Thing is, if they were actually going to attack the US, using an ICBM isn't the best method anyway. They could just put a nuke on a fishing trawler and wander into any number of coastal ports.
O.o
A nuke on a fishing boat has no deterrent value - unless you announce it's existence. And once announced, it's going to be found very quickly... pushing you into a "use it or lose it" position. (Not to mention placing it beyond trustworthy command and control - something dictators are loathe to do.) Not even the North Koreans have shown themselves to be that monumentally stupid.
They have to know they wouldn't last 3 weeks against a U.S. military onslaught.
Presuming of course that the US is willing to to sacrifice a good chunk of South Korea's population and economy in the process... the North Koreans have thousands of dug in artillery pieces within range of Seoul and it's environs. They have thousands more dug in all along the border seriously threatening any land assault, and we don't have any significant capacity to conduct an opposed seaborne landing.
The North Koreans have had decades to think this through and to prepare, and they've done both very thoroughly.
Clay Shirky is a "writer, consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies", something he's been doing since 1996. He has written a heck of a lot of stuff on the topic, and is presumably some sort of expert. He isn't just another blogger.
He is not however a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, or any other form of mental health or medical professional. On those topics, he is indeed just another blogger.
The cynic in me says that since he is "writer and consultant", he's just riding the Aaron Swartz wave for hits and street cred. Next week he'll be off on whatever nine days wonder captures the attention of the blogosphere.
Move along - nothing to see here. It should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks, for even a brief moment, that as more people move more and more of their life online that there will be more requests to access that information.
And when you break down the numbers it works out to about a hundred a day, and since Google doesn't specify that this is limited to Feds, one is forced to assume it includes all governmental bodies at all levels. As a result, I'm not horrified that the number is so high but rather I find it interesting that the number is so low.
There's a huge difference between theoretical plans and real world experience.
Duh. Do you even have a clue how one gets "real world experience"? By going and doing it.
No shit Sherlock. Nothing in my post said otherwise. What obvious thing will you point out next? That water is wet or that fire is hot?
By going and doing it. And almost inevitably the first few times they'll do it wrong, that's inherent in exploring any new technology. How many locomotives blew up before they had enough "real world experience" to build out the world's rail system? Our engineers and procedures are better today, we should be able to minimize the number failures, but there will be some. That's how we learn.
Which has roughly zip point shit to do with anything I posted. If you had an IQ above room temperature, you'd realize that.
Flatlanders always think they're mining to feed factories at the bottom of the gravity well. You're wrong. A kilo of iron in Earth orbit is worth more than a kilo of gold in New York, and far more useful.
Sure, when there's a market for a kilo of iron in orbit. But that's not today, that's not even in the next decade. Maybe the one after that, but probably not.
Put down the bong and back to kindergarten with you. The adults are trying to have a conversation here and toddlers drooling into their blankie aren't welcome.
If they've actually developed a 3D printer with the capabilities described... But I can't even find a website for the company [that produces the printer], only blurbs related to this asteroid mining venture.
What's the best that could happen? A mitigating effort towards Earth's looming resource problems?
There's no petroleum in an asteroid. Nor can their mining platforms bring back enough clean fresh water to make a significant difference. Other than that, we don't have any looming resource problems.
Don't listen to the Club Of Rome, or their philosophical descendants, they fail badly at math and economics. ("Currently uneconomical to recover" != "shortage".)
What does ethics have to do with "open source?" Why has a programmer "tossed his ethical principles in the gutter" if you sign on to develop closed source software?
Seriously, are you that clueless or just that new to Slashdot?
Ethics have to do with code philosophies and beliefs - the choice to work on closed source projects, or only on open source projects.
If they believe in only open source projects, and signed on to produce a closed source project... then they've tossed their ethics away. They can't complain ex post facto that their principles have been compromised because the owner of the code refuses to open it up.
In this sense, the decision to mothball the tech would be a violation of the developersâ(TM) ethical principles.
Unless the developers were tricked into thinking they were developing an open source software platform, I don't see where ethics come in.
That was my thought too... If you signed on to develop software and it wasn't *explicitly* open source, you've already tossed your ethical principles in the gutter. The owner of the code can't take from you what you didn't have in the first place.
Quite a lot, actually. It's part of the space systems engineering textbook I'm writing
How can you know 'a lot' about something that's never been done? Hell, we're not even 100% sure what asteroids are made of. It's like a celibate priest claiming he knows 'a lot' about relationships and sex because he's read all the books by other celibate priests and attended all the seminars run by other celibate priests - and then writing his own book about it. There's a huge difference between theoretical plans and real world experience.
That is not an unrealistic goal to launch prospector spacecraft. Coondoggie's article summary mangles what they intend to do, and you misread it further. Their actual website lists three stages: Prospecting craft to find the asteroids, assay missions to bring back ~20 kg samples, and only then trying to actually mine. This is a sensible plan.
Since they're planning on being ride-along payloads, that pretty much takes them out of the sensible plan category. The Fireflies are too small to have significant propulsion systems of their own, which means their entire house of cards relies on their being a launch available at just the right time, at just the right azimuth, etc... for the asteroid to be within reach of the (very small) additional delta-V the launch mechanism can impart.
And that's not even addressing the cost of recovery - even if all they had to do was pick up processed gold bars off the the surface of the asteroid, they'd go broke.
These guys may not be a scam, they may be honest and truly real believers - but they are badly misguided.
Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely?
Because *everyone* loves a good reality show or celebrity meltdown. We all love to live vicariously, but different people chose different targets.
Thus, the Slashdot Demographic follows Dotcom, McAfee, etc... the way the rest of the world follows the Kardashian's, or Paris Hilton, or Lance Armstrong, or whatever their personal flavor of the month is.
They seem to be doing a lot planning for the final design, with either planning for or having done the basics first. (Prototype testing etc...) For that matter, the printer's website is long on hype, short on real information or accomplishments.
I guess professional photographers pick up a $20 starter pistol just for this purpose.
I follow many professional photography blogs, and not *once* have I head this piece of advice. In fact, when you follow the links, you find it's just some random individual (not known to be a professional photographer) proposing it. (I.E. in the game of 'Telephone' that is one guy linking to another who is linking to another... the message unsurprisingly becomes garbled.)
It looks like another case of a company thinking "everyone has an app store, we should get one!" but not realizing there is a need to actively police it.
Yet, in the past, Slashdot has held that's not a bug, but rather is a key *feature* of the Android ecosystem - the ability to leave the walled garden and wander in the wilds.
People died because Boeing wanted to cut costs and then was sloppy with it.
The problem with your assumption is that... it's not supported by the real world. Outward opening cargo doors have been in use for decades on aircraft from a variety of airframe manufacturers, they're practically bog-standard on wide body jets.
Yes, people died, but the situation is just a wee bit more complex than "Boeing wanted to cut costs".
There's more than 18 pounds of variation between flights of the typical passenger and luggage payload.
That doesn't change the fact that decreasing the fixed load on the airframe decreases fuel costs. Nor does it change the fact that airlines are sensitive to fuel costs and go to great lengths to decrease them.
No amount of handwaving, smokescreens, willful disbelief of reality, or second guessing by those with no knowledge can change those facts.
If micromanaged weight savings is so important then have the stewardesses remove their clothes before boarding.
Ahh... the old Slashdot tactic, "proving" how "intelligent" one is via logical fallacy. In reality, it has rather the opposite effect.
When somebody opens with a statement that utterly clueless... I should have stopped reading.
Passing that fraction of a cent on to the passengers is not going to change anything. I'm all for saving weight on planes, but 18 pounds (out of how many hundred thousand?) for safer battery seems obvious if you've looked into the hazards with batteries.
When you have people choosing the airline they're going to use by which one is $5.00 on Expedia (or wherever), those fractions of a penny start to add up - quickly. Ditto when a transcontinental flight can end up with a net profit of only a hundred bucks or so. Or to put it another way, it's only "obvious" to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.
When you're willing to multiply a tiny percentage savings by large volumes and claim thousands or millions of dollars in savings you should stop and ask yourself - am I that close to going out of business? If so, you've got other problems.
Um - multiplying small expenses or savings by your total volume is basic to running a business, whether that business is growing, stable, or shrinking. Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.
By the time Japan had recovered to the level that China is at today it already had a reputation for quality.
Huh? Japan had recovered by the 60's - and it's reputation was for making cheap crap. That changed (mostly) by the 80's, but that's because they were making quality gear and the reputation for cheap crap had moved on to Taiwan. Then we started buying cheap shit from China and Taiwan increased it's quality to compensate since they couldn't compete on price.
Slashdot Mirror
O.o
A nuke on a fishing boat has no deterrent value - unless you announce it's existence. And once announced, it's going to be found very quickly... pushing you into a "use it or lose it" position. (Not to mention placing it beyond trustworthy command and control - something dictators are loathe to do.) Not even the North Koreans have shown themselves to be that monumentally stupid.
Presuming of course that the US is willing to to sacrifice a good chunk of South Korea's population and economy in the process... the North Koreans have thousands of dug in artillery pieces within range of Seoul and it's environs. They have thousands more dug in all along the border seriously threatening any land assault, and we don't have any significant capacity to conduct an opposed seaborne landing.
The North Koreans have had decades to think this through and to prepare, and they've done both very thoroughly.
He is not however a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, or any other form of mental health or medical professional. On those topics, he is indeed just another blogger.
The cynic in me says that since he is "writer and consultant", he's just riding the Aaron Swartz wave for hits and street cred. Next week he'll be off on whatever nine days wonder captures the attention of the blogosphere.
*sigh* And me without mod points today... so, here's a virtual +1 for you.
Even so, the number is *still* pretty low considered on a per capita or per annum basis, even if it seems pretty big and scary spun as a $BIGNUM.
Why is it a pity that Google is held to same legal standard as every other company or individual in the US?
Move along - nothing to see here. It should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks, for even a brief moment, that as more people move more and more of their life online that there will be more requests to access that information.
And when you break down the numbers it works out to about a hundred a day, and since Google doesn't specify that this is limited to Feds, one is forced to assume it includes all governmental bodies at all levels. As a result, I'm not horrified that the number is so high but rather I find it interesting that the number is so low.
No shit Sherlock. Nothing in my post said otherwise. What obvious thing will you point out next? That water is wet or that fire is hot?
Which has roughly zip point shit to do with anything I posted. If you had an IQ above room temperature, you'd realize that.
Sure, when there's a market for a kilo of iron in orbit. But that's not today, that's not even in the next decade. Maybe the one after that, but probably not.
Put down the bong and back to kindergarten with you. The adults are trying to have a conversation here and toddlers drooling into their blankie aren't welcome.
If they've actually developed a 3D printer with the capabilities described... But I can't even find a website for the company [that produces the printer], only blurbs related to this asteroid mining venture.
That alone raises a red flag.
There's no petroleum in an asteroid. Nor can their mining platforms bring back enough clean fresh water to make a significant difference. Other than that, we don't have any looming resource problems.
Don't listen to the Club Of Rome, or their philosophical descendants, they fail badly at math and economics. ("Currently uneconomical to recover" != "shortage".)
No, not "everyone" in the literal sense... but close enough for all practical purposes. :)
Seriously, are you that clueless or just that new to Slashdot?
Ethics have to do with code philosophies and beliefs - the choice to work on closed source projects, or only on open source projects.
If they believe in only open source projects, and signed on to produce a closed source project... then they've tossed their ethics away. They can't complain ex post facto that their principles have been compromised because the owner of the code refuses to open it up.
That was my thought too... If you signed on to develop software and it wasn't *explicitly* open source, you've already tossed your ethical principles in the gutter. The owner of the code can't take from you what you didn't have in the first place.
How can you know 'a lot' about something that's never been done? Hell, we're not even 100% sure what asteroids are made of. It's like a celibate priest claiming he knows 'a lot' about relationships and sex because he's read all the books by other celibate priests and attended all the seminars run by other celibate priests - and then writing his own book about it. There's a huge difference between theoretical plans and real world experience.
Since they're planning on being ride-along payloads, that pretty much takes them out of the sensible plan category. The Fireflies are too small to have significant propulsion systems of their own, which means their entire house of cards relies on their being a launch available at just the right time, at just the right azimuth, etc... for the asteroid to be within reach of the (very small) additional delta-V the launch mechanism can impart.
And that's not even addressing the cost of recovery - even if all they had to do was pick up processed gold bars off the the surface of the asteroid, they'd go broke.
These guys may not be a scam, they may be honest and truly real believers - but they are badly misguided.
So, how often do you submit stories? How often do you seek out and vote for such stories in the firehose?
Because *everyone* loves a good reality show or celebrity meltdown. We all love to live vicariously, but different people chose different targets.
Thus, the Slashdot Demographic follows Dotcom, McAfee, etc... the way the rest of the world follows the Kardashian's, or Paris Hilton, or Lance Armstrong, or whatever their personal flavor of the month is.
I actually only just now read his daughter's post.... wow. Just, *wow*. Seriously disconnected from reality.
Pointless advice ("open up the internet"), that they're going to ignore as well... isn't much better.
Seriously, I'm with the OP here. Schmidt comes off as *seriously* clueless in this post.
They seem to be doing a lot planning for the final design, with either planning for or having done the basics first. (Prototype testing etc...) For that matter, the printer's website is long on hype, short on real information or accomplishments.
I follow many professional photography blogs, and not *once* have I head this piece of advice. In fact, when you follow the links, you find it's just some random individual (not known to be a professional photographer) proposing it. (I.E. in the game of 'Telephone' that is one guy linking to another who is linking to another... the message unsurprisingly becomes garbled.)
Yet, in the past, Slashdot has held that's not a bug, but rather is a key *feature* of the Android ecosystem - the ability to leave the walled garden and wander in the wilds.
The problem with your assumption is that... it's not supported by the real world. Outward opening cargo doors have been in use for decades on aircraft from a variety of airframe manufacturers, they're practically bog-standard on wide body jets.
Yes, people died, but the situation is just a wee bit more complex than "Boeing wanted to cut costs".
That doesn't change the fact that decreasing the fixed load on the airframe decreases fuel costs. Nor does it change the fact that airlines are sensitive to fuel costs and go to great lengths to decrease them.
No amount of handwaving, smokescreens, willful disbelief of reality, or second guessing by those with no knowledge can change those facts.
Ahh... the old Slashdot tactic, "proving" how "intelligent" one is via logical fallacy. In reality, it has rather the opposite effect.
When somebody opens with a statement that utterly clueless... I should have stopped reading.
When you have people choosing the airline they're going to use by which one is $5.00 on Expedia (or wherever), those fractions of a penny start to add up - quickly. Ditto when a transcontinental flight can end up with a net profit of only a hundred bucks or so. Or to put it another way, it's only "obvious" to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Um - multiplying small expenses or savings by your total volume is basic to running a business, whether that business is growing, stable, or shrinking. Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Huh? Japan had recovered by the 60's - and it's reputation was for making cheap crap. That changed (mostly) by the 80's, but that's because they were making quality gear and the reputation for cheap crap had moved on to Taiwan. Then we started buying cheap shit from China and Taiwan increased it's quality to compensate since they couldn't compete on price.