I think what he is trying to say is that anonymity means you can be careless with your message and generally not give a crap about accuracy or who you piss off. As it can't be traced back to you, you have no skin in the game.
Being held accountable in your opinions means that you are much more careful in phrasing your opinion. You have to ensure that your point of view is interpreted correctly, otherwise there are consequences. This - I believe - gives rise to more reasoned debate and a better signal to noise ratio.
And I totally understand the usual reasons given forth for anonymity. For example, in some places your life is in danger if your sexual orientation doesn't match certain values of "oppressive-regime-correct". But the bulk of communication doesn't involve those issues. Having your posts traceable back to you physically (as opposed to fire-and-forget) is a good moderator for your actions, and as you care about the responses it also forces you to try and figure out how to best interact with other people effectively. And I think that's what's missing in the bulk of online communication - there is little effort taken in getting your point across and actual communication of ideas and concepts suffers as a result.
Let me break it down to you: this disk isn't even going to be readable in 50 years.
Apollo retroreflectors are still in operation (well, good enough to bounce a laser off them anyway) and they're 50 years old and exposed to the vacuum on the lunar surface.
If the disks aren't directly exposed then micrometeorite erosion could take a few tens of thousands of years to get to them.
It took quite a lot of convincing for them to move on from the "perfection" that is the 3.5" screen. I expect a similar delay in moving towards anything foldable.
If they have the real-time metering you could simply shut off apartments that are over the allocated amount.
eg. all the charge (+ discharge) bays are connected to the building grid. There's an issue with outside power, and building management checks the charge on all the vehicles and decides to allocate 10% of the available EV power sources that are above 80% to the building supply.
They then notify the apartment owners that each apartment has X amount of kWh available for the duration of the outage and to limit their consumption accordingly. If the smart meter shows that they're over that, power is cut until the outage is over or building management decide to draw another 10%.
This is a communal system, but you could also make it an individual system which only allows you to draw what you have available in your EV's battery with, say, 2% skimmed off every connected battery for critical building functions.
Not if SpaceX cuts a deal allowing the armed forces to have global internet access on the cheap, and word on the street is that the government is very interested in that.
Seeing as you require direct line of sight to the sat (and being about to see multiple sats), people in urban canyons are going to have some difficulty locking onto and maintaining a connection anyway.
But, as it turns out, single-use containers made of plastic or cardboard are superior in every respect -- cost, weight, and hygiene.
Superior, except for that whole tedious environment thing. But that's somebody else's problem if you're affluent enough to own a computer and post on Slashdot, so fuck 'em, right?
I think you're confusing security with responsibility.
Credit card security in the US is abysmal. Your personal responsibility of only up to $50 is great. Except that someone has to pay and deal with all the fraud, and that eventually winds its way back to you in the form of fees and/or higher interest.
Increase security -> reduce fraud -> lower cost of credit to you.
I didn't say it was insurmountable, but as another poster has pointed out, there's very few LIDARs on the market right now that modulate their beam. Unlike radar, it's difficult to vary the actual frequency as such as they're diode lasers and generally fixed. So we're kind of stuck with just beam modulation unless we want to do something fancy like driving multiple lasers, which gets tricky when you're all sharing the same optical path.
LIDARs also have the difficulty (or advantage, depending on which way you look at it) of having a much tighter beamwidth. So it's much more difficult to rotate onwards in your scan and listen to previous reflections as you're using the same optics to both transmit and receive your signal. Even at one foot per nanosecond, you start to have trouble out at 300 feet with the typical half or quarter degree resolution and 50-100Hz scan rate of recent LIDARs. With the telescope-type lensing on them, it would be fairly easy to blind/overload the sensor assembly with a beam (not a reflection) from another unit - they are already significantly blinded by the setting sun on the horizon or other brightly lit environments, for example.
Anyway, it just seems that every autonomous vehicle manufacturer right now is all "oh wow, look at what our vehicle can do!", with very little info on how they'll go when there's 20 of them at a stop light. Hopefully technology will catch up to them before they're at scale, or full-scale production will force the solution, one or the other I guess.
When I use multiple LIDARs on a machine their beam sweep has to be synchronised otherwise the reflections of one beam can interfere with the other.
I'm waiting to see what happens with a freeway full of cars with LIDARs, all flinging their beams at each other willy-nilly with direct beams and reflections all over the place. If you're unlucky you'll get a beam from another vehicle just after yours has sent a pulse out - resulting in a false return showing something right in front of you.
I'm guessing that most of the time with enough units around you all you'd get is the equivalent of "static" on your laser sweeps, where you briefly get invalid results for a few degrees of sweep. If you're really unlucky, you blind your sensor, temporarily (bad), or permanently damage it (bad and expensive).
I expect (justified or not) this event will reinforce that worry.
I don't know about reinforce, as such. There will already be an engineering estimate about failures in landing based on probability of equipment failure. This actual failure will be another data point to help refine that estimate further.
If they can recover the booster they can take it apart and get a good idea of what failed exactly and engineer a solution. I've got to wonder how many boosters have been launched over the decades that have had a near-catastrophic issue in flight (eg a crack slowly expanding in the 3 minutes of flight), then fallen into the ocean with that issue never detected.
In essence with loans and credit cards you are borrowing money from your future self to use now.
Seeing as we don't have a time machine to collect payments from you-in-the-future to give to you-right-now as a lump sum, we have banks and such to help facilitate this, and yes, they take their cut because they provide a service.
The test of character is between future-you and you-right-now. Right now, you hope that future-you will pay up so that you can buy that house, or whatever. If future-you doesn't pay up, you're being dishonest to yourself because they made an agreement with you-right-now. Because we don't have that time machine, there will also be a whole mess of trouble with banks and so on, who also trusted future-you to pay up.
So, can you trust future-you to pay up, given the amount you're borrowing and your current and possible future circumstances? That's the question you need to ask when you borrow from your future self, and the answer depends on how well you know and trust yourself and very little else.
We'd start with 226 kg and end with 1 kg, which makes for a 226:1 gear ratio. And the ratio stays the same no matter what we ship. We would need 225 tons of fuel to send a ton of water, a ton of oxygen, or a ton of machinery. The only way to get around that harsh arithmetic is by making our water, oxygen, and fuel on-site
Or refuel on-orbit, which is SpaceX's thoughts on the matter, because 90% of that fuel is needed to get you 150km up out of Earth's gravity well. Or..... just could develop more efficient engines. Or make bigger ion thrusters, a reactor that can deliver 1MW continuously, send all the supplies on the slow trip to Mars with the ion engines, send the people on the quick one with the chemical rockets, etc, etc.
No, but the only way around the problem is to develop tricky automated mining equipment and make all that stuff once you get there. I work with mining equipment. Maintenance intervals (oils/filters/etc) are every 50 hours of operation, machine-stopping breakdowns occur every few hundred hours, large component changeout (pumps, hydraulic cylinders, etc) is 4000 hours. 4000 hours is a year of operation at a 50% duty cycle. So you're going to ship all this stuff to Mars, and then expect it to run, continuously digging stuff up and crushing it and heating it and so on and so forth, for a couple of years? In a cold, dusty, zero-maintenance environment?
I know, I know, we're going to need mining equipment on Mars for stuff. Just send someone willing to stay a few extra years. And a whole lot of spare parts.
A gyro is a device that measures the speed at which the spacecraft is turning, which is necessary to help Hubble turn and lock on to new targets.
Er, this is actually a positioning gyro, that is, a spinning wheel driven electrically that applies torque to the spacecraft when its rotational speed is changed. If you have a bunch of them aligned with the x/y/z axis of your craft you can point it in any direction without the use of thrusters.
A measurement gyro is also a spinning wheel, except that you don't rotate it - it rests in a set of gimbals allowing the craft to rotate around it freely. You can read your position by zeroing the gyro when you're pointing in a known direction, then you read the positions of the gimbals to figure out where you're pointing now.
Most CPUs can only practically handle tens of billions of arithmetic operations per second,
Got to wonder how a computer scientist from 30 years ago would react to this casual statement. I'm going with something along the lines of, "Great Scott!"
Assume the current algorithm was broken and all funds were stolen. The chain itself is the public ledger, rewind to the point of failure, implement to the new stronger (resistant) algorithm, and press the play button.
You have no idea of how economics work, do you? There is no easy-peasy unwinding of transactions in the real world. It won't be a case of , "And here, right here is where everyone lost their money, we'll wind it back to then." There will be legitimate transactions amongst the fraudulent ones, and people will have already exchanged cryptocoins for goods and services that have now suddenly been unwound, or transferred value out of the currency elsewhere, or made subsequent transactions, etc.
You can't pause and sort out the fraudulent transactions "somehow" and unwind/play forward again, because the interruption of service and loss of confidence will crash the value as soon as you resume transactions.
Don't you know that each site you go to hopes that their site will be the one from which you get your One True Source Of News, forever and ever?
That's why you see the same article everywhere. Each site wants to be your portal to the world, so they have to show everything that every other site does. And since 90% of them don't actually have, uh, any journalists, they're all just a dump of news wire services with some opinion splattered on top.
A cryogenic system in a room temperature environment is never really "static" though. But you're right about sitting through the stresses of fuelling. If you have a functioning launch escape system, is the risk mitigated enough?
Anyway, one hopes that enough people have looked at this from all angles. Seeing as NASA has approved load and go in principle for their astronauts launching on SpaceX hardware, I guess we'll wait and see.
I'm curious as to why you think that manning and then fuelling/launching is worse than the other way around.
In SpaceX's case, you put the people into an empty and generally inert rocket, strap them in, turn on the launch escape system, get everyone else back to the bunker, then fuel it up and launch. In NASA's case, they fuelled the rocket, then, while a whole bunch of simmering cryogenic liquids and fuel was just sitting there, a bunch of people approached the rocket and strapped everyone in over the course of half an hour or so, then everyone left and they launched the rocket.
Problem with SpaceX rocket pre-launch? Nobody else is around to worry about, so the Astronauts (or computer) activates launch escape sequence and you're 1500ft away from the rest of the rocket in seconds.
Problem with NASA rocket? Either it goes boom during fuelling and nobody gets hurt, or something happens and half-a-dozen people have to slowly egress from the tower (as in, over the course of 10-15 seconds best case, minutes worst-case if you're strapping an astronaut in) all the while hundreds of tons of LOX and fuel is partying it out right next to them.
So - in my opinion - the SpaceX approach expects failures and has a better way of handling them, while the NASA approach reduced the chance of failures with a poor way of handling them. In general, with risk x consequence and all that, the long-term actual cost in human lives might wind up the same.
Well, they have sent a couple of objects off to beyond LEO/GEO - Elon's roadster, currently well outside Earth's sphere of influence, and that sat that sits at one of the lagrange points. But their core business is LEO/GEO at present because that's where the money is.
Let them just be the boffins, thinking shit up, trying stuff out. Don't push them to build rockets, it just ends up with parts spread all over the country in various states.
Let them focus on research (or sprinkling funds around to various outside parties for research, spaceX included), deep space exploration, and the tech to help enable that. They can be the enablers for so many things if they're allowed to be.
I like to explain it like trapeze artists on swings.
One of them wants to let go of their swing, and do a flip, and then grab the arms of the other one on the other swing. They're both going to have to be at the right place and moving in just the right direction to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he is trying to say is that anonymity means you can be careless with your message and generally not give a crap about accuracy or who you piss off. As it can't be traced back to you, you have no skin in the game.
Being held accountable in your opinions means that you are much more careful in phrasing your opinion. You have to ensure that your point of view is interpreted correctly, otherwise there are consequences. This - I believe - gives rise to more reasoned debate and a better signal to noise ratio.
And I totally understand the usual reasons given forth for anonymity. For example, in some places your life is in danger if your sexual orientation doesn't match certain values of "oppressive-regime-correct". But the bulk of communication doesn't involve those issues. Having your posts traceable back to you physically (as opposed to fire-and-forget) is a good moderator for your actions, and as you care about the responses it also forces you to try and figure out how to best interact with other people effectively. And I think that's what's missing in the bulk of online communication - there is little effort taken in getting your point across and actual communication of ideas and concepts suffers as a result.
Let me break it down to you: this disk isn't even going to be readable in 50 years.
Apollo retroreflectors are still in operation (well, good enough to bounce a laser off them anyway) and they're 50 years old and exposed to the vacuum on the lunar surface.
If the disks aren't directly exposed then micrometeorite erosion could take a few tens of thousands of years to get to them.
It took quite a lot of convincing for them to move on from the "perfection" that is the 3.5" screen. I expect a similar delay in moving towards anything foldable.
If they have the real-time metering you could simply shut off apartments that are over the allocated amount.
eg. all the charge (+ discharge) bays are connected to the building grid. There's an issue with outside power, and building management checks the charge on all the vehicles and decides to allocate 10% of the available EV power sources that are above 80% to the building supply.
They then notify the apartment owners that each apartment has X amount of kWh available for the duration of the outage and to limit their consumption accordingly. If the smart meter shows that they're over that, power is cut until the outage is over or building management decide to draw another 10%.
This is a communal system, but you could also make it an individual system which only allows you to draw what you have available in your EV's battery with, say, 2% skimmed off every connected battery for critical building functions.
how long it would take for 115,000 clients with distributed password cracking software to crack the exchange keys?
Certainly sounds like they've got a lot of motivation to give it a go, and a reasonable proportion of them would have access to decent hardware.
Not if SpaceX cuts a deal allowing the armed forces to have global internet access on the cheap, and word on the street is that the government is very interested in that.
Seeing as you require direct line of sight to the sat (and being about to see multiple sats), people in urban canyons are going to have some difficulty locking onto and maintaining a connection anyway.
So it might be a little bit self-limiting.
But, as it turns out, single-use containers made of plastic or cardboard are superior in every respect -- cost, weight, and hygiene.
Superior, except for that whole tedious environment thing. But that's somebody else's problem if you're affluent enough to own a computer and post on Slashdot, so fuck 'em, right?
I think you're confusing security with responsibility.
Credit card security in the US is abysmal. Your personal responsibility of only up to $50 is great. Except that someone has to pay and deal with all the fraud, and that eventually winds its way back to you in the form of fees and/or higher interest.
Increase security -> reduce fraud -> lower cost of credit to you.
I didn't say it was insurmountable, but as another poster has pointed out, there's very few LIDARs on the market right now that modulate their beam. Unlike radar, it's difficult to vary the actual frequency as such as they're diode lasers and generally fixed. So we're kind of stuck with just beam modulation unless we want to do something fancy like driving multiple lasers, which gets tricky when you're all sharing the same optical path.
LIDARs also have the difficulty (or advantage, depending on which way you look at it) of having a much tighter beamwidth. So it's much more difficult to rotate onwards in your scan and listen to previous reflections as you're using the same optics to both transmit and receive your signal. Even at one foot per nanosecond, you start to have trouble out at 300 feet with the typical half or quarter degree resolution and 50-100Hz scan rate of recent LIDARs. With the telescope-type lensing on them, it would be fairly easy to blind/overload the sensor assembly with a beam (not a reflection) from another unit - they are already significantly blinded by the setting sun on the horizon or other brightly lit environments, for example.
Anyway, it just seems that every autonomous vehicle manufacturer right now is all "oh wow, look at what our vehicle can do!", with very little info on how they'll go when there's 20 of them at a stop light. Hopefully technology will catch up to them before they're at scale, or full-scale production will force the solution, one or the other I guess.
When I use multiple LIDARs on a machine their beam sweep has to be synchronised otherwise the reflections of one beam can interfere with the other.
I'm waiting to see what happens with a freeway full of cars with LIDARs, all flinging their beams at each other willy-nilly with direct beams and reflections all over the place. If you're unlucky you'll get a beam from another vehicle just after yours has sent a pulse out - resulting in a false return showing something right in front of you.
I'm guessing that most of the time with enough units around you all you'd get is the equivalent of "static" on your laser sweeps, where you briefly get invalid results for a few degrees of sweep. If you're really unlucky, you blind your sensor, temporarily (bad), or permanently damage it (bad and expensive).
I expect (justified or not) this event will reinforce that worry.
I don't know about reinforce, as such. There will already be an engineering estimate about failures in landing based on probability of equipment failure. This actual failure will be another data point to help refine that estimate further.
If they can recover the booster they can take it apart and get a good idea of what failed exactly and engineer a solution. I've got to wonder how many boosters have been launched over the decades that have had a near-catastrophic issue in flight (eg a crack slowly expanding in the 3 minutes of flight), then fallen into the ocean with that issue never detected.
I disagree Noah.
In essence with loans and credit cards you are borrowing money from your future self to use now.
Seeing as we don't have a time machine to collect payments from you-in-the-future to give to you-right-now as a lump sum, we have banks and such to help facilitate this, and yes, they take their cut because they provide a service.
The test of character is between future-you and you-right-now. Right now, you hope that future-you will pay up so that you can buy that house, or whatever. If future-you doesn't pay up, you're being dishonest to yourself because they made an agreement with you-right-now. Because we don't have that time machine, there will also be a whole mess of trouble with banks and so on, who also trusted future-you to pay up.
So, can you trust future-you to pay up, given the amount you're borrowing and your current and possible future circumstances? That's the question you need to ask when you borrow from your future self, and the answer depends on how well you know and trust yourself and very little else.
We'd start with 226 kg and end with 1 kg, which makes for a 226:1 gear ratio. And the ratio stays the same no matter what we ship. We would need 225 tons of fuel to send a ton of water, a ton of oxygen, or a ton of machinery. The only way to get around that harsh arithmetic is by making our water, oxygen, and fuel on-site
Or refuel on-orbit, which is SpaceX's thoughts on the matter, because 90% of that fuel is needed to get you 150km up out of Earth's gravity well. Or..... just could develop more efficient engines. Or make bigger ion thrusters, a reactor that can deliver 1MW continuously, send all the supplies on the slow trip to Mars with the ion engines, send the people on the quick one with the chemical rockets, etc, etc.
No, but the only way around the problem is to develop tricky automated mining equipment and make all that stuff once you get there. I work with mining equipment. Maintenance intervals (oils/filters/etc) are every 50 hours of operation, machine-stopping breakdowns occur every few hundred hours, large component changeout (pumps, hydraulic cylinders, etc) is 4000 hours. 4000 hours is a year of operation at a 50% duty cycle. So you're going to ship all this stuff to Mars, and then expect it to run, continuously digging stuff up and crushing it and heating it and so on and so forth, for a couple of years? In a cold, dusty, zero-maintenance environment?
I know, I know, we're going to need mining equipment on Mars for stuff. Just send someone willing to stay a few extra years. And a whole lot of spare parts.
A gyro is a device that measures the speed at which the spacecraft is turning, which is necessary to help Hubble turn and lock on to new targets.
Er, this is actually a positioning gyro, that is, a spinning wheel driven electrically that applies torque to the spacecraft when its rotational speed is changed. If you have a bunch of them aligned with the x/y/z axis of your craft you can point it in any direction without the use of thrusters.
A measurement gyro is also a spinning wheel, except that you don't rotate it - it rests in a set of gimbals allowing the craft to rotate around it freely. You can read your position by zeroing the gyro when you're pointing in a known direction, then you read the positions of the gimbals to figure out where you're pointing now.
Most CPUs can only practically handle tens of billions of arithmetic operations per second,
Got to wonder how a computer scientist from 30 years ago would react to this casual statement. I'm going with something along the lines of, "Great Scott!"
Assume the current algorithm was broken and all funds were stolen. The chain itself is the public ledger, rewind to the point of failure, implement to the new stronger (resistant) algorithm, and press the play button.
You have no idea of how economics work, do you? There is no easy-peasy unwinding of transactions in the real world. It won't be a case of , "And here, right here is where everyone lost their money, we'll wind it back to then." There will be legitimate transactions amongst the fraudulent ones, and people will have already exchanged cryptocoins for goods and services that have now suddenly been unwound, or transferred value out of the currency elsewhere, or made subsequent transactions, etc.
You can't pause and sort out the fraudulent transactions "somehow" and unwind/play forward again, because the interruption of service and loss of confidence will crash the value as soon as you resume transactions.
It will be a complete and utter shitshow.
You're going to different sites!?
Don't you know that each site you go to hopes that their site will be the one from which you get your One True Source Of News, forever and ever?
That's why you see the same article everywhere. Each site wants to be your portal to the world, so they have to show everything that every other site does. And since 90% of them don't actually have, uh, any journalists, they're all just a dump of news wire services with some opinion splattered on top.
You have been marked by the Angel of Competence.
A cryogenic system in a room temperature environment is never really "static" though. But you're right about sitting through the stresses of fuelling. If you have a functioning launch escape system, is the risk mitigated enough?
Anyway, one hopes that enough people have looked at this from all angles. Seeing as NASA has approved load and go in principle for their astronauts launching on SpaceX hardware, I guess we'll wait and see.
Oh, so this is one of those kinds of threads, where logic and reasoned debate take a back seat?
Ok, bye.
I'm curious as to why you think that manning and then fuelling/launching is worse than the other way around.
In SpaceX's case, you put the people into an empty and generally inert rocket, strap them in, turn on the launch escape system, get everyone else back to the bunker, then fuel it up and launch. In NASA's case, they fuelled the rocket, then, while a whole bunch of simmering cryogenic liquids and fuel was just sitting there, a bunch of people approached the rocket and strapped everyone in over the course of half an hour or so, then everyone left and they launched the rocket.
Problem with SpaceX rocket pre-launch? Nobody else is around to worry about, so the Astronauts (or computer) activates launch escape sequence and you're 1500ft away from the rest of the rocket in seconds.
Problem with NASA rocket? Either it goes boom during fuelling and nobody gets hurt, or something happens and half-a-dozen people have to slowly egress from the tower (as in, over the course of 10-15 seconds best case, minutes worst-case if you're strapping an astronaut in) all the while hundreds of tons of LOX and fuel is partying it out right next to them.
So - in my opinion - the SpaceX approach expects failures and has a better way of handling them, while the NASA approach reduced the chance of failures with a poor way of handling them. In general, with risk x consequence and all that, the long-term actual cost in human lives might wind up the same.
Well, they have sent a couple of objects off to beyond LEO/GEO - Elon's roadster, currently well outside Earth's sphere of influence, and that sat that sits at one of the lagrange points. But their core business is LEO/GEO at present because that's where the money is.
Let NASA do the stuff they're good at.
Let them just be the boffins, thinking shit up, trying stuff out. Don't push them to build rockets, it just ends up with parts spread all over the country in various states.
Let them focus on research (or sprinkling funds around to various outside parties for research, spaceX included), deep space exploration, and the tech to help enable that. They can be the enablers for so many things if they're allowed to be.
I like to explain it like trapeze artists on swings.
One of them wants to let go of their swing, and do a flip, and then grab the arms of the other one on the other swing. They're both going to have to be at the right place and moving in just the right direction to do it.