Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:The Refueling Tanker makes no sense (Score 1, Insightful) 198

Sure, you can do it, but if you rely on your rocket engines entirely to decelerate (as the video clearly shows), you would need roughly double the fuel.

Agreed, but the real question is what are they replacing the expended fuel with? I mean, so that the landing mass is roughly the same as the launch mass. Because that's the only way you would need roughly double the fuel.

On a more serious note, they've already been landing boosters this way. In Earth gravity. Furthermore, how the fuck are your parachutes going to help land on a planet with little-to-no atmosphere?

You play KSP, so it's totally reasonable to expect that you know better than an entire company full of rocket scientists.

Comment Re:"Shitposting" is fraud, not speech (Score 1) 637

"If I disapprove, it's not speech." Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey and others like him, Bruce Perens?

I don't get it. Who are you quoting? Why is "speech" emphasized? Blacklisting Palmer Luckey from what?

I've read the rest of your comments in this thread and, sadly, they're not any more coherent than this one. I want a refund.

Comment Re:Tweets = "scaling up his ambitions"? (Score 1) 289

The environment is so insane there that any probes we managed to send to the surface only lasted seconds before being melted by acid rain and extreme temperature and pressure.

This isn't much different than the environment on Earth's surface. We've only been able to get four probes all the way down to the surface, and we've been living on this planet for ages.

Or, do you use "surface" to denote an arbitrary point in the fluids surrounding Earth? If so, why does this definition no longer work on Venus? Because the point at which the fluids exert 1 atm of pressure on Venus is rather comfortable, much like it is on Earth.

Comment Re:Complete nonsense (Score 3, Insightful) 400

And that's just regulations, even if by magic such an automated truck was available *tomorrow*, you have a capital base of billions of dollars worth of trucks already out there which can't do this. And these trucks are, for the most part, built for extreme long-term durability with useful lifespans of at least a decade. It would take 10-20 years for such an automated truck to replace the existing base of trucks.

Sunk cost fallacy. If the cost savings that result from decreased labor costs are greater than the cost of buying an automated truck and disposing of a manually-piloted one, it's a fiscally sound decision to make.

Comment Re:Tax avoidance vs. Tax evasion (Score 1) 579

We would never expect an individual to not take a tax deduction or child credit etc. because they have "courage". That's just bad personal finances.

Indeed. Much like we would never expect an individual to engage in charitable giving. That's just bad personal finances.

I dream that one day, people that think this way will no longer burden the rest of us with their greedy existence. Not holding my breath, though.

Comment Re:Well ain't that neat (Score 2) 218

proxima centauri b is expected to be in tidal lock with its star. that is, half of the planet is expected to have more than enough radiation shielding. whether or not there is atmospheric or oceanic convection to have reasonable temperatures on that half is the next question that needs to be answered.

Comment Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London? (Score 1) 260

I don't see how its victim blaming because it's hard to see this person as a victim. He was "cheated" out of a few seconds of movie scenes.

If one purchases a particular multi-featured product or service for one specific feature, and then it turns out that feature doesn't actually exist, is one cheated out of only this specific feature or is one cheated out of the full purchase price of the entire product or service?

I'm inclined to say the latter, which is why I believe he was cheated out of the full price of admission. Regardless of any incidental expenses incurred, you yourself admit that he was cheated. Why do you find it hard to see someone who was cheated as a victim? In your mind, is fraud a victimless crime?

Comment Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London? (Score 1) 260

Now, I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but isn't this textbook victim blaming?

This guy bought into allegedly fraudulent advertising claims and lost some money. How is that any different from someone getting conned by someone in the street? I mean, yes, everyone ought to be smarter than that, but isn't that the whole point of laws prohibiting fraud? To protect those among us that are gullible enough to fall for it?

Comment Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score 1) 260

I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.

Translation: I worry far less about enforcement of our exceedingly complex legal code than I do about the immaturity of the plaintiff.

You're right, the rule of law is for suckers.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 769

Everyone knew this "nominating process" was rigged from the start. These emails just add more confirmation to what we already knew.

Everyone suspected (not knew) this "nominating process" was rigged form the start. These emails add confirmation (not more confirmation, but initial confirmation) of what we suspected but did not know. It's like Snowden's NSA leaks, which confirmed suspicions but were similarly dismissed on the basis of "we already knew this". No, we already suspected. In the minds of rational agents, suspicion and knowledge are two separate concepts.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 769

Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?

Pretty sure if the emails were edited or completely faked, that's the explanation they'd be going with, as it's considerably more plausible than this "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin" joke. The fact that DWS is instead resigning from her role as DNC chair instead of offering such an explanation suggests that these emails might actually be legitimate.

Slashdot Top Deals

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".

Working...