Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 29, 2004)
Opinion The Battalion Page 7 • Tuesday, June 29, 2004 No need for NASA success demonstrates benefits of privatized space program NIED 5 T counte pj Salurdays' 9-574-145; Gate: i mandp"? iity Drive. F le Semina 1 F gain conti a trainer | .com ^CLE low mite ry nice. ! u t is error alone which I needs the support of JLgovernment,” Thomas Jefferson once said. “Truth can stand by itself.” On the morn ing of June 21, Americans wit nessed two truths. The first was that the creative mind of an engineer could fly into Ispace at almost three times the [speed of sound. The other truth is space travel is possible with- jout needing government support—it was financed [by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen. “Our success proves without question that [manned space flight does not require mammoth Igovernment expenditures,” said Burt Rutan, the [aerospace designer behind Spaceshipone and its Imnthpr cl 3 e!er fM; mother ship. “It can be done by a small company operating with limited (resources and a few dozen dedicated employees.” Rutan is absolutely Nearly!;,1 n ght—no one can argue ckdj.com Bwith the facts shown as ■clearly as his rocket's con- v adopter 9. ATE letwoodS-i ie Parte it rge lencec jtes from equipment Pie Angus 237 or II trails stood against the blue Isky over the Mojave that morning. While NASA sucks up billions of dollars trying to do a job ham- pered by its status as a government agency, the ^ ^The space pro- gram can be han dled by civilians who can do the same things, and more cheaply. “lifeboat” in space. Despite the need for a support system sadly demonstrated by the Columbia tragedy, it was scrapped in 2002, only two years short of completing its flight test phase and show ing a great deal of promise. According to the Federation of American Scientists, around 200 people were employed on this project. While one can only guess at the cost of building and testing prototypes and employing that many people for that long, the bottom line is that their work was all wasted. Corporations would never spend that kind of time and effort on a project and then dissolve it, because they are motivated by making a profit. Without that motivation, NASA has no incentive not to spend money irresponsibly. Though a lot of good has come out of NASA, men like Rutan prove that the space program can be handled by civilians who can do the same things, and more cheaply. “Before Wilber Wright went to Paris with his airplane, the Europeans thought he was lying,” Rutan said. “Then they watched him do turns, and they watched him fly for a long time and they watched him do multi ple flights a day. I believe the significant thing is that they then all said, at the same time, “I can do that, too, because these are just bicycle shop guys.’” The fact that the era of human flight was started by a couple of “bicycle shop guys” - stands as a concrete example of a notion of i & „. journey Spaceshipone demands that private individuals should be handed the keys to the American space program. “By placing the space program under govern- ^^Imental funding, we necessarily place it at the lease. 4 J|mercy of governmental whim,” say Robert /os. isr fGarmong, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M. paid, $«jl“ Tlie resu ]ts are written all over the past 20 years ■of NASA's history: the Space program is a politi- TES ring 20W- , 1406 i cal animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent and I ill-defined goals.” .. As a government program, NASA is forced to ^^■accommodate to, initiate and scrap projects by the Alcorn Iwill of politicians. Take for example the X-38, a -^■project started in 1995, designed to serve as a often dismissed as idealistic by bitter old men— that ordinary human beings are capable of heroic feats of excellence, if a passion and desire to do so is followed by courageous action. The Wright brothers embodied such a spirit, and the recent flight of the Spaceshipone presents further proof of what man is capable of. The true human spirit is found in all those things America’s enemies seek to annihilate— hard work, dedication, vision and the individual rights necessary to pursue our lives and dreams. This spirit was seen as Spaceshipone climbed toward the heavens in triumph. Further, it was an accomplishment unblemished by the theft of American money. Though the Apollo landings and other such marvels in the realm of human space travel are fantastic, they are sadly marred by the ill use of government funds. As long as NASA is funded by income tax, money will be forcibly taken away from us by our government and fed into an ineffi cient bureaucracy that holds back what is possible. The government must let go and allow the proof of people like Rutan are providing to con vince Americans that space exploration is best handled by the men and women who can do it without stealing their funding. Mike Walters is a senior psychology major. Graphic by Rylie Deyoe <cept bet j bth tow; i . Carissa i 2bdrm" oluded, Id •ina, 465-t; Talk alone won’t make peace in Middle East By Garin Hovannisian THE DAILY CALIFORNIAN ded. & 3rdrti/3W ithout variation and with omnipresent intensity, the single cure to every natural, economic and political calamity is said to be civil dialogue. What is the solution to heated debates between campus groups? Discourse, proud- —j^-1 iy proclaim student leaders. How about the indudei| solution to labor strikes? Round table dis- 340/moi' Hussions, opine the analysts. And what can ,g 7 g'$; we use to resolve this Middle East conflict Dnce and for all? The media, body politic and government all agree: mutually benefi- nie.osu fial conflict-resolution dialogue. In minor disputes and legal arbitra- new3t; jtions, dialogue sure works. Cases that C aii^ r 011 ^ ta ^ e y ears t0 be resolved are quick- 587035’ |y and effectively settled outside the ourtroom. And often a petty quarrel etween friends can be overcome through iscussion and understanding. But in the matter of court cases, the Dpposing sides are citizens bound by the same set of laws and the problem is a mis- nderstanding, not a clash of worldviews. In the present conflict, Israel and Palestine are not governed by the same laws and their conflict is not rooted in mis- a 535 mderstanding. The origin of the conflict between Israel md Palestine is clear - it is their diametri- i-3/^i :ally opposite historical, political and cul- ural beliefs about the world around them. The conflagration here extends even eyond a strong ideological matchup. The roblem is not in the debate itself but rather n the rules of the debate. The different his- orical legacies of Israel and Palestine have endered them incompatible entities. The ecent history of the Middle East peace rocess seems to prove this. The most promising outcome of the iddle East peace process, which was ini- iated in October 1991 at the Madrid onference, came in August 2000. President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime inister Ehud Barak and the head of the alestinian leader Yasser Arafat got togeth- r in Camp David for some good, hearty iscussion. At fir it everything seemed to be oing well. But just one month later, when Israel's opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the —honi*— 1 ^ 3/2/2, ^ ./mo +1 1 374, ts, WH 5151. ™/2btb king,* js, ($ nished jntry 774-79; mate util, i ng smiss 81 ' Fri(l Sam-2 : 30yrs- Inn, 'WalH gprice Hi -«7. —all 1$ Islamic sites on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, suicide bombing began again, and the Middle East was thrust once again into chaos. But if Sharon had not visited the Temple Mount, the voice of dialogue still asserts, then perhaps the peace could have been maintained. Until when? Until one rebel suicide bomber blew up a mall in Israel or until an impassioned Israeli soldier killed an inno cent civilian? When two sides fight on the same level as Israel and Palestine now fight, there will always be occasion for violence. The peace process by its very nature requires that both parties at least agree on the terms of debate. But due to disparate cultur al, historical and political circumstances, Israel and Palestine can never do this. The total inefficacy of billions of dol lars, thousands of Web sites, tens of thou sands of articles - decades of energy expended by dozens of governments on the Middle East peace process - prove that peace through debate is not possible. So we have arrived at that dreadful con clusion -- in this instance, peace will never be achieved. It will not be achieved because two sides are fighting tirelessly for what they believe is the truth - their destiny. The two sides have their eyes on the same prize. How will this whole thing end? If histo ry has anything to do with it, it will end when one side scores a convincing victory and the other side bears a substantial defeat. Every major conflict in world history, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Civil War, has ended with the victory of one side and the defeat of the other side. The battle in the Middle East is only part of this grand historical pattern. Of course, college students from both sides should cooperate and lead discus sions. Civil discourse is the best way to tell our side of the story and hear the other side. Group discussions, though they abound in cliches that are pregnant with nuances but devoid of meaning, can help us in our eter nal pursuit of human understanding. But not for a moment should we believe that this dialogue can — or will - change the turbulent future of the Middle East. Garin Hovannisian is a columnist at U. California-Berkeley Legislation to ban spyware won’t solve real problem S o what exactly is on your computer? This is a troubling question for mil lions of Americans whose home com puters have been hijacked by viruses JONATHAN and spyware. To smith remedy part of this widespread problem, a bill endorsed by California Republican Mary Bono and New York Democrat Ed Towns that would try to ban spyware is working its way to Congress. Even though such a bill is based on good intentions, it will take more than an act of Congress to make spyware go away. Any law that tries to relieve home users from malicious spyware compa nies will be ineffective, partially because the nature of spyware and partially because of the users themselves. The first problem with any attempt to regulate spyware is the fact that programs considered as spyware are hard to define in a legal sense .In broad terms, spy- ware is software that installs itself on a user’s computer and gathers knowledge about the user. In legal terms, many of the actual actions carried out by spyware programs are also carried out by benevolent programs. For example, if any spyware law was to ban the gathering of a computer users’s information, Microsoft would not be able to collect information to determine if a computer required any updates. It is too difficult to write a law that attacks only spyware, so any spy- ware law would prevent legitimate software activity as well. Another problem with a law against spyware is that in many ways, such a law would be redun dant. Federal Trade Commissioner Mozelle Thompson recently stated in the Washington Post that, “There are some kinds of practices that we may consider unfair or deceptive that we already have existing power to pursue.” If the laws on the books against consumer fraud and identity theft are not currently being implemented effectively to shut down spy- ware companies, another law banning the same practice will do no good. A third problem is that as soon as the law passes, many spyware companies will choose to move overseas rather than allow them selves to be regulated by U.S. law. The global nature of the Internet, the primary means of distributing software such as spyware, is such that it is impossible for the U.S. government to regulate foreign companies that provide services to U.S. customers as long as they do not have a physical presence in our borders. The final problem with any spy- ware legislation is that it does not address the attitude of computer users who allow spyware and viruses to spread. It is each com puter user’s responsibility to keep his or her computer spyware-free. Too many people buy a comput er with the attitude that it is a self- sustaining appliance. Instead, computers are complex machines similar to cars and, just like cars, they need maintenance. If one doesn’t have the time or know-how to perform such main tenance, he should be willing to pay the modest fee it takes for a local computer company to do it for him. It isn’t the government’s job to force the car companies to change someone’s oil every 3,000 miles, and the government should adopt the same attitude toward computers. If users don’t want to deal with spyware on a Windows-based computer, there are many effective technological solutions for keep ing a computer spyware free that users can perform themselves. Even users who are not computer- savvy can protect themselves by running regulated updates, down loading spyware removal pro grams and using Internet browsers besides Internet Explorer. Users who neglect to upkeep their com puters also leave themselves open to viruses; a computer problem worse than spyware that Congress has been unable to control with strict laws. Many of the problems caused by spyware are due to flaws in the Windows operating system. Even though Microsoft works hard to provide updates to prevent attacks from software, the fact that enough users complain about spy- ware for a bill to be built means that the company has a big prob lem with ts product. The free market will eventually decide the fate of spyware in the future when less people use Windows computers because of the many security flaws. Like a weaker species, natural selection in the technology market will force weaker products into extinction. With or without a new law on the books, spyware will continue to be a big problem for computer users. Any such law will only stand in the way of legitimate companies and give Americans a false sense of security on the matter. Congress cannot fight the war against spyware; the job is the responsibility of every com puter user. Jonathan Smith is a junior history major.