NASA purchased Pu-238 from Russia as late as 2010. If the mission designers wanted an RTG, they could have got one. Full stop.

I conceded that Pu-238 is now in short supply (although NASA restarted production in 2013), but that isn't relevant to a spacecraft launched in 2004.

Maybe it'll be released by then?

(I don't know anything about perl, but someone had to say it.)

Philae was launched in 2004. NASA launched a Pu-238 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) as part of the Mars Science Laboratory in 2011, and a Pu-238 RTG was being designed by NASA as late as 2013. Even if your claim is true, and Pu-238 became unavailable in the last two years (I doubt it), Pu-238 must have been available in 2004 since it was available as late as 2013.

Moreover, while Pu-238 has been used for the majority of space RTGs. It's not the only element that can be used. U-235 was used in space and Sr-90 has been used on the ground. I don't know about the availability of those isotopes, but Am-241 can also be used, and I doubt there's a shortage of that because it is used in many smoke detectors.

Yes, solar would have been fine if the harpoon worked. However, it is a good idea to build spacecraft to handle contingencies. Maybe there are good reason (cost, weight) that a RTG was not used, but the unavailability of proper isotopes sure wasn't one of them. I'm guessing the issue was mostly political.

Here's a better headline: Wassenaar Treaty _DRAFT__MAY_ Hamper Bug Bounties

The summary makes it sound like the treaty is a done deal; it's not. (TFA makes that point.) There's an open comment period through July 20th.

Yes, it sounds like the proposed wording isn't good. However, the final version isn't done. Give them useful feedback if you'd like. I'm sure the companies who use bug bounties have already given feedback.

Don't panic, yet.

While cool, TF summary notes this is a first "between space and Earth". I'm guessing this has already been done between two (possibly distant) places on earth. The IN SPACE factor is neat, but is there much new here?

I'd add some kind of DC electrical system. AC power is fine for moving electricity over long distances, powering motors, heaters, etc. However, all electronics need DC. Life without AC->DC adapters on every damn piece of electronics would be great. (Yes, maybe you'd need some external DC->DC adapters, but lots of things already can be powered by a USB port -- meaning 5 V.)

AC is especially dumb for solar: you have DC power source (a solar panel) which you then turn into AC power which gets converted back to DC for your electronics, LED lighting, etc. What a waste!

There have been some recently work on in-home DC power systems, although I haven't followed it closely (since I'm in no danger of owning a home soon).

(Full disclosure: I am neither female nor a parent; I'm a male who studies physics.)

There are too many links in the summary. The most relevant one is the google study, which has some interesting data and is fairly neutral. I don't think the study supports the flamebait headline, but instead paints a complicated picture. In particular, see the charts on page 5 of the study.

The story headline is in the same style as this interesting article titled "Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses". That article makes the case that interests in "girly" things are not mutually exclusive with interests in STEM fields. There are anecdotes in the above comments about girls being pressured by parents into STEM activities (like robotics clubs), and how it often doesn't work. Perhaps this is because some parents push STEM at the expense of "girly" things rather than simply encouraging STEM without taking a hostile stance towards "girly" things.

Just a thought.

Like it or not, every business is the subject of politicians' experiments. For example, the minimum wage exists in the first place, and CA has a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage. Every law is an experiment because its unintended consequences are unknown. (Hell, even the intended consequences are sometimes unknown.) This experiment is getting more press than others, but the amount of press and the effect of the experiment are two very different things.

A lot of people have strong opinions on raising the minimum wage, but that's all they are: opinions. Yes, there may be logic behind the arguments, but there is only one way to find out the effect of raising the minimum wage, and that's to try it and see what happens. Analysis may be difficult, but some data is better than blowing hot air.

In short: hooray for experiments! Let's see what happens!

Try to be a rational human being: make a prediction based on logic, wait for the data and analysis, and then update your beliefs! (I know, easier said than done.)

My prediction: it'll more-or-less be wash. Some good from increased wages, some people fired, somewhat higher prices to pay for labor. At the end of the day, low-wage workers will get displaced by automation anyway. In short, raising the minimum wage is nothing to get your undies in a bunch about.

(Replied to wrong comment above; reposting here.)

According to TFA, he didn't accomplish the hack via WiFi. The inflight entertainment screens have a wired connection, and he connected to them by plugging an ethernet cable into that system (supposedly accessible if you take the right cover off the right box under the seat).

I wouldn't have thought that this system is connected to vital systems, but TFA notes that the seat-back satellite phones are connected to this same system, which seems reasonable.

So, maybe it makes sense that everything is connected for historical reasons. When those phones were added, it didn't make sense to isolate them from the rest of the plane's systems -- because they were just phones; what harm could they do? So, maybe the phones just piggybacked off the existing system. When the inflight entertainment stuff was added, maybe they just piggybacked on the phone system, which was itself piggybacking on the important systems. Clearly, if things were designed from scratch, that wouldn't have happened. But I'm sure many /. users are aware what happens when networks evolve more, uh, organically -- especially in penny-pinching corporations.

According to TFA, he didn't accomplish the hack via WiFi. The inflight entertainment screens have a wired connection, and he connected to them by plugging an ethernet cable into that system (supposedly accessible if you take the right cover off the right box under the seat).

I wouldn't have thought that this system is connected to vital systems, but TFA notes that the seat-back satellite phones are connected to this same system, which seems reasonable.

So, maybe it makes sense that everything is connected for historical reasons. When those phones were added, it didn't make sense to isolate them from the rest of the plane's systems -- because they were just phones; what harm could they do? So, maybe the phones just piggybacked off the existing system. When the inflight entertainment stuff was added, maybe they just piggybacked on the phone system, which was itself piggybacking on the important systems. Clearly, if things were designed from scratch, that wouldn't have happened. But I'm sure many /. users are aware what happens when networks evolve more, uh, organically -- especially in penny-pinching corporations.

You're right: I didn't phrase my first statement well. Change it to "reasonable people _harmlessly_ going about their business". Lead paint is quite dangerous. Putting a table in the back of a pickup truck is not.

That said, I don't think that lead paint is a good way to make your case. Lead paint has been banned in the US since 1978 (with a few legally-defined exceptions), and my understanding is that the law has been uniformly enforced. Are you implying that people still buy lead paint and are thereby violating the law? If so, could you provide details?

It doesn't matter who they're going after. If this law is regularly violated by reasonable people just going about their business, then it's a bad law. Full stop.

Now, if they rewrite this law in such a way that there is a clear distinction between you paying for your buddy's gas and you paying for a for-hire service, then fine: enforce away. Until then, they should enforce this law for everyone or no one.

Aside: I think you should be able to challenge laws that are selectively enforced or not enforced at all. If the law isn't enforced, it might as well not be there. If the law is enforced selectively, then it can be used for discrimination or coercion (e.g. racial bias in Ferguson, MO traffic stops). Uniform enforcement of reasonable laws is a hallmark of a free society.

I think that the number of humans will naturally decline. The birth rate in the US has been below the replacement rate since the '70s (expect for a year or two right before the '08 financial crisis). The same is true in every industrialized country, and there's no sign of that changing. The economic benefit of having kids is simply much lower in modern economies.

It'll be interesting to see what increasing automation does to population levels. I have the feeling that a lot of jobs will go poof due to automation, and that will further reduce population levels. If so, it won't be fun: there is a ~20 year lag between when the birth rate declines and when the labor force entrance rate declines...

It's not like NASA's manned space flight program does much better

1) We've been putting humans into low earth orbit for decades. There's not much "expansion of human knowledge" here. Well, they did study ants in space on the ISS recently...
2) ISS is old tech; there's no "improvement" to speak of. Well, they did put a new espresso machine up there recently, right?
3) Unless "development" means "making more of the same thing we already know how to make", then ISS fails again.
4) Maybe the ISS does this, but the main conclusion of the "long-range study" is that, yes, we can keep an inhabited space station in low earth orbit while spending billions of dollars!
5) The ISS does this, but it could also be done by other means at a much lower cost.
6) Nope
7) The ISS is great for this; it's the only way the US still interacts with Russia!
8) "The most effective utilization" Ha!

If you only want to focus on missions that _effectively_ and _efficiently_ fulfill NASA's charter, then a lot of stuff has to go. Since the budget for the ISS is ~$3 billion, I'd focus on that before the climate research -- which is only 1/10th the cost and does a lot more to expand human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere. Even if climate research doesn't fit with NASA's charter (debatable), then its work should be moved to another agency -- not axed.