Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 182

by Ol Olsoc (#47797165) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night. They protest for the rain forest, and demand the polar bear’s rights. And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout; But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Ol Olsoc has Wiped Out!

Wow. That's kind of cool, Hanzospam!

Comment: Re:but, but, Benghazi... (Score 1) 182

by Ol Olsoc (#47797151) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

or some other boringly predictable rant.

Argh - I forgot that one. I do understand though, that the faith based physics rocket launchsite hereafter known as the "Palindrome" will be based at the Cliven Bundy Ranch.

It will consist of approximately 500 million Estes rockets inside a drainpipe all timed to go off at once. Coupled with a lot of prayer, this should go like gangbusters.

The first test pilot will be Mitt Romney's dog - the one that traveled on top of his station wagon.

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 182

by Ol Olsoc (#47797103) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

unfortunately when you went off the deep end, you missed the pool completely.

So tell us all about the likely age of Space travel with zero (read inefficient and bad) Government involvement. Where will we be?

Remember, none allowed, all free market. Every other nation does as it will, but all our efforts must be by private business.

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 3, Informative) 182

by Ol Olsoc (#47795515) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

Like the US banning private launch vehicles through to 1984?

I'm not allowed to have an unshielded reactor in my backyard either. Fucking liberals.

Yours is just more of the Science as ideology. How about a couple minutes for you to understand exactly why it wasn't allowed.....playing that time passing song....

Times up, BZZZZT! - No it wasn't evul democrats or Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign at a burning man festival. Not even free birth control for women.

1. Understand that the amount of energy let loose in even a small rocket launch is pretty impressive. So it sort of makes sense to limit especially early private launching, as failure was not only an option, it was pretty likely.

Note of course, if you support second amendment rights to own artillery and hand grenades, you might have an argument there. I mean come on - Just assault rifles does not make for a well armed militia. Sheesh - next thing you know, we won't allow little children to mess with fully automaitic weapons.

Sorry - had one too many cups of coffee this morning. But rocketry is dangerous work, kinda accidentally kills people once in a while. That's no biggie, but it might level a job creator's house, and then the economy will fail , you betchya.

2. There were some hatey people who wanted to kill us, thad they were launching these flamey explodey things. Perhaps we were a little afraid that we might accidentally set off World war 3 when an early private launch of our own, unfettered by government regulations, failed and wiped out a town?

Eventually though, we'd all settle back down and figure out the sticks and stones we were going to fight World War 4 with.

Or maintaining a launch oligopoly funded on the public dollar through to the last decade? Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket while not paying a few billion to get someone like SpaceX to develop said rocket.

So what you are telling me is that for some odd reason, despite private rocket launches in their own facilities using their own rockets is now considered okay, and done on a regular basis, you are still in a white hot seething astrorage anger and feeling much butthurt because of the way it used to be a long time ago?

Do you have any newsletters about the evil radical-diabolical Communist Franklin Delano Roosevelt and how he is spreading soclialism from his gravesite? It's important to get that news out.

Think I'm making fun of you? You got that right.

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 4, Insightful) 182

by Ol Olsoc (#47795061) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

But that's government "progress" for you. Compare 60 years of spaceflight technology from 1955 to 2015 (OK, the years were cherry-picked) and it's still basically the same: LOX/Kerosene or LOX/LH2 and some engines are bigger and some are smaller.

It's short of amazing that you can attempt to attack the evul guvmint on this one. And be so mind bogglingly wrong at the same time.

There are many different types of engines out there. Aluminum perchlorate mixture engines, Hybrid nitrous oxide/polymer engines, some really interesting combos where the fuel is paraffin and with mixed other additives like Al, or Li. Hydrazine rockets, Ion thrusters, solar sails, there are hundreds of designs. Many of which haven't happened yet due to one or another limitation.

The Kero-LOX and Liquid Hydrogen-LOX rockets are just examples of the most powerful liquid fueled rockets.

Lot's of different types of rockets out there.

And lack of any new and more powerful engines that exist that exist are almost certainly not caused by jackbooted thugs, just itching to put loyal citizens in FEMA Death camps while installing a new world order. where we all pay 300 percent of our salary in taxes that go to urban thugs.

It is a matter of physics, which turns out to be remarkably resistant to the invisible guiding hand of the free market. We can build the biggest, bad-assed, Chuck Norris rocket engine that we can dial up the power the whole way to 11, but if we can't pump in the fuel quickly enough, or the resultant temperatures are beyond the melting point of any available material, And neither Grover Norquist not Ayn Rand can fix that.

Maybe the answer is in teaching Intelligent design in school?

Anyhow, I went off the deep end on your idea to illustrate just how silly the idea that the government is holding back progress on rocketry. Hopefully humorously, but that's for others to judge. None of the engines in use by the commercial outfits are some dramatic new design, and it's all physics and material design, not ideology. Now look at aircraft development from (another cherry-picked 60 years): 1910 to 1970. That went from wooden biplanes to the 747. Sure, there were a few "helpful" eras in between - like 2 major wars and lots more lesser ones, which kicked development up by several notches. But those developments were still the result of commercial companies, just as NASA contracts out work, today.

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 1211

Well, no. Not with you and the reason is you are clearly very very bigoted:.

You just have to be patient. In the end, women will win this "war". Given the advances in biology, and reproductive science in general, the male of the species is becoming quite redundant. Perhaps men will be first reduced to some manner of parasitic thingy, or even made completely unneeded, as women will be able to reproduce asexually, as the all female gender lizard does.

I might be accused of being a smartass here, as I often am guilty of that. But I am dead serious, the male gender of the species will go away, my guess is around 200 hundred years or so. Not in our lifetimes, and probably only in a few countries at first, but as testosterone based problems are faced - there will be increased pressure to engage in pathogenesis.

Comment: Re:wrong priorities (Score 1) 27

by Ol Olsoc (#47780699) Attached to: African States Aim To Improve Internet Interconnections

Erm, nope.. I'm just asking a simple question. No need for all this rudeness.

I'm sure 95% of the population of Africa won't give a toss about faster or better internet, or even know or care what that is to begin with. There are more important things to work on and solve over there..

Well then, let us make sure they have no internet until they solve all their other problems.

You might think it's rude, but perhaps that is because of the way you use the internet. If I had to produce food, lest I die, Rain, and or crop information might just be of real interest to me.

So who is the arbiter of what these people are allowed to have or not have. Should they be converted to Christianity first? Some look at that as job number one.

Should we just give them food? Feed them forever and ever?

Medical information - No, wouldn't want anyone to have that, would we.

Or should you personally be allowed to determine what is or isn't allowed for these people to have access to. Are you willing to make life and death decisions for them?

You might think I'm rude. I think you are so shortsighted that it stinks.

Comment: Re:wrong priorities (Score 1) 27

by Ol Olsoc (#47773249) Attached to: African States Aim To Improve Internet Interconnections

Shouldn't they focus on human rights, eradicating corruption, poverty, disease, getting rid of the so called debt they `owe` to Europe and the west? Instead, they want to improve their internet connection.. They really have the wrong priorities set at the moment...

Are you the guy who is always bitching about research projects? The one who can't see past your own prejudices? Maybe one of the people who want every problem on earth fixed before we went to the moon?

So how does your system work?

No internet for them until they improve human rights, end corruption, poverty, disease, and debt?

For immediate purposes, how might the internetz be helpful in eliminating poverty?

Maybe the farmer might be able to get a good idea of what the weather is going to be. Maybe information about diseases that will help people. Not only cures, but preventative measures. Maybe understand the relationship between mortality rates and population growth.

Maybe more people wanting to learn how to read, in order to use teh intertoobz.

Now suddenly you have a much more literate populous. And literacy and knowledge are dangerous for the "bad guys".

Then comes the disruption - your corrupt leaders aren't going to just step aside, the populous will need to fight for their rights. Seeing how other parts of the world live will be a positive influence. But all this will take many years.

Comment: Re:What's so American (Score 1) 525

\ It is a wonderful example of the effectiveness of propaganda. I assume that you aren't part of the press, but here you are, repeating the "Big Lie" as if it were fact.

Are the selfish pricks that I know who call themselves Libertarians repeating the big lie also?

Assuming you are a Libertarian, you are using one of the pervasive Deep Right Republican tactics. Aways the media's fault.

Okay, then why not start up your own news networks?

Comment: Just sayin' (Score 1) 810

by Ol Olsoc (#47758961) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
While systemd may or may not be the best thing since sliced bread, what I see as it's biggest drawback is the microsoft shill-like attitude of it's developers.

When an obvious software bug gets blamed on everyone and everything else but the buggy software, When a program breaks functioning systems and it is the functioning systems fault it no longer works.....

Hey, we've gone through this bullshit with Microsoft long enough, that every problem is "The stupid user's fault". No thank you. Get a new attitude, show us how good it is rather than blame us when the hardware quits working. It removes a huge reason I moved to Linux.

Or move to programming for Microsoft. That attitude might just fit in gangbusters there.

Comment: Re:FYI - Windows 7 EOL Jan. 14, 2020 (Score 0) 251

by Ol Olsoc (#47758189) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

spoken like a true fanboi. "Windows 8 didn't work for you so you must be stupid!"

Tell me more how ten minutes is a great deal of time to reach a good assessment on an operating system.

You are absolutely correct. After 10 minutes I thought that W8 was awful.

But after almost a year, I realized I was wrong. W8 isn't awful. It's an abortion, a first class fuckup, doesn't do a thing other than make things I used to do on every other version of Windows a little harder, and decreases productivity a bit, and is the worst OS ever created. It was what convinced me to stop using Microsoft products

See, I know to admit when I've made a mistake.

Comment: Re:FYI - Windows 7 EOL Jan. 14, 2020 (Score 0) 251

by Ol Olsoc (#47758117) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

Windows 8 was a non-starter - all new machines got rolled back to Windows 7 after about 10 minutes of howling about the interface by the users.

You give up after just 10 minutes? You're clearly not the right person for the job.

Well, problem is that there are some options that don't require spending large sums of money to retrain people to use a completely fucked up interface that at the very best , will allow them to do exactly what they were already doing. Like sticking with W7

Tell me the business model of spending money to retrain people who don't like what you are retraining them on, for absolutely no benefit. Not faster, not better, no benefit at all.

They could achieve the same result by withdrawing a few mil from the bank in cash, and lighting it on fire on the lawn.

Comment: Re:Doesn't need much to make it right (Score 1) 251

by Ol Olsoc (#47757961) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

The real issue is that half of the OS uses the desktop UI, and the other half uses the "metro" UI. The built-in metro apps are inferior and redundant to the desktop counterparts.

A million times THIS!

For all the shills squawking about addon's to make your W8 desktop into something approaching a normal computer, they simply ignored that there are a lot of Apps that you gotta go Metro for. So now instead of one desktop you have to use two.

And it's not just built in versus desktop apps, because much of the offering's on the store are metro app only.

After trying it for almost a year, it convinced me that Microsoft has slipped a cog. My W8 touchscreen laptop is running Mint now. Faster, more reliable, and much more pleasant.

We can predict everything, except the future.