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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:IPv6 support (Score 1) 110

IPv6 specific security features, such as not automatically assigning IP addresses to anything that may just be loitering about in the vicinity of the network?

I didn't see any mention of this being a wireless router, so I'd expect the simples way of not having random devices connect to it would be to not plug a cable into the router.

Comment Re:Mars isn't going anywhere. (Score 1) 173

Right, so long as its not my offspring that you are willing to sacrifice. And everybody has this same viewpoint for his own value of "my".

You chose to use the word "everyone" ; that is a word with only one meaning.

You are wrong. It is absolutely and incontrovertibly untrue that "everyone has this same viewpoint". I do not hold this opinion. The two-decade old receipt for my vasectomy (before having any children ; it was a bureaucratic struggle) supports my assertion that I hold a different opinion to you on this matter. I can also think of at least ten others of my friends who do not have children and who assert that they do not want to have children ; several of them are at or beyond the technical limits of child-starting age and remain child-free. This also supports my correction of your claim that "everyone" thinks like you. "Every-", "all" etc are words and prefixes that you should think several times before ever using.

Incidentally, I object to paying taxes to subsidise your children, their education and your spending on food and clothing for them. I'd rather spend the money on development of elder-care robots and extending lifespans. Robots are considerably less resource wasteful than people. Since I do get out and vote, this might be an incentive for you to do likewise.

But "Backup Earth" is not the only reason to go out colonizing.

"Backup Earth" never has been a credible reason for going out to colonise, in any sense of possibly providing a place where Earth-born humans can go to in any demographically significant numbers (for Earth ; far smaller numbers would be significant for the putative colony). The number of people who will ever die on a planet that they were not born on is always (caveat follows!) going to be far smaller than the number who die on the planet of their birth, for the same reason that today most people die in the country of their birth : transport is expensive. Colonies rarely receive more than 1% / year of their population by immigration - most of their growth is by local breeding of second and higher generation natives. Meanwhile the colony's internal growth can exceed 3% / year. Those numbers add up.

(Caveat : assuming that the currently-understood laws of physics hold, in particular the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, and the speed of light being an upper limit on speed. Actually, it doesn't matter that c is "legal max" ; even getting to c/10 qualifies as "expensive".)

If we (our generations) conspire with your children to fuck up the planet for their children, then it is your children's grandchildren who will suffer on Earth in consequence. The odds of your descendants including anyone who gets off planet (e.g., to the asteroids) are low (the corresponding probability for me is zero, of course).

Comment Re: Private companies don't do exploration of fron (Score 1) 324

Still the cost of platinum per pound is about $1500. The cost to put anything in space is ~$10k/lbs without even returning anything. Say that you need at least 2000lbs of mining material and people going up and down on a regular basis (and you whittle the cost down to a cool $1M/launch) to mine 500lbs of platinum, your .5M worth of platinum would have to cost 1M before profits. In addition, if you sold at market prices hoping to improve your profits in the future by technological advances you would pressure the market cost of platinum due to excess availability so your platinum would be as worthless as gold or silver and cost you a pretty penny.

Comment Re: Cost of access is key. (Score 1) 324

The question is why. Unless our survival is threatened there is no impetus for us to go out there. Even if fuel costs were subsidized, the cost of mining asteroids wouldn't be profitable, the risks alone of encountering the energy and debris of your average space rock. It's far more profitable to mine out our existing trash heaps for resources than doing it in space and even searching our scraps isn't profitable yet over mining it straight out of the crust. By the time we've depleted the local resources to rival costs of space mining, it will be well beyond the time to escape this rock and then survival (aka governments) will be the main driver for space, not private profits.

Comment Re: Someday electric cars may be the norm (Score 1) 445

What's limiting right now is car manufacturers failing to provide a product because electric is inherently less costly to produce and maintain than ICE vehicles thus margins are going to be a lot smaller.

There is also no governmental support to come up with an open standard for charging across existing and upcoming brands or mandate gas stations to install a single charger per dozen or so pumps.

Tesla is making top-end, well supported cars (ala Ferrari/Rolls Royce) for the price of an average outfitted luxury brand (Mercedes/Lexus/Cadillac) and they're getting better/cheaper daily. You can't tell me GM/Toyota or the dozen or so other manufacturers' engineers are intellectually incapable of producing something better/cheaper on existing frames in the last decade or don't have the cash if they had to steal Tesla employees to do so.

Comment Re:Mars isn't going anywhere. (Score 1) 173

Mars will be much easier to colonize than the moon.

That's a moot point.

Neither place is going to provide a solution to Earth's population problems and environmental problems. If people go around gibbering that "if we fuck up on Earth, we can always go to Mars or the Moon", then they're condemning the large majority of the Earth's population to death in the ecological collapse they'll allow on Earth.

The inhabitable area of the Earth is approximately 510072000 sq.km.

Allowing that Mars can be terraformed to Earth standards (if it's not impossible, I reckon that's a multi-million year project), then the inhabitable area of the Earth plus Mars is about 654870500 sq.km, a 28% increase. Human population on Earth has increased by that much in my lifetime, so a terraforming project on Mars would buy less than 50 years of human population growth. Let's be optimistic and hope that the Solar system has enough available volatiles to perform the terraforming project, and I'm wrong by a factor of a hundred on how fast that atmosphere can be put onto Mars - so a 10,000 year terraforming project on Mars would yeild a 50 year buffer space to stack humans on. Humankind must get it's addiction to population increase under control. Permanently.

In reality, I would expect that the first humans to live in space will continue to grow as human populations do. So before the terraforming project on Mars is half-way complete, there will be another Earth-full or several of humans who will need accommodating. Mars simply won't get the resources (volatiles) for the terraforming unless someone goes around mining Jupiter's atmosphere.

Oh, Unobtanium cake! Lovely!

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 4, Interesting) 260

Is it a desirable quality for the success of a society, however?

There isn't a requirement for a government to kowtow to every "need" a business puts forth. Multinationals aren't paying taxes and, as this story shows, they aren't really providing that many new American jobs either.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 4, Interesting) 260

This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state. One of the reason that corporations act the way they do is because of case law. The legislature can change the law which will contradict that case law.

The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

Having said that, the political will is not there because all intents and purposes the corporate class control the government.

Comment Re:Questions... (Score 1) 135

Then you'd immediately get "false flag" operations happening as the corporate pigs fight amongst themselves to damage each other's business interests. The drugs will still be released, but by other companies seeking to damage the genuine manufacturer for other corporate strategy reasons.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller