Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:La Niña is about to bite us in the arse (Score 1) 118

Be fair, "the greatest climate disaster" started long before Trump took office. It might even be before Lincoln. It's just that nobody noticed it at the time, because it's taken a long time to build. Trump may, however, be president at a point of inflection (a point, because you can't even roughly model it with simple quadratic function). Things are, indeed, likely to get worse quickly for a bit, but Trump didn't cause that, he's just been refusing to ameliorate it.

Comment Re:OMG Fuck apple (Score 1) 27

Sorry, but it's a reasonable request. It may also be reasonable to deny it, but it's a reasonable request. There's no way that a "driver" who's just been sitting there playing a game on his phone will be able to take over the driving in 10 seconds, so the steering wheel is useless in emergencies.

Comment Re:Next item on News at 10 (Score 1) 84

I think you're wrong. This is my perspective:
  - - - - - -
Sorry, but it's really "expect leaks". Every place has leaks. If your staff considers your actions immoral, then you should expect damaging leaks. If they are supportive, then you should expect supportive leaks. (They may actually be damaging, but their intended purpose will be to bolster your image. Similarly the "damaging leaks" may actually be harmless, or even useful, but their intended purpose would be to injure you.)

People are lousy at keeping secrets, even when they intend to...and they'd often rather seem to offer proof that they "know what's what".

Vetting your staff is supposed to ensure that they consider what you are doing as just and moral. The same as any criminal gang. (Note that I didn't mention legal.) That way when they leak it will be generally supportive.

Comment Re: Yahoo = Verizon (Score 1) 88

Polar extreme positions are bad. Having the government take over everything is just as bad as having no regulations on anything. Why don't we just let corporations poison our air, water and food? It's all for profit right!

I used the words: reasonable restraints

There is probably some reasonable middle ground that reasonable adults can find consensus on between no regulation and total regulation.

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 270

No, that's not normal. 300 mg/day is well below the normal cardiac diet at a hospital. Every time she's admitted she has to fight with the diet kitchen to get food she can eat. People can have LOTS of variation in their needs, much more than is usually acknowledged even by those who are specialists in, e.g., diet, and certainly more than is usually acknowledged by non-specialists.

Comment Re:source (Score 1) 232

Yes, but at the time being discussed I'm not sure there is any evidence for the existence of ocean-viable boats. We're talking well back in the old stone age, and the Pacific near the Aleutians isn't peaceful. At later periods this would be a quite important point, and I'm rather sure that the inhabitants of the Kuril and Aleutian islands would prove to be related well back in time, but probably not far before the invention of the proto-kayak. (They might even not have gotten to the islands before then.)

Comment Re:Speaking of delays... (Score 1) 106

ULA's track record with the Atlas V: 100%

Yes, let's take one vehicle in its fifth generation (not counting subrevisions), and ignore its track record with all of its earlier versions that led up to this point and all of their failures, and all of Lockheed and Boeings' other launch vehicles over time, with all of their failures. Lets also ignore that they're going to have to switch engines soon, to an engine with zero track record.

Payloads typically launch on schedule or within a few weeks. .... Some payloads have been waiting literally years due to delays.

Let's totally ignore that Atlas V launches once per two months, while SpaceX launches once per month, and that almost all of the wait time was due to investigation backlog. When it comes to hitting launch windows, SpaceX has a higher average success rate than average than Atlas V

And lets entirely fail to mention the point that ULA charges nearly double what SpaceX does per kilogram. Or that SpaceX is doing everything while rapidly evolving its rocket, to the point that they've basically even switched propellants partway through (denisification radically changes their properties). And while at the same time running an aggressive recovery and refurbishment programme and developing a heavy lift vehicle, with a small fraction as much capital.

Comment Re:What governmen brought to the table (Score 1) 106

As if liquid boosters can't fail catastrophically? Check out SpaceX's last failure. Liquids are hardly immune to catastrophic failure.

And actually more to the point, you've got it backwards. The SRB failure on Challenger was slow, more like a blowtorch. The explosion was when it compromised the external tank (which, obviously, stored liquids).

Solid propellants aren't like explosives. More to the point, you have to keep them under pressure to get the sort of burn rate that is desired for a rocket.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...