Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Cost of access is key. (Score 1) 345

0.01%? Some quick searching tells me that it costs $225M for a Soyuz launch with a full crew. Are you saying it costs somewhere near $22.5k to fuel up a Soyuz rocket? That's half the cost of fueling up a private jet.

And that's a pretty good comparison to use. If space travel were as affordable as private jet flight, which is far closer to Star Trek than it is to today's reality, it would still be only an amusement for the hyper-rich, unaffordable to the vast majority of earth's populace.

Comment Re:Cost of access is key. (Score 1) 345

There are only two developments that could lower the energy cost of a space launch significantly: 1: Practical fusion power, and 2: Breaking the laws of physics as we currently know them.

So for the foreseeable future, private space travel will never happen except as an amusement for the hyper-rich, due to the amount of energy required. See also: supersonic passenger flight.

Comment Re:Tiny minded (Score 1) 285

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't nuclear *exchanges,* Japan didn't nuke anyone in return (not that they could).

The close calls happened when the threat of nuclear war was highest. The threat is quite low now, countries aren't staring each other down with their fingers on the triggers anymore.

I think a nuclear exchange in the future is almost impossible, with a one-way use of nuclear weapons being fairly unlikely. Not even NK is crazy enough to use a nuke, they just want to have nukes because it grants them a seat at the big-boy table of international politics. I think the only way a nuke would be used at all in the future is if some suicidal apocalyptic nutbags like ISIS get their hands on one, and I think a nuclear response would be extremely unlikely. The rest of the world would respond (heavily) with conventional weapons, like reasonable adults.

I think the best chance for a nuclear exchange in the forseeable future is if ISIS gets one AND there's an unhinged manchild like Trump in the White House looking for schoolyard retribution.

Comment Re:Before a human walks on Mars... (Score 1) 285

We're nowhere near being capable of having an off-planet colony that could save the species in case of an ELE. With current technology, they'd last about as long as the people on the ISS would without support from Earth, only they'd be years away from home and have nobody on Earth to help them when they land. If the last remaining humans die stranded at sea or in the wilderness of Kazakhstan it's not much help.

Until a fully independent self-sustaining colony is possible, the best bet for humanity surviving an ELE is with bomb shelters, which offer protection against the only disasters that could wipe out all of humanity rather than leaving millions alive. Any disaster that would kill people in bomb shelters would leave Earth uninhabitable anyway, again making an Earth-dependent colony pointless. You'd have a hard time sending more humans into space than the number of unprepared humans that would survive just about any non-planet-destroying ELE you could imagine anyway.

Comment Re:Separate the security from the device (Score 1) 116

If the patients, medical staff, or visitor can be considered to be an attacker, then no medical device will ever be secure without physical access restrictions.

The GP's idea should only be used as nearly a last resort, but it's not worthless. This is basically how many SCADA & PLC systems are secured since the device itself has no meaningful security. They're considered to be physically secure however.

So back to the physical access problem. Will these medical devices have to be locked in secure server cages next to each patient's bed regardless of their programming, or not?

Comment Re:How do you feel about a minimum income now? (Score 1) 176

This sounds like the "rising tide causes inflation" theory, which runs on Underpants Gnome logic as far as I can tell. Prices would have to rise uniformly across the entire country, or even the entire world as people would begin importing as many of the things they need as possible from countries unaffected by this mysterious phenomenon.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.