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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Space is hard (Score 1) 32

>SpaceX rockets failed repeatedly before getting it right

They didn't, though. There is a HUGE difference between test flights and production flights.

Falcon 1 scheduled several test flights. This where test flights, designed as such, and carrying accordingly mass-simulators, broken satellites, or a bloody wheel of cheese. Their first few failed, which was expected, and not a concern, as this are test flights. Then they reached orbit succesfully, and so they went into production. Their next flight was a production flight, and worked flawlessly too.

Then Falcon 9 came, which worked flawlessly on their first flight, and flew flawlessly for 5 straight years. They had ONE in-flight failure with 1.1, then absolutely none since FT. So 8 years of flawless launches, almost 200 of them too.

Comment Re:Cheap, efficient on-demand launch. (Score 3, Interesting) 32

Virgin Orbit offers expensive, inconvenient, unreliable launches.

For instance, Electron costs *half* of what a LauncherOne will cost you, and RocketLab is more reliable, has more launches under their belt, and offers a fantastic truly customer-oriented system.

The supposed advantages of air-launch aren't such. First of all, it's for the most part a lie. "It's just a plane, so we can launch anywhere". Well, except you do need pretty much all facilities except for a launch tower at your airport. And you need authorizations from everyone, from the FAA to the airport itself, local authorities, etc. Launching from another country? Even more bureaucracy. And it'll only be ok if it's a NATO country and the US gives the Ok for it (because ITAR). So all of those advantages evaporate fairly quickly.

If you want cheaper, and your orbit allows it, you can get on a SpaceX ridesharing mission. Anywhere from 300k to around 2 to 3 million for the max payload capacity that LauncherOne can handle. And you're launching on the most reliable rocket in history.

The problem with their last launch is a fundamental flaw, not necessarily on design, but on how they do things. Their processes are horrible. Sure, they aren't the same company as Virgin Galactic now, but they used to be, and they obviously inherited the same culture.

VO was already not very appealing, but now there are even more options, and more are coming. VO hasn't gone the way of Astra yet for the same reason BO isn't out of business: A big ego with big pockets behind it.

Comment Re:I don't understand why anyone is working on thi (Score 1) 40

Generally, I agree with your sentiment, but also "letting them get away with it" is a bad precedent. We've already seen similar efforts from microsoft, and from other manufacturers. Apple isn't the first, nor will be the last, to try and lock down a platform.

Breaking whatever BS protection they throw at it and doing what you want with the platform is exercising your right to use your own stuff however the hell you want. It's like the US flying over what China claims as the South China Sea. Basically, use it or lose it.

Comment Re:It's "Crew 6", not 6 crew. (Score 1) 45

That is correct. The first mission to carry humans for NASA wasn't a production mission, and so it was called Demo-2 (after Demo-1, which did everything but without people onboard). After that, Crew 1 through 6. So it's the 7th mission *for NASA*. In addition, they also flew Axiom 1 and Inspiration 4.

So, 1 manned demo mission, 6 missions for NASA in the main contract, "Crew" series, 1 for Axiom, 1 private, for a grand total of 9 missions with crew onboard so far.

Facebook

Facebook Is Collaborating With The Israeli Government To Determine What Should Be Censored (go.com) 232

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: The Israeli government and Facebook agreed to work together to determine how to tackle incitement on the social media network, a senior Israeli Cabinet minister said Monday. The announcement came after two government ministers met top Facebook officials to discuss the matter. The Facebook delegation is in Israel as the government pushes ahead with legislative steps meant to force social networks to rein in content that Israel says incites violence. Israel has argued that a wave of violence with the Palestinians over the past year has been fueled by incitement, much of it spread on social media sites. It has repeatedly said that Facebook should do more to monitor and control the content, raising a host of legal and ethical issues over whether the company is responsible for material posted by its users. Both Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, two key figures in Israel's battle against the alleged online provocations, participated in Monday's meeting. Erdan's office said they agreed with Facebook representatives to create teams that would figure out how best to monitor and remove inflammatory content, but did not elaborate further. Erdan and Shaked have proposed legislation that seeks to force social networks to remove content that Israel considers to be incitement. An opposition lawmaker has also proposed a bill seeking to force social networks to self-monitor or face a fine. Facebook said in a statement "online extremism can only be tackled with a strong partnership between policymakers, civil society, academia and companies, and this is true in Israel and around the world." The company did also say that its community standards "make it clear there is non place for terrorists or content that promotes terrorism on Facebook." ABC News reports that "over the past four months Israel submitted 158 requests to Facebook to remove inciting content and another 13 requests to YouTube," according to Shaked. "She said Facebook granted some 95 percent of the requests and YouTube granted 80 percent." All of this adds to the censorship controversy that is currently surrounding Facebook. Last week, Norway's largest newspaper accused Mark Zuckerberg of abusing power after his company decided to censor a historic photograph of the Vietnamese "Napalm Girl," claiming it violated the company's ban on "child nudity."

Comment Free Speech, not Paid speech (Score 1) 193

You have a right to Free Speech, not a right to get paid for it. Youtube could pay a million dollars to each video that literally said that Hitler did nothing wrong, and that would not change Free Speech in the platform. Now, if they started removing comments that didn't say that, then maybe google did forget about do no evil and it went full Nazi, but as long as they are not removing content for its political commentary, or because it upsets its advertisers, there is still Free Speech on the platform.

Have people really become so self entitled that they think they have the right to get paid to say shit on the internet?

Comment This is so incredibly stupid. (Score 1) 415

A) There is this little thing called "The Internet" that people use to send each other information. Why the hell would someone go to the risk of keeping a thumb drive that can be identified as in their possession and have their fingerprints, when they can just send an encrypted file?

B) I doubt the dog can smell memory in particular, he can probably just sniff electronics. Everything nowdays has some kind of electronic component, I doubt this will be very useful.

Comment A year already? (Score 1) 132

Damn, time flies. When they took it down, I was really pissed. I tried other readers, but eventually realized reddit was a better option. I just subscribe to subreddits that might carry the content I want instead of to the feeds directly, this means news from the all the sources I want are aggregated, but by users that filter the content for me. Much better experience.

Slashdot Top Deals

Please go away.

Working...