Well then I agree with you.

When an actual scientist tells me that CFCs are bad or whatever, then I listen. But if some random joe says he's afraid that there may possibly be some unknown danger that nobody has thought of, I think he's just a fear monger. What pisses me off is that every new idea that appears on Slashdot is met with legions of random Joes. I'm starting to burn out from all this cynicism. Why can't people say, "that's an interesting idea, let's test it out." Why must there always be multiple posts about how it may be bad.

If you feel a few microwaves will burn ya

What makes you think that I feel a few microwaves will burn me?

Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?

The story I heard was thus: There is a process called "man-rating" which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people. The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever. Essentially, you have gobs of documentation that say things like, "this bolt will fail in this circumstance. The resulting stress on the other 20 bolts is X" "In the event that this tube leaks, the pressure will be Y" In some cases, you have to make things redundant: "the failure rate of this pump is X, which is beyond the risk tolerance for manned flight, so we have this backup pump - the chance that both pumps will fail is Y"

Bottom line: you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated. And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy, than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up.

I hate people who take a stance without considering all the possibilities

All the possibilities huh. There's a difference between rational consideration and the constant cynical sniping that is so common today. We can't suggest *anything* without people leaping over themselves to suggest a doomsday scenario associated with it. Those are the people (and you're in that group) that need to STFU. If there's a scientist or an engineer who says, "wait a minute" then I'll listen. Everyone else is just being attention whores.

Someone proposes wind power. Response:whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Low frequency noise from the blades could cause earthquakes!!

Someone proposes creating an "internet" Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Haven't you read 1984??

GPS. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Those satelites contain nuclear clocks. NUCLEAR! If they crash, they'll explode and kill all life on earth!

Electric cars. Response: whoa whoa whoa, batteries contain toxic chemicals!

Millions of years ago in Africa: hey, let's get the fuck out of here and move North. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities.

All I'm saying is that I'm tired of people like you that think it's your duty to imagine some scary consequence. If there were a few of you, it wouldn't bother me, but you're legion. It pisses me off. Your attitude should be, let's try something new and keep our eyes and minds open to see how it works. Once we have at least one of these stations working, THEN we talk about what it's doing to the environment. If it's bad, we shut it down or work to fix it. Sitting back in your chair criticizing proposals by actual smart people just pisses me off - it's a bit like that scene in Cryptonomicon where the snooty academic says, "how many neighborhoods will be bulldoze to build this information superhighway." The guy thought he was being clever, but actually he was just making a fool of himself. He didn't understand the technology - he should STFU.

Please remind me, how many times have YOU subjected an ecosystem to increased concentrations of directed microwave emissions?

LOL. Every time I've used bluetooth device, an AM/FM radio, or a cell phone.

Question: Why are arguments from the position of ignorance even allowed on slashdot? You are just as stupid as someone arguing against evolution or saying that the apollo landings never happened. Either get on the side of science or get away from a computer.

[citation needed]

See, I think that your comment is FUD. I think that if these microwaves are at the right frequency to excite water molecules (and thus hurt animals) that they'd also be absorbed by the atmosphere and thus not useful for the transmission of power. But every time this story comes up, someone makes a post based on fear. How sad.

There's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines.

Quite true. One moderately sized asteroid contains more nickle and more iron that has ever been mined on Earth - ever, in the history of our planet. Most of the world's nickle comes from a site in Canada where an asteroid hit. Most of our iron comes from banded iron formations and to get at them, we dig giant open pits that we can never refill and that eventually become toxic to the environment.

Imagine a future where mining on Earth was illegal. Imagine a future where the Earth is like a nature preserve where people live or go on vacation, where all of our destructive and polluting industry, power generation, and resource collection happens in space. All of that is possible, but we wont do it because we'd rather spend money on short-term problems (like health care for example, but also wars).

Space is to our generation what Europe was to the first humans. They stood on the north coast of Africa and could just barely see that there was another world out there. But they had other problems. They were always hungry, they were being eaten by lions. I'm sure some people said, "whoa whoa whoa you want to try and swim over to Europe? No way! We have to solve ALL of our problems here in Africa first. We need to invest in domesticating zebras and concentrate on trying to grow crops here in the desert. Then, when we've got all that worked out, then you can go to Europe." But see, that's just short-sighted. If you go to Europe all of those problems take care of themsevles eventually. You find better land for crops, a better environment, better animals for domestication.

If we really commit ourselves to space, we'll find that the benefits of doing that solve most of the problems that we use today as excuses to not go into space. The reason is simple: more resources, more riches, will benefit everyone - sometimes in ways that we can't even imagine. You're sitting, wherever you're sitting, in a nice air conditioned room. All of the technology and infrastructure that insulates you from the heat outside is made possible by the resource, "oil" that flows into your economy. The first person to discover coal or oil couldn't have imagined air conditioning or the internet or synthetic fertilizer, just like we can't imagine how the "gold mine" as you put it, in space, will change our future.

But alas, we wont do it because people are too shortsighted.

"There is a galactic market for maybe five supernovae."

"Your supernova is powerful and well-formed, but in order to earn anything better than a C from me, it must be feasible"

Undeliverable: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. The following recipient(s) cannot be reached: girlfriend@drinkypoo.com

The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.

Hypothesis: "less pleasurable" is not real, but imagined.
Prediction: A person who does not know if he is wearing a condom cannot feel that he is or is not wearing one.
Test: Can you tell if a condom breaks? Answer: yes. I've had several break (it happens in cold climates if you're dumb enough to leave your wallet in the car)

Result: your claim is rejected. "less pleasurable" *is* real.

Completely irrelevant.

Logical fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

Another logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequent, but I'll address it anyway. You're saying that the real reason people don't buy condoms is not that they have a legitimate reason for disliking them, but simply that they're embarrassed. I don't know if you're posting through a time machine from 1970, but in 2009 there are two kinds of people, those who realize it's no big deal to buy condoms, and those who can use the internet to buy them from drugstore.com.

Your opinions are based on either irrelevant facts, fallacious logic, or are outright wrong, as I have demonstrated.

wow, you just proved mewsenews' point. You've never worn a condom. If you had, you would know that the problem isn't that they're too tight. The problem is the (lack of) feeling.

For one-night-stands where you need to protect yourself against STDs, people will keep using condoms. But in a steady relationship, condoms are horrible, and you're gong to want an alternative. Some women's bodies can't handle the pill (or maybe you just want to take responsibility yourself) in which case, this shot will be a god-send. You'll be able to enjoy sex without having children.

and when I say, "you" I mean someone else.

I notice this a lot. Journalists can't take the time to learn about technology, and it shows in their writing. I often wonder if doctors feel the same way when watching Dr. shows on TV.

Gattaca was supposed to show us a dark future. It was supposed to be a cautionary tale. The message was, "if your DNA isn't good enough, you'll have to make do banging Uma Thermon - poor you."

I don't think the producers thought their cunning plan all the way through.

Your logic is impeccable. There are some new ideas that didn't work, therefore we shouldn't try any idea that looks hard.

2008 -

2000 - if we listen to people like you with your unrealistic "wikipedia" pipe dreams, we'll never have the resources to print enough encyclopedia britannicas for everyone!

1980 - if we listen to people like you with your unrealistic "internet" dreams, we'll never have the resources to put mainframe computers in every house.

1950 - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "satellite" dreams, we'll never have the resources to implement global communications.

1930 - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "offshore oil well" dreams, we'll never have the resources mine the coal we need for our steam engines. Just stop and think about how obviously dangerous, expensive, and stupid it is to try and get oil out of the north sea! You're crazy!

1850 - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "fossil fuel oil well" dreams, we'll never have the resources to hunt the endless supply of sperm wales.

1800 - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "transcontinental railroad" dreams...

1450 - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "sea route to asia" dreams...

4000 bc - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "riding a horse" dreams...

10,000 bc - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "farming" dreams...

60,000 bc - if we listen to people like you, with your unrealistic "leaving africa" dreams...

1,000,000 bc - Ogg not listen stupid "fire" dreams. Rocks hard. Rocks not make fire. Ogg more important things think about, like get food/stay warm.

Why haven't you gone extinct yet? It must be that your ancestors learned to parasite themselves on people that actually do things. Plus, just stop and think about how silly this is:

Yes, because there's only one solar panel in the whole world, and if we shoot it into space that's it, it's gone, and we can't build a second one for use on Earth. Whoa, better not drop it, since it's the only one we've got.

It couldn't possibly be that investing in either earth-based or space-based power will end up benefiting the other field. No no, that makes too much sense.