Former Congressional space staffer David Goldston has a piece over at Nature about the grid-locked and paralytic state of space policy. He also describes the ongoing ignorance of much of the Congress, the media, and the public on the subject:
…the story one hears now from most members of Congress, and some in the media, is that the president made a speech about going to Mars in 2004, got nothing but grief for it, and the proposal went nowhere. This is, of course, almost entirely wrong.
Professor Postrel has an interesting post on the best way to deal with carbon, assuming that we should:
Let
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Here’s an interesting piece that says it’s hurting small investors:
Today, it is much harder to get in on the firms that could be the next Home Depot, unless you are a super-wealthy investor that can participate in private equity deals. According to BusinessWeek, the median market cap of a company going public was $52 million in the mid-1990s. Today, it’s $227 million. This means that average investors are increasingly shut out of a company’s emerging growth stages, where they would, yes, take the most risks, but also could reap the biggest returns.
The most costly provision, Section 404, forces auditors and executives to sign off not only on the accuracy of financial statements, but also on a company’s internal controls. The unaccountable Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by the law has defined “internal controls” very broadly, to include a firm’s software and other items that have little relevance to financial statements. Some say the law should be called the Accountants Full Employment Act.
As usual, hard cases make bad law. This gross overreaction to the Enron debacle can only make it harder for space entrepreneurs to raise money. Here’s hoping for some reform.
If one has Vonage, and a bluetooth dongle on the computer, is it possible to use a the same bluetooth headset that one uses with one’s cell phone with it? If so, what’s involved?
…and it’s permanence:
A big part of the problem is our outmoded civil-service system that makes it too hard to hire good employees and too hard to fire bad ones. The bureaucracy has become gargantuan, making accountability and reform very difficult.
Faced with this managerial swampland, the number of talented executives willing to come to Washington continues to dwindle. Those who do accept the challenges usually want to tackle big national goals in the few years they spend in public service instead of fighting their own agencies. So the bureaucracy just keeps rolling along.
And anyone who thinks that things would be better if we changed parties in the White House are deluding themselves.
Apparently it was a “someone else’s culpa.” I always love that passive voice. It takes me back to the nineties.
There’s a lot of interesting discussion over at Space Politics about NASA’s budget dilemma. Al Fansome makes a very interesting point, that needs to be turned into a policy paper:
There are other clear