So what? It's not normal lag you are worried about. It's severe lag which on the normal internet you cannot guarantee you can eliminate. It's interesting information but I'm not sure if it's really useful information.

That's the most bizarre leap of bad logic I've heard in quite a while. Thanks for a good laugh over something absurd.

In the sense that they are both government spending that would be correct. Money doesn't actually care if it comes from a monarchy or a democracy. Exploration of the truly unknown doesn't happen from the private sector. The Dutch East India Company did not precede government sponsored exploration. Columbus, Magellen and most every other explorer you've ever heard of was government sponsored. You cannot build a business model around "let's go explore over there where no one has ever been and see if we can find something profitable". No private company could have justified a Moon mission in the 1960s. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

I cannot think of a single legitimate business reason they would need my contact list information. I cannot think of anything they could offer me that I would want that would entice me to share that information with them.

That depends heavily on whether it is opt in or opt out and whether it is opt in by default and how hard they push you to opt in. Plus the fact that they are even asking is a bit shady as far as I'm concerned.

Citation please?

Hmm, let's see. The Soviet programs were cancelled in '72 according to you (actually that's not quite right but it's close enough). When was the last mission to the Moon? Oh that's right, December 1972. Quite a coincidence that...

You might want to check your facts. It was financed out of the royal treasury and commissioned by the Queen.

"Almost no risk"? Are you kidding me? Anyone who thinks asteroid mining is a viable business within the lifetime of anyone reading this is delusional and/or hasn't thought the economics through. Professionally I am an engineer and I'm also a certified cost accountant. What that means is that I evaluate business costs and risks for a living. Anyone who says there is no risk in asteroid mining has no idea what they are talking about. It might be feasible a long time from now but there will have to be a huge amount of government financed research before it is ever possible that private enterprise will go there.

The financial risk alone is enormous and there is no guarantee of success and basically none of the necessary technology currently exists. A mission like this is hugely expensive (many many $billions if not $trillions) and and good luck getting insurance since the risks are unknown and unquantifiable currently. We do not have ANY equipment capable of mining an asteroid nor any near term reasonable prospect of seeing any - particularly from the private sector. (When Caterpillar starts working on it then you should sit up and take notice) We don't have any equipment capable of refining such minerals in space either so that will have to be developed (along with an adequate and robust power supply) or you'll have to return raw ore to Earth.

As for the "spectacular gains", that requires returning the (hypothetically) mined minerals to Earth which is the only place they currently are useful. Even if you somehow manage to return a huge amount of a valuable mineral to Earth you'll disrupt the market value of that mineral most likely causing prices to drop while your costs (many many $billions) will remain fixed and large. While that doesn't preclude it being a profitable enterprise, it does make evaluating the return complicated. And I'm a certified cost accountant so I know first hand how hard calculating the ROI would be. (borderline impossible FYI)

Worst of all any mined materials have to be returned to Earth in large (heavy) quantities. If you drop a large amount of minerals onto the surface of the Earth from space, congratulations! You have just created a Weapon of Mass Destruction. If you can return an asteroid from orbit you can just as easily drop it (on purpose or on accident) on someone to catastrophic effect. Even the remote risk of someone accidentally doing this means the risk of this technology is enormous.

His mistake is that he thinks we don't already spend the money on social programs. Our government expenditures on social programs outpace our expenditures on NASA something like 50 to 1. It's not even close. Sounds like your "science" teacher was a clueless fool.

Ok, how do you propose to do that? Private enterprise isn't going to do basic research and exploration - not at a meaningful scale anyway. Exploration of the frontiers of knowledge and basic research is almost entirely government funded. Don't believe me? Take a look at who is behind almost all research grants. (hint, NIH, DARPA, NSF are good places to look)

No it isn't and it never will be. Not at the real frontiers of exploration anyway. I'm an accountant and I can assure you that you cannot make a credible financial business plan for a trip to Mars for example such that it will get financial backing. Why? 1) The risks are unknown and unquantifiable. We simply don't know what we don't know. 2) The financial capital required is huge and there is no reasonable guarantee of a return based on past experience. 3) The only institution that can fund exploration on a large scale without an expectation of a financial return is the government. Once the boundaries have been moved then private enterprise can come in behind (ala SpaceX) and make it more efficient and useful but you simply CANNOT make a credible business plan and get it funded for something like a manned mission to mars. Companies do not fund big things unless they can have some reasonable expectation of a return on their investment.

If the opponent can never catch up then it isn't a race. A race is a competition by definition. If one side can never win then it was never actually a competition in any meaningful sense of the word.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. What is certain is that competition gets results. Our entire economy is based on it. The ONLY reason we went to the moon was because we were at (cold) war with the Soviets. Take away that driver and the Apollo missions simply would never have happened. Once it was clear the Soviets weren't going to the moon, the Apollo program was folded like a cheap tent and we haven't been back since.

I have seen no compelling argument or evidence to support this assertion and you certainly haven't presented either here.

There is this thing called Wikipedia that is just chock full of answers to questions like that.

Because it won't work. There is a reason we have competitive markets instead of collaborative markets. Collaboration works on a small scale but you need to harness competition to really push the boundaries quickly. Not to say collaboration is a bad thing but it simply will not make things happen. Sad but true.

NdGT makes a very good point that the only technologies that are really expensive (like space travel) that get funded are either in response to existential threats (i.e. nuclear war, etc) or for tangible financial gain. When it comes to space exploration you simply cannot quantify the risks sufficiently to get a return on investment so financial gain is off the table for anything on the frontier of our technology and knowledge. We went to the moon because we were in a (cold) war with the Soviet Union at the time. That underpinned everything we did in the Apollo missions. Once the Soviets cancelled their moon missions, so did we and we haven't been back since.

Will never happen. Retrofit costs are far too high and I shudder to imagine the technical support nightmare that would cause.

I truly wish that were always true. Problem is that it isn't far too often. I've experienced first hand IT departments (usually in larger companies though not always) deny very practical reasonable requests made nicely because it "wasn't policy" and in some cases because they simply didn't want to. I've seen them verbally demean fellow employees which is never acceptable even when they are being stupid.

If I actually do know what I'm doing then it is perfectly reasonable for me to not pretend to be stupid. I should be polite and respectful but there is nothing wrong with me saying what I think, especially if I actually do know the answer. Ever called a helpdesk when you actually know what the problem is? I have. It is a very frustrating experience to be walked through a bunch of pointless nonsense by someone who isn't listening to what you are telling them. A lot of us out here actually do know what we are doing and know where the limits of our knowledge are. (sadly and to your point some other people don't but that's a separate issue) IT departments that demand you play dumb are another symptom of the problem.

Fine advice but not really relevant to the problem being discussed which is why IT departments are seen as a barrier to be worked around. Believe me I'm on the side of IT here but there are a lot of them that just don't seem to grok that they are either getting in the way or perceived to be difficult to work with. You can't change the behavior of others but it's unreasonable to expect others to change their behavior until you've done everything you can do.

Every job is (or should be) vital to the company. Accounting isn't value added activity but it certainly is vital. Inventory management isn't value added but it certainly is vital. Of course IT is a sort of plumbing in a figurative sense. But the maintenance department which does real plumbing doesn't belittle company employees for not knowing how to hook up a toilet. They aren't perceived as a barrier to be worked around and there is a reason for that. IT departments far too often get in the way and are needlessly difficult to work with. What they do is important but it isn't the only important thing going on in a company.

You're missing the important question which is WHY didn't the guy trust his IT department to handle it? Why did he feel the need to go around them in the first place? Whether he knew what he was doing or not is mostly irrelevant. The problem is that he didn't trust his IT department so he went around them. THAT is the root of the problem. The fact that he got owned later on is merely the symptom of the problem.

This is EXACTLY the arrogant attitude that makes people not want to deal with their IT department.

The question you should be asking is why didn't he go to his IT department first? Why didn't he trust them to listen to what he wanted and make it happen? There has to be a reason he thought his buddy would be more helpful. This is exactly what I would expect to see when people regard the IT department as an obstacle.

First off I've dealt with WAY too many IT departments who actually ARE control freaks. Anecdotal to be sure but it's not hard to find examples. Second, you are missing the point. Yes IT can help get it right but that is not the problem. The problem is that they are seen as a barrier rather than an aid. They say "no" rather than "why don't we try this instead". I've seen far too many IT departments that treat their users as a burden to be endured rather than valued customers.

That's typically because many IT departments rarely add value to what other departments are trying to accomplish. A good IT department's role is to facilitate and support the activities of other departments. Their job should be to ask "how can I help you accomplish your tasks?" The problem is that too many IT departments think their primary task is to control the network and IT resources without much regard paid to what other departments are trying to accomplish with those resources. IT too often thinks of itself as an end rather than a means. So it should surprise no one that many departments in many companies regard IT as a barrier to be worked around rather than a partner ready and willing to help.