Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Bernie... (Score 1) 857

Your vote never meant anything, in terms of selecting a candidate. When did any of the politicians in your area ever lose by one vote?

Your vote conveys your affirmation of legitimacy to those candidates to rule in your stead. When you support the country you live in, when you support a system of government that isn't based on heredity, theology, or demonstrates their ability and willingness to use force, that is the meaning your vote conveys.

Submitting a write-in vote is not meaningless. It is meaningless in the context of actually selecting a ruling candidate, but a winning selection doesn't validate your vote as meaningful. That is a false meme propagated by the ruling elites. You are expressing your rejection of the available candidates for a position when you submit a write-in vote, and that is meaningful. It made a difference when people voted for John Anderson, Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader. (Tragically, the Democrat Party never truly learned any lesson from Ralph Nader.) You are expressing your dissatisfaction with the current people in power and their policies. People in power do not modify their actions when there is no challenge to the mandate provided by the American voter.

Not voting only demonstrates one or more of the following: you are too cowardly, self-hating, and/or lazy to fight for the country you want. When you choose to stand silent when peaceful redress is required, you only make violent revolution possible.

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

I'd argue that Pinkerton was too small and not international enough to replace the OSS, State department, or the American war manufacturing industry by the 1940's. Given the great job the Pentagon and State department did during and after the war, I don't think Pinkerton could have even matched that level of vision, on a consultant basis (but I respect the conjecture).

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

The Shuttle program was a huge waste of money to operate, and its operating existence was solely to blast into orbit components of the ISS (another space program white elephant), and the occasional repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. It was an engineering marvel of the 1970's, and arguably necessary for engineering research, but a total waste of taxpayer's money once it was kept in operation past the Challenger disaster.

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

However, this sort of statement worries me a lot, especially in the context of the recent AMOS-6 disaster where they lost a rocket on the ground and destroyed the satellite

This happens frequently in the satellite industry. That's why there's rocket payload insurance. There's nothing worth worrying about.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

No, it is not if you have to get the construction materials from Earth! Think of the hideous expense of maintaining a Moon base, along with the 3 day wait moving material back and forth using chemical rockets. You could construct a "space factory" in LEO, be under the "protection" of the Earth's magnetosphere, and not require a 3 day wait.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

A moon base although not great for colonization can make a good rest stop for deep space travel.

In what way? If you need to send back your mined cargo, you're sending it to Earth, not the Moon. When you want your human miners to return, they're returning to the Earth, not the Moon. If there is some need for a rescue out in deep space, the space company can just put a cargo pod in orbit with machines, fuel, & consumables to be sent to the asteroid, or for the space miners to go to the pod. You don't need a Moonbase to do that. It costs lots of money to make a permanent Moonbase. There also needs to be an economic justification for a Moonbase. You guys are crippled by what you think you know from 1950's science fiction, which believes you need a Moonbase OR a "stepping stone" in order to explore space. You're not looking at the actual engineering facts OR the economics of space exploration.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

Lunar colonization makes much more sense as a starting point than Martian colonization,

No, it doesn't. And it won't, until there is something to commercialize on it.

The biggest piece of ignorance which favors Lunar colonization over Mars is the notion that there is a greater energy expense to go to Mars than the Moon. The overwhelming expense comes from leaving the earth. Once in GEO, there is little difference in the amount of thrust needed to go to the Moon or go to Mars. The other flawed notion is that once there is a functioning moonbase, that its easier to resupply or rescue humans from a crisis. It costs money to make available transport back from the Moon, and no space program wants to blow that kind of money for redundant space vehicles. All so a human can stick their thumb up their ass admiring the view, running almost the same kind of experiments which can be done in LEO.

Even if an effort was made to make longterm life sustainable on the Moon, we don't know if there is enough recoverable water on the Moon to make it cost effective to defray the cost of going someplace beyond Earth orbit. To put it as an analogy, instead of sending explorers from Europe to colonize the New World, you want to send them to the Azores or Iceland first, even thought its already been done and there already human settlements, just to somehow improve the possibility of a more successful return of the explorers from the New World.

Moon colonization is a waste of time. Money would be better spent utilizing robot probes along the Moon's surface, merely to investigate if there is something worth mining on it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...