The space elevator can and will become a reality circa 2030 upwards. It will allow us to start harvesting space in a commercially meaningful matter.
I very much doubt this. First of all the tether is too easily damaged by micrometeoroids. Perhaps the thing could be designed to self repair, or constantly repair, but there is a risk there.
Secondly, if the space elevator is monumentally expensive, it would make a perfect terrorist target. So I wonder how we'd muster up the political will to pay to build one? One way to defeat the terrorist target problem is to make a lot of em... say, one in every city in the world or more. But that seems inconceivable to me as they are likely to be enormous projects to build.
Finally, aren't carbon nanotubes pretty much the maximum strength material we can conceivably build with? I've heard a material scientist saying pretty much that... the fundamental nature of molecular matter (in this universe anyway) is such that there is no other way to arrange chemical bonds that can produce a material any stronger than CNT's. Moreover, I thought I had read somewhere that CNT's were just about at the borderline of what kind of strenght to weight ratio we would need to begin to make a space elevator work, but that doesn't seem to leave much margin for structural safety. Can anyone speak to this point?
Actually, I am pretty unsure of the assertions in that last paragraph... Really I'm just making them to try to stir up some informed opinion on these questions because I'd like to hear them confirmed or denied by someone knowledgeable.
Another possible channel to propagate the issue might be in software like Winamp, etc. If a knob or slider is stuck somewhere on the primary interface, people will wonder what the heck it is for... They click context help and get an explanation of dynamic range.
Actually, a real solution might not be far off from what you're suggesting.
Why not make an amp with a "dynamic range compression" knob on it. When you turn it up, the music sounds clear in noisy environments. In a quiet environment, you turn it down and you get a more authentic sound with all the detail.
Then you need a few studios to produce broadband recordings.
Of course, getting hardware manufacturers to develop a standardized feature like this on their equipment (including factory installed car systems) is non-trivial. But maybe someone like THX could be enticed into making this a requirement for sound system and even recording certification? THX is a somewhat prestigious label. If THX makes a big deal about it, maybe both manufacturers and studios would pay attention?
Would you prefer to buy recordings that have been THX certified for wide dynamic range (and other quality metrics)? I would. A lot of geeks might.
Moreover, a THX initiative may serve as a channel to help educate the general public. At least half the battle is getting people to know that quality is being trashed for inane reasons.
Well, I think the point of this site is not to reach out to the unwashed masses of laypeople; Rather it is to reach other academics in the field or to reach professionals who want to put new discoveries into practice (engineers / industry).
I think the video site is trying to capitalize the fact that author presented seminars on papers can provide a more efficient transfer of the new idea than just reading the paper does. The problem is, seminars are interactive... When someone doesn't understand a point, they can ask a question... performing a drill-down into more detail as it were.
While these videos show a human face, you can't ask them questions.
Well, you CAN, but that would just be odd now wouldn't it?
Still, the video with verbal explanation of the paper might provide an alternative, more natural take on a complex idea than the formalized paper. There is probably still some advantage to having two presentations on the same topic available (both the video and the paper together).
\
Personally I hope this idea succeeds. Maybe the respected journals will catch on early and provide an electronic channel for video distribution as well.
Games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto are great not because of their gameplay, but because they allow us to do that which we suppress in ourselves. It allows us to act out our most deviant and perverse fantasies without fear of repercussions. Nobody in their right mind will admit to it (which begs the question if I'm in my right mind), but we all have these fantasies at one point or another.
Hey man, please do not presume to speak for me, or for others for that matter. Not that the popularity of GTA is in dispute... but you can't assume everyone, even among a crowd of gamers, has your mindset.
I personally find the notion of actually enjoying acting out fantasies of mean-spirited criminal brutality to be quite repugnant and disturbing. I haven't the slightest desire to play such role, even in a game. It's depressing that so many people actually derive pleasure from twisted, perverse crap like GTA.
And then I wonder how much in the minority am I? Am I just weird or something? Aren't there other gamers out there who despise this genre as well?
I think to many, part of the beauty of a remarkable haiku is the skill of the writer in packing big, powerful ideas or images into very few words. The haiku form is especially challenging because you have so little space to work with. It is wordcraft... and good wordcraft takes a lot of skill and effort.
In a way, it's like appreciating a remarkable skateboard trick or an amazing touchdown catch because not everyone has the skill to do those things, especially the outstanding examples.
Only 7 million years from now, for all you long range planners. Better stock up on beans, bottled water and relocate your house 1 kilometer underground.
Yeah, but what if the error radius on that 62M year calculation is something like 7M years? Did anyone think of THAT?! And what about statistical variance? What's the sigma? ANYONE GOT THE SIGMA?!!
I hear that you can sometimes buy unused missile silos in Montana... Wonder what the mortgage is like on one of those?
The numbers don't look good-- You have to precisely track the shell in flight
with extreme accuracy.
Radar. You know, komputurs and stuff.
Any dust, fog or clouds and it's useless.
Useless? No. Reduced range? Perhaps. Most of the time in most places of interest you don't need to be concerned about completely dense fog or dust. So over 95% of the time at most locations worth protecting your high value asset is protected. The rest of the time you have to rely on what you used before.... like holes in the ground and logs over your head.
And you're a very fragile sitting duck, with your beam revealing your position.
I believe in most cases the wavelengths used are out of the visual spectrum. I'm not sure, but it is possible that these beams (or the resultant atmospheric effects) are not visible. On the other hand, the youtube video seemed to imply it was visible but it's not clear to me whether the camera showing that effect was pure visual spectrum with sensitivity of the human eye. Can someone daylight adjusted easily spot this thing when it's firing? Is it like a spotlight at night? I'm not sure. Maybe someone can pitch in.
Anyway, most of the time these systems will be deployed to protect high value assets whose position is already known to the enemy (like an airbase or something). Besides, if the enemy is shooting artillery at you, it is somewhat likely that they already know you are there. Most of the time there's no secret to give away.
Working with your example, burning the Amazon rainforest would be carbon neutral if you then grew it back again. That's how the algea fuel cycle works. Growing the fuel generating organism eats as much carbon as burning the derived fuel creates.
Biofuel created in this manner is really just liquid sunshine.
(cue the warm fuzzy music...)
Everyone smile now.
;)
(Geez, why doesn't Slashdot have smileys? What a deficient piece of crap blog forum bulletin board thing.)
When you grow the algea to replace what you burned, it eats up the CO2 that you made earlier.
This is called "carbon neutral"... the act of growing your fuel eats up as much CO2 from the atmosphere as you create when you burn it.
The caveat is that all the feeding, processing, and transporting involved in making that algea based biofuel requires energy from outside of the cycle, producing a net CO2 output. But this is still better than just burning the huge reserves of carbon locked up in crude oil all over the planet.
Using crude oil converts the carbon locked in the ground into CO2 and injects it into our atmosphere. Both biofuel and fossil fuel produce carbon in the processing and transport phases. But fossil fuel has a vastly greater carbon impact in the burn phase with no sink to counteract the growth of CO2.
Shoulder fired SAM's use IR detectors. With a prop, I believe this aircraft will have a very low heat signature. The are also quiet and tend to be difficult to spot. It is likely that this one flies higher than the predator as well, making it even more difficult to get a lock with a man-portable grade IR seeker.
Speculations: reduces vibration, airflow turbulence, and runway debris for the camera up front.
3) What is with the crazy tail wings and fins on the back? They seem to go in all directions.
Speculation: Perhaps the Y shaped stabilizers reduce blockage for the satellite dish?
4) Is that a camera in the front? Why is it not recessed for aerodynamics?
I believe the camera housing encompases more than one camera (IR, visual) and a laser designator. It protrudes to enable full-field scanning out to the horizon.
Yeah, I suppose... but it doesn't look like random camera noise to me.
Even more important, I think, is whether or not the cutout image from their website is actually raw data?... Or has it been mucked around with using some kind of image processing or jpeg compression? If that image has already been processed, the features showing up under my enhancement may have been generated by their algorithms.
So it's all in one post (like I should have done to begin with...):
The black part is not pure black, actually. There appears to be some structure inside the hole.
I ran the HiRISE cut-out image through photoshop (using a stark black-white striped image gradient) and some structure appears to come out in the black region. It's way down on one side of the color spectrum, but I'm able to see about 4 layers of gradient in the black. Perhaps a professional image analysis could bring out more.
With my limited imaging experience (undergrad astrophysics) it doesn't seem to me like the data that comes out is merely random instrument noise. It looks sort of like broad hilly terrain variations of a scale size similar to those outside the hole.
And here is the enhanced color version that I got by using a high contrast color gradient in photoshop.
That stuff at the bottom looks like lumpy ground a lot like what's outside of the hole.
I bet a high fidelity image enhancement of the original data could bring out a lot more detail though. There's probably already someone doing a paper on it as we speak.
As you can see, there appears to be lumpy-ground like structure inside the hole, but it is very dark in there. Maybe it's some kind of sinkhole as others have suggested.
The black part is not pure black, actually. There appears to be some structure inside the hole.
I ran the HiRISE cut-out image through photoshop (using a stark black-white striped image gradient) and some structure appears to come out in the black region. It's way down on one side of the color spectrum, but I'm able to see about 4 layers of gradient in the black. Perhaps a professional image analysis could bring out more.
With my limited imaging experience (undergrad astrophysics) it doesn't seem to me like the data that comes out is merely random instrument noise. It looks sort of like broad hilly terrain variations of a scale size similar to those outside the hole.
If someone could recommend a free image hosting service that can handle getting slashdotted, I'd be happy to post my tweaked version of the HiRISE image.
Slashdot Mirror
I very much doubt this. First of all the tether is too easily damaged by micrometeoroids. Perhaps the thing could be designed to self repair, or constantly repair, but there is a risk there.
Secondly, if the space elevator is monumentally expensive, it would make a perfect terrorist target. So I wonder how we'd muster up the political will to pay to build one? One way to defeat the terrorist target problem is to make a lot of em... say, one in every city in the world or more. But that seems inconceivable to me as they are likely to be enormous projects to build.
Finally, aren't carbon nanotubes pretty much the maximum strength material we can conceivably build with? I've heard a material scientist saying pretty much that... the fundamental nature of molecular matter (in this universe anyway) is such that there is no other way to arrange chemical bonds that can produce a material any stronger than CNT's. Moreover, I thought I had read somewhere that CNT's were just about at the borderline of what kind of strenght to weight ratio we would need to begin to make a space elevator work, but that doesn't seem to leave much margin for structural safety. Can anyone speak to this point?
Actually, I am pretty unsure of the assertions in that last paragraph... Really I'm just making them to try to stir up some informed opinion on these questions because I'd like to hear them confirmed or denied by someone knowledgeable.
Another possible channel to propagate the issue might be in software like Winamp, etc. If a knob or slider is stuck somewhere on the primary interface, people will wonder what the heck it is for... They click context help and get an explanation of dynamic range.
Actually, a real solution might not be far off from what you're suggesting.
Why not make an amp with a "dynamic range compression" knob on it. When you turn it up, the music sounds clear in noisy environments. In a quiet environment, you turn it down and you get a more authentic sound with all the detail.
Then you need a few studios to produce broadband recordings.
Of course, getting hardware manufacturers to develop a standardized feature like this on their equipment (including factory installed car systems) is non-trivial. But maybe someone like THX could be enticed into making this a requirement for sound system and even recording certification? THX is a somewhat prestigious label. If THX makes a big deal about it, maybe both manufacturers and studios would pay attention?
Would you prefer to buy recordings that have been THX certified for wide dynamic range (and other quality metrics)? I would. A lot of geeks might.
Moreover, a THX initiative may serve as a channel to help educate the general public. At least half the battle is getting people to know that quality is being trashed for inane reasons.
Well, I think the point of this site is not to reach out to the unwashed masses of laypeople; Rather it is to reach other academics in the field or to reach professionals who want to put new discoveries into practice (engineers / industry).
I think the video site is trying to capitalize the fact that author presented seminars on papers can provide a more efficient transfer of the new idea than just reading the paper does. The problem is, seminars are interactive... When someone doesn't understand a point, they can ask a question... performing a drill-down into more detail as it were.
While these videos show a human face, you can't ask them questions.
Well, you CAN, but that would just be odd now wouldn't it?
Still, the video with verbal explanation of the paper might provide an alternative, more natural take on a complex idea than the formalized paper. There is probably still some advantage to having two presentations on the same topic available (both the video and the paper together).
\Personally I hope this idea succeeds. Maybe the respected journals will catch on early and provide an electronic channel for video distribution as well.
I know, geez! Total idiots.
I learn all MY physics from Mythbusters.
Whooooo wheeee!... That done blowed up REAL good!
Genetically engineered gasoline? That's not NATURAL!
And, and... what about cruelty to microorganisms?!
Have you no shame?!
Hey man, please do not presume to speak for me, or for others for that matter. Not that the popularity of GTA is in dispute... but you can't assume everyone, even among a crowd of gamers, has your mindset.
I personally find the notion of actually enjoying acting out fantasies of mean-spirited criminal brutality to be quite repugnant and disturbing. I haven't the slightest desire to play such role, even in a game. It's depressing that so many people actually derive pleasure from twisted, perverse crap like GTA.
And then I wonder how much in the minority am I? Am I just weird or something? Aren't there other gamers out there who despise this genre as well?
I think to many, part of the beauty of a remarkable haiku is the skill of the writer in packing big, powerful ideas or images into very few words. The haiku form is especially challenging because you have so little space to work with. It is wordcraft... and good wordcraft takes a lot of skill and effort.
In a way, it's like appreciating a remarkable skateboard trick or an amazing touchdown catch because not everyone has the skill to do those things, especially the outstanding examples.
Yeah, but what if the error radius on that 62M year calculation is something like 7M years? Did anyone think of THAT?! And what about statistical variance? What's the sigma? ANYONE GOT THE SIGMA?!!
I hear that you can sometimes buy unused missile silos in Montana... Wonder what the mortgage is like on one of those?
Radar. You know, komputurs and stuff.
Any dust, fog or clouds and it's useless.Useless? No. Reduced range? Perhaps. Most of the time in most places of interest you don't need to be concerned about completely dense fog or dust. So over 95% of the time at most locations worth protecting your high value asset is protected. The rest of the time you have to rely on what you used before.... like holes in the ground and logs over your head.
And you're a very fragile sitting duck, with your beam revealing your position.I believe in most cases the wavelengths used are out of the visual spectrum. I'm not sure, but it is possible that these beams (or the resultant atmospheric effects) are not visible. On the other hand, the youtube video seemed to imply it was visible but it's not clear to me whether the camera showing that effect was pure visual spectrum with sensitivity of the human eye. Can someone daylight adjusted easily spot this thing when it's firing? Is it like a spotlight at night? I'm not sure. Maybe someone can pitch in.
Anyway, most of the time these systems will be deployed to protect high value assets whose position is already known to the enemy (like an airbase or something). Besides, if the enemy is shooting artillery at you, it is somewhat likely that they already know you are there. Most of the time there's no secret to give away.
You're not paying attention.
Working with your example, burning the Amazon rainforest would be carbon neutral if you then grew it back again. That's how the algea fuel cycle works. Growing the fuel generating organism eats as much carbon as burning the derived fuel creates.
Biofuel created in this manner is really just liquid sunshine.
(cue the warm fuzzy music...)
Everyone smile now.
;)
(Geez, why doesn't Slashdot have smileys? What a deficient piece of crap blog forum bulletin board thing.)
This is called "carbon neutral"... the act of growing your fuel eats up as much CO2 from the atmosphere as you create when you burn it.
The caveat is that all the feeding, processing, and transporting involved in making that algea based biofuel requires energy from outside of the cycle, producing a net CO2 output. But this is still better than just burning the huge reserves of carbon locked up in crude oil all over the planet.
Using crude oil converts the carbon locked in the ground into CO2 and injects it into our atmosphere. Both biofuel and fossil fuel produce carbon in the processing and transport phases. But fossil fuel has a vastly greater carbon impact in the burn phase with no sink to counteract the growth of CO2.
Shoulder fired SAM's use IR detectors. With a prop, I believe this aircraft will have a very low heat signature. The are also quiet and tend to be difficult to spot. It is likely that this one flies higher than the predator as well, making it even more difficult to get a lock with a man-portable grade IR seeker.
The compartment up front houses a satellite dish.
2) Why is the prop on the back?Speculations: reduces vibration, airflow turbulence, and runway debris for the camera up front.
3) What is with the crazy tail wings and fins on the back? They seem to go in all directions.Speculation: Perhaps the Y shaped stabilizers reduce blockage for the satellite dish?
4) Is that a camera in the front? Why is it not recessed for aerodynamics?I believe the camera housing encompases more than one camera (IR, visual) and a laser designator. It protrudes to enable full-field scanning out to the horizon.
Yeah, I suppose... but it doesn't look like random camera noise to me.
Even more important, I think, is whether or not the cutout image from their website is actually raw data?... Or has it been mucked around with using some kind of image processing or jpeg compression? If that image has already been processed, the features showing up under my enhancement may have been generated by their algorithms.
-b
The black part is not pure black, actually. There appears to be some structure inside the hole.
I ran the HiRISE cut-out image through photoshop (using a stark black-white striped image gradient) and some structure appears to come out in the black region. It's way down on one side of the color spectrum, but I'm able to see about 4 layers of gradient in the black. Perhaps a professional image analysis could bring out more.
With my limited imaging experience (undergrad astrophysics) it doesn't seem to me like the data that comes out is merely random instrument noise. It looks sort of like broad hilly terrain variations of a scale size similar to those outside the hole.
Here is the original image from HiRISE site.
And here is the enhanced color version that I got by using a high contrast color gradient in photoshop.
That stuff at the bottom looks like lumpy ground a lot like what's outside of the hole.
I bet a high fidelity image enhancement of the original data could bring out a lot more detail though. There's probably already someone doing a paper on it as we speak.
-b
Ok, so here is the color-enhanced image.
As you can see, there appears to be lumpy-ground like structure inside the hole, but it is very dark in there. Maybe it's some kind of sinkhole as others have suggested.
-b
The black part is not pure black, actually. There appears to be some structure inside the hole.
I ran the HiRISE cut-out image through photoshop (using a stark black-white striped image gradient) and some structure appears to come out in the black region. It's way down on one side of the color spectrum, but I'm able to see about 4 layers of gradient in the black. Perhaps a professional image analysis could bring out more.
With my limited imaging experience (undergrad astrophysics) it doesn't seem to me like the data that comes out is merely random instrument noise. It looks sort of like broad hilly terrain variations of a scale size similar to those outside the hole.
If someone could recommend a free image hosting service that can handle getting slashdotted, I'd be happy to post my tweaked version of the HiRISE image.
-b
Ok, I guess I'll be the one to put into words what slashdot is collectively thinking...
Well, I for one welcome our new hole-dwelling overlords!
(sigh)
In a gruff, brooklyn-plumber style accent, tell him: "... Hey, you sound kinda cute!"
Do you even know what the hell you are talking about?
Of course it's renewable. All you gotta do is:
Oh, I get it, reverse psychology is it? You're just saying all this to get us all pissed off enough to get up off our asses and make it happen?
It makes me sad, but it's time we accepted our passive role and quit wasting time and money on trying to do things we are no longer capable of.Oh, ok. I think I'll go take a nice nap now.
Moo.