As unseemly as it might be to Canadians, an unrestrained land-grab in space is the most likely vehicle to spur progress.
It is also very likely to spur wars over territorial claims...hence the treaty preventing such claims. However extracting material from the asteroid and bringing it back to Earth seems like a perfectly allowed action under the treaty so long as the company does not try to claim that it is a US asteroid which they are mining.
Even nuclear fission power comes from heavy elements fused at the center of the sun and spat out during an early nova outburst.
Actually a supernova is required to produce the heavy, fissionable elements. Based on the ratio of Uranium isotopes the one that gave us our heavy element occured about 6 billion years ago or about 1-1.5 billion years before the solar system and Earth formed.
The sun is powered by nuclear fusion which can only create elements up to iron-56 after which you have to put energy into the process to make larger nuclei. In stars ~4-5+ times larger than our sun this comes from the sudden gravitational collapse of the core when it has burnt all the way up to iron. The result is a supernova: the core collapses into a neutron star and the resultant release in gravitational potential power both the explosion as well as the production of the heavy elements beyond iron.
In fact if you really want to escape solar power the only option is nuclear fusion. However this could be regarded as a fossil fuel since you are using energy 'fossilized' by the Big Bang and is not renewable...but then there is no such thing as renewable energy if you take the really long term view.
Since engineers and scientists naturally enjoy solving problems and sharing their knowledge, they fall into this trap easily.
Great theory but unfortunately there is a little problem that the data show that engineers are far more susceptible to this trap than scientists so your explanation completely fails to explain the data. Hence there must be a difference which you hugely long comment completely ignores.
Again I would argue that this is due to the big picture thinking of scientists. Give an engineer a problem of how to perform a "DoS attack on the enemy during a religious holiday" and that's what they will want to solve. Give the same problem to a scientist and they are more likely to ask what the goals of such an attack are and whether there are alternative and better i.e. more peaceful ways to achieve them. So the scientist may end up sympathizing but will look for their own solutions and not necessarily follow the narrow track laid out for them. Of course an engineer might do this too but their training does not emphasize this approach as strongly.
During the age of Columbus, any schmuck with a ship could go out exploring.
No they could not unless they had the backing of someone wealthy to pay for the ships, equipment and salaries needed. However they were willing to pay for it because while it was expensive and dangerous they were motivated by a variety of things: hope of treasure to plunder, land to lay claim to and knowledge of distant peoples and creature to learn about.
It's a bit sad that someone who calls themselves a scientist thinks that the only reason anyone will ever do anything is purely for money. The ability to make money will certainly be what causes space exploration to take off in a big way but, as with any frontier be it in knowledge or on the map, the first explorers are often motivated by things other than how much money they will make...that tends to follow later.
There is obviously a correlation between being dateless and becoming a terrorist.
It has to be more than that: computer scientists and physicists are not known for their terrorism or their dating (well unless it's radiocarbon dating).
Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that engineers are trained to follow rules and so it attracts people who are happy to follow rules without necessarily questioning them or completely understanding the reasoning behind them.
On the other hand scientists will question every rule you give them and even when they believe that the rules might be right they will still spend their time poking them to see if they really do apply everywhere....which is why we can be so annoying at times especially to those trying to use toxic, religious dogma to persuade others to commit irrational and immoral acts.
You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.
Which would only be relevant if people were complaining that the Belgian Army was an enemy of science. However given that at the moment they seem to be deployed on the streets of Brussels trying to keep religious fanatics from killing people I don't think this is something we need to worry about.
If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows?
The success of something does not depend solely on how good it is. How well it is marketed plays a huge role as well. I will freely admit that Bill Gates is a world class genius when it comes to marketing software. When it comes to writing well designed, easy to use software his ability is far more modest.
History is littered with examples where marketing has triumphed over technical greatness e.g. VHS vs. Betamax, the Sony mini-disc, the incandescent light bulb (invented by others marketed by Edison), Acorn Computers (who developed ARM in the late 1980's) etc. It's very common for better products to lose to better marketing - Just look at the film industry the Oscar for best picture is not handed out to the highest grossing film every year is it? So by all means admire Windows for the way it was marketed but if you are going to claim it is an excellent product you need to provide more evidence than just the volume of sales.
Until then, everyone will be capped at 1gig per device.
That's not actually correct. Thanks to channel bonding I have a Synology Disk array which has 4 Gbps connection all using inexpensive consumer grade hardware. Channel bonding 1Gb is far cheaper than 10Gb ethernet although with the new 10Gbase-T format this too is now becoming more affordable.