Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: The treaty says no such thing. (Score 1) 134

You know, you post as AC but it's really obvious who you are, you have the same writing style everywhere you post ;)

Anyway, here's what the treaty actually says:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Any questions?

Comment Re:The treaty says no such thing. (Score 2) 134

The missing part is making explicit that an entity owns what it mines and has the right to work the mines it develops. I think given the context it's pretty clear that this was expected, but it is an oversight. You know, if one corporation spent billions clearing the overburden off an asteroid, then another company comes in and just starts mining the ore in question... that's a big problem. It needs to be controlled. Really, it should be allocated out in blocks, with exclusive rights given to use the blocks but only if they're actively working those blocks within a certain timeperiod from their last renewal.

On Earth this is done by nations auctioning off resource extraction rights, but since there's no national ownership of territory in space, no nation could rightfully profit from selling off resource blocks. Blocks would either have to be free or for profits go to an international fund. In the early days, since nobody knows whether space mining actually will play out to be profitable at this point in time, one would expect them to start out free.

But of course all of this would require a new treaty.

Comment Re:The treaty says no such thing. (Score 1) 134

Things don't always come down to that. Look at the Cod Wars between Iceland and the UK. Three times Iceland pushed the UK - a nuclear power with hundreds of times its population - back further and further out its shores. The UK had the military ability to crush Iceland like an ant. But Iceland succeeded by combination of making it economically unfeasible for the British to fish Icelandic waters (net cutters, for example) and well-played international geopolitical maneuvering (for example, threatening to give the NATO base at Keflavík to the Soviets if the US didn't exert pressure on the UK, while also successfully positioning itself as a small weak state being bullied by a large powerful one)

Anyway, the Outer Space Treaty was well meaning. Think of the context of the Cold War and how that was all playing out. It seemed logical to think that both nations would begin laying claim to various bodies (or parts thereof), say by landing as many landers as they could to them... which would inherently lead to disputes, just like happens with worthless pieces of land on Earth - with the each side supporting their claim by military means, just like happens on Earth. It was seen as a ripe grounds for an unchecked military escalation, and while it would start out on other celestial bodies, it would progress to LEO and GEO, and then to Earth.

They were probably way overly optimistic about the space of advancement in space technology (remember, this was 1967) and overly pessimistic about everything else. They certainly weren't trying to "block commercial mining"; the goal was simply to prevent a space arms race between rival powers. Quite to the contrary, the treaty talks frequently about encouraging the peaceful use of space for the benefit of humanity. There's just one detail missing, which is to make explicit that corporations or individuals own what they mine. Without that, there won't be much of any "use of space" beyond exploration.

Comment Re:The treaty says no such thing. (Score 2) 134

Getting things *to* locations in space is inherently expensive. The cost of getting them *back* is not inherently so, if you don't insist on each return having a custom reentry vehicle and instead just shape it as its own reentry vehicle, with full expectation that it'll suffer some ablation during atmospheric entry. Some NEOs have only dozens of meters per second delta-V to reach earth intercept with an optimal trajectory and timing - a good baseball pitcher could do that unaided ;)

Comment Re:It's just the calm before the storm (Score 1) 175

The current "refugee crisis" isn't didlley-squat compared to what happened in Europe and the USSR in the 1940s, when tens of millions were relocated to match the new international boundaries. (Or in China and Korea after the Japanese colonies there were disestablished.)

For starters, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:An angry Atheist hit Planned ParentHood :( (Score 1) 76

I don't think so:

...Mr. Dear [shooter] was raised as a Baptist, Ms. Ross [ex-wife] said in an interview in Goose Creek, S.C., where she now lives. He was religious but not a regular churchgoer, a believer but not one to harp on religion. “He believed wholeheartedly in the Bible,” she said. “That’s what he always said; he read it cover to cover to cover.”

Comment Re:You have bigger issues (Score 1) 76

I couldn't care less about a fucking Barbie doll getting owned.

People who get them for their kids might care. But, wait--

These things scream of bad parenting - people who buy those spend 75 dollars to avoid talking to their children. If you find yourself buying one of these things, you have much bigger problems to worry about than someone getting your SSID.

Seems to me you're the one with the issues. Kids, can you say, "False dichotomy"?

Comment Re:converter (Score 1) 287

Right, Apple ditched floppy disks when 64GB thumbdrives became available. Last year, right?

No, of course they did not--they simply dropped it, and left lots of their users hanging. But that's entirely orthogonal to the point I was trying to make, which, rephrased, goes something like, "I'm not opposed to change. I'm opposed to change that serves only to increase vendor lock-in whilst providing users with no real benefit other than helping to lighten the users' wallets."

Comment Re:converter (Score 3, Insightful) 287

This kind of bizarre nonsense hate just convinces me Apple's brand is still among the most powerful in the world.

I don't make calls with a brand. I do make them with my phone.

The supposedly rabid fans seem almost mythical to me, I can never find any...

You have time to talk about the power of the Apple brand as if it were a good thing, yet you've no time to look in a mirror. Interesting.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte