Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.
And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.
Hillary also admitted she has a "public policy" and "private policy", wants unfettered world trade with open borders, and wants to enact gun control via [presidential] executive order.
Feel free to distract people with non-controversial stuff, but realize who you're helping by doing that.
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
We're coming up on the "2-minute warning" of the elections.
It's when the parties take out the big guns (Republicans) and long knives (Democrats), hoping to get something into the collective consciousness before the election. It usually starts 3 weeks out, but this election has been particularly polarizing.
This weekend has been particularly entertaining. Trump made some locker-room comments eleven years ago, which is causing everyone to grab their pearls and faint. People are falling over themselves pretending that it makes them "sick to their stomach"(*).
Meanwhile, the wikileaks dump shows Clinton admitting a year ago that her "public policy" and "private policy" are different, how she wants world trade with completely open borders (after denying it publicly), and wants to institute gun control by executive order.
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
Seriously - count the number of Trump articles on Google's news page. He's playing them like a violin.
The current headline reads: "GOP consumed by crisis" about Trump, and "Emails Reveal Clinton's Mixed Relationship With Wall Street" about Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be *highly* entertaining!
(*) As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
What right is being taken away here? To not be observed in public is NOT a right. There is no right to not be under surveillance in public that I can find in any Constitution. Do you wish to initiate that right?
The right to assemble anonymously.
Look it up, Supreme court has recorded opinions on this, and Google is your friend.
... of all the "constitutionally protected" activities which may be subject to surevillance, many people outside the USA would consider that there might just be an argument for paying some passing attention to the collection of lethal weapons by people so obsessed by them that they go to shows to drool over them and defend their right to own them on the basis that they might need them to overthrow the government at some point.
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.
Your argument conflates the *possibility* of future problems with their *likelihood*.
That's fine, it's a valid argument to make, but we have limited resources and a variety of future dangers. There are many, many more likely dangers to which we could give more than "passing" attention, which would improve the American quality of life and general lifespan.
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Is this bullshit?
I thought bullshit meant something "not true". I know that trust in journalism has fallen recently, but do you really think the things stated in the article aren't factual?
At the very least, it shows that IT professionals who might be offered immunity can ask for concessions.
Given the number of IT professionals who read this site, that might make the article of interest to a lot of people.
Or are you complaining because it puts Clinton in a bad light?
Clinton is the "stay the course" candidate, and Trump is the "make changes" candidate.
A bit over half of Americans are on the brink of poverty, so a lot of people are looking for things to change.
The other slightly-less-than-half people think things are going pretty well, and don't want anything to change.
Add to this the fact that corporations don't want changes that benefit the American people because of the expense, a media that feeds on emotional investment (for advertizing clicks), and a political party that uses emotional involvement and guilt to gain support (refugees, illegal immigrants, and so on) and you have the situation of today.
Half the nation is hurting badly with no end in sight, the other half thinks that any change whatsoever would be bad for their personal selves.
Even though the Clintons are complete crooks and disgusting people, Trump is even worse. We need to stop this witchhunt. President Chelsea Clinton will get to the bottom of it when she is elected.
The problem with this statement is that it's hollow - there's nothing to back it up. Trump isn't worse, at best he's an unknown.
Trump has been called a narcissist, which is probably fair, but a narcissist is exactly who would make the best president. The one thing that matters most to Trump is his brand.
Trump wants to be the best president in the last 100 years, and if possible the best one ever.
Everything about him points to that one aspect: he wants to win, he wants to be the best at everything.
He's stated in so many words that he wants to change things for the betterment of the people.
Reading about this, I was wondering is there isn't some way to mitigate the problem by pre-emptively borking the devices.
Apparently power cycling the IoT device will reset it to normal, whereupon it can be reinfected.
Suppose some security group ran the malware and infected as many devices as possible with code that made the device *not work*.
The owners would have to keep power-cycling the devices, they'd get pissed at the manufacturers for making a poor product, and maybe they'd replace the devices with newer ones.
This should be simple to do, much less effort than making the code try to contact the owner with "hey - change your password" and such.
Would just making the products appear crappy work?
We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.
There's no insight, no evidence, no links and no rational argument. Just a made-up lie and an insult.
We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.
He has said that the next dump contains evidence that will get Hillary Clinton indicted.
I'm quite anxious to see what it is.
Perhaps an early Christmas present for the American people!
This seems like a misguided solution to the problem. If someone steals the card, then this feature won't help.
Bruce Schneier pointed out the real solution years ago. If your card has some processing power and a display (which this solution has), just add a keypad (similar to a calculator in credit-card size).
The keypad is for a pin. The owner keys in the pin, the card generates a one-time-use credit card number, and the waiter/salesman can take the card to the back and swipe it or whatever. When the card is lost, the thieves won't know the pin. If the number is copied, it can't be used beyond the first sale.
You can even use this on a computer peripheral. The software on the card is fixed and can't be hacked.
Multiple accounts can be stored on one card, so you only need one card instead of multiple credit cards in your wallet.
Of course, the thieves can kidnap the owner, but that's not the problem this addresses.
A smart card with pin on the card prevents all kinds of copying, skimming, lost cards, even online accounts.
Since we're switching to smart cards, I don't know why we simply haven't switched to the final solution.
I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.
What's interesting is looking at the moderation levels over time.
For the first hour after the article was posted, there were a lot of pro-Trump comments.
Now it's 2.5 hours later and all those articles have been modded down. What's left is pro-Hillary, in a roundabout way.
You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.
When Whiplash took over I mentioned that this site goes to pot around 6 weeks before a presidential election, and becomes unbearable starting around 2 weeks before an election. This year I think it'll be worse than previous election years.
I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.
... There will be hypersonic shards of metal everywhere.
Um, I know this may be a dumb question, but I'm trying to get a handle on how fast those shards would be going.
So, what's the speed of sound in space?
Thanks,
P. Edant.
The speed of sound is dependent on temperature, but doesn't vary all that much - 1200 km/h to 1000 km/h at about -60 C.
Once you get to vacuum, "the mean free path" of the particles becomes so long that the atmosphere begins to act less like a gas and more like individual particles. Changes in pressure are not propagated efficiently in this situation, so the idea of "sound" starts to lose its meaning.
I think the OP was just making a visceral point. If we use the sea-level 1200 km/h speed and note that orbital velocity is about 28000 km/h then depending on the angle the shards could hit anywhere from 0 to twice the orbital speed.
A 1 gram bolt hitting the front of your spaceship at 28000 x 2 = 56000 km/h would deliver an energy of 121,000 joules on impact (if I did the calculations right), equivalent to about 25 grams of TNT.
Roughly 1000 times impact of a sledge hammer. (10 kg hammer going 5 m/s => 125 joules).
I have to mention that the previous post was sarcasm, because a lot of people can't recognize sarcasm.
On a more sober note, I'm seeing some doctors claim that vaccines cause children to be more susceptible to diseases later in life. Does anyone have background information about this?
To be specific, Pediatricians admit that vaccines do not cause autism, but some are saying that their vaccinated patients tend to catch more *other* diseases than unvaccinated children, and perhaps getting vaccinated isn't quite so black-and-white.
I'm not conversant with either position, and was wondering if anyone with actual knowledge (and not echo-chamber retelling of conventional wisdom) could comment on this.
Do vaccinated children catch other diseases more easily?
And there's this whole thing about getting the flu vaccine, which apparently is only 50% effective (whatever that means), and is even less effective if you get it several years in a row. Then there are sites like this one that certainly *seems* like it makes a fair point, but...
We are busy importing hundreds of thousands of unscreened people from areas where measles still runs rampant. This little blip will not last.
What a racist, mysogynistic, homophobic thing to say!
When will you nazi alt-left white supremacist types learn that the only answer to these types of problems is compassion and the liberal plan for immigration and amnesty!
Why, just look at this refugee and tell me it doesn't just melt your heart!
Maybe he/she doesn't like people who make outrageous claims they can't back up. While I have no ax to grind on this particular claim, I can understand being irritated by these kinds of people.
Okay, that's fair.
But if someone is irritated by that sort of behaviour, it would seem (to me) to be more effective to attack the claims, instead of other things. And misrepresenting seems a bit dishonest, and ultimately ineffective.
Is it *really* that obvious that someone could a) be irritated by Musk, b) be driven by irritation to attack other things Musk does, and c) be dishonest enough to misrepresent?
I agree that it could be a reason, but it's a stretch.
Is this motivation/behaviour really that obvious to people?
Someone please take the Kool Aid away from this guy. His rocket just blew up recently and was asking for help in figuring out why...
He was asking for evidence (recorded videos, audios, security camera footage), not help.
At this point I'm really wondering why people like you post this sort of thing. I mean, it's not like you have any insight into the situation.
It very much appears that you have an agenda (or an axe to grind), and chose to misrepresent the situation because you think it will add incrementally to whatever goals you have.
What are your goals? How does it benefit *you* to misrepresent what Musk is doing?
I'm constantly surprised by what motivates other people. As in - can never figure out why people do what they do.
(Maybe you shorted some SpaceX stock? No, SpaceX is still a privately held company. Maybe you work at NASA and don't like being shown up? Maybe you work at a competing launch company? Your behaviour is inscrutable.)
I suppose this will spur research into centrifuge therapy to help patients pass kidney stones.
In about 25 or 30 years the technology will be well-studied enough that we'll see the first installation in a major hospital, and maybe 10 years after that the insurance companies will cover the treatment costs.
Just like how MRI machines were developed.
(In the mean time, doctors will advise kidney stone patients to stay off of roller coasters, because there's no evidence that the therapy is safe or effective.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, nice answer. I would totally mod that up.
Simple, direct, and... I don't care who it paints in a bad light.
Please consider replying more often. We need more clear thinkers on this site.
The headlines on Google's news page reflect your own interests and attitudes, rather than anything general.
I don't see how, seeing as I don't allow google to set cookies on my machine.
Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.
And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.
Hillary also admitted she has a "public policy" and "private policy", wants unfettered world trade with open borders, and wants to enact gun control via [presidential] executive order.
Feel free to distract people with non-controversial stuff, but realize who you're helping by doing that.
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks"
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
We're coming up on the "2-minute warning" of the elections.
It's when the parties take out the big guns (Republicans) and long knives (Democrats), hoping to get something into the collective consciousness before the election. It usually starts 3 weeks out, but this election has been particularly polarizing.
This weekend has been particularly entertaining. Trump made some locker-room comments eleven years ago, which is causing everyone to grab their pearls and faint. People are falling over themselves pretending that it makes them "sick to their stomach"(*).
Meanwhile, the wikileaks dump shows Clinton admitting a year ago that her "public policy" and "private policy" are different, how she wants world trade with completely open borders (after denying it publicly), and wants to institute gun control by executive order.
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
Seriously - count the number of Trump articles on Google's news page. He's playing them like a violin.
The current headline reads: "GOP consumed by crisis" about Trump, and "Emails Reveal Clinton's Mixed Relationship With Wall Street" about Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be *highly* entertaining!
(*) As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
The AI says your projected lifetime earnings are too small to pay off your projected lifetime debt. You die now.
Your lifetime total health insurance premiums won't cover the remaining medical costs from your car accident, your policy is hereby cancelled.
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
What right is being taken away here? To not be observed in public is NOT a right. There is no right to not be under surveillance in public that I can find in any Constitution. Do you wish to initiate that right?
The right to assemble anonymously.
Look it up, Supreme court has recorded opinions on this, and Google is your friend.
... of all the "constitutionally protected" activities which may be subject to surevillance, many people outside the USA would consider that there might just be an argument for paying some passing attention to the collection of lethal weapons by people so obsessed by them that they go to shows to drool over them and defend their right to own them on the basis that they might need them to overthrow the government at some point.
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.
Your argument conflates the *possibility* of future problems with their *likelihood*.
That's fine, it's a valid argument to make, but we have limited resources and a variety of future dangers. There are many, many more likely dangers to which we could give more than "passing" attention, which would improve the American quality of life and general lifespan.
Shouldn't we attend to the big dangers first?
This Twitter post gave me a chuckle
If you're mad about not getting an #OctoberSurprise from @wikileaks today, consider the psychological effect waiting has on Hillary.
So I'm not here to defend Clinton by any means, but holy crap have you been binging on the Trump kool-aid?
Okian Warrior admitted to making "provocative" posts a few months ago. IOW, he's been trolling for the summer.
I can verify that. Completely true.
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Is this bullshit?
I thought bullshit meant something "not true". I know that trust in journalism has fallen recently, but do you really think the things stated in the article aren't factual?
At the very least, it shows that IT professionals who might be offered immunity can ask for concessions.
Given the number of IT professionals who read this site, that might make the article of interest to a lot of people.
Or are you complaining because it puts Clinton in a bad light?
Clinton is the "stay the course" candidate, and Trump is the "make changes" candidate.
A bit over half of Americans are on the brink of poverty, so a lot of people are looking for things to change.
The other slightly-less-than-half people think things are going pretty well, and don't want anything to change.
Add to this the fact that corporations don't want changes that benefit the American people because of the expense, a media that feeds on emotional investment (for advertizing clicks), and a political party that uses emotional involvement and guilt to gain support (refugees, illegal immigrants, and so on) and you have the situation of today.
Half the nation is hurting badly with no end in sight, the other half thinks that any change whatsoever would be bad for their personal selves.
Even though the Clintons are complete crooks and disgusting people, Trump is even worse. We need to stop this witchhunt. President Chelsea Clinton will get to the bottom of it when she is elected.
The problem with this statement is that it's hollow - there's nothing to back it up. Trump isn't worse, at best he's an unknown.
Trump has been called a narcissist, which is probably fair, but a narcissist is exactly who would make the best president. The one thing that matters most to Trump is his brand.
Trump wants to be the best president in the last 100 years, and if possible the best one ever.
Everything about him points to that one aspect: he wants to win, he wants to be the best at everything.
He's stated in so many words that he wants to change things for the betterment of the people.
Clinton just wants to stay the course.
Reading about this, I was wondering is there isn't some way to mitigate the problem by pre-emptively borking the devices.
Apparently power cycling the IoT device will reset it to normal, whereupon it can be reinfected.
Suppose some security group ran the malware and infected as many devices as possible with code that made the device *not work*.
The owners would have to keep power-cycling the devices, they'd get pissed at the manufacturers for making a poor product, and maybe they'd replace the devices with newer ones.
This should be simple to do, much less effort than making the code try to contact the owner with "hey - change your password" and such.
Would just making the products appear crappy work?
We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.
There's no insight, no evidence, no links and no rational argument. Just a made-up lie and an insult.
How does crap like this get modded up?
We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.
He has said that the next dump contains evidence that will get Hillary Clinton indicted.
I'm quite anxious to see what it is.
Perhaps an early Christmas present for the American people!
This seems like a misguided solution to the problem. If someone steals the card, then this feature won't help.
Bruce Schneier pointed out the real solution years ago. If your card has some processing power and a display (which this solution has), just add a keypad (similar to a calculator in credit-card size).
The keypad is for a pin. The owner keys in the pin, the card generates a one-time-use credit card number, and the waiter/salesman can take the card to the back and swipe it or whatever. When the card is lost, the thieves won't know the pin. If the number is copied, it can't be used beyond the first sale.
You can even use this on a computer peripheral. The software on the card is fixed and can't be hacked.
Multiple accounts can be stored on one card, so you only need one card instead of multiple credit cards in your wallet.
Of course, the thieves can kidnap the owner, but that's not the problem this addresses.
A smart card with pin on the card prevents all kinds of copying, skimming, lost cards, even online accounts.
Since we're switching to smart cards, I don't know why we simply haven't switched to the final solution.
A fine specimen of a man you republicans picked.
And an exemplary specimen of a woman from you Democrats.
I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.
What's interesting is looking at the moderation levels over time.
For the first hour after the article was posted, there were a lot of pro-Trump comments.
Now it's 2.5 hours later and all those articles have been modded down. What's left is pro-Hillary, in a roundabout way.
You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.
When Whiplash took over I mentioned that this site goes to pot around 6 weeks before a presidential election, and becomes unbearable starting around 2 weeks before an election. This year I think it'll be worse than previous election years.
I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.
... There will be hypersonic shards of metal everywhere.
Um, I know this may be a dumb question, but I'm trying to get a handle on how fast those shards would be going.
So, what's the speed of sound in space?
Thanks,
P. Edant.
The speed of sound is dependent on temperature, but doesn't vary all that much - 1200 km/h to 1000 km/h at about -60 C.
Once you get to vacuum, "the mean free path" of the particles becomes so long that the atmosphere begins to act less like a gas and more like individual particles. Changes in pressure are not propagated efficiently in this situation, so the idea of "sound" starts to lose its meaning.
I think the OP was just making a visceral point. If we use the sea-level 1200 km/h speed and note that orbital velocity is about 28000 km/h then depending on the angle the shards could hit anywhere from 0 to twice the orbital speed.
A 1 gram bolt hitting the front of your spaceship at 28000 x 2 = 56000 km/h would deliver an energy of 121,000 joules on impact (if I did the calculations right), equivalent to about 25 grams of TNT.
Roughly 1000 times impact of a sledge hammer. (10 kg hammer going 5 m/s => 125 joules).
I have to mention that the previous post was sarcasm, because a lot of people can't recognize sarcasm.
On a more sober note, I'm seeing some doctors claim that vaccines cause children to be more susceptible to diseases later in life. Does anyone have background information about this?
To be specific, Pediatricians admit that vaccines do not cause autism, but some are saying that their vaccinated patients tend to catch more *other* diseases than unvaccinated children, and perhaps getting vaccinated isn't quite so black-and-white.
I'm not conversant with either position, and was wondering if anyone with actual knowledge (and not echo-chamber retelling of conventional wisdom) could comment on this.
Do vaccinated children catch other diseases more easily?
And there's this whole thing about getting the flu vaccine, which apparently is only 50% effective (whatever that means), and is even less effective if you get it several years in a row. Then there are sites like this one that certainly *seems* like it makes a fair point, but...
Nowadays, who can you trust online?
We are busy importing hundreds of thousands of unscreened people from areas where measles still runs rampant. This little blip will not last.
What a racist, mysogynistic, homophobic thing to say!
When will you nazi alt-left white supremacist types learn that the only answer to these types of problems is compassion and the liberal plan for immigration and amnesty!
Why, just look at this refugee and tell me it doesn't just melt your heart!
Why do you hate children?
Maybe he/she doesn't like people who make outrageous claims they can't back up. While I have no ax to grind on this particular claim, I can understand being irritated by these kinds of people.
Okay, that's fair.
But if someone is irritated by that sort of behaviour, it would seem (to me) to be more effective to attack the claims, instead of other things. And misrepresenting seems a bit dishonest, and ultimately ineffective.
Is it *really* that obvious that someone could
a) be irritated by Musk,
b) be driven by irritation to attack other things Musk does, and
c) be dishonest enough to misrepresent?
I agree that it could be a reason, but it's a stretch.
Is this motivation/behaviour really that obvious to people?
Someone please take the Kool Aid away from this guy. His rocket just blew up recently and was asking for help in figuring out why...
He was asking for evidence (recorded videos, audios, security camera footage), not help.
At this point I'm really wondering why people like you post this sort of thing. I mean, it's not like you have any insight into the situation.
It very much appears that you have an agenda (or an axe to grind), and chose to misrepresent the situation because you think it will add incrementally to whatever goals you have.
What are your goals? How does it benefit *you* to misrepresent what Musk is doing?
I'm constantly surprised by what motivates other people. As in - can never figure out why people do what they do.
(Maybe you shorted some SpaceX stock? No, SpaceX is still a privately held company. Maybe you work at NASA and don't like being shown up? Maybe you work at a competing launch company? Your behaviour is inscrutable.)
I suppose this will spur research into centrifuge therapy to help patients pass kidney stones.
In about 25 or 30 years the technology will be well-studied enough that we'll see the first installation in a major hospital, and maybe 10 years after that the insurance companies will cover the treatment costs.
Just like how MRI machines were developed.
(In the mean time, doctors will advise kidney stone patients to stay off of roller coasters, because there's no evidence that the therapy is safe or effective.)
Okian Warrior, off the top of your head, answer me right now:
Do you think that one/third of US Uranium reserves were actually physically sent to Russia?
I do not.
Why - is it important?
(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)
Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.