Comment Re:Big bags of water... that's what we are. (Score 1) 156
Almost anything that can be done in space is better done by robots.
Except for thinking...
Almost anything that can be done in space is better done by robots.
Except for thinking...
I sincerely doubt that Space X would create science only missions - like sending probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the Solar System.
No, but they could enable them with their cheap technology. Think of how cheaper the MSL rover could be if if were launched by a Falcon Heavy. All that weight-shedding typical for aerospace can't possibly be cheap. But we won't have any chance to substantially get rid of it until we get cheaper launches. (New Horizons probably could have been much more heavyweight, too, if FH had been available at that time.)
Perhaps you need to read the the original announcement Salient points:
Lay the foundation for a cross platform
As a
The challenge is that the Windows implementation has one code base while Mono has a completely separate code base. The Mono community was essentially forced to re-implement
The best way to build a cross-platform stack is to build a single stack, in a collaborative manner. And the best way to do exactly that is by open sourcing it. Building and running on non-Windows platforms. We currently only provide the ability to build and run on Windows. We intend to build a public working group between us and the Mono community once we have enough code out there.
In other words, it hasn't happened yet. They're still at the "laying the foundation" stage, by their own admission. NOT ready for prime time. Anyone using it today still needs to maintain multiple code bases.
.NET Core Runtime (CoreCLR). We’re currently figuring out the plan for open sourcing the runtime. Stay tuned!
Again, an announcement of what WILL happen. Again, not there yet.
The question isn't "is
There are tons of online services already like iMaterialize and Shapeways - they do really excellent work.
The article you linked to doesn't have any references, and sounds like it is based on an extremely poor translation. Looking at the official DPRK news agency, they don't seem to mention it: http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.a...
What the do say is that if they were to retaliate it wouldn't be a terrorist attack on innocent movie-goers, it would be a military strike on the leadership. That seems to match what the badly translated CNN statement says, i.e. that they wouldn't attack some random corporation or civilians, they would attack the leadership who they hold responsible.
The entire narrative of the DPRK is based on this idea that the majority of Americans are innocent, if deluded, and should be freed from the control of their masters. Without going in to how close to the mark that might actually be, it's basically a reflection of the US narrative on regime change.
We are deluded. There isnt a shred of evidence tying the DPRK to this hacking and yet they get all the blame. The movie was filmed in Fall 2013, but there were no statements from the DPRK until June 2014. They really arent the kind of people to miss out on a threatening press release if given even the slightest opportunity. Their press bureau literally salivates a this kind of thing. They also rarely lie. Huge exaggerations? Sure. But not lies. So it seems reasonable they didnt hear about the movie until June when official announcements and trailers started coming out
Meanwhile, the hackers apparently got into Sony's systems over a year ago. They first asked for money, then only later started talking about The Interview and wanting it pulled. The broken english used in their communications is not consistent with a Korean speaker. DPRK citizens speaking english is pretty obvious- they only have a small number of schools which teach it, and without many native english speakers, the teachers are very consistent.
We need to back up a little and reask the question of who did it. The answer might be even more interesting that the line we are being fed.
to engineer, v.: 2.b fig. To arrange, contrive, plan, superintend. Also (U.S.), to guide or carry through a measure or enterprise; to manuvre, (occas.) to ‘shepherd’.
So, in your scenario, is there anyone who is not corrupt/complicit in some degree?
Lets see
And even if everyone could be moved to the areas that have optimal growing conditions, they're going to need space to live. Where is that coming from? The people who already live there? Don't think they're going to like "squatters" taking over part of their "home". Who's going to police the conflicts that will cause? Or does everyone just print up armaments and leave it to the last one standing?
The fact is that while it might, theoretically, be possible to achieve, WE can't get there from here, because WE are humans.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"