Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

I'd argue that Pinkerton was too small and not international enough to replace the OSS, State department, or the American war manufacturing industry by the 1940's. Given the great job the Pentagon and State department did during and after the war, I don't think Pinkerton could have even matched that level of vision, on a consultant basis (but I respect the conjecture).

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

The Shuttle program was a huge waste of money to operate, and its operating existence was solely to blast into orbit components of the ISS (another space program white elephant), and the occasional repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. It was an engineering marvel of the 1970's, and arguably necessary for engineering research, but a total waste of taxpayer's money once it was kept in operation past the Challenger disaster.

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 289

However, this sort of statement worries me a lot, especially in the context of the recent AMOS-6 disaster where they lost a rocket on the ground and destroyed the satellite

This happens frequently in the satellite industry. That's why there's rocket payload insurance. There's nothing worth worrying about.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

No, it is not if you have to get the construction materials from Earth! Think of the hideous expense of maintaining a Moon base, along with the 3 day wait moving material back and forth using chemical rockets. You could construct a "space factory" in LEO, be under the "protection" of the Earth's magnetosphere, and not require a 3 day wait.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

A moon base although not great for colonization can make a good rest stop for deep space travel.

In what way? If you need to send back your mined cargo, you're sending it to Earth, not the Moon. When you want your human miners to return, they're returning to the Earth, not the Moon. If there is some need for a rescue out in deep space, the space company can just put a cargo pod in orbit with machines, fuel, & consumables to be sent to the asteroid, or for the space miners to go to the pod. You don't need a Moonbase to do that. It costs lots of money to make a permanent Moonbase. There also needs to be an economic justification for a Moonbase. You guys are crippled by what you think you know from 1950's science fiction, which believes you need a Moonbase OR a "stepping stone" in order to explore space. You're not looking at the actual engineering facts OR the economics of space exploration.

Comment Re:40 years in a box (Score 1) 289

Lunar colonization makes much more sense as a starting point than Martian colonization,

No, it doesn't. And it won't, until there is something to commercialize on it.

The biggest piece of ignorance which favors Lunar colonization over Mars is the notion that there is a greater energy expense to go to Mars than the Moon. The overwhelming expense comes from leaving the earth. Once in GEO, there is little difference in the amount of thrust needed to go to the Moon or go to Mars. The other flawed notion is that once there is a functioning moonbase, that its easier to resupply or rescue humans from a crisis. It costs money to make available transport back from the Moon, and no space program wants to blow that kind of money for redundant space vehicles. All so a human can stick their thumb up their ass admiring the view, running almost the same kind of experiments which can be done in LEO.

Even if an effort was made to make longterm life sustainable on the Moon, we don't know if there is enough recoverable water on the Moon to make it cost effective to defray the cost of going someplace beyond Earth orbit. To put it as an analogy, instead of sending explorers from Europe to colonize the New World, you want to send them to the Azores or Iceland first, even thought its already been done and there already human settlements, just to somehow improve the possibility of a more successful return of the explorers from the New World.

Moon colonization is a waste of time. Money would be better spent utilizing robot probes along the Moon's surface, merely to investigate if there is something worth mining on it.

Comment Re:Wacky? Maybe, but at least he's got vision. (Score 1) 289

His rocket is roughly tied for the worst reliability in the modern launch business, far far behind the leaders like Ariane 5 and Atlas V.

...and his launches are quite more cheaper than those aerospace corporations.

Space-X has to change its entire culture to close the reliability gap with the leaders like ULA and ArianeSpace. They have been riding on a cowboy culture,

And who's going to change ULA & ArianeSpace's culture of pricing rocket services exclusively to nations and multinational megacorporations? Yup, its gonna be companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Comment Re:This seems more like a 'hostile takeover' (Score 1) 69

For one, this is a proposal to the Apache foundation to take it onto. There is no indication that Oracle has any say in it.

That is a naive statement.

Oracle owns Sun's intellectual property, which includes Java and Netbeans. Netbeans was under some form of Sun license (GPLish?) before Sun was bought out by Oracle. For the Apache foundation to adopt Netbeans, Netbeans code would have to be forked out of Oracle's repository.

"Hostile takeover" is an invalid term when referred to forking. The question is whether Oracle will challenge the fork. Even if Oracle could lose in court over whether Netbeans "could" fork, it takes money to defend oneself in court. Many of Apache's projects are subsidized by Oracle.

There's almost no way any of Sun's intellectual property can be "taken" from Oracle. They just pissed away hundreds(?) of millions of dollars in court against Google over whether Google could use java(tm) in its android products. Before trial even started, that action forced Google to move from dalvik to the ART VM.

So between Oracle threatening to sue Apache foundation, or even threatening to defund Apache foundation, I believe its really unlikely this forking will proceed without the blessing or indifference of Oracle.

Comment Re:The real issue (Score 1) 195

I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one.

What is ridiculous is your lack of facility with the written English language. I'd be quite upset if 80% of existing homes were under the thrall of an HOA.

TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.

Communism is your neighbor forcing you to fork over fees, and then ordering you as to what you can or cannot do on your property or they'll seize it. It sounds like you're the one being sensitive about criticism for your fascist/pinko lifestyle choices.

Slashdot Top Deals

After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed.