Orbital Datacenter Plans Need an Environmental Review, FCC Told (theregister.com) 117
Environmental groups want America's FCC "to slam the brakes on orbital datacenters," writes The Register.
They're arguing for an environmental impact assessment for what could be 1 million satellites: Earthjustice, acting on behalf of DarkSky International, Environment America, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), filed a petition this week... The filing doesn't target any single company. Instead, it asks the regulator to put the entire emerging orbital datacenter sector on hold while it assesses the cumulative effects of proposals from SpaceX, Starcloud, Blue Origin, Cowboy Space, and any similar applications that follow. According to the petition, those proposals collectively seek "well over a million datacenter satellites" in low Earth orbit.... " increasing the existing volume of satellites in low-earth orbit by multiple orders of magnitude."
The groups argue that the FCC is trying to apply licensing rules written for much smaller satellite constellations to an entirely new class of infrastructure. "If ever a situation warranted a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS], it is this one," the petition says. It argues that a single review would allow the agency to examine "the risks, alternatives, needs, costs, and impacts of this sudden transformation of Earth's exosphere" before deciding whether any of the projects are in the public interest. The petition raises concerns about rocket launch emissions, pollutants released as satellites burn up during atmospheric reentry, depletion of the ozone layer, orbital debris, light pollution, impacts on wildlife, and interference with astronomy.
It also argues that the combined effects of these constellations cannot be understood by evaluating applications one at a time.... "It is difficult to imagine a better example of multiple projects presenting essentially identical impacts and risks that compound synergistically and cumulatively than the present proposals..." The petition argues that the FCC's current approach, which generally treats satellite licenses as categorically excluded from detailed environmental review, is no longer fit for proposals measured not in dozens or thousands of spacecraft but in hundreds of thousands and, potentially, millions.
If the FCC agrees, orbital datacenter operators will have a mountain of paperwork to clear before sending their hardware skyward.
They're arguing for an environmental impact assessment for what could be 1 million satellites: Earthjustice, acting on behalf of DarkSky International, Environment America, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), filed a petition this week... The filing doesn't target any single company. Instead, it asks the regulator to put the entire emerging orbital datacenter sector on hold while it assesses the cumulative effects of proposals from SpaceX, Starcloud, Blue Origin, Cowboy Space, and any similar applications that follow. According to the petition, those proposals collectively seek "well over a million datacenter satellites" in low Earth orbit.... " increasing the existing volume of satellites in low-earth orbit by multiple orders of magnitude."
The groups argue that the FCC is trying to apply licensing rules written for much smaller satellite constellations to an entirely new class of infrastructure. "If ever a situation warranted a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS], it is this one," the petition says. It argues that a single review would allow the agency to examine "the risks, alternatives, needs, costs, and impacts of this sudden transformation of Earth's exosphere" before deciding whether any of the projects are in the public interest. The petition raises concerns about rocket launch emissions, pollutants released as satellites burn up during atmospheric reentry, depletion of the ozone layer, orbital debris, light pollution, impacts on wildlife, and interference with astronomy.
It also argues that the combined effects of these constellations cannot be understood by evaluating applications one at a time.... "It is difficult to imagine a better example of multiple projects presenting essentially identical impacts and risks that compound synergistically and cumulatively than the present proposals..." The petition argues that the FCC's current approach, which generally treats satellite licenses as categorically excluded from detailed environmental review, is no longer fit for proposals measured not in dozens or thousands of spacecraft but in hundreds of thousands and, potentially, millions.
If the FCC agrees, orbital datacenter operators will have a mountain of paperwork to clear before sending their hardware skyward.
Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really not seeing what the advantage is of putting data centers in space that can't be accomplished less expensively down here on good old terra firma. That was the same problem with solar roadways. You want to put up solar panels? Great - we've yet to run out of places you can put them where they aren't going to be driven over by cars.
I realize there's some NIMBYism over data centers lately, but surely putting them somewhere in the middle of nowhere where nobody will complain is still orders of magnitude cheaper than space. Space is really, really not cheap.
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Cooling would actually be more of a problem than on the surface. A vacuum is a perfect insulator, the heat has no where to go. It's a huge problem with spacecraft, they get too hot because they can't get rid of heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites can get rid of heat with radiators placed in the shade. They do add to mass and cost though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They literally are though.. Wait, do you think satellites generate RF energy through magic? Their networking equipment doesn't generate heat?
Re: (Score:1)
It's one thing to get rid of say 50 kw of heat. Expensive, but can be done.
When you get into megawatts, well. Very expensive and will require shitton of launch capacity.
If one is so bent on having datacenters well fine, build them on a shore somewhere ocer 50th latitude closer to the poles, cool with seawater from the ocean. This way the entire earth serves as a very efficient radiator as it always had.
Also one would need to get those megawatts somewhere. Megawatt solar panel in space would cost idk.. mor
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was talking about a server rack, not one single rack-mount server.
"The average comms satellite draws less than 20kw, that is around the power of an ipad" = What kind of iPad do you have that draws 20kw?!
Bet the latency would suck though.
Maybe a solution would be to include a small AI server built into any future satellite launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Satelites aren't running racks of heat producing computer equipment.
Most satellites aren't. But a satellite that is a data center certainly would be.
Computers don't suddenly get more efficient or produce less heat just because you put them in orbit.
Must be lost as infrared radiation (Score:2)
Satellites can get rid of heat with radiators placed in the shade. They do add to mass and cost though.
That only works when the heat is at a level where it can be lost as infrared radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
And, what medium does that radiator dissipate heat into... the insulator that is space (think like the old vacuum-glass insulated Thermos bottles).
You also have to take into account the Sun's heating capabilities...
(bing)
"Satellites can reach temperatures over 100C in direct sunlight and drop to -100C or lower in shaded areas.
Temperature Variations
In Sunlight: When exposed to direct sunlight, satellites can heat up significantly, often exceeding 100C. This is due to the intense solar radiation in space, whi
Re: (Score:2)
And, what medium does that radiator dissipate heat into...
No medium, Infrared radiation, the stuff on the electromagnetic spectrum below visible light.
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Movies are usually made for effect and not as Physics education. Hence they get several things wrong. One is that space exposure freezes you fast. Sure, it will freeze you eventually, after a long time. The other is that vacuum kills you fast. Apparently, exposure to vacuum up to 60 seconds or so does not even cause permanent damage and you remain effective for 30 second or so (hence the respective scene in 2001 was pretty realistic). Of course, after that, permanent damage sets in and after 2 minutes or so
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:1)
Is it? I give you a counter example. The Earth is bathed in the radiation from a nuclear furnace but never gets above 300K or so
Re: (Score:2)
Courtesy of atmospheric scattering and the Ozone layer. :-)
I bet that the places that are sitting around 100F+ would be happy to know it never gets above 300Kelvin there
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Are you acting? I give up, just talk to google ai mode for a bit
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't.
Imagine a datacenter launched by starship. It is cylindrical, 7m across and 10m long. At one end solar panels open like a flower and provide 100kW of electricity.
Inside it is a rack of nvdia's powerful GPGPU using all that 100kW and turning it to hot air in the cylindrical datacenter. How much cooling do you think you need?
The answer is none. The surface of the cylinder dissipates more than 100kW just through blackbody radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Dissipates it through blackbody radiation into what... an insulator?
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
A warm object in space emits a large amount of heat as radiation. Into space. It doesn't matter that space is an insulator.
Re: (Score:2)
So... the satellite that has an exterior temperature of 212F is heating the vacuum insulator around it? Wow... space must be hot then!
And, the sensitive space telescopes don't have to worry about keeping the image sensors chilled because all the heat just floats away on the breeze?
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Space telescopes have to be kept cold because they are trying to see in effect heat. A I follows
Space telescopes that observe the universe in the infrared spectrumâ"such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the former Spitzer Space Telescopeâ"must be kept at near-absolute zero temperatures.The Problem with Self-Radiation: Infrared light is essentially heat radiation. Every warm object, including the telescope itself, glows in infrared light.
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about 212F.
The exterior of the example 7mx10m satellite is not 212F it would very quickly cool down to an equilibrium temp nearer room temp. This is because hotter objects emit more infra red.
It has to be large because it needs the large surface area to shine the heat out and also to contain the cosmic radiation shielding
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the Hubble transfers the heat from the sensor and computers to the outer skin, not into space (unless it's spraying something into space to transfer heat into).
That's why the old vacuum glass-lined Thermos' worked so well... heat doesn't really transfer very well at all through the vacuum between the walls of the glass liner. Fill it with coffee, 12 hours later, it's still hot. Heat transfer requires a middle-man (fluid or metal) to transfer it to something else (the _air_ around it, a pool of wa
Re: (Score:2)
Infrared heat (y'know... Predator-vision) is still heat.
Heat does not go anywhere without something to dump it into in a vacuum (which, coincidentally, seems to be what space is, which is why it's so hard to keep the ISS livable inside).
If it wasn't an issue dealing with the heat, why would they try to insulate space-bound stuff so well against solar heat, and spend so much time engineering space stuff to generate as little heat as possible while doing the task the space stuff is designed to do.
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
A good thermos is also silvered to prevent radiation losses.
I am having trouble explaining to you how heat can be lost into a vacuum insulator. Perhaps think of it the other way. How hot does the Sun feel? That heat has got to you through many miles of vacuum insulator.
A satellite at a much cooler temp also shines , but less
Re: (Score:2)
It is an example not a suggested design. The real design will probably have rectangular solar sails facing the Sun and a similar sized rectangular radiator not facing the Sun.
The issue is that it does not do hot air (Score:2)
Otherwise if you don't those 100kW would be dumped into very small surface of the GPU/CPU and small radiator they usually have.
At 300K blackbody radiance is ~450 W.m^-2 So you r calculation of the surface of the cylinder is OK, you would only need 222 m^2 to dissipate a blackbody at 300K of 100kW of heat. The problem is that the heat is not dumped into the
Re: (Score:2)
It is an example not a suggested design. The real design will probably have rectangular solar sails facing the Sun and a similar sized rectangular radiator not facing the Sun.
However, the cylinder is full of air which is blown around by fans. Problem solved
Re: (Score:2)
The total blackbody radiation emitted by the cylinder in space is approximately 124.32 kilowatts
The total power radiated is determined using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:(P = \sigma \cdot A \cdot T^4\)Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (\(\sigma \)): \(5.6704 \times 10^{-8} \text{ W/m}^2\text{K}^4\)Temperature (\(T\)): \(20^\circ\text{C} = 293.15\text{ K}\)Radius (\(r\)): \(3.5\text{ m}\) (half of the 7m width)Length (\(L\)): \(10\text{ m}\)Surface Area ScenariosTotal Surface Area (With End Caps): \(296.88\text{ m}^2\)F
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact : Since it emits 124kW at 20C and it powered by 100kW of solar the temperature ends up at a chilly 4.5C
Re: (Score:1)
I think the company that designed, deployed, and runs the worlds largest satellite constellation has some ideas about thermal management on orbit. Transmitters generate a lot of heat.
Re: (Score:2)
The movies get it right: you do freeze quickly. Not because space is cold, but because the vacuum allows rapid evaporation of all bodily fluids. That evaporation draws a lot of heat from the body, causing it to freeze.
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's because they think they can launch capacity faster than they can built it on Earth. Instead of dealing with local government, grid energy supply availability, water and so on, they can just launch it into orbit. It's all about being the first to deploy the compute capacity and cornering the market.
Of course it also creates lots of business for SpaceX, so a lot of it could be a Hyperloop-style scam.
Thing is they need to deal with the pollution it will create (stuff burning up on re-entry doesn't just va
Re:Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is primarily a drug-fueled hallucination of Musk and an attempt to pump the stock price. The actual experts there must know this will not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution is from the launch, not reentry. Reentry just burns almost everything up (technically, some of the metals used in the thing get vaporized, but try to find the 10 grams of gold that vaporized on reentry).
What frequency considerations? It'll use Starlink, of course!
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff burning up does not disappear. It becomes part of the upper atmosphere. Before there were so few things burning up that nobody really bothered considering it, but now we are going to be having tens of thousands of satellites re-entering every year, it needs to be looked into.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so no burning fuels that pollute (including NatGas), no nuclear, no polluting rocket launches, no reentering satellites polluting the upper atmosphere, no mining for the materials that are used in making solar panels (hint: mining pollutes), and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines also pollutes. Gotcha.
So... are you just going to have a million "specially-bred to be non-polluting" hamsters running in wheels to power "Clod"?
Face it... if you truly want to go 10,000% green, we'd be back to liv
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say no rocket launches. We just need to evaluate the impact, and take steps to prevent damage. We need to know what is in the satellites and what the effect of them burning up is.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe... just put them out beyond LEO so they're not falling out of orbit as often.
https://www.aeanet.org/what-ar... [aeanet.org] https://www.sfa-oxford.com/kno... -- more on the minerals used
Some are rare, a fair chunk are toxic (in certain amounts, to be sure).
On reentry, the majority are atomized and spread over huge areas, making it not very economically viable to run around and collect 'that tenth of a gram of palladium'.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond LEO requires more fuel and a bigger rocket to launch, meaning more cost. It creates greater latency due to the greater distance. Also, they want these satellites to have a 5 year lifespan because terrestrial ISPs and cellular providers and datacentre operators are continually upgrading their hardware. So they will probably want to de-orbit and replace them anyway, because moving them to a graveyard orbit will result in the graveyard getting very full very quickly.
It also causes issues when satellite
Re: (Score:2)
"because terrestrial ISPs and cellular providers and datacentre operators" The data center (on the ground) has no impact at all on a satellite, and an oribital one should function until the innards melt from the non-removable heat (space vacuum = insulator); ISPs and cell providers should have to upgrade a helluva lot to need a new version of a satellite (and the only interaction between ISP and satellite is satellite uplink, same for cell providers).
There should be minimal malfunctions (if they build it r
Re: (Score:1)
I'm really not seeing what the advantage is of putting data centers in space that can't be accomplished less expensively down here on good old terra firma.
For one, they're outside the juristiction of all governments. The data on that satellite in space isn't in the USA or in China. What this means in practice, I don't know. How does the FBI or the police or DHS subpoena data held in orbit? If they can't subpoena data held in the cloud in a foreign country, they also can't get it in orbit (this is "data sovereignty.") If Google holds data about Europeans on servers in orbit, does that meet GDPR requirements? (Basically not in the USA.)
Re: (Score:2)
it's more costly, more risky, and shittier performance... but what it gains: regulatory freedom
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the ping times playing Orbital Doom!
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. The idea is really bad on the engineering side and only a drug-addled mind with no understanding of Physics could come up with it (oh, and look: one did. And one that supposedly has a Bachelor in Physics, no less ...).
What I am wondering is whether these environmentalists do not understand that (greens can be just as clueless as everybody else) or whether they decided this was good PR for them and that it is not going to happen does not matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Protesting something that doesn't happen is better PR for you than protesting something that does...
Re: (Score:1)
The cost ends up being similar assuming mass production of satellites and realistic future launch costs, and you can "just do it" rather than have to waste years fighting through bureaucracy to build them on Earth.
Just as regulation pushed chip manufacturing out of the US, it's now pushing "AI" data centres out. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it's clearly a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost ends up being similar assuming mass production of satellites and realistic future launch costs
No, it doesn't. It will still be more expensive and harder to maintain. If something goes wrong, there won't be an employee that can respond. Any time an orbital is damaged or needs other maintenance, the only real solution is to launch another one. I mean, sure, they won't need to worry about power (constant access to solar) or cooling (space is cold already), but then they have completely different issues to guard against that no one needs to worry about down here.
Re: (Score:2)
See: https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org] for the bit about cooling
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, yeah, they need to account for it, but it isn't crazy difficult or as expensive to do, other than getting the thing into space, as compared to all of the other more difficult challenges they noted. Which was my point really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when you compare it to defending components from cosmic rays and meteoroids/other space debris. If shit gets too hot, it can be shutdown until it cools. Not ideal, but that's nothing compared to becoming permanent orbital junk because something was fried by radiation or pierced by a pea-sized rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole fucking idea is insane from the start.
Well, yeah. All the compromises needed to make it feasible means that the orbital data center will have no real processing power.
Re: (Score:1)
This is all about leverage.
You don't wait until your one and only supplier of land decides you need to tithe 50% of your earnings for the privilege of setting up your business before you diversify.
Look at the Strait of Hormuz. The countries with the backup plan (rail built years ago) have an option other than dealing with Iran. The ones that don't suddenly have a problem - a big one.
Datacenters can indeed be built more cheaply on earth... for now. In the event that changes... you want to already have you
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.
Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.
If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.
WTF! (Score:2)
I mean, pie in the sky and probably dumb idea aside (with todays power generation ability and server power requirements), but how would THIS get block by the need for an environmental review but that stupid orbital sky mirror shining onto the dark side of Earth NOT need an environmental review? Seems like this is just Satellite++??
Re: (Score:1)
It's clearly OUTSIDE the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what you mean by "it" but:
(1) An environment is something that's around you that affects your existence, and earth-orbit space qualifies as one; and
(2) Both projects need an environmental review, not just one.
Re: (Score:2)
Politician: "Well, it was towed outside the environment."
Interviewer: "Into another environment?"
Politician: "No, no, it's been towed beyond the environment. It's not in the environment."
Re: (Score:2)
It's clearly OUTSIDE the environment.
It's going to be where they tow those ships that had their fronts fall off.
Oh man! (Score:2)
That Furbish lousewort sure gets around.
No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Why would the earth huggers think that an American regulatory body would have jurisdiction in this case? Outer space is OUTSIDE of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Outer space is OUTSIDE of the United States.
Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.
For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Per the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, anything launched from a nation, or by a party under its authority, is the property and responsibility of that nation. If the companies launching or operating the satellites are American, then the USA is supposed to regulate them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The launch pads are not in outer space.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the originating company based in the US? Do they do business or have customers in the US? That's enough for jurisdiction.
There's a bigger issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Orbital datacenters make no sense when you consider power consumption, radiator requirements, and speed of light delay communicating with the ground. The laws of physics say an orbital datacenter cannot work as efficiently as a terrestrial one.
My question, given that the datacenter concept is obviously a cover story, is what is it a cover story for? The most obvious is that it's to cover stock market fraud, but if satellites actually go up, then there are other, more sinister possibilities.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not in any way in favour, but your reasoning is incorrect. Efficiency is about doing work with an amount of energy, before it becomes heat. Not about how much heat that can be dumped.
On the energy supply side of the equation, it's very much limited by the area of solar panels. And conveniently, the larger those collectors are the larger the area of shade is available for heat dumping as well.
As for speed of light considerations. All of the proposals will be for LEO. Starlink being the poster child
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, expect many random panels to be punctured in data-centre lifetime. As each PV cell fails the reverse blocking diodes would allow the string to continue providing power at a reduced voltage. Each cell is about 0.5 V. but the diodes are usually across a series of 20 or so cells. So 10 Volts would be lost per puncture.
The only reason any of this is even a discussion is because of insanity with AI bubble. Once that pops, the talk of space based solutions will vanish.
Re: (Score:2)
So... if and when the AI bubble pops, nobody is going to want AI anymore?
I don't quite think that's how it worked when the dot-com bubble burst (seem to remember there's still this internet thing that people use).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See: https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org] for the heat part.
The shade part doesn't matter for heat dumping. The larger the solar panel, the greater chance that it'll get smacked by some space junk or a rocket launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Add cosmic particles that kill small-structure electronics fast.
I think this idea is used to push the stock-price.
Re: (Score:1)
If you talk to people who know what they're talking about, it turns out the cost is very similar. As for light delay, it's a few milliseconds; if users can connect directly to the satellites it may be faster than communicating with a data centre on the other side of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If you talk to people who know what they're talking about
Too bad you neither are one of the people who know they're talking about nor do you talk to those people.
Re: There's a bigger issue (Score:2)
You are implying that "investors" make mostly good decisions. Citation needed.
out of scope (Score:2)
Under the current interpretation of jurisdiction, this request would be out-of-scope for the FCC. Even if they wanted to grant it, they cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's an even deeper scoping issue. A truly ridiculous one that I've been waiting to hear from idiots ever since I read Fallen Angels.
"The Environment", ends with the atmosphere. What idiot is running around trying to protect the environment of a frikkin vacuum? There is no environment to protect in space! Anything past the atmosphere is
eh (Score:2)
Seems kind of premature, the knuckleheads that are trying to do orbital datacenters have about as much chance of developing a feasible, economic orbital data center as I do in being crowned Miss America.
Problem with cooling. (Score:2)
Chips are not just silicon made (Score:2)
But orbital solar doesn't? (Score:2)
They should also review plans for a Dyson Sphere (Score:2)
A Dyson sphere would have significant environmental effects too, and it's equally likely to be built.
This can't just be for "free" power (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Cooling is easier, no micrometeors to worry about, no need for radiation-hardened chips, the ability to go out and fix something that breaks, and, the largest benefit, you don't have to fling the whole friggin' thing into orbit. How is this even a serious proposal?
There is a standard called "NEBS" and entire systems are certified as NEBS compliant. For something to work in space, I imagine that a new standard (of similar nature) would be required that addresses things like heat management, radiation, and to some extent servicability. A firmware bug that kills all your SSDs in 12 servers simultaneously would but be acceptable - everything would need to be servicable/addressable provided it had power available. SSDs have a finite usable lifetime. what happens when all
Re: (Score:2)
So, a 1-acre data center that uses 100MW, probably an acre or so of a building to house the batteries and switchgear, and 10 acres of solar panels and wind turbines, and a 1-acre building of replacement parts for the batteries and solar panels and wind turbines... shouldn't take up much room, and that waste heat being dumped into water that needs to be cooled before recirculation won't heat the surrounding area more than 50F above what it would normally be and won't generate tons of fan noise.
(ever lived ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I bet their end goal is: build enough DCs that (in theory) that their AIs can be used by everyone on the planet at the same time, and bake AI into every single thing imaginable in such a way that there's no getting away from it (you _have_ to use it)... and, that's when the uncancelable lifetime subscription fees get slipped in (automatically deduct from bank or Social Security or it gets added as a nice, fat "tax" on your yearly filing).
Don't worry... the CEOs have to get their money somehow... and making
Environmental groups that are funded by whom? (Score:2)
Environmental groups, funded by the CCP, want America's FCC "to slam the brakes on orbital datacenters,"
Well, that would be a quick impact review. (Score:2)
There is no environment to impact, it's f-ing SPACE!
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the economy, and fuck you. Money is the only thing to you - you probably pay for sex, too.