_You_ are in no position to judge, hell, until so very recently you didn't even know what the CIA's missions were and were just repeating the stupidities that others with no better comprehension fed you. I doubt you even know who controls their financing and decides whether or not they are performing their assigned missions as expected or not.
You're ignorant but still think that your opinion merits consideration. In short, you're a troll. Bye...
Belgium != the rest of the world outside the U.S. Different countries, different tastes. For France mustard would predominate, for Canada gravy & cheese curds, etc.
I congratulate you on taking the first steps of enlightenment. The next step will be to accept that just because you do not understand something that it does not automatically mean that it is without value. A common indicator of this failure on your part is when you disagree with everyone around you but finding another self deluded fool doesn't make you right either.
The CIA exists to gather evaluate and deliver intelligence following the directives of the Executive branch while remaining within the bounds and budged defined by Congress & the Courts & would not exist were they all to find it as useless as your unlearned self does.
The mission of the CIA/NSA is NOT the "protect safety of USA citizens" [sic], that's just you making things up. Their mission statements are online. I suggest you read them to cure your ignorance
You need to tell whoever it is that is feeding you these "meant to" lines to knock off the psychotropics. None of that has anything to do with the missions of the CIA/NSA.
When the CIA/NSA/... is following the constitutional laws and directives of the executive branch they are performing the mission that they were created to do.
That mission does not include serving as Apples/Googles/Microsofts/ZTEs/Huaweis/Samsungs vulnerability assessment division.
Right, so when the CIA/NSA/whatever, uses a vulnerability that gives them access to information -- that it is their reason for existing, they should immediately turn the vulnerability over to the device manufacturer so that they will patch it.
Because these agencies exist and are financed to perform vulnerability testing for Apple/Google/Microsoft/HP/Dell/ZTE/Huawei/etc!?!?
Methinks that anyone that can say "that's not how it should work" with a straight face can only be a lawyer, habituated to defining truth as "whatever best serves me/my client".
We cannot be appalled by the lies of people like Trump and at the same time accept it when people who are say that they are defending us from his and other deceptions are also lying to us.
EFF, this does not help as it only gives Trump et all more ammunition.
Bezos gets a break when he talks about developing a reusable bunny hop suborbital, for BE-3 and BE-4, but [b]not[\b] when Bezos talks about missions he will be performing in 3 years with a launcher he hasn't even finished building thats 15 times bigger than anything he has flown so far. While I applaud his investment in Space he doesn't get a free pass when exaggerating the means he has to fulfil them.
If Space-X was saying that they would be using ITS for it's slingshot around the moon I'd agree. Unfortunately for the point you were trying to make, Space-X will be using FH & Dragon-2 which are much further along than either Blue Origin's planned New Shepard or ITS. Except for unknowable-unknowns like a supplier delivering out of spec struts and kinks in the COPV liners+ frozen oxygen having unexpected problems, Space-X hasn't misstepped since Falcon-1 so I don't see why the remaining pieces that need to work (stage separation for FH & Communications upgrades & environmental controls for Dragon 2) should be issues.
This is just another one of Bezos's "MEE TOO, MEE TOO LOOOK AT MEEEE" moments because he knows that his Blue Origin realisations are far behind Space-X's and will be falling even further behind unless Space-X has another problem. 2017 should be the year that Space-X: - Returns to Space with a launch every 2-3 weeks - Finishes and begins launching it's incremental development of Falcon-9 with Falcon-9 Block 5 with much better reusability - Launches FH - Relaunches it's first recovered first stage - Starts launching the Man rated Dragon-2
Meanwhile, Blue-Origin has yet to finish it's first Orbital launcher. Bezos has always had visions of grandeur far beyond the real means of Blue Origin. This is just another example. Stop with the grandiose plans and starts launching if you want to be taken seriously.
That's OK as far as it goes but there is already a word that fits but that wasn't used: subcontinent
The NZ plaque is also smaller than the Indian subcontinental plaque making it clear that "Newzealandia is a continent" is either journalistic inflation or Kiwi puffery.
The number one limiting factor of any space vehicle is cost per kg at launch. NASA could build a Mars vehicle any size they wanted except they have to figure a way to get it in orbit without spending the entire budget to launch it.
Irrelevant when the number one defining factor of STS is how much pork can be siphoned off to spend into each supporting senator's district and not whether or not it helps the an extremely improbable Mars mission or even just the improbable "planned" moon flyby.
You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base
We're not in junior high here, you can stop trying to play semantic games. You bring the subject to the conversation, you defend it. Knowing that there is hydrogen on the Moon does not mean that it is under the form of water ices nor how accessible it is nor how difficult and expensive harvesting it may be.
sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth.
No oxidizer is required for electrolysis.
You cannot know that lunar hydrogen is in the form of water ice, have not proven it's accessibility, have not proven that you have worked out the process to develop it as a usable ressource nor proven that you can do so for less than it will cost at that point in time to deliver from earth. Pray do so now.
Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...
1) I didn't say it would be easy. I said it would be "easier".
Proof? Nah you don't have proof (indeed you _cannot_ at present) and if this post is any indication you'll try playing semantic games again to attempt to avoid answering.
2) How much fuel is left in a space vehicle after Earth orbit is reached? Very little. There's a reason most space probes use gravity assists to speed them towards their destination. And being unmanned they don't have constraints on time and resources that manned missions will have.
Oooh, ooh I know this one! it's because Nasa, being hobbled by the U.S legislature never invested significantly in lowering the cost of launching mass to orbit, preferring to spend the money on futile studies as the only meaningful yardstick became $$$/district.
3) NASA has been directed to do something; you may not like what they propose but that doesn't mean they can refuse to do it. Get to Mars is directive. For NASA that means getting to the Moon again.
You seem to have been living in a cave with no contact with the exterior for the last few months. Allow me to enlighten you: Nasa's congressional masters and the president have changed. No-one knows exactly what the implications are yet but Trump's declarations that cost cutting is more important than rockets to nowhere means that the directives are to change soon and Mars is not likely to be a directive for much longer.
"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.
Engineering and numbers don't change with administrators. Math is math. What is the cost of launching directly from Earth vs launching from the moon.
Spoken like someone who lives off of studies that will never come to fruition.
I think you're confusing "a moon base" with "a full industrial infrastructure capable of producing complex objects". Even the concept that it would be cheaper to launch unrefined raw regolith from the moon cheaper than we can launch equivalent mass payloads from Earth anytime even remotely soon is absurd.
Nowhere did I say that NASA needs to rebuild and entire installation; however, in terms of fuel cost it is much easier to launch from the Earth to the moon then refuel at the moon to launch at Mars than to launch from Earth directly to Mars. Do the math.
Delta-V costs are not the only criteria. You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth. Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...
Earth is where industry is. The fact that we're a deep gravity well increases costs, but that difference is nothing compared to the difference in industrial capacities on and off Earth. Every production process has feedstock and consumables dependency chains. Those have dependency chains, and those have further chains, to a massive network of ever-increasing complexity. One of the worst dependencies is humans, which in turn spawn massive dependency chains.
Current NASA plans have the moon as a refueling point. That requires a moon base.
"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.
Shall we count the ways you were wrong in a one line post? 1. Trump isn't a fascist. He's a rightist populist with _major_ issues but just because some people use the wrong definitions to label something/one doesn't make their use correct. 2. A majority of Americans happily voted for trump. He lost the popular vote. 3. Not everyone voted so that makes even fewer who voted for him. 4. An analysis printed shortly after the election in the NYT showed that while those who said that they knew who they were going to vote for 90 days before the election did indeed vote for that candidate (following party lines), that the election was decided by a third of the electorate who disliked both candidates and who ended up voting 75/25% Trump/Clinton. So even those who voted for him weren't voting "for fascism". 5. The dislike/hate of Clinton by even many Democrats and the desire for a break with 8 years of an Obama presidency do not equate with a love of fascism.
Get over your sour grapes, the way to fight Trump is not with slander, lying about him just feeds into his line that "the popular media cannot be trusted". It's not like the truth isn't enough - Use the Truth Luke...
So, by your logic every tourist visiting Paris has been encouraging the DGSE's snooping which oh so very legally goes far beyond what the NSA & U.S customs can perform on both foreigners and French nationals. Because WE're the country of the "Declaration of Rights of Man"...
That I and others do not agree with "Oooh he's grieving we need to allow him to grieve by blaming innocents" != missing the intended point.
Should a grieving father be able to blame an innocent man? Go back 70 years... When a posse of like minded men hunt down and hang that innocent black man, the father's blind lashing out shares in the responsibility of that abomination.
Grief is no different than Hate, Fear, Love or any other emotion in that it does not justify blaming innocents.
Slashdot Mirror
_You_ are in no position to judge, hell, until so very recently you didn't even know what the CIA's missions were and were just repeating the stupidities that others with no better comprehension fed you. I doubt you even know who controls their financing and decides whether or not they are performing their assigned missions as expected or not.
You're ignorant but still think that your opinion merits consideration. In short, you're a troll. Bye...
I'm waiting to hear how all Samsung's problems are Apple's fault.
Belgium != the rest of the world outside the U.S.
Different countries, different tastes. For France mustard would predominate, for Canada gravy & cheese curds, etc.
I congratulate you on taking the first steps of enlightenment. The next step will be to accept that just because you do not understand something that it does not automatically mean that it is without value. A common indicator of this failure on your part is when you disagree with everyone around you but finding another self deluded fool doesn't make you right either.
The CIA exists to gather evaluate and deliver intelligence following the directives of the Executive branch while remaining within the bounds and budged defined by Congress & the Courts & would not exist were they all to find it as useless as your unlearned self does.
The mission of the CIA/NSA is NOT the "protect safety of USA citizens" [sic], that's just you making things up. Their mission statements are online. I suggest you read them to cure your ignorance
After following the appropriate laws and the directives of the Executive branch, yes.
You need to tell whoever it is that is feeding you these "meant to" lines to knock off the psychotropics. None of that has anything to do with the missions of the CIA/NSA.
When the CIA/NSA/... is following the constitutional laws and directives of the executive branch they are performing the mission that they were created to do.
That mission does not include serving as Apples/Googles/Microsofts/ZTEs/Huaweis/Samsungs vulnerability assessment division.
Some parts of the USG have the mission to protect us: CERT for example.
Some parts have the mission to get evaluate and distribute information to the State dept and the rest of the executive branch. CIA/NSA/...
Anyone who claims that both are not needed and the USG should only "Protect us" are either lying or idealistic fools. Which are you?
They "correlate and evaluate" to the State department and other entities of the USG.
The "Disseminating information" part of their mission does not mean that they must (or should) inform corporate entities of their bugs.
So the NSA/CIA/... are now the publicly financed bug tracking unit of Apple/Google/Microsoft/ZTE/Huawei/Samsung/etc ?!?
Saying otherwise is "Let the USA burn to ashes, as long as we manage to destroy Russia in the process"?!?!
Says who?
Right, so when the CIA/NSA/whatever, uses a vulnerability that gives them access to information -- that it is their reason for existing, they should immediately turn the vulnerability over to the device manufacturer so that they will patch it.
Because these agencies exist and are financed to perform vulnerability testing for Apple/Google/Microsoft/HP/Dell/ZTE/Huawei/etc!?!?
Methinks that anyone that can say "that's not how it should work" with a straight face can only be a lawyer, habituated to defining truth as "whatever best serves me/my client".
We cannot be appalled by the lies of people like Trump and at the same time accept it when people who are say that they are defending us from his and other deceptions are also lying to us.
EFF, this does not help as it only gives Trump et all more ammunition.
Bezos gets a break when he talks about developing a reusable bunny hop suborbital, for BE-3 and BE-4, but [b]not[\b] when Bezos talks about missions he will be performing in 3 years with a launcher he hasn't even finished building thats 15 times bigger than anything he has flown so far. While I applaud his investment in Space he doesn't get a free pass when exaggerating the means he has to fulfil them.
If Space-X was saying that they would be using ITS for it's slingshot around the moon I'd agree. Unfortunately for the point you were trying to make, Space-X will be using FH & Dragon-2 which are much further along than either Blue Origin's planned New Shepard or ITS. Except for unknowable-unknowns like a supplier delivering out of spec struts and kinks in the COPV liners+ frozen oxygen having unexpected problems, Space-X hasn't misstepped since Falcon-1 so I don't see why the remaining pieces that need to work (stage separation for FH & Communications upgrades & environmental controls for Dragon 2) should be issues.
This is just another one of Bezos's "MEE TOO, MEE TOO LOOOK AT MEEEE" moments because he knows that his Blue Origin realisations are far behind Space-X's and will be falling even further behind unless Space-X has another problem.
2017 should be the year that Space-X:
- Returns to Space with a launch every 2-3 weeks
- Finishes and begins launching it's incremental development of Falcon-9 with Falcon-9 Block 5 with much better reusability
- Launches FH
- Relaunches it's first recovered first stage
- Starts launching the Man rated Dragon-2
Meanwhile, Blue-Origin has yet to finish it's first Orbital launcher. Bezos has always had visions of grandeur far beyond the real means of Blue Origin. This is just another example. Stop with the grandiose plans and starts launching if you want to be taken seriously.
Once again an AC troll who claims that "you gotta use android to do that" is wrong...
VLC on the iPhone is free and allows you to transfer videos to an iphone without even using iTunes:
http://ioshacker.com/how-to/tr...
That's OK as far as it goes but there is already a word that fits but that wasn't used: subcontinent
The NZ plaque is also smaller than the Indian subcontinental plaque making it clear that "Newzealandia is a continent" is either journalistic inflation or Kiwi puffery.
Delta-V costs are not the only criteria.
The number one limiting factor of any space vehicle is cost per kg at launch. NASA could build a Mars vehicle any size they wanted except they have to figure a way to get it in orbit without spending the entire budget to launch it.
Irrelevant when the number one defining factor of STS is how much pork can be siphoned off to spend into each supporting senator's district and not whether or not it helps the an extremely improbable Mars mission or even just the improbable "planned" moon flyby.
You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base
I am not proposing. I am relaying what has been proposed.
We're not in junior high here, you can stop trying to play semantic games. You bring the subject to the conversation, you defend it. Knowing that there is hydrogen on the Moon does not mean that it is under the form of water ices nor how accessible it is nor how difficult and expensive harvesting it may be.
sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth.
No oxidizer is required for electrolysis.
You cannot know that lunar hydrogen is in the form of water ice, have not proven it's accessibility, have not proven that you have worked out the process to develop it as a usable ressource nor proven that you can do so for less than it will cost at that point in time to deliver from earth. Pray do so now.
Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...
1) I didn't say it would be easy. I said it would be "easier".
Proof? Nah you don't have proof (indeed you _cannot_ at present) and if this post is any indication you'll try playing semantic games again to attempt to avoid answering.
2) How much fuel is left in a space vehicle after Earth orbit is reached? Very little. There's a reason most space probes use gravity assists to speed them towards their destination. And being unmanned they don't have constraints on time and resources that manned missions will have.
Oooh, ooh I know this one! it's because Nasa, being hobbled by the U.S legislature never invested significantly in lowering the cost of launching mass to orbit, preferring to spend the money on futile studies as the only meaningful yardstick became $$$/district.
3) NASA has been directed to do something; you may not like what they propose but that doesn't mean they can refuse to do it. Get to Mars is directive. For NASA that means getting to the Moon again.
You seem to have been living in a cave with no contact with the exterior for the last few months. Allow me to enlighten you: Nasa's congressional masters and the president have changed. No-one knows exactly what the implications are yet but Trump's declarations that cost cutting is more important than rockets to nowhere means that the directives are to change soon and Mars is not likely to be a directive for much longer.
"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.
Engineering and numbers don't change with administrators. Math is math. What is the cost of launching directly from Earth vs launching from the moon.
Spoken like someone who lives off of studies that will never come to fruition.
I think you're confusing "a moon base" with "a full industrial infrastructure capable of producing complex objects". Even the concept that it would be cheaper to launch unrefined raw regolith from the moon cheaper than we can launch equivalent mass payloads from Earth anytime even remotely soon is absurd.
Nowhere did I say that NASA needs to rebuild and entire installation; however, in terms of fuel cost it is much easier to launch from the Earth to the moon then refuel at the moon to launch at Mars than to launch from Earth directly to Mars. Do the math.
Delta-V costs are not the only criteria. You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth. Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...
Earth is where industry is. The fact that we're a deep gravity well increases costs, but that difference is nothing compared to the difference in industrial capacities on and off Earth. Every production process has feedstock and consumables dependency chains. Those have dependency chains, and those have further chains, to a massive network of ever-increasing complexity. One of the worst dependencies is humans, which in turn spawn massive dependency chains.
Current NASA plans have the moon as a refueling point. That requires a moon base.
"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.
Really? Most americans voted for fascism?
Shall we count the ways you were wrong in a one line post?
1. Trump isn't a fascist. He's a rightist populist with _major_ issues but just because some people use the wrong definitions to label something/one doesn't make their use correct.
2. A majority of Americans happily voted for trump. He lost the popular vote.
3. Not everyone voted so that makes even fewer who voted for him.
4. An analysis printed shortly after the election in the NYT showed that while those who said that they knew who they were going to vote for 90 days before the election did indeed vote for that candidate (following party lines), that the election was decided by a third of the electorate who disliked both candidates and who ended up voting 75/25% Trump/Clinton. So even those who voted for him weren't voting "for fascism".
5. The dislike/hate of Clinton by even many Democrats and the desire for a break with 8 years of an Obama presidency do not equate with a love of fascism.
Get over your sour grapes, the way to fight Trump is not with slander, lying about him just feeds into his line that "the popular media cannot be trusted". It's not like the truth isn't enough - Use the Truth Luke...
The next step would be to deny entry for people with wiped phones.
which no-one besides you is evoking...
So, for you every "modern" American is a Fascist? Was every 1930s German one too?
So, by your logic every tourist visiting Paris has been encouraging the DGSE's snooping which oh so very legally goes far beyond what the NSA & U.S customs can perform on both foreigners and French nationals. Because WE're the country of the "Declaration of Rights of Man"...
Riiiigght...
That I and others do not agree with "Oooh he's grieving we need to allow him to grieve by blaming innocents" != missing the intended point.
Should a grieving father be able to blame an innocent man? Go back 70 years... When a posse of like minded men hunt down and hang that innocent black man, the father's blind lashing out shares in the responsibility of that abomination.
Grief is no different than Hate, Fear, Love or any other emotion in that it does not justify blaming innocents.