Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score 1) 460

by Bogtha (#48192597) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

My phrase "near absolute" in context to the rest of my writings could be interpreted in many different ways.

No, there's only one meaning: not quite, but almost, absolute. Now it's debatable exactly how near you have to be to qualify as "near absolute", but TubeSteak did a good job of pointing out that SCOTUS has several large failings in this area, which is enough to demonstrate that it is not near absolute.

The fact that you are still stuck on debating the semantics of my original post demonstrates you have nothing of actual value to contribute to the conversation.

You said something untrue and dumb. You are repeatedly insulting and dismissing people who point that out. The people who are pointing out your mistake are signal, you are noise. Learn to ignore your ego and admit when you are wrong and maybe you won't drag discussions into the sewer so much.

Comment: Re:Bruce, I know why u r disappointed. Let me expl (Score 1) 179

So, I see this as rationalization.

The fact is, you took a leadership position, and later turned your coat for reasons that perhaps made sense to you. But they don't really make sense to anyone else. So, yes, everyone who supported you then is going to feel burned.

You also made yourself a paid voice that was often hostile to Free Software, all the way back to the SCO issue. Anyone could have told you that was bound to be a losing side and you would be forever tarred with their brush.

So nobody is going to believe you had any reason but cash, whatever rationalization you cook up after the fact. So, the bottom line is that you joined a list of people who we're never going to be able to trust or put the slightest amount of credibility in.

And ultimately it was for nothing. I've consistently tried to take the high road and it's led to a pretty good income, I would hazard a guess better than yours, not just being able to feel good about myself.

Comment: Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score 1) 246

by MightyYar (#48190657) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

It's probably true, or based on something true. A lot of those old processes were very dependent on the mix of impurities at a certain location... you could only make [sword/knife/dagger] using an ore from [some hill/bluff/valley]. They didn't know that at the time, or if they did they had no idea why.

Comment: Re:Food is not the limiting factor (Score 3, Interesting) 282

by Rei (#48190491) Attached to: NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew

That is, of course, for a given radiation dose, which is independent of body cross section - which is relevant in real-world scenarios. If we assume an isotropic radiation exposure profile, an average male height of 174cm, an average female height of 161 cm, and asssume an equivalent profile, then a man presents a 17% higher profile to radiation exposurediation exposure, so if a woman has a 50% higher (150%) cancer risk, then it's only 29% higher for a fixed radiation flux per square meter.

However, let's look further at this. Given the smaller size of members of a female crew, you can shrink the spacecraft occupant space by 8% on each axis, or a volumetric decrease of 26%. Mass changes are more difficult to reckon. Life support, food, water, etc is dependent on metabolism, which the article shows is dramatically lower for women in space. Fuel needs are proportional to all other mass issues. Only a few things (such as computers and scientific equipment) don't trace back to crew member size and mass. Regardless, for a given launch weight, it's clear that you can afford the mass of a significantly increased amount of radiation shielding for a female crew due to the weight savings elsewhere, probably easily more than offsetting the cancer risk.

Beyond this, the average US astronaut age is 34, an age well after when most women are done having children (assuming that they even want to have children). Given that the article states the risk is from breast, ovarian, and utirine cancer, I wouldn't be surprised if many would consider full hysterectomy for the ability to travel to Mars.

Comment: Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... (Score 3, Interesting) 282

by Rei (#48190177) Attached to: NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew

Despite how radical that statement sounds, it's actually perfectly reasonable for a zero-G environment. They're not only dead weight, they're also in the way and make you require larger accomodations.

Even in Mars's gravity field a legless person would deal quite well, at least inside the facility (picture how easily you could get around without your legs if you suddenly were given 2.5x the arm strength, didn't have your legs weighing you down, and on top of that add in how most double amputees already have good arm strength to begin with). They should be able to "hop" with their arms all the way to a 2 1/2 meter ceiling without trouble, and the full arc would take a good two seconds to come back down. On the moon it'd be even easier. Of course, if they're legless, why would they even need such tall ceilings to begin with?

"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin the paranoid android

Working...