is ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to give you a ROI compared to installing solar cells on earth at an identical cost.
Putting conventional solar panels in space would indeed be silly. The only workable solutions involve mirrors used as solar concentrators and a ground station. In order to get the cost low enough the mirrors would have to either be some sort of expandable structure or something that could perhaps be manufactured off Earth. I don't think we have anything currently that would meet the expandable requirements though it's within the realm of the possible with sufficient research. For the manufacturing option you could in theory do it on the moon and launch the mirrors into place using a mass driver, but that would require a level of investment far beyond what is realistic, at least in the short term. Of course if we were to get serious and start using nuclear thermal rockets the numbers might work out more sensibly, but that's not going to happen either.
Legally he's guilty as sin, he definitely broke the law. The right course of action would be a presidential pardon and a medal of freedom, not that that will actually happen.
That would be a workable solution if we were to not have such a dependency on foreign trade and overseas oil. Our current budget is pretty darn big, bigger than I'd like but it's tied to our current forward deployment policies. In order to move in direction you're talking about we'd have to give up on NATO commitments and a number of other treaty obligations as well.
It's intended as a cross-platform replacement for shell scripts. Personally I think it's still the best tool for that particular job. It's been shoehorned into plenty of other roles, but that's a different issue.
But doesn't that logic dictate that you must build nothing but weapons systems and capabilities of all types, and do nothing else because "you might have to use them"?
Certainly not. You only need to build enough to provide a credible deterrent, not 100% of your GDP.
perl has always been a terrible language and should be murdered.
Perl is an awesome language for it's intended audience, which is not developers, rather it's for systems administrators. It's great at writing quick, dirty, powerful scripts that get stuff done and glue things together. If you're using it for something other than that you're doing it wrong.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases.
Sure, and that's great if you know what you're looking for. Other times you know there is something but you're not sure exactly what it is, and in that case a browse method is better than a search method.
Obviously someone who has never spent any significant amount of time out doors. Yes, the right gear really helps but some weather just sucks if you're going to be out in it for the next thirty days.
Actually state roads are socialism, they're just a good kind because they increase collective freedom have low bureaucratic overhead. Yes, I'm a Libertarian but I also believe in Social Goods. Sometimes government is the least bad answer, anyone who can't handle that concept is an anarchist.
Parts of it work well, the rest tends to create all kinds of problems over time. The parts that work well are the ones which ensure equality of opportunity rather than outcomes and involve low amounts of bureaucracy.
should I be able to shoot at the crop-duster flying over my neighbor’s soy beans because I can see it through my bathroom window?
Of course not, it's not in your airspace. Veer over your yard at a sufficiently low altitude though and feel free to fire up the ZSU-23 you bought on ebay.
Streaming and eSports have little to do with it, the resurgence is due to the broad availability of games at reasonable prices from services like Steam & GOG.
I'm a big fan of both Solar and Wind, but despite recent advances there just aren't any cheap options for grid scale storage to make it really practical to go 100% with those technologies. A sensible plan would consist of nuclear plants for a good chunk of base load, then a bunch of solar and wind backed by natural gas to even out the power flow. Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns but it's so much better than what we're doing now and could likely keep us going till we crack the fusion problem.
from years of experience on Slashdot, I have gotten the strong impression that there is some kind of pro-nuclear lobbying going on on this site.
I'm anti-coal, which leaves nuclear as one of the best remaining choices for base load. Sure, like any power generation system it has problems but if you examine the actual data it's one of the safest, cleanest technologies we have. I'd prefer fusion, but for some reason the government won't fund it at an appropriate level to make actual progress.
Yes, due to being a solid object it's not actually in "orbit" so you would need some form of attitude control. This could probably be managed with adjustable solar sails along the rim to keep it centered and some thrusters to keep it balanced. I have no idea if the fuel requirements for that are practical though.
For example, nowadays social media has made conventional wars between major world powers highly unlikely.
Hah, pretty funny but you're a few decades late. The correct answer is nuclear weapons, which made full on conflict between major powers essentially unwinnable and thus pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
is ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to give you a ROI compared to installing solar cells on earth at an identical cost.
Putting conventional solar panels in space would indeed be silly. The only workable solutions involve mirrors used as solar concentrators and a ground station. In order to get the cost low enough the mirrors would have to either be some sort of expandable structure or something that could perhaps be manufactured off Earth. I don't think we have anything currently that would meet the expandable requirements though it's within the realm of the possible with sufficient research. For the manufacturing option you could in theory do it on the moon and launch the mirrors into place using a mass driver, but that would require a level of investment far beyond what is realistic, at least in the short term. Of course if we were to get serious and start using nuclear thermal rockets the numbers might work out more sensibly, but that's not going to happen either.
Legally he's guilty as sin, he definitely broke the law. The right course of action would be a presidential pardon and a medal of freedom, not that that will actually happen.
That would be a workable solution if we were to not have such a dependency on foreign trade and overseas oil. Our current budget is pretty darn big, bigger than I'd like but it's tied to our current forward deployment policies. In order to move in direction you're talking about we'd have to give up on NATO commitments and a number of other treaty obligations as well.
Right, so reduced functionality, which is the complaint.
It's intended as a cross-platform replacement for shell scripts. Personally I think it's still the best tool for that particular job. It's been shoehorned into plenty of other roles, but that's a different issue.
But doesn't that logic dictate that you must build nothing but weapons systems and capabilities of all types, and do nothing else because "you might have to use them"?
Certainly not. You only need to build enough to provide a credible deterrent, not 100% of your GDP.
If we don't support offensive speech, then we don't support free speech at all.
perl has always been a terrible language and should be murdered.
Perl is an awesome language for it's intended audience, which is not developers, rather it's for systems administrators. It's great at writing quick, dirty, powerful scripts that get stuff done and glue things together. If you're using it for something other than that you're doing it wrong.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases.
Sure, and that's great if you know what you're looking for. Other times you know there is something but you're not sure exactly what it is, and in that case a browse method is better than a search method.
We need new military hardware that won't be used?
The would be the ideal situation yes. If you have to use it, then A) People are going to die and B) It's too late to build it.
Right, because the history of countries which ignore their defense has been so positive.
The US taxpayer is getting fleeced over and over by these overpriced, unnecessary, unneeded weapons systems.
I wouldn't say they're unneeded. Yes, it was a poor idea to smush so many different roles into one plane but it was time for new hardware.
Which raises the rent and means less people can afford to live there. It's always a trade off.
Obviously someone who has never spent any significant amount of time out doors. Yes, the right gear really helps but some weather just sucks if you're going to be out in it for the next thirty days.
Actually state roads are socialism, they're just a good kind because they increase collective freedom have low bureaucratic overhead. Yes, I'm a Libertarian but I also believe in Social Goods. Sometimes government is the least bad answer, anyone who can't handle that concept is an anarchist.
Actually it depends on the price elasticity of the product or service they're providing.
Parts of it work well, the rest tends to create all kinds of problems over time. The parts that work well are the ones which ensure equality of opportunity rather than outcomes and involve low amounts of bureaucracy.
should I be able to shoot at the crop-duster flying over my neighbor’s soy beans because I can see it through my bathroom window?
Of course not, it's not in your airspace. Veer over your yard at a sufficiently low altitude though and feel free to fire up the ZSU-23 you bought on ebay.
Streaming and eSports have little to do with it, the resurgence is due to the broad availability of games at reasonable prices from services like Steam & GOG.
I'm a big fan of both Solar and Wind, but despite recent advances there just aren't any cheap options for grid scale storage to make it really practical to go 100% with those technologies. A sensible plan would consist of nuclear plants for a good chunk of base load, then a bunch of solar and wind backed by natural gas to even out the power flow. Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns but it's so much better than what we're doing now and could likely keep us going till we crack the fusion problem.
from years of experience on Slashdot, I have gotten the strong impression that there is some kind of pro-nuclear lobbying going on on this site.
I'm anti-coal, which leaves nuclear as one of the best remaining choices for base load. Sure, like any power generation system it has problems but if you examine the actual data it's one of the safest, cleanest technologies we have. I'd prefer fusion, but for some reason the government won't fund it at an appropriate level to make actual progress.
It's not slavery if they are being paid for it.
True, that would be more akin to bonded labor, sharecropping or company towns, all forms of quasi-slavery.
Most are probably genuine but likely only a few are intentional.
Yes, due to being a solid object it's not actually in "orbit" so you would need some form of attitude control. This could probably be managed with adjustable solar sails along the rim to keep it centered and some thrusters to keep it balanced. I have no idea if the fuel requirements for that are practical though.
For example, nowadays social media has made conventional wars between major world powers highly unlikely.
Hah, pretty funny but you're a few decades late. The correct answer is nuclear weapons, which made full on conflict between major powers essentially unwinnable and thus pointless.