But, welfare in the constitution doesn't mean what people today are trying to make it sounds like..it isn't 'welfare' like the entitlement.
From another of my posts:
"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"
So you say. Everyone is perfectly entitled to have any opinion they choose, but the only opinions that matter when it comes to interpreting the Constitution are those of the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees with you, then you have something. Until then, you have only your opinion (and I have mine).
Neither of us can claim to hold "the" truth on the matter.
Oh, I also forgot in my other response - the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However in cases brought in later terms, the Supreme Court has all but said that the 10th Amendment in its current form has outlived its original purpose.
The current arguments against a Healthcare Mandate are almost verbatim to the arguments that were brought against the Civil Rights Act (10th Amendment, etc.) and the Supreme Court struck then all down for the reason above.
Essentially, it was written for another time.
Now, could they (as I've said in another post) turn 180 degrees and reverse themselves,...of course. Anything is possible.
But there's a big difference between "possible" and likely.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Thomas Jefferson isn't in charge of translating the United States Constitution. That might have been his understand, but, again, his own personal understanding isn't what we rule by.
The Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court are empowered by the United States Constitution to interpret the United States Constitution.
The Founders were given no special dispensation simply because they also happened to have been the first legislators.
GENERAL is the key word. An army is something everyone benefits from because everyone's home is protected. Ditto a navy. What you are endorsing is SPECIFIC welfare that only benefits the sick, not the general populace. --- Healthy people don't get anything out of it.
But of course they do. In general, the more sick people around you, the more likely you are to succumb to disease yourself. You know, basic hygiene and sanitation? This goes further along the same lines.
Anyway, I don't consider myself to be qualified enough to definitely conclude whether social welfare on federal level is constitutional in U.S. or not. My point, in any case, was to respond to GP, who claimed that it is antithetical to freedom in general - which it is not.
AND: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
So any kind of welfare, no matter how "socialist", would be fine if it was done on state level rather than federal level?
This is the general problem with everyone who screams "Socialist!" every time the Government passes a social protection they don't agree with. "Socialism" (despite the fact most people have no idea what socialism is) is in no way recognized, acknowledged, rejected, or in any way considered in the United States' Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't care if something is Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, Federalist, Anarchist, or any other "-ist". The ONLY thing the Constitution cares about is that whatever decisions are made are in general agreement with the will of the people (notice I say general, because all of "the people" will never be completely satisfied with everything done, regardless of who does it with what motives).
The entire point of the founding of the United States was to get away from foreign dogmas (e.g. "we can't do that because of this") The point was to found a country "for the people, of the people, and by the people". "The people" can choose any damn thing they like so long as the Constitution itself isn't violated (and even then, the Constitution can be changed if the people so choose to enact a law that is currently not supported). This idea that everything has to fit some cookie-cutter "Is it American?!" test is ludicrous.
ANYTHING AMERICAN'S CHOOSE TO DO IS AUTOMATICALLY "American".
"Yes, and a system of governance which is based upon "general welfare" (you know, the one from U.S. Constitution [wikipedia.org]) is social democracy "
Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to invidual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?
The problem is that that is an interpretation, not an accepted fact. At the end of the day, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means (and out system of government makes the assumption they make such interpretations based on a hopefully deep reading of the laws themselves).
These same challenges were made 40 years ago when Social Security was passed, and were rejected by the Supreme Court at that time.
While it is possible that the Supreme Court might turn around 180 degrees (anything is possible), it isn't very likely.
"You're implying that car insurance is analogous to health insurance. Where I live, there's mandatory car insurance and mandatory health insurance. So that looks like a decent analogy in favor of that part of this bill. And it's almost a car analogy, too.:)"
Ah, but the difference there is that this is mandated on a state level. They do have the authority to mandate such coverge,the Feds on the other hand...have NO power granted to them by the Constitution to mandate what an individual citizen purchases. That's where this is gonna get knocked off, in court.
It should be on a state level, where most power is supposed to reside. Not all states mandate car insurance,nor health insurance. That's the nice thing about states rights...if you don't like the rules (and expenses) in one state, you are free to move to one that is more in line with you type of thinking.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The way we work around this is the unpopular part. We put a mandate on everybody that says "alright, since they can't kick you out anymore, you can't game the system: everyone has to be insured"
It's not just unpopular, it's unconstitutional as well.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The only part of this article worth mentioning was the lying under oath. The tritium leak was harmless to anyone not 3 feet away when it happened. As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power it is highly unlikely that any new (and therefore more easily maintained and more efficient) reactor would do so.
The summary reads like a troll to me, but YMMV.
I'm glad I scrolled down and read your post...I hate being marked redundant:)
Theoretically, yes. However, the US already has a method for taking out Cruise Missile type weapons. The Patriot Missile Battery was modified for this right before the Gulf War. The Israelis evaluated a similar/smaller scale laser system for taking out the rockets used by Hamas. However, the logistics of supplying the chemicals and the toxicity of the chemicals were so bad they gave it up. The next improvement to the laser itself is getting an electric, as opposed to chemical, laser of sufficient power working. Due to not having to refuel the laser chemicals, it would be much more useful with the reduced logistics footprint and higher number of shots before refueling.
I say that because for everything we invent a defense for, logic suggests we must also be working on the system to get around said defense (lest a competitor nation develop a similar defensive system).
The "FastHawk" was basically benched simply because it wasn't needed (no more Cold War, no more real fear of needing to blanket a country the size of the Soviet Union with warheads, etc.) and the conventional cruise missile was still cheap and dependable.
I would be very surprised if this new defense system doesn't lead to renewed calls for a weapons system like the "FastHawk".
That depends on the rocket. The Redstone, Thor, Jupiter, Atlas, Delta, Saturn IB and the first stage of the Saturn V all used what is basically jet fuel. The USSR used liquid fueled rockets on subs and yes they did a few issues with that. BTW the Navy was going use the Jupiter on subs but they decided that solid fuel was the way to go for the reasons you gave. In that case it wouldn't be the fuel so much as all that LOX and fuel together. I do agree that there is a difference but If I had not included that statment you know that somebody would say, "What about the Regulus, Harpoon, and Tomahawk? They are liquid fueled." And I really didn't want to deal with that today.
The point I was making is that Cruise Missiles really shouldn't be treated like "missiles" in anything but that they are automated.
It's basically a small jet aircraft that only flies on a one-way trip:)
I'd be curious if this system could be applied to cruise missiles, however.
It had to be launched from an island or ship. The US has never launched a liquid fueled ballistic missile from a sub. Cruise missiles yes but ballistic no.
And if I'm not mistaken even with cruise missiles, the "liquid fuel" is basically just jet fuel to run the aircraft engine powering it for it's flight. While cruise missiles do have a small rocket motor to quickly get them up to speed, I think it's a solid-propellant fueled.
Not at all trying to take away from your point, simply pointing out that Jet Fuel isn't nearly as unstable (read: easy to detonate with a laser) as an actual Liquid Fueled Rocket would be.
I think it's fair to say that a multi-megawatt laser flying on a military aircraft which can target, hit and destroy an in-flight ballistic missile is not "girly". That is, unless the flight crew are all little girls dressed in pink princess dresses.
And if they can do all that,...would we really care!
Meaning what if they share existence in another (for lack of a better word) dimension.
I don't even think we have proof that entangled particles are not really the same particle if looked at with the proper dimensionality. I'm reminded of the people in Flatland looking at the weird series of circles that appear and disappear.
Some might even conjecture that entangled particles are proof of a more correct topology that we're missing. There are at least some models that show our 4D existence as a projection from a different, base topology.
While it would certainly be nice to know how something works before we use it (;)), it really isn't even necessary to know exactly why the particles behave as they do, so long as it can be demonstrated to be a dependable, predictable occurrence.
You show me something that can be confined to only two specific states of being (one or off, clockwise or counterclockwise, etc.) and I can build you a binary based communication system, regardless of whether I actually know how your part works:).
Sorry to burst your bubble but you can't transmit information faster than light.
Period.
But you assume the speed of light is constant throughout the multiverse. Using an unorthodox example (rather than what some have replied, which is basically "it's magic!"), what if these particular particle are connected through more than our universe.
Meaning what if they share existence in another (for lack of a better word) dimension. Basically in another dimension, the laws of physics could be anything and everything. Einstein could still be correct, in that the speed of light is not only a constant in our universe, but in all universes.
However, in another Universe the speed of light, while constant, might be completely different from the speed of light in our universe.
I guess I'm saying that the speed of light may be almost pointless as a speed limit if the speed of light differs between the different layers multiverse.
I'm sorry, I've tried to stay out of Rod Serling territory...
Basically, they could be communicating with each other through a different dimension, completely within the laws of physics (meaning merely at the speed of light), but at speeds which would be considered many times the speed of light in our dimension.
yup, but think bigger.. seems like it's only a step away from extracting energy directly from our sun, destroying random parallel universes in the process
Exactly how do I get the 'second' particle to where I want the information to be retrieved?
I'm guessing that's the rub. You'd most probably need to get said second particle to wherever you were wanting to transmit too the old fashion way (meaning anything you can manage below the speed of light), so it's not as cool as "Warp Drive", though assuming you are able to constantly communicate with the ship (were assuming space for the purposes of my example), you at least could be kept abreast of the trip the entire way to said destination.
That's kinds how it works today when laying fiber optic cable. While you have to physically drag the cable to wherever your wanting a hookup, the cable is active the entire time of the trip. The ship or transport can talk back to home-base while laying the cable (and in fact, they do keep in constant contact so as to know immediately is the cable gets severed in some way -- you know, before they get a few hundred miles away from the break;) )
The article says that the prior research worked by transmitting the information separately, at the speed of light. So the idea here is apparently that the energy itself can be transmitted instantly, but you can't actually transmit information this way. Just energy.
I'm having trouble with the difference (energy level + time factor = digital information) and that's without getting into the idea that matter basically = energy + information, but I guess that it's the measurement that differentiates them. However, unless I'm horribly mistaken, and I probably am, you could have two sync'd clocks and make repeated measurements of the energy being teleported, and use that for instant information transfer.
There, I fixed those pesky space travel comms and control delays for you.
That's almost infinitely valuable in itself. Imagine being able to instantaneously keep contact with spacecraft, regardless of how far they travel from earth. They're have been theoretical designs for over thirty years for Nuclear Powered unmanned missions to Alpha Centauri, Bearnard's Star (unsure about spelling there), and others. The main drag on spending the enormous amounts of money on such missions is that while everyone pretty much understands it will take a long time getting their (I seem to remember the project going to Bearnard's Star taking something like 40 or so years), but that the information gained from traveling to such places would take an equal time getting back.
I mean, we've done long-term space missions, even if "long-term" wasn't the original intention (I'm speaking of the Voyager Probes, etc.) So that's not completely foreign too us, but no one is going to put the effort into doing real science that far out without the instant gratification of collecting data all along the way.
Lets (for the moment) leave out the Star Trek, "transporting humans and people all around the galaxy", etc. I can see plenty of real world applications for this type of technology right now.
Imagine developing "androids" that, while human in appearance and capability, weren't artificially controlled...
By the way, I have NOT seen Avatar (and have no real interest in doing so) so if my following scenario is in any way close to what they were doing in that movie -- I'm basing this on the trailers I've scene -- please no smartass comments to that point, thank you
but were instead "inhabited" by real humans in shifts (normal, 8 hour work shifts, etc.) Imagine building spacecraft that were capable of traveling much faster than humans themselves were capable of surviving (in craft that while economical, weren't specifically built to be "human-rated") and that could be sent on long term missions through deep-space. RIGHT NOW we can build spacecraft that could leave our solar system and arrive at distant stars in our lifetime, the problem is that there is no way to keep people alive on those spacecraft (at least not in any way that doesn't lead to them being drooling idiots by the time they arrive -- no offense intended to any drooling idiots reading:)).
If you can maintain instantaneous communication with the craft regardless of how faraway it travels, you could keep a crew of "people-droids" permanently manned with people in simulators right here on Earth. As long as the ships power-supply holds out (something easily done with current technology), the droids can be continuously used to represent people doing science on the ship (not to mention repairing the ship when need-be, etc.) Basically I'm talking about being able to begin exploring the galaxy without needing fictional artificial intelligence or superhuman survival skills (which, considering how far away we still are from the world of Aurthur C. Clarke's "2001" & "2010", imagine how much farther we are from computers that have human-levels of adaptation and human-levels of endurance -- which make
You must be trolling. I have repeatedly pointed out uranium mining is bad as well and there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste. Those are real big issues.
Falcon
But smaller than the tons and tons of Heavy Metals being spewed into the air by Coal Plants.
Both have waste, Nuclear's is sealed in barrels. Coal's goes into the air.
Renewables can't meet baseload demand so please stop including them in discussions regarding Nuclear. The choice is between Nuclear and Coal and between the two, Nuclear wins in my opinion.
Windturbines have become 20 times more powerful the last 3 decades, and cost per Kwh has come down incredibly, without the massive input they have got as nuclear power has in the years '40-'70. anyways : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid "indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present."
Of course the cost came down! That other stranger of whom I know nothing about says they get a $20 bill for every kilowatt they produce!
Since everything on the Internet is true and no one every stretches things until they scream, I'm afraid you've been checked AND mated!:)
I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,
That was certainly a problem with the last generation of Nuclear Power Plants. They were built like cute playthings, rather than investments actually creating a product to sell.
Every single plant was different, every single plant was a custom design that had to be thoroughly researched by the NRC (just to ensure the design itself was sound), every single plant needed custom tools built for it.
However, the hope with the General III reactors (the last were General II designs) is to have them built like any other product, with efficiency in mind.
The Westinghouse AP1000 model is designed to be built in prefabricated modules in a central location and shipped to the actual building site by road, rail and/or barge. They hope to have the plant producing electricity 3 years from the time the first slab of concrete is poured.
Slashdot Mirror
But, welfare in the constitution doesn't mean what people today are trying to make it sounds like..it isn't 'welfare' like the entitlement.
From another of my posts:
"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"
So you say. Everyone is perfectly entitled to have any opinion they choose, but the only opinions that matter when it comes to interpreting the Constitution are those of the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees with you, then you have something. Until then, you have only your opinion (and I have mine).
Neither of us can claim to hold "the" truth on the matter.
Oh, I also forgot in my other response - the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However in cases brought in later terms, the Supreme Court has all but said that the 10th Amendment in its current form has outlived its original purpose.
The current arguments against a Healthcare Mandate are almost verbatim to the arguments that were brought against the Civil Rights Act (10th Amendment, etc.) and the Supreme Court struck then all down for the reason above.
Essentially, it was written for another time.
Now, could they (as I've said in another post) turn 180 degrees and reverse themselves,...of course. Anything is possible.
But there's a big difference between "possible" and likely.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Thomas Jefferson isn't in charge of translating the United States Constitution. That might have been his understand, but, again, his own personal understanding isn't what we rule by.
The Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court are empowered by the United States Constitution to interpret the United States Constitution.
The Founders were given no special dispensation simply because they also happened to have been the first legislators.
A system of governance that is based upon "what is good for me personally" is simple anarchy.
Actually, it's called democracy.
Like the GP said, Anarchy.
GENERAL is the key word. An army is something everyone benefits from because everyone's home is protected. Ditto a navy. What you are endorsing is SPECIFIC welfare that only benefits the sick, not the general populace. --- Healthy people don't get anything out of it.
But of course they do. In general, the more sick people around you, the more likely you are to succumb to disease yourself. You know, basic hygiene and sanitation? This goes further along the same lines.
Anyway, I don't consider myself to be qualified enough to definitely conclude whether social welfare on federal level is constitutional in U.S. or not. My point, in any case, was to respond to GP, who claimed that it is antithetical to freedom in general - which it is not.
AND: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
So any kind of welfare, no matter how "socialist", would be fine if it was done on state level rather than federal level?
This is the general problem with everyone who screams "Socialist!" every time the Government passes a social protection they don't agree with. "Socialism" (despite the fact most people have no idea what socialism is) is in no way recognized, acknowledged, rejected, or in any way considered in the United States' Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't care if something is Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, Federalist, Anarchist, or any other "-ist". The ONLY thing the Constitution cares about is that whatever decisions are made are in general agreement with the will of the people (notice I say general, because all of "the people" will never be completely satisfied with everything done, regardless of who does it with what motives).
The entire point of the founding of the United States was to get away from foreign dogmas (e.g. "we can't do that because of this") The point was to found a country "for the people, of the people, and by the people". "The people" can choose any damn thing they like so long as the Constitution itself isn't violated (and even then, the Constitution can be changed if the people so choose to enact a law that is currently not supported). This idea that everything has to fit some cookie-cutter "Is it American?!" test is ludicrous.
ANYTHING AMERICAN'S CHOOSE TO DO IS AUTOMATICALLY "American".
"Yes, and a system of governance which is based upon "general welfare" (you know, the one from U.S. Constitution [wikipedia.org]) is social democracy "
Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to invidual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?
The problem is that that is an interpretation, not an accepted fact. At the end of the day, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means (and out system of government makes the assumption they make such interpretations based on a hopefully deep reading of the laws themselves).
These same challenges were made 40 years ago when Social Security was passed, and were rejected by the Supreme Court at that time.
While it is possible that the Supreme Court might turn around 180 degrees (anything is possible), it isn't very likely.
"You're implying that car insurance is analogous to health insurance. Where I live, there's mandatory car insurance and mandatory health insurance. So that looks like a decent analogy in favor of that part of this bill. And it's almost a car analogy, too. :)"
Ah, but the difference there is that this is mandated on a state level. They do have the authority to mandate such coverge,the Feds on the other hand...have NO power granted to them by the Constitution to mandate what an individual citizen purchases. That's where this is gonna get knocked off, in court.
It should be on a state level, where most power is supposed to reside. Not all states mandate car insurance,nor health insurance. That's the nice thing about states rights...if you don't like the rules (and expenses) in one state, you are free to move to one that is more in line with you type of thinking.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The way we work around this is the unpopular part. We put a mandate on everybody that says "alright, since they can't kick you out anymore, you can't game the system: everyone has to be insured"
It's not just unpopular, it's unconstitutional as well.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Unfortunately, as a gas, getting it inside you is pretty easy.
It's getting gas out that's the trick!
Thank you, I'll be here all week!
The only part of this article worth mentioning was the lying under oath. The tritium leak was harmless to anyone not 3 feet away when it happened. As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power it is highly unlikely that any new (and therefore more easily maintained and more efficient) reactor would do so.
The summary reads like a troll to me, but YMMV.
I'm glad I scrolled down and read your post...I hate being marked redundant :)
I'm thinking more like Google-Yutani.
I mean, really, how long can it be before Google begins moving into Terraforming as well!
Google-Yutani,...Building Better Worlds! :)
Fast Hawk would not be a way around this system.
I didn't say it was :). What I said was that this would most likely be used as an excuse to dump more money into the program.
When have "facts" ever gotten in the way of demands for increased Military spending?
Theoretically, yes. However, the US already has a method for taking out Cruise Missile type weapons. The Patriot Missile Battery was modified for this right before the Gulf War. The Israelis evaluated a similar/smaller scale laser system for taking out the rockets used by Hamas. However, the logistics of supplying the chemicals and the toxicity of the chemicals were so bad they gave it up. The next improvement to the laser itself is getting an electric, as opposed to chemical, laser of sufficient power working. Due to not having to refuel the laser chemicals, it would be much more useful with the reduced logistics footprint and higher number of shots before refueling.
Your post reminded me of the "FastHawk".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lcms.htm
I say that because for everything we invent a defense for, logic suggests we must also be working on the system to get around said defense (lest a competitor nation develop a similar defensive system).
The "FastHawk" was basically benched simply because it wasn't needed (no more Cold War, no more real fear of needing to blanket a country the size of the Soviet Union with warheads, etc.) and the conventional cruise missile was still cheap and dependable.
I would be very surprised if this new defense system doesn't lead to renewed calls for a weapons system like the "FastHawk".
That depends on the rocket.
The Redstone, Thor, Jupiter, Atlas, Delta, Saturn IB and the first stage of the Saturn V all used what is basically jet fuel. The USSR used liquid fueled rockets on subs and yes they did a few issues with that.
BTW the Navy was going use the Jupiter on subs but they decided that solid fuel was the way to go for the reasons you gave. In that case it wouldn't be the fuel so much as all that LOX and fuel together.
I do agree that there is a difference but If I had not included that statment you know that somebody would say, "What about the Regulus, Harpoon, and Tomahawk? They are liquid fueled."
And I really didn't want to deal with that today.
The point I was making is that Cruise Missiles really shouldn't be treated like "missiles" in anything but that they are automated.
It's basically a small jet aircraft that only flies on a one-way trip :)
I'd be curious if this system could be applied to cruise missiles, however.
It had to be launched from an island or ship. The US has never launched a liquid fueled ballistic missile from a sub. Cruise missiles yes but ballistic no.
And if I'm not mistaken even with cruise missiles, the "liquid fuel" is basically just jet fuel to run the aircraft engine powering it for it's flight. While cruise missiles do have a small rocket motor to quickly get them up to speed, I think it's a solid-propellant fueled.
Not at all trying to take away from your point, simply pointing out that Jet Fuel isn't nearly as unstable (read: easy to detonate with a laser) as an actual Liquid Fueled Rocket would be.
I think it's fair to say that a multi-megawatt laser flying on a military aircraft which can target, hit and destroy an in-flight ballistic missile is not "girly". That is, unless the flight crew are all little girls dressed in pink princess dresses.
And if they can do all that,...would we really care!
Meaning what if they share existence in another (for lack of a better word) dimension.
I don't even think we have proof that entangled particles are not really the same particle if looked at with the proper dimensionality. I'm reminded of the people in Flatland looking at the weird series of circles that appear and disappear.
Some might even conjecture that entangled particles are proof of a more correct topology that we're missing. There are at least some models that show our 4D existence as a projection from a different, base topology.
While it would certainly be nice to know how something works before we use it (;)), it really isn't even necessary to know exactly why the particles behave as they do, so long as it can be demonstrated to be a dependable, predictable occurrence.
You show me something that can be confined to only two specific states of being (one or off, clockwise or counterclockwise, etc.) and I can build you a binary based communication system, regardless of whether I actually know how your part works :).
Sorry to burst your bubble but you can't transmit information faster than light.
Period.
But you assume the speed of light is constant throughout the multiverse. Using an unorthodox example (rather than what some have replied, which is basically "it's magic!"), what if these particular particle are connected through more than our universe.
Meaning what if they share existence in another (for lack of a better word) dimension. Basically in another dimension, the laws of physics could be anything and everything. Einstein could still be correct, in that the speed of light is not only a constant in our universe, but in all universes.
However, in another Universe the speed of light, while constant, might be completely different from the speed of light in our universe.
I guess I'm saying that the speed of light may be almost pointless as a speed limit if the speed of light differs between the different layers multiverse.
I'm sorry, I've tried to stay out of Rod Serling territory...
Basically, they could be communicating with each other through a different dimension, completely within the laws of physics (meaning merely at the speed of light), but at speeds which would be considered many times the speed of light in our dimension.
yup, but think bigger .. seems like it's only a step away from extracting energy directly from our sun, destroying random parallel universes in the process
Screw em'...what they ever do for us anyway!
Exactly how do I get the 'second' particle to where I want the information to be retrieved?
I'm guessing that's the rub. You'd most probably need to get said second particle to wherever you were wanting to transmit too the old fashion way (meaning anything you can manage below the speed of light), so it's not as cool as "Warp Drive", though assuming you are able to constantly communicate with the ship (were assuming space for the purposes of my example), you at least could be kept abreast of the trip the entire way to said destination.
That's kinds how it works today when laying fiber optic cable. While you have to physically drag the cable to wherever your wanting a hookup, the cable is active the entire time of the trip. The ship or transport can talk back to home-base while laying the cable (and in fact, they do keep in constant contact so as to know immediately is the cable gets severed in some way -- you know, before they get a few hundred miles away from the break ;) )
The article says that the prior research worked by transmitting the information separately, at the speed of light. So the idea here is apparently that the energy itself can be transmitted instantly, but you can't actually transmit information this way. Just energy.
I'm having trouble with the difference (energy level + time factor = digital information) and that's without getting into the idea that matter basically = energy + information, but I guess that it's the measurement that differentiates them. However, unless I'm horribly mistaken, and I probably am, you could have two sync'd clocks and make repeated measurements of the energy being teleported, and use that for instant information transfer.
There, I fixed those pesky space travel comms and control delays for you.
That's almost infinitely valuable in itself. Imagine being able to instantaneously keep contact with spacecraft, regardless of how far they travel from earth. They're have been theoretical designs for over thirty years for Nuclear Powered unmanned missions to Alpha Centauri, Bearnard's Star (unsure about spelling there), and others. The main drag on spending the enormous amounts of money on such missions is that while everyone pretty much understands it will take a long time getting their (I seem to remember the project going to Bearnard's Star taking something like 40 or so years), but that the information gained from traveling to such places would take an equal time getting back.
I mean, we've done long-term space missions, even if "long-term" wasn't the original intention (I'm speaking of the Voyager Probes, etc.) So that's not completely foreign too us, but no one is going to put the effort into doing real science that far out without the instant gratification of collecting data all along the way.
Lets (for the moment) leave out the Star Trek, "transporting humans and people all around the galaxy", etc. I can see plenty of real world applications for this type of technology right now.
Imagine developing "androids" that, while human in appearance and capability, weren't artificially controlled...
By the way, I have NOT seen Avatar (and have no real interest in doing so) so if my following scenario is in any way close to what they were doing in that movie -- I'm basing this on the trailers I've scene -- please no smartass comments to that point, thank you
but were instead "inhabited" by real humans in shifts (normal, 8 hour work shifts, etc.) Imagine building spacecraft that were capable of traveling much faster than humans themselves were capable of surviving (in craft that while economical, weren't specifically built to be "human-rated") and that could be sent on long term missions through deep-space. RIGHT NOW we can build spacecraft that could leave our solar system and arrive at distant stars in our lifetime, the problem is that there is no way to keep people alive on those spacecraft (at least not in any way that doesn't lead to them being drooling idiots by the time they arrive -- no offense intended to any drooling idiots reading :)).
If you can maintain instantaneous communication with the craft regardless of how faraway it travels, you could keep a crew of "people-droids" permanently manned with people in simulators right here on Earth. As long as the ships power-supply holds out (something easily done with current technology), the droids can be continuously used to represent people doing science on the ship (not to mention repairing the ship when need-be, etc.) Basically I'm talking about being able to begin exploring the galaxy without needing fictional artificial intelligence or superhuman survival skills (which, considering how far away we still are from the world of Aurthur C. Clarke's "2001" & "2010", imagine how much farther we are from computers that have human-levels of adaptation and human-levels of endurance -- which make
Still trolling.
Falcon
Still in denial.
You must be trolling. I have repeatedly pointed out uranium mining is bad as well and there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste. Those are real big issues.
Falcon
But smaller than the tons and tons of Heavy Metals being spewed into the air by Coal Plants.
Both have waste, Nuclear's is sealed in barrels. Coal's goes into the air.
Renewables can't meet baseload demand so please stop including them in discussions regarding Nuclear. The choice is between Nuclear and Coal and between the two, Nuclear wins in my opinion.
Windturbines have become 20 times more powerful the last 3 decades, and cost per Kwh has come down incredibly, without the massive input they have got as nuclear power has in the years '40-'70.
anyways :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
"indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present."
Of course the cost came down! That other stranger of whom I know nothing about says they get a $20 bill for every kilowatt they produce!
Since everything on the Internet is true and no one every stretches things until they scream, I'm afraid you've been checked AND mated! :)
I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,
That was certainly a problem with the last generation of Nuclear Power Plants. They were built like cute playthings, rather than investments actually creating a product to sell.
Every single plant was different, every single plant was a custom design that had to be thoroughly researched by the NRC (just to ensure the design itself was sound), every single plant needed custom tools built for it.
However, the hope with the General III reactors (the last were General II designs) is to have them built like any other product, with efficiency in mind.
The Westinghouse AP1000 model is designed to be built in prefabricated modules in a central location and shipped to the actual building site by road, rail and/or barge. They hope to have the plant producing electricity 3 years from the time the first slab of concrete is poured.
Can they do it? Time will only tell.