Slashdot Mirror


White House Must Answer Petition To 'Build Death Star'

EdIII writes "The White House petition to secure funding for building the Death Star has garnered over 25,000 signatures, which means the White House must officially respond. I can't wait to see it. My question to Slashdot readers: what modifications would you add to the proposed Death Star? Obviously, as one journalist put it, 'guardrails around any of the facility's seemingly endless number of bridges, spans, shafts and pits.' What other changes would you ask your representatives to make?"

384 comments

  1. Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by DaemonDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

    --
    Enjoy post-apocalyptic and singularity science fiction? Check out www.demonarchives.com, a new online graphic-novel.
    1. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They already fixed that on the Endor variant (they just had a lousy slow contractor building it).

      My vote is that they add an exterminator or two to the crew. I hear the first Death Star had quite a pest problem in it's garbage compactors.

    2. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      And while your at it, make the force field a bit more difficult for Jedi infiltrators to turn off.

    3. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      I disagree. Why would you want to remove the failsafe in case the Death Star falls into the wrong hands?

    4. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by hectorh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the same reason smoke stacks and ventilation ducts have the least number of turns and bends: any obstruction creates back-pressure ... and back pressure is something you don't want when you are trying to dissipate excess heat during a SCRAM.

      Then again ... whoever thought they could hit a 1.5 meter target while travelling at 250+ meters / second ....

    5. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Such as the White House?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    6. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too expensive, Just move the hole to the other side - Outa site ;-)

    7. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only with the force...

    8. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      And while your at it, make the force field a bit more difficult for Jedi infiltrators to turn off.

      Yeah no single points of failure and build a UPS directly into the machinery while you are at it.

    9. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by tonywong · · Score: 5, Funny

      iFixit will give the new Death Star a repairability rating lower than the new iMac, then.

    10. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Bradmont · · Score: 2

      eeuh get estimates, yeah heh heh...

    11. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by hawguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      For the same reason smoke stacks and ventilation ducts have the least number of turns and bends: any obstruction creates back-pressure ... and back pressure is something you don't want when you are trying to dissipate excess heat during a SCRAM.

      Then again ... whoever thought they could hit a 1.5 meter target while travelling at 250+ meters / second ....

      Childs play - I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.

    12. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by forrestt · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, it isn't any harder than hitting a womp rat from a T-16. That should have been totally planned for.

    13. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 0

      Aw, that's not so hard. I used to bulls-eye womprats in my T-38 back home, and they're not much bigger than 1.5 meters.

    14. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that was just part of the Deathstar's green initiative. Those things are like space earthworms.

    15. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

      No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      They already fixed that on the Endor variant (they just had a lousy slow contractor building it).

      My vote is that they add an exterminator or two to the crew. I hear the first Death Star had quite a pest problem in it's garbage compactors.

      What none of you realise is that we are about to witness yet another round of trials and tests of the new death star concept demonstrator, the USS Apophis. They only made it look like an Asteroid to fool the Chinese. This has been common knowledge among UFOlogists for years now.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    16. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can shoot missiles faster than that through smaller openings. That the rebels with far more advanced technology could do it should be obvious. What isn't obvious is why they manually target their weapons when they have plenty of auto-targeting systems. The onboard R2 unit has more than enough computing power.

    17. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 0

      Shut yo' mouth!

    18. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why even have a central core at all? A distributed power system (hundreds of smaller reactors throughout the structure instead of one big reactor at the core) would completely eliminate that vulnerability and improve power uptime through sheer redundancy. An attacking force would have to destroy the Death Star piece by piece instead of blowing up the main core all at once.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    19. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something that always bothered me was the fact that they put the Emperor's Throne Room on top of a spindly little tower. IIRC that tower room used to be the command center before the emperor showed up! Sure it had a great view and lots of ambiance but such critical facilities should have been far deeper in the structure. If a pilot could hit a small exhaust port, then (if not for the shield) surely one of the Rebel capital ships could destroy that tower and get rid of the emperor AND the command center in one shot.

      Their entire line of defense was ONE shield (with no redundancy/backup) controlled from a poorly defended bunker staffed by incompetent soldiers. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    20. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They'd probably hack the system remotely, and tell it to go to sleep.

    21. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Just don't manage them with a Windows Domain forest, please.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    22. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still don't understand how that photon torpedo curved into the shaft.

    23. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Still don't understand how that photon torpedo curved into the shaft.

      Gravity maybe; any sufficiently large space station will have its own attractive force, whether due to its own size, or producing articifial gravity for it's crew.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    24. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Unless you cause a chain reaction, which would look awesome in IMAX.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      More moving parts... More to crap out on you more often... So, it's a six of one, half dozen of another for you there.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    26. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's special, magnetized shafts!

    27. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't manage them with a Windows Domain forest, please.

      I see what you did there...

    28. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      You hurt small animals for fun as a kid? You must be some kind of psychopath.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Still don't understand how that photon torpedo curved into the shaft.

      That was my bad. I was a contractor on the original DeathStar, hired to do the wall vaacum systems. Kinda' misread the plans that day, little hung over... Hooked up the wrong pvc pipe, and, well... It was an honest mistake!

      Posting AC cause "Mr. you know who" reads Slashdot.

    30. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I hear this I think WTF a 6 foot tall RAT! Run for the hills!!

    31. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think logic plays a large role here. The Emperor could shoot friggin' lightning bolts from his hand, but couldn't save himself from falling down a shaft?

      Come on...consistency.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    32. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard somewhere that the Death Star was originally conceived of for asteroid mining. It was re-purposed by the Empire for destroying planets. So, it wasn't designed with appropriate combat defenses in mind.

    33. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't. Nuclear aircraft carriers have two reactors instead of one, specifically for redundancy. It pays. (Except for the Enterprise, which has a whopping 8 individual reactors, because they were just swapping out the original boilers with nuclear equivalents to avoid structural redesign time and cost.)

    34. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a big reactor is much more efficient than a set of smaller reactors? Remember, the primary (though dubious) purpose of the Death Star is to shoot a giant frickin' laser that probably requires most of the reactor output just to fire once.

    35. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The two Sith Lord with the ability to sense the future was far more useful than the shields themselves. That and its a fantasy.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    36. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by yndrd1984 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Childs play - I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.

      You hurt small animals for fun as a kid? You must be some kind of psychopath.

      Sooo, how many meters long are the medium-sized animals on your planet? And about the large ones...

    37. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 1

      No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      And while your at it, make the force field a bit more difficult for Jedi infiltrators to turn off.

      What do you mean? The Jedi are extinct Lord Vader so to that years ago.

    38. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2

      Every time I hear this I think WTF a 6 foot tall RAT! Run for the hills!!

      Eight inches to two meters - about an order of magnitude...

      Forget about the womp-rats, it's the womp-cats and womp-dogs you really have to worry about.

      Especially if they start living together.

    39. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by yndrd1984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it's a "thermal exhaust port", possibly for plasma. In which case the shaft would have to be magnetized to keep the plasma from contacting the sides. And a "proton torpedo" sounds electrically charged, possibly so that just like like plasma they'll follow magnetic guides. Sort of like they're specifically made to be fired down plasma conduits...

    40. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many shafts to the core if there's an invisibility cloak!

    41. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bigger than two meter womp rat is not a small animal.

    42. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one big womp-twinkie.

    43. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just talkin bout shaft leading to the core.

    44. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dark Side has nothing if it doesn't have hubris.

    45. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear this I think WTF a 6 foot tall RAT! Run for the hills!!

      That would truly be an R.O.U.S.! (Rodent of Unusual Size)

    46. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Small* animals? You must be from NYC if you think a 2m+ sized rat is a small animal.

    47. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Still don't understand how that photon torpedo curved into the shaft.
      That port was used for anion exhaust (negatively charged), they used a proton torpedo (positively charged), and the magnetic attraction curved the trajectory of the torpedo.

    48. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Womp rats are a 6' long pest that attacks travelers and carries pestilence. Keeping their numbers down is an act of civil service. Also, the blankets they make are warm on those cold desert nights.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    49. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by halltk1983 · · Score: 2

      Different classes of reactor are different sizes. The main reactor in the Death Star was a super efficient class of reactor only otherwise used (IIRC) on the Star Dreadnaughts. They needed a single huge reactor like that to power the main gun.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    50. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda' misread the plans that day, little hung over.

      Where was the building inspector? 25,000 wires (sounds about right?) on an Apache Helicopter. Someone has to crimp and test each one.

    51. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what capacitors are for.

    52. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea because that would be real armageddon type stuff.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    53. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Anything bigger than 2 meters is no longer a small animal.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    54. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Why even have a central core at all? A distributed power system (hundreds of smaller reactors throughout the structure instead of one big reactor at the core) would completely eliminate that vulnerability and improve power uptime through sheer redundancy. An attacking force would have to destroy the Death Star piece by piece instead of blowing up the main core all at once.

      Obviously, with the power requirement to blow up Alderaan, you need a power density where any one catastrophic reactor failure will blow up the whole thing - or at least reach far enough to cause a chain reaction. So you'd rather put all your risk into a single, well-defended place. Well, in theory. Then the contractors come in.

      --

      Stephan

    55. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I hear this I think WTF a 6 foot tall RAT! Run for the hills!!

      Every time I hear "a 6 foot tall RAT!" I say to myself " he's probably gonna run for Congress"

    56. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Uh... dissipate heat in VACUUM by "venting" it?

      Trust me, no turn and bend on this planet could cause a back-pressure there. For back-pressure, something first has to press back.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Of course 90% of that computer power is used up thinking up snarky remarks.

    58. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, all it ever did in terms of "work" was to create an asteroid field, so...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How long have you been designing goods made in China?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    60. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by aix+tom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't remind me about Alderaan.

      Put your money in the Bank of Aldreaan, they said. Safest bank in the universe, they said. They'd have to to blow up the entire planet to get in there, they said.

    61. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping fingers crossed that the trials and tests won't have any undesireable effect on the trajectory of the space station.

    62. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No more shafts leading directly to the core, please.

      Consider 2 projects.

      Project A is efficient and solves an issue in a definitive manner.

      Project B has some flaws which means more money will be later given to project administrators to fix them.

      What will you choose as a citizen? A.
      What will you choose as the administrator of the funds? A, with less money and less things to do once it is complete? hmm?

      So if you want to be done with shafts leading to the core, FIND A REPLACEMENT.

      Welcome to the world.

    63. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      But capacitors require time to charge. You probably only need to blow up one planet in a star system at any one time, true, but there's always the possibility of missing (and it was staffed by stormtroopers, they can't seem to hit anything).

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    64. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't think they exist.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    65. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try eating womp rat your entire life spent as a moisture farmer on a desert planet with the closest entertainment at Toshi station 100 clicks away. You'd be psychopathic too.

    66. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What none of you realise is that we are about to witness yet another round of trials and tests of the new death star concept demonstrator, the USS Apophis. They only made it look like an Asteroid to fool the Chinese. This has been common knowledge among UFOlogists for years now.

      Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational asteroid!

    67. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Only after the obligatory tear-down which shouldn't take more than a few decades.

    68. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of a straight shaft, nor one with sharp angles, why not a gracefully turning corkscrew? That way there is no back pressure to worry about, nor torpedoes getting an unobstructed straight shot into the core.

    69. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by kinnell · · Score: 1

      Childs play - I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.

      You hurt small animals for fun as a kid? You must be some kind of psychopath.

      Sooo, how many meters long are the medium-sized animals on your planet? And about the large ones...

      I don't think they exist

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    70. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not distribute ALL critical systems evenly through the ship.. and we could even build it as a cube...yea, that's the ticket..

      Whose side are you on anyway?

    71. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anything bigger than 2 meters is no longer a small animal.

      Indeed, you will need to roll against at least man-sized creatures when bullseyeing womp rats.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Trust me, no turn and bend on this planet could cause a back-pressure there. For back-pressure, something first has to press back.

      If you had something coming out of a vent into space, restrictions in the vent would still cause a pressure drop, because of turbulence.

      However, a better question is, what was supposed to be coming out of those vents, and where did they get more of it? Unless they were somehow burying their waste heat in the exhaust or waste of spent fuel and expelling it, it seems unlikely they would actually have anything to vent for cooling. Given the choice, you'd use a closed system for something like a space station or hopefully even a capital ship, so you're not having to replenish coolant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The main reactor in the Death Star was a super efficient class of reactor only otherwise used (IIRC) on the Star Dreadnaughts. They needed a single huge reactor like that to power the main gun.

      Given that the main gun seemed to be formed from multiple beams, it seems even more ridiculous than usual to imagine that you could not power it from multiple reactors.

      In general, if you need a lot of power at once, you want a lot. A lot of cells, a lot of reactors, whatever. And for something that big, it actually might make sense to have multiple reactors spread out throughout, because something that large could be penetrated by an attack and not be destroyed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    74. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Except it isn't. Nuclear aircraft carriers have two reactors instead of one, specifically for redundancy. It pays. (Except for the Enterprise, which has a whopping 8 individual reactors, because they were just swapping out the original boilers with nuclear equivalents to avoid structural redesign time and cost.)

      It's notable that the later carriers don't have the eight reactors, and that's because if a ship is damaged to the point that a reactor is disabled, it's most likely on its way to see Davy Jones. Having two reactors permits maintenance while under way, rather than attack survivability.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    75. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > This has been common knowledge among UFOlogists for years now.

      "there are plenty of websites on Geocities devoted to exposing this conspiracy."

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    76. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by digitalmonkey2k1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You hurt small animals for fun as a kid? You must be some kind of psychopath.

      There's two suns and no women. What the hell else am I supposed to do?!

      --
      My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
    77. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Patch86 · · Score: 1
    78. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yup, the big problem in space. Heat. That old spoilsport "second law" strikes again.

      But aside of "throwing away hot stuff" there's really little you can do to get rid of your heat.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    79. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It runs in the family.

    80. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      Our planet is already a Death Star. Look at defense budgets and satellite counts.

    81. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      I was a contractor on the original DeathStar, hired to do the wall vaacum systems.

      Huh. I always thought the average Storm Trooper knew how to install a toilet main and there was no need for civilian contractors.

      Maybe those Rebels were just a bunch of bastards that killed a lot of innocent people indiscriminately.

    82. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What none of you realise is that we are about to witness yet another round of trials and tests of the new death star concept demonstrator, the USS Apophis. They only made it look like an Asteroid to fool the Chinese. This has been common knowledge among UFOlogists for years now.

      Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational asteroid!

      Well, DUUUH! It's only a concept demonstrator....

    83. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple should build the Death Star. It would be the next step in "rounded corners" engineering.

    84. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the point of this discussion was a Death Star. If an individual reactor on a Death Star is disabled, it doesn't sink. If you've built a power grid linking the reactors (and presumably you would, since we're talking about a craft the size of a small moon, or in other words, bigger than any US state), emplacements nominally powered by that reactor might not even go offline (those that survived the necessarily cataclysmic event that breached the superstructure sufficiently to disable the reactor in the first place, that is).

      About the only reason I've heard to justify a single giant reactor for a Death Star is the possibility that powering the planet-killer weapon any other way isn't feasible. Even then, people still don't grasp the scale of this monstrosity. It's the size of a small moon. There's plenty of room to build the giant core reactor plus individual small reactors distributed throughout the vehicle to power local functions, including such things as the trench turbolasers. Of course that doesn't save you from the consequences of catastrophic failure of the core reactor, so perhaps that observation is moot...

    85. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I addressed this point in another comment...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    86. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      That and its a fantasy.

      Just what the fuck is that supposed to me? Are you saying this didn't happen?

    87. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it has to do with something like phases or synchronizing the peaks and valleys in current to keep the targeting systems aligned. I know that it's harder to power things from multiple sources, it's why buildings usually have one entry point for power, and use batteries and a switch box for the generator instead of just leaving it all linked up all the time. It's one of the complexities in having wind and solar power at your home. And that's just tying it into the grid. If you're talking about providing possibly differing amounts of power to super lasers targeting something in front of your very expensive weapon you could knock off alignment of the blast.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    88. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can dig it!

    89. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Yes, if only warm objects hard some way of radiating energy into a vacuum...some kind of thermally produced radiation that a black body like the death star could radiate...too bad there's no solution to this problem.

    90. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by camperdave · · Score: 1

      There's always a bigger fish.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    91. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Practically every computer on the planet has room for a built in UPS, yet hardly any of them have one.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    92. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Used to be, you were right. Then they invented these little pocket computers called smartphones...

      Then they invented rather larger computers called tablets....

      And meanwhile I keep being told that everybody is buying laptops and not desktops....

      I do believe the battery-equipped computers outnumber the batteryless, at this point. Probably the batteryless still have a MIPS advantage, but they're likely in the minority now.

    93. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shoot small animals for fun? That's the first sign of a serial killer, ya' freak!

    94. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 meters is a "small" animal to you???

    95. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a port just as you described in your "command center" or "office" just like the Emperor? Yea, that makes sense- put deadly exhaust ports IN YOUR OFFICE.

    96. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm?

      Yes, that's the only way you can transport heat in a vacuum. That is the problem. That it is the only and the least efficient way. Take a sensible amount of waste heat, transform the Planck equation for black body radiation, put the values in and you'll agree. It's not a moon.

      The way it glows, it's got to be a sun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    97. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Isn't Apophis a dead Goa'uld?

    98. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also because A death star really should have been hollow. A hollow death star could be used as a bernal sphere, which could really help with the whole Mobile base thing. Drastically cuts down on weight as well

    99. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think logic plays a large role here. The Emperor could shoot friggin' lightning bolts from his hand, but couldn't save himself from falling down a shaft?

      Come on...consistency.

      Obviously the Emperor was out of mana from all the Chain Lightning and couldn't regen enough to cast Levitate.

    100. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROUSs? I don't think they exist.

    101. Re:Remove the obvious structural weaknesses by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Don't you have a port just as you described in your "command center" or "office" just like the Emperor?

      If that command center was aboard one of my country's most powerful warships, in a way - yes, it would have to exhaust heat from two nuclear reactors.

  2. Thermal Exhaust Ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly, we should make sure there is adequate shielding around all thermal exhaust ports. They may only be 1.5m wide, but you never know when some womp-rat bulls-eyeing farm kid in a snub fighter will show up.

  3. This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is why we have the Electoral College.

    1. Re:This by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      And a senate.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:This by Nkwe · · Score: 2

      is why we have the Electoral College.

      No, it is why we have a representative system which is balanced two ways (House - weighted by population / Senate - balanced by state). The Electoral College system can go.

    3. Re:This by Xebikr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. It just shows that Americans are taking Obama's online petitions just as seriously as he does.

    4. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we have the Electoral College.

      And a senate.

      Because there's no way around those 2 annoyances

    5. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An electoral what? no wonder you're in so much political mess, most other countries don't have silly 'colleges' unless they're education colleges of course :P

    6. Re:This by pwizard2 · · Score: 2

      The galactic senate didn't stop Palpatine from taking over. In fact, they cheered him on.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    7. Re:This by EdIII · · Score: 1

      If your going to bring up history from a long long long time ago in a far far far away place at least be accurate.

      It was that fucking Jar Jar Binks. He handed the Galactic Senate over to the dark side.

    8. Re:This by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      Yes. We have an Electoral College system because a popular vote at the time would have dramatically favored non-slave-state voters. The Electoral College system weights the vote to include the 3/5 calculation for slaves. The Electoral College also overweights states with below-average populations (below average number, I mean). Both of those weightings helped the slave-states (as compared to the non-slave-states) in influencing who gets to be president.

    9. Re:This by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The galactic senate didn't stop Palpatine from taking over. In fact, they cheered him on.

      So said George Lucas in a thinly veiled critique of the American system of government in this very fictional account. Then again, just look at what happened to Hitler with the Reichstag (what I think Lucas was alluding to) and you might have a point.

    10. Re:This by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Jar Jar called for a vote, nothing more.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:This by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think he was alluding to Julius Caesar convincing the Roman Senate to declare him emperor of Rome.

    12. Re:This by Chuckstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Julius Caesar was never emperor of Rome.

      The senate declared him "dictator in perpetuity", but that's not quite the same thing. Augustus is considered the first emperor, having real imperial power as we'd mean it today, even though he eschewed any title which would seem to give him monarchical status. He did use the title Imperator, from which the English word Emperor derives, but it did not really have the same meaning at the time. He also used the title Princeps, meaning first citizen, but that also was not a title similar to Emperor. Effectively, Augustus had absolute power, but did not have a title recognizing that power.

      Later Roman Emperors held various titles, but even those varied over time.

      I find it interesting, furthermore, that the term "Caesar" became associated with the imperial position in Rome. It did not start out as anything more than the cognomen for Gaius Julius. Roman Emperors started adding it to their names to try to link themselves to the famous (and popular) Gaius Julius Caesar. Eventually, it became such a standard part of the title that it eventually came to mean "emperor" or "king" for various European cultures.

      (Your comment was not really wrong, btw, considering the context. I just thought you or orther readers might be interested in additional detail about the term Emperor of Rome.)

    13. Re:This by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      There hasn't been a Senate in the US for 100 years.

    14. Re:This by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Which is why they never let the gungans into politics before that...

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    15. Re:This by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Yep. We'll get a carefully worded letter stating "We heard you. Vote for us. Now, bugger off."

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    16. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Your comment was not really wrong, btw, considering the context. I just thought you or orther readers might be interested in additional detail about the term Emperor of Rome.)

      And we were, thank you. :) I'm off on a wikipedia journey now, I may be some time...

    17. Re:This by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      True. but Americans still have a lot to learn about democracy.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    18. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jar Jar called for a vote, nothing more.

      He helped make it legal!

    19. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea & when he does it he sounds just like every fucktard in US Congress handing over power to Eric Schmidt, felon Chris Dodd and his partner in crime, Barney I-fucked-the-economy Frank.

    20. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... was alluding to Julius Caesar failing to convince the Roman Senate not to declare him ...

      FTFY

  4. "Must respond?" Hardly by Huntr · · Score: 4, Informative

    They don't actually *have* to respond, just because there are the required number of signatures. They've ignored many of these petitions, most recently those petitions regarding state secession following the November elections.

    1. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't actually *have* to respond, just because there are the required number of signatures. They've ignored many of these petitions, most recently those petitions regarding state secession following the November elections.

      Petition for "please dismantle TSA" got a response written by the director of the TSA. Surprisingly, he wrote how awesome and useful TSA is.

      I know!
      Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.

    2. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.

      There already is one, no duplicates allowed. Here is their response.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.

      There already is one, no duplicates allowed. Here is their response.

      They are LYING, though

      Getting back to the TSA example -- the response literally said "TSA is agile and awesome and by the way, here's our expansion plan for the next 10 years". They are not even pretending, since the response didn't even say "we hear you and we promise to address your concerns"

      The situation has gotten so bad that they don't feel the need to even pay lip service and fake a response (notice I am not even talking about DOING something to address the petition).

    4. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't actually *have* to respond, just because there are the required number of signatures.

      Sure they do, they can say, "no."

      They've ignored many of these petitions, most recently those petitions regarding state secession following the November elections.

      Most of the votes for those were lefty trolls.

    5. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if we didn't behave like children, we wouldn't be treated as children. Most of those petitions show such a huge lack of understanding of the issues involved that a page or two of explanation simply can't begin to explain why they can't do X or why they don't do Y.

      How else do you respond to someone with the understanding of a child if not talking to them as if they were a child?

    6. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Or they could just respond with "no".

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently, like every single idiot signing that, you didn't the the sarcasm of parent commenter at all. (Don't tell me you ironically signed it. Or I'll ironically kick your ass. I wouldn't mean it, and I'm strongly against ass kicking. That's why I would do it! HA! :P)

    8. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way is asking them to not violate our rights behaving like children?

    9. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'd take our petitions seriously if they weren't stupid.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-white-genocide-through-halting-massive-non-white-immigration-every-white-country-and-only-white/YV5861Tz

      I wouldn't take you lot seriously either.

    10. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

      You mistake "taking something seriously" with "agreeing with everything in some random petition by an incredible minority of the electorate, in direct opposition to the majority view of the US public".

      Petitions raise issues, they don't decide things. They especially don't decide things when it's clear that the petitioners don't speak for the American people. This isn't just for those inane secession petitions, it's also for the TSA.

      The majority of Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. You (and I) disagree, but that is the way it is. So the Administration is not lying when they say they take petitions seriously. In this case, they rather seriously said "no, ending the TSA ain't going to happen". And then mentioned some things they're trying to do to improve the experience - which actually is a reasonable request. (From the actual response - "Current efforts include: changing the way TSA screens passengers ages 12 and under, evaluating the expanded use of behavior detection techniques, and piloting expedited screening for known travelers.")

      So grow up. Sometimes in elections, you just hold the minority view. And juvenile alienation is not only extremely annoying, it's counterproductive. Or did you sign that dumb-ass secession petition as well?

    11. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by truedfx · · Score: 1
      Their FAQ reads:

      The White House plans to respond to each petition that crosses the signature threshold, which you can view on the Terms of Participation page. In a few rare cases (such as specific procurement, law enforcement, or adjudicatory matters), the White House response might not address the facts of a particular matter to avoid exercising improper influence. In addition, the White House will not respond to petitions that violate We the People’s Terms of Participation. In some cases, a single response may be used for similar petitions.

      If they do not plan to respond to petitions, they should drop the claim that they plan to. This says nothing about a timeframe, though, so it is possible that they do plan to respond to the petitions, but not until we're in the year 2525.

    12. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.

      There already is one, no duplicates allowed. Here is their response.

      Their response can be summarized as "Here are the two things that we identified as low-hanging fruit that would make people believe we cared; you can expect more of the same when we get around to it."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:"Must respond?" Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.

      Step 1: stop voting for death stars

  5. Re:HALOPERIDOL by partyguerrilla · · Score: 2

    so people finally realize that all the space fantasies they grew up with are simply not possible

    People do realize that, idiot, it's just that most people aren't autistic like you and don't take this kind of thing seriously.

  6. Make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...it is ADA compliant.

    1. Re:Make sure... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...it is ADA compliant.

      You mean coding it in all UPPERCASE?

    2. Re:Make sure... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dude.... Seriously......

      LOL.

      It *IS* ADA compliant. Look at Darth Vader. Fucker lost two legs, one arm, and could not breathe very well anymore. He seemed to run the Death Star just fine....

    3. Re:Make sure... by PRMan · · Score: 0

      Where are my mod points?!? Mod parent up!

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Make sure... by virb67 · · Score: 1

      The real question is whether it's AT-AT compliant.

    5. Re:Make sure... by sootman · · Score: 1, Funny

      > He seemed to run the Death Star just fine....

      You mean, other than having two blown up out from under him? Yeah, the guy was a fucking champ. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    6. Re:Make sure... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      So he's responsible for all the manufacturer defects?

      That's kind of harsh don't you think?

      Nooo... the guy that was a "fucking champ" is the one who designed AT-AT walkers that could be taken out by a bunch of primitive Ewoks. Add the douchecanoe who decided that a single control panel, reachable only by hanging out on a ledge where nobody could guard it, could bring down an entire tractor beam system.

    7. Re:Make sure... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I still can't figure out what the point of the AT-ATs was. We're talking about a civilization that has levitation technology: remember the landspeeder Luke ran around in on Tattooine (which couldn't have been very expensive since he was a poor moisture farmer)? If they can make those levitate, then why wouldn't top-of-the-line Imperial military ground vehicles have the same capability, instead of needing legs? Besides, the ground where we saw them operating (namely on Hoth, I'm talking about the AT-ATs here and not the AT-STs used on Endor) was smooth; a large wheeled or tracked vehicle would have been much faster and capable of carrying more weight, if we're going to ignore levitation technology.

    8. Re:Make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still can't figure out what the point of the AT-ATs was. We're talking about a civilization that has levitation technology: remember the landspeeder Luke ran around in on Tattooine (which couldn't have been very expensive since he was a poor moisture farmer)? If they can make those levitate, then why wouldn't top-of-the-line Imperial military ground vehicles have the same capability, instead of needing legs? Besides, the ground where we saw them operating (namely on Hoth, I'm talking about the AT-ATs here and not the AT-STs used on Endor) was smooth; a large wheeled or tracked vehicle would have been much faster and capable of carrying more weight, if we're going to ignore levitation technology.

      You bozo, hoverboards don't work on work on water. Unless you've got power.

    9. Re:Make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How come stormtroopers, the crack troops of the galaxy, can't shoot as well as my grandmother who has never held a gun?"

      Until the above question is answered, literally all other "technical" Star Wars questions are moot. Just enjoy the damn thing. Or don't. I don't care.

    10. Re:Make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we want to go with the lore, the AT-AT is a heavily armored troop transport vehicle, carrying 40+ soldiers. If memory serves, levitation was mostly applied to smaller, lighter, more agile craft.

      As for not using wheeled or tracked vehicles- putting aside the part where it was of course a SFX play on the part of ILM- I read a book as a kid which I believe explained it as, Hoth was way on the outskirts of the Empire, so the Imperial troops were essentially making do with what they had available, and that the AT-AT was designed for a different use model.

      I'm not a major Star Wars fan, just thought I'd throw that out :)

    11. Re:Make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know how well she can shoot if she's never held a gun?

    12. Re:Make sure... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      It's actually not all that bad.

      Why not use repulsorlift technology? The same reason main battle tanks don't fly. Too heavy. The armor is "too heavy for blasters" as Luke says, so it's not unreasonable that it's too heavy for repulsors. Why not use a large wheeled or tracked vehicle? An AT-AT would be much more effective in several situations. Their main guns and height mean they are essentially high ground artillery during an attack. That vantage point gives an advantage when assaulting a fortified position. Additionally, an AT-AT would be able to cross a body of water while still fighting much more easily than wheeled vehicle. The walking capability would allow far more rugged terrain to be traversed and would allow the vehicle to approach a fortification, step over the defensive positions and many defensive fortifications/walls, and then unload troops. All the while blasting the enemy with it's forward mounted swivel guns. The best analog to the AT-AT isn't a tank. It's a siege tower. It's a vehicle for assaulting and breaching heavily fortified installations. Remember, at the Battle of Hoth the only thing the AT-ATs had to do was destroy the shield generator. The troops came from the main invasion force which were deployed after the shield went down.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    13. Re:Make sure... by Dr+Fro · · Score: 1

      Darn right. Don't use C. Only a strongly-type language can control firepower of that magnitude with minimal defects.

      --
      ********************
      I object to Intellect without Discipline.
    14. Re:Make sure... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Dude.... Seriously......

      LOL.

      It *IS* ADA compliant. Look at Darth Vader. Fucker lost two legs, one arm, and could not breathe very well anymore. He seemed to run the Death Star just fine....

      Yes, his dental work didn't suffer at all!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We already have one. Where did you think all the money went?

    -Obama

    1. Re:Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama should dress up as Darth Vader and get a few nerds to help play out the response. Talk about how much money NASA would need. Get the Air Force and Army Corps to design it.

      Basically, during the Press dinner would be the proper time to respond to this.

    2. Re:Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One? Why build one when you can build two for twice the price?

    3. Re:Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus giving the evangelicals and Tea Party all the proof they'd need that Obama is an evil dictator.

  8. Thermal exhaust port grates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some metal grating over the thermal exhaust ports would probably be a pretty cheap add to the project budget.

    1. Re:Thermal exhaust port grates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but the specifications and design is complete, so this is a variation to the contract. We can fit additional gratings at $17,000,000,000 ea.

    2. Re:Thermal exhaust port grates by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Oh, just hire a roofer to nail a piece of plywood over it! Better yet, "space-plywood"!

  9. Don't outsource any of the labor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I speak for everybody when I say I don't want any Wookies or Ewoks anywhere near my Death Star!

  10. Sad; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It just helps the White House trivialize other petitions. We are fast becoming a nation of idiots, who don't value our rights. There are so many good petitions and then we have this. Should it even be on Slashdot? It should get a curt, "No Comment" from the White House. 25,000 idiots.

    1. Re:Sad; by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why shouldn't the people show the government what they think of them? If our government insists on treating the electorate like they were a bunch of morons, why bother asking questions that you know will just be answered by a bunch of political platitudes. At least in this case the answer might be funny.

    2. Re:Sad; by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The white house needs no help trivializing those petitions. The entire site provides nothing but an illusion of having a voice. They were completely ignoring petitions with 75,000 signatures long before the jokes began.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Sad; by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I thought the same way you did. Then I saw the patronizing bullshit they were responding with for the serious questions regarding our rights and government corruption.

      The website is bullshit, the only sadness is that any citizen really thinks that it's nothing more than an expensive platitude to appease the slightly more informed masses.

      As far as I am concerned, the next petition should be the serious funding for an advanced self cleaning pocket pussy that can holographically project HD porn in front of you. You would think I am kidding, but I'm not. If trillions of dollars went to bail out Wall Street and a bunch of assholes that don't need to pay for their mistakes like normal people, if trillions of dollars can be spent on a War on Drugs that has done nothing, If trillions of dollars can be spent on the Military Industrial Complex bailouts....

      Yeah.... I think as an American Citizen I deserve my super advanced pocket pussy. It's as valid as any of the other bullshit they've spent my money on.... and ten times better than the reach-around I'm getting from the deep fucking now...

    4. Re:Sad; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... and ten times better than the reach-around I'm getting from the deep fucking now...

      Not clear here, does this mean you are currently having gay sex which includes a reach around?

    5. Re:Sad; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If our government insists on treating the electorate like they were a bunch of morons,

      The electorate is a bunch of morons. Man children like yourself and other Slashturds confirm this on a daily basis.

    6. Re:Sad; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The entire site provides nothing but an illusion of having a voice.

      Mission accomplished. The whole system is built around that.

    7. Re:Sad; by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      .... and ten times better than the reach-around I'm getting from the deep fucking now...

      Not clear here, does this mean you are currently having gay sex which includes a reach around?

      While rape is technically sex, it's bad form to refer to it that way. And it's cowardly to do it without logging in.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Sad; by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's satire. If they are spending billions on defense, why not spend billions on "cool" defense.

  11. Additions to make by Kreegalor · · Score: 2

    Access shafts smaller than 2 meters No straight runs on access shafts that are for core ventilation Tractor Beam generator disables requiring multi-person authorization Cameras on the prison levels Better training of security staff A 5 fold increase in garbage compactor speed and no main airlock opening until the garbage has been vented into space. Defense turrets around the power core Decentralized power generators

    1. Re:Additions to make by Anaerin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's take these in order.

      Access shafts smaller than 2 meters

      Given that the average person is 2 meters tall (give or take), and adding the bulk of hard-vacuum capable work gear, making maintenance access shafts smaller than 2 meters would cause a lot more problems. I'd recommend, instead, putting a locking/securable cover or grate over entrances and exits of access shafts.

      No straight runs on access shafts that are for core ventilation

      I presume you're talking about the "Thermal exhaust port" here. Twists and turns in shafts like that can cause backpressure, causing problems and leading to overheating and thermal runaway (read: big explosion).

      Tractor Beam generator disables requiring multi-person authorization

      I'd say multi-person and multi-point authorization.

      Cameras on the prison levels

      Actually, there were multiple cameras on the detention level - they were the second thing shot (after the stormtroopers) when Han and co. arrived there. Hence, also, the "Weapons malfunction" call.

      Better training of security staff

      Unfortunately, they were stormtrooper clones with only a genetic imprint for education and no actual field experience.

      A 5 fold increase in garbage compactor speed and no main airlock opening until the garbage has been vented into space.

      The speed of the garbage compactor wasn't the issue, it was the ease with which the system could be disabled from a single point. The main access door was locked while the compactor was cycling, but the locks were lifted (and the door opened) when the compactor was overridden. This is an entirely sensible system to have in place - if something goes wrong with the compactor, you will need to get access to it, and having the only access door permanently sealed mid-cycle (which is where 99% of problems will occur) makes a maintenance access door like the one in the movie pointless.

      Defense turrets around the power core

      Given the rebels' ability to easily hack into and alter computer systems at will (with the cost of a only simple, easily replaceable astromech in the case of doing massive damage and causing an overload), would it really be a good idea to have computer-controlled autocannons around the power core? Then all the rebels would need to do is send in an rogue astromech, which would interface with the ship's computer and direct the "defense turrets" to open fire on the core. Oh, and given the history of accuracy of those turrets, would you really want them in a place where a miss would do the rebel's job for you?

      Decentralized power generators

      Yay! Lots of targets to hit! In lots of places, which makes it exceedingly difficult to guard and protect them all, and even with the system decentralized, you would still have the issue of a massive power surge from one generator (from, say, it's destruction) feeding back into another generator and causing a chain-reaction. And if you don't have the generators linked you still have the issue of maintenance and lack of redundancy. Oh, and that huge weapon that destroys planets requires a HUGE amount of power - chances are it's difficult (if not impossible) to co-ordinate that much power production with a group of parallel power plants, hence the huge single core.

    2. Re:Additions to make by v1 · · Score: 1

      Cameras on the prison levels

      iirc, first thing they did when they got into the prison control room was blast out all the cameras. You might want to watch that one again. Maybe make the cameras more blaster-proof. (or less obvious looking / hidden)

      Defense turrets around the power core

      I don't think you want a turbo laser shootout going on around your power core in the first place. If they make it that far you're probably already toast. (even ships getting blown up in there is probably bad) Instead, how about stationing the turrets IN the access tunnels, where certain low-profile ships will have no room to maneuver and dodge your shots.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Additions to make by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I don't think a crooked ventilation shaft would have prevented the chain reaction caused by cauterizing the shaft itself at the outlet.

      Those torpedoes didn't go all the way to the core, you know, they just had to get past the opening.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Additions to make by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Re: straight exaust port.

      Agreed, a straight flu is the most efficient design. However, the inability to close down a section of the exhaust conduit, and reroute exhaust from the primary reactor to secondary (or tertiary) failsafe exhaust ports in the event of a serious malfunction (like an asteroid impact, or even just a power coupling explosion. We *are* talking billions of joules of energy being distributed to produce to coherent planet killer beam here. A malfunction will be spectacular!) Or even just for maintenance without also shutting down the whole damned deathstar is just plain shitty engineering.

      Likewise, due to the enormous costs of construction invested in the device, a means of quickly expelling all reactive materials from the core to prevent a runaway catastrophic failure is simply prudent. Anything that can generate enough energy during NORMAL operations to blow an earth sized planet apart going critical inside a star system with inhabited planets is going to make somebody's day quite miserable indeed! Ejecting the reactant to make it impossible to achieve a critical failure of that type prevents both catastrophes. It would also make a very powerful excape thrust to push the powered down station away from any gravitating bodies. (We are talking billlions of liters of deuterium or helium 3 to power something like that. Venting it *will* move the station.)

      I understand that astroengineering isn't easy, but risk management is very poignant as a concern when building planet destroying super weapons.

      Consider:

      Rebels discover you are building said superweapon, and seek to blow it up by destabilizing the fueled up main reactor. The resulting explosion will send very high energy debris all over the system used for construction, essentially making the system useless for habitation, or for any further harboring, as it causes extinction level events all over the system in question from falling debris.

      Rebels discover your completed superweapon as you move the behemoth around. (Seriously, do really didn't think that moving something the size of a moon around wasn't going to cause gravitational effects that could be measured LONG before you entered firing range of habitable worlds? For real!?) This gives them time to get sabboteurs aboard to steal technical data or worse, and you suffer the "2m exhaust port" failure...

      OR...

      In either of the above cases, the rebels ATTEMPT to light the main reactor using a cascading failure, only to have the cascade be intercepted by a safety interlock on the exhaust port, as reactant is simultaenously ejected to propel the station away from either the construction yards or target planetary system, and simply powers down primary power systems. Without main power, main engines won't come on, so the station becomes just another orbital mass. It would take emmense amounts of fuel to repower the main reactor, so if the rebels try to capture the station, it still won't be going anywhere, and your conventional assault fleet can mow them down. (Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people you have already on the station to repel boarders.)

      The first two result in a complete loss of investment, while the third permits salvage.

      Hmmm.. let's think about that.

      Yeah. Install the damned inerlocks and reactant purge emergency systems, OK? :D

  12. I have a suggestion for the White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Come back from out space"

  13. You need to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What other changes would you ask your representatives to make?

    Lots of Princess Leia look-alikes dressed by Jabba the Hutt, of course.

  14. Horizontal Travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, they have elevators, but given the size, moving walkways would be nice.

  15. shielding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would recommend some sort of shielding around the main reactor ventilation shaft. Wouldn't want a stray torpedo destroying the entire thing.

  16. Somebody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OPEN THE DAMN Blast doors..... and take out the trash.

  17. Sanitation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it easier to shut down the garbage disposal units. Particularly on the detention level.

  18. The White House should be all: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What, our Debt Star isn't enough? Don't try to out-greed us, peasants."

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:The White House should be all: by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      The ability to destroy an entire planet('s economy) is insignificant next to the power ... you get the idea...

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:The White House should be all: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone really needs to make a movie about this, with Bush as the dark lord. That way we can use our limitless credit for a fake death star.

    3. Re:The White House should be all: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. The estimated cost of the Death Star is $15,600,000,000,000,000,000,000. 1.4 trillion times the US national debt.

  19. Think of the jobs it would create! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Following the logic of many of today's politicians... It would be the end of our recession! Everyone would be employed!
    Ouch. I hurt my sarcasm bone.

    1. Re:Think of the jobs it would create! by Jetra · · Score: 1

      I died laughing. If they go through with it, I'm officially going to admit myself to an insane asylum.

  20. The only appropriate white house response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A drone.

  21. Death Star + Gun Control mere Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just now while gun-control heads to the front of topic of conversation, we wanna talk death-star? What universe am I in?

  22. Just add more death by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    ... and maybe more star while we're at it. Really, the previous death stars haven't caused enough of either.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Just add more death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, the first Death Star caused a significant amount of death on the side of the Empire.

    2. Re:Just add more death by r33per · · Score: 1

      ... and maybe more star while we're at it. Really, the previous death stars haven't caused enough of either.

      On the contrary, the first Death Star caused a significant amount of death on the side of the Empire.

      Not to mention the thousands on voices that suddenly fell silent on Alderaan. Sounds like the force is not that strong with this one...

    3. Re:Just add more death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More Cowbell!

  23. Your tax dollar at work by ELCouz · · Score: 1

    n/t

    1. Re:Your tax dollar at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole website has been a monumental fucking waste of tax payers money. Petition the White House! Honest, we'll take it super cereal! Tell me one petition that has resulted in fuck all. It's the biggest piece of proof that what the people want doesn't actually mean jack shit. If those petitions actually resulted in anything maybe people wouldn't be asking for death stars today.

  24. Re:HALOPERIDOL by vistapwns · · Score: 2

    Jokes going to be on you, and probably the people who thought they were kidding by making this request, if the white house pulls out a real death star made from nanorobotics and AGI they developed in secret. While it can be argued this stuff is far off, it really can't be argued that it's impossible. Short version of nanorobotics is this: You make one nanobot (atomically precise robot the size of a blood cell with manipulator arms for moving atoms), it can then make a second, those two can make four, those four can make eight and so on. Being a million times smaller than human scale machines, they would move a million times faster, so you'd end up with trillions or more in a day, more than enough. Nanobots could make vast structures of atomic precision, controlled by massive amounts of nanocomputer based AI. Building a death star would be as easy as ordering a happy meal. Along with things like eternal life spans (heat death, big crunch, etc. permitting), no diseases, no aging, omnipresent crime prevention, etc. I doubt anyone would actually build a death star if they could, except to say 'gee, look at this cool thing I built' but certainly not impossible.

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
  25. Money PIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be a big moon size money pit!

    1. Re:Money PIT by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      It will be a big moon size money pit!

      That's no moon...

  26. Internal Trash Compactor Safety Kill-Switches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta put safety kill-switches on the inside that don't actually get compacted or pressed by the compactors itself or any of the trash. Something that requires intervention by a human who accidentally finds himself trapped inside during compaction-time.

    1. Re:Internal Trash Compactor Safety Kill-Switches by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Gotta put safety kill-switches on the inside that don't actually get compacted or pressed by the compactors itself or any of the trash. Something that requires intervention by a human who accidentally finds himself trapped inside during compaction-time.

      They already have covers on the chutes that lead to the trash compactors to prevent humans from entering. Presumably if the service door inside the compactor is open for legitimate maintenance, there's a lockout to prevent the compactors from activating. If criminals wouldn't blast open the covers to illicitly gain entry, then there wouldn't be humans caught in the compactors.

      Safety switches inside aren't going to add much real safety, but will be a source of maintenance headaches.

  27. How about a better targeting system by BLToday · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those X-Wings weren't flying very fast and the targeting couldn't hit them with lasers! Lasers travel at the speed of light and you couldn't hit a target moving less than the speed of light? Definitely gov't contractors that built the targeting system.

    While you're at it, some ID requirement and checkpoints into vital area like the shield and tractor beam controls. Maybe put at guard or an alarm whenever some vital system like the shield is disabled.

    And DirecTV for UFC fights. When your entire company of troops gets distracted by a light saber fight, they're just saying they need better entertainment. A firing range would help the troops relax and maybe just maybe help them hit targets with their laser rifle.

    1. Re:How about a better targeting system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they were really lasers, because they pretty obviously didn't travel at the speed of light. It's probably just an inappropriate marketing term based on other superficial similarities.

    2. Re:How about a better targeting system by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Those X-Wings weren't flying very fast and the targeting couldn't hit them with lasers!

      To be fair, all sides seemed to be using some special frequency of light whose photons only moved at a few hundred miles per hour (and could be seen from the side, and sounded like "pew! pew!" even across a vacuum).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:How about a better targeting system by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      They're not lasers. They're blasters. The Star Wars geek community has done an admirable job coming up with the explanation that blasters fire packets of plasma. I believe the popular explanation is that blaster bolts and light saber blades are made of the same type of plasma, where the blaster bolt has been separated from it's source and accelerated to what seems to me to be approximately bow-and-arrow speeds. ;-)

    4. Re:How about a better targeting system by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I believe the popular explanation is that blaster bolts and light saber blades are made of the same type of plasma, where the blaster bolt has been separated from it's source and accelerated to what seems to me to be approximately bow-and-arrow speeds. ;-)

      Some believe ball lightning to be a packet of steam encapsulated by and helping to retain the lightning somehow (plasma-state...) and since Star Wars, we've seen the PPG on B5. Let us not forget the venerable PPC. There's lots of examples of slow-moving directed energy weapons, it's unfair to pick on Star Wars even if it's fun :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Tamper alarms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on the tractor beam controls.

  29. Artificial Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No gravity is gonna make it difficult for all the light-saber battles to take place.

  30. An override switch? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    We need the ability to take control if the vessel is somehow taken over by terrorists. Or at least disable it.

    How about an override switch?

  31. Re:HALOPERIDOL by SomePgmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. People like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk. They're just dummies that haven't thought about it enough, or maybe they're just not good with numbers or technology. Why would we even consider the possibility of leaving this rock if we can't manage more than a year or so off-planet right now? Obviously you're right, it's impossible, and everyone else is wrong.

    Or just maybe petitioning for a Death Star has absolutely nothing to do with seriously considering the possibility of living somewhere other than earth, and it might be possible. If you listen to some people much smarter than you or me, possibly even in our lifetime.

    Beyond that, why so angry about people having dreams of space? Take a deep breath.

  32. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, this seriously needs to stop. Before you know it, some idiot is going to sail west believing that his ship will land in India.

  33. Re:HALOPERIDOL by santathehutt · · Score: 1

    QuantumApostrophe, is that you?

  34. Disney funding by yephick · · Score: 2

    I think Disney should (t least partially) fund such a project ;-)

  35. No credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have no credibility when it comes to these petitions:

    White House Pulls Down TSA Petition

  36. The entire Death Star transforms.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...into a housemaid-shaped robot known as "Mega Maid" with a giant atmosphere-sucking vacuum cleaner.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptOUWC-Itc

  37. Holodeck by tatman · · Score: 2

    I know the holodeck is from Star Trek but hey, if we are going to do this right, a holodeck is necessary.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re:Holodeck by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Hell, why don't we add some magic wands and Harry fucking Potter while we're at it? And timelords? And hookers and blackjack!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Holodeck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a holodeck, all those other things are included. And hobbits!

    3. Re:Holodeck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... And hookers and blackjack!

      Don't space-ports in all (fictional) universes have a canteena or bar. Where there are space troopers, space marines, space freighters bored by travel, there will be vendors of beer, sex, and 'get rich quick' entertainment.

    4. Re:Holodeck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in fact, forget the blackjack

  38. Grates, shields, better security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People want better shielding around the thermal vents?

    And better security around the tractor beam power couplings?

    And cameras in the detention block?

    But if you had all those things then Luke, Han, and Obiwan wouldn't be able to save Princess Leia.

    What are you thinking?

    1. Re:Grates, shields, better security? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ever thought that this MIGHT have been in the interest of the Empire? I mean, that these two space cowboys fail?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    the only possible future for the human race is in space.

    Ok then. What possible future for the human race is there.
    There is a short one for sure. Stay here until life can no longer be supported on this planet. After that it is either be many places of extinction.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Something just didn't sit right with me... by Onuma · · Score: 4, Funny

    Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
    Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
    Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
    Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
    Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    1. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?

    2. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is crap, construction is done by droids.

    3. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      If that's not a real quote... you've got some skill there buddy. +5 funny.

    4. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's not a real quote... you've got some skill there buddy. +5 funny.

      Clerks :)

    5. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      its from the movie "clerks"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

    6. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      nevermind, I am a dumbass and missed the joke

    7. Re:Something just didn't sit right with me... by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Marshall: Well, it's called the Death Star, baby. They knew what they were getting into.

  41. No Guard Rails by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

    Do you have any idea the tons of additional weight guard rails would add to ship of that size? Even the death ray has to be in an unshielded corridor to save weight and cost. Look, when you do the math you can't even afford armored grills over exhaust ports.

    1. Re:No Guard Rails by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      No kidding, the sheer fucking mind-boggling amount of conduit required for the EMI segregation...

      Oh by all the stars in the sky, the sheer paperwork involved. All the arisings during construction, everything.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:No Guard Rails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't need 'em, anyway. Unless they invent some form of artificial gravity, you're in no danger of falling down those bottomless pits.

      Of course, you can still scream like Wilhelm when you fall off a bridge and float away...

  42. Skywalker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the implication that a "Skywalker" from one of the U.S.'s geopolitical foes will inevitably destroy the "Death Star", I don't see how this could go well for them. =)

  43. We should stipulate that it be destroyed when done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should stipulate that it be destroyed as soon as it's completed, then rebuilt. It will be good for the economy. In fact we should just keep doing that until the economy recovers.

  44. True Democracy would be a disaster by bartoku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine if we had a true democracy where everyone had a vote on everything.

    We would not have universal healthcare, we would have universal Lamborghini Aventadors.

    Of course we would have no roads to drive them on since that funding would go towards universal ice cream.

    Good thing corporations and rich people set our policies and not Occupy Wall Street dead beats.

    1. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure hyperdemocracy would fail. It would have unexpected problems. To combat the problem at hand: They just need a way for other people to downvote things on petitions. Sure a Death star gets 25k upvotes, but how many downvotes would it get? I'm sure many more.

      My theory is for a hyperdemocracy with a representative government like we have. The representative government doesn't even have to listen to the hyperdemocracy crowd and go their own way, but they still need to get elected... If a website went hyperdemocracy now and got big, it would influence things by educating voters and giving information to the elected officials on what the people want, not necessarily what the people who pay their campaign contributions want.

    2. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by bartoku · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure hyperdemocracy would fail.

      I am a lot more skeptical than you are.
      I assume our elected officials have a higher level of education than the average of the general voters.
      I suspect that most elected officials are not even well informed on the issues they vote on despite their greater education and the fact that they get paid to legislate as a full time job.

      I can only imagine how a voter base that is so easily swayed by advertising would vote on complex issues and legislation.
      No matter their education level most will not have the time to research and read legislation properly.

      On the other hand perhaps the elected officials are generally self serving and it would be much harder to buy off a million votes vs one man who represents a million voters.

      My theory is for a hyperdemocracy with a representative government like we have.

      How is this different from now? I guess there is no official way for the hyperdemocracy crowd to currently "vote" on every issue.

      I assume having an election for every issue brought up would be impractical, at least to the same degree we do for our elections today.
      Cost issues aside let say that a ballot of laws was presented for voting once a month.
      Would voters, knowing it was simply an official opinion poll that did not directly dictate law, bother participating?

      An official remote electronic hyperdemocratic voting process seems feasible though, but it seems it would be bias against those with access to computer and smartphones.
      However, Grandma and Grandma seem to be adjusting to technology better than ever and smartphone access appears to be fairly high across all demographics.
      But would people bother even if it was as easy as checking your email?

      Or is the Death Star petition really the result of such a setup?
      If 27,000 people came out to not online sign the electronic petition but put their first name and last initial to it, how many more would come out if it meant the Death Star could truly get funded?
      Would more come out to stop it? Or would a flashy television commercial with Jedi Knights in metal bikinis convince more to come out for it?

    3. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God... a reddit style democracy. Just what we fucking need.

    4. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume our elected officials have a higher level of education than the average of the general voters.

      Really? Based on the way they've run things so far, I'd say they're about average. Spend and borrow and spend some more, don't invest in the future, let the next generation take care of the problems...

      No, the only thing our elected officials have a higher level of than the voters is political ambition, i.e. power-seeking.

    5. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Just ask California how well their hyper democracy is working.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the design is dated, but I would prefer the Countach.

    7. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why only offer two extremes? Why should I only be allowed to be ruled by hicks or by crooks?

      Take a look at Switzerland and how they have a VERY direct democratic system. Granted, it takes a population with the average IQ above that of a gnat and with the ability to think past the next meal or quarter report, but a healthy middle way can work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Give everyone a cellphone and make voting (through it, if you're too lazy to go to a real polling place) mandatory. But not until we have educated them. I was going to say better educated them, but many seem barely educated at all. I would resemble this remark myself if I didn't love learning, but my knowledge is highly patchy as a result.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:True Democracy would be a disaster by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You REALLY want important decisions to be made the same way the winner of American Idiot is chosen?

      Direct democracy requires a highly informed population where critical thinking instead of parroting some news outlet isn't seen as "unpatriotic". Without, it's just the same crap we have now, just that the corporation expenses go into buying ads that "convince" them to do the "right thing" instead of buying politicians to make them do it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. The Alderaan government refused to negotiate... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    And so we must construct the Death Star as a purely defensive weapon to protect the good people of the USA. Given the expense of of this operation, in the next few days, I will sent to congress a proposal, raising the debt ceiling limit to 20 gazillion dollars and that we finance the construction of our American Death Star with the sale of the new "Homeland Security Bonds." Rest assured, all contracts will go to American defense contractors that employ American workers.

    With your help and support, YES WE CAN defend ourselves from this latest Alderaanian threat. Thank you, good night and God bless America.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:The Alderaan government refused to negotiate... by Livius · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Alderaan has weapons of mass destruction.

    2. Re:The Alderaan government refused to negotiate... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, you gotta admit, they could REALLY paint "mission accomplished" across the Death Star. I mean, nuking Alderaan surely effectively cowed the Rebel Alliance into submiss... waitaminute...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The Alderaan government refused to negotiate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, Alderaan has OIL.

  46. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of wasting precious time of dumb arse things like make-believe and fairy tales, why not start a petition about stronger gun control.

  47. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many boats existed in the world when Columbus started sailing?

  48. I can see it now. by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2

    The official response should look something like this, I imagine:

    No.

    The rules say that the White House has to respond, not that they have to do it.

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    1. Re:I can see it now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of these petitions would require a response of "Are you out of your fucking mind?!?" rather than a simple "No!"

  49. Is this really true? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    This has to be one of the most retarded excuses for a petition I've ever heard of, and yet, it received enough votes that someone in the white house has to waste time finding some way to give a serious answer? What... the... fuck... this is so incredibly dumb I don't even know what to say.

    1. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "4chan" is the word you're looking for.

    2. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The administration's responses to all petitions are simply a restatement of their policy position. The people are showing they take the petitioning system as seriously as the administration.

  50. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your own advice on the HALOPERIDOL.

  51. truck-nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or maybe just a gigantic "back off" mudflap.

  52. well first of all.... by GrimShady · · Score: 1

    I would insist on a system of gravity credits to offset the damage its presence does to all of the planets in the solar system when it moves about. Then we can feel good about all of the earthquakes and floods since we have a warm fuzzy pocket full of empire responsibility that we can trade amongst ourselves.

    1. Re:well first of all.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But ... but I don't wanna sell my 2 earthquakes I could do this year!

      Oh poo, this planet just ain't fun no more.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  53. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No" is a response.

    1. Re:No by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We need a UN declaration for that now? I guess as usual people are way ahead of the UN.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  54. Waste of ressource by Dunge · · Score: 1

    They should add a button on their website "I don't approve this petition".

  55. Re:HALOPERIDOL by r1348 · · Score: 1

    Exactly like my grand-grandmother, who died convinced that we never went to the moon because "that's just impossible".

  56. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would have abandoned the hope of flight too, huh?
    I'm glad the Wrights had more vision than you do.

  57. Official Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  58. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the short version of nanorobotics is that nanorobot power supplies are constrained by the laws of physics, like power supplies (ever notice how many bacteria thrive by eating metal and rocks for their primary energy source? yeah, me neither. i can't even get my laptop to last all day on one battery) or communications problems (how can a nanorobot know where it is relative to what it's building? deduced reckoning? how can it talk to its controller and accomplish its task without getting drowned out by trillions of other nanorobots in the communications cross-talk?) or basic materials science (what materials can have atoms gingerly placed next to each other by robots for assembly and still hold up even under the stresses of a death star's own gravity field, to say nothing of travel) or any one of a number of obstacles. Not that these problems can't be ameliorated or worked around in a variety of contexts to achieve a variety of interesting goals eventually (e.g. arbitrary lifespans for carbon-based lifeforms such as ourselves), but "ordering a Death Star as easily as ordering a happy meal" being permanently impossible *is* something I can comfortably argue.

    Besides, "omnipresent crime prevention" is pretty dystopian when you get down to it.

  59. Re:A little help with this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same AC here, before you mod this down, please watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTc2RgdV2s0 (Beagles Rescued from Certain Death)

  60. It's all sweet and nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when they turn it ON and it doesn't turn ON...

    1. Re:It's all sweet and nice but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd be more concerned if you turn it ON and it does turn ON. On you!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  61. The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't work for douchebags, and you won't die horribly.

    Thankfully, in a vacuum, no one can hear you scream. Or boil...

  62. Which state will win the contracts to build it? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That will be the real exciting fight to see in Congress. I propose that the Congress folks duke it out in a no-rules laser sword iron death cage rumble, to decide which state can add to their license plate, "The Death Star State!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Which state will win the contracts to build it? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Bath works at Newport News naval ship yard will take car of all our spaceship needs.

    2. Re:Which state will win the contracts to build it? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, Nevada is already the Deeth/Starr Valley state.

  63. Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big government is no stranger to boondoggles so I say go for it. It'll help juke the unemploymenet and GDP stats and make it look like the economy is healthy again, just like every other "investment" made by force.

  64. That's what she said by paysonwelch · · Score: 1

    In the words of George Carlin, "We are a war-like people".

  65. As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun... by tomjgroves · · Score: 1

    Flippancy is great - it is our inbuilt and natural coping mechanism in a world that frequently presents us with events beyond our ability to manage, thereby allowing us to retain our sanity. But, sometimes, we need to take a step back and allow ourselves to realise the full severity of them.

    After today's tragedies, shouldn't we be talking about ways to stop death, rather than joking about ways to cause it?

    (Semi-caveat: I don't mean to sound like a harbinger of doom and gloom. It's just that I have two beautiful girls in the room above my head, and as a result I feel so deeply for those who have suffered the ultimate tragedy today)

  66. It's only a model. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My guess is that the White House is going to respond a little bit seriously and call out the Outer Space Treaty as a reason why we can't create a Death Star. Or maybe if they respond around Christmas they'll show several LEGO Death Star kits they've purchased and donated to charity and call the task completed. [Nothing in the petition asked for a FULL SIZED Death Star, after all.]

    1. Re:It's only a model. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the White House is going to respond a little bit seriously and call out the Outer Space Treaty as a reason why we can't create a Death Star.

      This would be a great respose.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:It's only a model. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      They could also point out that past DoD studies have shown that a single orbital platform is highly inefficient offensively, due to the limits of orbital mechanics and the horizon problem, and vulnerable defensively.

      My guess is that the White House is going to respond a little bit seriously

      No they won't. But they should. So much nerd humour is in taking a ridiculous idea seriously and pedantically debating its implications. [See the classic Dante/Randal roofers discussion quoted elsewhere.]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  67. Re:As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun. by tomjgroves · · Score: 1

    </pitiful-rant> !

  68. Captured blueprints by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they could use these as a blueprint.

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    1. Re:Captured blueprints by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Very cool.

      The things people think up...

  69. Rename it to Death To America Star. ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it would guarantee the USA's economic collapse. ^^

  70. Save us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's only one thing to do!
    We need the Rebel Alliance!

    1. Re:Save us! by Nicros · · Score: 1

      There's only one thing to do! We need the Rebel Alliance!

      Nice! Someone was thinking about humanity. I mean really! Build the evil death star??

  71. Here's an idea... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    Send the petition to the Chinese and see how they react. It's not like they'd actually think we'd believe that Kim Jung Un is the sexiest man alive or that the Australian Prime Minster knows the end of the world is coming.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  72. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why don't you do us all a favor, and put your logic to your own computer.
    200 years ago they were impossible, so that means right now you feel they are impossible. Just get rid of it. Get offline. None of this is real, you said so yourself.

    Oh wait, you're just a hypocrite. How about you also ignore the parent poster, get even more angry, and just have a heart attack and die already. The world would be a better place.

  73. frikin' lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to turbo-lasers, regular lasers that the small rebel ships cannot evade

    1. Re:frikin' lasers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just put fly-screens on the trenches and you'll be good.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  74. Re:We should stipulate that it be destroyed when d by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    And when it does get blown up, as we all know it will, would it be too much to ask for a more colorful explosion? I mean, what a letdown it was to see, especially the 2nd 'improved' deathstar, just white sparkly balls of light. (Might want to bring in the Grucci fireworks family here as an advisory panel.)

  75. Dammit. by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

    Wow good job. I know this petition is a joke, but this is the US. It's gonna get taken seriously, and it's gonna get built. We're the USA and we want the biggest and the baddest weapons. Or it won't get taken seriously and they'll build it out of spite.

  76. just tell the president... by crutchy · · Score: 1

    ...not to give the plans to a woman (with a cute little robot that beeps and looks a bit like a washing machine)

  77. Re:As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    I know where you're at, been watching the news of it all day, and there are 2 beautiful kids where I live too. (Maybe it's a bad idea to have guns in a house with such a troubled young man)

    People need to be allowed to "get silly" sometimes, especially when bad things like this happen. It's a defense mechanism. Right now I can hear those 2 little girls running around, laughing and stomping the floor enough that some other tenant would make a noise complaint. To me it's the sound of happiness, and the world needs more of it. This star wars story allows slashdotters to let off some steam in a wacky way, and it's really not such a bad thing. :-)

  78. Get a life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I would ask that the signers of the petitionn should get a life and stop wasting taxpayer money!

  79. All Democracy Is Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't underestimate the government demagogues - it is the evolutionary function of government to provide "bread and circuses", no matter the form, to distract the populace and promote, maintain, and expand government power. It doesn't matter if it's building pyramids, roads, socialist health-care, or the Death Star - as long as the plebs are pleased.

    Democracy is a modern system of delegating feedback over trivial matters, which only strengthens the tyrants. All tyrants in history have been popular with the groups from which they derive their power, whether the feedback system is ritualized as voting or as anything else.

    If I could build a monument to democracy, it would depict a mob of wretched people in chains, bound to each-other, pulling in all sorts of directions, suffocating. It doesn't matter in which direction that horrid creature stumbles, the individuals it encapsulates are slaves. The only way to freedom is for those chains to be broken! The only way to have a rational society is to have every adult individual think for him/herself and be responsible for pulling his/her economic weight. If you want to build a Death Star, then start a voluntary crowd-funding project and persuade people to join in. Free market capitalism is the ultimate reality filter - good ideas triumph while bullshit like this simply flops. With government there is no requirement of rational persuasion - any power-grabbing monstrosity be built with stolen loot!

    A truly free and rational society is one build on negative Rights and individual self-ownership, including very strong physical Property Rights, Parents' Rights, and Freedom of Contract.

    --libman

    1. Re:All Democracy Is Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right up until the vagaries of random chance give some individual/group a little bit more power than anyone else, which they use to get even more power and then you end up with these groups running things.

      Free Market Capitalism won't prevent this because it can't, in order to prevent this you need people with perfect knowledge so they react against these vagaries, but people don't have perfect knowledge especially not the hyper individualists you postulate here, since they'll inherently be adverse to sharing knowledge *they* have.

      Congratulations you've replaced regulatory capture with feudalism.

  80. AT&T now fully operational by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I feel a great disturbance in the fibre.

  81. What a waste of time by opusman · · Score: 2

    Why doesn't someone start a petition that's actually useful, like, I dunno, repealing the stupid 2nd amendment or something?

    1. Re:What a waste of time by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Serious petitions happen on there all the time. The administration doesn't take them seriously. The responses generally amount to "explain what we're already doing and going to continue doing".

    2. Re:What a waste of time by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because most Americans would vote against that. Seriously, only 10% of the country thinks guns should be illegal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:What a waste of time by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      Because that one wouldn't even get 20% support in Congress, nor would it have any chance of being ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.

    4. Re:What a waste of time by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      'cause it's, well, useless?

      Handing in such a petition only means congress has to talk about it. So they read it, ignore it and continue. C-SPAN will probably show a half empty assembly hall with the ones present snoring during the reading of your precious petition that you gathered a fantastic amount of support for.

      Seriously. It belongs to the circenses part of the true and tried way to appease the masses. I wouldn't put it into the area where actual laws are being made.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What a waste of time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't someone start a petition that's actually useful, like, I dunno, repealing the stupid 2nd amendment or something?

      Your attempt to troll has been noted, but largely ignored, because Slashdot stole your thunder by trolling the entire internet by putting the story on the front page, and all the arguing is there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:What a waste of time by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      At this point the only way to get guns out of the hands of the people would be to (a) close the borders such that smuggling in guns wasn't really possible and (b) go house to house, farm to farm, apartment to apartment breaking down doors and confiscating guns.

      If guns were banned from sale in the US all that would mean is the illegal gun sellers would have a monopoly and their slightly higher prices would be free of competition. Smuggling isn't even thought of as smuggling today - it is just evading CBP (Customs and Border Protection). We have maybe 5% of the manpower that would be needed to effectively monitor today's import traffic, not to mention what would be required to actually block illegal importation of goods.

      OK, so let's assume that we have successfully closed the borders and smuggling is limited to small quantites rather than containerloads. Now we have to deal with the guns that are already here. Most of these are in the hands of people that are legal and have registered their purchases. Good luck in getting these people to give up their guns. Except to implement any sort of gun control in the US that would mean anything we have to eliminate these guns - they are just too tempting a target when maybe 1% of the homes have at least one gun somewhere. When it gets down to 0.0001% of the homes then robbing a house to find a gun becomes pointless - unless you have inside information. So we are talking about jackbooted ATF agents breaking down doors to confiscate guns. Sure, that is going to go over well. Maybe we need to think about Ruby Ridge and Waco for some recent top-quality ATF action.

      Surely we can have gun control without doing this, right? Well, no. The guns used in the school shooting were legally registered and not stolen or otherwise obtained illegally. The only way to stop one family member from "borrowing" a gun registered to another family member is to get the guns out of the hands of the people. Hence the two steps mentioned above.

      It might be possible to pass a law saying possession of a gun was illegal and offering a six month period for people to just turn in their guns. Problem is, a huge number of guns are presently in the hands of people that haven't registered properly and have no intention of doing so. They aren't going to turn in their guns, certainly not without being forced to do so. Just passing a law would result in maybe 30-40% of the guns being turned in and result in zero changes in the death-by-gun rate in the US. The people that would turn their guns in aren't the ones using them to rob liquor stores or kill their spouse with. Ah, you want to do something effective? That would require getting the ATF into the action - and we all know where that would go.

      What most people do not know is that if you want a fully automatic machine gun today all you have to do is pay the $3000 tax stamp (for each gun) and pass the required background check. It isn't that hard, but it is expensive to be legal. For maybe $5000 you can purchase a full auto weapon from an illegal dealer and there is no background check or other nasty things. Which is why the people that have paid for the tax stamp are primarily speciality gun dealers and cops.

      Is Mr. Obama going to recommend these two steps to the American people? Probably not, if he has a brain in his head. He is likely to propose some ineffective measures that aren't going to do anything at all but will enhance and extend the federal bureaucracy. I don't see him sending the ATF to do battle with the people that aren't going to give up their guns without a fight - probably using those very guns. But that is the only way to do anything effective.

      It is necessary to understand that the US is a different place than say, Canada. Many places have even more guns per capita than the US without the high death-by-gun rates. I don't think anyone has come up with exactly why people get shot more in the US than these other places. But it is clear, the US is different.

    7. Re:What a waste of time by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And add to your post that many police (most?) are gun enthusiasts as well.

      A more interesting question is why death-by-gun rates are higher in the US. I think in that case, we need to distinguish between massacres by crazy people (which are rare, and maybe not much more common in the US than in other places), and typical gun murders.

      Typical gun murders I think are more a product of culture......for example, in Hawaii, gun deaths are low because culturally Polynesians are more willing to resolve conflict with fist fighting, and they look down on people who use guns for fighting.

      In Louisiana, where gun deaths are high, killing someone with a gun is a fairly common way to get revenge when someone steals your girlfriend, for example.

      I don't know what causes massacres like this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:What a waste of time by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't someone start a petition that's actually useful, like, I dunno, repealing the stupid 2nd amendment or something?

      You try that I'ma fuckin shoot you right in the face! We don't need no more gun control, people just need to STFU when they talkin' to me and not make me angry!!! And, you know, four fathers in a militia or sumthin. America!

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  82. Tidal effects of a deathstar in earth orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you decide to build this thing please have it orbit another planet or lock its orbit to be on the opposite side of the planet from the moon so we don't get hammered during spring tides where sun, moon and deathstar are aligned.

    1. Re:Tidal effects of a deathstar in earth orbit by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Somebody doesn't understand how tides work. Are you a Pierson's Puppeteer?

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    2. Re:Tidal effects of a deathstar in earth orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want it so that the angle having the earth's center as its vertex, and rays from there to the moon and there to the death star is ninety degrees, not 180. If the death star were opposite from the moon it would exacerbate the problem.

    3. Re:Tidal effects of a deathstar in earth orbit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Uh... you may want to ponder this suggestion again. Especially considering how tides work.

      Hint: high tide isn't just when the moon is on your side. It's also when it's on the opposite one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Tidal effects of a deathstar in earth orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... you may want to ponder this suggestion again. Especially considering how tides work.

      Hint: high tide isn't just when the moon is on your side. It's also when it's on the opposite one.

      You guys are missing an important difference. Tides work by a *moving* gravitational influence.

      If you park the deathstar 180 degrees from the moon they are more or less locked with the rotation of the planet +- 50 mins/day. This does not "cause" anything once the system is in equilibrium.

      You go from 2 tides/day to 4/day with all being less severe.

  83. Re:HALOPERIDOL by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Funny

    What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  84. Re:A little help with this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Fuck your dumb beagles

  85. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum Apostrophe, is that you?

  86. Good idea by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Why even have a central core at all? A distributed power system (hundreds of smaller reactors throughout the structure instead of one big reactor at the core) would completely eliminate that vulnerability and improve power uptime through sheer redundancy. An attacking force would have to destroy the Death Star piece by piece instead of blowing up the main core all at once.

    Maybe you should organise them all with redundant interconnects; lets call it a Beowulf cluster of these....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  87. stars wars stay on, wikileaks get deleted really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how they let this one ride on and delete the ones on wikileaks or Bradley Manning.

  88. Re:As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's precisely when you're having emotional thoughts like that is when you should stay away from policy decisions.
    Last time the US did that, it received the TSA, the patriot act, and trillions in debt.
    All you'd end up doing is "accidentally" making a full police state with secret police or something and then whine about where your liberties went.

  89. Re:As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    After today's tragedies, shouldn't we be talking about ways to stop death, rather than joking about ways to cause it?

    Countless people die every single day. If we had to stop having fun and talk about how to prevent death every time someone died, we'd be incapable of doing anything else. But I guess the only people who matter are the ones who are most visible; all the nameless, faceless people in other countries don't matter.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  90. Re:HALOPERIDOL by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly like my grand-grandmother, who died convinced that we never went to the moon because "that's just impossible".

    That's no moon...

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  91. Re:HALOPERIDOL by dgower2 · · Score: 1

    I thought i liked this post, until I read the next, and liked iy evem more. I love this site!

    --

    Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

  92. Re:HALOPERIDOL by dgower2 · · Score: 0

    You sound like a child. 15?

    --

    Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

  93. Congress would love it by Grayhand · · Score: 0

    Regan's Star Wars was a similar money pit just smaller. He was only after a few hundred billion. A Death Star would mean trillions going to no bid contractors. It's a Congressional wet dream. I'd bet they'd fund it quicker than a Mars trip. Obviously the real Death Star isn't possible to build but say something that was anywhere from a 1,000' across to a mile could be built with current technology. Sell it as an ultimate defense/offensive platform. Even standard ICBMs launched from it would be nearly impossible to shoot down since they could reach targets in minutes. It could be multi-purpose from communications to a support system for satellites. It could even be equipment with particle beam and laser weapons forming a defensive platform for incoming attacks. It'd break a bunch of treaties and cost trillions but imagine how many corporations would get rich off it's construction.

    1. Re:Congress would love it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm more worried about global stability with a device like this. What's the logical reaction by anyone who feels threatened by the US? To ensure they got retaliation capability no matter what. Now, Russia certainly isn't in a threatened position by this. No matter where you plant that doomsday ball, the country is large enough to ensure ample warning time to start at least a few rockets. Even China should be safe.

      Iran isn't quite as big.

      So such a device would force Iran to develop an automated system that strikes back even if nobody is left alive. Now please answer me, do you want Iran to develop such a system? A system that autonomously decides whether or not to strike?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  94. No Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make sure it's not constructed by a union.

  95. Re:HALOPERIDOL by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?

    Actually the plan has already been approved and funded by a 'specially secret Congress vote, construction's halfway complete... You do raise an interesting point though. Nothing can be done about it now, you see. The Evil Empire has a really strong lobbyist group...

  96. Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure that the contracts are only to organizations which support the right to work and not those damn Hutt Unions!

  97. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a party to the UNFRCC and the IPCC, the USA needs nor requires oversight nor transparency regarding any 'Death Star'.

    When the IPCC issues the AR5 report, it will be 'clear' that human beings cause increasing CO2, Increasing CO2 adversely affects Climate. To decrease CO2, human must die at a greater rate than the birth rate. The UN will issue a Declaration: Slaughter of human beings ... is now authorized.

  98. Encryption by onemorechip · · Score: 2

    How about strong encryption for the data network, so that it can't be hacked by a simple R2 unit?

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  99. Ventilation shafts that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ventilation shafts that don't lead directly to the most vulnerable part of the station.

  100. Re:HALOPERIDOL by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    Life seems to do pretty much all the things you're concerned with well enough.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  101. Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double funding for fusion research to power it. Ever since I was in high school in 1972 fusion has been a short 20 years away. It still is.

  102. Think about the contractors! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Randal Graves: [talking about the second Death Star] A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
    Dante Hicks: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at...
    Randal Graves: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
    Dante Hicks: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
    Randal Graves: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed - casualties of a war they had nothing to do with.
    [notices Dante's confusion]
    Randal Graves: All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia - this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  103. Retarded waste of a damn good resource. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should take the whole damn thing down.
    American don't deserve shit, giant pile of moms basement losers.
    All freaking 25,000 of you.

  104. Obvious White House response by neye_eve · · Score: 1

    Is there any better response the white house could give than a simple NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  105. Width or length? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    'Access shafts smaller than 2 meters'

    "Given that the average person is 2 meters tall (give or take), and adding the bulk of hard-vacuum capable work gear, making maintenance access shafts smaller than 2 meters would cause a lot more problems. I'd recommend, instead, putting a locking/securable cover or grate over entrances and exits of access shafts."

    I find your comment confusing. Are you measuring the width or the length of the access shaft. A 2-meter wide shaft (slightly over six feet) should be more than enough for the average astronaut who doesn't eat 25 kg of hamburgers a day. Perhaps you're thinking of the shaft as a tunnel that you would walk through, your body perpendicular to the walls of the shaft? But in space, which I presume is where we'll build the Death Star, you should be able to glide thru the shaft, your body parallel to the walls.

  106. Re:HALOPERIDOL by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

    There were probably about as many boats capable of making the cross-atlantic voyage as there are craft capable of delivering payload to space right now: not that many. But just as we did there, we'll make more of them, and then more efficient ones, and then one day people will look back and wonder "gee, I wonder why they didn't get out here a thousand years earlier. There weren't *that* many technological hurdles..."

    --
    Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  107. CUBE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not make it spherical.

    Make it cubicle.

    You MUST build a cube.

    You WILL build a cube.

    Resistance is futile.

  108. Hand in your nerd card by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    In the Ewok battle, it was AT-ST, NOT AT-AT that bit the dust. (AT-ST two legs, AT-AT four legs)

    Oh and this is CLASSIC Sci-Fi, retold countless times. Hugely advanced civilization sends soldiers in high tech suits to conquer planet after planet, final result: they lie dead as primitive humans dance around them, arrows sticking out of the advanced battle suits joints. A version is in War of the Worlds, the unstoppable enemy killed by the sniffles. The story is good, problem is that Lucas tried to funny it up with slapstick action. Had it been portrayed as brutal combat, it would have gone better but then he would have been accused of being racist with the whole noble savage idea.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Hand in your nerd card by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't remember whether it was the original or one of the re-edits, but I remember seeing AT-ATs on Endor, in one of the zoomed out views of the shield generator landing platform (maybe a scene where Vader lands).

  109. Re:HALOPERIDOL by jkflying · · Score: 1

    Every single cell has a complete blueprint of the entire thing. Which makes it slightly difficult if you want to keep some of the design classified...

    --
    Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
  110. So this is how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." -Padmé Amidala

  111. And why does the government treat voters as idiots by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    It is circular logic because of kiddies like TFAFalcon, he acts like a child, then complains about being treated like one, so he acts like a child and gets treated like one.

    This idea has been tried around the world and all have the same flaw, the number of signatures is WAAAAAAAY to low and with no cost. See the election of Kim "Let them eat grass" Jong Un by the Times reader poll.

    Kickstarter works because a vote for a project carries a price. It would be MEANINGLESS to take a free vote as measurement of how well your product will sell. It is well known in MMORPG's that people claim to want to play game X but when it comes to actually paying for it, they don't.

    I wonder how many people would have signed the death star petition if they had to give their real identity AND pledge to pay for looking into a possibility of a Death Star with a tax increase. Because that is what they are asking for right?

    How about all those secession petitions actually be legally bound to move to a state that was going to secede even if it was some poor state that couldn't survive on its own for a day? Wanna bet far fewer people are willing to put their money were their mouth is?

    We have the same thing in Holland and it has become glaringly obvious that people who submit and sign for things are NOT willing to pay for them, or be bound by them or do anything else then feel morally superior for signing things they know are impossible.

    Wanna bet the Times person of the year election would NOT have been messed with if it could be arranged that all those who vote on a leader, have to go live there? No consequence makes any poll worthless because people lie their ass off in them. Hell even in real elections people lie to the world and themselves. They might want a better world but vote for the mortage (Dutch tax law allows mortages to be deducted from taxes, a gigantic subsidy on housing and an easy vote winner for anyone who says they are not going to touch it and leave it hanging over the economy like a sword of some greek guy I am to lazy to google) and then bitch the government didn't listen to them. They did, they just heard "we voters are morons" and treat you as such.

    Voters have power but no accountability. What is it about power without accountability again? Anyone?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  112. We already have a death star by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

    And it is called the Sun.
    With 6 degrees of global warming by 2050, we don't need a fantasy planet destruction machine.
    We already live in one. I call it western industrial society.

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
  113. I think China is already suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their astronomers can't find the label: "Made in China"

  114. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Fished · · Score: 1

    Intimidation. Duh.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  115. The answer is obvious by fureimu · · Score: 1

    A cafeteria. With dry trays.

  116. Just make sure to word it carefully by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The very last thing you want is the designer coming back 2 decades in the future, remodeling everything that you started to like about it and replace it with blinkenlights.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  117. Re:We should stipulate that it be destroyed when d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's moon sized we may get fall out like in the recent Time Machine movie.

  118. Probably not a good time to bring this up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably not a good time to bring this up, but do we even have any viable targets beside our own planet?

  119. Re:A little help with this one? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Ok guys, who left the door open and let the Furry in?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  120. Re:And why does the government treat voters as idi by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    But isn't that just a symptom of what's also happening in the government? Politicians vote for all manner of expensive programs (both corporate and social welfare), but don't vote for taxes that would pay for them. Are they personally then stuck with the debt that accumulates? Or do they get to spread out the responsibility to the entire country?

    And you might consider them a special case, since they were elected. But let's look at their accountability for the promises they make to GET elected. Many politicians make a 180 on many subjects as soon as they get into office. And who are they accountable to? The most that may happen to them is that they don't get reelected in a few years. Imagine if we had trials for people that break election promises, with the jury composed of everyone that voted for a person. I'm quite sure that would solve problem of people not voting.

  121. Typical Point-Haired Boss.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    *start sarcastic derision*
    'Starfleet Command'? No wonder the Borg kicked yer sorry tail around so easily.

    What do you mean?

    I mean this:
      You have to Nuke the U.K. From orbit.... YESTERDAY,if not sooner.
    Already too late. Bend over, Rover. [pro tip: lube your rectum liberally]

    Expect British, Scottish, and Irish ninja-Jedi to have already infiltrated, and you should anticipate being buggered by a Fish-N-Chips-munching Jedi-Leprechaun who is juggling a kilt clad sheep...playing bagpipes, whilst dogging on a haggis-packed London Tower and 4-leaved-clover-stuffed London Bridge...at the SAME time.

    ...Vader so to that years ago.

    'so'?
    So what?
    Sows his seeds?
    Sows plant seeds?
    Sews his socks?
    so what?

    *Samuel Jackson in 'Pulp Fiction'*
    "English, do you speak it?"
    [...]
    "Say 'what' again, m***********!"

    Perhaps 'saw' is the word you're seeking. *sigh... stupid git..*

    *disclaimer: I am born, bred, and raised in the U.S.A., and mean no disrespect, nor aim any slight at/near the U.K.*

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  122. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, because that kind of logic has stopped us from building planet-destroying weapons of mass destruction before?

    The only logical argument against it is the fact that we can already build thousands of nuclear weapons a lot cheaper, and being able to actually shatter a planet is overkill.

  123. Here's the Reponse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

    Or you can even be less flippant:
    Technological and budgetary limitation make this project infeasible at this time.

    Why does everyone get excited when these joke petitions reach the response threshold? NO is a response.

  124. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe 26.650 people know something you don't.

  125. Re:HALOPERIDOL by solafide · · Score: 1

    Many bacteria use metal reduction as its way of obtaining energy, in fact, and also obtain these metals from rocks, so... yeah, your point about bacteria seems false. (Iron, sulfer, selenium, sulfate, nitrite -reducing bacteria all exist.)

  126. install a working dishwasher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr Stevens from Death Star catering has put in a request for better tray washer, he can't seem to get the trays dry enough for the important customers

  127. ' What other changes would ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ' What other changes would you ask your representatives to make?" errr make sense ?

  128. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Dr+Fro · · Score: 1

    It worked during the Cold War...

    --
    ********************
    I object to Intellect without Discipline.
  129. Re:HALOPERIDOL by vistapwns · · Score: 1

    Yea, I figure you are just arguing to argue. By that reasoning, I could say a plane is impossible as no living creature can burn energy that fast to reach those speeds. Nanobots don't need to eat metals and rocks for their primary energy source, they can burn Oxygen and Hydrogen in the atmosphere, or many other materials. Atoms don't get placed gingerly next to each other in nanofabrication, they are chemically bonded through mechanosynthesis, and can easily sustain their own gravity. Consider Earth, which is mostly not chemically bonded, especially not chemically bonded diamond (one of the hardest and most rigid compounds), it sustains it's own gravity fine as do larger planets. So no, if you are basing your opinion of it being impossible on these things, I would say you can not. Well logically you can not, not that people are logical most the time.

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
  130. Walled Garden, coming up by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    Give the contract to Apple. That way the X-wing fighters have to agree to give 50% to the store, and besides, think how cute iDeath Star will look in gift shops.

  131. Re:HALOPERIDOL by elisabethrobson · · Score: 1

    Exactly! What a waste of time and energy. As long as we continue to focus on building ways of destroying ourselves, we will never make meaningful progress.

  132. Why bother, they've already god Skynet... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
  133. Ok, this is funny and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, this is funny and all, but it really pisses me off that people not only think that the concept is funny, but have decided that the Whitehouse doesn't have anything better to do than answer a redicioulous petition insisting we build a Fictional device that we don't have anything approaching the needed science, technology, materials or manpower to create. Hell, we don't even know if it's even possible at all.

    Sure it's funny to talk about, but the government has better things to do with their time than to deal with joke petitions.

  134. Official white house position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When asked, presidential spokesman Jay Carney related that while pondering the issue, President Obama, in a rare moment of self-awareness, realized he would have an overwhelming desire to aim the Death Star at the U. S. economy. "Perhaps it is best that we don't build it", he laughed nervously.

  135. wifi please by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

    Free Wifi on all upper decks. Apple TVs in every room with $50,000 iTunes gift cards.

  136. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or the planet gets it?

  137. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1

    What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?

    Well, the space station should have enough room and life support to keep all members of congress alive for many years. Oh, and it will create jobs. And when it is done, the problems of an economy will vanish (along with the rest of the planet).

    And once the planet is destroyed, you'll have a space station inhabited (almost?) entirely by people holding law and MBA degrees... Coming to think of it, I think the people left behind are the lucky ones.

  138. Re:As much as we all like (and need) a bit of fun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After today's tragedies, shouldn't we be talking about ways to stop death, rather than joking about ways to cause it?

    I dunno, after this week.... Portland, Newtown, now Las Vegas... I'm thinking just blowing up the planet (and ourselves) might be a way to rid the universe of a localized bad mutation.

  139. CCTV by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Uh, CCTV so sensitive departments can not be overtaken by someone barging through a door or transporting dangerous prisoners without being followed the whole way? Jeez, take a dang lesson from Target.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  140. Where are the plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is the rebels stole the plans....and we didn't make a photo copy first

  141. Canadian Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darth Vader: Welcome my master! The Death Star construction is proceeding...

    Movie Name: Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II (2008)
    Quote:

    Darth Vader: Welcome my master! The Death Star construction is proceeding...

    Emperor Palpatine: [interrupting Vader] Yeah! Great! Fine! Whatever.

  142. Re:HALOPERIDOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?

    Don't we do the same thing with nukes?

  143. White Hole by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Despite being ridiculous, it will get exactly the same amount of consideration as every other idea submitted through that site.

    --
    or else!