Missions to other planets seem perfect opportunities to power with solar satellites. Orbit the planet with the vehicle that got there from Earth, with comms relays and telemetry for sensing/guiding expeditions on the planet's surface. Spread out huge solar collector surfaces in orbit, and beam the energy down to the surface in microwaves to ground based collectors. A lot of these materials can be gathered on the surface of the remote planet, its moons, the Earth's Moon, asteroids, etc.
It's a great way to power the mission at the other planet. And it's a great way to research the technology to use back in Earth orbit. Why launch heavy, dangerous, irreplaceable materials all the way out of our gravity well, when we can get really good at using what's plentiful out there - and around here.
Eventually someone will contribute SW that will guess the contributors by their distinctive patterns of spelling mistakes. I hope it will be able to find them in the archives. I won't be surprised to read on Slashdot some copyright lawsuit that depends on both apps, perhaps on opposing sides of the claim.
Yes, all the stuff I get from China is so reliable that I'd trust it not to deflect the asteroid in the wrong direction, into Earth. China's military is so accountable to reasonable, compassionate authorities that they'd never risk hurting people just to demonstrate their strength and spread around some military/industrial money. After all, the Chinese space programme has so much experience doing hard things no others have ever tried, let alone accomplished. This project couldn't possibly be just a reckless way to spend money and get foreign cooperation in boosting China's ballistic nuke/missile programmes. It must be the well-known Chinese government altruism, always looking to sacrifice other goals to protect their fellow humans' wellbeing from even the smallest risk.
No, it is perfectly clear that we agree that's where corporate power comes from. What you don't seem to realize is that without the government, corporations will not be limited to the power they derive from the state, but rather will consume all powers the state now keeps for itself, and the even greater remaining powers that we still manage to limit the US government to. That's corporate anarchy. That's what drowning the government in a bathtub will give us: warlords bathing in blood, calling themselves CEOs.
No, I made that up all by myself. Your Ron Paul screeching, though, was manufactured by a Republican marketing corp. You libertarians are so scared of your own shadow that you're nothing but a cartoon of yourselves.
When you libertarians destroy the government, the anarchy you create is immediately filled by the expanding corporate power we use government to protect us from. Corporations are very libertarian, the way that chickens are very egg.
Except the entire purpose of a corporation is to limit the liability of the people who own and control it. So a corporate group of people don't think like a person, or a regular group of people, when "surrounded and desperate". Especially when they're surrounded by corporations, and desperate for more profits, not their next literal heartbeat.
Corporations don't think the way people do. If they did, we wouldn't have invented them.
Corporations of course make mistakes, and make irrational decisions. That is part of the nature of a group of people with their liability removed. Which is different from the nature of a person. They make different mistakes than a person would make. Laws calling corporations persons don't change the reality that they're not.
Look at the posts here that whine about government taxes paying for a space programme now being entered by private American companies. See their total lack of a vision for America and humanity? See their commitment to destroying what is perhaps America's - and humanity's - greatest achievements and endeavors? See them demanding we do nothing but the purely private business that would never have gone to space, or if it eventually did (after much loss of life and limb) would never have shared any of what it saw or got there?
Then look at the posts celebrating America's space programme. Look at the effort it inspired, the ambition it provokes, the achievements it propels.
Your tax dollars at work. Vs your neighborhood libertarian's corporate anarchy. Space isn't the only ice-cold vacuum: you can have it here on Earth by voting Republican in 2012.
As long as they're targeting times and places, not people (individuals or groups), this is totally reasonable. In small towns with townie cops on the beat for years, the cops know where and when the crime "hotspots" are. But they're subjective, and are easily turned into just harassing people (and the neighborhoods they live or hang out in). Indeed, bad cops say that's what they're doing, when they're really just racists or settling some old grudge (often against totally different people), or just on a power trip - sweating kids at the local makeout spot, or busting harmless potheads.
But if there's statistical fact directing the police to places and times that actually do have higher crime rates, that's totally legit. Those are places and times that need more policing. And doing it scientifically means replacing the corrupt selection of pressure points with targets appropriate to the need.
The key to keeping the cops honest here is opening the selection system for review. Probably not simply public access to either the specific rules, process, data or target schedule, because that would undo the useful self-organized pattern recognized by police into new patterns criminals adapt to evade the pattern recognition. But the system and its operation should be reviewed by an independent group. Which should be judges, because sending cops somewhere without probable cause but rather probable correlation, is closely related to the search and seizure warrants that require judges to be convinced of probable cause to make them reasonable. If not, then it won't take long for a defendant to convince a judge that the cops singled them out without probable cause, either by some kind of association profiling or just a personal dislike. Which will get their case thrown out, and likely others - that were legit.
If my opinion is that you're not entitled to your opinion, then my opinion is wrong. There's a lot more wrong opinions possible, and wrong opinions held very widely.
BTW, you're entitled to be wrong. You're not entitled to do anything to me that I don't want when you're wrong. Opinions are more complex than just saying you have one, so you're immune to any criticism or limit.
Defaming the generals is within the limits of free speech. Even slander during a revolution seems to stand on what should be a broad boundary line. If you believe everything you hear said about public persons like incumbent generals during a revolution, you're the one doing wrong, not the sloppy speaker.
Calling for violence, especially in a context where you can expect people to answer the call and commit violence, is outside the rightful bounds of free speech. However, during most revolutions people kill and maim without penalty. If their side wins. The day that a revolution tries, convicts and punishes the violent people who caused the victory is the day that humanity has finally taken a step out of the animal kingdom that we like to celebrate as if we did it millennia ago.
I don't "ignore" them. We're talking about the revolution caused by the tech. When we talk about the revolution that caused the tech, we talk about the sherpas.
You're ignoring the revolution. Which ignorance might appeal more to the sentimental, but not to those of us talking about the question that was asked, and the bigger effect on more people. You're ignoring the much larger group of people. And that's not very nice.
Hillary didn't cause any revolution that affected lots of people. Only among a very tiny elite who climb mountains. Your comparison is totally unfair.
So you invested your money in GS stock, because you had the foresight to see GS's pretty obvious strategy. Right. You're lying.
The deregulation of banking left markets as the only enforcer of its business. Which collapsed. Destroying assets. Thereby the markets destroyed those assets.
But you're not going to listen to me. You're a market fundamentalist. It's your religion. Logic and facts don't affect your faith in the omnipotent, mysterious invisible hand.
The political agenda that cites science of climate change does not have an agenda of driving you into the dirt. The political agenda is to stop polluters from driving us into the dirt.
The political agenda that attacks climate change science is the one that forces the original science to report only the most optimistic projections, based on only the most undeniable evidence. When new science shows that there's a higher probability of a worse projection, that does indeed undermine the credibility of the earlier, pressured science. The proper conclusion is not to ignore the worse projection, but to expect that the accurate projection is even worse still, since the better science is only getting started rolling back the suppression.
Some people don't call it "global warming", because idiots like you couldn't stop saying that extreme cold in Winter somehow proved it wrong, even when the overall average of the globe is indeed warming.
You can't spell "holes". And there were, and still are, ozone holes. Only idiots like you said spacecraft "punctured" the atmosphere, though spacecraft exhaust does destroy atmospheric ozone and contributed to the holes. But it was spraycan propellant and coolant CFCs that mainly destroyed the ozone. Until we banned them and let them regenerate. Now they're a lot better. Idiots like you denied they existed, and now deny they ever existed, or that we could affect them by either exhausting CFCs or banning them. Just like idiots like you now say we can't affect the climate by industrial exhaust. But in fact the recent experience with ozone holes shows we do.
Idiots like you are the ones constantly believing religious nuts proclaiming constantly changing doomsday dates.
You might add that BS about volcanoes, but it's just another lie created by polluter think tanks for idiots like you to repeat.
No, they don't have First Amendment rights. They do have such protections assigned them by the courts, but they don't have rights. As I explained. You'll probably say they have the right to vote and run for president when the courts say they do.
You're completely nuts, in a libertarian way. Future reference? Your future is corporate anarchy. Nobody will care that you're nuts then. You'll probably be happy, because you'll think you're right. Just like a completely nuts libertarian. A libertarian who's found some excuse to ignore being called what you are, based on something some other autistic libertarian told you.
The knowledge that powers profit from the markets is corruptly created and protected. It's bought by insiders who peddle fake knowledge to the rest of us to steal from us. If anyone could have known that Goldman Sachs was planning to get bailed out by the Treasury after crashing the economy with bottomless CDS liabilities, that might have resembled a legitimate market. But we didn't - only GS, a few other investment banks, government players and their cronies knew.
Most of the real estate repossessed by banks that loaned money they shouldn't have is standing and rotting, unmaintained. That is just the most obvious example of asset destruction.
Then there's all the businesses that rely on normal credit operations that were destroyed when even deserved credit was denied for a year or more. There's all the public infrastructure that needs preventive maintenance not to decay faster, that is now destroyed by years of neglect as government cut back on that spending since the economy collapsed.
Then there's all the speculation and naked shorts that push functioning businesses they target into failure by purely contrived financial attacks.
The financial economy creates little value compared to the profits it takes from the real economy. It creates plentiful damage in the real economy compared to the liabilities it takes from it. The evidence has piled up around you your entire life. Look at it.
Corporations don't get compensated fully for the benefits the public receives? So they do their work out of the selfless goodness of their hearts?
Corporations own assets their elites use, and spend to consume all kinds of non-assets for them to use. None of which is taxed, because it's deducted from profits.
You're unable to even notice that I said "It's not the "making too much money" part that needs investigation, and really just correction. It's the "not paying taxes" part. ".
You Republicans are really the most self-parodying people of all time.
Where business fraud is illegal, businesses are regulated. You do understand that "illegal" requires a regulation, right?
Besides, there's a vast array of examples. Just look at the businesses operating in North America before the USA and its states were established and regulated them. Those unregulated businesses genocided whole societies, ruined whole ecosystems, and of course destroyed whole economies with them. Look across Africa and any other post-colonial region where law doesn't rule, but rather corporations do: their economies are devastated. Hell, I even mentioned Somalia by name. The warlords there fight over who gets to be the top broke-ass filth dweller.
Why do you even have to ask for examples? Can't you think clearly for yourself about the overwhelming content of human history?
Cash flow is riggable by hiding debts and defaults on them, or just endlessly rolling them over into new debt instruments (with higher deferred interest). Which is an essential part of most "post"-Enron corporate finance, and of most outstanding debt.
Yes, I complained that it's not an instrument of measurement, as its values have proven over and again, especially recently. Any instrument of measure whose measurements are totally contrived is not really an instrument of measure. It's an instrument of deception, disguised as an instrument of measure. Using it to measure anything is sure to backfire. It's like calling a staked pit trap a "reception room". It's not.
My methodology for allocating assets to create a good return is to invest in myself. I'm invested in my home that I'm using. I've invested many times in companies that I've started, and in shares in ventures I've joined (including plenty of minority stakes). I've loaned people money who I thought would benefit from cash flow, and taken interest or at-cost products on top of returned principal. I've become quite rich at least twice, all on my own money (no outside investment except what I joined already in progress).
One fortune I earned substantially from building infosystems for the equities markets, which were part of the legitimate business that opened investment to everyone by presenting facts more clearly and easily, upon which more diverse analysis could be made to guide investments. From which experience I learned quite thoroughly that the financial markets are a scam run by crooks. But that lesson has been witnessed by everyone many times over, in the clearest possible terms, for well over a decade. Even if far too few have learned the lesson.
My methodology isn't for everyone. But if the equities and financial markets weren't so badly rigged, requiring much more networking and class identification than delivered value to reduce the risk of getting ripped off, I'd invest more of my surplus wealth in other people who can grow faster than I can. Just like so many other people think they're doing. Until the corruption, especially self-dealing and loss immunity, is removed from public markets, I'm not interested in them. Except to criticize them when people praise them. Because I cannot tolerate people perpetuating this scam with praise when all it merits is the criticism that is the basis for constructive change.
Slashdot Mirror
Missions to other planets seem perfect opportunities to power with solar satellites. Orbit the planet with the vehicle that got there from Earth, with comms relays and telemetry for sensing/guiding expeditions on the planet's surface. Spread out huge solar collector surfaces in orbit, and beam the energy down to the surface in microwaves to ground based collectors. A lot of these materials can be gathered on the surface of the remote planet, its moons, the Earth's Moon, asteroids, etc.
It's a great way to power the mission at the other planet. And it's a great way to research the technology to use back in Earth orbit. Why launch heavy, dangerous, irreplaceable materials all the way out of our gravity well, when we can get really good at using what's plentiful out there - and around here.
For years we've been taking the blame for our farting. Now, with this research, we can blame mind control!
And I'm not even kidding. These critters are indeed controlling our minds in flatulence. What more - or less - subtle means do they exercise?
Eventually someone will contribute SW that will guess the contributors by their distinctive patterns of spelling mistakes. I hope it will be able to find them in the archives. I won't be surprised to read on Slashdot some copyright lawsuit that depends on both apps, perhaps on opposing sides of the claim.
They can orbit it and plant the sail from orbit.
Yes, all the stuff I get from China is so reliable that I'd trust it not to deflect the asteroid in the wrong direction, into Earth. China's military is so accountable to reasonable, compassionate authorities that they'd never risk hurting people just to demonstrate their strength and spread around some military/industrial money. After all, the Chinese space programme has so much experience doing hard things no others have ever tried, let alone accomplished. This project couldn't possibly be just a reckless way to spend money and get foreign cooperation in boosting China's ballistic nuke/missile programmes. It must be the well-known Chinese government altruism, always looking to sacrifice other goals to protect their fellow humans' wellbeing from even the smallest risk.
No, it is perfectly clear that we agree that's where corporate power comes from. What you don't seem to realize is that without the government, corporations will not be limited to the power they derive from the state, but rather will consume all powers the state now keeps for itself, and the even greater remaining powers that we still manage to limit the US government to. That's corporate anarchy. That's what drowning the government in a bathtub will give us: warlords bathing in blood, calling themselves CEOs.
No, I made that up all by myself. Your Ron Paul screeching, though, was manufactured by a Republican marketing corp. You libertarians are so scared of your own shadow that you're nothing but a cartoon of yourselves.
When you libertarians destroy the government, the anarchy you create is immediately filled by the expanding corporate power we use government to protect us from. Corporations are very libertarian, the way that chickens are very egg.
Except the entire purpose of a corporation is to limit the liability of the people who own and control it. So a corporate group of people don't think like a person, or a regular group of people, when "surrounded and desperate". Especially when they're surrounded by corporations, and desperate for more profits, not their next literal heartbeat.
Corporations don't think the way people do. If they did, we wouldn't have invented them.
Corporations of course make mistakes, and make irrational decisions. That is part of the nature of a group of people with their liability removed. Which is different from the nature of a person. They make different mistakes than a person would make. Laws calling corporations persons don't change the reality that they're not.
Look at the posts here that whine about government taxes paying for a space programme now being entered by private American companies. See their total lack of a vision for America and humanity? See their commitment to destroying what is perhaps America's - and humanity's - greatest achievements and endeavors? See them demanding we do nothing but the purely private business that would never have gone to space, or if it eventually did (after much loss of life and limb) would never have shared any of what it saw or got there?
Then look at the posts celebrating America's space programme. Look at the effort it inspired, the ambition it provokes, the achievements it propels.
Your tax dollars at work. Vs your neighborhood libertarian's corporate anarchy. Space isn't the only ice-cold vacuum: you can have it here on Earth by voting Republican in 2012.
As long as they're targeting times and places, not people (individuals or groups), this is totally reasonable. In small towns with townie cops on the beat for years, the cops know where and when the crime "hotspots" are. But they're subjective, and are easily turned into just harassing people (and the neighborhoods they live or hang out in). Indeed, bad cops say that's what they're doing, when they're really just racists or settling some old grudge (often against totally different people), or just on a power trip - sweating kids at the local makeout spot, or busting harmless potheads.
But if there's statistical fact directing the police to places and times that actually do have higher crime rates, that's totally legit. Those are places and times that need more policing. And doing it scientifically means replacing the corrupt selection of pressure points with targets appropriate to the need.
The key to keeping the cops honest here is opening the selection system for review. Probably not simply public access to either the specific rules, process, data or target schedule, because that would undo the useful self-organized pattern recognized by police into new patterns criminals adapt to evade the pattern recognition. But the system and its operation should be reviewed by an independent group. Which should be judges, because sending cops somewhere without probable cause but rather probable correlation , is closely related to the search and seizure warrants that require judges to be convinced of probable cause to make them reasonable. If not, then it won't take long for a defendant to convince a judge that the cops singled them out without probable cause, either by some kind of association profiling or just a personal dislike. Which will get their case thrown out, and likely others - that were legit.
"mistaken" = "wrong"
Except to people who insist that if they call what they think an opinion, it cannot be criticized or its consequences limited. Infantile word games.
If my opinion is that you're not entitled to your opinion, then my opinion is wrong. There's a lot more wrong opinions possible, and wrong opinions held very widely.
BTW, you're entitled to be wrong. You're not entitled to do anything to me that I don't want when you're wrong. Opinions are more complex than just saying you have one, so you're immune to any criticism or limit.
Defaming the generals is within the limits of free speech. Even slander during a revolution seems to stand on what should be a broad boundary line. If you believe everything you hear said about public persons like incumbent generals during a revolution, you're the one doing wrong, not the sloppy speaker.
Calling for violence, especially in a context where you can expect people to answer the call and commit violence, is outside the rightful bounds of free speech. However, during most revolutions people kill and maim without penalty. If their side wins. The day that a revolution tries, convicts and punishes the violent people who caused the victory is the day that humanity has finally taken a step out of the animal kingdom that we like to celebrate as if we did it millennia ago.
I don't "ignore" them. We're talking about the revolution caused by the tech. When we talk about the revolution that caused the tech, we talk about the sherpas.
You're ignoring the revolution. Which ignorance might appeal more to the sentimental, but not to those of us talking about the question that was asked, and the bigger effect on more people. You're ignoring the much larger group of people. And that's not very nice.
Hillary didn't cause any revolution that affected lots of people. Only among a very tiny elite who climb mountains. Your comparison is totally unfair.
So you invested your money in GS stock, because you had the foresight to see GS's pretty obvious strategy. Right. You're lying.
The deregulation of banking left markets as the only enforcer of its business. Which collapsed. Destroying assets. Thereby the markets destroyed those assets.
But you're not going to listen to me. You're a market fundamentalist. It's your religion. Logic and facts don't affect your faith in the omnipotent, mysterious invisible hand.
Goodbye.
"Translated into politics" = LIE
The political agenda that cites science of climate change does not have an agenda of driving you into the dirt. The political agenda is to stop polluters from driving us into the dirt.
The political agenda that attacks climate change science is the one that forces the original science to report only the most optimistic projections, based on only the most undeniable evidence. When new science shows that there's a higher probability of a worse projection, that does indeed undermine the credibility of the earlier, pressured science. The proper conclusion is not to ignore the worse projection, but to expect that the accurate projection is even worse still, since the better science is only getting started rolling back the suppression.
Evidently you may not.
Some people don't call it "global warming", because idiots like you couldn't stop saying that extreme cold in Winter somehow proved it wrong, even when the overall average of the globe is indeed warming.
You can't spell "holes". And there were, and still are, ozone holes. Only idiots like you said spacecraft "punctured" the atmosphere, though spacecraft exhaust does destroy atmospheric ozone and contributed to the holes. But it was spraycan propellant and coolant CFCs that mainly destroyed the ozone. Until we banned them and let them regenerate. Now they're a lot better. Idiots like you denied they existed, and now deny they ever existed, or that we could affect them by either exhausting CFCs or banning them. Just like idiots like you now say we can't affect the climate by industrial exhaust. But in fact the recent experience with ozone holes shows we do.
Idiots like you are the ones constantly believing religious nuts proclaiming constantly changing doomsday dates.
You might add that BS about volcanoes, but it's just another lie created by polluter think tanks for idiots like you to repeat.
So no, you may not. In future, do not.
You're either a liar, completely insane for believing that, or both. Either way what you said about Jobs and GE is inane.
Goodbye.
No, they don't have First Amendment rights. They do have such protections assigned them by the courts, but they don't have rights. As I explained. You'll probably say they have the right to vote and run for president when the courts say they do.
You're completely nuts, in a libertarian way. Future reference? Your future is corporate anarchy. Nobody will care that you're nuts then. You'll probably be happy, because you'll think you're right. Just like a completely nuts libertarian. A libertarian who's found some excuse to ignore being called what you are, based on something some other autistic libertarian told you.
Goodbye.
The knowledge that powers profit from the markets is corruptly created and protected. It's bought by insiders who peddle fake knowledge to the rest of us to steal from us. If anyone could have known that Goldman Sachs was planning to get bailed out by the Treasury after crashing the economy with bottomless CDS liabilities, that might have resembled a legitimate market. But we didn't - only GS, a few other investment banks, government players and their cronies knew.
Most of the real estate repossessed by banks that loaned money they shouldn't have is standing and rotting, unmaintained. That is just the most obvious example of asset destruction.
Then there's all the businesses that rely on normal credit operations that were destroyed when even deserved credit was denied for a year or more. There's all the public infrastructure that needs preventive maintenance not to decay faster, that is now destroyed by years of neglect as government cut back on that spending since the economy collapsed.
Then there's all the speculation and naked shorts that push functioning businesses they target into failure by purely contrived financial attacks.
The financial economy creates little value compared to the profits it takes from the real economy. It creates plentiful damage in the real economy compared to the liabilities it takes from it. The evidence has piled up around you your entire life. Look at it.
Corporations don't get compensated fully for the benefits the public receives? So they do their work out of the selfless goodness of their hearts?
Corporations own assets their elites use, and spend to consume all kinds of non-assets for them to use. None of which is taxed, because it's deducted from profits.
You're unable to even notice that I said "It's not the "making too much money" part that needs investigation, and really just correction. It's the "not paying taxes" part. ".
You Republicans are really the most self-parodying people of all time.
Where business fraud is illegal, businesses are regulated. You do understand that "illegal" requires a regulation, right?
Besides, there's a vast array of examples. Just look at the businesses operating in North America before the USA and its states were established and regulated them. Those unregulated businesses genocided whole societies, ruined whole ecosystems, and of course destroyed whole economies with them. Look across Africa and any other post-colonial region where law doesn't rule, but rather corporations do: their economies are devastated. Hell, I even mentioned Somalia by name. The warlords there fight over who gets to be the top broke-ass filth dweller.
Why do you even have to ask for examples? Can't you think clearly for yourself about the overwhelming content of human history?
Cash flow is riggable by hiding debts and defaults on them, or just endlessly rolling them over into new debt instruments (with higher deferred interest). Which is an essential part of most "post"-Enron corporate finance, and of most outstanding debt.
Yes, I complained that it's not an instrument of measurement, as its values have proven over and again, especially recently. Any instrument of measure whose measurements are totally contrived is not really an instrument of measure. It's an instrument of deception, disguised as an instrument of measure. Using it to measure anything is sure to backfire. It's like calling a staked pit trap a "reception room". It's not.
My methodology for allocating assets to create a good return is to invest in myself. I'm invested in my home that I'm using. I've invested many times in companies that I've started, and in shares in ventures I've joined (including plenty of minority stakes). I've loaned people money who I thought would benefit from cash flow, and taken interest or at-cost products on top of returned principal. I've become quite rich at least twice, all on my own money (no outside investment except what I joined already in progress).
One fortune I earned substantially from building infosystems for the equities markets, which were part of the legitimate business that opened investment to everyone by presenting facts more clearly and easily, upon which more diverse analysis could be made to guide investments. From which experience I learned quite thoroughly that the financial markets are a scam run by crooks. But that lesson has been witnessed by everyone many times over, in the clearest possible terms, for well over a decade. Even if far too few have learned the lesson.
My methodology isn't for everyone. But if the equities and financial markets weren't so badly rigged, requiring much more networking and class identification than delivered value to reduce the risk of getting ripped off, I'd invest more of my surplus wealth in other people who can grow faster than I can. Just like so many other people think they're doing. Until the corruption, especially self-dealing and loss immunity, is removed from public markets, I'm not interested in them. Except to criticize them when people praise them. Because I cannot tolerate people perpetuating this scam with praise when all it merits is the criticism that is the basis for constructive change.