He said that the colonists could easily put duct tape across the cameras and there wouldn't be a thing that tv execs back on Earth could do about it.
You are open and tolerant of ideas and approaches different from your own.
You trust in yourself and maintain trust in others.
Your humor is a creative resource, used appropriately as an emerging contextual response.
Mars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B, which is completely unaffordable for the well, greatest spacefaring nation on Earth, according to the polls that I've read.These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time.
As is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars;
rather than a stunt, they should attempt to establish a sustainable private base on Mars.
"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information" of the applicant. The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process.
Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.
Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/02/2013 02:06 pmMars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B...These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time. I don't believe the $6B number... but there's no actual contradiction as Mars One is talking about doing it with all private industry.Just because it would cost NASA $12B doesn't mean that's the cheapest possible... or even close.
Mars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B...These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time.
I don't see the advantage of the Moon as a stepping stone, it's a worthy destination in its own right.
Rather than a stunt, they should attempt to establish a sustainable private base on Mars.
I believe they do in fact intend this - at least that's what they claim to intend.
"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."
The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process.
I don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?
There's little doubt in my mind that NASA's $12B cost is way too high; after all, the people who made that estimate had been instructed to hi-ball the lander and lo-ball the rock heist.But assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.
Everybody on this forum believes that there will be a re-supply mission in two years, or that there will be a retrieval mission in two years, or that they'll let the four people die up there.What do you believe?
Quote from: JFAs is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars;Quote from: VulturI don't see the advantage of the Moon as a stepping stone, it's a worthy destination in its own right.There are a number of people who agree with you on this. Some destinations, by a special ju-ju, absolutely forbid all other destinations for all time. Luna has this special ju-ju.
Quote from: JFThe applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. Quote from: VulturI don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?Most scientists agree that personal morality has no place in science. This is not my belief at all.
It has not gone unnoticed by anybody observing this $6B project, that people might be putting their lives at risk.
The producers of the TV show are writing the new legal language to own the video rights to those final moments.
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me. The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.Pragmatically, most of the applicants aren't worried by that requirement.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/04/2013 01:34 pm... assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.NASA might only be able to get that low, but how much do you think SpaceX could do it for?How much does Golden Spike say theirs would cost? (OK, it's not 4 person...)
... assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.
What do you believe?
I believe it's most likely that they will never get $1 billion much less $6 billion, and the project will never get any hardware to Mars, much less people.But IF they manage to get enough money ... they just might be able to make it work.The big problem is probably funding not feasibility.
... I just think that we don't need Luna first to go to Mars, so for a project whose goal is Mars, Luna is an unnecessary delay.A Moon base, and eventually colony, is very much a worthy thing in its own right, but IMO tying Moon to Mars will hurt both by delaying Mars and pushing Moon stuff to be developed based on 'what will help with Mars' rather than 'what will help us settle the Moon'.
(First Sentence)"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."
(Second Sentence)The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process.
Most scientists agree that personal morality has no place in science. This is not my belief at all.
Um... I'm not sure that "most scientists" would say that, and what does that have to do with anything anyway?
I hardly think that's what they want to happen! Are you suggesting they expect/want it to fail and people to die?
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me. The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.Pragmatically, most of the applicants aren't worried by that requirement. (Because everybody knows that so few people will be selected after all.)
Well, why would they be? I don't understand what's so scary about it - at least for someone who would be willing to be on a reality TV show in the first place.
Blame it on SpaceX.
Blame what on them? My point is that IF launch costs remain at or near current values, no, they can't do it for $6B.
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me. The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.<snip>
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:Quote from: 6bisIndependent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
...I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think it's possible that the "moral rights" under discussion may be described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights ....
Quote from: ChileVerde on 07/05/2013 02:08 pm...I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think it's possible that the "moral rights" under discussion may be described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights ....Neither Am I.Thanks, Chili. Like I said, this concept of "moral rights" is a new one on me. I know that I do not have the "correct" scientificismist view on morality, but the Wiki definition, apparently based on agenda 21 UN law appears to limit "moral rights" to that subset of rights within copyright law. Naturally I reject this re-framing of the concept of morality to such a narrow view.
But even within this narrow view, Mars-One has stripped all applicants of their "moral rights", by that definition, charged them for the stripping, and offers no termination clause, should an applicant no longer wish to be bound by these terms.
Both of these companies make cost claims that cannot be verified. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you appear to be holding out these claims as proof of the feasibility of the Mars-One claim.
Quote from: VulturI hardly think that's what they want to happen! Are you suggesting they expect/want it to fail and people to die?They are planning for the legalities of a possible failure. They are, in a legal fashion, admitting the expectation of possible mission failure.
Blame the cost failure on SpaceX. SpaceX has only discussed publicly, at least, launch costs, not all the other payload stuff. My point is that SpaceX cannot be "blamed" for the failure of Mars-One to properly scope and cost the mission.
You have what I would call an unwarranted confidence in the lowering of the costs of that proposed mission, based on the unverifiable cost assertions seen here and there on the memex.You do say "IF", but you don't sound, to me, like you believe that the costs are way, way underestimated, and that the mission particulars are virtually unknown.
EDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.
Quote from: Vultur on 07/07/2013 07:34 pmEDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.It is a difference of kind.
But you are free to disassociate the more primal meaning of "morality" to suit your unclear purposes.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/07/2013 10:27 pmQuote from: Vultur on 07/07/2013 07:34 pmEDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.It is a difference of kind. Why?QuoteBut you are free to disassociate the more primal meaning of "morality" to suit your unclear purposes.I'm ... not sure I understand what you mean.The term "moral rights" has a specific intellectual-property/copyright application. Its use in the MarsOne terms doesn't imply anything broader about morality.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tylerowen/lacuna-passage"Survive in a massive open environment using real Mars topography from satellite imagery. Uncover the mystery."