So I’ve added MT-Blacklist, a spam filter for comments and trackbacks, to Cogito. Granted, I haven’t been hit with any spam yet, but looking at the names in the block list, I’m not going to wait for it to start happening. I don’t want random people posting dirty smut here. That’s Pat’s job.

Annan said the UN’s security system worked well for the past 50 years.

Yahoo! News

This is true, to a large degree. That’s because the United Nations’ security system is basically, “Please don’t shoot.” That may work in countries that need credibility with the UN, but it’s not working in Iraq.

I want go on record that despite what Pat says, I’m not a neoconservative. I’m not Dick Cheney, blubbering on about how irrelevant the UN is to American policy — that’s crap. But at the same time, I’m bewildered why so many think the occupation of Iraq would be better with UN involvement.

For starters, a lot of Iraqis don’t like the United Nations. Particularly among those pesky Baathists, the UN and the US are both associated with eleven years of crippling economic sanctions. Iraqis know that they suffered, not Saddam, from being cut off from the world economy. The people who killed Sergio Vieira de Mello are not looking for more international control over reconstruction efforts — they want every last foreigner driven from Iraqi soil.

Second, no matter how unstable the situation looks under US command, the UN isn’t proving itself a dependable alternative. They ignored accepted security procedures, and flat-out refused protection from American forces — likely because they were reluctant to associate themselves with us. These are not people who are suited to run a country.

(I should note that one discussed solution to the UN’s security problem is to increase the number of Iraqi workers, so that only a few top foreigners are present. If they think Saddam’s supporters are reluctant to kill their own people, maybe they should see how successful we’ve been in setting up the Iraqi police force.)

Finally, when you look at the tepid contributions to the reconstruction project, you keep hearing Frenchies talk about a “greater role for the international community.” This is best translated as, “We’re not contributing squat unless we get a piece of the action.” Which is fine; it doesn’t mean we need to appease them. Iraq is improving, slowly, and the amount of international aid is enough that an economic recovery is still possible. Let France and Germany sit on the sidelines and make faces; even Russia is considering helping out.

The UN — and its myriad of apologists and steadfast supporters — needs to accept reality. Baghdad is not Belgrade; a blue helmet gets you as much respect as a feather boa. Unless the UN starts coordinating its mission with the Coalition, it will never play a meaningful role in building a new Iraq.

“The Digital Imprimatur” is an in-depth, step-by-step analysis of how the Internet — a revolutionary method of mass communication — is being chopped up to adhere to the traditional roles of publisher and consumer. I will admit it is a long document, but if you give half a damn about your rights in the digital world, it’s worth your time to read it. The author, John Walker, is an accomplished programmer and computer scientist, and has watched the development of the Internet since its youth.

Walker stresses that this is not some crazy-eyed prediction of a distant Orwellian future. The foundation for a restricted Internet — where anonymity and free exchange of ideas are squelched by business and media interests — is already being built, right now, before our eyes. The problem is, most people don’t notice.

The average broadband Internet user doesn’t realize all the things he is not allowed to do. Hosting a web page or a blog is technically impossible with the restrictions most ISPs place on connections; running any sort of server, whether for video games, chat, distributed processing, or sharing family pictures, is prohibited by most broadband contracts. (Speakeasy is, to my knowledge, the only ISP that has a policy of allowing its users to do whatever they want.) This means that only a “privileged” class of Internet users, who can afford pricier connections with no restrictions, are able to set up servers and publish content.

Then comes Digital Rights Management and Trusted Computing. DRM is technology that limits your ability to use content. The way it does this relies on your Internet connection; it will contact the publisher, give them a unique ID for your computer, and ask whether you’re allowed to do something. Windows Media Player 9 contains DRM technology, so that if you download a music file, and the publisher of that file doesn’t want you to burn any copies, Media Player 9 will simply not let you burn them to an audio CD.

Future versions of Windows (and possibly even Windows XP Service Pack 2) will include built-in DRM technology, so that producers of content — whether music, video, text documents, or anything else — will have direct control over what you’re allowed to do with the information on your computer. When you receive an email, you could be forbidden from forwarding it. Download a video clip, and be required to pay every time you watch it.

Trusted Computing will be the final step in cementing an interactive wall around end-users of computing technology. While companies would like consumers to believe hardware-based “trust” is about stopping viruses and spam emails, it’s really about exercising more control over your own computer — making sure media companies can “trust” your computer, but you can’t. Seth Schoen, an NMH graduate and EFF’s Staff Technologist, wrote an insightful analysis of Trusted Computing.

It’s important that anyone with a bare modicum of technical literacy understand how their computer systems are being redesigned to work against them. Computer and Internet technologies are still in their infancy, and have barely begun to live up to their potential. Public awareness is the best chance we have to prevent the Internet from becoming another exclusive media club, and to prevent our computers from being turned into nothing more than interactive televisions.

…grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
Pink Floyd

So the new $20 bills are coming out. Conspicuously, today is National Coming Out Day. Coincidence? I think the peach color says it all. But the orientation of currency is hardly my concern; it’s more the $53 million we’re spending to inform consumers that it exists. Put pictures in the newspaper; really annoying TV ads are a waste of tax money.

This makes two NASA posts in a row; I promise it won’t happen again.

In a response to my previous post, Patrick Linsey pointed out that the next-generation Orbital Space Planes (the “Space Taxi”) are intended to be slimmed-down, ultra-high-tech replacements for the Space Shuttle.

Simply put, this is hype — NASA has done its best to paint such a picture, but those promises are old news. NASA has been researching RLVs for several years already, and at least two projects (the X-33 and X-34) have already been cancelled. By now there is enough of a case against RLVs that a new approach to space exploration is warranted.

Pat also mentioned the X-Prize, which offers $10M to the first privately-funded team to bring three people to altitudes of 100km (62 miles) twice within fourteen days. I agree that this is probably the world’s most promising aerospace development in years. Once somebody wins the prize, it will fuel the growth of a space tourism industry; the market is there, waiting for somebody to start selling.

What people should realize, however, is that the X-Prize competitors are not going into orbit; they are only going to cruise at suborbital height for a short while. In terms of cost and complexity, the distinction is enormous. And while I think Jeff Foust is correct when he predicts the X-Prize invigorating a stagnated market for launching satellites, for the foreseeable future, NASA remains the only American group with the knowledge, training, and funding to actually put people into space.

That said, the Space Taxi is a product of the “Space Shuttle mentality”. Its managers promise a sleek, robust, magical vehicle that will cut costs and work perfectly. The truth is that reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) simply don’t pay off. They weigh too much, require too much support, and do not generate enough revenue or savings to be worth the developmental expenses.

It’s very easy for NASA’s bureaucratic management (the same people that actively ignored Columbia’s launch problems until after it disintegrated) to proclaim, “The last generation of RLVs wasn’t great, but the next generation will cure our ills!” But they won’t.

I’m not saying the Space Taxis should not be developed at all, but they should not be the cornerstone of American space exploration — they are a stopgap measure, a preparation for the inevitable failure of the aging Shuttles. They are not the future of manned space travel.

NASA would be better off investing in a radically different, yet scientifically feasible, alternative to RLVs. The Space Elevator is one such alternative. Considering how much money it could save in launch costs alone, and given how many scientists are lining up to claim it can be built (given proper funding), it is worth the expense of research and development.

Articles this page links to:
NASA Explores Space Shuttle Options [28 Jan 1996]
NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs [01 March 2001]
The End of US Manned Spaceflight Looms Ever Closer [10 Jul 2003]
Is there a business case for RLVs? [02 Sept 2003]

NASA has been busy lately. Of course, they bloody should be; but they’re not doing what they need to do. But nobody <cough>major news outlets</cough> is really talking about how NASA’s role needs to be re-evaluated, how much they need to change, and how quickly.

Europe is launching a probe to the Moon that will use a cutting-edge ion propulsion system. Despite our successful lunar program during the Cold War, we still know very little about the Moon — like how it was formed, and what more about Earth can be learned from it.

China is set for a manned space launch, which will make it the third country in history to put humans into space. Some analysts think this is a cover for a military space program, while others think it’s for domestic and international prestige; both are probably correct.

The concept of a space elevator is getting some recognition as well. Using carbon nanotubes — a technology which will take several years of R&D to develop — it would extend a super-strong ribbon from a stationary base on Earth up to orbit height. Launching satellites, probes, or even people becomes much simpler and much cheaper. Right now it costs between $10,000 and $40,000 per pound to launch into space; the space elevator could drop that to $100 per pound. That alone makes a few billion dollars a year a reasonable amount to spend towards such a revolutionary technology.

Yet, what is NASA doing with its time? We’re pouring money into the International Space Station, a program that has consumed massive funding in exchange for mediocre scientific benefit. When not pointing fingers over the tragedy of Columbia, we’re researching how to build a massive reusable “Space Taxi” to replace our massive reusable “Space Shuttle”. Worst of all, they are actually giving lip service to the lofty concept of a manned mission to Mars, when there is far more visible benefit from returning to the Moon. Not only could we learn more about the Earth’s history, we could scan for potentially deadly comets — which, despite terrible films like Armageddon, remains a serious threat to the world.

Space technology is going through some pretty incredible advances these days, and it looks like future innovations are just around the corner that could revolutionize the field. But NASA has yet to act on modern technology; it’s still trapped in its Cold War mentality.

The new space race is already starting; if America doesn’t get moving quickly, we’re going to be left behind with nothing to show for our efforts but an aging space program and a bureaucratic mess.

I’m growing particularly disappointed in our politicians these days.

Now that we have invaded Iraq and overthrown its despot, we are responsible for the country. There is no valid argument against this; we broke it, we build it again. That was the plan from the beginning. Our mission in Iraq was not simply to tear down statues of Saddam and roll home; our mission is to build a democratic nation in a region where democracy has never fully taken root.

The Bush Administration has requested $87bn for our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; around $20bn of that would be for reconstruction. Among the Iraqi reconstruction projects that need extra funding are training for Iraqi policemen, rebuilding the mail system, and proper sanitation systems. As soon as Paul Bremer showed up to petition Congress for the funds, you could hear the vultures circling overhead.

Both Republicans and Democrats have come up with all sorts of terrible ideas to avoid paying money we owe. Some have suggested that part of the reconstruction funds be issued as loans, adding to Iraq’s $200bn in foreign debt. Since any repaid debt would likely come from Iraq’s oil revenues, this would actually lend a spark of truth to the phrase “War for Oil”.

Others, like Sen. Byrd, have the audacity to propose simply cutting a lot of the reconstruction funds; their claim is that we should be spending the money at home. Thankfully, the Byrd Amendment (which would cut reconstruction funds down to $5bn) was rejected by a vote of 59-38.

What our politicians don’t seem to realize is that reconstruction is our job now. We marched into Iraq with promises of a better future. That “better future” isn’t going to suddenly materialize now that Saddam Hussein is gone from power. A good part of the Baathist infrastructure crumbled when we kicked them out; now it’s our job to rebuild public services that ordinary Iraqis depend on for their livelihood.

Funding for our troops is important, but it means nothing if we aren’t making progress in rebuilding the country they’re supposed to be keeping safe. If we fail to rebuild Iraq, public resistance to the occupation will only increase; more Iraqis will fight us, and more soldiers will die. An opinion piece in USA Today defends the $87bn request for funds, pointing out that reconstruction in Iraq has made more progress in five months than Bosnia has made in eight years.

If we fail to finance a reconstruction project which we brought upon ourselves, America will fail to win the hearts of Iraqis — and convince Muslims around the world that we’re all talk, but no action. Whether you supported the war doesn’t matter; the war is over, and Iraq is America’s responsibility now. It’s time to stop bickering over minutiae and do what needs to be done.