Maybe you should try reading some history. Eventually Americans got tired of seeing their children killed fighting an absolutely worthless war halfway around the world. That had zero to do with nuclear power or the lunar program, other than making people stop believing that "Daddy knows best".
Yeah, if you actually bother to take 2 minutes to watch the video, it doesn't match the "NASA moderator shut discussion down" description at all. This is just an attempt to generate controversy where there is none.
Really? So we have a choice between trying to keep a human alive for months so they can spend a few weeks on Mars, with all the cost and supply that entails... or we can operate rovers pretty much indefinitely. Which one makes more sense? Which one gets more done? For the cost of ONE manned mission to Mars, we can have a hundred rovers checking the planet out for years.
So instead, do nothing. Don't worry about people getting slaughtered. After all, France is a big country, it can afford to have a few hundred people murdered every once in a while.
Guess what. With proprietary software, you can pay the owner the software. And I GUARANTEE you, if you pay enough, they'll do it. Which is the same as open source software.
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
It's not about what you are "permitted to run". The question is whether users can access content in a way that deprives the content creator of any source of revenue. It's not some horrible crime that a company isn't going to give away their content completely for free, anymore than it's a crime that most people would like compensation for doing work.
Really. Not proud of landing on the moon? Yeah, because it's so easy and so many other countries have done it after all the technical advances that have occurred in the last 50 years.
I'm actually not sure there is the possibility of a decent story with that background. Lost in Space is a single family, a few people on an alien world. The original show turned into a bizarre series of encounters with random aliens. With nothing except the nucleus of a couple of people, it's not clear how else it could work out. Yes, it's based on Swiss Family Robinson and their adventures, so I suppose you could have "man vs. nature" for a while, and in fact the original show tried that for an episode. But you can't build a whole series around that.
In space travel to me a paradigm shift would be more like either a novel method of propulsion, or the plan to drop automated fuel factories on Mars before the first human gets there to simplify the return plan. It seems to me (and I might be wrong) that people had talked about various combinations of landers and orbiters prior to this. This guy nailed it down and figured out how to make it work, but I'm still having trouble seeing that as revolutionary... more evolutionary.
Last I heard it was coordinated attacks across Paris, including slaughtering people in a theater. Not sure how you would characterize that as an "accident".
Nonsense. It isn't a company behaving rationally. It's executives who know that making the company bottom line look better for a few quarters means big bonuses. They can then move on with a great story about how the great job they did before the company crashes and burns.
I don't know that it's legally anti-competitive. It's not like Amazon is preventing people from buying competing products or locking those products out, it's just isn't stocking them. Can a store be required to sell certain products?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should try reading some history. Eventually Americans got tired of seeing their children killed fighting an absolutely worthless war halfway around the world. That had zero to do with nuclear power or the lunar program, other than making people stop believing that "Daddy knows best".
Yeah, if you actually bother to take 2 minutes to watch the video, it doesn't match the "NASA moderator shut discussion down" description at all. This is just an attempt to generate controversy where there is none.
Assuming you could "fix it yourself". Just because you have source (maybe millions of lines of it) doesn't mean you can fix it.
And of course, no one is inspired by the idea of building autonomous robots to explore an alien world. That stuff is just mundane.
Really? So we have a choice between trying to keep a human alive for months so they can spend a few weeks on Mars, with all the cost and supply that entails... or we can operate rovers pretty much indefinitely. Which one makes more sense? Which one gets more done? For the cost of ONE manned mission to Mars, we can have a hundred rovers checking the planet out for years.
So instead, do nothing. Don't worry about people getting slaughtered. After all, France is a big country, it can afford to have a few hundred people murdered every once in a while.
Does that sound better?
There are bugs in open source software... I guess the free / open source concept is a failure.
Guess what. With proprietary software, you can pay the owner the software. And I GUARANTEE you, if you pay enough, they'll do it. Which is the same as open source software.
And it's entirely possible that you won't find someone to modify open source software.
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
How does committing crimes "prove that the system is a failure"? Unless you are of the "it can't be my fault, the system is to blame" crowd.
It's not about what you are "permitted to run". The question is whether users can access content in a way that deprives the content creator of any source of revenue. It's not some horrible crime that a company isn't going to give away their content completely for free, anymore than it's a crime that most people would like compensation for doing work.
Really. Not proud of landing on the moon? Yeah, because it's so easy and so many other countries have done it after all the technical advances that have occurred in the last 50 years.
Idiot.
dang, where's my mod points when I need them?
I'm actually not sure there is the possibility of a decent story with that background. Lost in Space is a single family, a few people on an alien world. The original show turned into a bizarre series of encounters with random aliens. With nothing except the nucleus of a couple of people, it's not clear how else it could work out. Yes, it's based on Swiss Family Robinson and their adventures, so I suppose you could have "man vs. nature" for a while, and in fact the original show tried that for an episode. But you can't build a whole series around that.
Life is hard sometimes.
you mean more articles about bitcoin, don't you?
In space travel to me a paradigm shift would be more like either a novel method of propulsion, or the plan to drop automated fuel factories on Mars before the first human gets there to simplify the return plan. It seems to me (and I might be wrong) that people had talked about various combinations of landers and orbiters prior to this. This guy nailed it down and figured out how to make it work, but I'm still having trouble seeing that as revolutionary... more evolutionary.
That's an interesting technique, but hardly a paradigm shift.
And anyone who pays attention knows there was a massacre in Paris yesterday. Go it?
Last I heard it was coordinated attacks across Paris, including slaughtering people in a theater. Not sure how you would characterize that as an "accident".
Do you have a reliable source that the world is round?
Nonsense. It isn't a company behaving rationally. It's executives who know that making the company bottom line look better for a few quarters means big bonuses. They can then move on with a great story about how the great job they did before the company crashes and burns.
At last, the circle is complete.
I don't know that it's legally anti-competitive. It's not like Amazon is preventing people from buying competing products or locking those products out, it's just isn't stocking them. Can a store be required to sell certain products?