If we really had wanted to move forward, we should have set-out to create a permanent presence on the moon, not in LEO.
I disagree. The ISS is intended to do zero gravity research. The moon doesn't have zero G, and is completely unsuitable for the job the ISS is built for.
You're just dreaming about traveling to the stars. The ISS however is conducting ordinary research. Some of that research can later be used if we travel to the stars, btw.
It's a contradiction, which explains/.'s comments section:
Ideas that are shared between less than 10% cannot grow, and therefore they can logically never reach 10% (and will get modded down). And only ideas that are already shared between >10% will eventually be shared by all (will get modded up).
We're stuck. Unless the results of this research aren't shared by more than 10% of the slashdotters, in which case we can safely ignore the results of the research.
I got the idea that the reusability of the Space Shuttle was a matter of taking the entire thing apart, checking every component, and assembling it again. That's not reusability... that's recycling.
The real question is: why would they bother with such hacker groups? Surely there are enough hackers in Russia to set up a proper strategic hacking division?
So: yes they can infiltrate. No they probably won't use that method as an important strategic digital weapon. Better to rely on your own strength than on some 18-year-old kid in his mother's basement who you've never met before.
He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.
This.
But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.
Exactly... start it, fly it, and use it as an orbiter or even a spacecraft.
Can't we just launch it one last time, and use it as a vehicle to get to Mars or something? It seems perfectly suited for the job. It has a cargo bay for a lander. It is big enough to live in (astronauts do that all the time, although not for many months at a time). I know this isn't as easy as I make it sound... but hell, if you already have a space shuttle in orbit, isn't it just a matter of taking enough fuel with you?
How cool would it be if your dog could simply tell you he's hungry [...]
If I know dogs a bit, they'd try to convince us all day long that they're hungry, or at least in the mood for a snack! Dogs are quite capable of telling us that they want food already. They definitely do not need speech for that.
Because there's no point in having a massive intelligence network if your people can't access the info. And it's really not practical to have to travel to a very specific office somewhere to get the data.
All your personal data (and mine) is available in a couple of thousand offices too... and can therefore be hacked as well.
It's a buzz word, so people will go with it. Sony can warn them all they want, but people just want to gain from someone else's success. If they can turn an ordinary game into a 3D game with little effort, and boost their sales (on the short term), then they will do it.
The whole hype that laptops must weigh next to nothing is silly. If the laptop is your mobile office, and if it is important for work, then 4.5 kg is a tiny amount.
Anyway, if the 4.5 kg laptop means you don't carry 3.5 kg of paper with you anymore (which many business travelers - especially scientists - actually do!), then it makes perfect sense.
For me personally, the laptop screen is always too close and too small. I don't see how this contraption improves that. I guess I will wait until they build a laptop with a rolled up screen that can become two 24'' screens if rolled out.:-)
This spacebook is also a definite nono on an airplane!
It seems to me this is a pretty poor way to conduct a market research. If they wish to make the most mainstream game possible, they might consider to change it. Some silly flash games or farmville are probably their examples then. But there is a market for different games as well.
Hitler and Stalin were geniuses ahead of their times.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one. We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
(Yes, the same response as to the other anonymous coward who suggested pulling a gun).
OK... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one. We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
With increased energy generation, food production and water purification?
Currently, we still experience exponential growth. Even the quickest growth figures of the UN and other institutions do not predict that to continue for much longer. Either we slow it down ourselves to our own people (in peace), or we;ll do it to other people (in war)... or mother nature will to it to us.
Maybe we can double the number again... if we carry on on the exponential curve, that might be already in 50-60 years. Then we would have 14 billion people. That would mean 1000 extra cities the size of New York or LA.
The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.
You're a typical scientist. You have 1 figure which is always reliable and true, but it is misleading. The other one depends on too many variables but is a lot more insightful. The scientist will choose the first misleading figure, all other people would go for the second. Adapt to your audience: present a simple case in which you can calculate the useful figure.
The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.
Changing the educational system will only give results in 20-25 years, if not even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't change it... but it does mean it cannot be used as a part of the solution to our immediate problem. You have to find another solution.
If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!
Slashdot Mirror
If we really had wanted to move forward, we should have set-out to create a permanent presence on the moon, not in LEO.
I disagree.
The ISS is intended to do zero gravity research. The moon doesn't have zero G, and is completely unsuitable for the job the ISS is built for.
You're just dreaming about traveling to the stars. The ISS however is conducting ordinary research. Some of that research can later be used if we travel to the stars, btw.
35% of people who visit the Apple website on a daily basis? 35% of people who registered for some random website through their iPhone?
Seems like an awfully high percentage for just a regular average consumer survey.
It's a contradiction, which explains /.'s comments section:
Ideas that are shared between less than 10% cannot grow, and therefore they can logically never reach 10% (and will get modded down).
And only ideas that are already shared between >10% will eventually be shared by all (will get modded up).
We're stuck. Unless the results of this research aren't shared by more than 10% of the slashdotters, in which case we can safely ignore the results of the research.
If reusability is reliable, it saves costs.
I got the idea that the reusability of the Space Shuttle was a matter of taking the entire thing apart, checking every component, and assembling it again. That's not reusability... that's recycling.
Currently, getting something in orbit costs between 3000 and 10000 dollar per kilogram...
This link shows estimated costs for all current launch systems, ranging from smallest to the biggest.
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf
I wonder what SpaceX are aiming at. Is the privatization really going to be cheaper? If so, I wonder where they will be able to cut costs.
Did you hear about the blonde who tried to bomb the Norwegian government?
He went to an island, and shot 85 people?
Not a particularly good joke.
Did you hear about the horse who walked into a bar?
It's a good rock. Nice and cozy. It's a very selective rock. Blocks all kinds of advertisements, Hollywood spam and MTV rubbish.
I love my rock.
The real question is: why would they bother with such hacker groups? Surely there are enough hackers in Russia to set up a proper strategic hacking division?
So: yes they can infiltrate. No they probably won't use that method as an important strategic digital weapon.
Better to rely on your own strength than on some 18-year-old kid in his mother's basement who you've never met before.
He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.
This.
But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.
Exactly... start it, fly it, and use it as an orbiter or even a spacecraft.
Can't we just launch it one last time, and use it as a vehicle to get to Mars or something? It seems perfectly suited for the job. It has a cargo bay for a lander. It is big enough to live in (astronauts do that all the time, although not for many months at a time).
I know this isn't as easy as I make it sound... but hell, if you already have a space shuttle in orbit, isn't it just a matter of taking enough fuel with you?
The external shuttle tank contains about 750,000 kg of fuel. At a price of about 2500 $/kg to Low Earth Orbit ( http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf ), the price tag of having a fully fueled space shuttle in orbit is 1 launch of the shuttle, plus 2 billion dollar in fuel costs.
Fuck yea!
How cool would it be if your dog could simply tell you he's hungry [...]
If I know dogs a bit, they'd try to convince us all day long that they're hungry, or at least in the mood for a snack! Dogs are quite capable of telling us that they want food already. They definitely do not need speech for that.
... especially in the comments :-)
Because there's no point in having a massive intelligence network if your people can't access the info. And it's really not practical to have to travel to a very specific office somewhere to get the data.
All your personal data (and mine) is available in a couple of thousand offices too... and can therefore be hacked as well.
LOL! Really? I should have googled it before predicting it. Doh!
It's a buzz word, so people will go with it. Sony can warn them all they want, but people just want to gain from someone else's success. If they can turn an ordinary game into a 3D game with little effort, and boost their sales (on the short term), then they will do it.
I predict a 3D sudoku before the year is over.
The whole hype that laptops must weigh next to nothing is silly. If the laptop is your mobile office, and if it is important for work, then 4.5 kg is a tiny amount.
Anyway, if the 4.5 kg laptop means you don't carry 3.5 kg of paper with you anymore (which many business travelers - especially scientists - actually do!), then it makes perfect sense.
For me personally, the laptop screen is always too close and too small. I don't see how this contraption improves that. I guess I will wait until they build a laptop with a rolled up screen that can become two 24'' screens if rolled out. :-)
This spacebook is also a definite nono on an airplane!
It seems to me this is a pretty poor way to conduct a market research.
If they wish to make the most mainstream game possible, they might consider to change it. Some silly flash games or farmville are probably their examples then.
But there is a market for different games as well.
It's as much a car as a motorbike is a car. It just isn't.
Hitler and Stalin were geniuses ahead of their times.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one.
We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
(Yes, the same response as to the other anonymous coward who suggested pulling a gun).
OK ... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one.
We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
This only ends one way, and any fool can see it.
With increased energy generation, food production and water purification?
Currently, we still experience exponential growth. Even the quickest growth figures of the UN and other institutions do not predict that to continue for much longer. Either we slow it down ourselves to our own people (in peace), or we;ll do it to other people (in war)... or mother nature will to it to us.
Maybe we can double the number again... if we carry on on the exponential curve, that might be already in 50-60 years. Then we would have 14 billion people. That would mean 1000 extra cities the size of New York or LA.
The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.
You're a typical scientist. You have 1 figure which is always reliable and true, but it is misleading. The other one depends on too many variables but is a lot more insightful. The scientist will choose the first misleading figure, all other people would go for the second. Adapt to your audience: present a simple case in which you can calculate the useful figure.
The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.
Changing the educational system will only give results in 20-25 years, if not even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't change it... but it does mean it cannot be used as a part of the solution to our immediate problem. You have to find another solution.
If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!
... except my face apparently.
Anyone still wondering why privacy is such an important issue? I never want to hear the "I have nothing to hide" argument again.