Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Rockets are too expensive (Score 1) 91

And a space elevator, of course, would only cost about a Trillion, and there's this little problem of it hitting something (we'd have to make Earth Orbit absolutely pristine and keep it that way) and there's a problem with the kinetic energy if it falls down. Sort of like having many atom bombs go off.

Maybe someday. But right now making rockets as cheap as they can be is a better idea. It's only $200K to fuel up a Falcon 9. We don't get the whole thing back in working order yet, but that would be a lot easier than making a space elevator.

Comment No Dragon 2 Soft Landing Yet (Score 3, Informative) 89

Dragon 2 isn't built yet. The escape test was a boilerplate capsule more like a Dragon 1 than 2. Dragon 2 has not demonstrated a soft landing, because it's not built yet. That was the Falcon 9 first stage.

Also, you can't get Dragon 2 down to the Moon and back up on it's own. Not enough delta-V. You would need to have Dragon ride on top of something that can hold enough fuel. Like a larger version of the Apollo Service Module.

The Command/Service module was originally intended to land on the moon and return without the LEM, before NASA bought the LEM concept, and was overpowered for the mission it got. Dragon is larger and heavier, but a lunar landing one would probably look a lot like an Apollo Command and Service module, and legs.

And yeah, Orion: I'm Not on Board. Big expensive obsolete rocket with no mission that makes sense.

But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.

I try not to watch all of the Mars Colonial Transport speculation. Falcon 9 and Dragon are great, and they're here, and we could do so much with them.

Comment Re: Unnecessary (Score 1) 53

The discussion in this thread is about users protecting themselves. Work computers are irrelevant: if your work computer is taken over by hackers, so what? If you were putting your personal info on there, that's your own dumb fault. It's not your computer, it's your employer's. The only thing that should happen when your employer's computer gets hacked is your employer suffers data loss and other problems, not you. You only need to notify the IT department that your computer isn't working right and let them fix it for you.

Comment Re:just like lightbulbs in a transition economy (Score 1) 161

Why would you hate your LED flashlight? As you said, it's very bright. It's also extremely energy-efficient, something very important in a flashlight. It sounds like you don't like the color spectrum that some LEDs have, but while that is an understandable complaint with LED room lighting, who cares about the color spectrum of a flashlight? All that's important is that it's bright and lasts a long time on a battery.

There's good LED bulbs out there for lamps and other room lighting; you probably picked cheap, crappy ones.

Comment Re:Were they ever in it? (Score 1) 117

That was my thought.

Ford has $60 billion in fixed assets on their balance sheet, Apple less than half that. I didn't see Apple ever ramping up the building of assembly plants nor doing the work to line up thousands of supplier relationships necessary to actually build an entire car.

I don't follow the auto industry, but my sense has always been that while they have a deep parts supply chain there really aren't contract manufacturers who build whole cars based on third party designs the way smartphones or computers are made.

Comment Re:They did it to themselves (Score 3, Insightful) 229

If you were running a shop fixing these things, you would have some process surrounding the job which took into account paperwork, getting the parts and laptop to the bench, opening the parts (which would no doubt be packaged up the wazoo), installing them, finishing paperwork, putting the laptop back and dealing with the old parts (electronics waste process) and putting the laptop back on the pickup shelf.

You'd be crazy if you didn't bill this as a one hour job and covering your labor costs would make it a $200 repair pretty easily. And if you were a smart business person, you'd probably also survey the market and price according to market options -- ie, buying a new laptop for $900 -- and extract another $100 in pricing.

Bam. $300 repair job. Sure, Lenovo's pricing is way out of line but they are in the business of selling new laptops, so they are going to structure pricing to motivate you to buy a new laptop.

But in the bigger picture, people fixing things as a business have other costs to consider that have to met by their labor charges. There's no such thing as pricing a labor job based solely on the time to do the primary repair. The *process* takes longer and that process is necessary to run the business and that cost has to be covered. Your personal repair speed isn't the basis of a business process.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 937

The one thing I know is you can not have a rational discussion with them about gun control.

And this is where the discussion quickly disintegrates, because any discussion with someone who believes in the right to bear arms is quickly labeled "irrational" when the person who believes in less gun control doesn't immediately agree with the person who believes in more gun control.

It is still a rational discussion even if your counter-party does not abandon their position and cede to your argument.

Nearly all the people I've known who have been gun rights advocates, even those who have been senior members of lobby organizations, have been in favor of gun control measures, usually enforcement of existing gun control laws like prohibitions on convicted felons from possessing them (as one example). In fact, a major theme is that the government itself does not prosecute many gun control measures already on the books.

I doubt more than a small percentage of the people charged with gun crimes in Chicago who are eligible for Federal charges were referred to Federal prosecutors and further, that Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute a number of cases that were referred to them. If you can charge a violent felon with a gun crime, why wouldn't you?

Because gun control advocates label any discussion which doesn't start out with "How much more gun control should we have?" as *irrational*, it's led to the belief that gun control advocates really are gun ownership ban advocates -- there isn't a threshold for them where there is "enough" gun control, they favor outright gun ownership bans and often won't say it directly.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 4, Insightful) 937

the dangerous ones in the US to worry about are a certain kind of gun owner.

they wear blue uniforms when they go to work each day.

you know what I'm talking about.

those gun owners are scary and can end your life. try to avoid them, even talking to them.

then, chances are, you'll generally be safe in the US.

Comment Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 1) 168

except....

in the US, you can LOSE YOUR LIFE if you go against a cop.

you can be right.

dead right.

they are not to be trusted. they do not represent most of us, they definitely have an 'us vs them' mentality, and, for a current pulse on the mentality of cops, check this out - its current:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/kentuck...

still think cops are your friends? THINK AGAIN.

its war and they have no plans to de-escalate.

I fear cops. they can end you life and get away with it. while I like your idea of challenging them, its just - well - not good for your health, these days.

dammit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...