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?"

74 of 384 comments (clear)

  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 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 ....

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

      eeuh get estimates, yeah heh heh...

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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."
    11. 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."
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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...

    16. 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.

    17. 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...

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    21. 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.'"
    22. 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.'"
    23. 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?
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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."
    4. 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.

    5. 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.)

  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).

  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 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.
  7. Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    -Obama

  8. 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...

  9. 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 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

  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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 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.
    2. 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. ;-)

  14. 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.

  15. Disney funding by yephick · · Score: 2

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

  16. 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.
  17. 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 Osgeld · · Score: 2

      nevermind, I am a dumbass and missed the joke

  18. 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 BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Just ask California how well their hyper democracy is working.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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!
  22. 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 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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."
  25. 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?!
  26. 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.
  27. 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!
  28. 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