              I couldn't tell you what happened during FDRs term as president though I should be able to.

              Here's a hint. It involves defeating the Axis powers in a global conflict.

      • by msobkow (48369)

        I've seen a few presentations Gore has done on the environment, global warming, and other issues.

        The man is educated, well-spoken, personable, and seems to have a much better grasp on such issues than the current administration. I have no doubt that the US and the world would be very, very different right now if he'd been allowed the presidency he won.

  • Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maxume (22995) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:38PM (#16603688)
    I also support private exploration of space.

    My guess is that this post will be just as effective as Gore in promoting investment.
    • Government exploration of space can be a benefit to the whole world.

      How about sending G. W. Bush to space for instance.

      Vote him off the planet! ;)
    • by Joebert (946227)
      Change a word, add a name,

      I also support private exploration in space.

      - Jenna

      There you have it, people will line up around the earth to fund the stuff now.
  • by merc (115854) <slashdot@upt.org> on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:41PM (#16603708) Homepage
    ... that the dangers we face from ManBearPig are only exacerbated by a lack of private investment in space. He concluded his speech by asserting that he was quite "serial".
  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@beaHORSEu.org minus herbivore> on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:48PM (#16603774)
    Ok, somewhere in there is a pitch for somebody to do something in space, but I'm damned if I can find it amongst the whinging about global warming and Bush Derangement Syndrome filling most of the wordcount.

    The problem is Gore was speaking at an X-Prize function and the article is at space.com so they had to either spin some message about space out his drivel or write an article tearing him a new one for misuse of the speaking slot. Being good Democrats they opted for #1.

    Yes space is good, private industry should, and is, working on the problems. Gore and government are no longer needed, and in fact only slow things down.
  • Ok, I'm all for private money vs. public funding for projects.

    The question I'm still wondering about is whether or not funding more projects that burn fuel and pollute our atmosphere are really worthwhile? I'm sure this would help all kinds of corporations, but will this really do anything to solve any of the problems we currently have? We still face problems of undereducation, unemployment, civil unrest, disease, starvation, and international strife. Can't we put money into private enterprise that might s

    • Re:Space Case? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomlord (38815) <slashdot.krwtech@com> on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:21PM (#16604002) Journal
      We still face problems of undereducation
      Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care.

      unemployment
      What are we supposed to do, write everyone who gets fired a check for a million bucks? I know a LOT of people who've gotten fired and layed off and they wait until their benefits are about to run out before they start a serious crunch of a new job. Besides, we're at 4-5% unemployment, not 20%, there are MUCH bigger economic problems to worry about than that.

      civil unrest
      Yeah... everyone is rioting in the streets right now. There is always going to be a certain level of civil unhappiness, you can't eliminate it all without eliminating humanity.

      disease
      Cure every disease out there and watch another even nastier one creep up.

      starvation
      Generally not a major issue in the US. If you want the US to solve the starvation problems in the world, just let me know when you want to start overthrowing every 3rd world despot out there with our military. The problem isn't lack of food, it's lack of distribution.

      international strife
      See civil unrest... only there are very few bonds tying us together as an international community. There can never be perfect international harmony because somewhere out there, there will be at least one person who isn't happy and wants to lead a rebellion to overthrow it.

      You have a low uid so I'm assuming you're not 15. I'm sorry that you still live in this happy little utopia where you get visted by Santa and the Tooth Fairy but the real world doesn't work the way you want it to and it never will. There will never be perfect harmony and happiness because each human is an individual with their own desires and viewpoint. With more than six billion people on the Earth, you're never going to get all of them to agreee on any single issue, much less the big picture.
      • by Elemenope (905108)

        Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care because they are too busy working two-and-a-half jobs paying for rent, heat and food.

        See? Fixed that for you. Besides that though, (and a small quibble about your unemployment statistic being based upon a reality-denying formula the government invent

      • You know, I don't even argue with guys like this IRL anymore. I just hit them. Hey, you want a fight, I'll give it to you :P
      • There will never be perfect harmony and happiness because each human is an individual with their own desires and viewpoint.

        I disagree with the grandparent post, but is this sort of strawman really necessary?

        Nothing much was ever accomplished by anybody who sits around justifying the status quo- hell, if it even meant your own personal bottom line was in danger I bet you could think of why in the sum of things it's probably just an intractable problem, no bother trying to fix it.

        I think what the grandparent
    • Re:Space Case? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Quadraginta (902985) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:01AM (#16604614)
      will this really do anything to solve any of the problems we currently have?

      No. But the difference between the problem of getting men to Mars and the "problems" you mention -- and you could just as well have added the "problems" of the inevitability of death, taxes, and bad luck -- is that the former can actually be solved.

      I think space exploration is a worthwhile endeavor, but AFTER we make life a little better for the next generation.

      Some of us feel that space exploration is how we make life better for the next generation. We leave them a more exciting future, a new frontier to conquer, new adventures to motive them, and new technology to serve them. We tend to feel that throwing vast amounts of time and money down various rat-holes, by trying to "solve" insoluble problems that have been with us unchanged since the birth of Christ is much like the ancient Egyptians building enormous pyramids to please nonexistent gods -- a foolish and futile waste of our childrens' inheritance.
  • How much of the millions he made in the Google IPO will he invest in such ventures?
    • No, see, he wants OTHER people to do it. Just like he buys Co2 offsets. He pays other people not to pollute in lieu of not polluting himself.

      It's great to attach your name to grand causes, whilst only taking token actions in helping it.
  • I have 2 questions for Al Gore...

    1) What is your opinion on net neutrality?

    2) When you created the interwebs, did you think it would be used for boobies?

  • I read the article, but his comments make no sense. I'm pretty sure private companies are already spending billions of dollars on space ventures (like communications). He talks about using space to stop global warming. Somehow. Huh?

     
  • by Attaturk (695988) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:08PM (#16603930) Homepage
    You know what this means. In years to come people will say that Al Gore invented commercial space travel. Of course we'll tell our kids that really all he did was use his position of power and influence as a means to assist in its growth. ;)
  • by hsmith (818216) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:33PM (#16604078)
    if 40% of our income wasn't stolen by the gov't each year.
    • You, of course, have no problem with investing your personal money and time in the road in front of your house, research, etc?
    • How the above got labelled insightful is an eyesore, yes government can mismanage funds, but no government did not "steal" your income, taxes go to pay for schools, roads, etc, etc, and other projects that for private ventures would never be able to handle on their own.
  • by GorgarWillEatYou (523390) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @11:09PM (#16604182)
    The former U.S. Vice President said his personal cause is to change the public's mind about "this planet crisis" to make it a top priority. The term "crisis" in Chinese is represented by two symbols together, he advised. "The first means danger...the second means opportunity," Gore said.
    I call it crisitunity
  • ..wasn't that what your president said just the other week?

    If somebody invest in space, they better be on the same side as the ones that "protect the lives of American people" against terrorists, otherwise they will have a very bad investment.

    Me? I would be damn sure that my Moonbase / automatic rock miner / zero G chemical plant / space station could protect / hide itself from anything.
  • by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Friday October 27, 2006 @07:44AM (#16606992)

    Accelerating a large chunk of metal to its escape velocity releases a massive volume of greenhouse gas.

    HAL

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Working...