That's similar to a BOFH story arc.

1. Configure the servers to serve as a 'cloud' resource using various open source software.
2. Show executives that this cloud computing system has much faster ping times than all the competitors.
3. Get the contract to provide cloud services.
4. PROFIT!

Yeah, I mean c'mon. Also, Whats up with all these stories on slashdot about computers and computing devices?

Solid state microprocessors have been around since the 1960's. All these computing devices are just modifications of that basic technology.

Oh, wait, those stories are interesting. Hey, some people may be interested in seeing how satellite technology has changed too. The satellites we have imaging the planet today are not that "same old shit" from the 60's and 70's. Sensors and their sensing capabilities have changed immensely over the span of 40 years.

This story is interesting in detailing how that monitoring technology can identify the sites launching the mortars and the sites being hit.

Probably one of the best things NASA could do at this point is abandon ISS, stop paying for it, and tell the Russians its all theirs. There is a fair chance they would fly Americans to it for free rather than get saddled with that boat anchor.

If the Russians don't want it either its time to deorbit it. It would free up a LOT of money for more useful endeavors. Its never been good for much of anything, certainly nothing to justify the staggering price tag

SpaceX will have the ability to put astronauts in to LEO in a few years. Its not like its a crisis, there is very little for people to do in LEO at the moment other than to be lab rats for zero G physiology studies. You would think they would have done most of that work by now.

About the only point in putting people in space at all is as colonists, persumably on Mars. You can do just about everything else way better and cheaper with robots.

So until you are ready to fly people to Mars to stay, stop getting your panties in a bunch about getting them to LEO.

The problem is this:

There will be a case where a factual based post, possibly with added opinions, will be posted by an American, but the subject of that post, a European, will want it removed from the search results due to the right to be forgotten. If Google removes this result from google.com, the American poster will have standing to sue google for removing their post because of foreign law. Now google being a private company, can do what they want, but what if Google wants to keep the Americans post listed and is only removing it to comply with EU law? Then Google would not challenge the American posters case, they would let it go through the courts. The decision by the courts would be that Google be allowed to list the American's post so as to not violate the posters free speech rights.

Free speech is one of the most important natural rights of man. I don't give a damn about Europe's "right to be forgotten". That right is shit compared to the right of free speech.

Well, we could always quote someone from the previous administration:

"The cost of one bullet, if the [...] people take it on themselves, is substantially less than [the cost of a war]." -- White House press secretary Ari Fleischer 1 Oct 2002.

At the time they were talking about an overthrow of Iraq. It applies well to the US as well.

In the old days here, freshmeat and sourceforge, but not post-dice. Not really seeing much point in any of them now.

You know what i meant.

no thanks, i want to own my content.

I am nearly speechless that you would try to use the ISS as an example of a "success story". It was mind boggling behind schedule and over budget, though turning it in to an international project is partially to blame. The core is based on existing Russian design. If they had just launched that and kept it simple it would have cost a tiny fraction of what it did and accomplished nearly all the science ISS has done.

The fundamental problem with the ISS is its bled NASA and the manned space program white. NASA hasn't done ANYTHING useful, in its manned program since Skylab, other than maybe Hubble. They built Shuttle to fly to the ISS and the ISS so the Shuttle would have a place to fly. It resulted in NO breakthroughs or progress worth the price tag.

So what is your point on Falcon. I think you just agreed with me SLS is hopelessly uncompetitive and SpaceX approach is really smart.

SpaceX is trying to get to space cheaply, safely and with a very high launch rate.

SLS seems to be trying to come up with the most expensive, impractical and dangerous solution possible, just to keep funneling money to Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, etc. Its as if they are TRYING to develop a system that is sure to fail or be cancelled.

Note the proposed launch date, 2017, just long enough after the 2016 election so the next president can cancel it and start over.

"I can't imagine how demoralizing it is to spend years working on a project that would ultimately succeed"

None of NASA's major manned spaced projects are even remotely likely to succeed, they are not intended to do so any more. They are just a place to blow money, create jobs and put money in Lockheed and Boeing pockets. More importantly they buy votes in the critical swing state of Florida.

They are designed to run 4-8 years, produce nothing except votes, paychecks and contractor profits, then they get cancelled and start over. It is way easier and less risk than actually making anything that will fly.

It is not the political process that is broken, it is NASA and the political process.

Get a clue, and spend a few billion on SpaceX to help finish Falcon Heavy. I'm not sure why SLS is even on the table at this point, it isn't remotely competitive.

Lockheed and Boeing also need to be completely removed from the process. They are making a mint milking DOD contracts, they don't need to be in middle of the civilian space program fleecing NASA and taxpayers there too. They do not use money wisely, they devour everything thrown their way and produce as little as possible in return.

http://www.dailymotion.com/vid...

The story about Chernobyl is far from clear. See, for example:

http://unconventionaltravel.co...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

And, in my view most impressive:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffi...

Note that human beings are mammals; so, if other mammals thrive in an area, presumably human being would too (if not excluded by regulations).

What is really sad is that these congressional staffers show suck a lack of professionalism and honor in doing their jobs.

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

The concept of a government and laws derived from debate and compromise and consideration of different sides of an issue has been wiped out in favor of "I am right and you are wrong, and since you are wrong you can shut the hell up."

So much of this shit looks like stuff a 3rd grader would come up with to insult their enemies.

If everything we do revolves around how much it cost then I'm done.

Good luck.

Math time... $126M loss / $19B revenue = 0.66%, less than one percent loss for a quarter. The company is worth about $140B, so the quarter's drop is less than a tenth of a percent, meaning absorbing a the loss is a tiny decrease in a large bucket. In contrast, the skittish investors yesterday cost the company about $12B compared to the $126M business loss. The skittish investors who cause huge overnight drops like this create opportunities.

We're not talking about a company that is hemorrhaging money. It isn't a company plagued by mismanagement. It is a company that since their first day built a track record of tinkering with models. That is all Amazon has ever done. They have the resources to continue operating when they discover unprofitable ones. It takes money to make money, and many tests and changes cost time and money. Yes, some investors refuse to see the long term and demand a profit every single quarter. Other investors see this as an opportunity to buy or to hold.

Last night they took a 10% drop because short-term investors are skittish. Today you can buy it at a 10% discount; so thanks skittish investors!