OK I did.

...the Internet marketplace can be analytically split into three categories: content providers... ISPs ..., and end-users. The end-users are consumers, whose consumption preferences ultimately determine the value of content. ISPs interact directly with consumers by selling the high-speed connections that allow their customers to access content.

They *define* the Internet as a one-way information transfer system like television, so of course any law that recognizes that the Internet is designed for two-way transfer between peers (some bigger than others) would be perceived as "breaking the Internet".

And they are solving the wrong problem. The real problem is back at the last mile, where there is NO CHOICE.

Which can only be addressed by heavy regulation, or by (gasp!) socialized infrastructure. Both of which are anathema to Randians, so this brings us to the second term of the day: Cognitive Dissonance.

It's always fun watching individualist libertarians wrestle with the concept of a natural monopoly.

This one goes out to all you libertarians who've been lining up behind the "New GOP", the Republican party that says it's looking out for individual liberties rather than corporate greed.

And yeah, I know what the truly die-hard among you are about to say: that the people who own Comcast have a right to assemble and agree to strangle internet commerce if they want to. But I say, if you allow wealthy corporate interests to accumulate far more power than the weakened government, they effectively *become* the government, and when they "exercise their liberties" it's indistinguishable from tyranny.

The argument, and the Payola example, boil down to this: the way to prevent people from censoring your content is to pay them not to.
Counterargument: the way to prevent people from censoring your content is to make it illegal to do so, rather than buying in to their extortion racket.

Payola worked because the station owners controlled what got broadcast. But that's not how an open communications network is supposed to work.

Point taken. My complaint is that the government is setting employment as a goal for the energy industry, but I didn't distinguish between the two.

But there shouldn't be a distinction: government energy policy should set the rules of the playing field to ensure that energy companies can only maximize profits by producing lots of dirt-cheap, clean and safe energy, so profit motive is aligned with the needs of society.

The success of an energy sector should not be measured by the number of people it employs. The goal of the energy industry should be to produce boatloads of dirt-cheap energy with almost nobody working at it, so we can all go off and do something more fun with that manpower and energy.

It's quite easy to provide tons of energy jobs: we did this 1500 years ago, when almost everyone in Europe worked in the energy sector (farmers and animal handlers and woodcutters, back then). But gradually wind and water mills, coal and steam, electricity and petroleum came along, increasing the energy output of each energy sector worker, providing cheap energy and spare labor that were used a much richer, more interesting society.

Seems to me that the film and TV industry could really use a fake White House in the DC area as well.

So two options. First option, the Secret Service goes ahead and builds their fake White House outside of town, and then rents it out to movies and TV shows when it's not being used for drills, offsetting part of their budget.

Second option, some enterprising DC-area landowner builds their own fake White House, and rents it out for both Secret Service drills and for movies and TV shows.

Also worth pointing out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- there actually is a fake White House in the DC area already, but the grounds aren't very much like the real thing, so it's not too useful for the Secret Service.

No need for a moat. Just make a shallow depression on the White House side of the fence, and plant the slope back up to the White House Lawn with a low hedge of barberry, firethorn, and roses. Beautiful for picture taking, will make casual fencejumpers think twice, and slow down anyone who does. Won't stop a serious assault, but that's not what this is about.

Welcome to the new America, where license agreements can trump the Bill of Rights.

The kinetic energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity, and objects arriving at the moon from Earth will be moving about 2.4 km/s. An object going this fast has a kinetic energy roughly equal to its weight in dynamite, and will release that energy instantly on contact with the ground or any stationary object.

The moment your fishhook touches the ground, it will vaporize and create a small crater. Kaboom.

Yes, you can use mass drivers in reverse. Sorry, but it's not a new idea. The big challenge is that if the incoming payload is even slightly off target, it crashes into the mass driver, turning both into a cloud of expanding vapor and a shiny new lunar crater.

You're thinking farther along in the colonization process than I am: I'm imagining the difficulty of the first steps, when megastructures like a railgun aren't available.

That said, electromagnetic launch is totally doable on Mars. Atmospheric pressure is already 300 times less than Earth's, and if that's not enough, just build your space cannon on the slopes of your favorite volcano, reducing atmospheric pressure by another factor of 10.

Can you cite a source? Not aquarium owners' street smarts, something that includes actual numbers. Gills and water are very different from lungs and air, so the important measurement is whether fish can tolerate much higher CO2 concentrations *in their blood* (corresponding to much lower blood pH) than humans.

A terraformed Mars requires something like 100x as much CO2 in the atmosphere as on Earth. Can any vertebrate survive that kind of CO2 concentration in their blood?

You can't use gravity assist at a planet to change your orbit with respect to that same planet. So for instance, the Galileo spacecraft couldn't use Jupiter to change its orbit around Jupiter, but it could (and did) use Jupiter's moons. Same for Cassini at Saturn. Sadly, neither the Moon or Mars have any useful moons. (Mars's moons are way too small.)

Also, going from a flyby trajectory into orbit around a planet requires a *lot* of orbital change in a very short amount of time, and gravity assists aren't usually strong enough. Even Galileo brought plenty of rocket fuel.

As to it taking less fuel to get to mars then the moon... How? Just explain how that is possible.

Aerobraking. The vast majority of your spacecraft's fuel and cost is spent getting out of Earth's gravity well. If you've burnt enough fuel to get into a lunar transfer orbit, it takes just a little bit more to escape Earth entirely and go to Mars. But to *land* on the Moon, you need to spend more fuel to slow down and stop on the surface. To land on Mars, you just need a heat shield, because Mars has an atmosphere you can use to slow down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

So that's reason #1 why Mars's atmosphere isn't a joke.

I'm quite certain you could "throw" things from the moon to the earth. So the return trip wouldn't even take fuel. You could literally just give it a push.

Unless you can throw things at 2.4 kilometers per second, no. The Moon's gravity is less than the Earth's, but it's still serious business. You need quite a bit of fuel to take off from the Moon. You need fuel to take off from Mars too, but Mars's atmosphere has carbon dioxide: bring a little hydrogen with you (or use the local water) and a source of energy (solar panels or a reactor) and you can synthesize methane and oxygen fuel while you're there. No need to carry fuel for the trip home!

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/...

Reason #2 why Mars's atmosphere isn't a joke.

[Mars's atmosphere] is not enough to appreciably reduce radiation to the surface.

Oh, but it is. Mars's atmosphere is thick enough to shield radiation about as well as several inches of concrete, reducing radiation exposure by a factor of 2-3. It's also further from the Sun than the Moon, which reduces solar radiation by a factor of 2. Neither of these effects are enough on their own: you're right that Mars habitats will have to be underground too. But going outside is noticeably safer.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/...

Reason #3 why Mars's atmosphere isn't a joke.

Mars's atmosphere doesn't provide complete radiation shielding, but it does provide complete protection from meteorites up to about 1-2 meters in diameter.

https://janus.astro.umd.edu/as...

Reason #4 why Mars's atmosphere isn't a joke.

And finally, the Moon has craters and lava flows and that's all. Mars has those, plus volcanoes and canyons and ice caps and wind and clouds and storms and snow and glaciers and sand dunes and landslides and groundwater and river valleys and maybe an ancient ocean and maybe, once upon a time, life. Why? Because Mars has an atmosphere.

Reason #5 -- the most important one -- why Mars's atmosphere isn't a joke.

As to why not do it on earth? That question doesn't even make sense.

It was a rhetorical point, not a serious proposal. I'm saying that if you're going to spend your whole life hiding in a sterile burrow, does it really matter that you're on another planet?

For the record, none of these ideas are my own. I'm quoting chapter and verse from "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. Zubrin's got his problems -- he's a little too casual about the radiation dangers, for instance -- but IMO it's a good starting point for any serious discussion of colonizing the solar system.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mar...