Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Am I the only one... (Score 1) 129

There's a big difference between LEO and GEO in terms of fuel and weight and how much you can get out of the gravity well. Once you get past GEO, the cost difference of going further and getting to the moon and Mars just depends on how fast you want to get there.

Hell, without the need to land and lift off, there could be space tourism just for a trip around the close bits of solar system lasting for a year.

Nobody can bring enough food in one launch to last a year in space. Humans are a needy component.

Once there is sufficient number of people out there, new for profit opportunities happen

Unfortunately that's backwards. You won't have people out there unless there's profit opportunities. That's also pretty overly optimistic assuming that there will be new opportunities. But there are opportunities to go get raw material from space for use in further space-development as well as sending it back home.
Scientific opportunities are really only limited by the budget they receive. And there's a big incentive to go colonize Mars, which could kickstart the rest.

There are the assholes who bitch about every dime the government spends. There are the apathetic lot who don't see the utility of space. Equally dangerous to the space industry are the starry-eyed optimists dreaming impossible dreams. Keep it on an even keel.

Comment Re:STOP USNIG "TRANSPILE" (Score 1) 129

What's a better word for "execute" that specifically connotes the execution taking place on little-endian powerPC architecture?

Lillpowcecute! WHEEEE!! New words are FUN!

But nobody needs it.

Google compiled some code from Python into Go. Anyone in the industry should know what you're talking about. Anyone that tries to act like a know it all and claim that compiling only refers to the trip to binary deserves to be corrected.

Comment Re:Search engine? (Score 1) 286

People may think that C is simple, but it's full of hidden gotchas.

Compared to what?

EVERY language is full of hidden gotchas. Doing shit behind your back under the hood which works 90% of the time but the remaining 10% will eat 99% of your time. Dynamic typing which lets you work REAL fast without having to worry about types, until you do, at which point you have to consult a mystic to determine just what the fuck is going on.

If you want to start talking about what "reasonable people would assume", you've got a shmorgas board of variation in the human condition that keeps any group of 5 or more from agreeing about how things ought to be. strncpy copies a string for 'n' characters. If you don't understand null characters, C and strings might not be for you. And yeah, that is something that the language could handle for you if it assumed a certain desired behavior. And that'd work 90% of the time.

But name me a language which doesn't have hidden gotchas.

Comment Re:Irony (Score 2) 95

What? No. They're both apples. They both claim the right to hand out information about kids.

The difference is that according to California, what IMDB is doing is illegal. Because it affects hollywood big business. Nobody gives a fuck about the poor masses on Instagram.

I agree with IMDB. Public knowledge is public. For Instagram, anything posted to the public is free game, but there's could be some expectation of privacy if you send someone a private message about something personal.

Comment Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score 1) 858

You know what else "required" international agreement? Invading Iraq. It was politically impossible to do otherwise...

Now who should we get to look over those research grant proposals?

Funding for the DOE is proposed by the president and approved by Congress; that's who should look at it

Sounds good. Do you expect Trump to look at every grant proposal? No? Maybe he should hire some people to do that for him. Maybe make a cabinet-level department that could handle it. Maybe employ some scientists to read it over.

When a scientist submits a research grant proposal to the DoE they ARE sending it to the executive branch! And congress holds the purse-strings.

And if those climate scientists can make a convincing argument to tax payers and their elected representatives and the scientists they employ who know enough to call bullshit on shitty proposals, then they can receive more funding. Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. If you fire the scientists, who is in charge of refusing or approving research grants? Or are you suggesting the US government stops funding any and all research?

Pft, because the US government can only do 10 things at any given time. Sure.

Comment Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score 1) 858

Yeah, a global effort would be nice. But no, it doesn't HAVE to be a global effort. We are capable of researching it on our own and proposing solutions. And if a giant space umbrella turns out to be the best solution, how much do you think Haiti is actually going to contribute to that? Even someone like china... other than pay for it, what do you want them to do?

Furthermore, just because there isn't (equal) international cooperation not to pee in the pool, it doesn't mean we should go out of our way to take a dump in it.

And we shouldn't have a purge of all intellectuals from the DoE that would regulate and guide our energy policy towards keeping those metaphorical buttcheeks clenched.

Comment Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score 5, Insightful) 488

No no. Wait people, give this post a chance. It's actually quite insightful.

Climate change is science. But it's science that "the Left" cares about, and "the Right" does not. And talking about it therefore makes Slashdot a partisan hack and pisses off a subset of Slashdot.

This guy wants his news bubble enforced. A news site he goes to is talking about a topic he wants to ignore. And he is upset.

Comment Re:heck of a choice (Score 1) 488

Blame him for what? Recent relation scuffles with Russia? Naw, that was a long time ago.

But we can certain blame Reagan for the joy and wonder which are HMO's. Because that was his thing.

We can blame Eisenhower for the car culture with his fancy dancy "interstate" roads. (And hey, the interstate system is great, even if it had a few negative side-effects)

And we can blame Kennedy and LBJ for continuing to escalate the clusterfuck that was Vietnam. These days Vietnam is an entirely different place. But you bet your ass they remember.

And in a similar vein we can most certainly blame Bush for the clusterfuck that was the Iraq war. Afghanistan? Eh, I'm not sure there's much to blame him for there. The housing bubble? Probably not on his shoulders either. But Iraq? He and his administration are simply the responsible party to blame. Obama (and Iraq, and the deal Iraq made with Bush) ramped down US involvement in Iraq. We got the fuck out. It was a non-event. YAY! Except the power lead to a power vacuum that lead to ISIS.

Pissing away a trillion dollars and disrupting an oil-generating region probably didn't help the economy much.

Jesus christ, are you suggesting no-one study history?

Comment Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score 1) 858

"losing the popular vote in an electoral-college election isn't the same as losing the popular vote in a popular-vote election".

Correct, if everyone's vote actually mattered, you'd have a LOOOOT more people voting blue in those deep red states and Trump would have lost it by even more. I actually would prefer the sort of system they have in Australia where you pick your top 5. It also has it's problem but it'd help this horrible partisanship.

You were literally in the very last two sentences calling for international agreements.

Not at all.

It's literally the very last two sentences. This isn't up for interpretation. This isn't something you can feel the truthiness about. It's not subjective. You're just flat-out wrong. You can go re-read your post if you want, but whatever.

I was saying that before spending any money on those areas, we should get political agreement, both domestically and internationally.

...ON WHAT? We currently don't know what to do. We know shits getting hotter. We know it's changing climates. We've got SOME idea about how and why, but there's a fuckton of unknowns. And as for the methods of fixing it? And how to compare the impact per dollar spent per the various proposals? We barely have a clue.

You're saying we need to get both the democrats and the republicans AND THE U.N. or whatever the fuck international players to all agree about a plan of attack.... Without knowing how well it's going to work?

ok ok ok.... let's say you're in charge of a team of people that was working on choosing how to fix global warming, and had to make a proposal to sell to all the domestic and foreign politicians... Who would you hire to make that proposal? Just maybe, perhaps, scientists with a focus on the subject matter?

The burden is on people who want work in those areas to get those agreements first.

No, not agreements between the UN, the democrats and the GOP. Usually it's more like grant proposals to those who have vested interest. Like, say, the Department of Energy who recommends what sort of power sources the country invests in. Now who should we get to look over those research grant proposals? Maybe someone who knows what the fuck is going on? Like a scientist?

I simply don't suffer from your knee-jerk opposition to him

Buddy, I've had a long LONG time to review this guy. He's playing a confidence-man con game. Half the shit out of his mouth is laughable and obviously crazy-talk and he admits it. The other half is questionable at best. The people who voted for him can't tell which half is which.

Personally, I want neither the spending nor the agreements.

It's nice that you at least openly admit to wanting to torpedo the whole thing. Which makes your suggestion that we need international and domestic agreement before researching anything so blatantly an effort to kill it just... laughable. Listen kiddo, If you try and send something into development hell, you can't openly suggest that's your intention. You don't want people questioning your intentions. If you openly admit your intentions are to simply kill/delay an initiative, all your advice about how to support the initiative is obviously bullshit.

Comment Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score 1) 858

Yes, but the science on that is settled: people pretty much universally agree that reducing emissions is a good thing in principle.

Tell your president-elect that.

HAHA, and you only want a nanny-state holding your hand when you want to shut something down. That's great. But yeah, sure. For big space-shade, it'd be good to have other's buy in. But it's not like we really need it. What are they going to do? Complain about us fixing the world? Nuke it?

But it sounds like you're suggesting we stop all efforts until we get the freaking U.N. to approve a research grant. Ha!

No, I'm suggesting that the executive branch be responsible to Congress and voters. Personally, I want lots of funding for cancer research, and little funding for climate research, because the former does me a lot of good, while the latter is irrelevant to me. Apparently, a lot of other voters think the same way.

But not the majority. I remember the last president that lost the popular vote. Fun times. Trillions wasted and hundreds of thousands of dead. Imagine Al Gore had actually won and decided that instead of invading Iraq for no reason, we were going to spend a trillion dollars terraforming Earth and saving our collective asses.

ANYWAY, no you aren't suggesting how the executive branch be responsible to congress and voters. You were literally in the very last two sentences calling for international agreements. Furthermore, this witch-hunt is Trump's initiative, and he doesn't play along to the tune the GOP is playing. The GOP has congress. If the executive branch was responsible to congress, the voters, or just generally responsible at all, then he wouldn't try and fire everyone who had ever gone to a climate change conference.

Personally, I want lots of funding for cancer research,

Yeah. That sounds nice. Unfortunately, your candidate argued that vaccines cause autism, so his track record on medical science is about as abysmal. Maybe you'll change your tune when he launches a strike force against the World Health Organization for saying mean things about.... whoever that was that pushed the anti-vax movement.

Slashdot Top Deals

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley