supersonic retro-propulsion is vital for Mars human exploration
you actually believe all the spacecraft landings to date have been subsonic?
Do you know what you're talking about (keywords:"super", "sonic", "retro", "propulsion")?
~$2000/kg to LEO (FH)
I said lay off the kool-aid, you're over fellating Elon by a factor of 5x.
Falcon9=~$100m to put 10,000kg to LEO=~$10,000/kg
Falcon Heavy(FH) is just 3x F9 strapped together, cost & lift are just proportionally scaled.
"As of March 2013, Falcon Heavy launch prices were below $2,200/kg ($1,000/lb) to low-Earth orbit when the launch vehicle is transporting its maximum delivered cargo weight.[76] The published prices for Falcon Heavy launches have changed somewhat from year to year, with announced prices for the various versions of Falcon Heavy priced at $80–125 million in 2011,[59] $83–128M in 2012,[60] $77–135M in 2013,[77] $85M for up to 6,400 kg (14,100 lb) to GTO in 2014, $90M for up to 8,000 kg (18,000 lb) to GTO in 2016,[78] and $150M for 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) to LEO or 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) to GTO (fully expendable)or $95M for 90% of its maximum capacity in 2018" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Do you have any factual arguments to support your statements besides:
It will not land (as others replied), it will come closer to the Sun with every highly elliptical orbit with the help of Venus.
First close in just several weeks (first perihelion on November 1), and every next will take the probe closer to finally skim the Sun's corona with distance of about 6mln km (~3.7mln mi) on Dec 19, 2024.
Sun doesn't have a solid surface to land on, just plasma, has a core though.
The big question the probe is to answer (not the only one though) is why the Sun's corona (this is the thing one can see during the total eclipse) is so much much hotter than its surface.
He promises many things, and - usually with delay - delivers.
- we have landing Earth orbital rockets (supersonic retro-propulsion is vital for Mars human exploration)
- we have reusable rockets
- we have the most powerful rocket available for fraction of the price of the next one in launch cargo capabilities
- we do have model 3
- power grid stability: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
His rocket technology can truly open space for sustain human exploration with ~$2000/kg to LEO (FH) through asteroid mining. I remember very well the time, when people were saying that landing an orbital rocket in Earth gravity well is not possible, then that relaunching is not possible, then that it is possible to relaunch, but it will never be profitable - now they are quiet.
People might not like Mr Elon Musk personally, I do not know the guy, but I am happy he peruses his dreams.
I used to have the same (still have) and loved it, however I bought a smart watch recently and I have to admit - it is useful and convenient. From just controlling my podcast player to pre-checking messages and agenda or weather without reaching for a phone, anyway have to plug the phone daily - might as well watch.
However, I decided to buy this one ONLY because it auto-switches into low power mode, which can last months still showing time. It's not a disaster (there are clocks everywhere nowadays) - but still.
How about:
* storing votes locally in a non-erasable memory, once the module is full it might be replaced (which is more a theoretical option)
* each voter receives a printout to verify that machine registered his choice properly
* a vote is committed on request of a voter only once he verifies the printout
* a voter places the printout into a voting machine for later random (statistically based) manual verification
* each voting machine has its unique ID and after elections are done random voting machines are selected and both: local raw and received state data are published for selected voting machines for public to review
* a voting machine also permanently registers any access to its USB port and signals it to avoid tempering during voting
One might say "too complicated", but lets remember, that voting is the essence and roots of democracy - if it does not work, the whole idea of accountability of elected officials does not as well.
Kind of (in general) I would agree with your statement, however I assume you know what I was referring to. Let's agree that people should put more attention to verify information from reliable sources and not from sources, which just fit their ideology.
If this tick spawns without mating it should be easier to eradicate - mostly the same genotypes. The only factor would be natural mutation, which is not so fast as for bacteria.
An important step would be for general public to reach for data not to comport themselves but to search for the truth and most importantly not to rely on scientific opinions from people without scientific background. I heard that "climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists across the globe to enrich themselves", which is so absurd on so many levels, that it's really hard to answer.
US emissions are down whilst EU - and China, and India - emissions are up. I'm sure this will get down-modded since it doesn't pay homage to the proper models...
It's informative and the data you provided are valid and sound (no need to be so defensive).
It is a reason to cheer, it's not the whole story though: based on 2015 data, per capita US was above all European countries and overall was the second in the world (considering -0.8% drop in 2016 it still would hold): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree with you, advances in adaptive optics are amazing and ground based telescopes are much less expensive, that is why we have so much more of them comparing to the space telescopes.
However both are critical for scientific progress, there are things, which can only be done from space due to absorption by the atmosphere (it is not like space is better, simply the science cannot be done from the Earth surface), additionally there was no such technology when Hubble was launched. Just because in e.g. 20 years we can do something much cheaper we should not stop building scientific instruments today. Nobody questions today Hubble's validity, the amount of discoveries is so astonishing, scientists still wait in long queues to get an observing slot.
JWST: it's budget is extremely overblown and someone should answer for this (~$600mln repair costs of thrusters due to wrong detergent used - really!), however it cannot be replaced by a ground telescope (unless on the dark side of the Moon) - it's mostly an infrared telescope, could not simply work from the Earth surface.
Costs: Space costs are getting lower as well, so it is not a fair comparison for an ~10 years old greatly mismanaged project (JWST) with todays costs and technology, e.g. Falcon Heavy can send for ~$2k/kg, coming bigger rocket would not require complex and expensive mirror folding. Additionally the best an Earth telescope can is to utilize ~46% (VLT in Chile) of time for observation (due to night/day cycle and weather), when a space telescope close to 100%, which cut costs in half considering science return (which is why we build telescopes in the first place).
I think space and Earth are complementary for research and JWST is not a good representative for space projects, there are Swift, Spitzer, Herschel, Plank, Chandra, XMM-Newton, Gaia, Kepler, TESS - just to name a few, which are much better managed and which science could not be done from Earth. And even JWST, a signature of a mismanaged project, however also a signature of a daring project - if everything goes well and in couple of years it will discover signatures of life in atmospheres of exoplanets, then I would say it was worth it.
Only partially true. Space-telescopes still have an advantage in some area's, especially for the deep and near-infrared wavelengths, and ultraviolet wavelengths, but the other advantages are becoming less and less obvious, especially if you consider the cost of both space-based as Earth-based telescopes.
Space telescopes not only have advantage in some wavelengths, but they are critical, since parts of the spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere. Additionally they have practically round the clock observing time.
The images are very impressive though. There is place for ground based telescopes, airborne (SOFIA) and space telescopes - they are complementary.
Not really, but somewhat.
Living on Mars is harder in some ways: deeper gravity well, less sunlight, dust storms, atmosphere that's thick enough to be annoying but mostly too thin to be useful, remoteness of another magnitude.
Yes and no, just considering the surface it's better to be on Mars: easier production of oxygen and methane, more interesting science, higher gravity (there are no studies done on this, so hard to say, but better Mars then Moon with regard to gravity), lack of crispy sharp lunar dust, thin but still useful atmosphere, which besides mentioned oxygen and fuel might be used to blow or for green houses (after pressurization).
Android is open source but requires drivers and often (always when buying on provider discount) boot-loader is locked.
There were some new developments, which I do not remember in detail about permanently locking phones to only certified images (due to security).
There are several Android clones (with various level of openness), however because of driver accessibility issues images are provided only for some phones (usually older popular ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This paragraph is little bit off-topic - personally I use Android from Google and it is the only one I can accept due to terrible support by any other vendor (no upgrades whatsoever after about a year), however Google has a history for abruptly discontinuing projects and changing specs (recently they dropped support for their older flagship phones) I like their service though. For comparison my iPad kept getting upgrades for ~10years till its hardware was not compatible anymore.
Firstly, we are talking about dark matter aka "hocus-pocus", to, which I explained that it's not like this at all, that scientists stumbled upon something they cannot explain, that they are pursuing all the sound ideas and that there is much more evidence of unexplained gravity than just speed of stars in galaxies, and that based on data the most probable explanation is dark matter as yet not discovered particle.
Secondly, I will read the mentioned article, however despite the fact that science is not a perfect methodology (it's done by humans and humans are not perfect) it seems like the best people came up with throughout our history. Scientific methodology of evidence and questioning everything brought us not only pretty comfortable lives but also pleasure of contemplating and getting to understand the Universe. Not to mention the very computers and the Internet we use to communicate and all the other inventions and discoveries, which make our lives so interesting and help more and more people reach their potential.
When I was born there was no Internet, no GPS, computers were beyond reach by an average person, cars didn't have airbags, plane ticket were prohibitively expensive and nobody even considered MRI. I do not know what is your theory we achieved what we have, but I contribute it to hard work of scientists and engineers.
Lastly, evidence does not support conclusions from the article, scientific books are being rewritten with revolutionary ideas much more then in the past: general relativity (time is not constant), quantum theory (all is waves of probability), quantum chromodynamics, expansion of the Universe, black holes, evaporating black holes, cosmic microwave background radiation, string theory, quantum field theory, gravitational waves, accelerating expansion of the Universe, Higgs field and Higgs bozon - if this is stagnation, then I do not know what is not. Please keep in mind, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which makes scientists extra careful, they double, triple and quadruple check their data and conclusions.
So I have a question for you, before writing this "hocus-pocus", have you at least read a wiki page about dark matter: evidence, possible explanations and why yet to be discovered particle is most likely, why e.g. MOND is unlikely?
Agree, maybe wealthy people can afford lawyers and servants constantly checking all the contracts for them, but for an ordinary person to have a family and to check in detail all the contracts one has to deal with to goon in life would practically require giving up the little free time, which is left including sleep.
Personally I do not require much:
- the truly total price
- not voided right to sue
- required consent for any contract changes
- default not sharing personal information
would be really appreciated.
Galactic scale magnetic fields... Is this why stars don't orbit galaxies at the velocities predicted by gravitation alone? Perhaps this will ultimately put an end to dark matter hocus pocus.
Science does not work the way of "hocus pocus". I practically guarantee, that the Nobel awaits anyone, who would explain dark matter phenomenon. It's not like scientists force upon each other explanations. Any publication or scientific grant proposal is reviewed by peers, who do research in the same field and are direct competitors for research grants, places in renowned journals etc. - so, when some ideas go through such a sieve it's very likely they have merit.
Going back to the topic: there are more things than just the speed of starts in a galaxy, which are explained by dark matter (e.g. gravitational lensing maps revel halos of "something", which we cannot see. i.e. something, which interacts with gravity, but not electromagnetic force) and there are more theories, which try to explain these phenomena then dark matter as a new particle. Scientists are very competitive by nature and they pursue all sound ideas. Simply, considering what we know so far, the dark matter as a new particle is the most promising.
So no, dark matter is not "hocus-pocus", it is a proposed explanation for many unexplained observations - one of many proposed and the most promising so far - just that.
It's not so as you think. It's true that countries are spying on each other for political and economical reasons and China is known for recently acquiring lots of tech "from abroad", but do the research and you will see a bigger picture in which US raise in technology was due to heavy investments and acquired German tech after WWII and China has always been innovative (paper, gun powder, rockets, bridge, gliders, parachute, print, and many more, preceding Europe by centuries) and now due to - yes heavy investments in science, it is already getting close, e.g. they're the first to transmit quantum encrypted messages via a satellite. Considering the current political landscape, China will keep progressing and the history will tell you that they do not need somebody else to think for them.
Right at the moment, though, it's hard to maintain an attitude of hopefulness, with the way things are going.
I am still optimistic though. Considering the history, we're living in really good times so far. There are good things happening, just are not news worthy (our monkey brain seems to put more attention to bad news - well, to be fair, it's a reasonable evolutionary trait). There's a song ("Strange is this world") "... however, there are more people of good will, and I deeply believe, that the world will not perish because of them...".
Like I said, I posted almost 20 years on the account without a problem, and now that account is trashed. Slashdot operates on a completely "hands-off" approach to administration, with no way to settle harassment, and that only works as long as you have the perfect system. As we've seen elsewhere, if you have no approach to handling harassment, harassers win.
I see, you might have a point. I thought slashdot editors with unlimited mod points take care of that.
Slashdot Mirror
supersonic retro-propulsion is vital for Mars human exploration
you actually believe all the spacecraft landings to date have been subsonic?
Do you know what you're talking about (keywords:"super", "sonic", "retro", "propulsion")?
~$2000/kg to LEO (FH)
I said lay off the kool-aid, you're over fellating Elon by a factor of 5x. Falcon9=~$100m to put 10,000kg to LEO=~$10,000/kg Falcon Heavy(FH) is just 3x F9 strapped together, cost & lift are just proportionally scaled.
"As of March 2013, Falcon Heavy launch prices were below $2,200/kg ($1,000/lb) to low-Earth orbit when the launch vehicle is transporting its maximum delivered cargo weight.[76] The published prices for Falcon Heavy launches have changed somewhat from year to year, with announced prices for the various versions of Falcon Heavy priced at $80–125 million in 2011,[59] $83–128M in 2012,[60] $77–135M in 2013,[77] $85M for up to 6,400 kg (14,100 lb) to GTO in 2014, $90M for up to 8,000 kg (18,000 lb) to GTO in 2016,[78] and $150M for 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) to LEO or 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) to GTO (fully expendable)or $95M for 90% of its maximum capacity in 2018" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Do you have any factual arguments to support your statements besides:
lay off the kool-aid dude
?
So when does it land on the sun?
It will not land (as others replied), it will come closer to the Sun with every highly elliptical orbit with the help of Venus.
First close in just several weeks (first perihelion on November 1), and every next will take the probe closer to finally skim the Sun's corona with distance of about 6mln km (~3.7mln mi) on Dec 19, 2024.
Sun doesn't have a solid surface to land on, just plasma, has a core though.
The big question the probe is to answer (not the only one though) is why the Sun's corona (this is the thing one can see during the total eclipse) is so much much hotter than its surface.
Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He promises many things, and - usually with delay - delivers.
- we have landing Earth orbital rockets (supersonic retro-propulsion is vital for Mars human exploration)
- we have reusable rockets
- we have the most powerful rocket available for fraction of the price of the next one in launch cargo capabilities
- we do have model 3
- power grid stability: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
His rocket technology can truly open space for sustain human exploration with ~$2000/kg to LEO (FH) through asteroid mining. I remember very well the time, when people were saying that landing an orbital rocket in Earth gravity well is not possible, then that relaunching is not possible, then that it is possible to relaunch, but it will never be profitable - now they are quiet.
People might not like Mr Elon Musk personally, I do not know the guy, but I am happy he peruses his dreams.
I used to have the same (still have) and loved it, however I bought a smart watch recently and I have to admit - it is useful and convenient. From just controlling my podcast player to pre-checking messages and agenda or weather without reaching for a phone, anyway have to plug the phone daily - might as well watch.
However, I decided to buy this one ONLY because it auto-switches into low power mode, which can last months still showing time. It's not a disaster (there are clocks everywhere nowadays) - but still.
How about:
* storing votes locally in a non-erasable memory, once the module is full it might be replaced (which is more a theoretical option)
* each voter receives a printout to verify that machine registered his choice properly
* a vote is committed on request of a voter only once he verifies the printout
* a voter places the printout into a voting machine for later random (statistically based) manual verification
* each voting machine has its unique ID and after elections are done random voting machines are selected and both: local raw and received state data are published for selected voting machines for public to review
* a voting machine also permanently registers any access to its USB port and signals it to avoid tempering during voting
One might say "too complicated", but lets remember, that voting is the essence and roots of democracy - if it does not work, the whole idea of accountability of elected officials does not as well.
Kind of (in general) I would agree with your statement, however I assume you know what I was referring to. Let's agree that people should put more attention to verify information from reliable sources and not from sources, which just fit their ideology.
If this tick spawns without mating it should be easier to eradicate - mostly the same genotypes. The only factor would be natural mutation, which is not so fast as for bacteria.
Ancient Code of Hammurabi "an eye for an eye ..." is by all standards considered today immoral, yet you propose "a life for a push".
I believe you would, it does not mean it's humane.
Well said Sir,
An important step would be for general public to reach for data not to comport themselves but to search for the truth and most importantly not to rely on scientific opinions from people without scientific background. I heard that "climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists across the globe to enrich themselves", which is so absurd on so many levels, that it's really hard to answer.
US emissions are down whilst EU - and China, and India - emissions are up. I'm sure this will get down-modded since it doesn't pay homage to the proper models ...
It's informative and the data you provided are valid and sound (no need to be so defensive).
It is a reason to cheer, it's not the whole story though: based on 2015 data, per capita US was above all European countries and overall was the second in the world (considering -0.8% drop in 2016 it still would hold): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Agree, I would say a human life is more valuable then a handicapped parking spot, no excuse for shooting.
I agree with you, advances in adaptive optics are amazing and ground based telescopes are much less expensive, that is why we have so much more of them comparing to the space telescopes.
However both are critical for scientific progress, there are things, which can only be done from space due to absorption by the atmosphere (it is not like space is better, simply the science cannot be done from the Earth surface), additionally there was no such technology when Hubble was launched. Just because in e.g. 20 years we can do something much cheaper we should not stop building scientific instruments today. Nobody questions today Hubble's validity, the amount of discoveries is so astonishing, scientists still wait in long queues to get an observing slot.
JWST: it's budget is extremely overblown and someone should answer for this (~$600mln repair costs of thrusters due to wrong detergent used - really!), however it cannot be replaced by a ground telescope (unless on the dark side of the Moon) - it's mostly an infrared telescope, could not simply work from the Earth surface.
Costs: Space costs are getting lower as well, so it is not a fair comparison for an ~10 years old greatly mismanaged project (JWST) with todays costs and technology, e.g. Falcon Heavy can send for ~$2k/kg, coming bigger rocket would not require complex and expensive mirror folding. Additionally the best an Earth telescope can is to utilize ~46% (VLT in Chile) of time for observation (due to night/day cycle and weather), when a space telescope close to 100%, which cut costs in half considering science return (which is why we build telescopes in the first place).
I think space and Earth are complementary for research and JWST is not a good representative for space projects, there are Swift, Spitzer, Herschel, Plank, Chandra, XMM-Newton, Gaia, Kepler, TESS - just to name a few, which are much better managed and which science could not be done from Earth. And even JWST, a signature of a mismanaged project, however also a signature of a daring project - if everything goes well and in couple of years it will discover signatures of life in atmospheres of exoplanets, then I would say it was worth it.
I say let them build it, then the Donald Trump USA Space Force will take it over.
I would much prefer US to build our own station then declare a war on another nation just because they have something we don't.
Only partially true. Space-telescopes still have an advantage in some area's, especially for the deep and near-infrared wavelengths, and ultraviolet wavelengths, but the other advantages are becoming less and less obvious, especially if you consider the cost of both space-based as Earth-based telescopes.
Space telescopes not only have advantage in some wavelengths, but they are critical, since parts of the spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere. Additionally they have practically round the clock observing time.
The images are very impressive though. There is place for ground based telescopes, airborne (SOFIA) and space telescopes - they are complementary.
Is this what you're looking for: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
Not really, but somewhat. Living on Mars is harder in some ways: deeper gravity well, less sunlight, dust storms, atmosphere that's thick enough to be annoying but mostly too thin to be useful, remoteness of another magnitude.
Yes and no, just considering the surface it's better to be on Mars: easier production of oxygen and methane, more interesting science, higher gravity (there are no studies done on this, so hard to say, but better Mars then Moon with regard to gravity), lack of crispy sharp lunar dust, thin but still useful atmosphere, which besides mentioned oxygen and fuel might be used to blow or for green houses (after pressurization).
Android is open source but requires drivers and often (always when buying on provider discount) boot-loader is locked.
There were some new developments, which I do not remember in detail about permanently locking phones to only certified images (due to security).
There are several Android clones (with various level of openness), however because of driver accessibility issues images are provided only for some phones (usually older popular ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This paragraph is little bit off-topic - personally I use Android from Google and it is the only one I can accept due to terrible support by any other vendor (no upgrades whatsoever after about a year), however Google has a history for abruptly discontinuing projects and changing specs (recently they dropped support for their older flagship phones) I like their service though. For comparison my iPad kept getting upgrades for ~10years till its hardware was not compatible anymore.
Firstly, we are talking about dark matter aka "hocus-pocus", to, which I explained that it's not like this at all, that scientists stumbled upon something they cannot explain, that they are pursuing all the sound ideas and that there is much more evidence of unexplained gravity than just speed of stars in galaxies, and that based on data the most probable explanation is dark matter as yet not discovered particle.
Secondly, I will read the mentioned article, however despite the fact that science is not a perfect methodology (it's done by humans and humans are not perfect) it seems like the best people came up with throughout our history. Scientific methodology of evidence and questioning everything brought us not only pretty comfortable lives but also pleasure of contemplating and getting to understand the Universe. Not to mention the very computers and the Internet we use to communicate and all the other inventions and discoveries, which make our lives so interesting and help more and more people reach their potential.
When I was born there was no Internet, no GPS, computers were beyond reach by an average person, cars didn't have airbags, plane ticket were prohibitively expensive and nobody even considered MRI. I do not know what is your theory we achieved what we have, but I contribute it to hard work of scientists and engineers.
Lastly, evidence does not support conclusions from the article, scientific books are being rewritten with revolutionary ideas much more then in the past: general relativity (time is not constant), quantum theory (all is waves of probability), quantum chromodynamics, expansion of the Universe, black holes, evaporating black holes, cosmic microwave background radiation, string theory, quantum field theory, gravitational waves, accelerating expansion of the Universe, Higgs field and Higgs bozon - if this is stagnation, then I do not know what is not. Please keep in mind, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which makes scientists extra careful, they double, triple and quadruple check their data and conclusions.
So I have a question for you, before writing this "hocus-pocus", have you at least read a wiki page about dark matter: evidence, possible explanations and why yet to be discovered particle is most likely, why e.g. MOND is unlikely?
Agree, maybe wealthy people can afford lawyers and servants constantly checking all the contracts for them, but for an ordinary person to have a family and to check in detail all the contracts one has to deal with to goon in life would practically require giving up the little free time, which is left including sleep.
Personally I do not require much:
- the truly total price
- not voided right to sue
- required consent for any contract changes
- default not sharing personal information
would be really appreciated.
Galactic scale magnetic fields... Is this why stars don't orbit galaxies at the velocities predicted by gravitation alone? Perhaps this will ultimately put an end to dark matter hocus pocus.
Science does not work the way of "hocus pocus". I practically guarantee, that the Nobel awaits anyone, who would explain dark matter phenomenon. It's not like scientists force upon each other explanations. Any publication or scientific grant proposal is reviewed by peers, who do research in the same field and are direct competitors for research grants, places in renowned journals etc. - so, when some ideas go through such a sieve it's very likely they have merit.
Going back to the topic: there are more things than just the speed of starts in a galaxy, which are explained by dark matter (e.g. gravitational lensing maps revel halos of "something", which we cannot see. i.e. something, which interacts with gravity, but not electromagnetic force) and there are more theories, which try to explain these phenomena then dark matter as a new particle. Scientists are very competitive by nature and they pursue all sound ideas. Simply, considering what we know so far, the dark matter as a new particle is the most promising.
So no, dark matter is not "hocus-pocus", it is a proposed explanation for many unexplained observations - one of many proposed and the most promising so far - just that.
It's not so as you think. It's true that countries are spying on each other for political and economical reasons and China is known for recently acquiring lots of tech "from abroad", but do the research and you will see a bigger picture in which US raise in technology was due to heavy investments and acquired German tech after WWII and China has always been innovative (paper, gun powder, rockets, bridge, gliders, parachute, print, and many more, preceding Europe by centuries) and now due to - yes heavy investments in science, it is already getting close, e.g. they're the first to transmit quantum encrypted messages via a satellite. Considering the current political landscape, China will keep progressing and the history will tell you that they do not need somebody else to think for them.
Maybe not for long. HPE announced work on ARM based supercomputer: https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
Right at the moment, though, it's hard to maintain an attitude of hopefulness, with the way things are going.
I am still optimistic though. Considering the history, we're living in really good times so far. There are good things happening, just are not news worthy (our monkey brain seems to put more attention to bad news - well, to be fair, it's a reasonable evolutionary trait). There's a song ("Strange is this world") "... however, there are more people of good will, and I deeply believe, that the world will not perish because of them ...".
Like I said, I posted almost 20 years on the account without a problem, and now that account is trashed. Slashdot operates on a completely "hands-off" approach to administration, with no way to settle harassment, and that only works as long as you have the perfect system. As we've seen elsewhere, if you have no approach to handling harassment, harassers win.
I see, you might have a point. I thought slashdot editors with unlimited mod points take care of that.