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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:How about human dignity? (Score 1) 184

by bledri (#49147849) Attached to: Facebook Puts Users On Suicide Watch


So fuck those initiatives. No Facebook, nor anyone else can do squat about it. In fact Facebook, being greedy corporation which fucks its customers left right and centre, is part of the problem...

I am sorry for your predicament and we do live in a world that can seem hyper-focussed on greed. That said, companies are made of people and a lot of people that work at companies do actually try to make the world a better place. Furthermore, regardless of the motivation, getting people help before they actually attempt suicide is a net positive. I think you are "throwing out the baby with the baby with the bathwater."

Comment: Re:Talk versus Action (Score 1) 184

by bledri (#49147765) Attached to: Facebook Puts Users On Suicide Watch

Why is the responsability of a stranger to discourage a suicidal that dosnt ask for help to avoid the suicidal thoughts?

As other's have noted, suicide is a permanent solution to what is frequently a temporary problem. When someone is depressed, it can feel like they were always depressed. It can become nearly impossible to believe that life will ever "be worth living." That is the lie of depression.

Anyway, who said anything about it being the responsibility of a stranger? These people voluntarily helped someone in a time of need. Facebook and Twitter were not forced to help people in a time of need, they are doing it voluntarily. Does that bother you? Is there something wrong with helping other human beings?

Comment: Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it (Score 1) 215

by bledri (#49147429) Attached to: Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel

I simply won't watch it, because I believe it's poaching on the intellectual work of Philip K. Dick.


Everything is a remix. It will be a better world when we admit it. Though this is more likely a case of using name recognition as marketing than creating something new from something old. I'll wait for the reviews to decide whether to give them any money for their efforts.

Comment: Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score 1) 53

by bledri (#49041373) Attached to: SpaceX Signs Lease Agreement With Air Force For Landing Pad

I'm pretty sure they have done all the sums, but I'm wondering, since it has not been explained exactly.. 16 miles isn't very far, but what is the horizontal velocity at that point? Because they do have to stop that, then reverse it, which surely means that this point is not going to be the furthest away.. and considering that if allowed to continue its path, it would splash down 500 miles away, I'm guessing the velocity is ... considerable.

One of the flight controller's on the CRS-5 mission calls out 1.8 km/s shortly before MECO (main engine cut off). So it's traveling over 4,000 mph. Different missions have different trajectory and velocity requirements. On the DSCOVR mission, 2350 m/s was announced shortly before MECO which is over 5,200 mph.

I scanned the article but didn't see the 16 mile number, where is that coming from?

Comment: Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score 1) 53

by bledri (#49041111) Attached to: SpaceX Signs Lease Agreement With Air Force For Landing Pad

Very intriguing article, but it makes one wonder about the landing pad being at the launch site - normally the main booster is a good ways away from the main launch site and moving rapidly away (that's why the floating landing pad was 500 miles downrange from the launch site)...this would appear that SpaceX would carry enough fuel to turn the booster back around (from mach whatever) and fly all the way back to the launch site (would seem to be alot of fuel) - I would have expected landing on a floating landing pad or construct such a landing area on an island(s) that isn't too far from the parabolic fall area of the booster (i.e. where the floating pad would be). Looking forward to more details....

I can't give you hard numbers off of the top of my head but there are a lot of variables. Different missions require different trajectories and payloads vary in mass significantly. The DSCOVR mission was actually a light payload, but it was a "deep space" mission requiring a very high velocity which is why the landing point was so far out to sea. So to quote Elon Musk, the first stage was "hauling a**." But there are a lot of missions where the stage is lofted more vertically or is traveling much slower when it separates. For those trajectories, there is about a 30% "payload hit", that is to say that for any payload massing 70% of the F9's maximum capability, they can include enough fuel to RTLS. If I recall correctly, landing on the barge incurs about a 15% payload hit on those more typical trajectories.

So for SpaceX, it comes down to economics. They have a barge on the east coast and are building one on the west coast for missions that don't have the margins to RTLS. But it saves them money to RTLS because then they don't have to pay crew for support ships and everything else involved in operating the landing platform. And landing on land (once approved), will always be less risk since the weather will be the same as the launch weather and there won't be 30 ft waves bouncing the landing pad around. So if conditions are good to launch, they will also be good to land.

As far as using an island or building a stationary platform goes, that isn't ideal for several reasons. A lack of available islands being one, but also it's location would always be a comprise because of all the varying trajectories. By using a barge (aka Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship), you can place it anywhere in the ocean for all the exceptions to RTLS, rather than only catch a subset.

Comment: Re:Should journalists actively HIDE news from peop (Score 1) 645

by bledri (#49001433) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

Does hiding news from people serve a legitimate journalistic purpose?

No but it serves political purposes. That's why it's illegal to show returning body bags and coffins. That's why the mainstream media refuses to show pictures of dead Iraqi women and children. I can't applaud the journalistic integrity of showing this video if they won't fight for the right to show videos and pictures that expose the whole truth.

ISIS is not justifiable, but that doesn't make it OK that the US media works as the propaganda machine of the US military.

Comment: Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score 3, Insightful) 645

by bledri (#49001281) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

I actually think that it is important for those interested to see this video. At the very least, know your enemy. Those who are _not_ disgusted by the video were already lost before they saw it. I saw it. I cannot believe what some people will do to one another.

Related discussion on Stack Exchange: http://islam.stackexchange.com...

ISIS isn't my enemy. They are disgusting, evil, horrible, shit-lickers. But they are not my enemy and we (the US) can't fight someone else's civil war because we will fuck it up. We will use outrage and compassion to send in troops, but the goals won't be humanitarian. They will be "national interests." We will make alliances with people diametrically opposed to true freedom and democracy in the the interest of "stability" and access to "resources." We do it every single time and until we learn not to do that, we should stay the hell out.

In summary, we are really bad at liberating people. I wish that was not true, but it it. We're great at liberating resources and we're really good at destroying stuff. Sadly that won't help "make us safe."

And we should tell the whole truth. Show videos of Saudi Arabian women being beheaded for "infidelity." Show the returning body bags (few though they are in comparison to the collateral damage.) Show what life is like now that we "liberated" Iraq.

As others have pointed out, showing this video is propaganda because of all that is not shown.

Comment: Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score 1) 645

by bledri (#49001103) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

Great, so lets start seeing footage of the broken bodies of women and children we regularly kill in our raids.

So long as we only show the atrocities committed by the enemy it's not news, it's propaganda.

Exactly. Where are the pictures of the returning body bags? No where to be found because it's illegal now. How is that for "freedom?" And the mainstream news has't fought it at all. They should be fighting for the right to show the whole truth, but they don't.

ISIS is barbaric. We should know that. The governments of where they reside should be fighting them tooth and nail. And we should be shown the consequences of our actions too. That would be "fair and balanced."

Comment: Re:For profit proganda. (Score 1) 645

by bledri (#49001013) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.

While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.

Absolutely true. Interesting that it's illegal for media to show "returning" fallen soldiers, even just a photo of a body bag or coffin. I am not apologizing for the extremist actions, I just wish our media was allowed to show "the whole truth." Hell, I'd be happy if they even tried to fight for the right to show the whole truth. But they rolled over and play nice with the military so all we get is spin and half-truths.

Comment: Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score 2) 645

by bledri (#49000971) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?


The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.

Not to be pedantic. Well, OK, a little pedantic, but Germany never attacked us and when Japan attacked us we were not the pre-eminent military power of the day. Germany was. They expected us to role over and stop sending supplies to their enemies. And they had reason to think that we might do that.

To be clear, I am not arguing against the US joining WWII, nor in taking the fight to the Germans. That was the right call. Just pointing out that in 1941 the US was not a major military power and had a history of isolationism.

Comment: Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score 5, Interesting) 645

by bledri (#49000905) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

Seeing it on TV is probably not going to have much of an effect for the same reason that playing violent games doesn't have much of an effect. Vision is a powerful sense, but not anywhere near as powerful as the effect of hearing, smelling and feeling on top of seeing.

It's inevitable that any visual depiction is going to be different from the actual event, no matter how hard the people depicting it try to keep it accurate.

They are different, but it matters. That's why the US won't allow the media to show dead US solder's returning to the US. And that is just a picture of a coffin. A large part of the public opinion about the Vietnam war was do to the fact that the news did show the US bombing and burning villages. Footage of carnage and piles of returning body bags. The US does not allow any of that now.

And Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party, is glad to show you the gruesome truth of ISIS, but supports "our troops" and would never fight to show us the reality of our "liberation" of Iraq, or the children and families killed by constant drone attacks in Pakistan. I'm not even arguing against the drone attacks, I'm just saying that images matter and that's why we aren't allowed to see them when they reflect poorly on the US.

Comment: Re:Literally? (Score 1) 645

by bledri (#49000825) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

... and you are figuratively moving the goalposts. "Advancing their cause" is not the same thing as "working for". If you literally work for someone, that means you take direction from them, and are paid for your efforts.

Give it up man. Even Oxford updated the definition of the word.

That literally kills me.

Comment: Re:Literally? (Score 2) 645

by bledri (#49000811) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

So it's stirred up the desire for even more violence. That ought to solve the problem then. It always has in the past.

Sometimes violence is the only option left. With groups like ISIS, I think a fair argument can be made that we've reached that point.

Yes, violence is justified in fighting ISIS. By the people and governments where ISIS is operating. Which is NOT North America, last time I checked. We should let the Middle Eastern countries fight their own civil wars, rather than getting involved and muddying the waters with our (I'm a US citizen) "national interests." Once we get involved politics, oil and money trump the humanitarian and democratic aspirations. We need to admit that we are bad at "liberating."

Comment: Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting (Score 2) 155

by bledri (#48992083) Attached to: Apple Said To Be Working On a Pay TV Service
This is not true. You can't skip Hulu Plus ads, and youtube now has some ads that can't be skipped (no doubt they get more money for those.) At least you couldn't when I tried Hulu Plus, so I cancelled it. If I am paying money, I don't want ads and I don't want to have to skip ads. I am willing to pay more to have an ad free experience. I am tired of being the product that is sold to advertisers, I want to be the customer that gets what he pays for.

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.