How "private" is a venture that depends upon the preexistence of a trillion dollar taxpayer investment to ensure that they don't get a free colonoscopy from a bolt or other bit of space debris that is traveling at 22,000 MPH??
Roughly as private as a venture which depends on obtaining weather reports built using taxpayer investment. Or as private as a venture requiring the use of roads built using taxpayer investment. Etc... etc...
I am still waiting for the "commercial space flight venture" that starts out in a truly "private" manner by building ground communications and tracking stations around the planet - to include a facility equivalent to the Air Force Space Command's tracking site at NORAD.
In other words, for reasons unknown, you wish to hold commercial space ventures to a standard no other business venture must meet. I hate to break it to you, but we the taxpayers pay for a great deal of basic infrastructure for a wide variety of businesses. It's part of that "public good" thing.
That argument does not hold. Every power plant has downtimes for scheduled maintainance or because of accidents. You need backup power plants anyway for that. The fact that the downtimes happen more often for wind power than for nuclear power does not make it a lot more expensive or complicated to provide the backup power.
Apples and oranges. Scheduled downtime is just that - scheduled. You can plan around it, sometimes months or years in advance. Windpower's downtime isn't scheduled or predictable.
Nor do entire plants shut down for accidents with any great regularity.
So yes, it is more expensive and more complicated to provide backup power - as you cannot predict the frequency, duration, or level of backup required.
Every time I think I can't possibly see something more ignorant posted on Slashdot, some moron like yourself comes along and proved me wrong.
If having a toy with a meal really made *that* big of a difference to children's eating choices, don't you think ever banana in the world would come with a free sponge bob action figure?
If fruit companies could sell $0.15 worth of water and sugar or $0.10 worth of potatoes for $0.99 cents, their profit margins would support including a SpongeBob figure. But they can't.
Etc... etc...
Or in other words, you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
To paraphrase Scott Adams: Fat people are fat because they like food more than they like being thin.
Yeah, just blame the victim. It's so much easier than actually thinking. Curing your own ignorance is just too much work.
We can't have the government protect us from everything...moreover the government shouldn't protect us from everything. We need to learn to be responsible for our actions and to resist the temptation of short term perks with long-term consequences.
But the slippery slope runs the other direction too... Without the government regulating corporate behavior, they'll take any advantage they can.
So where should the line be drawn? Well, I think food is over the line. Most restricted things, like alcohol, gambling, and tobacco offer little or no benefit, where food at least offers nourishment and is necessary for you to live.
If we weren't talking fast food and inculcating the habit of eating high calorie meals with low nutritional content - I'd be among the first to agree with you. But to take 'food' as a single category without distinction is dangerous. Food offers nourishment and is required to live, granted, but fast food shortens that life and profits only the corporation in the long run. Not that I'm a 'pure food no mega corp' hardliner mind you - I just don't care for the fast food companies and their predatory practices. The product they peddle offers little benefit and poses severe health risks over the long term, just like alcohol and tobacco. And similarly they should be restricted from marketing to children.
No. This is EXACTLY about personal and parental responsibility. Where the fuck does the government get off telling any parent they can't buy their kid a happy meal with a toy in it.
Yeah, fuck the government. Where do they get off telling parents they can't paint with lead in it? Or toys contaminated with heavy metals. Etc... Etc..
Congratulations on being out on the tail of the bell curve. Guess what that means? You're irrelevant. (And ignorant too for tacking on a gratuitous and unrelated political rant.)
And NASA first used light pressure in an interplanetary probe decades ago... Mariner 3 and Mariner 4 both used light pressure to assist in controlling attitude during the trans Martian cruise phase of their flights. (That's what the paddles on the end of the solar arrays are for.)
It wasn't used on later Mars missions because the craft became too large and heavy to use that method.
Which is the real drawback of light pressure sails - from a purely mathematical standpoint they're the most efficient propulsion system around. From a practical standpoint, their limited performance and sharp limits on payload prevent them from being useful for much.
"focus on flying and on safety at all times" is staring at a big blue sky of nothing for hours on end. That will put anyone to sleep. Let them keep their minds doing something, who really cares what they do.
Who cares? I bloody well care. A pilot playing minesweeper is a pilot not paying attention to the instruments (they do more than just look at the sky you know) - and a pilot not looking at his instruments is a pilot who might not catch a trend before it become a Problem.
Given a choice between a pilot who needs to be kept entertained like a four year old, and pilot doing his job and thus more likely to get me on the ground alive - I'll chose the latter every single time.
Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.
Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.
Do that, and the moment you radiate you'll stop looking like an innocent container vessel to the sensors of the warships you are trying to attack - you'll have the electronic signature of a warship.
That's going to draw attention of the kind said container vessel doesn't want and is incapable of handling.
NATO gave it a very appropriate name: Shipwreck. Because that's what it does. I recall one of the military buff forums state that folks at NATO estimated the normal 4-missile swarm was expected to disable aircraft carrier and kill at least one of the aegis cruisers with something around 90% likelihood
I've also heard someone on a military buff forum state the U.S.S. Enterprise's top speed is 75 knots (it isn't), that an Akula can dive to 7,000 feet (it can't), etc... etc...
You'll also note the P-700 is nearly thirty years old - you really think no countermeasures have been developed in the interim? I suspect the massive ESM capability upgrades the USN applied to its cruisers in the 80's just might have been a response to the P-700. (But then, I've only actually studied naval topics for thirty years, what do I know?)
It's essentially unstoppable by any current defense weapon short of having anti-missile ship sitting on top of the sub and killing the missiles as they surface.
Assuming of course a MK48 or two from a US SSN hasn't taken care of the launching submarine first. (I.E. you're making the classic error of the armchair admiral - assigning all the advantage to one side and all the disadvantage to the other.) After all, one the reasons the Los Angeles class was developed was to fill precisely this role. (And the Virginia class is even better at it.)
The main reason NATO utterly obliterated Iraq both times is because NATO forces are specifically designed to counter Russian-style "heavy armor assault" through far more advanced attack craft and helicopters which literally ate tanks alive once air superiority was achieved with tremendous efficiency.
Since neither war involved a Russian style "heavy armor assault", you'll have to look elsewhere for an explanation. After all, the known Iraqi flaws in doctrine, training, and materiel readiness couldn't possibly have any bearing. (Not to mention their near complete inability to prevent the US from obtaining and holding air superiority.)
...is like a cellphone without a charger. It's pretty much useless by itself. You still need the sensors to locate the carrier, which isn't trivial. Especially since carriers don't tend to let just anybody linger in their vicinity. (And I bet 'satellite guided' means nothing more sinister than GPS. Useful for guidance, useless for targeting.)
Even handwaving those into existence, you still need to deal with the carriers defenses. Even if you manage to get one or two through the defenses (a tall order), they aren't going to destroy the carrier short of carrying nuclear weapons. The best you can hope for is to send it back to the yards for a bit of surgery. Depending on where it hits, you might not even slow down flight operations.
If you watch the video linked in the summary, you'll note they downplay the massive cloud of toxic exhaust that will be produced with each launch - something few merchies will be rigged to handle.
Doubly so since the cryogens aren't the only limit on the experiment's lifetime. There's also the gas supply for the photomultiplier tubes, whose expected life I cannot find anywhere.
AMS is one of the poster children for a capability that will be lost with the retirement of the shuttle, a capability many insist we don't need - intact equipment return.
The original plan was, when the cryogens ran out, to return AMS to Earth and rerun the pre launch calibration checks (essentially using a particle accelerator to shoot particles through the AMS) - not only allowing us to learn about the effects of the orbital environment, but also being able to apply the knowledge of those effects to the analysis of the science data collected on orbit.
Does anyone know what the panels lining the rocket fairing are for?
A variety of things... Insulation (the fairing will get quite hot during ascent) and acoustic dampening (the fairing will vibrate like a drum during ascent as will the payload) being the key ones.
No, it's not all that difficult now. However, it's not at the state where you can just hand over a check to the dealer and happily drive it off the lot either.
Seriously, when you're talking hardware/systems of this complexity, even though the basic concepts are all worked out, you still need to test the specific implementation.
And in the meantime, there is enormous amounts of inconvenience for virtually everyone in the country while bill changers, vending machines, cash trays, coin counters, etc..., etc..., are upgraded. It's nowhere near as simple as just replacing the printing/distribution of one with the minting/distribution of another.
Hardly an enormous inconvenience if it's planned to a sensible schedule.
Right. Making a schedule removes all inconvenience. Making a schedule removes the need to modify hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of automated cash handling systems. Making a schedule removes the need to modify hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cash tray and drawers. Etc... Etc...
You're an idiot. The inconvenience lies in the doing, not the schedule.
The fact that European businesses and banks managed to swap currency in a two month handover show how utterly absurd such objections are.
No, it shows that inconvenience was worth it - to them, for their goals. That doesn't make the same true of the US.
As far as the Europeans being more 'adept', get back to me when they've done it more than once. You can't draw a curve through a single data point.
The US "rejects" changes to its currency because it never pushes changes properly. The dollar coin being one example. How do you get people to switch from dollar bills to dollar coins? By not printing dollar bills any more and taking them out of circulation when they go through clearing. Eventually everyone switches whether they want to or not.
And in the meantime, there is enormous amounts of inconvenience for virtually everyone in the country while bill changers, vending machines, cash trays, coin counters, etc..., etc..., are upgraded. It's nowhere near as simple as just replacing the printing/distribution of one with the minting/distribution of another.
If the situation with dollars sounds pathetic, that's because it is. European countries are far more adept at switching notes than the US, so adept in fact that most of Europe switched entirely from one entire currency to another in the space of a few months.
No, what's pathetic (other than your kneejerk anti-American/America must copy Europe copypasta), is your misunderstanding of both situations.
Europe didn't switch to an entirely new currency 'in a matter of a few months'. The process started with the Maastricht Treaty, which took months of negotiation, was signed in 1992 and ratified in 1993. It took from 1994 to 1998 to complete various steps to prepare for the creation of the Euro. In 1999, the virtual Euro came into being and the various nations that would adopt the Euro began the process of minting the physical Euro coins and banknote. It wasn't until 2002, that the coins and banknotes were distributed and the actual switchover of currency was completed.
Or, to put it simply, it took years for Europe to introduce and switch over to an entirely new currency - not months.
Why... very Ultimish I would say... what happened to the eight virtues, making ethical decisions in order to become an Avatar (U4), resolving conflicts thorugh the use of peace and diplomacy (U6), etc...?
Ask Lord British, who built the original "crush your enemies with maniacal glee" Ultima (UO).
As to the claim that the player can expand "peacefully"? Yeah, right. If it's like other games of its ilk, the only way to be peaceful is to have the biggest, baddest army around or by being part of the biggest, baddest alliance around. Otherwise, you're just meat.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to answer, when I realized that reading two clueless rants from you were enough.
Roughly as private as a venture which depends on obtaining weather reports built using taxpayer investment. Or as private as a venture requiring the use of roads built using taxpayer investment. Etc... etc...
In other words, for reasons unknown, you wish to hold commercial space ventures to a standard no other business venture must meet. I hate to break it to you, but we the taxpayers pay for a great deal of basic infrastructure for a wide variety of businesses. It's part of that "public good" thing.
Apples and oranges. Scheduled downtime is just that - scheduled. You can plan around it, sometimes months or years in advance. Windpower's downtime isn't scheduled or predictable.
Nor do entire plants shut down for accidents with any great regularity.
So yes, it is more expensive and more complicated to provide backup power - as you cannot predict the frequency, duration, or level of backup required.
Every time I think I can't possibly see something more ignorant posted on Slashdot, some moron like yourself comes along and proved me wrong.
If fruit companies could sell $0.15 worth of water and sugar or $0.10 worth of potatoes for $0.99 cents, their profit margins would support including a SpongeBob figure. But they can't.
Etc... etc...
Or in other words, you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, just blame the victim. It's so much easier than actually thinking. Curing your own ignorance is just too much work.
But the slippery slope runs the other direction too... Without the government regulating corporate behavior, they'll take any advantage they can.
If we weren't talking fast food and inculcating the habit of eating high calorie meals with low nutritional content - I'd be among the first to agree with you. But to take 'food' as a single category without distinction is dangerous. Food offers nourishment and is required to live, granted, but fast food shortens that life and profits only the corporation in the long run. Not that I'm a 'pure food no mega corp' hardliner mind you - I just don't care for the fast food companies and their predatory practices. The product they peddle offers little benefit and poses severe health risks over the long term, just like alcohol and tobacco. And similarly they should be restricted from marketing to children.
Yeah, fuck the government. Where do they get off telling parents they can't paint with lead in it? Or toys contaminated with heavy metals. Etc... Etc..
Seriously. Get off your knee jerk hobbyhorse.
Congratulations on being out on the tail of the bell curve. Guess what that means? You're irrelevant. (And ignorant too for tacking on a gratuitous and unrelated political rant.)
You could have put the period after 'aware'. Your ignorance doesn't change things.
And NASA first used light pressure in an interplanetary probe decades ago... Mariner 3 and Mariner 4 both used light pressure to assist in controlling attitude during the trans Martian cruise phase of their flights. (That's what the paddles on the end of the solar arrays are for.)
It wasn't used on later Mars missions because the craft became too large and heavy to use that method.
Which is the real drawback of light pressure sails - from a purely mathematical standpoint they're the most efficient propulsion system around. From a practical standpoint, their limited performance and sharp limits on payload prevent them from being useful for much.
Who cares? I bloody well care. A pilot playing minesweeper is a pilot not paying attention to the instruments (they do more than just look at the sky you know) - and a pilot not looking at his instruments is a pilot who might not catch a trend before it become a Problem.
Given a choice between a pilot who needs to be kept entertained like a four year old, and pilot doing his job and thus more likely to get me on the ground alive - I'll chose the latter every single time.
Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.
Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.
Do that, and the moment you radiate you'll stop looking like an innocent container vessel to the sensors of the warships you are trying to attack - you'll have the electronic signature of a warship.
That's going to draw attention of the kind said container vessel doesn't want and is incapable of handling.
Thank you for the laugh. I haven't read anything nearly as funny all day.
I've also heard someone on a military buff forum state the U.S.S. Enterprise's top speed is 75 knots (it isn't), that an Akula can dive to 7,000 feet (it can't), etc... etc...
You'll also note the P-700 is nearly thirty years old - you really think no countermeasures have been developed in the interim? I suspect the massive ESM capability upgrades the USN applied to its cruisers in the 80's just might have been a response to the P-700. (But then, I've only actually studied naval topics for thirty years, what do I know?)
Assuming of course a MK48 or two from a US SSN hasn't taken care of the launching submarine first. (I.E. you're making the classic error of the armchair admiral - assigning all the advantage to one side and all the disadvantage to the other.) After all, one the reasons the Los Angeles class was developed was to fill precisely this role. (And the Virginia class is even better at it.)
Since neither war involved a Russian style "heavy armor assault", you'll have to look elsewhere for an explanation. After all, the known Iraqi flaws in doctrine, training, and materiel readiness couldn't possibly have any bearing. (Not to mention their near complete inability to prevent the US from obtaining and holding air superiority.)
...is like a cellphone without a charger. It's pretty much useless by itself. You still need the sensors to locate the carrier, which isn't trivial. Especially since carriers don't tend to let just anybody linger in their vicinity. (And I bet 'satellite guided' means nothing more sinister than GPS. Useful for guidance, useless for targeting.)
Even handwaving those into existence, you still need to deal with the carriers defenses. Even if you manage to get one or two through the defenses (a tall order), they aren't going to destroy the carrier short of carrying nuclear weapons. The best you can hope for is to send it back to the yards for a bit of surgery. Depending on where it hits, you might not even slow down flight operations.
If you watch the video linked in the summary, you'll note they downplay the massive cloud of toxic exhaust that will be produced with each launch - something few merchies will be rigged to handle.
Doubly so since the cryogens aren't the only limit on the experiment's lifetime. There's also the gas supply for the photomultiplier tubes, whose expected life I cannot find anywhere.
AMS is one of the poster children for a capability that will be lost with the retirement of the shuttle, a capability many insist we don't need - intact equipment return.
The original plan was, when the cryogens ran out, to return AMS to Earth and rerun the pre launch calibration checks (essentially using a particle accelerator to shoot particles through the AMS) - not only allowing us to learn about the effects of the orbital environment, but also being able to apply the knowledge of those effects to the analysis of the science data collected on orbit.
True of people, not necessarily true of pets.
A variety of things... Insulation (the fairing will get quite hot during ascent) and acoustic dampening (the fairing will vibrate like a drum during ascent as will the payload) being the key ones.
No, it's not all that difficult now. However, it's not at the state where you can just hand over a check to the dealer and happily drive it off the lot either.
Seriously, when you're talking hardware/systems of this complexity, even though the basic concepts are all worked out, you still need to test the specific implementation.
Right. Making a schedule removes all inconvenience. Making a schedule removes the need to modify hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of automated cash handling systems. Making a schedule removes the need to modify hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cash tray and drawers. Etc... Etc...
You're an idiot. The inconvenience lies in the doing, not the schedule.
No, it shows that inconvenience was worth it - to them, for their goals. That doesn't make the same true of the US.
As far as the Europeans being more 'adept', get back to me when they've done it more than once. You can't draw a curve through a single data point.
And in the meantime, there is enormous amounts of inconvenience for virtually everyone in the country while bill changers, vending machines, cash trays, coin counters, etc..., etc..., are upgraded. It's nowhere near as simple as just replacing the printing/distribution of one with the minting/distribution of another.
No, what's pathetic (other than your kneejerk anti-American/America must copy Europe copypasta), is your misunderstanding of both situations.
Europe didn't switch to an entirely new currency 'in a matter of a few months'. The process started with the Maastricht Treaty, which took months of negotiation, was signed in 1992 and ratified in 1993. It took from 1994 to 1998 to complete various steps to prepare for the creation of the Euro. In 1999, the virtual Euro came into being and the various nations that would adopt the Euro began the process of minting the physical Euro coins and banknote. It wasn't until 2002, that the coins and banknotes were distributed and the actual switchover of currency was completed.
Or, to put it simply, it took years for Europe to introduce and switch over to an entirely new currency - not months.
And before the invention of the microchip, it was barcodes. Before barcodes, it was tatoos...
Ask Lord British, who built the original "crush your enemies with maniacal glee" Ultima (UO).
Yet another clone of Hamurabi...
As to the claim that the player can expand "peacefully"? Yeah, right. If it's like other games of its ilk, the only way to be peaceful is to have the biggest, baddest army around or by being part of the biggest, baddest alliance around. Otherwise, you're just meat.