On one side you have John Broder who it seems like wants to see this tech fail for some reason or the other (This is just my personal opinion from reading his prior articles)... On the other side you have Elon Musk who wants to sell people this new tech which will obviously have some issues in the beginning (which Musk would rather not talk about instead and blame everyone else for it.) .
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Yep, there's too much FUD clouding the air too quickly to make an informed judgment. I'm going to wait until the hype dies down, until we're not seeing an article every 12 hours about it on/. and then read it all and try to work it out then.
No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.
Also, anyone who honestly believes that a toggle in their browser is going to prevent them from being tracked on the open internet needs an education on how things really work in the real digital world.
When the law says that the user shouldn't be tracked, then the user shouldn't be tracked. In an ideal world, Google shouldn't be going out of the way to circumvent those laws.
So the infrastructure for in-orbit refuelling is already there? Barring a few experiments, it's not. They'll still need further investment before they have an income stream.
Ray, what do you foresee as the main short and long term effects of capturing an asteroid and bringing it into Earth orbit? (As currently being discussed on/.)
You're missing the fact that there's no infrastructure and minimal investment up in orbit. Since it can't be immediately used in orbit, there's a fair chance that they'll have to hedge some of their costs by selling whatever is even partially worth it on Earth. Even if only 10% of it gets sold, that's an enormous amount of money to then reinvest into the necessary infrastructure.
Get them down where? Why would you not leave them in orbit, build stuff there?
You sell where demand is highest, if you have the choice. It will take time for orbit demand to become a significant percentage of what's available up there if we bring an asteroid into orbit.
One of the major concerns that isn't mentioned is what happens to earth-bound mining companies and their markets when these trillions of dollars of minerals arrive?
Because the shop will try to sell you whatever generates the highest commission for them. On/. there's a fair chance that there are some readers who are literally experts on this topic and would be happy to share their knowledge, why not?
So much for biggest song contest. I don't doubt there is *a* metric by which it's the biggest, but this didn't spring to mind when I read the headline.
Triple J has one of, if not the, largest listenership numbers of any station in the world. It's a single station broadcast nationwide and the voting attracts international interest.
There's a big gap in timezones where the major western country is Australia. So it's minimal news at all during that part of the day, or you get Australian stories when the Australian readership is online.
Not that long ago, Ireland was looking to become the tech capital of Europe by offering an attractive tax regime for tech companies. Looks like the policy is bringing jobs to Ireland once again.
If I were going to fund 1 program, which should I fund chickensaurus over resurrecting a Neanderthal, Woolly Mammoth, or a Tasmanian Tiger? I mean they are all valid – but please make your case on why you should go first.
Slashdot Mirror
On one side you have John Broder who it seems like wants to see this tech fail for some reason or the other (This is just my personal opinion from reading his prior articles)... On the other side you have Elon Musk who wants to sell people this new tech which will obviously have some issues in the beginning (which Musk would rather not talk about instead and blame everyone else for it.) . The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Yep, there's too much FUD clouding the air too quickly to make an informed judgment. I'm going to wait until the hype dies down, until we're not seeing an article every 12 hours about it on /. and then read it all and try to work it out then.
Handbrake at those speeds would either be useless, or suicidal.
You forgot "fun".
I think you've just hit on the operating principle around Echelon.
We only just got caffienated Mt. Dew recently in Australia. Why do you guys like it so much? It's terrible...
/. aggregates, it doesn't report. I get annoyed too, but then I have to take a deep breath and remind myself...
No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.
This comes uncomfortably closely after the latest announcement of the drone authorisation map.
...flat, veiny rock... ...a sample from its interior.
I for one have never heard of it.
You couldn't infer what it does from the summary, where it says "...using the accommodation listing service..."?
not necessarily the best... but at least it was low collission rate
As far as I can tell, and the OP since he asked the question, there is no one "best solution" for this problem.
Also, anyone who honestly believes that a toggle in their browser is going to prevent them from being tracked on the open internet needs an education on how things really work in the real digital world.
When the law says that the user shouldn't be tracked, then the user shouldn't be tracked. In an ideal world, Google shouldn't be going out of the way to circumvent those laws.
So the infrastructure for in-orbit refuelling is already there? Barring a few experiments, it's not. They'll still need further investment before they have an income stream.
Ray, what do you foresee as the main short and long term effects of capturing an asteroid and bringing it into Earth orbit? (As currently being discussed on /.)
"Clean", apart from the enormous amounts of dust and debris thrust into the upper atmosphere.
You're missing the fact that there's no infrastructure and minimal investment up in orbit. Since it can't be immediately used in orbit, there's a fair chance that they'll have to hedge some of their costs by selling whatever is even partially worth it on Earth. Even if only 10% of it gets sold, that's an enormous amount of money to then reinvest into the necessary infrastructure.
Get them down where? Why would you not leave them in orbit, build stuff there?
You sell where demand is highest, if you have the choice. It will take time for orbit demand to become a significant percentage of what's available up there if we bring an asteroid into orbit.
One of the major concerns that isn't mentioned is what happens to earth-bound mining companies and their markets when these trillions of dollars of minerals arrive?
Because the shop will try to sell you whatever generates the highest commission for them. On /. there's a fair chance that there are some readers who are literally experts on this topic and would be happy to share their knowledge, why not?
So much for biggest song contest. I don't doubt there is *a* metric by which it's the biggest, but this didn't spring to mind when I read the headline.
Triple J has one of, if not the, largest listenership numbers of any station in the world. It's a single station broadcast nationwide and the voting attracts international interest.
There's a big gap in timezones where the major western country is Australia. So it's minimal news at all during that part of the day, or you get Australian stories when the Australian readership is online.
A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.
Not that long ago, Ireland was looking to become the tech capital of Europe by offering an attractive tax regime for tech companies. Looks like the policy is bringing jobs to Ireland once again.
You don't get compensation if your phone is out of order, why should you for internet?
You do get compensation in Australia, through Service Level Agreements.
With the name "Jack" Horner, I would suspect that he has a bigger issue.
If I were going to fund 1 program, which should I fund chickensaurus over resurrecting a Neanderthal, Woolly Mammoth, or a Tasmanian Tiger? I mean they are all valid – but please make your case on why you should go first.
Because they're delicious!