Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:What does it matter? (Score 2) 281 281

Good thing console sales have been on the decline every month this year, hopefully console gaming will die and we'll get decent PC games again.

Uh, it's much more likely that it's because the current generation's achieving market saturation than because console gaming is dying.

Comment: Re:Fermi's p (Score 1) 135 135

For the last time, quantum teleportation has nothing to do with moving things or people around instantly- obligatory xkcd. Most likely thing is that they use a project orion style system for launch- only realistic system I can think of to escape from a world with 300% earth gravity.

Comment: Re:It's an Internet (Score 1) 351 351

Er, just pointing out, the 1% is not all "super rich". Not all 311,592 of them. Of course, there are super rich people in the 1%, but in order to be considered a 1%-er, statistically speaking, you "only" have to make about 3-400k a year.

Of course, this just serves to underline the income gap in the US when it's not the top 1% that's the ultra-rich, it's the top .01% or .001%.

Comment: Re:Delusional senile old man (Score 1) 266 266

Well, humanity's already sent people to the moon, visited every planet in the solar system, some several times, and several non-planetary bodies.

Technologically speaking, humans have had spaceflight capability since before the dawn of the nuclear age- the first man-made object to leave earth under its own power did so in 1942. So yeah, it is pretty easily accessible. I mean, I understand the sentiment... in about 1920. But when humanity's already been and are continuing to go, your continued denial makes very little sense.

But my original point, yeah there's a little more than nothing in space because, by definition, everything is in space.

Comment: Re:good thing to spread us around (Score 1) 266 266

After all, according to Agenda 21, in order to create a sustainable world on this planet we'll have to shed about 97% of our population by the end of this century.

Seriously? Use your brain. We've had a population higher than that since before the Roman Empire.

Comment: Re:Delusional senile old man (Score 1) 266 266

It will still be an enormous, inimical, utterly hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it.

You know, among other things (for instance, the entire universe), Earth is in space?

Then of course there's the vast mineral wealth of the asteroid belt, potential gaseous resources in the outer planets, the technologically habitable Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Luna, Mercury, probably countless moons of the gas giants, the bodies of the Kuiper Belt, the Oort cloud, and beyond.

Comment: Re:I think its gonna be a long long time (Score 1) 266 266

You do realize that population growth naturally levels off as standard of living rises, rendering that a solution to a nonexistent problem in a civilization advanced enough to remove significant portions of its population through spaceflight? I'd guess not.

Comment: Re:Core Samples? (Score 2) 80 80

Not really. Considering that the Martian atmosphere is something like 0.5% of the thickness of earth's, while the gravity is only lower by a little over 60%, it would take so much energy that it's really not possible with our current energy budget for spacecraft.

However, blimps or even zeppelins would be damn near ideal because of low gravity. Simpler and cheaper, too.

Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.

Working...