Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:... pretty much got what I expected ... (Score 1) 260

Since it's not clear from your post, have you actually played NMS?

The reason that most people essentially max out tech on their first planet isn't because they're "completionists", it's because there's so little content in the game. NMS is an "everything can be found everywhere in bulk" sort of game. Including tech blueprints.

Comment Re:1Million People (Score 1) 489

So how do you imagine that miners on Mars will be competitive without actually having mining equipment

It's not a comparison of mining equipment or no mining equipment - it's a comparison of A) automated, self-maintaining, may-not-get-damaged-or-it's-lost-forever mining equipment or B) human-controlled, human-maintained, human-salveagable mining equipment. In an environment where the premise is that humans already are.

The robots that are outcompeting them are on Mars, and orbiting Jupiter taking pictures, oh, and orbiting the earth transmitting signoals around and doing science and stuff.

Because there are no humans there. What about this is hard for you to understand? I'll repeat: there is precisely one place in the solar system where humans exist outside of Earth: ISS. Do robots outcompete them there - yes or no?

The best numbers I could find is that the annual cost of the ISS

Red herring. We're comparing to a scenario where humans are on Mars either way. Talking about the cost of putting people on Mars, keeping them alive, etc, is irrelevant because that is planned either way. The question at hand is, is it cheaper to use their already present labour, or send robots? And it's a no contest comparison.

Comment Re:Looking for the exit (Score 2) 55

A Google login, whether you get it via gmail or "G Suite", ties into all of the Android apps and keeps search history and integrates it into other Google products, and runs synchronization of most app data so they can see a great deal of what you do on the phone. About the worst that you can do is turn on device management. It will take about two days to turn off and during that time it will do its very best to force your email users to put their devices under your control. After that you apparently even have control over booting of the device. It's enough to make me want to support another open phone. Mozilla just gave up the ghost on that.

Comment Re:Blocking is illegal, but this isn't... (Score 1) 168

They where NOT preventing anybody from operating on any spectrum they wished, you could walk outside of the venue and crank up your WiFi hotspot anytime you wished. Private property owners have the right to allow or deny any activity on their property they choose

C'mon, that's so obviously not true I'm not sure how you finished typing it. Anyway, the airwaves are special. You can't charge a fee to have access to them on your property. (So many things are special that it's hard to think of them as special cases these days - there are exceptions to just about everything you wrote - for example, you can't make rules that have the effect of excluding black people from your property. There's lots of case law around dress codes.) Excluding is different from restricting to only those who pay a fee.

If we don't have such property rights in this country, then why do we call it "private property"?

Conservatives asking that for years now. Just try creating a pond on your property!

Comment Re: Questions to Hillary's fans (Score 1) 254

freaking out over the thought of a transgender person sharing a public bathroom with them or their kids

Maybe, I don't know them, but most conservatives are freaking out over the thought of a man in the girls room. There are more sexual predators than transsexuals, after all (and lots more horny teen boys), so opening the door to any man who throws on a dress seems like a poor choice. And when it's some random guy who threw on a dress, it's rather easy to tell.

But it doesn't matter: it's just as silly to care about being called *phobic, or misogynist - all just like racist, overused to the point of nonsense.

Last by definition conservatives hold us back.

Ah, so you're not an engineer. All good engineers are conservative, because almost all clever new ideas that look good to experts and everything thinks are cool are crap. Good engineering is pushing back against fads and opinions, being highly skeptical of everything new, and accepting changes only after they've been proven to be better in conditions relevant to your product. That allows change to come faster, because fucking up is expensive.

This is why we test software before we ship (or at least companies that can't get away with fucking their customers do). Is that test suite "holding you back"?

But in your head, "conservative" probably means "stupid, greedy, mean person", and not "someone skeptical of new ideas", so you probably think I'm crazy.

Comment off YouTube...? (Score 1) 307

Congrats - you just added 25 point to your score on the crackpot index. Well done. (There should really be points for saying "questioning the fundamentals is the foundation of science", but oddly that's missing from the index.)

My wife has extra-sensory perception in both sight and sound. I'll trust her senses over your denial any day.

Heh, I assume you meant you'll trust her perceptions, since you just claimed she can perceive things beyond her senses.

Comment Re:1Million People (Score 1) 489

Do these [] look like Mar's rovers to you?

No, and:

1) ... nor would you have the payload capacity to send something like that
2) ... nor would something like that survive the Martian environment (dust, radiation, cold, pressures low enough for outgassing, difficulty with radiating excessive heat, etc)
3) ... nor can you use that sort of power source on Mars
4) ... nor do you have people there to do the (extreme) sort of maintenance such a vehicle requires
5) ... nor do they do the most complex operations, only doing the (proportionally very simple) ferrying operations
6) ... nor do they have to avoid risk at all cost due to the lack of people there to fix it if it goes awry and hits something
6) ... nor do they have to avoid risk at all cost due to the lack of people there to fix *whatever it might run into* if it goes awry and hits something. ... and about fifty other things.

The ISS is just floating there doing nothing.

Deflection. The question was, in construction and research on ISS, do they use the available human labour, or do they send robots to do it? Of course robots are used where there aren't humans, but that's not the topic of discussion; we're talking about a world where there's a human settlement on Mars. You're arguing that robots outcompete humans in a space environment where humans are. Well, we have precisely one space environment where humans are - ISS. Where are all of the robots outcompeting them?

I'll reiterate:

It's certainly an arguable point as to whether it's worth the cost sending humans in the first place - but once they're there, there's no debate at all about whether it's cheaper to use their labour or to engineer, build, and send robots to do the same task.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.