This is an ancient bugthat was actually attempted to be fixed once (badly) by me [Phil "not Paul" Oester] eleven years ago in commit 4ceb5db9757a ("Fix get_user_pages() race for write access") but that was then undone due to problems on s390 by commit f33ea7f404e5 ("fix get_user_pages bug"). In the meantime, the s390 situation has long been fixed, and we can now fix it by checking the pte_dirty() bit properly (and do it better). The s390 dirty bit was implemented in abf09bed3cce ("s390/mm: implement software dirty bits") which made it into v3.9. Earlier kernels will have to look at the page state itself. Also, the VM has become more scalable, and what used a purely theoretical race back then has become easier to trigger. To fix it, we introduce a new internal FOLL_COW flag to mark the "yes, we already did a COW" rather than play racy games with FOLL_WRITE that is very fundamental, and then use the pte dirty flag to validate that the FOLL_COW flag is still valid.
tl;dr? It only became a serious flaw recently. It's been fixed. Install the fix. apt-get update&&apt-get -y upgrade&&reboot
I'm not surprised that a published vulnerability is being exploited. Nor am I surprised that problem has been fixed, (and the fix was available immediately instead of on Patch Tuesday), or that some people are running systems that haven't been updated with the fix.
it's extremely rare on Earth... $2 Billion is not the limit of demand, it's the limit of supply
Do you have evidence for a large pent-up demand for deuterium that would be released by a price drop of less than five times? (That would take it down to about the price of silver.)
No. Nor would I be stupid enough to assume the price would drop just because the supply increases (processing cost may not drop). Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the price is based soley on demand? Evidence for the absurd assertion that the cost would drop to the same a silver if the supply increased by a factor five?
Hint: nobody makes anything other than tiny amounts of deuterium anymore - not due to lack of demand. (the last supplier was Canada some years ago - though at least one Chinese source is gearing up for production).
the two would be of value for fueling fusion rockets
That's a technology that does not currently exist, and which might not actually use deuterium or tritium when/if it finally gets going.
Agreed
less than one tenth of what the USA spends annually on the bullshit War on Drugs
This is an irrelevant point of comparison. I'm asking for a business case; you can claim anything is "economically viable" if you're allowed to just steal something else' budget. That argument doesn't tend to convince the people who actually control such budgets, though.
Patently and demonstrably you did not ask for a business case - you just conflated the cost of the theoretical mission with government spending and are now distract. It's hardly irrelevant, it demonstrates what the US government is happy to spend on a demonstrably pointless exercise.
it's just a by-product of potable water production.
This is a ridiculous statement which suggests that you have no idea how deuterium is actually refined,
:) Which only goes to show you are yet another ultracrepidarian/. poster. Perhaps you are a mechanical engineer that thinks industrial chemical engineering is intuitive - good luck with the job interviews.
Extracting it on Mars will require dedicated machinery and tons of additional energy, just like on Earth.
No. Read the source I provided instead of relying of what you skim-read from someone else's outdated opinion.
Red Herring alert! Can you point to the source of your claim that this fleet won't be waiting for results from surface probes (and many robotic test trips)?!
Musk already decided that we should send one million people there to build a self-sustaining society, even though he himself admitted that he doesn't have any idea how to make that latter part work economically or technologically. That was half the point of his talk...
That's a quote from you, which avoids my question. When did Mush say he wouldn't wait for surface probe results?. Hint: he didn't.
So in your alternative plan all space exploration will be using theoretical propulsion that starts from this planet... environmentally friendly and sustainable
Electric propulsion (various styles of ion engines and plasma engines) is not "theoretical" - it's in use today on space probes and even commercial satellites - unlike the deuterium-based fusion that your plans seem to depend upon. And yes, it is more environmentally friendly and sustainable because it's literally about ten times as fuel efficient as chemical rockets.
There are various good reasons why Musk didn't select electric propulsion for his proposal, but they
Only a moron would jump the conclusion that it meant that all the development failures have to be marketed
The same can be said about people who try every desperate measure to defend Musk and SpaceX.
I agree. Though I'm not. However people who make shit up to try take every desparate measure to defame Musk and SpaceX are not just morons - they're a waste of space and oxygen. e.g. people whose invent things to support an unsupportable opinion ("I saw thousands of people cheering 911") - or you, when you bullshitted about what I quoted so that you could put a spin on things "Elon sells failure". When he does I'll damn him for it, likewise I would have damned lightbulbs that had filaments that lasted less than 2 seconds.
To point out the obvious to people who are not as recalcitrant as you - new technology is usually the result of repeated failure (iterative refinements). Only a moron would jump the conclusion that it meant that all the development failures have to be marketed - or a moron that's desperately trying to sustain an unsupportable position.
No. You're just confused - at best. In a discussion about the viability of a Mars Mission you repeatedly inject irrelevant "information" and try and present it as relevant. As you have just done. Trying to impress by baffling with bullshit might have worked in pre-school but you're not there now (I hope).
As far as I can tell, the worldwide deuterium market is currently less than $2 billion per year,
Not because of De Beers type cartel - simply because it's extremely rare on Earth. tl:dr? $2 Billion is not the limit of demand, it's the limit of supply. I guess that's a mistake any business amateur could make.
whereas Musk's plan proposes to spend at least $10 billion per year on transportation alone - and obviously there would be many other large costs associated with establishing a self-sufficient mining colony.
You asked for something that's more plentiful on Mars than on Earth - so stop lugging those goal posts over to where Deuterium is the sole reason for going there. A transport cost that is less than one tenth of what the USA spends annually on the bullshit War on Drugs is a not a good reason - even if you phrase it like it's an ongoing cost (or like it's coming out of your welfare cheque).
I doubt Mars has much at all in resources that would fund the trips there - that's why I refered to it as a trading post. Eventually it's resources will produce funds from Earth - but it's unlikely they'd ever pay for the initial trips - what it does have is location and resources that will make it an important (critical) staging station for mining the Main Belt.
What little we know about Mars is that it has lots of Deuterium. It can be used for more than just electricity production, which given Martian winds is probably not the first choice for power generation - and the viability of the process can not be measured by Earth criteria. Tritium is not abundant - but places you could cheaply and easily produce it are. Just a guess - the two would be of value for fueling fusion rockets.
When your largest resource is water a 5x greater abundance of deuterium, on a mostly unpopulated planet will be more than 5 times easier to refine - it's just a by-product of potable water production.
knowledge about the environment that we won't know until surface probes return results
Why not wait for those results before deciding that we should spend a trillion dollars on settling one million people there?
Red Herring alert! Can you point to the source of your claim that this fleet won't be waiting for results from surface probes (and many robotic test trips)?!
It's a strawman question (intentional?) that ignores viable access to the asteroids of the Main Belt... it's not about the end-points, it's the points in-between - many of them inhospitable places. All of it driven by trade...
It would be cheaper to skip the million-person Mars colony, and just focus on mining asteroids. Most (all?) of the work can be done automated with supervision from Earth. The Martian surface is an expensive distraction at the bottom of a deep gravity well. Refuelling at Mars is probably unnecessary with electric propulsion, but can be accomplished with way less than a million people there if needed.
So in your alternative plan all space exploration will be using theoretical propulsion that starts from this planet - presumably using rockets powered by environmentally friendly and sustainable unicorn gases (I guess that'll push up the price aluminium, good plan - we can mine more easily refineable aluminium ore from the moon). Moving a million to Mars is achievable - moving a billion is not. We don't have the resources for it, and environmental effects would have a severe impact on those that don't go.
I'd like to see your costing that shows why your "plan" is cheaper than Elon's - until then I'd just have to take your word for that you've "got it all figured out".
I'm somewhat familiar with large scale mining and I find your remote mining of asteroids "controlled from Earth, intriguing
We tend to leave the fan boi "brand loyalty" crap to face painters and other superstitious folk.
Yet here you are...
Clearly comprehension is one of your failings. How hard would it be to look up the meaning of "brand loyalty"? [sigh] and people like you are allowed to vote.
The company who build the rocket has an obligation to disclose any known or reasonably foreseeable risks.
You've got a low enough/. ID number to be fully aware of the fact that salesmen and corporate executives lie on a distressingly regular basis.
And obviously a high enough IQ to have considered that - just like the company that buys the launch services, and the company that insures both parties.
Understandably you are unable to take that into consideration and thus depart on a tangential path to nowhere important overloaded with inconsequential "considerations". [someone]"I think a black colour t-shirt will be warmer in the sun" [nutria] Black is not a colour, it will fade, the sun only shines during the day, you can't trust some t-shirt sellers, I had a really bad experience with a t-shirt (when I got my head stuck in the armhole) - four and a half good reasons why that is a bad idea (and there's no such thing as a bad argument). The sort of "logic" used by pro-Creationists - a large number of irrelevant but tenuously connected distractions from the subject in discussion (theys not irrellivent - they's all woody words).
Their software works fine for me. Maybe the problem is you.
That's customer service right there. And Linux people wonder why their desktop market share can't break out of the bottom 1%...
Most of us don't care about "market share" or bullshit categories like "desktop market share". We just want what we use - phones, servers, routers, micro devices, planes, medical equipment, and even that small category of devices where Linux isn't the overwhelming OS of choice called "desktops" to work the way we want. Most people have a phone, use the internet, watch television and use their pad devices far more than "Desktops" (even "Windows" fans who use Linux far more than Windows but are too dumb to realise it). We tend to leave the fan boi "brand loyalty" crap to face painters and other superstitious folk.
Just because thousand dollar handbags are pretty popular with reality TV stars doesn't mean most people want or use handbags - and if they do, they don't tend to give a fuck about the brand (it's just a tool, fool). Just as most people don't pay much attention to political, geographic, or racial boundaries - it just sounds that way because those that do, have time to make noise about it (except for dem commies - they're all de same - especially the 400lb Ruskie bedsitting "hackers").
I don't know whether you're desperate or simply retarded. No where in the "analogy" does it imply that the failed attempts at light bulbs were even considered for sale - because they weren't!.
What can be made or mined on Mars that can't be made or mined more cheaply on Earth, or from asteroids?
Deuterium, knowledge - the latter is worth more than anything else. Likely lots of other valuable resources, mostly precious metals unavailable on a cooler Earth, mined out, and bio resources.
It's a strawman question (intentional?) that ignores viable access to the asteroids of the Main Belt, and precludes knowledge about the environment that we won't know until surface probes return results (we won't go to Madagascar/Orkney because legend has it there be dragons there). Re-read the history of world trade and colonization - it's not about the end-points, it's the points in-between - many of them inhospitable places. All of it driven by trade (the rest are generally referred to as lost civilisations).
The European explorers and colonists to which you appeal went out in search of
I don't appeal to any explorers or colonists - they went where they were told they could.
What's now North America was originally considered of greatest value as a trading post for the West Indies - not as a (mythical) sanctuary for the religiously ostrasized. Colonization by non-government initiative had been happening for many centuries before on a trial and failure basis.
Australia has fuck all arable land by European standards - and almost all that "arable" soil is shallow has very little nutrients in it (it's in the landscape). European soil is deep and nutrient rich - the result of glacial activity. Except for two very small areas "arable" land in Australia is not of glacial origin (or the Chinese and Portugese would have settled centuries earlier). That's why Australian land is grossly overvalued and the first European settlers had such enormously high failure rates (the First Fleet starved). Australia has very little water, had lots of easily accessible gold, copper and other high demand metals - and is conveniently located near Java. Access to spices made it worthwhile establishing as a trade base, everything else was just a bonus (that the French would discovered as well if they'd been just a little quicker).
tl:dr? In the case of Australia colonisation was originally intended as a means of supporting and claiming a trading base - not as somewhere that had resources worth exploiting for exportation. The "we don't know where to put the convicts" story is a myth. "but - sheep!" didn't happen until George organised the theft of the Merino from Spain - much later, and "gold!" didn't happen until after the Californian strikes.
And if America had been a minimum of 140 times farther away than the Arctic, that might have been a bit harder decision...
No. It's time, not distance - something to do with logistics, and whether you die from exposure and starvation at the destination - it's complicated (in your case).
Maybe if you asked Tim Severin he'd explain why Eric the Red or St Brendan sailed/paddled past the easier winds and currents to the Arctic instead of taking a direct flight on an Airbus like a fucking crow you might understand (something to do with why they managed to come back). Though I doubt there's much you do understand that doesn't involve Cheetos and an old sock.
Now I don't feel so bad about my 4,672-step IKEA bookshelf.
You're doing it wrong. I got a tip from someone that works there:-
Buy three
Place two in parallel slightly less than the length of one apart
Place the third across the other two
Här har du! An Ikea bookshelf with no Woody key (adopted daughter not included) or plans required. You don't even have to open the boxes - it works better that way.
Not only that, but many trips were in confined spaces with a limited number of people.
Yes. And I suspect it's pretty cramped in the wheel well of an airliner where the trip is short but the in-flight service really sucks - but it doesn't stop people from trying it (even with a very low survival rate). For what - a chance to sell dodgy watches on the sidewalk with fuck all profit, to a population that doesn't want to buy watches.
Indeed, literally all of this planet that's not in Africa was populated by immigrants.
Many of whom spent more than 80 days in tighter, less salubrious quarters than will be available on Elon's theoretical Fleet - just so they could hotbed and live in cramped spaces while working long hours every day in shitty jobs. Put jobs, schools, running water that's drinkable, rooms with light switches, and food that's not toxic on Mars and huge numbers of people trying to flee war zones will queue up to move there. Most will leave those shitty jobs as soon as they can scratch enough coin together to start a micro business. It's human nature to take enormous risks for opportunities like this.
Given the choice between 30 days in a container with a bucket, a few bottles of water, and barely enough room to scratch, before a high risk and gruelling hike across a border (that already has a freaking wall) - and an 80 day ride in a spaceship, I'd bet there would be literally a million people that would sign away the next 20 years income for the opportunity. Probably not on the first fleet, but definitely on the first fleet after messages return from those that arrived with the first fleet and are doing well. By the time the third fleet arrives the people that arrived on the first two fleets will be complaining about too many immigrants (and we need to make them pay for a wall).
If I were younger I'd go (I did plenty of risky things in my youth) - and I'm definitely not in danger of being blown up/imprisoned/robbed, or living precariously.
This is just so sick, twisted and demented. It is a shame to see this. It really upsets me. Who would do this? This looks like it took forever to write.
APK. He doesn't have a life. But he has invested a lot of time on Visual Basic and Windows XP - he's kind of proud of that.
The shuttle programme cost about half a billion $$$ per launch, just for 1 vehicle to LEO.
Let's assume blah blah blah
So it's about what it costs for the US War on Drugs? Sounds like a useful diversion of funds, though I'm sure that many "police" departments, uninformed people, and private prisons will disagree.
This only works on submarines since the sailors all want to go home one day but ad it stands Mars is a one way, survival of the fittest voyage.
You're not a fan of history are you? Or basic research? Hint: much of this planet is populated by people who either moved there - or their ancestors did (some of whom were sailors who didn't want to go home - that's why they got on the ship). And if you had been able to read original source you'd know that: return trips should be possible; no one said it was going to be a prison colony (trade?).
Either way, the larger problem is figuring out how to move enough equipment and supplies to keep the colonists alive; it's doubtful that even one million people is anywhere close to enough to produce a self-sustaining ultra-high-tech society in a super-hostile environment as Musk envisions.
I suspect there may be some trade elements to the plan. No one says there won't be other traffic to Mars (and beyond).
Having just finished reading about the early years of European voyages to Australia I can see similarities - except that the Europeans were more naive about the risks and less concerned about the worst case scenarios. Come to think of it - all the early "explorers", whalers, seal hunters etc endured harsh conditions and high loss rates - but their enterprises were not for naught. Mars and beyond has the possibility of greater rewards - go West (or any direction towards the Edge). Unless you're one of the many uninformed, semi-literate, untravelled, moronic, anonymous posters who can do crap failure math to support their low self esteem - but whose lifetime experience allows for no optimism or change. Which is in itself a good reason to leave them to their future of Idiocracy.
Instead of the ambition to send people in giant ships to Mars, how about the ambition to fix the God damned space ships he's got now that regularly fail to get into LEO?
If he's half the genius you are, with even a tenth of the success rate - it's possible he's thought of that. He may even, what's that word? Planned it.
Real life - it'll get you every time. I guess that's why it's an anathema to you, that and ever checking your facts.
As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."
Slashdot Mirror
tl;dr? It only became a serious flaw recently. It's been fixed. Install the fix.
apt-get update&&apt-get -y upgrade&&reboot
I'm not surprised that a published vulnerability is being exploited. Nor am I surprised that problem has been fixed, (and the fix was available immediately instead of on Patch Tuesday), or that some people are running systems that haven't been updated with the fix.
Go back and find where I wrote that.
But was he selling those first 1,000 bulb variations at US$50M to paying customers?
Dissemble like a weasel much?
Someone accessed Lord Lucan's bank account yesterday at the Central State Bank in the small town of Beulah, Michigan, USA.
Wait... isn't Beulah near the Platte River State Fish Hatchery?
it's extremely rare on Earth ... $2 Billion is not the limit of demand, it's the limit of supply
Do you have evidence for a large pent-up demand for deuterium that would be released by a price drop of less than five times? (That would take it down to about the price of silver.)
No. Nor would I be stupid enough to assume the price would drop just because the supply increases (processing cost may not drop). Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the price is based soley on demand? Evidence for the absurd assertion that the cost would drop to the same a silver if the supply increased by a factor five?
Hint: nobody makes anything other than tiny amounts of deuterium anymore - not due to lack of demand. (the last supplier was Canada some years ago - though at least one Chinese source is gearing up for production).
the two would be of value for fueling fusion rockets
That's a technology that does not currently exist, and which might not actually use deuterium or tritium when/if it finally gets going.
Agreed
less than one tenth of what the USA spends annually on the bullshit War on Drugs
This is an irrelevant point of comparison. I'm asking for a business case; you can claim anything is "economically viable" if you're allowed to just steal something else' budget. That argument doesn't tend to convince the people who actually control such budgets, though.
Patently and demonstrably you did not ask for a business case - you just conflated the cost of the theoretical mission with government spending and are now distract. It's hardly irrelevant, it demonstrates what the US government is happy to spend on a demonstrably pointless exercise.
it's just a by-product of potable water production.
This is a ridiculous statement which suggests that you have no idea how deuterium is actually refined,
:) Which only goes to show you are yet another ultracrepidarian /. poster. Perhaps you are a mechanical engineer that thinks industrial chemical engineering is intuitive - good luck with the job interviews.
Extracting it on Mars will require dedicated machinery and tons of additional energy, just like on Earth.
No. Read the source I provided instead of relying of what you skim-read from someone else's outdated opinion.
Red Herring alert! Can you point to the source of your claim that this fleet won't be waiting for results from surface probes (and many robotic test trips)?!
Musk already decided that we should send one million people there to build a self-sustaining society, even though he himself admitted that he doesn't have any idea how to make that latter part work economically or technologically. That was half the point of his talk...
That's a quote from you, which avoids my question. When did Mush say he wouldn't wait for surface probe results?. Hint: he didn't.
So in your alternative plan all space exploration will be using theoretical propulsion that starts from this planet ... environmentally friendly and sustainable
Electric propulsion (various styles of ion engines and plasma engines) is not "theoretical" - it's in use today on space probes and even commercial satellites - unlike the deuterium-based fusion that your plans seem to depend upon. And yes, it is more environmentally friendly and sustainable because it's literally about ten times as fuel efficient as chemical rockets.
There are various good reasons why Musk didn't select electric propulsion for his proposal, but they
Only a moron would jump the conclusion that it meant that all the development failures have to be marketed
The same can be said about people who try every desperate measure to defend Musk and SpaceX.
I agree. Though I'm not. However people who make shit up to try take every desparate measure to defame Musk and SpaceX are not just morons - they're a waste of space and oxygen. e.g. people whose invent things to support an unsupportable opinion ("I saw thousands of people cheering 911") - or you, when you bullshitted about what I quoted so that you could put a spin on things "Elon sells failure". When he does I'll damn him for it, likewise I would have damned lightbulbs that had filaments that lasted less than 2 seconds.
Then why did you use *that* analogy?
To point out the obvious to people who are not as recalcitrant as you - new technology is usually the result of repeated failure (iterative refinements). Only a moron would jump the conclusion that it meant that all the development failures have to be marketed - or a moron that's desperately trying to sustain an unsupportable position.
you confuse
No. You're just confused - at best. In a discussion about the viability of a Mars Mission you repeatedly inject irrelevant "information" and try and present it as relevant. As you have just done. Trying to impress by baffling with bullshit might have worked in pre-school but you're not there now (I hope).
And I don't "attempt" to insult anyone.
Deuterium
As far as I can tell, the worldwide deuterium market is currently less than $2 billion per year,
Not because of De Beers type cartel - simply because it's extremely rare on Earth.
tl:dr? $2 Billion is not the limit of demand, it's the limit of supply. I guess that's a mistake any business amateur could make.
whereas Musk's plan proposes to spend at least $10 billion per year on transportation alone - and obviously there would be many other large costs associated with establishing a self-sufficient mining colony.
You asked for something that's more plentiful on Mars than on Earth - so stop lugging those goal posts over to where Deuterium is the sole reason for going there. A transport cost that is less than one tenth of what the USA spends annually on the bullshit War on Drugs is a not a good reason - even if you phrase it like it's an ongoing cost (or like it's coming out of your welfare cheque).
I doubt Mars has much at all in resources that would fund the trips there - that's why I refered to it as a trading post. Eventually it's resources will produce funds from Earth - but it's unlikely they'd ever pay for the initial trips - what it does have is location and resources that will make it an important (critical) staging station for mining the Main Belt. What little we know about Mars is that it has lots of Deuterium. It can be used for more than just electricity production, which given Martian winds is probably not the first choice for power generation - and the viability of the process can not be measured by Earth criteria. Tritium is not abundant - but places you could cheaply and easily produce it are. Just a guess - the two would be of value for fueling fusion rockets.
When your largest resource is water a 5x greater abundance of deuterium, on a mostly unpopulated planet will be more than 5 times easier to refine - it's just a by-product of potable water production.
knowledge about the environment that we won't know until surface probes return results
Why not wait for those results before deciding that we should spend a trillion dollars on settling one million people there?
Red Herring alert! Can you point to the source of your claim that this fleet won't be waiting for results from surface probes (and many robotic test trips)?!
It's a strawman question (intentional?) that ignores viable access to the asteroids of the Main Belt ... it's not about the end-points, it's the points in-between - many of them inhospitable places. All of it driven by trade ...
It would be cheaper to skip the million-person Mars colony, and just focus on mining asteroids. Most (all?) of the work can be done automated with supervision from Earth. The Martian surface is an expensive distraction at the bottom of a deep gravity well. Refuelling at Mars is probably unnecessary with electric propulsion, but can be accomplished with way less than a million people there if needed.
So in your alternative plan all space exploration will be using theoretical propulsion that starts from this planet - presumably using rockets powered by environmentally friendly and sustainable unicorn gases (I guess that'll push up the price aluminium, good plan - we can mine more easily refineable aluminium ore from the moon). Moving a million to Mars is achievable - moving a billion is not. We don't have the resources for it, and environmental effects would have a severe impact on those that don't go.
I'd like to see your costing that shows why your "plan" is cheaper than Elon's - until then I'd just have to take your word for that you've "got it all figured out".
I'm somewhat familiar with large scale mining and I find your remote mining of asteroids "controlled from Earth, intriguing
We tend to leave the fan boi "brand loyalty" crap to face painters and other superstitious folk.
Yet here you are...
Clearly comprehension is one of your failings. How hard would it be to look up the meaning of "brand loyalty"? [sigh] and people like you are allowed to vote.
The company who build the rocket has an obligation to disclose any known or reasonably foreseeable risks.
You've got a low enough /. ID number to be fully aware of the fact that salesmen and corporate executives lie on a distressingly regular basis.
And obviously a high enough IQ to have considered that - just like the company that buys the launch services, and the company that insures both parties.
Understandably you are unable to take that into consideration and thus depart on a tangential path to nowhere important overloaded with inconsequential "considerations".
[someone]"I think a black colour t-shirt will be warmer in the sun" [nutria] Black is not a colour, it will fade, the sun only shines during the day, you can't trust some t-shirt sellers, I had a really bad experience with a t-shirt (when I got my head stuck in the armhole) - four and a half good reasons why that is a bad idea (and there's no such thing as a bad argument). The sort of "logic" used by pro-Creationists - a large number of irrelevant but tenuously connected distractions from the subject in discussion (theys not irrellivent - they's all woody words).
Their software works fine for me. Maybe the problem is you.
That's customer service right there. And Linux people wonder why their desktop market share can't break out of the bottom 1%...
Most of us don't care about "market share" or bullshit categories like "desktop market share". We just want what we use - phones, servers, routers, micro devices, planes, medical equipment, and even that small category of devices where Linux isn't the overwhelming OS of choice called "desktops" to work the way we want.
Most people have a phone, use the internet, watch television and use their pad devices far more than "Desktops" (even "Windows" fans who use Linux far more than Windows but are too dumb to realise it). We tend to leave the fan boi "brand loyalty" crap to face painters and other superstitious folk.
Just because thousand dollar handbags are pretty popular with reality TV stars doesn't mean most people want or use handbags - and if they do, they don't tend to give a fuck about the brand (it's just a tool, fool). Just as most people don't pay much attention to political, geographic, or racial boundaries - it just sounds that way because those that do, have time to make noise about it (except for dem commies - they're all de same - especially the 400lb Ruskie bedsitting "hackers").
Name one stock exchange that runs on Windows.
Or flight control system - they may exist, I just want to know which ones I should avoid flying on.
Linux - it's not for grunts (which is a bad thing?).
No, and neither is Elon's company you moron.
Then you shouldn't have used that analogy.
I don't know whether you're desperate or simply retarded. No where in the "analogy" does it imply that the failed attempts at light bulbs were even considered for sale - because they weren't!.
What can be made or mined on Mars that can't be made or mined more cheaply on Earth, or from asteroids?
Deuterium, knowledge - the latter is worth more than anything else. Likely lots of other valuable resources, mostly precious metals unavailable on a cooler Earth, mined out, and bio resources.
It's a strawman question (intentional?) that ignores viable access to the asteroids of the Main Belt, and precludes knowledge about the environment that we won't know until surface probes return results (we won't go to Madagascar/Orkney because legend has it there be dragons there).
Re-read the history of world trade and colonization - it's not about the end-points, it's the points in-between - many of them inhospitable places. All of it driven by trade (the rest are generally referred to as lost civilisations).
The European explorers and colonists to which you appeal went out in search of
I don't appeal to any explorers or colonists - they went where they were told they could.
What's now North America was originally considered of greatest value as a trading post for the West Indies - not as a (mythical) sanctuary for the religiously ostrasized. Colonization by non-government initiative had been happening for many centuries before on a trial and failure basis.
Australia has fuck all arable land by European standards - and almost all that "arable" soil is shallow has very little nutrients in it (it's in the landscape). European soil is deep and nutrient rich - the result of glacial activity. Except for two very small areas "arable" land in Australia is not of glacial origin (or the Chinese and Portugese would have settled centuries earlier). That's why Australian land is grossly overvalued and the first European settlers had such enormously high failure rates (the First Fleet starved). Australia has very little water, had lots of easily accessible gold, copper and other high demand metals - and is conveniently located near Java. Access to spices made it worthwhile establishing as a trade base, everything else was just a bonus (that the French would discovered as well if they'd been just a little quicker).
tl:dr? In the case of Australia colonisation was originally intended as a means of supporting and claiming a trading base - not as somewhere that had resources worth exploiting for exportation. The "we don't know where to put the convicts" story is a myth. "but - sheep!" didn't happen until George organised the theft of the Merino from Spain - much later, and "gold!" didn't happen until after the Californian strikes.
And if America had been a minimum of 140 times farther away than the Arctic, that might have been a bit harder decision...
No. It's time, not distance - something to do with logistics, and whether you die from exposure and starvation at the destination - it's complicated (in your case).
Maybe if you asked Tim Severin he'd explain why Eric the Red or St Brendan sailed/paddled past the easier winds and currents to the Arctic instead of taking a direct flight on an Airbus like a fucking crow you might understand (something to do with why they managed to come back). Though I doubt there's much you do understand that doesn't involve Cheetos and an old sock.
"I didnâ(TM)t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."
But was he selling those first 1,000 bulb variations at US$50M to paying customers?
No, and neither is Elon's company you moron.
Now I don't feel so bad about my 4,672-step IKEA bookshelf.
You're doing it wrong. I got a tip from someone that works there:-
Här har du! An Ikea bookshelf with no Woody key (adopted daughter not included) or plans required. You don't even have to open the boxes - it works better that way.
Not only that, but many trips were in confined spaces with a limited number of people.
Yes. And I suspect it's pretty cramped in the wheel well of an airliner where the trip is short but the in-flight service really sucks - but it doesn't stop people from trying it (even with a very low survival rate). For what - a chance to sell dodgy watches on the sidewalk with fuck all profit, to a population that doesn't want to buy watches.
Indeed, literally all of this planet that's not in Africa was populated by immigrants.
Many of whom spent more than 80 days in tighter, less salubrious quarters than will be available on Elon's theoretical Fleet - just so they could hotbed and live in cramped spaces while working long hours every day in shitty jobs. Put jobs, schools, running water that's drinkable, rooms with light switches, and food that's not toxic on Mars and huge numbers of people trying to flee war zones will queue up to move there.
Most will leave those shitty jobs as soon as they can scratch enough coin together to start a micro business. It's human nature to take enormous risks for opportunities like this.
Given the choice between 30 days in a container with a bucket, a few bottles of water, and barely enough room to scratch, before a high risk and gruelling hike across a border (that already has a freaking wall) - and an 80 day ride in a spaceship, I'd bet there would be literally a million people that would sign away the next 20 years income for the opportunity. Probably not on the first fleet, but definitely on the first fleet after messages return from those that arrived with the first fleet and are doing well. By the time the third fleet arrives the people that arrived on the first two fleets will be complaining about too many immigrants (and we need to make them pay for a wall).
If I were younger I'd go (I did plenty of risky things in my youth) - and I'm definitely not in danger of being blown up/imprisoned/robbed, or living precariously.
This is just so sick, twisted and demented. It is a shame to see this. It really upsets me. Who would do this? This looks like it took forever to write.
APK. He doesn't have a life. But he has invested a lot of time on Visual Basic and Windows XP - he's kind of proud of that.
Doesn't it make more sense to test the building a colony on the Moon where it is easier to fix problems and send help?
No. That's like saying - instead of the Pilgrims going to the USA they should have moved to the Arctic ('cause it's a bit closer).
The shuttle programme cost about half a billion $$$ per launch, just for 1 vehicle to LEO.
Let's assume blah blah blah
So it's about what it costs for the US War on Drugs? Sounds like a useful diversion of funds, though I'm sure that many "police" departments, uninformed people, and private prisons will disagree.
This only works on submarines since the sailors all want to go home one day but ad it stands Mars is a one way, survival of the fittest voyage.
You're not a fan of history are you? Or basic research? Hint: much of this planet is populated by people who either moved there - or their ancestors did (some of whom were sailors who didn't want to go home - that's why they got on the ship). And if you had been able to read original source you'd know that: return trips should be possible; no one said it was going to be a prison colony (trade?).
Either way, the larger problem is figuring out how to move enough equipment and supplies to keep the colonists alive; it's doubtful that even one million people is anywhere close to enough to produce a self-sustaining ultra-high-tech society in a super-hostile environment as Musk envisions.
I suspect there may be some trade elements to the plan. No one says there won't be other traffic to Mars (and beyond).
Having just finished reading about the early years of European voyages to Australia I can see similarities - except that the Europeans were more naive about the risks and less concerned about the worst case scenarios. Come to think of it - all the early "explorers", whalers, seal hunters etc endured harsh conditions and high loss rates - but their enterprises were not for naught. Mars and beyond has the possibility of greater rewards - go West (or any direction towards the Edge). Unless you're one of the many uninformed, semi-literate, untravelled, moronic, anonymous posters who can do crap failure math to support their low self esteem - but whose lifetime experience allows for no optimism or change. Which is in itself a good reason to leave them to their future of Idiocracy.
Sign me up on the third fleet.
I respect his ambition and his vision.
Instead of the ambition to send people in giant ships to Mars, how about the ambition to fix the God damned space ships he's got now that regularly fail to get into LEO?
If he's half the genius you are, with even a tenth of the success rate - it's possible he's thought of that. He may even, what's that word? Planned it.
Real life - it'll get you every time. I guess that's why it's an anathema to you, that and ever checking your facts.
As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."