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.