I wonder if they couldn't get Rosetta near Philae, and use the reaction jets on Rosetta to move it (i.e., by blowing on it). Philae only weighs about as much as ping-pong ball; it wouldn't take much to move it away from where it is.
That's a Kerbal solution if I ever read one.
Pretty sure having working landing gear would have solved the problem
These are all Monday morning quarterbacking, but truth is that all of us should learn from the unfortunate design mistakes that ESA has made
I don't really see how saying "If the thing that did not work, had worked, everything would have been fine" constitutes "Monday morning quarterbacking". I mean, it's stating the obvious for sure, a completely useless statement for sure, but I don't think it's a hindsight/20/20 thing.
Isn't the whole problem that they assumed a softer (ice) surface?
Look, unless you're a friggin' rocket scientist, or believe they had additional information they didn't use
Based on your vast experience of landing on comets after a 10 year journey, do you think you have a better sense of what the assumptions about the hardness of the ice should have been? Maybe you should have shared that with them.
Lots of smart people worked on this, took all they knew and could surmise, and made choices with the best available information, and using the technology and money available to them.
I'm sure as heck not going to say "well, if only they'd done this it would have worked". I know I'm not qualified to do that, and I'm quite certain most of us on Slashdot aren't either. In fact, I'm betting the people who are qualified are all thinking this was a monumentally difficult task. NASA isn't sitting around going "Ha ha!"
To me, even what they did is some pretty mind-boggling engineering. But in interviews I heard over the last few weeks, they still knew there were risks and uncertainties.
It sucks, but unless you're more qualified than the entire team who did this, you have to realize this is still an incredible feat.
I won't even claim this to be an accurate analogy: But this is kind of like hitting a target in China from New York, using a home made gun, in the dark, and while both you and the target are moving.
Me, I'll applaud the ESA and everyone involved. Success for this kind of engineering includes all of the stuff that got you there. Getting far enough to have a failed landing is still a huge undertaking.
Well, I think the whole problem was that they did not have a wizard on staff to solve every problem with magic.
Also, far as I know, their graviton phasor array had decohered somewhere along the journey.
Oh, wait, you don't have a probe and wouldn't know how to make one, right?
Take a Rasberry Pi, a big ass Lithium Ion battery and some solar panels, attach that stuff to each other, then attach rockets to the bundle, point it at space and ignite.
I'm the best at space.
...I kind of doubt that anybody would physically survive 10 years in zero-G, even assuming they've survived the long-shot odds of no fatal spacecraft malfunctions in 10 years.
Oh, I think they'd survive just fine (appart from the numerous radiation induced cancers, natch), it'd be the whole 'returning to Earth' that'd cause problems.
While I haven't read the paper, the article seems to have a reasonably big "correlation for non-victim" bar. If this means false positives, it makes this technique at least a lot less useful than the "81%" deanonymization rate that they claim. It might make it useless for anything really.
Honestly, this all seems like more headline and less news. But I do still have to read the paper.
I read it as meaning "This type of attack can deanonymize a single TOR user 81% of the time" and not "This type of attack can deanonymize 81% of ALL TOR users at the same time"
Are you kidding me? Name one 'service' on TOR that has been up for long enough to get attention and not been busted?
Based on what came out about both the SR takedowns indicate that those were not taken down by sophisticated cyberattacks using high-grade NSA traffic analysis techniques.
They were taken down because the people behind those sites were bad at being criminals and operating out of the US. I'm almost sure there's several alternatives to SR that are being run out of SE Asia or the former USSR that are not being taken down because the people running them are either good at being criminals or otherwise out of the reach of their local LEA.
All right, maybe they aren't Russian, I don't know. But why not try to find these uber-coders that you always hear about to do some pen testing of the Tor code? It's in their best interest to make sure Tor is as secure as possible.
Fairly certain the russian and the international hacker community in general is already doing this.
Of course a true pro would not be using a publicly accessible darknet, they'd run their own.
Denmark's wind comes from Norse hydropower?
Norwegian...whatever...
Denmark's wind comes from Norse hydropower?
The methodology and the original theory was sponsored by the government, they did not write any of the software currently being used by the TOR network.
I wonder when someone realizes that they can begin to hunt the trackers.
TPB often uses the same bunch: tracker.openbittorrent.com, tracker.publicbt.com, tracker.istole.it, open.demonii.com.
Who owns and maintains these BitTorrent trackers?
Shady people living in countries hostile to the US and with no extradition policies.
Most 'cases' against those involve takedown notices sent to the their domain registars and do nothing to the server or the people running it.
The fight against privacy is a futile one.
This post was made on November 9 about nov. 11, weird
You realize that 11.11 happens about once a year, right?
Theories are not "correct", just strongly supported by experimental evidence.
That was kind of my point. The point of these alternative theories is not to attempt to disprove the current leading theory but to offer an explanation that also could explain the data. Then new data is found that does not support the alternative theories but do support the main leading one, and you come up with new alternative ones.
If you only work with one theory you are falling victim to confirmation bias.
There are loads of Higgs impostor models where something else mimics the Higgs. Perhaps they're unlikely but it's not easy to come up with alternative explanations that are both mathematically consistent and don't contradict observations.
It's got nothing to do with those theories being 'imposters', it has everything to do with the the fact that no theory should ever be unchallenged, even if a theory is correct (as the Standard Model might very well be) it does not mean we should not try to come up with alternative explanations for the phenomena we observe in experiments.
If the Standard Model is correct it should ideally be "more" correct than those "imposter" theories.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
