Sorry about the dupe. Pasted too much below the break, didn't see it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Hm, indeed. But Mars will be a consumer of resources as far as the Earth is concerned, as it will not return energy or materials to the home world. It provides adventure and a limited amount of room for the fortunate; it can't ship back things we need, AKA power from powersats, or metals, or even habitats for animals that will be wiped out soon enough. As a side note, it would also consume our best and brightest, so the net effect for Earth would be negative again. Yep, we can do both - but Elon Musk is a Mars-only guy. And he doesn't understand electromagnetic launching from Earth, as he thinks we have to fire the ship through atmosphere at escape velocity right from the railhead, when instead you only require a few hundred miles an hour to eliminate the first stage. He is great, but he needs a little advice.
Given another option - leaving - human behavior changes. The Americas performed that function for Europe once, and now we need new Americas. Some will fight for the same old reasons - property owners, mostly - but the usual crew of poor and crazy and criminal will leap at the chance to start over. And the people in the sky will quickly outnumber the people on Earth.
The idea isn't to move people off-planet to ease population crowding, anyway. We can't ship enough - they are born faster than that. The need is to move industry and power generation off planet (and to provide a new place to live too!) so that enormous new energy and material wealth can shower down on the beleaguered overpopulated world. That gives us breathing room to bring living standards and education up to a level people limit their childbearing voluntarily. It happened in Mexico - their birth rate dropped to replacement levels when a certain level of prosperity and education was achieved. We need to do this to leverage our abilities to save our own asses down here.
It would be a mistake to leave, at great expense, a gigantic gravity trap like ours just to fall down yet another on another planet. Free Earth or solar orbit, or libration points among the planets, are the place to colonize.
Mars has limited room. Population growth would cover it in less than two centuries, not to mention suburbia syndrome, which would have the first settlers become real estate moguls selling to wealthy later arrivals who each want to buy ten thousand hectares of Martian land to build the equivalent of a ranch. Not only limited room, but immediately wasted room as they emulate the American property model. And they'd point guns at anyone taking "their" land, so don't picture a Star Trek utopia.
Free orbital spaces - rotating terraria - could be built out of asteroidal or lunar material ("rail gun" launched, using a recirculating bucket on a track to fling it into a manufacturing complex where abundant solar energy could power the industry. Build large structures (Babylon 5, tho I never saw the show) that rotate to create a down, air, containt whatever landscape or factory settings you want, grow their own crops, and house tens of thousands to who the hell knows how many once people figure out how to build BIG ones. In contrast to Mars, the environment would be compatible with humans. And so much asteroidal material is out there - even ONE could supply thousands of terraria - that we could house hundreds of billions. And point being, really - anyone who tried could go. Enough room for everyone. If Earth doesn't suit you, build one of your own. Mars, on the other hand, will be limited from the get-go. Not that I wouldn't go to Mars, to stay, one-way ticket, to live out my life. But I'd rather be part of a much bigger picture.
I noted Musk was going the wrong direction earlier this year. Can't blame him - NASA and the most vocal "crazy" scientists have been talking up Mars for sixty years. But I don't think he ever read "The High Frontier" or any of the 1975 Ames studies on space colonies (should be christened "terraria" - Kim Stanley Robinson takes the credit for that name, its perfect). He also doesn't understand that a electric launcher doesn't have to speed a rocket to escape velocity - just a few hundred miles an hour over a cliff would do to eliminate the need for a multistage rocket.
Focusing on Mars - or Luna (it ain't the Moon! It has a name! Lost cause I know) will waste another half century when we could be creating a far larger, and richer, and superior endeavor. And the industrial capacity of orbital settlements would be immense. Need an umbrella to shade the Earth? No problem, about ten years with downtime capacity on the terraria fabricators, and we have a parasol. Need ten million tons of titanium to build superrails or superhighways? Sure, splashdown where you want it. Earth needs to get the crushing industrial poisoning and overgrowth moved off planet. And it would be better, cheaper, and practically unlimited. We're grasping for oil when we are surrounded by enough energy to supply our civilization ten thousand times over just above the atmosphere. Poisoning our water supply for one last dreg of crude.
I do hope there is a hell so John Calvin is burning eternally on a pile of gold for what he has done to the western world. Good Burghers who obviously are virtuous and rewarded with money by God's will for their business skills, and the worthless freeloaders destined to hell for their laziness; it informs all that we do. That world view is based on hatred of the poor, who somehow are getting Something for Nothing, and complete blindness to the hereditary wealthy you are draining you of every penny you make or borrow. They play on your jealousy *of the poor* for Godssakes. Darn those Lucky Duckies!
"I got that service in asia. Why cant I have it here?
You are ok with getting ripped off, so others should be too?
Nice philosophy. Cork sucking icehole. Go die in a ditch"
I think we need less - or none - of the both-sides neoliberal accommodation to the assholes robbing us blind and more "Go die in a ditch." Seems to work brilliantly for the neocons. Sometimes there is no arguing with a robber; they are assholes and need to be called assholes, before we toss their carcasses into the aforementioned ditch. Figuratively, of course. This isn't a polite discussion about law - this is aiding and abetting mass robbery of he public. BILLIONS of dollars flowing into the accounts of MBAs in the name of the "free market". There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Market! Simply witness the truth of it. They have the juice and the money to take over their own regulators, and have done so.
It is nearly impossible to create a local carrier. Witness: no local carriers. All bought up by Comcast. Free markets create monopolies when the realities of the situation does not support multiple versions of the same service. Hence we go to what works - the local utility model. Kick the bastards out.
You're either a troll or a really stupid business analyst. Right-o, no-one ever leverages obviously lousy deals that *sound* good. Especially not billionaire companies with a legal and marketing staff (pro liars) of hundreds.
You will use healthcare. Oh, you will. Care.
"8 is related to a pre-existing requirement from awhile ago, they just want it extended for 5 years and to apply to the merged area, but even so, then what, whos going to use it or build a business around it knowing it will killed off after 5 years?"
Who? An organization who just wants to provide broadband, instead of a corporation which wants infinitely increasing revenue. For instance, a municipal government, or a companied chartered by that government. Who can also simply say "It will be so!" and lay the lines whereever they are needed.
I really don't care about the motive to make infinite profits. Water and electric and gas were provided for over a hundred years at a reasonable cost. People got paid to run and maintain the systems, and it worked. They're selling our municipal utilities off while we're speaking. Result: prices are doubling and will redouble, and service goes down or practically disapears, the systems disintegrate, and a few billionaires get rich.
"If you define "crime" properly, pretty much _everything_ anybody does on the Internet is criminal."
Well said, and correct, Anonymous poster. "Criminal" has no meaning, or any meaning they wish.
In Russia, criticizing the Orthodox Church will see them slam you in prison, and calling out Putin as a pedo will get you and half a restaurant radioactively poisoned with polonium, which only comes from government nuclear reactors.
In Israel, trying to leave your ghetto may get you killed, tortured, or dumped in prison, or all three.
In Saudi Arabia, pretty much anything is "criminal" (except, of course, anything royals choose to do, including creating and running Al Qaida).
Everything and nothing is a crime. Bedspreads are golden sprinkler cookie clowns. See? So much fun when words mean nothing at all.
Fox News never showed the 60,000+ Iraqis we incinerated, shot, and crushed to death. Nor the burnt and mangled children and adults who survived our attacks. Or the prison camps, mostly holding people who we felt like might be a problem - and who are probably still in the camps. If you wanted to cover such things, you could go to hell, as far as the military was concerned. People died finding truth while Fox's old draft avoiding men and MILFy women pseudonewspeople in tight skirts sat in air-conditioned studios and made. Shit. Up.
And in another decade, that system is overwhelmed, and in two more decades, useless. Population growth problems expand geometrically, not linearly. Too many people in too little space trying to do things as their great-great-great-grandparents did on the open prairies and mountainsides. No matter what is done, in one or two generations it is overcome again. You have to shoot where the bird is gonna be, not where it is - solutions that solve your generation's problem will be a disaster to a future generations who are much more numerous, not to mention their proclivities to consume more each year.
Can't overpopulate and not expect consequences. The complications arrive on a hockey-stick curve, as geometric growth is *not* linear. The complexity of the structure to support that population builds slowly, then accelerates rapidly - and finally cannot be sustained. And as taxes don't expand geometrically, the lines cross and infrastructure failure commences. And that already happened; we can't - or won't- raise enough money to fix the aggregate and growing backlog of repair of structures our grandparents started. And perhaps shouldn't - open roads and suburbs made sense when there were a hundred million people. A half-billion people will grind the flow to a halt - and their very presence makes it nearly impossible to expand existing roads or train lines. We could: 1) keep pretending 1950 will last forever, and fail. 2) increase taxes and become ferocious about emminent domain and build the train lines we need whereever they need to be. 3) learn to tunnel cheaply and extensively and build out underground 4) fly 5) control population growth and the hell that comes with it when it achieves orbital velocity, as it is now - accept a slow rollback period while supporting a gigantic population of aging people for a few decades, then a stable, smaller population could be sustained at the level of expenditure we care to support (expenditure not being just money - we expend wildlife and ecologies to expand our numbers).
America declared overpopulation a solved problem - because it can't do math. Nothing can grow forever in a closed system.