Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 3, Informative) 429

The health care system in Germany is not owned by the government. There are hospitals that are owned by the respective town, district or state, but it's no requirement. No one forbids you in Germany to open your own hospital, employ your own physicians and make your own contracts with the health insurers. All practitioners are privately owned businesses, and most of them have contracts with all health insurers. The health insurers themselves are not necessarily governmentally owned either. There are health insurers which in fact are governmentally owned (the Ortskrankenkassen, municipal health insurers). But there are also cooperative health insurers, health insurers owned by private companies for their own employees (called Betriebskrankenkassen, corporate health insurers), and private health insurance companies.

The main difference is that there is a group of health insurers called Gesetzliche Krankenkassen (health insurers according to law), which are heavily regulated and whose service offerings are governmentally controlled. If you earn less than a specified amount of money as an employee, you are required to get coverage from such an institution. Which institution is up to you, it just has to offer you the contract according to law. There are about 100 different health insurers in Germany, which offer coverage according to law, and most of them operate through the whole of Germany. You are free to buy additional insurance if you want more or better services. If you are on social security, you are automatically insured by a Gesetzliche Krankenkasse. If you are self employed, operate your own business or earn more than the limit, you are completely free in your choice of health insurance.

Comment Re:And, I might start buying more from them again. (Score 1) 182

Same here. In fact what happened is that if Amazon was going to ding me for shipping, I promptly went off to eBay, located the same item (usually from the same seller!!) offered with free shipping, and after a few iterations stopped bothering with Amazon entirely.

So yeah... stop trying to make your profit on shipping, make the threshold realistic for smaller purchases, and you'll get me back.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 302

Delta-V costs are not the only criteria.

The number one limiting factor of any space vehicle is cost per kg at launch. NASA could build a Mars vehicle any size they wanted except they have to figure a way to get it in orbit without spending the entire budget to launch it.

Irrelevant when the number one defining factor of STS is how much pork can be siphoned off to spend into each supporting senator's district and not whether or not it helps the an extremely improbable Mars mission or even just the improbable "planned" moon flyby.

You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base

I am not proposing. I am relaying what has been proposed.

We're not in junior high here, you can stop trying to play semantic games. You bring the subject to the conversation, you defend it. Knowing that there is hydrogen on the Moon does not mean that it is under the form of water ices nor how accessible it is nor how difficult and expensive harvesting it may be.

sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth.

No oxidizer is required for electrolysis.

You cannot know that lunar hydrogen is in the form of water ice, have not proven it's accessibility, have not proven that you have worked out the process to develop it as a usable ressource nor proven that you can do so for less than it will cost at that point in time to deliver from earth. Pray do so now.

Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...

1) I didn't say it would be easy. I said it would be "easier".

Proof? Nah you don't have proof (indeed you _cannot_ at present) and if this post is any indication you'll try playing semantic games again to attempt to avoid answering.

2) How much fuel is left in a space vehicle after Earth orbit is reached? Very little. There's a reason most space probes use gravity assists to speed them towards their destination. And being unmanned they don't have constraints on time and resources that manned missions will have.

Oooh, ooh I know this one! it's because Nasa, being hobbled by the U.S legislature never invested significantly in lowering the cost of launching mass to orbit, preferring to spend the money on futile studies as the only meaningful yardstick became $$$/district.

3) NASA has been directed to do something; you may not like what they propose but that doesn't mean they can refuse to do it. Get to Mars is directive. For NASA that means getting to the Moon again.

You seem to have been living in a cave with no contact with the exterior for the last few months. Allow me to enlighten you: Nasa's congressional masters and the president have changed. No-one knows exactly what the implications are yet but Trump's declarations that cost cutting is more important than rockets to nowhere means that the directives are to change soon and Mars is not likely to be a directive for much longer.

"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.

Engineering and numbers don't change with administrators. Math is math. What is the cost of launching directly from Earth vs launching from the moon.

Spoken like someone who lives off of studies that will never come to fruition.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 302

I think you're confusing "a moon base" with "a full industrial infrastructure capable of producing complex objects". Even the concept that it would be cheaper to launch unrefined raw regolith from the moon cheaper than we can launch equivalent mass payloads from Earth anytime even remotely soon is absurd.

Nowhere did I say that NASA needs to rebuild and entire installation; however, in terms of fuel cost it is much easier to launch from the Earth to the moon then refuel at the moon to launch at Mars than to launch from Earth directly to Mars. Do the math.

Delta-V costs are not the only criteria. You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth. Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...

Earth is where industry is. The fact that we're a deep gravity well increases costs, but that difference is nothing compared to the difference in industrial capacities on and off Earth. Every production process has feedstock and consumables dependency chains. Those have dependency chains, and those have further chains, to a massive network of ever-increasing complexity. One of the worst dependencies is humans, which in turn spawn massive dependency chains.

Current NASA plans have the moon as a refueling point. That requires a moon base.

"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.

Comment Re:This is news...? (Score 1) 263

It 2017 anything goes for news. I expect the Los Alamos National Lab is worried about its funding so will repurpose one of its old hypothesis and try to get it on Fox News so the president see it and decides to keeps it funding. These organizations if smart realize how manipulatable the president is, and just a few simple things can cause him to change his mind and course. Just as long as you stroke his ego you can do whatever you want.

I am sorry I didn't want to make this political, but we had a problem with bad science news for a long time, because the people eat it us, and they use it to keep their funding. Unfortunately for some areas such as climate change due to some early overzealous hypothesis created a situation of mistrust of science where the general population and politicians just don't get the scientific process and are unable to weed out what are strong results and poor results and the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Comment Re: Android is Linux (Score 1) 221

The definition of an OS is that it controls all resources of a computer and shares them between the applications. A single task system would not be an OS, as in a single task system the running application has full control of all resources of a computer. Thus DOS is actually a program loader, not a computer operating system.

Comment Re:This won't be popular... (Score 1) 508

Really? Most americans voted for fascism?

Shall we count the ways you were wrong in a one line post?
1. Trump isn't a fascist. He's a rightist populist with _major_ issues but just because some people use the wrong definitions to label something/one doesn't make their use correct.
2. A majority of Americans happily voted for trump. He lost the popular vote.
3. Not everyone voted so that makes even fewer who voted for him.
4. An analysis printed shortly after the election in the NYT showed that while those who said that they knew who they were going to vote for 90 days before the election did indeed vote for that candidate (following party lines), that the election was decided by a third of the electorate who disliked both candidates and who ended up voting 75/25% Trump/Clinton. So even those who voted for him weren't voting "for fascism".
5. The dislike/hate of Clinton by even many Democrats and the desire for a break with 8 years of an Obama presidency do not equate with a love of fascism.

Get over your sour grapes, the way to fight Trump is not with slander, lying about him just feeds into his line that "the popular media cannot be trusted". It's not like the truth isn't enough - Use the Truth Luke...

Comment Re:Simple answer. Dont use SAP. (Score 1) 123

SAP cant scale worth shit, we recently added 4000 people in the call center and it took SAP 8 months to "scale" the stupid garbage pile they call software to handle it.

Then when we wanted to put in a system in the RMA database to track repair RMA data, the SAP experts said it was impossible, so one of the IT guys wrote the system we needed in PHP with a Open source SQL backend. he has a MITM box that will grab info from SAP and then spit it to the RMA server. when you do a query on the RMA page you get the full history of the device from manufacture date, to ship date, to who, to all repairs and even Tech support calls on the device.

SAP was unable to deliver this. Because SAP is really shitty.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.