From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 13:31:28 MDT
On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 09:41 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> As I have seen several people become convinced that weren't already, I
> have an existence proof that predestination does not govern acceptance
> of these ideas. You aren't claiming people are incapable of changing
> their minds are you?
Not at all. I was merely wondering how much resources we should expend
on PR. I think mainstream science is already working on the stuff we
want. I think mainstream product producers are already trying to figure
out what to do with it. It is not like the industry will stand still
due to lack of interest. So if the exponential growth curve is already
occurring at an unstoppable rate, how much more PR do we need? Maybe we
can redirect our efforts toward our own little projects instead, and
will be ready when the technology arrives or gains acceptance.
> If by this stuff you mean just the technology itself then I, with
> reservations, agree. But the labs, government and military are not the
> one's that will provide a unifying vision of what is
> possible/desirable. Without that you will see hyper-tech versions of
> same old same old imho.
I don't suggest that we stop dreaming or planning. I just wonder how
important it is that we try to get buy-in from the public at this
stage. I am getting tired of trying to get people to admit that this
stuff might be possible. Most of our "news" releases are predictions
about what might happen some day. Most of our "projects" are ideas that
we plan to do some day. Most of our "arguments" are over how stuff
works that doesn't exist yet. Everything is theoretical and in the
future. In a business sense, its still vaporware. Why advertise now?
Why not put our efforts into development and advertise later when stuff
is actually ready?
>> (The moon missions seem to be a fluke that we no longer can reproduce
>> with today's equipment.)
>
> huh?
The moon landings were created with Saturn V's that can no longer be
produced because the factories are gone. The computer software no
longer runs on today's computers. Most analysts agree that it would be
better to design future craft from scratch rather than try to reproduce
anything we once had.
Our current shuttle fleet cannot leave earth's gravity. They only
achieve a temporary low orbit at best. In this sense, our manned space
program has definitely lost ground rather than gaining ground.
I'm not sure we can garner enough money and support to launch a manned
program today. The incentive combination of the cold-war, support of
government, and economics that made the moon landings possible were a
rare fluke that probably is not repeatable. I doubt we could achieve
such a huge undertaking today.
Therefore, we need new designs with new technology that work for smaller
organizations without massive government funding, without reusing old
stuff that doesn't work anymore. In other words, we are reinventing
space flight from scratch with new technology. The old system doesn't
work and won't be repeated or revived. In a way, we are a pre-space
civilization that is just starting to venture into space. It will be
years before we have a spacecraft capable of taking humans to the moon
again.
>> We can't even get our laptops to stop crashing every day, yet
>
> Easy. Wipe Windows off the disk. Install Linux. Reboot for the last
> time. :-)
Agreed! In front of me I have a Linux server, a Windows laptop, and an
i-Mac. I see a Windows crash every few days. I used to see a Macintosh
crash every few weeks or months, but have not seen once since upgrading
to MacOS X last year. My Linux system has never crashed and goes a year
or more without me rebooting it.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:24 MST