Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:All about perception (Score 1, Insightful) 200

by M1FCJ (#48184415) Attached to: The Woman Who Should Have Been the First Female Astronaut

Nothing to do with this. White men running NASA, white men running the Air Force, white men running the show could not and would not have a woman beat them to space. End of story. It's pure discrimination. It was widely known that physiologically and psychologically a woman is better suited for space flights. It was just ignored. Just like the claim "they can't fly", in WWII many women pilots proved that they could do the work as well, if not better, than their male colleagues who were busy with things "more important".

Don't forget that the same was true for black and hispanic astronauts. First black astronaut? 1983. First woman astronaut? 1983. First hispanic astronaut? 1980 (Cuba on Soviet flight), 1991 (first American born hispanic astronaut), 1993 (first American born hispanic woman astronaut).

It's all about white men.

Comment: Re:Just in time for another record cold winter (Score 1) 200

by M1FCJ (#47965903) Attached to: Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

Because ice is not expanding in Antarctica. It's flowing off the continent into the sea at faster and faster rates.

For example, see: http://www.iflscience.com/envi...

Arctic sea is different, is is a sea. The ice level there is completely proportional to the amount of water that freezes.

Comment: Contact a farmer: we've got Grade A Bullshit (Score 1) 795

by M1FCJ (#47965557) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

to spread around...

What the heck? Being against the scientific method? The reason it's called science is because it's based on the scientific method?

Ignoring God? What god? When religious people can bring a testable hypothesis about god, only then we can pay attention.

Magic? What magic? Everything in Science can be traced back to its origins with proof. If we don't have it yet, no hand waving, no excuses but the honest answer: We don't know, we're working on it.

Comment: Re:Assumptions (Score 1) 155

by M1FCJ (#47793351) Attached to: Reformatting a Machine 125 Million Miles Away

Don't forget, we don't hear what the techies are talking about. What we're hearing is what the techies told to the PR guy distilled down to a journo, being summarized in The Register (!) and some other soft-tech sites, finally an inaccurate summary on the frontpage of Slashdot.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were just a "fsck.ext4 -cc" (I know it's not an ext4, it was't even released when Opportunity soft-crashed and bounced around on Mars nor it runs Linux).

Comment: Re:ECC? (Score 2) 155

by M1FCJ (#47793283) Attached to: Reformatting a Machine 125 Million Miles Away

Most of the hardware cost is the launch vehicle, not the rover.
Most of the people (salary) cost is the people working on the data generated (all accross the universities around the world who analze the data and write papers), not the designers.

Underspeccing it wouldn't have saved much.

There's one that breaks this rule, the JWST. Just the endless redesigns have gobbled up so much money, I don't believe there will be enough Science generated by it to cover the build & launch costs.

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...