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

 



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

Comment Re:Idiotic publicity stunt (Score 1) 449

>just proving that the big distance is a very relevant issue.

And yet you have yet to offer any evidence that the distance is an issue. As I have explained, repeatedly, the only thing the distance really changes is the cumulative radiation dose of the travelers. Everything else is pretty much the same regardless of whether the travelers are in transit, or have made it to their destination.

Comment Re:GAO is right (Score 1) 81

The top registrars get together and decide to start their own name server. They give some payments to a few of the top ISPs, and it's basically a done deal.

Let's look at it with a concrete example, of a site that Russia actually tried to block: recently, Russia decided to block pornhub. If it got removed from the top registrar, then everyone who wants to visit pornhub will be upset, and look for alternatives.

Comment GAO is right (Score 2, Insightful) 81

The GAO is probably right, it doesn't require an act of congress, but the lawsuit only has to delay it long enough for Trump to become president. If Hillary becomes president, then it's pointless.

It could cause problems if domain names are influence-able by governments hostile to free speech, but If it gets too annoying, we'll all just switch to another name server. They can't keep the speech itself down, only certain domain names. My point is, that in the worst case, it's not the end of the world, and the Google index is much, much more important.

Comment Re:Ummm ... (Score 1) 4

Nah, that's just the natural end point of a two party system. It's not fascism to have two parties you dislike dominate the polls, it just sucks.

I think the definition above is missing something, largely because it folds it into "right wing system of government" without recognizing that right wing is a large umbrella that covers a wide range of different, often opposing, points of view. Trump's support for violence against opponents, coupled with his racial scapegoating makes him Fascist, not any pro-war attitudes. He's not Hitler, but he's definitely a low rent Mussolini in some respects, and a full rent Mussolini in others.

Comment Re:Needs more mobile focus (Score 1) 28

Actually I haven't seen that much use as a desktop computer for the Pi. It's mostly used for things like KODI, Retropie, Robotic projects, remote projects such as weather stations and industrial applications. It's a hobbyist board that happens to have desktop capabilities. In some places I suppose it's nice to have a computer that will run off a cell phone charger but although I've fooled around with the desktop a bit on the Pi unless you have a Pi 3 it's not really very usable.

Comment Re:Idiotic publicity stunt (Score 1) 449

And you're not getting the point that, for cargo at least, you're *not* doing anything for 100 days. You're accelerating for a day, and decelerating for a day (probably far less). The rest of the time you're just coasting along. No activity. No wear and tear. Just floating dead in the empty void of space waiting to arrive. Whether that's one day or 99 makes very little difference.

With people, yes, you also have to keep life support running, but that's not going to change at the destination, so it doesn't really matter how long the trip is. As for the trip - we understand space pretty well - it's empty, there's nothing there but radiation, and there's essentially no difference between traveling to Mars, and just circling the Earth in high orbit for an equivalent amount of time. There is zero additional risk - either way you're just killing time floating through empty space without any shielding except the hull. All the elevated danger is at the endpoints - launch and landing. And that's not going to change much regardless of whether you're going to Mars or the Moon.

The ONLY additional risk of traveling to Mars versus the Moon is the prolonged radiation exposure during transit, but even when you land you're only going to modestly reduce your radiation exposure, especially for early colonists without robust, heavily shielded shelters waiting for them (it would take burying the shelters under about 22ft of sand to achieve radiation shielding comparable to the Earth's atmosphere), they're going to be facing heavy radiation exposure at their destination as well during the trip - a few months in transit may inflict a dosage equivalent to a few years at their destination, which sucks, but it was pretty much going to suck regardless. Cancer is likely to be a major problem among early colonists who avoid dying some other way. Life expectancy among colonists is liable to be far shorter than for people who stay on Earth - that can't be helped, frontiers are always dangerous, and this will be by far the most dangerous frontier we've braved. If you're not willing to accept the risks, then I recommend not signing up.

Comment Re:Idiotic publicity stunt (Score 2) 449

The big difference is that, on Earth, you need to be operating continuously over the entire distance, thanks to friction, traffic, weather, and other environmental hazards.

In space, you just set your trajectory and then go to sleep until you get to your destination. We do it all the time when sending probes around the system. There's basically nothing to hit - even when sending probes through the asteroid belt beyond Mars, the densest debris field in the solar system outside of Saturn's rings, and almost entirely unmapped, we just don't worry about it - there's so little material scattered across such a large space that the odds of an unintentional collision are vanishingly close to zero. Even radiation is roughly constant, aside from solar flares. For non-living goods either it can pretty much handle it, or it can't.

The result being that it doesn't actually make much difference whether you're sending a vessel across the solar system or just leaving it in high orbit - the non-fuel costs and risks are roughly the same. And we've gotten good about building hardware that doesn't mind being left "asleep" for years while it coasts through space.

Yes, obviously, if you have people on board you need to keep life support, etc, running, and are dealing with cumulative radiation and risk exposure - but that doesn't actually change all that much once you reach your destination - be it in open space, the Moon, or Mars, you're completely dependent on life support, and are beyond Earth's magnetosphere - reaching your destination only cuts your radiation exposure by about half as the planet's mass shields one hemisphere (well, somewhat better than that on Mars thanks to the thin atmosphere and greater distance from the sun).

Basically, as long as you're living in a tin can outside Low Earth Orbit, it doesn't make a dramatic difference where you are in terms of risk or resource consumption, except for the cumulative biological damage due to microgravity. And while there's some reason to be hopeful, we don't actually know to what degree low gravity will negate those problems, though it seems likely that the higher gravity on Mars will reduce them further than on the Moon.

Yes, since you're being exposed to those risks regardless, it would be nice to not waste time just sitting around waiting to reach your destination, but if you're planning a multi-decade mission, a few months one way or the other isn't likely to make a huge amount of difference. Though, assuming you have inflatable or other "fast deployment" habitats that will offer substantially better radiation shielding than the ship, there's certainly a good argument to be made that you should get into them as soon as possible.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1) 332

Not exactly a useful suggestion. Most traffic laws aren't about intent and if they were, not seeing a stop sign is not the same thing as not intending to roll past one. I can totally see someone whose brakes fail getting stop sign violation tickets thrown out of court, for example.

This case is typical of much of the anti-Clinton rumors we've seen lately. A germ of truth - that a Clinton employee might have asked Reddit for help to change email addresses on an exported file - has been whipped up into allegations that she ordered him to delete emails (not email addresses, emails), in some kind of attempt to cover something serious up.

Going back to the real allegation: OK, he asked to change email addresses on an export. So.... what's the scandal here? No seriously, those who aren't lying about what the allegation is are at least claiming it's evidence of evidence tampering - but what actually was tampered in such a way it would have materially affected an investigation?

What was he trying to do that would prevent Clinton from being criminally prosecuted? Anything at all? He's just changing email addresses in headers, not content. A single response to a message "From" Barack Obama that quotes the sent email as being actually "from" Colonel Gadaffi would be easily spotted.

The most likely reason the email addresses were changed was to prevent certain email addresses from becoming public.

Which is fine. No scandal.

We go through this bullshit every few months. Clinton's haters seem to be incapable of spending more than a few days without inventing some other crap. It sucks because we're probably going to spend the next four years seeing Clinton constantly investigated for non-issues, with government as dysfunctional as ever. It's part of why I'm reluctant to vote for her (but will, because I live in a swing state.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!

Working...