Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
There is no reason to believe that there are equil numbers of boys and girls interested in programming.
There aren't equal numbers of boys and girls, period - more boys are born than girls (it's around 52% IIRC).
That's still not exactly chump change...
OpenBSD, while mostly free, distributes binary-only firmware and often downloads more on first boot.
LibertyBSD is pending review by the Free Software Foundation, which maintains a list of free system distributions. Other distributions on their list include Trisquel, which is based on Ubuntu, and Parabola, which is based on Arch.
To ensure the continued development of LibertyBSD, releases will not be available for download until 3 BTC has been raised. After that, future releases will be available at no cost. 10% of the money raised will be donated to the OpenBSD Foundation.
For more information, see http://www.libertybsd.net/
Contributions can be sent to 1BFQEqzhxTbvfjZ3f9eoTbeEBgJdkVcj4m"
By picking the shape and trajectory, we can have quite good accuracy on where to land the debris. Pick a piece of federal desert land and there you go.
Seriously, the scenario as I understand it is: we'd park an asteroid in a high orbit
Bad assumption right from the beginning. That's a terrible waste of energy. You mine an earth-crossing asteroid. Chunks mined off an earth-crossing asteroid can be put onto an earth-intersecting trajectory with only the tiniest of delta-V (you might have to wait a long time your payloads, but no problem there). The amount of delta-V is so low (dozens to hundreds of m/s) that you wouldn't even need to use a rocket, you could just kick it off with a railgun or similar. Then you don't brake it when it gets to earth - it brakes itself by crossing through Earth's atmosphere ("aerocapture"). There are various optional things one could do with the reentry chunks to assist, such as small rockets for trajectory adjustment en-route or small high-speed chutes to keep the asteroids from completely obliterating themselves on reentry / landing (no need for a soft landing, it's fine for them to hit moving at hundreds of meters per second). Both of these would be dwarfed orders of magnitude over by the mass of the return chunk.
All you, as a mining operation, need to do is get your operation up to the asteroid. You need to be able to mine off chunks, shaped appropriately for optimal reentry, and kick them off onto an ideal reentry trajectory toward your target impact zone - potentially with the various hardware systems described as above, but in the base case, not with anything at all. You need a source of power (solar, nuclear) for mining and to kick your chunks into their Earth-intercept trajectory. And of course you have to deal with a million and one details, starting with how to mine at all in microgravity and what targets would actually have commercially viable quantities of valuable minerals.
Which is why you send as optimal of a size and shape as possible. Note that asteroids normally come in randomly and have random shapes. Humans can have a huge impact on the behavior by choosing an optimal shape and trajectory. And, as mentioned, drogue chutes could be used to further reduce the free fall velocity - not for a gentle impact, simply to keep the velocity down to a level that it won't completely obliterate itself in the atmosphere or on impact.
Yeah, but experience with gigantic hypersonic parachutes is also rather limited.
Again, it's really doubtful that there's any show stoppers here. But there's a lot that needs to be done before you can bet a whole mission on these sort of things. There's many thousands of little details that could kill the crew if they go wrong, so the odds of any one doing so must be kept to the tiniest fraction of a percent.
This attack looks like something else though, judging by the numbers they are attacking. I speculate:
- They have fake certificates from trusted authorities for some major sites, and use MITM attacks to serve up fake pages with them. We know that GCHQ loves doing the latter, so it's a question of working out which certificate authorities have been compromised and deleting them. We can also potentially defend against this by using more certificate pinning and warnings which certificates change unexpectedly, as well as distributed certificate checks (to make sure the one you get is the same one everyone else gets).
- They capture a lot of encrypted data but don't decrypt all of it. They store the data and crack it later if it seems interesting. Much of the cracking probably relies on flaws in the implementation of the encryption - small RSA keys, bad PRNGs (we know that the NSA compromised at least a few of them) and the like. They seem to have massive amounts of computing power available too, which is hardly surprising given what we know of their budget and data centres (really supercomputing centres dedicated to violated your privacy and various laws).
There is some truth in that, but a lot depends on the exact circumstances. For example, in some cases, the default position is now that the provider musn't actually provide until the end of the 14 day cancellation window, and if you want to get around that then various explicit acknowledgements are required from the customer about immediate supply and giving up the right to cancel once provision has started. Moreover, if the provider gets any of this stuff wrong, the penalties can be heavily one-sided in favour of the customer. As usual, whether any of this actually matters depends a lot on whether the amount of money or other risks involved are significant enough to take meaningful action. Also, if we're talking about privacy/security/data protection concerns, the consumer protection rules might not be the most relevant part of the law anyway.
(I spent a significant part of this year taking legal advice about these changes, but I'm not a lawyer myself, so you shouldn't trust the above any more than any other random legal commentary you find on the Internet.)
No, because they limit freedom of speech and private property rights
So your position is that one artificial legal right should not be protected because it impinges on two other artificial legal rights that you personally happen to like more?
Except that your terminal velocity on Mars is orders of magnitude higher than on Earth. Decelerate to subsonic then fall and you'll be back supersonic in no time.
I'm sure this is possible to do, but it absolutely requires more research and testing.
How exactly would that happen? Isn't ballistic capture's main drawback that it's slower than a Hohmann transfer?
Isn't leaving crews drifting in space longer increasing one of the main challenges of a mars mission - crew survival in transit?