dreams and flames... (Score 1)

two parts: A. Dreams. A space elevator is imagined as an alternative to feul-based methods of reaching orbit. The complexities of the more likely designs require nothing less than new technology, invention of new materials; an elevator capable of acceleration, gravities, and life support - or basically a spaceship launched by cable. That's what we're really talking about here. A ship. We can build those. But, this cable/tower/counterweight/platform contrivance is presently an impossibility, theoretically or otherwise. Even if we could build it tomorrow, you're still moving "MASS." So? Well, now we're not just moving the mass of the aforementioned ship, now we have the mass of this elevator device included. No one knows just how massive it will really be, but there are no figures below millions of tons. Even a super monofilament cable would be massive at nearly 50 thousand feet, but that's not the worst of it. The orbital platform's mass must also be taken into the calculations. Its enough mass to equal dozens, perhaps hundreds of shuttle launches. All the transference of mass still requires energy. For this kind of energy, we're talking fusion or nuclear power. Its illegal to put nuclear power in space under international law, but that law might change. However, nuclear power might well be insufficient, given the extreme mass of a terrawatt nuclear plant! And fusion doesn't exist in a useable form yet. No, at the moment this is nothing but a crude dream. Maybe after Fusion becomes portable, and we invent superstrong filaments, and superconductors that operate at room temperature. Its simply "COST EFFECTIVE" to launch rockets, by comparison. I feel that the best look forward for now is the ground to orbit to ground shuttle design that doesn't require booster tanks. Fly into space the same way the SR72 and A2 did, and the Transonic Jet. If we could get the equivalent of a C17 cargo jet into low orbit just by flying it there, the elevator is unnecessary. B. Taking shots at Linux. I read articles critical of Linux as much as ones ripping MacroSloth. Remember how we used to bash MS because we hated having to use it, while Linux was still growing and couldn't run Mechwarrior? Now I see exactly the same grumbling from MS fronts about Linux. They hate having to use it, because their software can't. If GPL, or Linux, or open source was so bad it wouldn't be leading the industry now. I just applied for a new job, and the people there tell me 'you'll need to be fluent with Unix systems and C programming, we're phasing out the NT boxes.' This is no little company, but until I'm safely hired [or not] I'm not going to say who it is except that they are not MS. I never learned how to use NT. I hated it, and I still have 98 on one box. Now I can smile as I apply for positions that no longer ask me to learn it. PS. Slashdot still kicks butt. I haven't been to CNN's web pages in months, the best news is here.