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


Forgot your password?
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:Hmm (Score 2) 43

Well, I think there is still some "action" going on in the rings. Even if everything in there would be totally synchronized with no relative motion (especially then) you would get mass clumps of particles slowly being drawn toward each other by their own mass/gravity. Basically the same thing that led to planets forming from rings of particles in the early solar system. But then this would be extremely interesting to research, because it would be the nearest thing to look at for such processes.

It would be wise to use a somewhat rugged probe with nuclear power (no fragile solar panels) with some shielding, retractable instruments and an ion drive... Anyway, there are lots of cool things to explore left in the solar system and the closer you look the more interesting things you find!

Comment Re:Apple: Cuz math is HHHHAAAAAAAAARRRRRD!!! (Score 1) 164

This was exactly how this worked up until now. You got a semi-accurate time of battery life. But the remaining time depends on what you do and the dynamic range between "hardly any load at all" and "full throttle" gets bigger and bigger. Which makes the time more and more pointless: If you just sit there and type you get a very long remaining time which will shrink down to a fraction of that as soon as you start to do more demanding things.

This is true for all modern computers with some decent power management, they all only sip power if the load is small and gulp it down as soon as you do something harder, making the remaining time totally unreliable.

Comment Re:So let me get this straight.... (Score 2) 472

The US totally lacks the industrial infrastructure for that. OK, you could import all components and build a robot factory assembling iPhone from these, but where's the difference then?

All of this became how it is because people buy cheaper goods over more expensive ones, just as companies make their products where it's cheaper to make them. This goes all the way back to people trading foodstuff against other things, because it was cheaper this way than to make them themselves. Global trade has been used by some people to enrich themselves, but without that there would have been less competition and the rich would be even richer. Look at your ISP. Much competition? No. Good prices? No. Start a trade war and everything will go this way. You will have one or two companies making smartphones and they will rake in money while screwing you over. But of course, try it. I'm all for it. Better try and fail than always talking and never doing. Some of you people are so angry that I'm all for handing the wheel to you.

Comment Re:So (Score 1) 472

And a cup of coffee costs less than $0.1 to make. Don't pay more or you're being gouged.

Also, if you're serious don't take more money for your work than what you need not to starve and freeze to death until the next day. Everything above this is evil profit. So give if back to your employer. Or even better: Start a company that makes and sells something like the iPhone with no or little profits, even if you could sell it for more.

Things don't work this way. Everybody sells what he has for the best price he can get for it. It's called a "market". It sucks, but all other ways to deal with this that have been tried suck even more. I agree that this is sad, but it is how it is. And you don't need to buy an iPhone. You can buy one, if you want to though. It's just an option and freedom is not about having no options.

Comment Don't bother (Score 1) 299

It's pointless. People want legends that gel with their believes, not facts. They also will believe that Apple invented USB C to take away their beloved USB (that Apple pushed into the market with the iMac cutting off all older Apple connectors, but they don't know and don't want to know that).

Comment How else instead? (Score 4, Interesting) 190

The only other way than to fuel the rocket with the crew on board would be to fuel it first and then let the crew board it. The latter would mean that the astronauts as well as pad crews would be near or on a fueled rocket with no way to escape if something goes wrong during boarding the capsule.

If the astronauts board the capsule on top of the empty rocket and the rocket is fueled only when they're safe and strapped in there, there is no point at which they couldn't fire the escape system and get away when something goes wrong. Look at the fueling accident they had: The payload sat up there for several seconds after the rocket was already falling down in flaming pieces. The Dragon 2 LES is within less than 1/10 second at full thrust, pulling the capsule away.

So yes, fueling the rocket with people aboard is dangerous but boarding an already fueled rocket would be even more dangerous.

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.