Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Liability (Score 1) 474

So does this mean that charges for copyright infringement (or other such activities) will no longer be brought against people based on IP Address evidence alone? Because this certainly gives a lot of people a lot of plausible deniability.

Secondly, how are the clients being compensated for the hotspot service they are now providing?

It almost makes me want to move to Houston and slurp down a shitpile of free wifi. I've got a few terabytes of porn I need to download...

Comment: Re:PR (Score 1) 140

by jamstar7 (#47190203) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

The down mass capabilities of the Shuttle have not been replaced nor is it anticipated that it will ever be replaced within this century. That is one thing which the retirement of the Space Shuttle definitely hurt.

Per specs, Shuttle could put 25 metric tons in LEO. Falcon 9 V1 can put 13.1 metric tons in LEO. Falcon Heavy is scheduled to put 53 metric tons in LEO and expected to fly in 2015. I didn't realise that the century is ending this year.

Comment: Re:What I'd like to know.... (Score 1) 260

by jamstar7 (#47185367) Attached to: Virginia DMV Cracks Down On Uber, Lyft

Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?

The government's cut and rules that deter competition for established businesses.

That, and the vehicles are supposed to be safer in case of a crash. Your everyday Detrot/Osaka-made car? Not NEARLY as safe as a Checker cab. Those suckers are the tanks of the street.

Comment: Re:Third-world Jitney service (Score 1) 260

by jamstar7 (#47185355) Attached to: Virginia DMV Cracks Down On Uber, Lyft

But who says that it's in the public's best interest to require drivers-for-hire to have $1m insurance and a special license? Why is that? Sure, you need some insurance and an actual drivers license, but why more?

Because this is the United States, and people will sue you at the drop of a hat. Stay in business long enough, it's a mathematical certainty. Liability insurance pays off when you're sued.

Comment: Re:How many flights to test? (Score 1) 140

by jamstar7 (#47138751) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

Want to bet on whether or not SpaceX convinces NASA to let them transition to sending up the DragonV2 on the supply runs as part of the testing? It would give the new capsule valuable flight data, and wouldn't cost NASA another cent contract wise.

Probably already in the pipeline for when they need to start testing the capsule in space. Unmanned cargo launches to see what it does, then go for the meatshots.

Comment: Re:PR (Score 1) 140

by jamstar7 (#47138729) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

The Shuttle was awesome. Just not from a cost or safety perspective. It had a freakin' robotic arm in the payload bay and pretty decent upmass to LEO.

The Russians own half the modules on the ISS, and they've threatened to detach them from the ISS after 2020; the ISS won't function without both the Russian and American modules. Not much good being able to fly to a non-functional station.

Given the state of our space program and space program funding, it would probably take another 15 years and hundreds of billions of dollars to build a new space station to replace the ISS -- whether it's in 2020 (the current termination date) or 2024 (the proposed extension date).

Some heavy lifting capability, the US can launch replacement modules. Hell, we can put them in an orbit that makes SENSE if we don't have to worry about the Russians being able to get to it from Baikanour.

Comment: Re:But... but... (Score 1) 140

by jamstar7 (#47138701) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

You know, international cooperation can be a wonderful and mutually-rewarding thing.

But relying on it, or even worse: having to rely on it, for space exploration (which has strategic value) is not just not smart but kind of insane.

It's kind of like when the military was buying chips from China:, a little bit crazy, and a lot stupid.

You epitomize the kind of thinking that keeps us going to war.

You idiot.

Not really. Jane nailed it in one this time. Single-sourcing and then outsourcing your military hardware to a potential enemy is not a good idea. And even civilian gear can have military applications. If your potential enemy becomes a real enemy, you're VSF. Look at Russia. Indifferent to them before WW1 and afterwards, allies in WW2, then enemies during the long Cold War, followed by mutual friendship for a few years til Putin decided to annex most of Ukraine. Now we're pissed off at them again and they're pissed off at us. National positions change. Outsourcing your parts is not a good idea.

Comment: Re:What else is needed... Rocket engines (Score 5, Interesting) 140

by jamstar7 (#47138673) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

However, the real reasons that astronauts like Chris Hadfield et al think that the Russian Soyuz will be hard to replace are hard to fit into a single post.

  • Consider, for instance, that the Soyuz TMA-M can hang around the space station for 6 months, and be ready for use to return astronauts safely back to Earth, without a maintenance crew having to go and check every nut and bolt - a feat that even the Space Shuttle could never muster (for the record, the Space Shuttle had a mission duration of about 12 days - a few Columbia missions went up to 16/17 days).
  • Another example is that it takes the Soyuz just 6 hours to go from launch to docking with the space station (for comparison, it took the space shuttle almost 3 days to reach the space station after launch).
  • There are many other little things like these that are not cool or sexy, but make the ruthless efficiency and effectiveness with which the Soyuz executes and fulfils its purpose is second to none. It will take a lot more than a larger tin-can and a more comfortable ride to convince astronauts to put their lives in SpaceX's hands.

OK, keep in mind orbital parameters. The ISS's orbit was specifically placed the way it was to allow the Russians to get to it with ease. It's on a steep incline that takes orbital corrections to manuver to from any other launch site than Baikanour. It passes directly over Canaveral occasionally, but the delta-v required to do a one shot insertion orbit to ISS from Canaveral is expensive. That's why the Shuttle was downrated for ISS missions in payload and duration.

Shuttle was also a hell of a lot more complicated than a Soyuz capsule. It's like comparing a Prius to a Model T. Soyuz was designed for no-frills get them to orbit. Shuttle was designed to get a shitpile of cargo to orbit along with the crew and the gear to operate independently of anything once there. Think of it more like a spacegoing Winnebago.

Comment: Re:What else is needed (Score 1) 140

by jamstar7 (#47138647) Attached to: SpaceX Shows Off 7-Man Dragon V2 Capsule

If some issue occurs with the Dragon, it would be nice to have a means of getting people into orbit that was independently engineered.

Thats where the other also runners come in, Orion, Dreamchaser, et al. If a NASA inspector downchecks a Dragon 2, somebody will be able to fly out. Once these all come online, we really won't need Roskosmos.

Comment: Re:Keystone XL (Score 1) 411

by jamstar7 (#47081731) Attached to: US Officials Cut Estimate of Recoverable Monterey Shale Oil By 96%

Of course you do realise that the Athabasca reserves are not American property but in fact the product of a foreign country being imported to the US, that free market capitalism at work? Why should the end result of processing foreign oil be reserved to subsidise US consumers when the source material is imported?

Of course you realise that most of the oil leases are owned by Koch Industries through various cutouts, right? It is a matter of public record, you know.

Comment: Re: Wait.. (Score 1) 411

by jamstar7 (#47066353) Attached to: US Officials Cut Estimate of Recoverable Monterey Shale Oil By 96%

Why do people like you keep talking as if nuclear power is being restricted in some way. Permits are available and companies can build new plants if they want. There are no new restrictions or regulations holding back the industry; it just isn't economical for power companies and hasn't been for a while. Look it up, nuclear plant orders dropped to zero years before Three Mile Island or Chernobyl due to cheaper coal and gas options; that's it. Money.

Gas/coal generators are cheaper because they don't have to go to court every other day to defend their permits. A large part of the cost of building a nuke plant is legal costs just to keep building. See Perry Nuclear Plant for more info. They kept stopping construction whenever a judge issued an injunction, and since the buildings and reactor housings weren't complete, they had to keep a crew there full time playing cards so they could jump back to work when the injunction lifted, and were prohibited from doing maintanance on the site while the injunctions were in effect. Weather in northeast Ohio isn't pleasant, there was a lot of damage that needed removed and rebuilt before they could continue until they got handed their next injunction.

Comment: Re:Keystone XL (Score 2) 411

by jamstar7 (#47066007) Attached to: US Officials Cut Estimate of Recoverable Monterey Shale Oil By 96%

I wonder if this might change the Obama administration's calculus and their continued delays on the proposed pipeline.

Keystone XL won't do a damned thing for the taxpayer at the gas pump. It's designed to take the dirtiest most corrosive form of oil from American-leased fields in Canada to refineries in Texas so they can be shipped overseas for more profit. If they REALLY wanted to use the oil in the US, they wouldn't be piping it to Texas. They'd be piping it to refineries in the north.

Comment: Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... (Score 1) 313

by jamstar7 (#46744377) Attached to: Russia Wants To Establish a Permanent Moon Base

Going to the moon is expensive AND pointless. You have to do everything you do in Earth orbit, but it has to happen farther away from safety and at the bottom of a gravity well. There's absolutely nothing of value on the moon that couldn't be gotten cheaper by snagging bits off of a water bearing comet, or bringing that same water or up from Earth, for that matter, or mining a few local asteroids in-situ.

Look, gravity is *bad* and expensive. You don't go looking for it. You simulate it a bit with centrifugal force when necessary, but that's all.

Keep in mind that all the exploration of the Moon so far is like taking a detailed analysis of a single grain of sand from a beach and declaring that 'nothing of value is on Earth.' We haven't come close to any statistically meaningful samples yet.

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Working...